Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    and no, my 22 per cent figure does not come from comparing a female part time working average with the male full time average. it's 22% EVEN WHEN THEY ARE IN THE SAME JOB, that's what I said, so don't twist my words.
    MY CAPS LOCK KEY IS ALSO WORKING.

    And again - Wroooong!
    the 22.6% figure comes from comparing the average salaries of men and women, not necessarily in the same job or working the same hours.

    The salaries of men and women working similar hours but still not necessarily in the same job is 12.6%

    You only have to factor in women tending to apply less for high-end jobs and the loss of career progression that comes with maternity leave + more men working overtime to see that sexism really isn't a very big problem in our jobs market at all.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TShadow383)
    You DO realise you quoted the daily mail as a source not 20 minutes ago?
    Tu quoque argument. You justify your unreliable source by pointing towards mine.

    the fact that youre dismissing the information given just because its from the daily mail instead of reading the information critically is laughable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)


    Listen to what people are saying, feminists originally didnt take men's rights into account because it wasn't necessary. It was women being opressed, not men.
    Originally I agree with them. However the situation has changed markedly for women, yet the ideology behind feminism has been static.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    Yes, but what you believe isn't what the rest of society believes, and capitalist society does not function on the idea of choice. Women are less confident about the jobs they'd be qualified for because they've been socialised i.e. taught to accept jobs that are in a lower position.
    The last sentence is completely ridiculous. Aggressiveness isn't going to make men more likely to have the confidence to go for higher jobs, its just that they've been taught to do so by the education system, their parents, etc.
    On your first point, maybe. But many of these women will have left school 3-4 decades ago or more, when discrimination against women was a serious issue. Women coming out of schools these days are unlikely to hold the same values.

    And being naturally agressive does make you more likely to put yourself forward for better positions and attempt to climb to the top, for one simply because you want to be better than everyone else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FormerlyHistoryStudent)
    Just because you imagine you wouldn't have any problems with being perved over, it doesn't mean that everyone is the same. You don't know what it's like to have strangers harassing you from car windows and on the street, and ones treating you like you're nothing but a walking ass/pair of breasts (ones who don't even look you in the face when speaking to you, but keep their gaze at chest level - when you're not even wearing a top that's particularly revealing!) Plus, even when it hasn't stopped you from wearing what you like, the pervy guys still piss girls off.
    So why does this stop you from wearing anything? They aren't beating you or arresting you. If you don't like being looked at don't wear something which will make people look at you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ranbow99)
    Those stupid ones like "Why are girls complaining about COD when they should be in the kitchen" are just annoying and not funny.

    I also hate all those groups on facebook, I swear I see about 10 different ones a day The worst thing is guys join them because they think they are being witty and cool, but its so not. :/

    I don't really see the point of females finding sexism amusing, because it's not. Think of what the suffragettes went through to get more equal rights for women. This is just laughing in their faces imo.
    Do you mean terrorism?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TShadow383)
    MY CAPS LOCK KEY IS ALSO WORKING.

    And again - Wroooong!
    the 22.6% figure comes from comparing the average salaries of men and women, not necessarily in the same job or working the same hours.

    The salaries of men and women working similar hours but still not necessarily in the same job is 12.6%

    You only have to factor in women tending to apply less for high-end jobs and the loss of career progression that comes with maternity leave + more men working overtime to see that sexism really isn't a very big problem in our jobs market at all.

    No, I got the original statistic of 22% from my A level sociology class, and that's exactly what it said. To provide a source I just randomly typed it into google, and there it was.
    This is from the A level syllabus:
    "In 2007, women were paid 22% less than men even when they had the same positions in the workplace".
    Stop trying so hard to find evidence against the notion that there is a pay gap, because you won't find any.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    That whole argument fails if you take into account that there are more british men in this country than immigrants. Therefore employing immigrants on the basis that they are cheaper is far less harmful for the economy than if we were to employ british men because they are cheaper. Of course, that isn't to say that it's acceptable to employ imigrants because they are cheaper, that's just exploitation.

    and no, my 22 per cent figure does not come from comparing a female part time working average with the male full time average. it's 22% EVEN WHEN THEY ARE IN THE SAME JOB, that's what I said, so don't twist my words.
    No it isn't. It is the comparison of the wages of women against men. They don't care if they work part time or not. Actually part time women earn more than men. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=167

    Now about harming the economy
    1. It won't harm the economy. If companies start hiring women over men it would only cause the wages for women to go up, and for men to go down. This would remove the pay gap due to discrimination.
    2. Companies don't care about the economy. They care about their profits. Hence, they will hire women if they do the same job, but for 85% of men.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)


    There are no statistics dealing with pay inequality in this article.

    first paragraph:

    Far from it: the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that the pay gap between the genders in the financial services sector is more than double that in the economy as a whole, with women earning 55% a year less than men. Even those at the very top are taking home a pay packet 45% shy of their male colleagues'.


    also, for any feminists on here, check out fbomb (google it)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TShadow383)
    MY CAPS LOCK KEY IS ALSO WORKING.

    And again - Wroooong!
    the 22.6% figure comes from comparing the average salaries of men and women, not necessarily in the same job or working the same hours.

    The salaries of men and women working similar hours but still not necessarily in the same job is 12.6%

    You only have to factor in women tending to apply less for high-end jobs and the loss of career progression that comes with maternity leave + more men working overtime to see that sexism really isn't a very big problem in our jobs market at all.
    I can't believe he actually needs this explained to him. There isn't enough face palm in the world.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    the fact that youre dismissing the information given just because its from the daily mail instead of reading the information critically is laughable.
    Have you read my posts on the subject, I pointed out which figures they were abusing and how, in order to come to their conclusions.

    I believe I also remember this story when it broke, I seem to remember that the report was commissioned by harriet harman, so the abuse of figures may well be in the original report :rolleyes:
    Anyway, it is obviously wrong when looking at the government's own statistics.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    No, I got the original statistic of 22% from my A level sociology class, and that's exactly what it said. To provide a source I just randomly typed it into google, and there it was.
    This is from the A level syllabus:
    "In 2007, women were paid 22% less than men even when they had the same positions in the workplace".
    Stop trying so hard to find evidence against the notion that there is a pay gap, because you won't find any.
    Well I'm afraid your A level sociology class was wrong.
    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=167
    As can plainly be seen, the 22.6% figure does not come from men and women working the same hours, or in the same jobs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rosamund123)
    first paragraph:

    Far from it: the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that the pay gap between the genders in the financial services sector is more than double that in the economy as a whole, with women earning 55% a year less than men. Even those at the very top are taking home a pay packet 45% shy of their male colleagues'.
    This is a claim from the author. This is not a source, and even if we were to take it as one it is not from an imparital organisation. Also this doesn't indicate anything is intrinsically inequal about men and women e.g that men and women are paid differently for the same job.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Your grandmas not called Phylis Schlafly by any chance?
    Maybe you should study a feminist unit like myself. At first tbh I thought all feminisits were hippies and lesbians but when you really learn about them you sympathise with them!!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TShadow383)
    On your first point, maybe. But many of these women will have left school 3-4 decades ago or more, when discrimination against women was a serious issue. Women coming out of schools these days are unlikely to hold the same values.

    And being naturally agressive does make you more likely to put yourself forward for better positions and attempt to climb to the top, for one simply because you want to be better than everyone else.
    No,being more aggressive simply means that men are more prone to beating up their wives and engaging in self-harm.
    What makes men strive for better positions is their emphasis on competition, resourcefulness, being the breadwinners etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    That whole argument fails if you take into account that there are more british men in this country than immigrants. Therefore employing immigrants on the basis that they are cheaper is far less harmful for the economy than if we were to employ british men because they are cheaper. Of course, that isn't to say that it's acceptable to employ imigrants because they are cheaper, that's just exploitation.

    and no, my 22 per cent figure does not come from comparing a female part time working average with the male full time average. it's 22% EVEN WHEN THEY ARE IN THE SAME JOB, that's what I said, so don't twist my words.
    That makes absolutely no sense. The only colour businesses care about is green - money. Your figure does not come from comparing like for like at all. If there was a pay gap of 22% then companies that hired predominantly women would crush companies that hired predominantly men - but the reverse is actually true (as i've proven).

    Doing a job with the same name does not neccessarily mean the outputs are anywhere near the same.
    Professor James T. Bennett compiled 20 major reasons for the wage gap, which include some of the following:
    • Men go into technology and hard sciences more than women.
    • Men tend to take more stressful jobs that are not “nine-to-five.”
    • Men are more likely to work longer hours, and the pay gap widens for every hour past 40 per week.
    • Women are nine times more likely than men to drop out of work for “family reasons.” Less seniority leads to lower pay.
    • Men work more weeks per year than women.
    • Women place greater value on flexibility, a humane work environment, and having time for children and family than men do.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TShadow383)
    Well I'm afraid your A level sociology class was wrong.
    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=167
    As can plainly be seen, the 22.6% figure does not come from men and women working the same hours, or in the same jobs.
    no, my a level sociology class wasn't wrong

    the 22.6 per cent figure in the national statistics is a different one from the one they gave me (it's a more recent one) and they might not have taken similarity between jobs into account. Furthermore, the 22.6 per cent figure just proves that the pay gap between men and women has been increasing.

    and thanks for the neg rep, whoever gave it to me. coward for not leaving your name.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    No,being more aggressive simply means that men are more prone to beating up their wives and engaging in self-harm.
    What makes men strive for better positions is their emphasis on competition, resourcefulness, being the breadwinners etc.
    Which is partly down to our natural hormonal agression.
    Agression doesn't necessarily equal violence, there was a study done some years back that found F1 drivers had far higher levels of testosterone than the average - it's part of what makes them strive to be so competitive.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    So why does this stop you from wearing anything? They aren't beating you or arresting you. If you don't like being looked at don't wear something which will make people look at you.
    You don't seem to get my point. Comments and perving is enough to prevent girls from feeling like they can wear clothes they like, guys don't have to be beating or arresting them to make them feel like that. The problem lies with the guys being unable to control their eyes/mouth etc., not with what the girls are wearing, so why should the girls change what they wear? It's completely unfair to expect girls to stop wearing clothes they like, just because of the reactions of other people.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TShadow383)
    Which is partly down to our natural hormonal agression.
    Agression doesn't necessarily equal violence, there was a study done some years back that found F1 drivers had far higher levels of testosterone than the average - it's part of what makes them strive to be so competitive.
    but you have to wonder: do they have higher levels of testosterone because they are F1 drivers, or are they F1 drivers because they have higher levels of testosterone?
    and aggression may not equal violence, but it is a contributing factor.
 
 
 
Poll
Favourite type of bread
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.