The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

MrHappy_J
Women have to fight for their rights before fighting for those of other people.

it's no use going against campaining for a cause by saying OMG but what about us?! that's not the point. for example, black people campaining against racial discrimination, you wouldn't say "yeah but whites are also discriminated against, are they?". No, because in history it was black people getting all the stick, not whites. The same as women get all the stick, and not men.

Female with "Mr" in name.
:confused:Confuzzled:confused:
Gontak
What annoys me is that today, men get degrading roles in adverts, cleaning ones like this :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZvSS8CXTsw&feature=related nobody kicks a fuss. However if a woman struts around in her bra and knickers (Which back in the day was promoted by feminists) women (usually feminists) cause a media storm claiming it's sexist. I just don't get it these days.


I mean, I don't care about the male advert, it's not paticularly funny and I don't think it actually did the company that made it any favors, it doesn't really offend me more than any other advert, but if it was the other way around I don't doubt for one minitue a storm would kick off. And if it was a racial thing, I.E. the guy was black/asian or whatever it would be even worse. That's not equality in my books. But whatever.


A storm did kick off, judging by the comments on youtube.

What is your point?
Reply 82
MrHappy_J
A storm did kick off, judging by the comments on youtube.

What is your point?


There was no media storm, I don't remember it being reported on any news bullitens or outlets. The M&S advert on the other hand did....I think teh biggest publicity this advert got was a brief talking point on Loose Women.

My point still stands, and I was using that single advert as one mere example, more substance next time please.
Reply 83
MrHappy_J
Women have to fight for their rights before fighting for those of other people.

it's no use going against campaining for a cause by saying OMG but what about us?! that's not the point. for example, black people campaining against racial discrimination, you wouldn't say "yeah but whites are also discriminated against, are they?". No, because in history it was black people getting all the stick, not whites. The same as women get all the stick, and not men.


This exactly.

Why does this post have a warning? Its completely right ... :confused:
Anyhoo, +rep, you shouldnt have a warning
ziggycj
This exactly.

Why does this post have a warning? Its completely right ... :confused:
Anyhoo, +rep, you shouldnt have a warning


because apparently having an opinion is dangerous on tsr. you might get bashed on the head. or worse: WARNED. :eek:

thanks for the rep :smile:
MrHappy_J
some women, not all. I think it's safe to say that most women want some degree of success in the workplace.

and yes, by saying "women" you are implying that you're talking about "all women", in general.

what's my evidence? what about the gender pay gap?


If you looked at the context of my statement, it was abundantly clear that I was not talking about all women.

On the gender pay gap:

Three official surveys are used by the Office for National Statistics (ONS): a survey of employers called ASHE (the annual survey of hours and earnings), a survey of households (the Labour Force Survey) and the panel dataset of the New Earnings Survey, which provides information from 1975 to 2006.
Most people think that equal pay sounds fine, but assume that the issue at stake is the rate of pay for the same kind of work. But as the ONS said in its monthly Economic & Labour Market Review, published last year just before the Government committed itself to forcing the Equality Bill through, the gender pay gap ‘does not necessarily indicate differences in rates of pay for comparable jobs’.
According to ASHE, in 2007 a gender pay gap does not open up until women reach about 30 years of age. From ages 18-29 there is hardly any difference and, according to the Labour Force Survey (LFS), women aged 22-29 are paid on average slightly more per hour than men. As the ONS concludes, having children is the decisive factor, not being a woman. Historical data confirm this conclusion. Based on the New Earnings Survey panel data, in 1975 there was a pay gap from the age of 18 onwards, but in 2006 no such gap existed until age 34. Why? In 1975 women tended to have children in their 20s and by 2006 it was more common to have them in their 30s. As the average age of child-rearing increased so too did the age at which the pay gap kicked in.
Then there are some other disparities, which are very hard to explain as the result of discrimination. Overall the hourly rate of pay is higher for men, but not when they work from 10-20 hours per week or from 20-30 hours per week, when on average women earn slightly more. If discrimination is the explanation, why would (male) employers discriminate against women who work more than 30 hours a week but not those who work fewer hours? Moreover, women who work part-time earn more than men in companies with 500 or more employees but less than men in companies with fewer then 25 employees. What must be going on in the minds of the discriminators?
The truth is that the vital difference is not between men and women but between women with dependent children and everyone else, whether male or female. The hourly rate of pay for women who are neither married nor cohabiting is slightly higher than for men in the same situation. For men and women who are married or cohabiting the hourly pay gap is 14.5% and the gap widens with the number of children. Women with one dependent child earn on average 12.3% less than men and with four or more dependent children 35.5% less.
Quite simply the Government’s emphasis on the gender pay gap of 22.6% is an abuse of official statistics. And to infer that the difference in the average hourly rate is the result of discrimination is an abuse of logic. When women without dependent children compete head to head with men in the same situation their hourly rate is higher. Most women today work throughout their 20s and find that success is the result of being good at something. Employers are looking for capable people whether male or female.


Which makes clear that there is not discrimination in the workplace.
Reply 86
MrHappy_J
as a woman hating homosexual yourself, you would say that missygeorgia is a man-hating lesbian. :rolleyes:

have you actually read any of her posts? or do you just assume she's a man hating lesbian because she claims to be a feminist? what she says seems quite reasonable to me.

No, I actually love women, as long as they are pretty and have big breasts. And as I have already said, Missygeorgia practically admitted that she doesn't give a **** about men in another thread.
oscarwildelike
If you looked at the context of my statement, it was abundantly clear that I was not talking about all women.


Er...no it wasn't.

oscarwildelike


On the gender pay gap:



Which makes clear that there is not discrimination in the workplace.


you say it as though that paper was conclusive that the gender pay gap does not exist. but what possible explanation could there be for the fact that some women get paid less for doing the same job as a man?

even if it didn't exist, that doesnt mean that feminism is no longer necessary. there is still a lot to fight for in the name of gender equality, however i concede that most of it is cultural rather than legal.
kratos90
No, I actually love women, as long as they are pretty and have big breasts. And as I have already said, Missygeorgia practically admitted that she doesn't give a **** about men in another thread.


this statement just further enhances your chauvinism, sorry. you're not doing yourself any favours by saying that. It's as if I said "no actually I like men, as long as they have big cocks".

i don't know what you mean by "practically", but it seems clear to me that it's your own delusion, and has nothing to do with what missygeorgia may or may not have said.
oscarwildelike
If you looked at the context of my statement, it was abundantly clear that I was not talking about all women.

On the gender pay gap:



Which makes clear that there is not discrimination in the workplace.

Well, that confirmed exactly my experience of business.
Women being paid slightly more in comparable circumstances and it being more down to children etc.
Good post.

MrHappy_J
you say it as though that paper was conclusive that the gender pay gap does not exist. but what possible explanation could there be for the fact that some women get paid less for doing the same job as a man?

Find me some examples where that happens then.

MrHappy_J
even if it didn't exist, that doesnt mean that feminism is no longer necessary. there is still a lot to fight for in the name of gender equality, however i concede that most of it is cultural rather than legal.

I recommend you start with:

-The retirement age for men being higher despite our lower life expectancy.
-The heavy bias towards the mother in family courts.
-So called "positive discrimination" programmes which actively discriminate on the grounds of sex, such as all-women shortlists.
-Discrimination in maternity/paternity leave
-Discrimination in the courts causing men to have on average greater prison sentences for the same classes of crime.

If you're really interested in gender equality, prove it.
Reply 90
MrHappy_J
this statement just further enhances your chauvinism, sorry. you're not doing yourself any favours by saying that. It's as if I said "no actually I like men, as long as they have big cocks".

i don't know what you mean by "practically", but it seems clear to me that it's your own delusion, and has nothing to do with what missygeorgia may or may not have said.

But the difference is, if a man does not have a big cock, he can still be likeable, as he could be funny, whereas a woman that's not pretty with small breasts... is just not likeable
TShadow383
Well, that confirmed exactly my experience of business.
Women being paid slightly more in comparable circumstances and it being more down to children etc.
Good post.


Find me some examples where that happens then.


I recommend you start with:

-The retirement age for men being higher despite our lower life expectancy.
-The heavy bias towards the mother in family courts.
-So called "positive discrimination" programmes which actively discriminate on the grounds of sex, such as all-women shortlists.
-Discrimination in maternity/paternity leave
-Discrimination in the courts causing men to have on average greater prison sentences for the same classes of crime.

If you're really interested in gender equality, prove it.



Whilst I agree that all of the issues outlined above need adressing, it is not up to me to sort it out, wouldn't you say? Besides....

1) The retirement age has been evened out, it is now the same for both genders.
2)Fair enough.
3)Ok
4) There are lots of father/family friendly policies in the workplace, it is up to the employers to inform their workers of such policies and measures need to be taken to ensure that they do so.
5) On average, men commit more crimes than women, and they also tend to commit more severe crimes.

Also, how about the following issues?

1) The sexual discrimination faced by women in top positions.
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2007/10/08/prca1008.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6955534/Scientist-Baroness-Greenfield-to-sue-for-sex-discrimination.html

2) The fact that there are about 500 derogatory terms used to describe women in the english dictionary, whereas there are only 50 terms used to insult men.

3) Domestic violence- two women per week are murdered by their husbands.
http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic_violence_topic.asp?section=0001000100220041&sectionTitle=Domestic+violence+%28general%29


Anyway, I don't have to prove to you how interested I am in gender equality, because I am interested. That's a rather stupid remark, if you ask me.
kratos90
But the difference is, if a man does not have a big cock, he can still be likeable, as he could be funny, whereas a woman that's not pretty with small breasts... is just not likeable


that's just your opinion.

a woman with small breasts can still have a nice personality. the two factors do not correlate.

on the other hand, very few women find a small cock appealing, no matter how "likeable" the man is. :lol:
Reply 93
Why are people on here so relentlessly ignorant to what feminism is really about?
Reply 94
MrHappy_J
that's just your opinion.

a woman with small breasts can still have a nice personality. the two factors do not correlate.

on the other hand, very few women find a small cock appealing, no matter how "likeable" the man is. :lol:

That's very mature :rolleyes:
Reply 95
kratos90
But the difference is, if a man does not have a big cock, he can still be likeable, as he could be funny


And what do you tell men who, like you, have neither? :smile:
Reply 96
Cybele
Why are people on here so relentlessly ignorant to what feminism is really about?

Yep, this thread is so beyond me.:rolleyes:
Feminism is about man-hating lesbians. Simples. I have never had less than an A in my life so make me a sammich. Bitch.
Reply 97
Cybele
And what do you tell men who, like you, have neither? :smile:

7 inch semi darling
kratos90
That's very mature :rolleyes:


look who's talking, the guy who claims that large breasts and a pretty face are symbolic of a nice personality. :teehee:
kratos90
Yep, this thread is so beyond me.:rolleyes:
Feminism is about man-hating lesbians. Simples. I have never had less than an A in my life so make me a sammich. Bitch.


Very mature. :rolleyes:

Latest

Trending

Trending