Feminists anger over bank notes

Yes, I've made that exact point before. It's very true IMO.

Taking your last point first, this is Tom Perls, founder of the New England Centenarian Study at Boston University, being interviewed by Time magazine. I think it's fair to say he isn't a hack, and he says this about why men die earlier:



The things he picks out are a matter of personal choice, and he also suggests that genetics have a significant role to play. Neither of those things are a matter of society discriminating against men.

Taking your last point first, this is Tom Perls, founder of the New England Centenarian Study at Boston University, being interviewed by Time magazine. I think it's fair to say he isn't a hack, and he says this about why men die earlier: The things he picks out are a matter of personal choice, and he also suggests that genetics have a significant role to play. Neither of those things are a matter of society discriminating against men.

As to pensions, yes, they were discriminatory in as much as women could choose to retire much earlier than men. But the reason for that was really the expectation that the man of the house was the main breadwinner. Women retiring earlier is in itself predicated on a discriminatory original system.

I would like to see those against feminism, to stress this point more. Talking too much about feminism focusing more on women, only plays into their hands, as it gives them a reason to harp on about how fighting for one gender doesn't necessarily make them anti-the-other, and such like, thus taking the onus of them to do the most important thing that any movement claiming that women are oppressed should do, and actually EVIDENCE their claims, and respond to any questioning of which.

Yes, if women were more oppressed, it would make sense to focus mainly on women; that logic is sound. The reason why it fails, is that feminists don't actually do anything to prove such a claim. They just provide evidence of areas in which men do better, fail to answer any suggestions that there might be other factors to explain this, and ignore areas in which women fare better.

If feminists make such claims, the onus is on them to PROVE discrimination against women, and to at least explain why these are more valid examples than such examples provided relating to men.

But feminists see to think they're above all this, and just prefer to keep shouting loudly, until many blindly accept such claims.

no woman has achieved as much as Churchill did during the war .

A lot of generalisations here. You realise that there are thousands of feminists world wide fighting for all sorts of issues regarding women's rights?

You seem to cherry pick ideas that you don't like feminists talking about to try and undermine the movement, when in fact it's nigh on impossible to completely undermine the entire movement because it's so flipping big.

So, the feminists on this site are not typical of feminists, in general? I am basing my judgements on NUMEROUS feminists I have debated with; mainly around here. If you have a problem with the idea of me basing my judgements on my experiences of feminists ON THIS SITE, whilst debating ON THIS SITE, perhaps you should all label yourselves something different? As things stand, all you seem to do is insist "but not all feminists are like that" when someone says something about feminism which you don't like, whilst still accepting credit/associating yourselves with feminism, per se, as and where it suits.



I tackle the vast majority of points raised by feminists (can they say the same, when it comes to THEIR opposers? I hardly think so.....), so how am I cherry-picking? I am DEBATING; but you seem to like to cry "feminism is a big movement, you can't generalise!!!!" when someone challenges you all. It's a lame attempt at a get-out clause, when I am here, responding to the posts of self-proclaimed feminists.

Would you rather I be pedantic, and merely refer to every feminist here by username, rather than merely saying "feminists"?

Nope, how about "some feminists" rather than "feminists"? Then it sounds less like you're lumping everybody together.

I agree that men dying younger isn't evidence of discrimination. Indeed, I said in my post that just because men seem to be "doing worse than women" in a particular area doesn't mean that there is any discrimination involved.

In the same way, however, why do feminists assume that fewer female CEOs IS an example of discrimation? Why do they assume that this "pay gap" is an example of discrimination? These also have alternative explanations.

a lack of permanent part time jobs and flexible working arrangements restricts the ability to combine
quality employment and family care responsibilities and impacts on current and future earnings potential.
This applies to all employees, but impacts most on women who have dependant children.

• women are over-represented in casual or non-career part time jobs. These types of jobs are often paid
low wage rates and provide fewer opportunities for training, development and career progression.

• men and women still tend to work in different areas of the workforce and be clustered into separate
occupations and industries. Those industries and occupations that are female dominated have
traditionally been undervalued with ‘men’s work’ paid more than ‘women’s work’.

Whilst this may have some truth to it, this is exactly the sort of 'selective reasoning' talked about. Where men do worse, it's men's fault, not discrimination. But where women fare worse? It's odd, how feminists will bend over backwards to explain how areas in which men fare worse, are not down to discrimination; yet tout examples of women doing worse, as UNDISPUTABLE discrimination against women.

The feminist habit of turning issues that disadvantage men, and making them out to be discrimination against women, when pushed into a corner.

I think that's a false analogy, men make the choices themselves which lead to them dying earlier, whereas women are less likely to become CEOs partly because very few of them ever reach the level of seniority in an organisation which would qualify them for that.. That, however, is more a matter of speculation than anything else as there aren't likely to be statistics on how many women are unfairly denied jobs. There is however the fact that of the FTSE 100 companies there are only three female CEOs, I think 47 % under-representation suggests inequality in the structure of the system.

The government identifies the 'pay gap' existing for three main reasons (http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/60646/Why-is-there-a-gender-pay-gap.pdf)



The first two of these reasons can be quite clearly traced to the expectation in many families that women will do the lion's share of caring for the family.

I believe what I actually said was that when men shovel pies into their faces and die earlier that's up to them, but that the education system disadvantages boys. How else would you explain the difference in the pension age, and if you believe it's unjustifiable what would you do about it? Change it tomorrow? You do realise people spend a lifetime planning their retirement? Making a radical change is a real issue in that scenario.

Indeed, but then feminism never really seems to (from what I've observed) call for more custody of children for the fathers, which is also linked to that expectation. Again, it focuses on the disadvantages associated with childcare, but not the advantages. (Advantages and disadvantages are rather trivial words to use in this context, but I'm sure you know what I mean.)

Playing devil's advocate slightly, but if women have lots of children and take them off work to care for them (thus affecting their long-term pay), that's up to them?

I think that's a false analogy, men make the choices themselves which lead to them dying earlier

whereas women are less likely to become CEOs partly because very few of them ever reach the level of seniority in an organisation which would qualify them for that..

That, however, is more a matter of speculation than anything else as there aren't likely to be statistics on how many women are unfairly denied jobs.

There is however the fact that of the FTSE 100 companies there are only three female CEOs, I think 47 % under-representation suggests inequality in the structure of the system.

The government identifies the 'pay gap' existing for three main reasons (http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/60646/Why-is-there-a-gender-pay-gap.pdf)

The first two of these reasons can be quite clearly traced to the expectation in many families that women will do the lion's share of caring for the family.

How else would you explain the difference in the pension age, and if you believe it's unjustifiable what would you do about it? Change it tomorrow? You do realise people spend a lifetime planning their retirement? Making a radical change is a real issue in that scenario.

Well, yes and no, because there's a real expectation that it will be the woman that leaves work (in large part because she will usually earn less!)

I actually think most men would feel rather emasculated by his wife/partner being the one working full time while he looked after the children. Really in a lot of households if someone has to take time off work to look after the children there wouldn't be a choice.

yes because he feared an uprising like which had just happened in russia, which given the aftermath of what happened was a fair call to make...no?

In no particular order; Emmeline Pankhurst, Florence Nightingale, Rosalind Franklin etc.

Edit because I got Pankhurst mixed up with someone else with a similar first name, silly me.

[...] because of this uproar we are likely to get a woman on the £10 note when that is next changed, when their are people like Nelson who deserve national recognition.

I didn't put words into your mouth that's precisely your wording perhaps you didn't express yourself in the way that you wished. Your points also need not be detached when they link, you don't agree that nightingale was better then Churchill, hence you slated her.

It's not to state who did things as good as men, you are completely ridiculous, if people actually research into what Churchill actually did, he achieved very little for our country, it is not he who won the war, it is not even he who directed our country, essentially he was a bigoted alcoholic who did just as many politicians do to this day, took the credit from the good that came from the working class. If you actually speak to the older generation that were around throughout Churchill's time, their opinions regarding him aren't exactly satisfactory. This country is full of uneducated and misguided morons, maybe you should research beyond your A Level history because this isn't the source of all historic information.

The poster did say during the war. Although I do agree with Rosalind Franklin, I disagree with the other 2.

Besides, a woman doesn't have to be on a bank note. Maybe next time round they can put a woman on a note, but it shouldn't be a requirement.

Newsflash: There are quite a few male nurses about these days.

Questionabke..'pretty harsh considering it was his cousin
he should have known that Britain is boring as hell and never revolt :L