isnt feminism pointless now women are basicaly equal?

The Guardian is known for it's left-wing, feminist bull****.

Nowhere in that article does it say that a woman working in the same role, in the same company as a man, gets paid less.

Women find it difficult to get promoted because they do not normally push for promotions, whereas, normally men push for promotions.

Promotion is not something which just automatically comes to someone, just because they want it. Promotion must be earnt, women must learn that to get promoted, they have to push for their boss into making that decision, and they have to stop feeling a sense of entitlement because they have been "oppressed" for hundreds of years.

Men are the people getting discriminated against now, there is so much pressure to have women in companies. Women are being favoured over men in many jobs as a result of companies being frowned upon for having no female employees. For example, firefighters, I can tell you that I would not want a want a female firefighter attempting to save my life. Biologically, men are stronger, in areas like the police force and the fire brigade, I would much rather have a man than a woman working.

It's very sexist to say a woman does not strive for the same goals as men. There is no evidence for that. There are however high profile legal cases against employers who have been found guilty of prejudice.
As for the guardian, it isn't just newspapers that have reported on this. They don't just pluck information out of nowhere. The ONS has research on employment and pay.
And many articles do specify that same occupations have wildly different wages. On an overall view, it is clear that one major factor affecting pay is employment sector. But within each sector, there are differences in pay based on gender and race.

In regards to a firefighter, maybe you wouldn't want a woman. If you really needed saving I don't think you'd protest any assistance in that situation from someone with the skills. Firefighting does not have a huge impact on the economy and society. I understand that men may choose to steer towards a career that is more physical. That wasn't my argument. I am strictly sticking to high profile roles such as finance and banking, law etc which are predominantly male. These sectors have huge effects on the economy and society and women and ethnic minorities can feel "empowered". There is no need for strength in this. It is mainly academia which does not vary much between the genders, so each group should feel accurately represented, or at least have the opportunity to excel in a field.

A lot of women are put off by the stigma associated with women in finance. Don't assume that women don't want to do mathematical subjects!!!

Hi, new person joining in the discussion.
To claim that women do not push for promotion the way men do generalizes an entire gender. Some women may not have ambition, others may do, the same as men. A bigger issue is that when a man pushes for promotion, for example, he is seen as ambitious and hard-working. When a woman asks for more of a say in the company, she is viewed as being bossy and, to put it bluntly, a b***h. This may be one of the reasons why some women don't push for promotion- they know that there is less chance of them being taken seriously.
Yes, things such as promotions must be earned. Why do you assume that women as a whole do not seek to earn a better position through hard work, but expect it to come to them? Feminism is not about having 'a sense of entitlement', as you put it. Feminism is about equality, as stated many times in this discussion. Women do not expect that things should be given to them, they expect that they will be given the opportunity to earn these things, and that the decision on whether or not they should be given it will be based on their character, with no personal prejudices based on their gender.
Also, I don't understand why you've put 'oppressed' in quotation marks. Women have been oppressed for thousands of years. They are viewed as the weaker sex, not just physically but mentally and emotionally. Until the 20th century, women didn't even have the vote, and it's taken them many years to achieve this level of equality. All the things that have always been available to men- the vote, certain jobs, a good wage- are things that women have had to fight for. Feminists- not 'crazy, man-hating' people, but women who want to have the same rights as men- have worked for decades to get these rights, and although women are more equal to men in the Western world than in other places, sexism still lingers in the way they are viewed, in the way women are expected to be fragile and delicate, the way they experience harassment in the streets, how they are objectified in the media, and yes, how they are seen in the workplace. Of course, there are cases of sexism towards men as well, and that is wrong. But sexism towards men doesn't reflect the thousands of years that they have been taught to believe that they are inferior, and that their opinions are irrelevant. That is why sexism towards women can cause more of a reaction, because women have fought for years to not have to experience it.
Women and men should be considered equally for jobs. When interviewing, the person doing the hiring should not take into account their race, gender, or any other such aspect. The only deciding factors should be their capability in doing the job, and the merit of their characters.
If you were in a fire, a woman firefighter would be perfectly capable of saving you, as she would have been trained for that purpose and selected for the job based on the fact that she can do it.

sorry but everywhere I look in society, women basically have equal rights with men. Women are treated equally at any important level (like in the law) - surely they have little to complain about?

its obvious feminism has gone too far. a man can hardly approach a woman now before being accused as a rapist. Many gestures seen as romantic in many other countries would be classed as sexual assault in the uk. if a woman decided to get hammered and gets assaulted, apparently it's in no way her fault because women have a right to drink, therefore they can disregard their own safety.

it's about time feminism, with its stereotyping of men as power-hungry sexual predators and women as innocent victims, changed its agenda to suit reality and not what its followers percieve.

Isn't the title a bit of a contradiction? There shouldn't be a movement for equality between the sexes because they are basically equal. Surely that is a reason why there should be feminism?

I did not say women do not strive for the same goals as men. As a result of the Equal Pay Act, a woman and a man in the same job, will recieve the same pay.

So why do you care that there are not equal numbers of women in jobs such as engineering, and physical jobs like the police force? Is it because you do not want women doing laborious tasks? Whereas you want women working in roles such as finance and banking? There are fewer women in laborious jobs than in banking and law, so why don't you care about those jobs?

Ok, but I would rather have a male firefighter than a female firefighter attempting to save my life.

Pay should be determined on ability, a male firefighter should be paid more than a female firefighter.

All that baloney about women feeling "empowered" is hogwash. If a women wants to get into finance and banking, she can. If a women wants to become a lawyer, she can. There are thousands of lawyers in the UK.

Women do have the opportunity to excel in a field. The education system has been tailored more towards females and there are more women in universtity than men.

I never said women are paid less for the same job. I said in certain sectors, women are less likely to be in higher positions which pay more. The pay of a police officer or firefighter is generally around average salary. There are no huge contrasts between the average worker and higher roles. (Policing depends on the area though). The difference in banking can be millions.

"Pay should be determined on ability, a male firefighter should be paid more than a female firefighter."

YOU ARE SO UNBELIEVABLY SEXIST IT ACTUALLY BLOWS MY MIND.
By your thinking, I believe women should be paid more because a higher percentage of women graduates. NO
Firefighters usually don't actually carry you out a building, you realise?!

Sorry I can't focus because of your outrageous comment about how women should be paid less.

A man and a woman work at a factory, lifting boxes all day long.
The man is stronger than the woman, thus allowing him to carry more boxes in the day.
Therefore the man should be paid more.

Anyone who truly knows about feminism will know their agenda is for not about equality but privileges for themselves and normalization of their unsubstantiated anti male views.

Why? She's giving up the same amount of time, and from the information you've given, putting in the same amount of effort.

I never said women are paid less for the same job. I said in certain sectors, women are less likely to be in higher positions which pay more. The pay of a police officer or firefighter is generally around average salary. There are no huge contrasts between the average worker and higher roles. (Policing depends on the area though). The difference in banking can be millions.

"Pay should be determined on ability, a male firefighter should be paid more than a female firefighter."

YOU ARE SO UNBELIEVABLY SEXIST IT ACTUALLY BLOWS MY MIND.
By your thinking, I believe women should be paid more because a higher percentage of women graduates. NO
Firefighters usually don't actually carry you out a building, you realise?!

Sorry I can't focus because of your outrageous comment about how women should be paid less.

The man has done more to benefit the factory, he has lifted more boxes than the woman has, in the time given. There are two logical options:

1) As long as the man is lifting more boxes, pay the man more than the woman.
2) Have another man take over the role of the woman i.e. firing the woman, thus allowing more boxes to get lifted in the same amount of time, and for the same amount of pay.

Effort does not matter.

Your claim wasn't that it's in the factory's interests to pay the man more, it was that the man should be paid more. It's a big jump from saying that from an economic point of view we'd expect something to happen to saying that it's the 'right' thing to do.

Well the majority of girls in uni can be partly explained by the simple fact THERE ARE MORE GIRLS ON THIS PLANET. I think it is generally reflective of the work force as well and women might feel they need university to succeed. (I don't have any studies on this, I just assume)
As for the academics. The margin of women out performing males at a levels is like 0.1%. It is basically nothing. Women tend to go for language based subjects which could affect grade results. (I'm doing maths, further maths, history, economics and English lit, so a bit of both). That being said, the typical male subjects have the highest proportion of A/A*.

I haven't heard of any cases of males being put off uni because of women. Top unis are still generally more male (I'm not sure why). Oxford undergrad is around 53% male (depends on the year).

It is true girls tend to be more "obedient". That isn't to say they are naturally smart. Many just work very hard. It is the same for both sexes. Saying the opposite sex is "naturally smarter" seems like an excuse for a lack of effort.

Finally, I do agree it is hard to educate the older generation. But, it is never too late to go to uni. Many people go to uni in their 40s and 50s. Women also tend to retire before men (I don't know why, probably just preference), which distorts the pay scale for that age group. As older people tend to be in higher positions in companies, we need to tell them that any prejudice is wrong, even if we cannot change the disproportions. Otherwise that kind of behaviour is accepted and could influence younger people who are known to be "malleable" to strong opinions.

The man should be paid more... He has fulfilled his job to a higher standard, and has lifted more boxes than the woman has. The woman has done less, she has carried fewer boxes.

OK, let's test this principle. Suppose there is another man doing the same job, and lifting roughly the same amount of boxes as the first man. However, the second man is unionised, and due to the power of his union, earns a higher wage. Does he deserve more?

Alternatively, suppose the business hits bad times and the employer cuts the man's pay. Does he deserve his new pay or the old pay? He's still doing the job to the same standard as before.