Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta

Is Equality Between the Two Genders Fair? watch

  • View Poll Results: Is Equality Fair?
    Yes!
    20
    52.63%
    No!
    13
    34.21%
    Other...
    5
    13.16%

    Offline

    13
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Sadly, that was the case until very recently when standards here in the UK were lowered to allow female "firemen" to join the force.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...efighters.html
    sigh
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hajima)
    sigh
    ManWomanMyth has an interesting video on this topic. I highly recommend it!

    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hajima)
    You're still confusing equal opportunity and equal outcome.

    Equal opportunity is allowing women to undergo the same physical training and tests that would be required of a man to become a firefighter, if they cannot keep up with the men, then they cannot do the job. Equal outcome would be something like lowering the standard of physical strength required from the women entering just so that there's women in the profession, this is not the route we should be going down, we should however give women the chance to become firefighters, even if most of them fail in the end.

    Also, men don't have equal responsibility over the child? I beg to differ. The situation involves both parents and it should be a joint decision, it's his child too, regardless of whom it happens to be growing inside of.
    Most people male or female would fail the physical test to because a firefighter maybe more women fail the test than men.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    Some mechanisms which aim to achieve equality of outcome, but do not force it, create socially optimal outcomes.

    For example, doing more to encourage women to enter STEM. I never really got why people are against this.
    Because it provides a solution for a problem that does not exist.

    Because it gives preferential treatment to women where they do not deserve it.

    Because expecting equal outcomes from two distinct groups of individuals is unfair.

    Equality of outcome is the pursuit of equal numbers between groups of people in society irrespective of their different needs, strengths and limitations....for you to be able to achieve equality of outcome you have to treat people unequally....equality of outcome contradicts equality. it contradicts itself.

    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    As long as equality of opportunity is preserved (i.e. no positive discrimination), getting more women to apply for STEM subjects as opposed to arts/humanities merely increases the pool of talent from which universities and institutions can pick from. And since supply tends to exceed demand when you move down past the top 15 or so universities, this increases the skilled labour pool in aggregate.
    Why don't you apply this same logic to road sweeps and refuse collectors and other low paid jobs like this that are almost entirely dominated by men? Because this is not about equality....this to women, to feminists, is pursuit of privileged treatment and using any argument to justify this pursuit. Women outnumber men in universities in the UK and across the globe...here in the UK by a ratio of 4 to 1 in some universities....I don't hear any feminists nor women crying to encourage more men into university or more women into refuse collection jobs....because it isn't about equality...its all BS aimed at giving women privileged treatment in society ...

    Feminists in the GMC have done their utmost the past ten years to prevent any quotas being given to men in medicine despite the fact that women now outnumber men in this profession thanks to quotas introduced in this country back in the 40s.

    ...despite being outnumbered at university in almost all fields STEM and non-STEM there is nothing on offer to help more men into higher education...NOTHING....why? because this is not about equality...it is not about equalising numbers between men and women in society...its a campaign that is all about giving women special treatment in society...getting women unfairly and through non-democratic means into positions of power and control

    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    Merely encouraging and incentivising men to apply for courses in nursing or education can only be a good thing. These policies only seem to be pushing for equality of outcome on the surface.
    They have tried encouraging more men into low paid professions such as nursing for 50 years now.....and failed miserably at it year after year.....Men and women make very different choices in life. That is as obvious as obvious can be. We have different strengths and different limitations and we make our choices in life based on these strengths and limitations. ...there are fewer women in engineering not because of sexism but because this profession is very hands on and physical....men pursue it because they are physically superior. There are more women in nursing than men not because of sexism but because it plays to the strengths of women and limitations of men. This is all common sense.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Equality of opportunity is freedom

    Equality of outcome is oppression
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Why don't you apply this same logic to road sweeps and refuse collectors and other low paid jobs like this that are almost entirely dominated by men? Because this is not about equality....this to women, to feminists, is pursuit of privileged treatment and using any argument to justify this pursuit. Women outnumber men in universities in the UK and across the globe...here in the UK by a ratio of 4 to 1 in some universities....I don't hear any feminists nor women crying to encourage more men into university or more women into refuse collection jobs....because it isn't about equality...its all BS aimed at giving women privileged treatment in society ...

    Feminists in the GMC have done their utmost the past ten years to prevent any quotas being given to men in medicine despite the fact that women now outnumber men in this profession thanks to quotas introduced in this country back in the 40s.

    ...despite being outnumbered at university in almost all fields STEM and non-STEM there is nothing on offer to help more men into higher education...NOTHING....why? because this is not about equality...it is not about equalising numbers between men and women in society...its a campaign that is all about giving women special treatment in society...getting women unfairly and through non-democratic means into positions of power and control.
    We don't encourage women to become refuse collectors for the same reason why we don't encourage men to become refuse collectors. Yes, they're fairly unpleasant jobs which is why we don't tell 18 year old men or women that that is the best they'll get in terms of their career.

    Furthermore, it is your own argument that men are simply more capable than women on average when it comes to manual labour which the jobs you've mentioned tend to involve. Getting more women to apply to be road sweeps probably won't cause productivity to rise whereas encouraging more women to develop key quantitative skills would.

    I also never said that we shouldn't do more to correct the gender imbalance in higher education. We can tackle that as well as encouraging more people (both men and women) to go into STEM. These things are not mutually exclusive.

    (Original post by CookieButter)
    They have tried encouraging more men into low paid professions such as nursing for 50 years now.....and failed miserably at it year after year.....Men and women make very different choices in life. That is as obvious as obvious can be. We have different strengths and different limitations and we make our choices in life based on these strengths and limitations. ...there are fewer women in engineering not because of sexism but because this profession is very hands on and physical....men pursue it because they are physically superior. There are more women in nursing than men not because of sexism but because it plays to the strengths of women and limitations of men. This is all common sense.
    Firstly, attempts to get more men into nursing have not all been failures. Queen's University Belfast had the proportion of men on their nursing course increase from 6% to 10% in 3 years after a targeted drive. I would never expect there to be a 50/50 split in areas like nursing and nor should there be but being cynical about something that doesn't really cost anything and has good outcomes is rather short-sighted.

    I'd also dispute the idea that engineering is actually that hands-on when it comes to degrees. Yes there is lab work but a lot of their work is conceptual, especially when comparing different types of engineering. Regardless, there are areas in STEM that don't require any difficult hands-on work whatsoever.

    Finally, I'd reiterate that I would never in a million years want to strive for a 50/50 split in imbalanced courses. Why? Because you're right, men and women are different. However, we can encourage people to consider things that they may not have originally, especially those which ultimately benefit society. This does not infringe on their freedom of choice.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    We don't encourage women to become refuse collectors for the same reason why we don't encourage men to become refuse collectors. Yes, they're fairly unpleasant jobs which is why we don't tell 18 year old men or women that that is the best they'll get in terms of their career.
    But what about equality my friend? These jobs are dominated by men. If we accept equality in our society then we must encourage more women to become refuse collectors to accomplish equality. The thing is we don't. We don't encourage women to pursue menial jobs only those jobs that lead to power and good money. So the question becomes why? the answer is as clear as light. Like you said refuse collection is unpleasant and this entire equality affair is about giving women power and control without merit and you cannot achieve those things working refuse.

    Collecting refuse is indeed unpleasant. This raises another question and its as follows...How can a world run by a system that is designed to benefit men and disadvantage women, a system that values men's lives over those of women, a system feminists call the patriarchy, allow men to work in unpleasant jobs that risk their lives, whilst protecting women from them? If you think about life without bias you are sure to come to the conclusion that the idea of the patriarchy is BS.

    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    Furthermore, it is your own argument that men are simply more capable than women on average when it comes to manual labour which the jobs you've mentioned tend to involve. Getting more women to apply to be road sweeps probably won't cause productivity to rise whereas encouraging more women to develop key quantitative skills would.
    ...my argument is in favour of equity, of taking into account the differences between women in men in deciding what is fair and what is not fair.... Yours is in favour of equality, of treating both women and men the same way...so, you cannot apply the men are stronger than women logic to your argument because your argument revolves around equality a concept where everyone is the same and therefore every group must have equal outcomes to every other group...

    In a world run by a system of equality any disparity in numbers = unfairness that needs to be corrected...Hence, to achieve equality more women must be encouraged to work in menial jobs...now, like you said this doesn't happen...why? because, like I stated above, this entire effort has nothing to do with equalising numbers or achieving fairness between the sexes as per the definition of equality but rather it has everything to do with pushing women into positions of power and control and men away from those positions by a system based on an ideology that preaches that men are bad and women are good.

    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    I also never said that we shouldn't do more to correct the gender imbalance in higher education. We can tackle that as well as encouraging more people (both men and women) to go into STEM. These things are not mutually exclusive.
    I didn't at any point say that you said those things. I wrote that our country offers no solutions to those gaps that favour women in society...NOTHING...these gaps in education and in other areas of life have existed for decades now with feminists fighting any change that favours men and disadvantages women tooth and nail....I gave you that gmc example....another example is in pensions reform. In this country women have had earlier access to pensions for decades ....the government decided to equalise the pension age ten years ago...feminists have fought this change for equality non-stop and they are on the verge of becoming successful in this endeavour.

    Equality is a flawed concept that can be exploited easily by supremacist ideologies like feminism to further the interests of certain groups over those of others.

    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    Firstly, attempts to get more men into nursing have not all been failures. Queen's University Belfast had the proportion of men on their nursing course increase from 6% to 10% in 3 years after a targeted drive. I would never expect there to be a 50/50 split in areas like nursing and nor should there be but being cynical about something that doesn't really cost anything and has good outcomes is rather short-sighted.
    Quotas and programmes to encourage more men into nursing have been in place since the 60s. Despite these programmes, women still make up the large majority of the nursing workforce and men a non-existent minority.

    Now, do you you actually believe that these "targeted drives" have no costs? Do you actually believe that gender quotas and these "targeted drives" which are code for gender quotas, have no negative implications on society?

    Let me give you an example of how devastating these policies have been to the UK. I'm going to give you this example from my degree course which has had non-stop intervention from the government since the 40s to force more women into the profession and men out of it.

    In 1945 the government, under the threat of fines and withdrawal of funds, ordered medical universities in this country to increase the number of female students that they accept every year to 1/3rd of their student intake. This coincided with the government setting up ring fenced budgets, pumping hundreds of millions of pounds every year into programmes encouraging more women into medicine and other STEM fields, as well as setting up organisations to aid women in education whilst totally neglecting boys based on the feminist premise that boys are already privileged. There weren't enough good female applicants so universities started accepting the dregs just to meet the quotas. These dregs went on to become doctors charged with people's lives. Over the following 50 years women overtook men in medicine. As a result of these gender initiatives women now make up the majority of doctors here in the UK...

    Now to the important bit, the impact of these gender initiatives on society: The disparity between women and men in medicine caused by these initiatives is now causing huge problems for the NHS. The good majority of female doctors take maternity leave and when they come back they only work part time. This has put immense pressure on the NHS costing it billions of pounds every year in replacement doctors who have to fill in for the gap left by female doctors working part time. The government has also been trying to increase the number of working hours for doctors. They have been unsuccessful in this endeavour because of strikes by junior doctors the majority of whom are now women, who want a 'work life' balance that revolves around their biological dispositions to having kids and looking after them….

    ...Some feminists are now even campaigning for women in the UK to have time off for their periods. This campaign has previously been successful in certain countries and if it does become successful here in the UK, it will cost the tax payer billions more to compensate for a gender that is simply not biologically designed for work in medicine, the same way a man is.

    ...Its also worth pointing out that boys have now officially become a disadvantaged group in education in this country whilst girls have become officially recognised as a privileged group in education in the UK thanks to those "drives" that you refer to in your comment.

    These "drives" have had a devastating impact on people. Have a read through the following article about the impact the increase of female doctors has had on our NHS here in this country:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/heal...in-crisis.html

    The favourable treatment of women in higher education, through drives such as the one you mentioned in your comment have had a crippling impact on society and on men.

    These gender initiatives deny applicants a place at university because of their gender. They deny boys and men an education in favour of less qualified women...if this isn't sexism then I don't know what is. How can you say that these initiatives have no costs? How would you feel if you applied for a university and were rejected in favour of a less qualified person because you were born with the wrong set of genitalia? This is what equality of outcome does to societies...it is discriminatory. It is sexist. It is highly destructive.

    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    I'd also dispute the idea that engineering is actually that hands-on when it comes to degrees. Yes there is lab work but a lot of their work is conceptual, especially when comparing different types of engineering. Regardless, there are areas in STEM that don't require any difficult hands-on work whatsoever.
    It being hands on is just one factor about engineering that drives women away from it. my argument here was that the difference in outcomes are the result of legitimate differences between the two sexes as apposed to sexism. There is nothing stopping women from joining engineering other than their CHOICE.

    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    we can encourage people to consider things that they may not have originally, especially those which ultimately benefit society. This does not infringe on their freedom of choice.
    You are providing a solution for a problem that does not exist. The disparity in numbers at university level between the different courses is the result of biological differences between the two genders and not sexism. Therefore, there is no need to provide a gendered solution for this disparity. As in there is no need to encourage men to become nurses and women to become firemen because feminism thinks we are the same and we should be doing the same jobs.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    I'm suggesting that women should be measured against a standard which reflects their potentials as men are measured against a standard which reflects their potentials.
    As a potential fire victim I'd rather both individuals were measured against criteria that mean they could save my life. If that means that only big strong blokes capable of carrying a ten stone weight, controlling a power hose, dragging an unconscious body running towards a burning building at fifteen miles an hour in full gear or lifting a long ladder into position can become firefighters then so be it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    You've made it quite clear that you prefer equity over equality (of opportunity) but I'd like to ask you this.

    When women return to work after being on maternity leave and as a result have lower pay or fewer opportunities than their counterparts, is this equality or equity? Say raises or promotions are based predominantly on recent performance, is it not equality of opportunity that says 'You decided to get pregnant and as a result, the performance of your colleagues have surpassed yours'? Conversely, wouldn't 'equitable treatment' mean that women with families need extra help to get back on track?
    Pay in the private sector is generally increased according to ability and experience. If a person deliberately reduces its experience level and opportunities for developing skills by taking time off and/or working part time then it does not behove the employer to try and repair the damage this choice has made to the individual concerned.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    people should be rewarded according to their level of contribution as measured against their actual ability/potential. If you and I work equally as hard (and let's assume with equal competency) then on the basis of equity we should be equally rewarded, even if our individual limitations mean our productivity levels are different.
    So someone who achieves twice as much as someone else would nevertheless be paid the same? Good luck arguing that in the real world. No employer would expect to keep his best employees if they took that attitude, and no high-achieving employee would stay with them.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    We don't encourage women to become refuse collectors for the same reason why we don't encourage men to become refuse collectors. Yes, they're fairly unpleasant jobs which is why we don't tell 18 year old men or women that that is the best they'll get in terms of their career.

    Furthermore, it is your own argument that men are simply more capable than women on average when it comes to manual labour which the jobs you've mentioned tend to involve. Getting more women to apply to be road sweeps probably won't cause productivity to rise whereas encouraging more women to develop key quantitative skills would.

    I also never said that we shouldn't do more to correct the gender imbalance in higher education. We can tackle that as well as encouraging more people (both men and women) to go into STEM. These things are not mutually exclusive.



    Firstly, attempts to get more men into nursing have not all been failures. Queen's University Belfast had the proportion of men on their nursing course increase from 6% to 10% in 3 years after a targeted drive. I would never expect there to be a 50/50 split in areas like nursing and nor should there be but being cynical about something that doesn't really cost anything and has good outcomes is rather short-sighted.

    I'd also dispute the idea that engineering is actually that hands-on when it comes to degrees. Yes there is lab work but a lot of their work is conceptual, especially when comparing different types of engineering. Regardless, there are areas in STEM that don't require any difficult hands-on work whatsoever.

    Finally, I'd reiterate that I would never in a million years want to strive for a 50/50 split in imbalanced courses. Why? Because you're right, men and women are different. However, we can encourage people to consider things that they may not have originally, especially those which ultimately benefit society. This does not infringe on their freedom of choice.
    There are barely any efforts to encourage men into nursing. It isn't seen as a problem that nursing is 90% female.

    Compare that to women in medical careers. There are huge initiatives to increase the representation of women in things like surgery and academic medicine.

    These things are only seen as "problematic" when women are "disadvantaged". Nobody cares when men are in a minority.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    ...
    We encourage women to do engineering but we don't encourage them to become refuse collectors, a male dominated field.
    We also encourage men to do engineering but we don't encourage them to become domestic cleaners, a female dominated field.
    I believe this is a good thing, not because I want to get women into positions of power but because this is better for society overall.

    I know nothing is being done about the gender imbalance in higher education. That's why I said it should to be looked at. However, I also think that this isn't contradictory with the idea of pushing more men and more women into STEM.

    You also seem to think that I actually support equality in the sense you are talking about. I don't want quotas any more than you do, I don't really see why you brought it up. My entire point was that providing targeted information actually improves the decision-making process. If a university convinces a male to do nursing who originally didn't consider it, what is the problem? And yes, these campaigns aren't totally costless but they aren't expensive either.

    I'll repeat, I don't want to see gender imbalances corrected. What I want to see is the people going to fields they would excel in that they would not have originally gone into.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    There are barely any efforts to encourage men into nursing. It isn't seen as a problem that nursing is 90% female.

    Compare that to women in medical careers. There are huge initiatives to increase the representation of women in things like surgery and academic medicine.

    These things are only seen as "problematic" when women are "disadvantaged". Nobody cares when men are in a minority.
    Why can't we do both? That's my point here.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    As a potential fire victim I'd rather both individuals were measured against criteria that mean they could save my life. If that means that only big strong blokes capable of carrying a ten stone weight, controlling a power hose, dragging an unconscious body running towards a burning building at fifteen miles an hour in full gear or lifting a long ladder into position can become firefighters then so be it.
    I did say 'as far as possible'. It does, however, raise an interesting hypothetical question. What if, for whatever reason, there was a dearth of 'big strong blokes' choosing to be firefighters?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    What if, for whatever reason, there was a dearth of 'big strong blokes' choosing to be firefighters?
    Then we are buggered.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So someone who achieves twice as much as someone else would nevertheless be paid the same? Good luck arguing that in the real world. No employer would expect to keep his best employees if they took that attitude, and no high-achieving employee would stay with them.
    You're right, true 'equity' of the kind I've described here doesn't sit well in contemporary capitalist arrangements. I was just making the point that when people talk of 'equity' they aren't often taking the concept to its fullest conclusions.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Then we are buggered.
    You've got me thinking, though, it would be interesting to know exactly how much of firefighting activity involves such 'big strong bloke' actions. I'm not suggesting that it would make any difference to the argument, but it would be interesting to know how routinely or rarely it is required.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    You've got me thinking, though, it would be interesting to know exactly how much of firefighting activity involves such 'big strong bloke' actions. I'm not suggesting that it would make any difference to the argument, but it would be interesting to know how routinely or rarely it is required.
    I would imagine moving people and lifting/controlling those hoses is pretty difficult for someone who isn’t pretty strong
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I would imagine moving people and lifting/controlling those hoses is pretty difficult for someone who isn’t pretty strong
    I'm sure that's right but it brings me back to a point I tried to raise earlier. It could be that when, at the design stage, the size and weight of things like hoses were being determined (as they presumably aren't arbitrarily designed) it was the potential of a typically strong male that was the likely benchmark being used. If this is the case then it stands to reason that even strong females are at an automatic disadvantage.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    Why can't we do both? That's my point here.
    Yeah certainly, we could indeed do both.

    But I guess my point is that society does not want to do both.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.