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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    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.
    I think a more likely set of criteria was whether the hose could get enough water up to a given height in a given time, whether the materials used could withstand the necessary pressure, and whether the hose would reach far enough to cope with the foreseeable emergencies.

    Deciding to use a garden hose of no more than thirty metres in length so that women could heft and control it might not be deemed to cut the mustard.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    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.
    If you believe that this is a good thing then you do not believe in equality of outcome. In a society run by a system of equal outcomes disparities that cater to our differences would not exist.

    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    I know nothing is being done about the gender imbalance in higher education. That's why I said it should to be looked at.
    If you preach the idea that women are disadvantaged in life and men privileged what are you telling us? That women need help and that men don't. That we need to direct help towards women away from men. That we need to target young girls with information. This of course denies boys access to that same information, which leads to disadvantaged men, which is exactly what has happened in this country after 100 years of targeted policies.

    The only thing that needs to be looked at so far as disadvantgement of men in higher education is conscenred is the cause of this disadvantagement which is equality of outcome in the form of targeted, sexist policies. Those policies need to end. We need to end equality in society. Equality has no place between the genders. Men and women need to be treated equitably as apposed to equally.

    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    However, I also think that this isn't contradictory with the idea of pushing more men and more women into STEM.
    Equality of outcomes is so incredibly contradictory. Its a concept that promotes the idea that we should all have the same outcomes in life because we are all the same.... for us to be able to achieve this, equality of outcome argues that we need to treat each other differently because we are different. Do you see the absurd contradiction?

    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    I don't want quotas any more than you do, I don't really see why you brought it up.
    Those targeted drives that you mentioned in your previous comment those often take the form of quotas. Targeted drives is code for gender quotas. Targeting any form of assistance to one gender whilst denying it the other is unfair.

    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    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.
    When you provide favourable treatment to one gender that you deny the other you are discriminating against that other gender. When you target information in medicine for example to girls and deny this same exact privilege to boys you disadvantage boys. You wind up with the exact same outcome as we have now in the UK after almost 50 years of feminism and 60 years of the "woman's movement". An outcome where that gender that you targeted with special treatment excels whilst the other falls behind.

    They are not costless Basic. They have huge financial ramifications on society. Going against nature and discriminating against one or the other gender, one, compounds disparities as apposed to resolve them and two results in huge costs. One example of how society is paying the costs of targeted policies is the tens of billions of pounds a year that we are paying to fill the gap created by women in medicine ....a gender that now makes up the majority of the medical field thanks to "targeted drives"

    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    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.
    As soon as you gender your approach you instantly discriminate against one gender in favour of the other resulting in gender imbalances. if you want to be equitable you do not gender your approach in any way.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    i think that each gender should get resources to make them equal, not an equal amount of resources
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I think a more likely set of criteria was whether the hose could get enough water up to a given height in a given time, whether the materials used could withstand the necessary pressure, and whether the hose would reach far enough to cope with the foreseeable emergencies.

    Deciding to use a garden hose of no more than thirty metres in length so that women could heft and control it might not be deemed to cut the mustard.
    Except they still had to design and make a hose that could be usefully handled by a firefighter, if not then all of the other criteria you mention is a waste, so it's still reasonable to suggest that the firefighter they had in mind was a strong male.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lizzie026)
    i think that each gender should get resources to make them equal
    Is this possible? Is it possible to make two unequal entities, equal? Is it possible to make a lorry equal to a car? Is it right to do this? Is it fair? Men and women are different, making them equal is impossible. Its wrong. Its sexist.

    Equity isn't about giving people what they need to become equal to everyone else. Its about being fair.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    I think this hits the nail on the head. When we think of equality many seem to mix up opportunity with outcome. For example, I note young women are often asked about their plans for a family at interview. How many men have been asked similar questions?
    Of course men are asked this as well. I've been to interviews for jobs, work courses and for university. I've always been asked something along the lines of if not directly "where do you see yourself in ____ time?"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    I think this hits the nail on the head. When we think of equality many seem to mix up opportunity with outcome. For example, I note young women are often asked about their plans for a family at interview. How many men have been asked similar questions?
    I get asked this question every other day...and so do all of my male friends particularly those who are old and still unmarried....why are you single? when are you going to get married? when are you going to have children? how many children are you going to have? what your family plans? Men hear these questions every other day and there is no malice, no sexism in these questions....except in the eyes of feminists who view family, marriage and children as forms of abuse.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SandwichManDan)
    Of course men are asked this as well. I've been to interviews for jobs, work courses and for university. I've always been asked something along the lines of if not directly "where do you see yourself in ____ time?"
    That is a completely different question. That is asked to find out if you are ambitious or not.

    That is quite a different question to, "Do you plan to have children in the next 5 years." which in breach of the Equalities Act 2010.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    I get asked this question every other day...and so do all of my male friends particularly those who are old and still unmarried....why are you single? when are you going to get married? when are you going to have children? how many children are you going to have? what your family plans? Men hear these questions every other day and there is no malice, no sexism in these questions....except in the eyes of feminists who view family, marriage and children as forms of abuse.
    I put it to you, on a purely professional level, what business is it of anyone's to know about your home life, your personal relationships or your plans for a family? What on earth has that got to do with your ability to do a job?

    And no, it isn't innocent. If you or your friends had said that they planned to have 5 kids within the next 5 years, chances are they wouldn't have got the job. How is that right?

    You are probably going to say that people with kids are always taking time off and that justifies such questions. But would you expect to be interrogated about how much you drink a week and if you go out on a week day night (arriving to work late or drunk), or would you expect a prospective employer to ask for the specifics of your commute to work so as to determine if you will be late each morning?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    That is a completely different question. That is asked to find out if you are ambitious or not.

    That is quite a different question to, "Do you plan to have children in the next 5 years." which in breach of the Equalities Act 2010.
    My bad, i either read the question to fast or did not properly read it. I agree with what you said in the original comment now.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    I put it to you, on a purely professional level, what business is it of anyone's to know about your home life, your personal relationships or your plans for a family? What on earth has that got to do with your ability to do a job?

    And no, it isn't innocent. If you or your friends had said that they planned to have 5 kids within the next 5 years, chances are they wouldn't have got the job. How is that right?

    You are probably going to say that people with kids are always taking time off and that justifies such questions. But would you expect to be interrogated about how much you drink a week and if you go out on a week day night (arriving to work late or drunk), or would you expect a prospective employer to ask for the specifics of your commute to work so as to determine if you will be late each morning?
    A small company or department could be severely disrupted or even jeopardised if it took on a member of staff who spent the next five years taking six months off every year. Or who joined and then declared they wanted to work part time (for any reason).

    If I, as an interviewer, had any reason to suspect a candidate was a heavy drinker, or had a bad record of taking lots of time off for any reason, I would employ them only reluctantly.

    And, for the record, I have asked every single person I have ever interviewed about their likely commute. Some people are grossly over-ambitious in what they think they can cope with, and how disruptive to life and work it might be, and avoiding the worst effects of such poor planning is an important criterion in recruiting. They can disrupt their lives all they like, but they have to be reliable at work.

    Being employed is not just about being able to the job when you are in the office; it is also about reliability, getting on with the people who you may be pissing off by taking the mickey, and many other factors.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    I put it to you, on a purely professional level, what business is it of anyone's to know about your home life, your personal relationships or your plans for a family? What on earth has that got to do with your ability to do a job?
    On a professional level? EVERYTHING...if I'm going to work a profession that requires I be around 12 hours a day for 5 days straight for an entire year, I cannot employ someone who wants to have children and take time off or work part-time.

    but this is all a bit desperate isn't it ByEeek? People are being slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands in wars across the globe, people are starving to death in Africa in the millions and terrorism has spread to the four corners of the globe and your case for women being a disadvantaged group of people is that people ask them when they will have children? Are you kidding me?

    (Original post by ByEeek)
    And no, it isn't innocent. If you or your friends had said that they planned to have 5 kids within the next 5 years, chances are they wouldn't have got the job. How is that right?
    You think they should have the job? Would you employ someone who was planning to have five children in the next five years? For a woman to have a child, she must become pregnant and pregnancy acts as an impediment to her ability to function effectively at work...particularly if the work is physically demanding. If I was looking for someone to work for me I would not hire someone who can't. Is it fair for a woman to be treated equally to a man when applying for a job when she cannot work as effectively as him ? This is your interpretation of fairness?

    (Original post by ByEeek)
    You are probably going to say that people with kids are always taking time off and that justifies such questions.
    You guessed correctly. Its as clear as light.

    (Original post by ByEeek)
    But would you expect to be interrogated about how much you drink a week and if you go out on a week day night (arriving to work late or drunk), or would you expect a prospective employer to ask for the specifics of your commute to work so as to determine if you will be late each morning?
    I don't understand the logic here? Are you saying that women get asked whether they are drunk when they apply for work and men don't and that this is sexism?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    On a professional level? EVERYTHING...if I'm going to work a profession that requires I be around 12 hours a day for 5 days straight for an entire year, I cannot employ someone who wants to have children and take time off or work part-time.
    And there in lies the problem and in my view is why companies have low staff retention rates and the country has low productivity.

    You, like many employers seem to measure productivity by how much time someone is prepared to sit on a chair in front of the computer you give them and not the value they bring to the business.

    I gave up my career as a software developer because I was fed up with working in environments where everyone looked busy but weren't actually producing anything. And that was simply down to poor management.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    And there in lies the problem and in my view is why companies have low staff retention rates and the country has low productivity.

    You, like many employers seem to measure productivity by how much time someone is prepared to sit on a chair in front of the computer you give them and not the value they bring to the business.

    I gave up my career as a software developer because I was fed up with working in environments where everyone looked busy but weren't actually producing anything. And that was simply down to poor management.
    Wow, we agree on something 😂
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    If equality refers to equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome then yes I think its fair.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    And there in lies the problem and in my view is why companies have low staff retention rates and the country has low productivity.

    You, like many employers seem to measure productivity by how much time someone is prepared to sit on a chair in front of the computer you give them and not the value they bring to the business.

    I gave up my career as a software developer because I was fed up with working in environments where everyone looked busy but weren't actually producing anything. And that was simply down to poor management.
    I did not only mention time but physical ability too. A woman who is pregnant or planning to become pregnant cannot be hired for a job that requires someone to be around 12 hours a day 5 days a week for years on end a man can. Is it fair to give both these genders equal opportunity when one is superior to the other in this regard?

    Would you hire someone that is only able to work part-time and is unable to carry out any physically demanding jobs for a job that is physically demanding, one that requires the employee to be around full-time? NO...Let me give you an example of the implications of hiring such a person to such a role in healthcare. It would mean people dying because the doctor isn't around. It would mean people falling off trollies in hospitals because the pregnant female doctor or healthcare professional is unable to lift them effectively...it would mean hiring more people to fill the gap created by hiring such women to compensate for their physical lacking and their inability to be around full-time and this of course means billions and billions in costs to the tax payer....

    ...and this is exactly what is happening here in the UK in the NHS....decades of sexist women gender initiatives have forced men out of this profession and women into it....the NHS is now paying tens of billions of pounds every year in replacement doctors required to fill the gap created by female doctors most all of whom work part-time.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    I did not only mention time but physical ability too. A woman who is pregnant or planning to become pregnant cannot be hired for a job that requires someone to be around 12 hours a day 5 days a week for years on end a man can. Is it fair to give both these genders equal opportunity when one is superior to the other in this regard?

    Would you hire someone that is only able to work part-time and is unable to carry out any physically demanding jobs for a job that is physically demanding, one that requires the employee to be around full-time? NO...Let me give you an example of the implications of hiring such a person to such a role in healthcare. It would mean people dying because the doctor isn't around. It would mean people falling off trollies in hospitals because the pregnant female doctor or healthcare professional is unable to lift them effectively...it would mean hiring more people to fill the gap created by hiring such women to compensate for their physical lacking and their inability to be around full-time and this of course means billions and billions in costs to the tax payer....

    ...and this is exactly what is happening here in the UK in the NHS....decades of sexist women gender initiatives have forced men out of this profession and women into it....the NHS is now paying tens of billions of pounds every year in replacement doctors required to fill the gap created by female doctors most all of whom work part-time.
    I think the main point, is that despite what you think or would like to think, it is none of your business what someone chooses to do in the future. Sure, you would like to have that control but you can't. It is just one of those things businesses have to suck up. However, you are looking at it far too one dimensionally. Many women quit work after their maternity is up because the business is not prepared to be flexible. As a result the business looses all that knowledge and skill that has been invested.

    Similarly, businesses that only hire men thinking they are a safer bet loose the creativity born by a diverse team and workforce. I was heartened to hear from a number of tech business leaders last week at a conference I attended on this very subject that they are going out of their way to encourage women into their business. Not because of some moral crusade, but simply because they recognise that women bring a different style of creativity to their teams and are essential if they are to maintain an upper hand.

    For too long businesses have seen employees like robots. It is a simple transaction of money for time. What businesses are forgetting is that people are very expensive and the time spent learning the job is very costly. Businesses can't afford to lose people on a whim and short sighted solutions like not employing someone because they might have a year off takes a very short sighted view indeed. Companies that invest in their people and accept that some may have children are the ones people want to work for. They are the companies that get to pick the best talent out there and they are the companies that retain their staff.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    I think the main point, is that despite what you think or would like to think, it is none of your business what someone chooses to do in the future. Sure, you would like to have that control but you can't. It is just one of those things businesses have to suck up. However, you are looking at it far too one dimensionally. Many women quit work after their maternity is up because the business is not prepared to be flexible. As a result the business looses all that knowledge and skill that has been invested.

    Similarly, businesses that only hire men thinking they are a safer bet loose the creativity born by a diverse team and workforce. I was heartened to hear from a number of tech business leaders last week at a conference I attended on this very subject that they are going out of their way to encourage women into their business. Not because of some moral crusade, but simply because they recognise that women bring a different style of creativity to their teams and are essential if they are to maintain an upper hand.

    For too long businesses have seen employees like robots. It is a simple transaction of money for time. What businesses are forgetting is that people are very expensive and the time spent learning the job is very costly. Businesses can't afford to lose people on a whim and short sighted solutions like not employing someone because they might have a year off takes a very short sighted view indeed. Companies that invest in their people and accept that some may have children are the ones people want to work for. They are the companies that get to pick the best talent out there and they are the companies that retain their staff.
    It happened again 😂
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    I think the main point, is that despite what you think or would like to think, it is none of your business what someone chooses to do in the future.
    I'm sorry but this is illogical. If we apply this logic to society nobody would be arrested for crimes because hey these are personal choices. If someone's choice is wrong, if someone's choice does more harm than good to society, I have the full right to intervene in that choice of theirs and prevent them from carrying it out.

    Is equality fair? Is allowing people equal opportunities fair? The question still stands despite these concepts effecting personal choices.

    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Sure, you would like to have that control but you can't. It is just one of those things businesses have to suck up.
    Societies governed by such logic are unfair and in need of change.

    (Original post by ByEeek)
    However, you are looking at it far too one dimensionally. Many women quit work after their maternity is up because the business is not prepared to be flexible.
    That's not the case here in the UK were employers are not allowed to discriminate in any way shape or form against pregnant women. Women choose to take time off after giving birth to take care of their children a choice dictated to them by their biology. After giving birth, for example, women start lactating. That process alone takes roughly 1hr per session between 4 and 10 times a day for up to two years. She will be unable to work efficiently throughout that time. So the reproductive nature of women prevents them from working the same amount of time or as efficiently as men for three years (if you were to include the 9 months of pregnancy) of their life during pregnancy and after child birth. Now the average women in the UK has around two children. That is 6 years worth of part-time work per woman that is purely the result of biology and nothing else. It goes without saying that this time off work will affect the overall average progression at work, salary, wages etc. Is it fair to treat them equally to men at work when they are not equal? That is the question of this thread.

    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Similarly, businesses that only hire men thinking they are a safer bet loose the creativity born by a diverse team and workforce.
    No business can hire only men but companies are allowed to hire only women thanks to sexist gender initiatives. In this country businesses are required to submit reports about the staff that they hire and their gender and these reports are assessed by the government for discrimination. Employers are required to prove to the government that they do not employ a discriminatory hiring policy....

    ...but the question here isn't whether companies should be hiring women or not but whether or not women and men deserve equal opportunities and equal outcomes when they are not equal. Should a women who is unable to work the same amount of time or as efficiently as men be earning the same overall salary and progressing at the same rate? that would be unfair.

    (Original post by ByEeek)
    I was heartened to hear from a number of tech business leaders last week at a conference I attended on this very subject that they are going out of their way to encourage women into their business.
    That is the exact same sexist policy forced on the NHS 70 years ago...the outcome of which 70 years later is an NHS on the brink of a collapse and a work force largely made up of women that refuse to work extended hours because they want a work life balance that revolves around their biological disposition to have and care for children before they hit menopause. These sexist policies wind up destroying the very same companies who employ them.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Generally speaking, men and women are capable of the same things. Hence we should expect to see equal outcomes in an increasingly equal world.
    Capability is only one factor though, individuals desires, motivations etc must play an important role.

    A good example is Sweden, arguably one of the most equal societies on earth and what you find is women dominating the healthcare professions and men dominating the engineering, software etc. Professions.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.