Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Will someone just hurry up and sack the ***** :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Yes. Women routinely face discrimination, paticularly in the financial sector. This can manifest itself in sexual harrasment or being sidelined when it comes to promotion for example.

    What experience do you have? I know I certainly have no desire to enter a 'caring' profession, but many women are steered towards these (conveniently) lower paid professions rather than towards positions in the financial sector where the rewards are greatest.
    If you believe that there really are psycological differences between men and women, why is it always women who fare worst, in that women are supposedly more innately 'caring' and are consequently better suited to menial, poorly paid professions such as nursing. This idea of inherent differences is beneficial to men only, and ensures they withold a monopoly on the jobs with greatest prestige and reward.
    I suggest you revise your attitudes towards the nursing profession.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Turns out that these gentlemen who caused the financial downturn with their risk taking, were pursuing the large bonuses to fund their wives' expensive tastes in handbags and shoes. :rolleyes:

    More atrocious gender stereotyping and incorrect causation/correlation arguments later...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If I was Gordon Brown I'd have her gagged and hid a cupboard until the next general election was over.... she's certainly not helping labour's (admittedly piss-poor) situation
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    Perhaps one of the questions we should be asking is; in a post feminist age, where the traditional roles of women being homemakers and men going out to work are much more fluid (a product of cultural uncertainty) - is our society any happier for it?

    In many families (a social structure in decline having suffered relentless attack from the liberal elite) a dual income is not an option but a neccesity, meaning the bond between mother and child in a childs early years is weakened, something many women, I believe, regret.

    So the questions stands; is society any happier for feminists waging their war of 'equality'?
    Yes. Women can now harbour aspirations beyond a life spent in the home, and can benefit from greater opportunity and choice. It is also perfectly possible to forge a strong bond with ones child, while retaining ones independence and continuing to work if one chooses to. The challenge lies in ensuring employers provide flexible working hours and childcare options for their employees, both male and female. The concept of 'family' hasn't diminished because of increased gender equality.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Yes. Women routinely face discrimination, paticularly in the financial sector. This can manifest itself in sexual harrasment or being sidelined when it comes to promotion for example.

    What experience do you have? I know I certainly have no desire to enter a 'caring' profession, but many women are steered towards these (conveniently) lower paid professions rather than towards positions in the financial sector where the rewards are greatest.
    If you believe that there really are psycological differences between men and women, why is it always women who fare worst, in that women are supposedly more innately 'caring' and are consequently better suited to menial, poorly paid professions such as nursing. This idea of inherent differences is beneficial to men only, and ensures they withold a monopoly on the jobs with greatest prestige and reward.
    It is very easy for a woman to take action if she has been sexually assaulted or blatantly sidelined for promotion. This is because we live in a society in which genders have equal rights and opportunities.

    There will always be some men who sideline women professionally, as there will be women who sideline men in women dominated professions. Some people are bigots. However, I assume this sort of discrimination is rare. For example, in finance an employer would generally employ the candidate who can make him the most money.

    Sorry, by experience, I meant from life experience i.e. knowing many more women in caring professions. Social work, for instance, is dominated by women. Similarly to you, I don't particularly conform to the male stereotype of being motivated by money or power, but this doesn't render the generalisation false. Caring professions are paid less, and this is unfair, but completely beside the point - this is more to do with our social priorities than sexism.

    Simply, women have equal opportunities and equal rights. They are given an equal education and are paid equally to men in the same profession. Feminism has achieved these egalitarian goals, but men and women tend to be different and are differently motivated.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moreiniho)
    I suggest you revise your attitudes towards the nursing profession.
    Nursing is relatively poorly paid, the hours long and it's often very hard.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    A more correct number would be around half. Currently, there are only110 woman non-executive directors, 14.5 per cent of the total. This is unacceptable.

    Are you incapable of arguing or are you just going to limit yourself to a smiley?
    The ability to obtain a job should be determined by ability, not gender. If a woman is better than a man for a job, she should get that job, yes. Those statistics would suggest that either most of the best applicants were male or not that many women applied/were in the business long enough to be promoted, not necessarily sex discrimination.
    Having said that... I do think that men are more suited to banking. Lets think of it this way... how many women in the country could/would want to work [an up to] 90 hour week in a job that has no credibility anymore and in which you have your boss looking over your shoulder every 4.5 minutes? I'd guess less than the amount of men that would.

    I don't think anyone on this forum really has the know-how (unless they deal with interviews in the FS) to even claim sexual discrimination occurs on such a large scale, as assumed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    it's just like the white supremacists and neonazis all blaming the jews who they say run the banking system, and the blacks and hispanics they say took out all those bad mortgages

    we really are a ******* predictable bunch aren't we?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Yes. Women routinely face discrimination, paticularly in the financial sector. This can manifest itself in sexual harrasment or being sidelined when it comes to promotion for example.

    What experience do you have? I know I certainly have no desire to enter a 'caring' profession, but many women are steered towards these (conveniently) lower paid professions rather than towards positions in the financial sector where the rewards are greatest.
    If you believe that there really are psycological differences between men and women, why is it always women who fare worst, in that women are supposedly more innately 'caring' and are consequently better suited to menial, poorly paid professions such as nursing. This idea of inherent differences is beneficial to men only, and ensures they withold a monopoly on the jobs with greatest prestige and reward.
    1- Only the attractive ones.

    2- Where do you get this crap from?? Many women and indeed, shock horror, MEN go into nursing. They do this because they find it a rewarding career- you can't make sweeping generalisations that because it is lower paid that people must be forced into it!

    You seem very driven by money. Believe me, just because some women dont go into certain professions doesnt mean that they arent capable- what they are capable of also is to CHOOSE where they work. Not everywhere is going to be balanced gender wise, because some people choose to work elsewhere, same with all minority groups. Im not saying that a few of these minorities suffer discrimination, but really suggesting that everywhere should be 50:50 men and women is wrong- for example, how many men do you know that want to be nail technicians?? Its a small number. Some women dont want to automatically become Barristers, bankers, politicians etc. I myself will be going into a male dominated industry (engineering), but that is irrelevant. That brings me to my final point; people are people. Harman and the ultra-egalitarians seem to focus on wether someone is black, female, disabled, gay or whatever. There is a person underneath all of this, and there is always more to them than their race, condition, sexuality or whatever, and they should be treated as such.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    She certainly recieved a sizeable majority in her constituency.
    Yep, and the number of people that buy boy bad records proves they are good musicians, too.

    I think more women should be encouraged to work in the financial sector
    Encouraged how? By robbing hard working people in other industries to pay some people to then subsidise women's jobs? To penalise employers who refuse to turn down good workers infavour of a female runner-up? Is that a feminist victim, to create a situation in which women can't know whether they get their jobs because they were good candidates or just because they were women.

    - currently, its overt male presence is discouraging many women from applying for such jobs.
    You are saying that the mere presence of men puts women off? What, are they scared of men, or do they just find them physically unapealing?

    I cannot see why women would naturally not want to reach those senior positions.
    Well, the jobs don't interest me personally, and I imagine many other people might feel likewise. I also imagine that many women choose to do other things instead, like take time off to have kids, something that disrupts the kind of career path a person needs to pursue in order to gain position as a director.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    If cabinet members should be selected on their merit and not on the basis of what hangs between their legs, then it is certainly possible that all the members of the cabinet be men if all the best candidates are men. Saying that half the cabinet should be women whether those women are better than male candidates for those positions is sexist, and it is saying that people should be judged by what sex they are rather than how good at their job they are.
    So very true. Wise words.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Nursing is relatively poorly paid, the hours long and it's often very hard.
    So is being a manual labourer..we can't all be bussiness executives, these jobs need doing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, I'm sure if it were up to women, we'd still be spending like there was no tomorrow
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Are labour trying to lose the election in style?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    Are labour trying to lose the election in style?
    Harriet is like a TSR user with 14 warning points.

    About to be banned, so just trolling for the lulz.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Define 'equal rights'.
    Currently, all men have the right to access with their children following a divorce unless they have a history of prolonged violence or abuse against the mother and/or children.
    The right to access? Well that's hardly fair is it? I'm not big on law in that area admittedly, but you must agree that it's a double standard to fight for equal rights for women whilst leaving in place a law like that? At least there are no laws against women, the problems Harman talks about are just problems with society, if they get enough backing then they can do anything, but a decent man that has done nothing wrong still only has "access" to his children, Fathers for Justice must have a point? It's being hypocritical to say that they don't, surely.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Practicality? Why is achieving equality impractical?
    Perhaps Olivia you would like to respond to my original point about equality:

    Probably because 'equality' is chimerical; attempts at socially engineering it (by those who cannot accept that human existence is by its very nature compromised and not equal), tend to end in disaster. Furthermore, they are not really motivated by a belief in equality at all, but hatred for those percieved as privileged...In Harmans case this is a hatred of men - in her ideal world we should be under no illusions of men and women running things 50/50, men are very much suborindate to women.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    Perhaps Olivia you would like to respond to my original point about equality:

    Probably because 'equality' is chimerical; attempts at socially engineering it (by those who cannot accept that human existence is by its very nature compromised and not equal), tend to end in disaster. Furthermore, they are not really motivated by a belief in equality at all, but hatred for those percieved as privileged...In Harmans case this is a hatred of men - in her ideal world we should be under no illusions of men and women running things 50/50, men are very much suborindate to women.
    I didn't respond because I didn't deem it worthy. It is a defeatist attitude to argue humanity is fundamentally unequal - there will always be different levels of inequality and it is the duty of those with a social conscience to fight for a more equal society. Harman doesn't hate men, but she believes that men should not win in society at the expense of women. She doesn't want to subjugate men, she wants equality with them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    A more correct number would be around half. Currently, there are only110 woman non-executive directors, 14.5 per cent of the total. This is unacceptable.

    Are you incapable of arguing or are you just going to limit yourself to a smiley?
    For some reason that first comment reminded me so much of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJMW6...om=PL&index=43
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.