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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People who think that the economy would be better off if the state had run banking: this is the calibre of people you're talking about. If you think bankers are bad, you haven't taken a hard enough look at politicians.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    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.

    It's not defeatist, because not everyone is equal, because not everyone is the same - surely as someone who I expect believes in the rampant individualism of our society, you can accept that not everyone is the same? From that it follows we cannot be equal. And as I said attempts at social engineering to achieve this unobtainable uptopia tend to end in disaster.

    After more then a decade of Nu Labour in government and their attempts at social engineering - things have in fact got worse. Increasing gap between rich and poor, decreased social mobility, worsening education.

    And if you want to see just how much Harman hates men:

    She was the co-author of a report entitled ‘The Family Way’ which criticised the family unit and mothers who stay at home. In particular it questioned whether men were an asset to families at all and whether “the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion”.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Feminism loses.

    The amount of wives out buying clothes on their husband's credit cards and mortgages suggests the opposite. :ninja:

    Seriously though, everyone is responsible. We can't go making scapegoats. This woman should be working to sort out the mess rather than revelling in it while standing on her soapbox shouting feminist lies.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    It's not defeatist, because not everyone is equal, because not everyone is the same - surely as someone who I expect believes in the rampant individualism of our society, you can accept that not everyone is the same? From that it follows we cannot be equal. And as I said attempts at social engineering to achieve this unobtainable uptopia tend to end in disaster.

    After more then a decade of Nu Labour in government and their attempts at social engineering - things have in fact got worse. Increasing gap between rich and poor, decreased social mobility, worsening education.

    And if you want to see just how much Harman hates men:
    Of course not everyone is equal, but everyone should benefit from equality of opportunity. With this in place, you come nearer to achieving equality of outcome. This ultimately results in a fairer, more equal society.

    I don't support Labour - I'm a socialist and I agree with your second point that much still needs to be done to address out social problems.

    Although, questioning whether many fathers exert a positive influence on families doesn't indicate that Harman hates men. It's a valid debate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BillV3)
    For some reason that first comment reminded me so much of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJMW6...om=PL&index=43
    Tha's quite amusing actually :top:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    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.
    I think she's going a little further than that, men causing the credit crunch, guaranteed places for women in the top jobs - regardless of whether men have a place there too, she seems to be hinting that women are naturally better suited to politics. I think the current political system is the best suited for equality, though it's admittedly not perfect. Hardly anyone helped women to be taken seriously more than Thatcher, I think if more people attempted to follow her and have a similar impact without putting in place ridiculous laws it would do much more to help women in society in general.

    And yet after all this, if we were to fight World War 1 again, I bet Harman wouldn't support the mass conscription of both men and women to being marched across the Somme to their deaths, in fact, I bet no feminists would.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig_D)
    I think she's going a little further than that, men causing the credit crunch, guaranteed places for women in the top jobs - regardless of whether men have a place there too, she seems to be hinting that women are naturally better suited to politics. I think the current political system is the best suited for equality, though it's admittedly not perfect. Hardly anyone helped women to be taken seriously more than Thatcher, I think if more people attempted to follow her and have a similar impact without putting in place ridiculous laws it would do much more to help women in society in general.

    And yet after all this, if we were to fight World War 1 again, I bet Harman wouldn't support the mass conscription of both men and women to being marched across the Somme to their deaths, in fact, I bet no feminists would.
    Thatcher did nothing for women. She only cared about herself, and nothing about easing the struggle women faced entering the male-dominated world of politics.
    Her own political views were abhorrent also.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This woman gives feminists a bad name.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Harriet Harman is one of the many many reasons New Labour needs to get the boot, ASAP.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Harriet Harman. Isn't that the name of the politician who became prime minister in Doctor Who?

    (yes i know shes a real politician too :p:)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps inadequate people should stop blaming discrimination, sexism, glass ceilings and the rest of it for their own failure to achieve in life.

    There is no big conspiracy against women. Really, there isn't. The world is not full of men whose sole desire is to oppress women (although, they may exist in small sects, admittedly).

    You need thick skin to succeed; anywhere. Hypothetically speaking, if you can't take a heckling from some sexist banker, it does suggest you're not cut out for the financial world. Want to fit in? Heckle back. Stand up for yourself.

    How can people sit and think that women would honestly be turned away from jobs and promotions because of their gender? You seem to forget, these corporations are all about one thing: money. Cold hard cash. If women made it better than men, these corporations would be full of women. Also, in some sectors, the qualities required or desired are ones found more prevalent in men. This isn't to say women can't have them, though; it may take a period of acquistion, however.

    Think about it like this; if you were a multi-national corporation, would you want to sacrifice the quality of your services in the interest of equality? I wouldn't. No self-respecting business-person would. Business isn't about equality or fairness, it isn't about men versus women - it's about money. Nothing else.

    If you are truly skilled at what you do, your gender will not hold you back. Finance, law, sport, politics, whatever you like. There have been plenty of successful women who have proved 'discrimination' just doesn't count. And if they can do it, so can others. It is only a shame that the inadequate people who don't fare as well as they think they should, are so quick to fall back on the cry of discrimination.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Thatcher did nothing for women. She only cared about herself, and nothing about easing the struggle women faced entering the male-dominated world of politics.
    Her own political views were abhorrent also.
    Exactly, and that's why she ironically did the most. If she had come into power and put in place ultra-feminist laws then that would have caused a siege mentality amongst 'masculinists' that would have caused enough stigma for it to not happen again. The fact that she avoided being too extreme has done more for women in society than anything else she could have done. Due to her, nobody has a problem against more female leaders, because she didn't cause much of a fuss and shown that it wasn't a bad thing. Put an extremist like Harman in charge and it will be a while before it happens again.

    I for one have no problem with more female leaders, I don't think it'll be too long before it happens again, but I wouldn't want it to be forced upon me, that's wrong. If you allow it to naturally happen then slowly society will change, but nobody will get anywhere by trying to force it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Devil in Your Details)
    Perhaps inadequate people should stop blaming discrimination, sexism, glass ceilings and the rest of it for their own failure to achieve in life.

    There is no big conspiracy against women. Really, there isn't. The world is not full of men whose sole desire is to oppress women (although, they may exist in small sects, admittedly).

    You need thick skin to succeed; anywhere. Hypothetically speaking, if you can't take a heckling from some sexist banker, it does suggest you're not cut out for the financial world. Want to fit in? Heckle back. Stand up for yourself.

    How can people sit and think that women would honestly be turned away from jobs and promotions because of their gender? You seem to forget, these corporations are all about one thing: money. Cold hard cash. If women made it better than men, these corporations would be full of women. Also, in some sectors, the qualities required or desired are ones found more prevalent in men. This isn't to say women can't have them, though; it may take a period of acquistion, however.

    Think about it like this; if you were a multi-national corporation, would you want to sacrifice the quality of your services in the interest of equality? I wouldn't. No self-respecting business-person would. Business isn't about equality or fairness, it isn't about men versus women - it's about money. Nothing else.

    If you are truly skilled at what you do, your gender will not hold you back. Finance, law, sport, politics, whatever you like. There have been plenty of successful women who have proved 'discrimination' just doesn't count. And if they can do it, so can others. It is only a shame that the inadequate people who don't fare as well as they think they should, are so quick to fall back on the cry of discrimination.
    I agree with you absolutely 100%.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig_D)
    Exactly, and that's why she ironically did the most. If she had come into power and put in place ultra-feminist laws then that would have caused a siege mentality amongst 'masculinists' that would have caused enough stigma for it to not happen again. The fact that she avoided being too extreme has done more for women in society than anything else she could have done. Due to her, nobody has a problem against more female leaders, because she didn't cause much of a fuss and shown that it wasn't a bad thing. Put an extremist like Harman in charge and it will be a while before it happens again.

    I for one have no problem with more female leaders, I don't think it'll be too long before it happens again, but I wouldn't want it to be forced upon me, that's wrong. If you allow it to naturally happen then slowly society will change, but nobody will get anywhere by trying to force it.
    Society rarely moves quickly enough without decisive action.

    Thatcher is perhaps the most hated Prime Minister of all time. I would not hold her up as someone to aspire to, and that no one should have any 'problem against female leaders' is no thanks to Thatcher. It is precisely thanks to the feminist legislation which awarded women greater rights and opportunities.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    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.
    Good grief, you're insane. Of course there are psychological differences between the genders, it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. It is not some construct of a male dominated society for our own ends, that's just unbelievable on so many levels, and really demonstrates the depths of your delusion.

    My maths and physics classes are dominated by men, my German class is almost completely female. Is this due to some innate discrimination in the educational system pushing women towards languages, etc.
    Men are, on average, more interested and more talented at maths. The same is true for women and languages. But this doesn't stop the most talented linguist I know being male or some of the most talented mathematicians I know being female, and the same is true in the rest of life.

    To say that these differences always benefit men is wrong, men are just as likely to end up in menial jobs as women, which are hardly well paid. If you regard the generally more caring mentality of women as something negative, well, that's your prejudice.
    Men, by your own admission, are more often natural risk takers, which gives them an obvious advantage in many jobs. If you don't like that, tough.

    Face facts, investment banking is something which is more likely to interest men, and something which is generally more suited to the male psyche and talents. With absolute equality you would never naturally get a 50/50 balance.

    Edit: I also love that baking is listed as one of your interests on your profile.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    Good grief, you're insane. Of course there are psychological differences between the genders, it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. It is not some construct of a male dominated society for our own ends, that's just unbelievable on so many levels, and really demonstrates the depths of your delusion.

    My maths and physics classes are dominated by men, my German class is almost completely female. Is this due to some innate discrimination in the educational system pushing women towards languages, etc.
    Men are, on average, more interested and more talented at maths. The same is true for women and languages. But this doesn't stop the most talented linguist I know being male or some of the most talented mathematicians I know being female, and the same is true in the rest of life.

    To say that these differences always benefit men is wrong, men are just as likely to end up in menial jobs as women, which are hardly well paid. If you regard the generally more caring mentality of women as something negative, well, that's your prejudice.
    Men, by your own admission, are more often natural risk takers, which gives them an obvious advantage in many jobs. If you don't like that, tough.

    Face facts, investment banking is something which is more likely to interest men, and something which is generally more suited to the male psyche and talents. With absolute equality you would never naturally get a 50/50 balance.
    You are blind to how profoundly we are influenced by social conditioning.
    Do you have any evidence to support your claims?
    Why is investment banking more likely to appeal to men? I don't suppose it has anything to do with it already being a male-dominated profession, therfore appearing more male-friendly? This would encourage more men to apply for finance jobs but would discourage women who would find it more difficult to forge contacts and connections is a male-dominated environment.

    Likewise with maths and languages. They are percieved to be gender-specific subjects when they really are not. At my all-girls school for example, similar numbers of girls study sciences and maths at A-level as they do humanities and languages. We are shaped by the roles that are created for us and not by our supposed inherent characteristics.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    You are blind to how profoundly we are influenced by social conditioning.
    Do you have any evidence to support your claims?
    Why is investment banking more likely to appeal to men? I don't suppose it has anything to do with it already being a male-dominated profession, therfore appearing more male-friendly? This would encourage more men to apply for finance jobs but would discourage women who would find it more difficult to forge contacts and connections is a male-dominated environment.

    Likewise with maths and languages. They are percieved to be gender-specific subjects when they really are not. At my all-girls school for example, similar numbers of girls study sciences and maths at A-level as they do humanities and languages. We are shaped by the roles that are created for us and not by our supposed inherent characteristics.
    Did it ever occur to you that the City of London was built by men, and when it was built men weren't going 'this is a mens only club'.

    or that men are better at doing some things, and women better at doing others?

    There aren't many female builders for example, or male nannys, is that in some way wrong?

    I think your problem is your fixation of sex discrimination and female oppression has blinded you to other truths... you can't see the forest for the trees so to speak.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moreiniho)
    There was a fantastic piece in the letters section of The Times today which completely ripped the **** out her equality drive.
    Awesome


    It strikes me that many feminists women have a warped view of "equality" is. Instead of people being considered to have equal status and being given equal opportunities they take it as a more mathmatical operator of equality only being acheived if the number of men = the number of women which is clearly falacious. Afterall does it not follow that we want the government to do the best job possible at running the country, and in order to run the country as best as possible we need the best team. The best team of course being a compromise of not only being the best qualified people for each individual job but also being able to work together and contribute to the coordinated action of the whole (this of course instantly discounts Harperson as she continuously spouts such offensive bile that it must be nigh impossible for any man to work with her). Now in picking said best team i would hope the PM will choose those people on said qualifications of being skilled at the job and being able to work in the team; NOT on criteria such as how tall they are, where they live, what colour their hair is OR what sex they are for that matter. Thus the equality is derived from each person being compared fairly on relevant criteria not from proportionally allocating roles to people from each possible subdivision of our society. Equally this argument applies to any meritocratic role not just the government so companies such as banks should not be forced to potentially abdicate their business potential on the grounds that they should have equal numbers of men and women on their boards. (not saying more women on a board would damage a banks performance only that there should not be some imposed quota forcing them to make a decision on something other than what a candidate can contribute to the role) :yes:

    Finally in anticipation of an ill though out refutation of my argument above. If we're going to have clear numerical equality between the sexes as Harman clearly desires, I will point out that women take up 60% of the NHS's resources and that children in divorce custody battles are allocated to the mother the majority of the time- so you can have your numerical equality if you wish but it must work both ways! [/sarcasm]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Unfortunately for the human race, only women can be pregnant and have children, which is pretty much a disadvantage that women cant blame on sexism, or gender inequality, but can get over by simply not having children if they want to be on the same playing field as men. Bearing in mind that the human race would not live on if every woman did that, as well as the way that nature has made female the nurturing parent of a species, its just the way women may choose to go, and a natural instinct.

    The nature of the human race is that men have always been the hunters and providers for a family, and women have always been the nurturing parent. Its the way society developed from the very beginning of humanity, when we were neanderthal, and naturally developed its way through development of civilisation as we know it.

    Both genders can go to school, 6th form and university. Both genders can start businesses, or work for big institutions at the top level as well as get into politics. Except, its just a loss for society to lose too many women to working in such time consuming jobs which require that much commitment which sometimes may not be compatible with having to raise a child. Coupled to a declining population and, well it doesnt take a genius to figure it out. Women are of course welcome to try and raise children simultaneously, but that is a huge challenge to anyone, and few would want to take that on
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    I think you deserve credit for so completely and utterly distorting what I said. I maintain that I do not believe there are any tangible differences between the genders - this therefore means that there should be no gender dominated professions, which is why there should be more women working in the financial sector in the interests of gender equality.
    did you ever consider that maybe there aren't many women in the financial sector because men are better than women in this field of work?

    (not necessarily my opinion, just fed up of people assuming that 'equality' means an equal number of men and women)
 
 
 
  • 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 like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.