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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rooster523)
    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)
    No.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Tha's quite amusing actually :top:
    Unfortunately it wasn't the whole clip I wanted =[
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    she ain't so bad...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig_D)
    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.
    There was actually an article in The Times today suggesting that these days it's actually harder for women to gain custody than men, since the pendulum has swung the other way following all the male campaigning. The article wasn't exactly superb and I don't know how credible it was as it relied on mainly anecdotal evidence (though there was a horrible story about a mother who lost custody of her son because he had complained that his father had hurt him "down there" and when she mentioned this the father accused her of turning the son against him) ... however, there is the point that there is no evidence that men are discriminated against in the family law courts these days. Yes, far more mothers than fathers are granted custody, but then, far more mothers than fathers are the primary care-givers.

    I do think that if there were more women in the top banking jobs the credit crunch may not have happened or may have been less severe - merely due do the innately different natures of men and women, with women being more careful and less risk-taking - but I don't think 50% of top banking jobs should be taken by women just in the name of equality. I believe many women don't want that level of stress in their lives, and power and money are less important to them. Indeed, I'm struggling to think of what I would like to do in life because I would like to earn a significant amount but I also would hate to have a job that took over my life.

    In any case, it's stupid to say that the credit crunch was caused by "men" as opposed to "a select bunch of greedy irresponsible *********".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by megadeath999)
    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
    I think it's fine for women to choose to sacrifice their careers to motherhood if they so desire, but it irritates the **** out of me that some people expect women to choose between kids and a career when men don't have to. What if the women physically bore the kids but stayed at work whilst the man stayed at home and looked after them? It happens, and it can work very well. If all women were forced to choose and decided they'd rather have careers, thank you very much, they would be condemned as selfish and evil by half the population for not prioritising the continuation of the human race - even though they would just be choosing the lifestyle that that half is entitled to.

    Obviously I know that many women would rather scrap the career to raise kids, and that's fine, but they shouldn't have to just because "that's what nature intended". Nature also intended pubic hair, but blokes are often more than happy to overrule that ...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jelkin)
    I think it's fine for women to choose to sacrifice their careers to motherhood if they so desire, but it irritates the **** out of me that some people expect women to choose between kids and a career when men don't have to. What if the women physically bore the kids but stayed at work whilst the man stayed at home and looked after them? It happens, and it can work very well. If all women were forced to choose and decided they'd rather have careers, thank you very much, they would be condemned as selfish and evil by half the population for not prioritising the continuation of the human race - even though they would just be choosing the lifestyle that that half is entitled to.

    Obviously I know that many women would rather scrap the career to raise kids, and that's fine, but they shouldn't have to just because "that's what nature intended". Nature also intended pubic hair, but blokes are often more than happy to overrule that ...
    European Appeals Court held that if men take paternity leave they may face lower pay, just like women who take maternity leave.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Of course men created the credit crunch, if it wasn't for them there would be no economy to get crunched in the first place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jelkin)
    I think it's fine for women to choose to sacrifice their careers to motherhood if they so desire, but it irritates the **** out of me that some people expect women to choose between kids and a career when men don't have to. What if the women physically bore the kids but stayed at work whilst the man stayed at home and looked after them? It happens, and it can work very well. If all women were forced to choose and decided they'd rather have careers, thank you very much, they would be condemned as selfish and evil by half the population for not prioritising the continuation of the human race - even though they would just be choosing the lifestyle that that half is entitled to.

    Obviously I know that many women would rather scrap the career to raise kids, and that's fine, but they shouldn't have to just because "that's what nature intended". Nature also intended pubic hair, but blokes are often more than happy to overrule that ...
    It is feminisms fault that women face the choice between a career and childcare. The proliferation of abortion and female only contraceptives have meant that instead of society providing for mothers to take their children into the work place women have to choose. I don't think society condemns women very much, especially if they spend the first year looking after the child and then go from there. Even then I don't think they do. My grandma was a childminder for 15 years and a lot of women were happy to leave their children straight after maternity leave finished, and no one cared.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Men may be to blame more for the credit crunch because they dominate the financial sector as well as being financial provider for women. But the fewer gold diggers the better. I expect my relationships to be fully equal - socially, culturally, economically and otherwise. But then if women were more economically productive there will be less strain for men to help out, which needs to be resolved. It's more to do with the environment of banking than anything.

    As far as I know, consumers have relied on too much on debt to pay for consumer goods regardless of gender.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    - currently, its overt male presence is discouraging many women from applying for such jobs. I cannot see why women would naturally not want to reach those senior positions.
    Because women aren't just one huge block with the same drives, interests, and skills?

    To say some individuals are discouraged may be the case but there is nothing stopping them from going for the role.

    If you're going to persist in presenting Men and Women as different groups rather than all of them being individuals, I may be discouraged from applying for a career with lots of men in it because I wouldn't have wimminz around to oggle at. :awesome:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Question:

    Under this logic are we assuming that it is the fault of women that Baby P and other innocent children have died because of failures in social services due to the fact that most social workers are female?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Harman is, frankly, a bit barmy and rather thick. That's all there is to it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think that she should give a public apology for her statements.

    I'm all for sexual equality (no, really I am!), but this is quite frankly, sexism against men. Or am I wrong... does sexism only occur when it's against women, so bashing men is fine?

    Also, her saying that a woman should always have one of the top two posts is completely against democracy. There's nothing you can say to defend it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    You are blind to how profoundly we are influenced by social conditioning.
    You're a fool. Children show gender differences in behaviour, interests and talents long before they can socialise properly with others, often to the dismay of equality-committed parents. Even as toddlers boys are more adventurous, louder and, yes, boisterous than girls.
    This is a generalisation, of course.

    By your own admission men have more testosterone, which influences behaviour in obvious ways.

    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.
    There was a time when professions like medicine were male-dominated and more male-friendly. Now is isn't. Go figure.

    Finance and investment banking are, by their very nature, quite maths related, which we've already established is something more men do. Then of course it's a very stressful job with long hours, which suits the more obsessive nature of men down to a tee, compared to women. Lastly it's insanely well paid, which is something men seek out far more than women. Also it relies on risk taking, even on a basic level. By your own admission, this is something men are better at and enjoy more.

    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.
    This is because maths and sciences are more popular subjects than arts and languages (I don't mention humanities, because I think the gender split is more equal there). At my college we have something ridiculous like one and a half thousand people taking maths, and then something around a hundred doing German. As I understand it it's a similar case for physics and other languages, arts, etc. If there were a similar number of girls doing languages and maths therefore then that would surely vindicate my point.

    Now, it's worth pointing out that girls form a much larger number of the people doing biology and chemistry, the less mathsy sciences. Its also worth pointing out that physics isn't considered cool by anyone.

    But I would also ask you where these gender-specific subject expectations came from, and why? Arts and languages were once male dominated fields as well, when there really was sexism about this stuff. Why is is therefore that these subjects have become female dominated where as others haven't, if not an innate disposition? Are physicists just more sexist than linguists?

    Finally, I'd like to challenge your breathtaking claim that gender differences always favour men by pointing out that significantly more women go to university now than men.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jelkin)
    Obviously I know that many women would rather scrap the career to raise kids, and that's fine, but they shouldn't have to just because "that's what nature intended". Nature also intended pubic hair, but blokes are often more than happy to overrule that ...
    Nobody is forcing women to do anything, nor denying them any right to have a career. It is just that for a happily married couple with a child, it is just usually the way it goes for the father to keep working and the mother to look after the child. Disrupt only one persons career rather than both careers if a woman had to take maternity leave then go back to work, while a father works then stops to look after children.

    There are many women with children that do go to work, single mothers. There are many single mothers out there doing a very very hard job balancing bringing up a child and having a job. I have been living in a single parent household for most of my life and my mother has done a great job bringing my brother and I up from very young ages. But I know any single mother out there given the chance would rather they had the financial and other support that the father of the family could provide.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Herman's statement is pathetic. People should be chosen for jobs based on their skills, not on their gender. No wonder the Labour Party is doing so badly in the polls when its leaders are too busy waffling on about ridiculous equality bills. Frankly they should concentrate on the real problems that this country is facing. It would be nice to see Ms Herman spend more time discussing the economic crisis and the war in Afghanistan rather than banging on about women.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I assume she'd be in support for women to have full equality on the front line as soldiers then.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I assume she'd be in support for women to have full equality on the front line as soldiers then.
    Without doubt!
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I assume she'd be in support for women to have full equality on the front line as soldiers then.
    Please can she be out on the front line with them!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Of course there is need, indeed because there are no differences. Where is the equality in a male dominated Cabinet?
    the equality is the fact that there could be a 50-50 split of genders in the cabinet, there is no law against it.

    but as for wanting 'the results fixed' and legislating it so there has to be - forget it, that flies in the face of meritocracy.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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.