Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[romeohwho]

Company is offering a $15,000 scholarship to a high-achieveing penultimate year FEMALE law student at the moment in WA.


I've never seen a scholarship for a high achieving male law student - because that would be sexist :/

This is despite the fact that women outnumber men in Law enrolements 60-40 and maybe even closer to 65-35 and female graduates outnumber male grads.

But we gotta keep looking out for da girls.


Is it too much to ask to just give scholarships to PEOPLE and not a specific gender or race.

What company?

 

[Jiska]

I wish we could still use 'thread tools'. I'd love to see how many times it has the word strawman.

I'd guess over 150.

Only 78.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Only 78.

once every 3.5 pages...

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Only 78.

Including strawmen, he'd be pushing 100.

IMO it should be strawpeople; strawman is a gendered term. Im in solidarity with strawwomen everywhere.

 

[Chief]

Company is offering a $15,000 scholarship to a high-achieveing penultimate year FEMALE law student at the moment in WA.


I've never seen a scholarship for a high achieving male law student - because that would be sexist :/

This is despite the fact that women outnumber men in Law enrolements 60-40 and maybe even closer to 65-35 and female graduates outnumber male grads.

But we gotta keep looking out for da girls.


Is it too much to ask to just give scholarships to PEOPLE and not a specific gender or race.

Meanwhile, 46% of practising lawyers are women. and only 19% of senior positions in legal firms are filled by women.

Only 19% of barristers and 6% of SCs are women.

Weird, huh?

 

[kfc1]

Meanwhile, 46% of practising lawyers are women. and only 19% of senior positions in legal firms are filled by women.

Only 19% of barristers and 6% of SCs are women.

Weird, huh?

Why is that?
Surely you have some stats for us about it.

 

[Chief]

Why is that?
Surely you have some stats for us about it.

There are the stats. In the post. That you quoted.

If you're going to post, try to make sense rather than just trolling.

Oh you want a link?

http://www.arkgroupaustralia.com.au...inProfessionalServices2014/08emmahlubucek.pdf

 

[kfc1]

There are the stats. In the post. That you quoted.

If you're going to post, try to make sense rather than just trolling.

Oh you want a link?

http://www.arkgroupaustralia.com.au...inProfessionalServices2014/08emmahlubucek.pdf

The stats you posted do not tell us why, which is what i asked.

 

[Lebbo73]

The stats you posted do not tell us why, which is what i asked.

The only thing it tells us is that anyone who is not prepared to sacrifice their private life for the good of their career, will not make it to the top. This has always been the case in the private sector!

 

[Chief]

The stats you posted do not tell us why, which is what i asked.

That's not what you asked.

You asked a question then made a snarky comment about stats.

We all know what you're doing. You add almost nothing to threads you invade but attempt to start pointless, circular arguments to draw attention to yourself. You're a troll.

A part of me thinks that you truly believe you are bursting people's arguments with incisive questioning, that as you enter your late twenties/early thirties your wit and wisdom are among the finest anywhere, honed by more than a decade of trying to talk like an adult.

Socrates you ain't.

 

[Chief]

The only thing it tells us is that anyone who is not prepared to sacrifice their private life for the good of their career, will not make it to the top. This has always been the case in the private sector!

You make its sound like industry is run by monks. That men at the top have no private life, no wives, no children, no time for family, sports, hobbies.

 

[kfc1]

That's not what you asked.

You asked a question then made a snarky comment about stats.

We all know what you're doing. You add almost nothing to threads you invade but attempt to start pointless, circular arguments to draw attention to yourself. You're a troll.

A part of me thinks that you truly believe you are bursting people's arguments with incisive questioning, that as you enter your late twenties/early thirties your wit and wisdom are among the finest anywhere, honed by more than a decade of trying to talk like an adult.

Socrates you ain't.

Nope, i asked for the why. You provided a pdf which i will take a look through when i get back to a computer, hopefully it has some useful info in there.

I'm not interested in circular arguments or ad hominems so I will ignore yours.

 

[Chief]

I'm not interested in circular arguments or ad hominems

Nobody believes that.

 

[Maggie5]

Nobody believes that.

Perhaps if people actually read the link you posted they would see that there has been a lack of research into the why.
However this report is interesting in some of the responses as to possible reasons.
Not sure why they ask for links and not bother reading.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

You make its sound like industry is run by monks. That men at the top have no private life, no wives, no children, no time for family, sports, hobbies.

well in fairness the last part of your sentence is correct the legal industry demands massive hours. its becomes quite an issue in the industry. it doesn't mean them being monks you can have a family and hobbies (although sports is pretty much no chance) but what you don't have is the quality time to spend on family and hobbies.
http://www.thomsonreuters.com.au/about-us/news/work-hours.aspx
http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/opinion/14158-fter-working-in-a-corporate-law-firm-for-only-a

its an industry that demands ridiculous commitment that second link is the story of someone who was only just starting out working 14 hours a day and the actually working up to 6 hours unpaid each day.

If you don't put in those hours it hampers your career development. its way most lawyers are sad campaigners its an industry that attracts people who when there not at work are usually talking about work preparing for work or doing work related things. you don't NEED to do all the extra unpaid work but the odds of being promoted without doing are less then steller.

 

[tesseract]

Meanwhile, 46% of practising lawyers are women. and only 19% of senior positions in legal firms are filled by women.

Only 19% of barristers and 6% of SCs are women.

Weird, huh?

So, are you implying that male law students shouldn't be given equality of opportunity to the $15,000 scholarship currently being offered to a high-achieving penultimate year female law student at the moment in WA simply because they happen to be male? If that's not what you're implying, what's the purpose of the stats you've provided if not to imply your standing for equality of outcome - which is sexist and discriminatory and thus not true equality? Such would make your post a deflection from the obvious discrimination against male law students.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

So, are you implying that male law students shouldn't be given equality of opportunity to the $15,000 scholarship currently being offered to a high-achieving penultimate year female law student at the moment in WA simply because they happen to be male? If that's not what you're implying, what's the purpose of the stats you've provided if not to imply your standing for equality of outcome - which is sexist and discriminatory and thus not true equality? Such would make your post a deflection from the obvious discrimination against male law students.

no he's implying women need a leg up due to disparity in the statistics he gave.
its just like a scholarship which is targeted at low incomer earners, people from rich backgrounds are excluded not because they "don't deserve it" its because the scholarship is targeted at groups that require it. i would think this scolarship is sponsered by others who believe women also require assistance.

if your suggesting the low number of males entering the legal profession requires scholarships to assist more men entering the legal profession by all means go lobby for one. But perhaps you might first understand what scholarships are and why they exist.

BTW i'd like to know which scholarship this actually is, because the only one i'm aware of in WA is for female INDIGENOUS women and is paid for by the Womens Lawyers of Western Australia association. why wont you mention who's behind this scholarship?

edit: i did try googling $15,000 scholarship to a high-achieveing penultimate year FEMALE law student
but well here's the result: https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sou...achieving+penultimate+year+FEMALE+law+student

hell could even give me the school? for example UWA only has two scholarship programs for women (they had 3 but one did not go ahead this year) one is specfically for poor women who otherwise would not be attending uni prize $1500, the other is for academic acheivement prize $3500. and neither is targeted or aimed at legal course but in fact a whole host of uni courses.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

You're asking tesseract to back something up?

Don't be surprised when he quotes Genesis.

The book of the bible, not Phil Collins band...though I reckon he would be a fan of a bit of Phil- but only on Saturday nights when he really lets his hair down and has a light beer shandy while watching MRA hate clips on YouTube.

 

[tesseract]

no he's implying women need a leg up due to disparity in the statistics he gave.

That's what I said he's implying, for I said: "If [equality of opportunity] is not what you're implying, what's the purpose of the stats you've provided if not to imply your standing for equality of outcome - which is sexist and discriminatory and thus not true equality?

 

[cartwright]

Well if you can provide, as previously requested, the data that supports your theory about the 'nature ' of women, am all ears. But you haven't been able to provide data for your claim,( how surprising) so you may as well do something useful and find the info that refutes your silly claims.
ps do enjoy a siesta though-you should give it a try.

Tessie, how'd you go with this?
Got anything to back up your claims?

 

[tesseract]

Tessie, how'd you go with this?
Got anything to back up your claims?

Asked and answered. Here's a helpful hint: search "hypergamy".

 

[cartwright]

Asked and answered. Here's a helpful hint: search "hypergamy".

You presented data to back up your claims?

I don't think so.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

That's what I said he's implying, for I said: "If [equality of opportunity] is not what you're implying, what's the purpose of the stats you've provided if not to imply your standing for equality of outcome - which is sexist and discriminatory and thus not true equality?

the lack of equality of opportunity is exactly what's being claimed.
you know the whole "glass ceiling thing", where by its hard for women to reach their way to the top?
your statistics which shows the number of women entering legal professions and the number who make it to the top are not proportionate.
in fact as you point out despite less men entering law and yet men dominate the top end.
seems to confirm that the glass ceiling does exist, atleast in that industry.

most scholarship programs for women target that, i can't say that this is what this scholarship program is designed to address, as well i don't have any information on it.

now i would like to help you better understand why this scholarship is awarded to women and in particular what women specfically. All i need is the details i'll read the brief read the conditions and restrictions and i'll explain it all to you. All i need is the details, Ive tried oh so very hard to track this down. I've found 5 scholarships aimed at women in uni in WA only one specifically targets law and is restricted to female INDIGENOUS women from remote areas, no "company" funds it and the prize isn't $15,000. So if you would be so kind as to simply name this scholarship program your referring or the company behind it or even the school it goes too, hell even the news article you read about it in?

I would very much appreciate it and look forward to continuing the debate, But if your not going to provide the information there's a little hard to help you understand the situation in greater detail, when you refuse to provide the information or even address it.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

the lack of equality of opportunity is exactly what's being claimed.
you know the whole "glass ceiling thing", where by its hard for women to reach their way to the top?
your statistics which shows the number of women entering legal professions and the number who make it to the top are not proportionate.
in fact as you point out despite less men entering law and yet men dominate the top end.
seems to confirm that the glass ceiling does exist, atleast in that industry.

It's harder for women to reach their way to the top for the reasons you gave earlier:

well in fairness the last part of your sentence is correct the legal industry demands massive hours. its becomes quite an issue in the industry. it doesn't mean them being monks you can have a family and hobbies (although sports is pretty much no chance) but what you don't have is the quality time to spend on family and hobbies.
http://www.thomsonreuters.com.au/about-us/news/work-hours.aspx
http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/opinion/14158-fter-working-in-a-corporate-law-firm-for-only-a

its an industry that demands ridiculous commitment that second link is the story of someone who was only just starting out working 14 hours a day and the actually working up to 6 hours unpaid each day.

If you don't put in those hours it hampers your career development. its way most lawyers are sad campaigners its an industry that attracts people who when there not at work are usually talking about work preparing for work or doing work related things. you don't NEED to do all the extra unpaid work but the odds of being promoted without doing are less then steller.

Because men and women generally want different things in life and generally make different life choices. Women take time off to have children and generally take more time off work then men do. You said it best - If you don't put in those hours it hampers your career development.

There should be equal opportunity, not equal outcome. A disproportionate amount of women not making it to the top does is not an example of unequal opportunity, it's an example of unequal outcome.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

It's harder for women to reach their way to the top for the reasons you gave earlier:

Because men and women generally want different things in life and generally make different life choices. Women take time off to have children and generally take more time off work then men do. You said it best - If you don't put in those hours it hampers your career development.

There should be equal opportunity, not equal outcome. A disproportionate amount of women not making it to the top does is not an example of unequal opportunity, it's an example of unequal outcome.

those funding the scholarships would disagree.