Society/Culture Feminism - 2017 Thread - Pt II

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

skilts said:
What about Ratty and Badger, should not they also apologise? I won't even mention Toad.
Click to expand...
Mole, a great antihero of our times.
mole_2243069b.jpg
 
Maggie5 said:
Wasn't aware that the UK has passed laws requiring companies to calculate the difference between the average and median hourly pay rates for all male and female employees, with and without bonus.

...the difference between what their male and female employees earn, early reports from a handful of companies have revealed pay gaps as high as 36 percent -- twice the national average.

Virgin Money disclosed that men who work at the bank earn, on average, 36 percent more than women. At asset manager Schroders Plc, the pay gap was 31 percent. Utility SSE Plc reported an average pay gap of 23.4 percent, and consulting firm PwC said it found a 15 percent difference in pay.

“The way men and women are segregated into different job functions is the biggest driver of the gender wage gap,” said Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at Glassdoor Inc. The job search site uses self-reported data from the thousands of job seekers, then looks at job title, experience, education and other factors to understand how men and women with similar backgrounds are paid.

When adjusted for these factors, men in the U.K. still earn 5.5 percent more than women, compared with a 5.4 percent gap the U.S., he said.
Click to expand...

I am not sure how close we can get to parity without compensating people for life choices.

There will be no prosecution against any business that have a significant pay differential between men and women, it is because they are not discriminating despite the variances.

There are a number of reasons why women do not push for more senior roles and there is a significant disproportion in earnings between senior roles and other roles. You can have one accountant be a manager in the same firm as another accountant with the same title and they often earn vastly different amounts and it has nothing to do with gender other than fewer women choosing those roles or making the life choices that allows them to fulfil those roles.

It is why you don't see many female currency traders, anyone who has worked in the industry or known someone who has understands how much of a life-consuming soul sucking job it is. While not that bad, most of the well paying senior roles require a significant commitment. Every women I have ever known who has had kids and has had a good education has had the option to have a significantly better paying job/role than they do but choose not to because their priorities in life have changed after having kids, they return to work, even take on senior roles, but they have all chosen to either work fewer hours or not put in the unpaid overtime, taken roles with less demands on time, less pressure, fewer responsibilities. It is radically different to women who do not have kids and remain career motivated their entire career.

How can you reconcile for life choices when looking at these numbers?

I do not judge or think any less of anyone who chooses a career or role they are content with. If the job you choose makes you happy, it is fine with me and it should be with everyone else. As long as someone is not taken advantage of and there is equality of opportunity, then that is all that matters.

Equality of outcome doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
fleabitten said:
I was pleased to hear that when my daughter's year 12 class had to analyse a piece by Ford, 100% of both males and females in the class thought she was a complete ******. I read the piece they were using and it was actually really tame compared to other things of hers that I've read, so I'm glad they were able to see through her so easily.
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is - is a bunch of year 12 kids are more intelligent than the posters here - who seek out Ford's articles and are perpetually outraged by her. Actually, that makes perfect sense.
 
cartwright said:
So, what you're saying is - is a bunch of year 12 kids are more intelligent than the posters here - who seek out Ford's articles and are perpetually outraged by her. Actually, that makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

I think it's mostly that kids these days are more used to trolling than older folks. People who didnt grow up on the internet see the s**t she has printed in mainstream papers and think the world has gone mad.
 
Tas said:
I am not sure how close we can get to parity without compensating people for life choices.

There will be no prosecution against any business that have a significant pay differential between men and women, it is because they are not discriminating despite the variances.

There are a number of reasons why women do not push for more senior roles and there is a significant disproportion in earnings between senior roles and other roles. You can have one accountant be a manager in the same firm as another accountant with the same title and they often earn vastly different amounts and it has nothing to do with gender other than fewer women choosing those roles or making the life choices that allows them to fulfil those roles.

It is why you don't see many female currency traders, anyone who has worked in the industry or known someone who has understands how much of a life-consuming soul sucking job it is. While not that bad, most of the well paying senior roles require a significant commitment. Every women I have ever known who has had kids and has had a good education has had the option to have a significantly better paying job/role than they do but choose not to because their priorities in life have changed after having kids, they return to work, even take on senior roles, but they have all chosen to either work fewer hours or not put in the unpaid overtime, taken roles with less demands on time, less pressure, fewer responsibilities. It is radically different to women who do not have kids and remain career motivated their entire career.

How can you reconcile for life choices when looking at these numbers?

I do not judge or think any less of anyone who chooses a career or role they are content with. If the job you choose makes you happy, it is fine with me and it should be with everyone else. As long as someone is not taken advantage of and there is equality of opportunity, then that is all that matters.

Equality of outcome doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Not so sure about that, you refer to compensating where as I have seen it reported as being penalised for their choices.

However for those that are in the two fields you mentioned, accountancy and currency traders, given you have knowledge of those areas, are wages comparable?

I actually did know of a couple of currency traders that have been female (some years ago) and it was a career choice they made and it took them much longer to reach wage parity with the male colleagues.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Maggie5 said:
Not so sure about that, you refer to compensating where as I have seen it reported as being penalised for their choices.
Click to expand...

It is the way capitalism works to penalise people for life choices. Corporations are there solely to make money and they pay people based on their ability to generate money for the corporation.

If someone works a 40 hour week and someone else works a 60 hour week, the system will penalise the person who works only 40 hours financially. In salary based jobs, there is usually no overtime pay, but there is a significant variance in terms of salary based on a lot of factors.

If you are a meth head then capitalism is going to s**t all over your parade. Your life choices matter.

However for those that are in the two fields you mentioned, accountancy and currency traders, given you have knowledge of those areas, are wages comparable?
Click to expand...

Remunerations is based on two factors, your value to the company/firm and your ability to negotiate or push for what is your fair market value, that tends to occur a lot easier the more other companies/firms are interested in your services. Entities are not required or compelled to pay people their market value, beyond government enforced minimums, if they can get away with paying you less and retain your services then they benefit from it financially to do so.

I have not experienced women being valued any less than men in accounting, some of the most aggressive career oriented people I have known have been women, up until they have children or planning to have children and are well aware they will not be able to put in the same kind of hours or maintain the same career focused lifestyle.

My older sister is probably one of the most respected people I know on the planet and she was very career motivated, still is to some degree, has a degree in economics, did her MBA, went back to uni again and has her doctorate, never wanted kids and pursued her career aggressively, pissed off a lot of men she blew past and copped a lot of heat because of her gender. The late 30s hit her biologically, she got married, had a couple of kids, it changed her and I would say for the better despite the fact she isn't earning anywhere near what she was before she had kids. I love my sister and would do anything for her, I even became a second wave feminist and got involved at uni with political rallies because I knew very well what kind of barriers existed back then. If I felt there were barriers still in place, I would do something about it rather than just talk on a forum.

That was the difference between feminism then and feminism now. There were tangible worthwhile goals, they were targeted and the goals were achieved, then feminism ended, not by force, but because the job was done. The misconception was that men wanted a place of dominance over women, that was never the reason women had the role in society back then, it was because society deemed women were weak and needed protection. It is the ultimate insult, the discrimination of low standards of expectation. The most insidious and most difficult opposition to the feminist movement and equality was not other men who desired power or control over women, but women who had a position over other women and had power to dictate over them.

Outside from the odd male complaining about female superiors who were "bitchy", the vast majority of complaints I have had about female managers were from other women. The sisterhood is a myth in reality.

We have equality of opportunity now, if a woman wants to be prime minster or ceo or whatever they can be that now, the path isn't easy but the option is there. The kind of women I see espousing identity politics, third wave feminism petty grievances and the like are the same kind of people who were the enemy of the equality movement, they still promote that women are weak and need protecting, that they can't compete on a level playing field and need big brother to look out for them. It is the same type of discrimination, the discrimination of low expectation and wanting to dictate how other people should think and act.

I actually did know of a couple of currency traders that have been female (some years ago) and it was a career choice they made and it took them much longer to reach wage parity with the male colleagues.
Click to expand...

It will come down to one of two factors, or both, they are not as valuable to their employer or they have failed to negotiate a better deal.

It is similar to Jennifer Lawrence complaining about being underpaid compared to her male actor associates after the Sony hack/leaks. After a while she admitted she didn't negotiate very well or aggressively because she was worried about how she would come across. In a subsequent movie with less of a role she managed to negotiate for $20m compared to the male co-star who received $12m.

What is the difference? Knowing what your market value is and fighting for it. If the studio can get away with paying her $5m then it isn't discrimination based on gender, it is just making a deal which will earn the company more money. If companies could get away with paying men less than they do, they would.

If a profit motivated company could actually hire women for every role and pay them a third less, they would sack all their male employees and replace them with women. They do not, because they can't pay everyone below market value.

Some people are paid less than they could be earning, but I do not believe that there is a barrier preventing them from earning more.
 
Last edited:
domus said:
Yes and those same sons were sent off to die in the mud, blood and excrement of world wars and shot or imprisoned by their own army if found guilty of cowardice. The young men also broke their backs in dirty, stifling mines and all kinds of deadly occupations. Why do we talk about the past without any reference to how horrendous life could be for the males of each era? I think given the choice I would forgo a university education if it meant not having to be conscripted to go and have my legs blown off or my mind forever shattered by the things I was forced to see and do.

I might add that in the Middle East the torture and execution of men is many times that of women. Men are stoned to death, thrown off buildings for being gay and used as slave labor. Boys as young as ten are forced into armies and called "The Cubs of the Caliphate." Why do we only ever have the inequities faced by women rammed down our throats? it would be nice to see the same compassion we reserve for females shown to men and boys.
Click to expand...

You've missed the books and documentaries about child soldiers? The shock at the persecution of homosexuals in Eastern Europe? The coverage of the attack on the gay nightclub? The worldwide condemnation over Abu Ghraib?

The question is why do you not see those things?
 
Chief said:
I think we have different ideas about the term "brilliant".


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

I think it is ridiculous to put down what feminism has done, it has been one of the most significant cultural achievements of the modern world. Anyone who has any love for their mother, sister, niece, etc who doesn't appreciate what has been hard fought for by men and women alike, doesn't truly understand what it was like before.

I think the views of many men and women, who have been raised in an era of equality, are skewed based on the third wave feminism message which has been heavily influenced by identity politics and cultural marxism. There is no consensus within the movement any longer, it is very fragmented based on various belief systems, it has however become a significant political force which has strong roots in academia.

I don't really have any answers to questions about where the movement is at or where it is heading or what impact it is having on women. Whatever that is I don't really get to or want to have a say to tell women what they should think or what they desire from their existence in life. However, there seems to be a disconnect between what they desire and what makes them happy in the long-run. Happiness is on the decline for women, the older the more severe the decline. There are consequences to the choices we make in life and while some regrets you can address later in life, some significant paths taken in life can't be undone.

I think we still have a long way to go in society and I don't think we can address a lot of the issues until we let go of the old systems and adopt new ones for a modern society. We have taken some baby steps but we have a lot of systems in place which are barriers to significant change.
 
Chief said:
You've missed the books and documentaries about child soldiers? The shock at the persecution of homosexuals in Eastern Europe? The coverage of the attack on the gay nightclub? The worldwide condemnation over Abu Ghraib?

The question is why do you not see those things?
Click to expand...

Scrounge around the internet and bookshops and I am sure you will find books and stories dedicated to issues affecting males. That was not my point. It was the huge gap between the avalanche of daily stories and news items focusing on women/girls and their suffering when compared to stories focusing on men as victims. It is an irrefutable chasm.

You just proved my point. Documentaries about "child" soldiers." Why child and not simply boys? When girls or women are harmed or at risk we don't refer to them as "children" or "people" , we are always gender specific. Why do all of our domestic violence campaign focus upon women when there are a substantial number of men who are killed and abused? There are more female victims of DV than male but if this is the reason for completely ignoring one whole group of victims then why don't we do the same when speaking about or campaigning on issues like homelessness, suicide and workplace death and injury. Men are the overwhelming victims in all of these areas yet the language used when talking about them is invariably gender neutral. One campaign referred to the "deaths of Victorian workers." We talk of our horrific "youth suicide problem" or the need to do something for "homeless people"

Males are four times more likely to kill themselves yet recently The Project managed to do a ten minute story on suicide without mentioning men even once. The focus was on the fact that there had been a slight rise in female suicides even though their overall number was dwarfed by male suicides. The only face to face interview was with a girl. That would be fine if the same approach was taken with family violence. Can you imagine The Project doing a ten minute story on family violence that did not mention women once and also focused exclusively on violence against men and interviewed a male victim in the studio?
It would NEVER happen! Why?


When men and boys are the overwhelming victims of injustice of any kind their gender is hidden in neutral terminology which masks the gendered nature of the atrocity perpetrated. Boko Haram had slaughtered hundreds of school boys in horrific circumstances-burned alive, hacked to death with machetes because they were boys yet the mainstream media gave these horrific gender specific massacres absolutely minimal to zero coverage. What coverage there was referred to "children" or "villagers." When 200 schoolgirls were kidnapped their gender was the entire focus of the story. The world went into meltdown with Obama and his wife along with every second has been Hollywood celebrity had something to say or simply held up their "Bring home our Girls" poster with a suitable sad expression on their face. Soldiers were sent in to find the girls and the UN called it a crime against humanity. There has never been a more stark example of the chasm between the compassion given to males and females.

https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/cubs-of-the-caliphate-slaughtered/

If you seriously believe that the suffering and injustices faced by men and boys is given the same attention, compassion, financial support, political and legal recognition as those faced by women and girls then I simply cannot discuss the issue with you because you are blind to reality.
 
Tas said:
I think it is ridiculous to put down what feminism has done, it has been one of the most significant cultural achievements of the modern world. Anyone who has any love for their mother, sister, niece, etc who doesn't appreciate what has been hard fought for by men and women alike, doesn't truly understand what it was like before.

I think the views of many men and women, who have been raised in an era of equality, are skewed based on the third wave feminism message which has been heavily influenced by identity politics and cultural marxism. There is no consensus within the movement any longer, it is very fragmented based on various belief systems, it has however become a significant political force which has strong roots in academia.

I don't really have any answers to questions about where the movement is at or where it is heading or what impact it is having on women. Whatever that is I don't really get to or want to have a say to tell women what they should think or what they desire from their existence in life. However, there seems to be a disconnect between what they desire and what makes them happy in the long-run. Happiness is on the decline for women, the older the more severe the decline. There are consequences to the choices we make in life and while some regrets you can address later in life, some significant paths taken in life can't be undone.

I think we still have a long way to go in society and I don't think we can address a lot of the issues until we let go of the old systems and adopt new ones for a modern society. We have taken some baby steps but we have a lot of systems in place which are barriers to significant change.
Click to expand...

Feminism has addressed some inequities faced by women in the past but instead of recognizing that most of these inequities were a result of our biological make up and the way in which this forced men and women into entrenched roles, they presented it an evil plot by the patriarchy which hates women and tries to hold them down. This is a disgusting lie and could not be further from the truth. It was men who "unchained" women and gave them choice by inventing the pill and creating countless labor saving devices for the household which took away much of the physical drudgery of a house wife's life. Men were just as bound by their biology and had to slave away in a job they often hated in order to provide for their wife and family. For every housewife pining for a career in law there would have been men digging ditches in the pouring rain or blazing heat each day who had to give up their lifelong dream of becoming a professional musician or traveling the world.

The problem is women have long been freed from the expectation that they must have babies and remain at home but men are still trapped by the expectation (from women and society) that they continue to do the dirty, dangerous, deadly jobs and continue to be the main breadwinner who devotes 45 years of his life to providing for his family while his wife has choices he can only dream about. Do they receive any thanks or recognition for this? No they are called "privileged" and accused of being a part of the patriarchy.
 
domus said:
Scrounge around the internet
Click to expand...
It arrives on my Facebook page all the time. It is in the news - or at least the news I watch or read.

You're not likely to get it on the commercial evening news, no.
 
domus said:
a result of our biological make up and the way in which this forced men and women into entrenched roles
Click to expand...
No biological make-up forced state governments to set the male public servant wage at a level to support a man, wife and two children, while the female wage was set to support one person until they got married and forced out of the workforce.
 
Chief said:
No biological make-up forced state governments to set the male public servant wage at a level to support a man, wife and two children, while the female wage was set to support one person until they got married and forced out of the workforce.
Click to expand...

That is exactly why it was set that way. The presumption was that men would marry and have to provide for a wife and children. The woman would eventually find a husband who would provide for her and their children. It was unfair to a single woman who never married but to pretend it was a patriarchal plot is ridiculous. That is the very thing I was pointing out in my previous comment. Men were not privileged. They had responsibilities which society expected them to fulfil. Women could afford to get less pay because they were not expected to finance the lives of five or so other people. How else could society have operated back then before the existence of birth control and technology ( both created by men for the benefit of mostly women) which freed up the time women spent doing household chores?

As I said, none of the presumptions made about men fifty years ago (based on biology) have altered. We will still be expected to fight and die in a war should it arrive on our doorstep. We will still be expected to give up the remaining seat in a lifeboat should a woman be at risk. The fact is in any emergency /catastrophe, despite all the ludicrous claims of girl power and females as the equal of men in any field, it is still almost universally the men who risk their lives rescuing endangered human beings and almost always men who die trying to rescue human beings. 9/11 is a perfect example. Were hundreds of females seen running toward the burning , collapsing buildings? Nope. But you can bet that tv series and movies will show woman front and centre as the world faces a catastrophe, with men floundering about in a state of confusion and fear. It is laughable and incredibly patronizing, yet it seems many woman and girls swallow that rubbish.
 
Chief said:
It arrives on my Facebook page all the time. It is in the news - or at least the news I watch or read.

You're not likely to get it on the commercial evening news, no.
Click to expand...

Why? No response to the many facts I mentioned? eg. Boko Haram massacring boys without a ripple of protest or outrage?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Aristotle Pickett
Mid East Israel declare war after Hamas attack II
371 372 373 374 375
Replies
9K
Views
180K
madmug
M
ibd77
  • Locked
World War III, Is It Inevitable?
Replies
5
Views
588
Gethelred
Gethelred
D
Society/Culture The Philosophy Thread: Schopenhauer
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Osho
Osho
Aristotle Pickett
The Law Australian Police brutality thread.
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
446
Views
12K
Ghost Patrol
Ghost Patrol
C
  • Locked
Bigfooty Censorship- Daniel Andrews thread
Replies
6
Views
681
Hava Alle
Hava Alle
HairyO
Vic Lidia Thorpe: Not the subject for every thread!
17 18 19 20 21
Replies
523
Views
13K
Northalives
Northalives
aCunningPlan
2022 Victorian Election - Prediction Thread
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Jascave
Jascave

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top