Mens Rights Thread

Piliger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Eton is a private school for the elite. Uncapped fees mean that Oxbridge can charge what they please thus excluding all but the wealthiest applicants generally speaking. The term "boys club" refers to the network that wealthy young men build attending these places. David Cameron is a prime example.

Something that equally applies to exclusive girls schools and their behaviour thereafter in life.

marienbad

Piliger wrote: »

Beautifully put.

But not quite true though .

ancapailldorcha

Piliger wrote: »

Something that equally applies to exclusive girls schools and their behaviour thereafter in life.

Not that I'm aware.

It's well known that, in the UK at the very least, most prime ministers, CEOs, journalists and the like attend private schools and universities such as Oxbridge, Imperial College London, etc... This enables them to make the connections they need to gain traction in their respective fields.

marienbad wrote: »

But not quite true though .

Care to elaborate?

marienbad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Not that I'm aware.

It's well known that, in the UK at the very least, most prime ministers, CEOs, journalists and the like attend private schools and universities such as Oxbridge, Imperial College London, etc... This enables them to make the connections they need to gain traction in their respective fields.



Care to elaborate?

If you need me to elaborate that 'the west' for want of a better expression was a massive patriarchy for thousands of years then I really can't help you.

Lemming

marienbad wrote: »

If you need me to elaborate that 'the west' for want of a better expression was a massive patriarchy for thousands of years then I really can't help you.

Oooo, another vapid canard. What is "the West". Please do tell. Where is the west, Who is the west and where do I contact its leader?

Piliger

marienbad wrote: »

But not quite true though .

Exquisitely true actually.

Piliger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Not that I'm aware.

Well we are hardly responsible for that.

It's well known that, in the UK at the very least, most prime ministers, CEOs, journalists and the like attend private schools and universities such as Oxbridge, Imperial College London, etc... This enables them to make the connections they need to gain traction in their respective fields.

The fact is that women do not seek high office, either in public life or commercial life in the same way and in the same numbers as men. They make different life decisions, have different priorities, different dreams and different self images.

This is the insult to how real women want to live their lives that extreme feminism peddles to society nowadays.

Where women do chose to work and socialise, they network and give advantages to those from their own schools and clubs and backgrounds just as much as men and it is a joke to think that they do not. Anyone who has worked in business sees it on a regular basis and I myself have encountered it being discussed by women in prominent middle management positions in marketing, in publishing and in financial services.

ancapailldorcha

Piliger wrote: »

Well we are hardly responsible for that.

You would think.

Piliger wrote: »

The fact is that women do not seek high office, either in public life or commercial life in the same way and in the same numbers as men. They make different life decisions, have different priorities, different dreams and different self images.

I don't understand your point here. Are you saying that women don't aim to be successful?

Piliger wrote: »

Where women do chose to work and socialise, they network and give advantages to those from their own schools and clubs and backgrounds just as much as men and it is a joke to think that they do not. Anyone who has worked in business sees it on a regular basis and I myself have encountered it being discussed by women in prominent middle management positions in marketing, in publishing and in financial services.

I was specifically talking about the upper echelons of the financial sector, the media and politics. My point is that the vast majority of those who have succeeded in those areas have had a leg up thanks to people they met due to their background.
I've seen a whole nursing department staffed entirely by nepotism and cronyism so I know fpr a fact that it does happen in other sectors.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note - marienbad, if you're not prepared to back up your statements they will be treated as trolling.

marienbad

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Mod note - marienbad, if you're not prepared to back up your statements they will be treated as trolling.

Bit surprised that I need to - but here goes .

Patriarchy - here is one definition .

a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

Female suffrage 1918- 1924 approx.
First woman US president - never
First woman Taoiseach - never
First Woman Prime minister in the World 1960
First Woman CEO IBM 2011
First Women Secretary General United Nations -Never.

This despite women being the majority of the population most if not all of the time .

And this is before we even go into inheritance rights marriage rights property rights etc. This is just basic history 101 and I am surprised we are even going into it .

Look I agree that aspects of feminist movement have lost their way in recent decades and there is a massive problem in this country with fathers rights ,male suicide etc but to pretend that their wasn't an imbalance heretofore is as perverse as the US Supreme Court saying racism is no longer a problem in the USA.

I will leave it at that as I had no intention of derailing the thread

ancapailldorcha

marienbad wrote: »

Bit surprised that I need to - but here goes .

Patriarchy - here is one definition .

a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

Female suffrage 1918- 1924 approx.

The average man didn't have the vote long before that if my info is correct.

marienbad wrote: »

This despite women being the majority of the population most if not all of the time.

Source? I doubt many would argue that women haven't suffered more than men throughout history but most men, ie the lower classes didn't fare all that much better.

marienbad wrote: »

And this is before we even go into inheritance rights marriage rights property rights etc. This is just basic history 101 and I am surprised we are even going into it .

Source? I'd hardly call it basic history 101.

marienbad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The average man didn't have the vote long before that if my info is correct.



Source? I doubt many would argue that women haven't suffered more than men throughout history but most men, ie the lower classes didn't fare all that much better.



Source? I'd hardly call it basic history 101.

Your info is correct - the average man (or catholic until 1829) didn't have the vote either- but the point is he could achieve that 'honour' women never could until the 20th century .

GalwayGuitar

marienbad wrote: »

Your info is correct - the average man (or catholic until 1829) didn't have the vote either- but the point is he could achieve that 'honour' women never could until the 20th century .

Well hey now you've got equal rights AND crazy rape laws, completely unfair divorce and custody laws, gender quotas, and an army of rabid men-hating femanazsi. So you can really stick it to the evil patriarchy thats oppressed you for so long.

Zulu

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

... femanazsi.

Oh oh.
You uttered the unmentionable. This doesn't bode well.

GalwayGuitar

Zulu wrote: »

Oh oh.
You uttered the unmentionable. This doesn't bode well.

Made a balls of the spelling too...

Piliger

This issue of history is only raised when feminists find themselves void of any real justification of the female privileges that modern feminism has established and is fighting to increase.

The only justifiable relevance of history is to talk about how things 'used' to be.

The only possible other reason is that feminism is making the case that because men treated women unfairly in the past, then that justifies men being badly treated now.

And if that is their argument then it would be nice if they showed a bit of honesty and truthfulness and admitted it instead of lying about the real motives.

Wibbs

Zulu wrote: »

Oh oh.
You uttered the unmentionable. This doesn't bode well.

Yep, because it's incredibly lazy a tag and not up to the standard we aim for in this forum, so GalwayGuitar, no more of "feminazi" stuff, thanks. Make the better argument.

marienbad

Piliger wrote: »

This issue of history is only raised when feminists find themselves void of any real justification of the female privileges that modern feminism has established and is fighting to increase.

The only justifiable relevance of history is to talk about how things 'used' to be.

The only possible other reason is that feminism is making the case that because men treated women unfairly in the past, then that justifies men being badly treated now.

And if that is their argument then it would be nice if they showed a bit of honesty and truthfulness and admitted it instead of lying about the real motives.

You might think it is all just 'used to be'' , but here is an interesting article listing 10 things women could not do in the 1970's-

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/57301/ten-things-an-irish-woman-could-not-do-in-1970-and-be-prepared-to-cringe

You might think that is a long time ago but there is a good 25% of the population still alive that lived through those years . And not one single change was given without immense struggle .

So lose the chip and lets talk about equality for all without denying the past.

Lemming

marienbad wrote: »

You might think it is all just 'used to be'' , but here is an interesting article listing 10 things women could not do in the 1970's-

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/57301/ten-things-an-irish-woman-could-not-do-in-1970-and-be-prepared-to-cringe

You might think that is a long time ago but there is a good 25% of the population still alive that lived through those years . And not one single change was given without immense struggle .

So lose the chip and lets talk about equality for all without denying the past.

Eight things that women couldn't do in the 1970s, one that neither sex could do (contraception), and one which is of dubious note as being a thing against "women" (pubs refusing right to admission). Some 40 years ago.

So the next question is; and how is any of what has long since been overcome relevant to today's narrative? Would you like to continue navel gazing with your talk of the 70s, the ever-mythical boggyman "patriarchy" of one thousand years (apparently), and that rallying cry of socialists everywhere when you've got no credible argument to make; "the west". Ah, sure while we're at it we'll throw in mention of the illuminati for giggles.

Or instead of navel gazing, would you like to talk about equality of opportunity and equality of responsibilities between men & women?

Piliger

marienbad wrote: »

You might think it is all just 'used to be'' , but here is an interesting article listing 10 things women could not do in the 1970's-

So let's see ... 1970's is not the past .... right. So up is down and left is right and right it wrong. That sounds exactly like the kind of feminist nonsense that us men are having to fight nowadays.

Playboy

Loath as I am to post something from the Daily Mail I have to make an exception for this story. Truly frightening the situations men can find themselves at the whim of a woman.

Father is banned from seeing his children and entering his own home or street for ten years after wife launched 'Kafkaesque' legal proceedings against him in secret

• Father banned from seeing his children and entering home for ten years
• Order issued after wife complained she was a victim of domestic assault
• Man, named only as Mr R, had no prior notice of the non-molestation order
• Slapped with order arriving home from work after wife requested it secretly
• Judge said Mr R, who cannot be identified, could have been forgiven for feeling like Josef K - the protagonist in Franz Kafka's 1925 novel The Trial

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2874882/Father-banned-seeing-children-entering-home-street-ten-years-wife-launched-Kafkaesque-legal-proceedings-against-secret.html

Piliger

The Daily Mail is the only media that is giving any coverage to the appalling injustice being meted out to men.

iptba

Letter in the Irish Times, Tuesday, Dec 16

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/gender-bias-and-science-1.2038586

Sir, – Prof Nancy Hopkins (December 10th) writes about “unconscious gender bias” at the top in science. I would argue that by far the most notorious example of gender bias in Irish universities is the existence of a number of women’s and gender studies centres, several of which have existed for more than 20 years and which are overwhelmingly staffed by women. According to the US writer Daphne Patai, they are more concerned with political activism than with scholarship and the pursuit of knowledge. They share a common ideology, central to which is the notion that gender is socially constructed and that biology has little or nothing to do with gender; openness to any challenge to this ideology or to criticism appears to be at a minimum. This is all the more extraordinary since science has refuted its central tenet and has shown biology plays an undoubted and perhaps a major role in gender construction.

An example of how the pretensions of gender studies can be exposed occurred in 2012 when the NIKK Nordic Gender Institute was closed. The decision was made after Norwegian state television had broadcast a documentary in which the unscientific character of the NIKK and its research was exposed. The whole enterprise was based on ideology with no basis in evidence.

LostinBlanch

Playboy wrote: »

Loath as I am to post something from the Daily Mail I have to make an exception for this story. Truly frightening the situations men can find themselves at the whim of a woman.

Father is banned from seeing his children and entering his own home or street for ten years after wife launched 'Kafkaesque' legal proceedings against him in secret

• Father banned from seeing his children and entering home for ten years
• Order issued after wife complained she was a victim of domestic assault
• Man, named only as Mr R, had no prior notice of the non-molestation order
• Slapped with order arriving home from work after wife requested it secretly
• Judge said Mr R, who cannot be identified, could have been forgiven for feeling like Josef K - the protagonist in Franz Kafka's 1925 novel The Trial

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2874882/Father-banned-seeing-children-entering-home-street-ten-years-wife-launched-Kafkaesque-legal-proceedings-against-secret.html

I know, I read that, Kafkaesque is right. At least the court of appeal threw it out, but what about the lawyers and courts that brought this about? Is there any sanction for them?

Of course not.

KomradeBishop

iptba wrote: »

Letter in the Irish Times, Tuesday, Dec 16

Sir, – Prof Nancy Hopkins (December 10th) writes about “unconscious gender bias” at the top in science. I would argue that by far the most notorious example of gender bias in Irish universities is the existence of a number of women’s and gender studies centres, several of which have existed for more than 20 years and which are overwhelmingly staffed by women. According to the US writer Daphne Patai, they are more concerned with political activism than with scholarship and the pursuit of knowledge. They share a common ideology, central to which is the notion that gender is socially constructed and that biology has little or nothing to do with gender; openness to any challenge to this ideology or to criticism appears to be at a minimum. This is all the more extraordinary since science has refuted its central tenet and has shown biology plays an undoubted and perhaps a major role in gender construction.

An example of how the pretensions of gender studies can be exposed occurred in 2012 when the NIKK Nordic Gender Institute was closed. The decision was made after Norwegian state television had broadcast a documentary in which the unscientific character of the NIKK and its research was exposed. The whole enterprise was based on ideology with no basis in evidence.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/gender-bias-and-science-1.2038586

That's a bit of a random thing to post - it's also heavily inaccurate; there is no indication that the institute was closed due to the documentary (there's also a lot of criticism around, of the accuracy of the documentary - with many people having the opinion that it had a predefined political slant to it).

Daphne Patai is also a member of the right-wing think-tank 'Foundation for Individual Rights in Education', which is (yet another) right-wing think tank, promoting anti-feminist views (including opposing policies aimed at tackling sexual harassment in US colleges) - a think-tank also staffed by Christina Hoff Sommers, who is associated with other right-wing think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, who promote things such as global warming denial (among many other things).

It's ironic that Daphne is accusing them, of being "more concerned with political activism than with scholarship and the pursuit of knowledge" or that "openness to any challenge to this ideology or to criticism appears to be at a minimum", when she associates with these politically-motivated, ideological propaganda institutes.

The debate on 'nature vs nurture', where it comes to gender, is also far from settled - and there's not any evidence that gender studies courses in general, deny the part that biology plays (there may be debate about how much it has to play, but there isn't any obvious indication, that all these courses deny its role altogether).

Apart from that, it just comes across as whataboutery as well "lets ignore gender bias at the top of many fields of science, because one non-science course (that has been spawned from the feminist movement), has a lot of women participating in it".

marienbad

Piliger wrote: »

So let's see ... 1970's is not the past .... right. So up is down and left is right and right it wrong. That sounds exactly like the kind of feminist nonsense that us men are having to fight nowadays.

By that definition everything is the past , including what happened last week . If you think events of the 70's are irrelevant to today then there is little point having a discussion with you.

ancapailldorcha

marienbad wrote: »

By that definition everything is the past , including what happened last week . If you think events of the 70's are irrelevant to today then there is little point having a discussion with you.

I don't understand your point. Last week is as remote as the 1970s?

There have been huge advances in women's rights since the 1970s. In any case, why has this come up in the Men's Rights thread?

Lemming

marienbad wrote: »

By that definition everything is the past , including what happened last week . If you think events of the 70's are irrelevant to today then there is little point having a discussion with you.

So in short, you've got nothing to say and don't want to admit to it instead trying to pawn your lack of argument off on others.

Zulu

marienbad wrote: »

By that definition everything is the past , including what happened last week . If you think events of the 70's are irrelevant to today then there is little point having a discussion with you.

Well that's a little disingenuous. To be fair, the 70's are 40 years ago. How many generations is that?

(I never know how the calculate generations, what with the human lifespan ever increasing)

Salient point: There is a massive leap between "last week" and 40 years, and you know it.

ancapailldorcha

Lemming wrote: »

So in short, you've got nothing to say and no answer to the question of why you think what was the status quo in the 1970s is relevant to the status quo as it exists in teh second decade of the 21st century.

Not being able to back points up tends to go hand-in-hand with the propensity to use the misnomer "patriarchy" in my experience.

marienbad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't understand your point. Last week is as remote as the 1970s?

There have been huge advances in women's rights since the 1970s. In any case, why has this come up in the Men's Rights thread?

You and other seem to be implying that the 1970's were as remote at the distant past . They are not and their affects are still working through the system today .You accept that there have been huge advances in womans rights since then - does that mean you accept we are emerging from a 'patriarchal society' - which is the whole point of this tangential discussion.

It came up because of post 1799 ( I think)

Seriously?

marienbad wrote: »

It came up because of post 1799 ( I think)

Post 1799

Piliger wrote: »

Beautifully put.

Its post 1815

Piliger wrote: »

This issue of history is only raised when feminists find themselves void of any real justification of the female privileges that modern feminism has established and is fighting to increase.

Potatoeman

marienbad wrote: »

You and other seem to be implying that the 1970's were as remote at the distant past . They are not and their affects are still working through the system today .You accept that there have been huge advances in womans rights since then - does that mean you accept we are emerging from a 'patriarchal society' - which is the whole point of this tangential discussion.

It came up because of post 1799 ( I think)

The problem with patriarchy is that children are primarily raised by women, from mothers to teachers childrens earliest interections are with women so at what point does patriarchy come into effect.

You also need to examine the responsibilities that came with rights in the past.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Daphne Patai is also a member of the right-wing think-tank 'Foundation for Individual Rights in Education', which is (yet another) right-wing think tank, promoting anti-feminist views (including opposing policies aimed at tackling sexual harassment in US colleges) - a think-tank also staffed by Christina Hoff Sommers, who is associated with other right-wing think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, who promote things such as global warming denial (among many other things).

It's ironic that Daphne is accusing them, of being "more concerned with political activism than with scholarship and the pursuit of knowledge" or that "openness to any challenge to this ideology or to criticism appears to be at a minimum", when she associates with these politically-motivated, ideological propaganda institutes.
".

I'm not sure why their membership of a right wing think tank should diminish their opinion. They're right wing, many feminists are left wing. Its inevitable that they'll disagree, big deal. Neither have a monopoly on common sense.

Anti feminist views? What exactly is that? It seems any criticism of feminism could fall under that umbrella. Given that I'm told feminism isn't a hive mind surely the term anti feminist views is contradictory no? What universally agreed feminist position do they disagree with? The reason I point this out is that Christina Hoff Sommers, to whom you've made a tenuous guilt by association link here, is also an established feminist thinker, just one who happens to sit to the right of the ideological divide.

marienbad

Seriously? wrote: »

Post 1799



Its post 1815

It was post 1793 I hand in mind from Lemming and the dismissal of 'patriarchy'

Lemming

marienbad wrote: »

You and other seem to be implying that the 1970's were as remote at the distant past . They are not and their affects are still working through the system today .

What are these effects and how are they still working through the system today?

You accept that there have been huge advances in womans rights since then - does that mean you accept we are emerging from a 'patriarchal society' - which is the whole point of this tangential discussion.

An increase in rights != patriarchical society in existence.

A small elite circle of people - both men & women - in power concerned with holding onto said power & influence has nothing to do with any notion of 'patriarchy'. It's about holding onto power. Nothing that comes from it is benevolent, it's by accident. And the fact that it is men who still do the dangerous and dirty jobs, it is men who are most likely do die, die violently, or kill themselves due to lack of mental support says something for "patriarchy". It's not worth the supposed paper it was written on by feminists.

Lemming

marienbad wrote: »

It was post 1793 I hand in mind from Lemming and the dismissal of 'patriarchy'

And no, it was you that brought up one thousand years. And just to refresh your memory, here's the offending quote:

marienbad wrote: »

If you need me to elaborate that 'the west' for want of a better expression was a massive patriarchy for thousands of years then I really can't help you.

marienbad

Lemming wrote: »

And no, it was you that brought up one thousand years. And just to refresh your memory, here's the offending quote:

this is just going round in circles- it was you that brought the whole patriarchy buzz word into it and it kicked off from there , This is just descending into he said I said you said but it is not really revevant to the discussion.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note - Address the points raised rather than each other

Maguined

marienbad wrote: »

You and other seem to be implying that the 1970's were as remote at the distant past . They are not and their affects are still working through the system today .You accept that there have been huge advances in womans rights since then - does that mean you accept we are emerging from a 'patriarchal society' - which is the whole point of this tangential discussion.

It came up because of post 1799 ( I think)

Listing the things that made life worse for women in the past is not proof that the "patriacrchy" was the cause of this treatment. No one is refuting womens lives have improved, they are refuting your assumption that the cause was patriarchy. Mens lives have also improved from past generations. Since inferior treatment is caused by the patriarchy do you believe the patriarchy was responsibile for the inferior treatment men received in the past? If so then you are proposing the patriarchy was men maintaining control of society so they can make the lives of men worse which is not the definition of patriarchy.

Lemming

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Mod note - Address the points raised rather than each other

She ain't answered any questions I've put to her.

marienbad wrote: »

this is just going round in circles- it was you that brought the whole patriarchy buzz word into it and it kicked off from there , This is just descending into he said I said you said but it is not really revevant to the discussion.

And no, it wasn't me that mentioned patriarchy actually. Someone else did. I merely pointed out that the word had about as much meaning as a banal pop-song's lyrics.

marienbad

Lemming wrote: »

What are these effects and how are they still working through the system today?



An increase in rights != patriarchical society in existence.

A small elite circle of people - both men & women - in power concerned with holding onto said power & influence has nothing to do with any notion of 'patriarchy'. It's about holding onto power. Nothing that comes from it is benevolent, it's by accident. And the fact that it is men who still do the dangerous and dirty jobs, it is men who are most likely do die, die violently, or kill themselves due to lack of mental support says something for "patriarchy". It's not worth the supposed paper it was written on by feminists.

What are those effects and how are they still working their way through society you ask ?

Equal pay act 1974 - womens still paid 13% less in 2013

Marriage bar removed 1973- women still only 25% of senior grades in 2013

Number of women in the Dail 25

Limited sale of contraceptives 1979 - limited access to abortion 2014

There are loads more but that should be enough for now.

It is like the Ashbourne act in 1885 and the other great land reforms in Ireland. They may have been passed in the 1880's but their effects were still working their way through the system 50 years later. I don't know why we are even discussing these issues .

Potatoeman

marienbad wrote: »

What are those effects and how are they still working their way through society you ask ?

Equal pay act 1974 - womens still paid 13% less in 2013

Marriage bar removed 1973- women still only 25% of senior grades in 2013

Number of women in the Dail 25

Limited sale of contraceptives 1979 - limited access to abortion 2014

There are loads more but that should be enough for now.

It is like the Ashbourne act in 1885 and the other great land reforms in Ireland. They may have been passed in the 1880's but their effects were still working their way through the system 50 years later. I don't know why we are even discussing these issues .

Wasnt the pay gap debunked as it ignores hours worked?

o1s1n

marienbad wrote: »

What are those effects and how are they still working their way through society you ask ?

Equal pay act 1974 - womens still paid 13% less in 2013

Marriage bar removed 1973- women still only 25% of senior grades in 2013

Number of women in the Dail 25 .

I would suggest you read up on 'correlation versus causation' and apply it to the issue of gender pay in the workforce.

Basically what your argument says is this;

Overall, women's salaries are lower than mens.
• Therefore there is a gender pay imbalance which must be addressed

When in actual fact, it's more like this;

Overall, women's salaries as lower than men. This can be caused by factors such as;
• Choice of career (what kind of roles do women chose to go into when compared to men.)
• Choice of maternity (if X person decides to go on maternity, then her peers will pass her out and climb at a higher rate)
• Life goal - how do life goals between each gender affect their desire to climb the corporate ladder?
• Levels of risk - which gender is willing to take on a larger risk (health, financial etc)to achieve more pay?

Obviously there are billions of people on the planet so it's utterly futile to try and fit them all into the above buckets. However, what I'm trying to point out is the absolute depth of questions which need to be looked at when analyzing something like this.

Simply stating that 'men earn more than women' ignores a multitude of factors which add to the causation. So much so that I wince whenever I see it brought up via 'gender quotas' and the like.

marienbad

Potatoeman wrote: »

Wasnt the pay gap debunked as it ignores hours worked?

link please.

ancapailldorcha

marienbad wrote: »

link please.

You've not provided any links proving the existence of the paygap.

Piliger

Potatoeman wrote: »

Wasnt the pay gap debunked as it ignores hours worked?

It ignores masses of FACTS.

SkyNews Kay Burley is ranting on about it all this afternoon. Unfortunately no one has the balls to stand up and ask where all these women are that are being paid less than their equivalent male.

Why ? Because the mostly don't even exist. The mythical 'pay gap' is a facet of statistics arising from women's choices and women having different priorities and interests in life.

There is no pay gap.

ancapailldorcha

Piliger wrote: »

There is no pay gap.

I would have thought that most men wouldn't have jobs if women could be paid less.

marienbad

o1s1n wrote: »

I would suggest you read up on 'correlation versus causation' and apply it to the issue of gender pay in the workforce.

Basically what your argument says is this;

• Overall, women's salaries are lower than mens.
• Therefore there is a gender pay imbalance which must be addressed

When in actual fact, it's more like this;

• Overall, women's salaries as lower than men.
  This can be caused by factors such as;
• Choice of career (what kind of roles do women chose to go into when compared to men.)
• Choice of maternity (if X person decides to go on maternity, then her peers will pass her out and climb at a higher rate)
• Life goal - how do life goals between each gender affect their desire to climb the corporate ladder?
• Levels of risk - which gender is willing to take on a larger risk (health, financial etc)to achieve more pay?

Obviously there are billions of people on the planet so it's utterly futile to try and fit them all into the above buckets. However, what I'm trying to point out is the absolute depth of questions which need to be looked at when analyzing something like this.

Simply stating that 'men earn more than women' ignores a multitude of factors which add to the causation. So much so that I wince whenever I see it brought up via 'gender quotas' and the like.

There are not my arguments , simply look it up on any reputable website .

The gap is closing on wages , but on higher representation in the top jobs in the civil service , Dail , general business it is still along way to go.

I was asked to point out how condition in the 70's are relevant today and I did so . Now you have a different set of questions !

Does any deny that for most of this century women in Ireland were second class citizens ? The fact that things are improving enormously does not change that .

Nor does it in any way minimise the terrible problems facing men today ( as I have already said) in family law, divorce , suicide etc . Why is it so adversarial in here ?

It is interesting though that it took a woman in the job a wet week to state her intention to open up those courts to more public scrutiny , which is more than a succession of male ministers have signally failed to even comment on.

With that I am out of here .

ancapailldorcha

marienbad wrote: »

There are not my arguments , simply look it up on any reputable website .

Ie, one which agrees with you without any sort of data.