Gender Equality

Cavehill Red

Huckleberry Finn wrote: »

Cavehill Red:

Please explain the relevance of this to the argument put forth regarding government/ boards/ committees.

Both are predicated on the notion of gender discrepancy and the erroneous idea that quotas can resolve a perceived gender inequity.

gallag

shopaholic01 wrote: »

True equality would divide parental leave equally between both parents. Women would take time before and after delivery (as they give birth), men would take the second half of the leave.

Ahhh, never thought about it like that, when will the man's milk come in?

Bipolar Joe

gallag wrote: »

Ahhh, never thought about it like that, when will the man's milk come in?

So we all agree men and women are different, awesome. Also milk formula exists which is nice.

Let's all take about how the justice system is skewed in favour of women for a while. Can't get a job, ladies? Well I'm in prison for not paying the household charge.

shopaholic01

gallag wrote: »

Ahhh, never thought about it like that, when will the man's milk come in?

I think 'man milk' has a different formulation, not really suitable for feeding babies.

smash

gallag wrote: »

Ahhh, never thought about it like that, when will the man's milk come in?

wtf has that got to do with anything? Not everyone breast feeds you know. And those who do, don't do it for that long as it's only the first few days that are really important.

shopaholic01

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

So we all agree men and women are different, awesome. Also milk formula exists which is nice.

Let's all take about how the justice system is skewed in favour of women for a while. Can't get a job, ladies? Well I'm in prison for not paying the household charge.

Breast pumps too.

Are you suggesting that only men will be imprisioned for non-payment of the household charge? Sweet!!!!

Shenshen

gallag wrote: »

Women are less productive for a company in general due to pregnancy. Women can't help this and should not be punished for it, hell I would imagine they are glad to get back to work for a break after maternity leave, but for a small company facts are facts and it can be better to train a male to do a job.

Which is why this country needs to introduce the right for fathers to take parental leave before even thinking about quota.

Bipolar Joe

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Breast pumps too.

Are you suggesting that only men will be imprisioned for non-payment of the household charge? Sweet!!!!

Seeing as only men are the breadwinners of every household in the country due to the white man keeping the lady down it's definitely the man's responsibility.

Blowfish

Huckleberry Finn wrote: »

I believe it is to do with who the parties select to put forward.

The group in the last election with the lowest number of running women was the independants.

In other words, rather than it being parties with an 'old boys club' attitude not putting women forward, what is actually happening is that the parties are currently encouraging more women to run than would run with zero barrier to entry (i.e. independant).

The issue has nothing to do with parties hampering women and everything to do with women for whatever reason not putting themselves forward for election.

Now there may be issues which prevent a certain percentage of women from putting themselves forward. These issues should be looked for and tackled if found. The problem is, gender quotas just ignore this completely. If gender quotas are enforced, the issues will still be there, preventing that same group of women from running.

shopaholic01

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Seeing as only men are the breadwinners of every household in the country due to the white man keeping the lady down it's definitely the man's responsibility.

Sorry, I'm off to switch on my sarcasm detector now!

mickstupp

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

When was it shown that women are smarter than men?

When the majority of them decided not to run for political office.

gallag

My point was more that men and women are not equal, men will be better hunter gathers due to genetics I.e better strength (in general) and women are better at raising babies (in general) it's no coincidence that life giving fluid that the baby needs comes from her breasts. Genetics has made sure that men and women are not equal no matter how liberal we want to be.

Look at the child care industry, 90% plus femail employment and it's a shambles. Low profit high cost due to the staff taking several year long breaks to mother children. If the child care industry was selling a consumer product that people had a choice in buying they would fail.

If you are an employer would you rather a 25yo femail with no kids I.e high percentage chance that she will have several years of over the next ten years or a 25yo male? Made worse for the argument for the femail if it's a job that requires training I.e having to train people to cover her job every few years.

Women and men are not equal. Humans are far to complex to be politically correct. Women have genetic advantages and disadvantages just like men.

Pherekydes

Huckleberry Finn wrote: »

49.95% of the population was female (2011) in Ireland.

84% of members of parliament are male.

Can women only represent women? Can men only represent men? If so, I'd like my vote back.

People, men and women, vote for who'll give them what they want, whether it's to fill in the hole on their street or the hole in the economy. They frequently vote on party lines. I'd wager most voters don't really care about the gender (or religion or race) of the person they're voting for.

If people really want gender equality, then stop taking note and counting...

biko

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

When was it shown that women are smarter than men?

Correct me if I'm wrong but men consistently out score women at IQ tests on average?

I should probably have added some sources to my statement.

In literacy skills, 15-year-old girls are ahead of boys in every one of the 43 countries in the OECD survey. In the UK, the gap in literacy scores between girls and boys at this age is 26%. src

GIRLS HAVE again outperformed boys in most Leaving Certificate subjects, an analysis of this year’s examination results shows.
Repeating their success last year, girls continued to perform better than boys in higher-level Irish, English, history, geography, French and German. src

Apparently people still take IQ tests for reasons other than to distract themselves during the work day. And after 100 years of intelligence quotient assessment, women are finally coming out on top. src

Hopefully this will open up even more positions for women in high-powered roles in a few years time.

Bipolar Joe

Sounds like an old women's club to me.

smash

gallag wrote: »

My point was more that men and women are not equal, men will be better hunter gathers due to genetics I.e better strength (in general) and women are better at raising babies (in general) it's no coincidence that life giving fluid that the baby needs comes from her breasts. Genetics has made sure that men and women are not equal no matter how liberal we want to be.

In the first world, when was the last time a man went out hunting and gathering to feed his family? Seriously, we are well past the stone age ffs.

gallag wrote: »

Look at the child care industry, 90% plus femail employment and it's a shambles. Low profit high cost due to the staff taking several year long breaks to mother children. If the child care industry was selling a consumer product that people had a choice in buying they would fail.

Yea, I think you got that backwards there.

Scanlas The 2nd

biko wrote: »

I should probably have added some sources to my statement.



Hopefully this will open up even more positions for women in high-powered roles in a few years time.

I don't think the LC is a great indicator of intelligence, there are so many other factors, such as hard work and memorising ability.

BizzyC

I think gender quotas are a silly idea.

Instead of forcing a company to hire a woman because of her gender they should be doing more to help boost the qualifications of women and require companies to provide evidience to prove that gender discrimination was not present during the hiring process.

JRant

biko wrote: »

I should probably have added some sources to my statement.



Hopefully this will open up even more positions for women in high-powered roles in a few years time.

Would you agree that girls mature more quickly than boys in these years?

Or should we look at the education system and say that gender quota's should be intoduced to even up the playing field. Sorry Mary you got 550 points on the CAO but we're past our quota of females for the course you wanted, better luck next time.

Cavehill Red

JRant wrote: »

Or should we look at the education system and say that gender quota's should be intoduced to even up the playing field. Sorry Mary you got 550 points on the CAO but we're past our quota of females for the course you wanted, better luck next time.

There is a legitimate argument that we should be considering introducing quotas for men on medicine courses, in order to ensure a sufficient supply of male doctors in future. The need for male doctors in particular is due to the need to have medics in the same gender as patients made uncomfortable being treated by the opposite gender, but also because female doctors rarely seek employment in single or dual handed rural GP practices, where there is a significant shortfall of GPs currently.

King Of Wishful Thinking

biko wrote: »

Men hire other men. They are also the type of men that look down on women, and black people.

You use the word 'Men' here, without preceding it with an adjective and so are implying a majority.

So, the majority of male employers are discriminatory and sexist? Are you serious?

biko wrote: »

Great thread, really got the masses riled up. Well done OP.

You didn't do so bad yourself in fairness.

--Kaiser--

Women can both vote and stand for election. Having gender quotas is both undemocratic and sexist

Duggy747

It rather pisses on the notion of women who fought for decades to have equal rights and to be treated better when something like a gender quota exists.

It can create division and resentment within a business / organisation that one only got the job because of their sex / race rather than their ability to actually do their job thus having the person climb needlessly uphill to prove their worth to others.

I've worked with more organisations and businesses than not where women were the CEO's / Managers who got where they were because they were the best for the job and knew how to run it and it's staff. It's insulting to them that a small segment would exist in some people's head that "She's only there because she's a woman / knows someone and used her charms.........probably gave a blowjob, har har har........".

gallag

smash wrote: »

In the first world, when was the last time a man went out hunting and gathering to feed his family? Seriously, we are well past the stone age ffs.


Yea, I think you got that backwards there.

Indeed, the hunting analogy is just to highlight the genetic differences and I assumed wrongly people would understand that, the idea is transferable to a more modern setting. There is a reason why males dominate the heavy building industry, take laying flag stones for example, a woman could do this but due to males evolving to be the stronger hunter gatherers they are better suited to this kind of labour, again a woman could do it but would probably suffer from spinal damage etc in mid life.

Women and men are factually not the same or equal in a capability sense.

And I stand by my comment on the child care industry, high cost to the parents and low profit to the owners.

King Of Wishful Thinking

Duggy747 wrote: »

It rather pisses on the notion of women who fought for decades to have equal rights and to be treated better when something like a gender quota exists.

They don't care and by they I mean Feminist lobby groups.

They have tunnel vision and their goal is to get as much power for women as possible. They are blind to the fact the are good reasons for gender imbalances were they exist.

It's liberal agenda for liberal agenda sake and as it's seen as progressive to give women more rights, they just keep on doing so, not actually thinking about the detrimental effect their are having on the opposite sex.

If Labour had of won the last election in the UK, a similar or worse version of this would have been written into law, thank God they didn't. Harriet Harman MP (Minister for Equality) actually wanted to make it legal to discriminate against white men in the workplace:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232728/Flagship-inequality-clears-Commons-despite-claim-lead-positive-discrimination.html

hatrickpatrick

See here's the problem which I find in every single one of these debates.
When men do better than women at anything, eg getting into positions and jobs, it's discrimination against women.
When women do better, eg getting into college and getting better exam results, it's because men aren't as intelligent.

This double standard is very deeply and hideously offensive, and the constant bombardment of young men in the media in this way does absolutely nothing for their self esteem.

But of course, that doesn't matter, the media damaging people's self esteem is only a problem when it's women's body image or something. God forbid anyone suggest that they stop vilifying young men in general at every possible opportunity...

JRant

Cavehill Red wrote: »

There is a legitimate argument that we should be considering introducing quotas for men on medicine courses, in order to ensure a sufficient supply of male doctors in future. The need for male doctors in particular is due to the need to have medics in the same gender as patients made uncomfortable being treated by the opposite gender, but also because female doctors rarely seek employment in single or dual handed rural GP practices, where there is a significant shortfall of GPs currently.

That could well be applied to teaching aswell and may be a reason for girls outperforming boys in school. There are far to many female teachers but if men don't want to do the job what are they to do?

JRant

Cavehill Red wrote: »

There is a legitimate argument that we should be considering introducing quotas for men on medicine courses, in order to ensure a sufficient supply of male doctors in future. The need for male doctors in particular is due to the need to have medics in the same gender as patients made uncomfortable being treated by the opposite gender, but also because female doctors rarely seek employment in single or dual handed rural GP practices, where there is a significant shortfall of GPs currently.

That could well be applied to teaching aswell and may be a reason for girls outperforming boys in school. There are far to many female teachers but if men don't want to do the job what are they to do?

geetar

Huckleberry Finn wrote: »

If it IS based on merit and credentials here, why are the majority men?

because if more men choose to study/work in a particular field, statistically there will be more men who are best suited for the job.

having a minimum gender percentage is ridiculous.

hiring should be done on merit and ability, not race or gender. by suggesting that some highly qualified, better working men or women should lose out in a job to a inferior man/woman just to level the gender ratio is absurd.

biko wrote: »

Men hire other men. They are also the type of men that look down on women, and black people.

thats a sweeping, discriminatory statement. if a mans a boss, he's racist, hates women and is having an affair with the secretary :rolleyes:

King Of Wishful Thinking

geetar wrote: »

thats a sweeping, discriminatory statement. if a mans a boss, he's racist, hates women and is having an affair with the secretary :rolleyes:

But it's discriminatory and sexist towards men, ergo: it's doesn't matter a jot.