Gender Equality

JRant

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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...

Nail, Hammer, Head.

Schools are becoming more and more emasculated. Competion in sports is frowned upon, rather they want everyone to compete in together. Mixing boys and girls in sport is stupid and should be stopped immediately.
Men and women are different, always have been, always will be. Thank fcuk they are or we wouldn't have made it as a species.

Young male suicide is a blight on this country yet is completely overlooked. Why is it that a young girl committing suicide recieves mass meeja attention yet hundreds of young men take their own lives every year and there's not a peep.

RDM_83 again

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.

You'd better off looking at University results which do not give the same clear cut story of female achievement vs male as 2nd level does and this is in a situation where there's a skew towards females entering the 3rd level system

However the gender gap between male and female results does mean that more females enter the courses leading to the prestige professions as they require high points.

dr.bollocko

This kind of thread still exists in a world where people legitimately believe that the young white male is the most sinned against person in the world. And I find that laughable.

I personally don't agree with gender quotas in some areas.

However we live in a society where many small businesses don't like to hire women because of the risk of having a bambino, for example. When women do attain high positions they generally get paid less than their male counterparts.

The right person should indeed get the job, regardless of race, creed, gender etc. However they should also have the same opportunity to get that job and I don't believe that we exist in a society where that is currently happening.

I think gender quotas is a not very clever attempt at solving this problem so I don't agree with it.

But to suggest that the worst incidents of sexism happen to be cases of sexism against males is depressing / hilarious.

--Kaiser--

dr.bollocko wrote: »

However we live in a society where many small businesses don't like to hire women because of the risk of having a bambino, for example. When women do attain high positions they generally get paid less than their male counterparts.

The odds that a 25 - 35 year old female employee will get pregnant, need to replaced temporarily and still be paid (depending on the company) are probably reasonably high(let's say 25%)

The odds of the same thing happening to a male employee of any age - 0.

That's not sexism, that's capitalism.

dr.bollocko

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

The odds that a 25 - 35 year old female employee will get pregnant, need to replaced temporarily and still be paid (depending on the company) are probably reasonably high(let's say 25%)

The odds of the same thing happening to a male employee of any age - 0.

That's not sexism, that's capitalism.

They are not hiring a member of staff based on their gender. That's sexism.

hatrickpatrick

dr.bollocko wrote: »

But to suggest that the worst incidents of sexism happen to be cases of sexism against males is depressing / hilarious.

They may not be the worst, but they are certainly the most overlooked.

RDM_83 again

dr.bollocko wrote: »

This kind of thread still exists in a world where people legitimately believe that the young white male is the most sinned against person in the world. And I find that laughable.

Boards.ie is highly skewed towards younger males.

I'm sure sexism exists against woman at older ages and in different countries but for the younger Irish male its hard to see any metric that shows younger men in a significantly better position than younger woman (with the probable exception of mental health problems however with the huge difference suicide rates that may simply be to do with mental health issues not being identified in males).

I do not believe that there is rampant discrimination against younger Irish males however I despise this focus on Gender Equality for what may be considered the "Elite" positions, TD's, Ministers, CEO's while issues of Equality for the 95% are not considered important or worth legislating on

--Kaiser--

dr.bollocko wrote: »

They are not hiring a member of staff based on their gender. That's sexism.

All other things being equal, if there were no such thing as maternity leave, I would agree that it would be sexist. Since there is and this is a significant outlay of time and money that an employer potentially has to deal with, to not to take this into account would be foolish (especially in your example of a small time business)

dr.bollocko

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They may not be the worst, but they are certainly the most overlooked.

Well let's see.

Here is your premise:

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.

Now to expand on this point, which apparently hits the nail on the head...
Who makes theses assessments? I certainly don't. I don't look at a man getting into a position and think "that should have been a woman."

Counterwise when I see a woman getting a PHD I don't assume its because of the lack of dangly things between her legs.

You're speaking to further generalise about generalisations that aren't the viewpoint of any reasonable person like me or you who has actually thought about the issue at hand.

jaja321

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

All other things being equal, if there were no such thing as maternity leave, I would agree that it would be sexist. Since there is, this is a significant outlay of time and money that an employer potentially has to deal with, to not to take this into account would be foolish, especially in your example of a small time business

Would you agree with parental leave instead of maternity leave - where the leave can be split by the parents as they see fit? Thereby going some way to eliminating the situation whereby women of childbearing age may be seen as a less desirable hire, making equal opportunity more likely, and giving men the opportunity to spend more time with their young children.

JRant

dr.bollocko wrote: »

This kind of thread still exists in a world where people legitimately believe that the young white male is the most sinned against person in the world. And I find that laughable.

I personally don't agree with gender quotas in some areas.

However we live in a society where many small businesses don't like to hire women because of the risk of having a bambino, for example. When women do attain high positions they generally get paid less than their male counterparts.

The right person should indeed get the job, regardless of race, creed, gender etc. However they should also have the same opportunity to get that job and I don't believe that we exist in a society where that is currently happening.

I think gender quotas is a not very clever attempt at solving this problem so I don't agree with it.

But to suggest that the worst incidents of sexism happen to be cases of sexism against males is depressing / hilarious.

I think you'll find we live in a society where anything goes against young white males. You can say whatever you like about them and nothing will be said.

The small business example has many different facets to it though. With such tight margins an employer will look at their situation and ask can they really afford to pay maternity pay and hire new staff to cover. For most the answer is no unfortunately.
Also if we're all equal why is the law allowed to discriminate against men. Men are allowed lift consideribly more weight in the workplace, why?
For decades we've had gender discrimination in the insurance industry, if this had of been the other way round the outcry would have been deafening.

RDM_83 again

dr.bollocko wrote: »

However we live in a society where many small businesses don't like to hire women because of the risk of having a bambino, for example.

This is exactly the sort of statement that is shows the bias towards a female positive viewpoint rather than looking at demographic information

In Ireland today there is a massively higher male unemployment rate, however this is not a concern * what is a concern is that more females aren;t being hired


* http://www.datosmacro.com/en/unemployment/ireland

dr.bollocko

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

All other things being equal, if there were no such thing as maternity leave, I would agree that it would be sexist. Since there is, this is a significant outlay of time and money that an employer potentially has to deal with, to not to take this into account would be foolish, especially in your example of a small time business

So your premise is now that men are more sinned against than women but it's OK to consider a woman as a potential baby production factory when hiring her for a job? And that that is completely reasonable to take into account?

And that it's not sexist?

In fact it's foolish not to consider this?

And you don't see any flaw in this logic?

Employers are not obliged to pay women on maternity leave.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/maternity_leave.html

dr.bollocko

RDM_83 again wrote: »

This is exactly the sort of statement that is shows the bias towards a female positive viewpoint rather than looking at demographic information

In Ireland today there is a massively higher male unemployment rate, however this is not a concern * what is a concern is that more females aren;t being hired


* http://www.datosmacro.com/en/unemployment/ireland

Who said that it wasn't a concern?

What aspect of the media's coverage of the past 5 years / recession / unemployment rates / coverage of social welfare has led you to believe for even one second that people are more worried about women getting better jobs than the ridiculously high unemployment rate?

Do you listen to some bizarrely feminist pirate radio station where the economy is only discussed of its impact on young female executives?

Or, with the benefit of further assessment, can you accept that your above statement is an inaccurate misrepresentation of my position?

dr.bollocko

JRant wrote: »

I think you'll find we live in a society where anything goes against young white males. You can say whatever you like about them and nothing will be said.

To quote chris rock. If we're losing then who is winning?

The small business example has many different facets to it though. With such tight margins an employer will look at their situation and ask can they really afford to pay maternity pay and hire new staff to cover. For most the answer is no unfortunately.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/maternity_leave.html
Employers are not obliged to pay women on maternity leave.
Try again.

Also if we're all equal why is the law allowed to discriminate against men. Men are allowed lift consideribly more weight in the workplace, why?

You're misunderstanding gender equality. Men, in general, can lift more. Gender equality refers to equal rights and opportunities. Not some erosion of gender identity so that a man or woman cannot be treated differently in any scenario.

For decades we've had gender discrimination in the insurance industry, if this had of been the other way round the outcry would have been deafening.

On the one hand you're saying, oh, employers can not hire women because they pop out the babbies and the poor employer has to look at the bottom line and that is fine.

However on the other hand when statistics show that a young male is more likely to crash than the equivalent young female this is not ok and is sexism?

Your logic is flawed there.

--Kaiser--

dr.bollocko wrote: »

So your premise is now that men are more sinned against than women but it's OK to consider a woman as a potential baby production factory when hiring her for a job? And that that is completely reasonable to take into account?

And that it's not sexist?

In fact it's foolish not to consider this?

And you don't see any flaw in this logic?

Employers are not obliged to pay women on maternity leave.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/maternity_leave.html

I don't think I said anything about male discrimination and certainly didn't have a premise. And yes, it is completely reasonable to take into account given that it is a very likely to happen (depending on the age of the woman). Nor should a woman who takes such leave be afforded the same opportunities of a male peer who, all other things being equal, doesn't have a 6 - 12 month gap in his career

dr.bollocko

jaja321 wrote: »

Would you agree with parental leave instead of maternity leave - where the leave can be split by the parents as they see fit? Thereby going some way to eliminating the situation whereby women of childbearing age may be seen as a less desirable hire, making equal opportunity more likely, and giving men the opportunity to spend more time with their young children.

Now this is something I could get behind.

Pool the parental leave and let the couple decide how to use it.

Shenshen

JRant wrote: »

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?

One of my profs at university years ago put the following suggestion to us :

Male dominated sectors, generallty speaking, are prestigious and offer more financial returns.
However, if in the past a shift took place and a male dominated secote became a female dominated sector, the social prestige previously associated with the work dropped along with the money that could be made in that sector.
She gave us the example of teachers and librarians. Both used to be highly respected professions, but have seen a significant drop in both public respect and renumeration since they became mostly female jobs.

As a result, men become even less likely to take an interest in these professions. A self-enforcing cycle.

geetar

dr.bollocko wrote: »

So your premise is now that men are more sinned against than women but it's OK to consider a woman as a potential baby production factory when hiring her for a job? And that that is completely reasonable to take into account?

And that it's not sexist?

In fact it's foolish not to consider this?

And you don't see any flaw in this logic?

Employers are not obliged to pay women on maternity leave.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/maternity_leave.html

one of my relatives has had three female staff go on maternity leave in the last 2 years. one of which only returned for 6 months before getting pregnant again.

its damaging to businesses and is very frustrating to employers and i think thats a reasonable assertion to make.


now, if you had real gender equality, men would also be entitled to paternity leave, and this wouldnt be a discriminating issue. instead of asking why employers discriminate over maternity leave, ask why is the system exploitable, allow women to hold employers hostage, and why these same rights arent applicable to men.

--Kaiser--

jaja321 wrote: »

Would you agree with parental leave instead of maternity leave - where the leave can be split by the parents as they see fit? Thereby going some way to eliminating the situation whereby women of childbearing age may be seen as a less desirable hire, making equal opportunity more likely, and giving men the opportunity to spend more time with their young children.

I'm not arguing for or against maternity leave, I'm arguing about things as they are in this country

Pole Monkey

LOL women.

We're supposed to believe they're just as capable as men but they need quotas, affirmative action and special support to bring them up to the same level of achievement.

It's just a fukking joke. :pac:

mod: banned.

RDM_83 again

No I read the Guardian and IT.

In your post you stated that

dr.bollocko wrote: »

This kind of thread still exists in a world where people legitimately believe that the young white male is the most sinned against person in the world. And I find that laughable.

But to suggest that the worst incidents of sexism happen to be cases of sexism against males is depressing / hilarious.

Show me a metric in which younger Irish females are in a worse position than males in relation to employment or any other area where discrimination can be accurately measured (rather than self reported). For example you say small businesses don;t hire Females , I could reply that males aren;t considered for office or female gender positions, neither of us is giving any information to back up our views, but "its laughable to suggest that males may be disriminated against"

dr.bollocko

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I don't think I said anything about male discrimination and certainly didn't have a premise. And yes, it is completely reasonable to take into account given that it is a very likely to happen (depending on the age of the woman). Nor should a woman who takes such leave be afforded the same opportunities of a male peer who, all other things being equal, doesn't have a 6 - 12 month gap in his career

Under the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004 at least 2 weeks have to be taken before the end of the week of your baby's expected birth and at least 4 weeks after. You can decide how you would like to take the remaining weeks. Generally, employees take 2 weeks before the birth and the remaining weeks after. If you qualify for Maternity Benefit (see below) at least 2 and no more than 16 weeks must be taken before the end of the week the baby is due.

Payment during maternity leave

Your entitlement to pay and superannuation during maternity leave depends on the terms of your contract of employment. Employers are not obliged to pay women on maternity leave. You may qualify for Maternity Benefit which is a Department of Social Protection payment you have sufficient PRSI contributions. However an employee’s contract could provide for additional rights to payment during the leave period, so that, for example, the employee could receive full pay less the amount of Maternity Benefit payable.

From the link I posted earlier.

If the two candidates are equal then the man gets an advantage because he's not having a baby. Particularly in a small business. We'll have to accept this. Small businesses, in general, this is more likely to happen.

He has an advantage because of his gender in an age where most young families rely on two incomes.

He (the hypothetical man hired above a woman because of his lack of popping out a sprog) has taken advantage of what is a discriminatory hiring policy.

That's not OK. You could use the same argument to suggest that a man deserves to be paid more for the same work. Which is also sexist.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/equality_authority.html

Check out the equality in the workplace info.

Under the equality legislation discrimination based on any one of 9 distinct grounds is unlawful. These grounds are:

Gender
Civil status
Family status
Sexual orientation
Religion
Age (does not apply to a person under 16)
Disability
Race
Membership of the Traveller community.

Totally unreasonable you say.

The state says it's unlawful.

I agree with the state.

jackofalltrades

dr.bollocko wrote: »

But to suggest that the worst incidents of sexism happen to be cases of sexism against males is depressing / hilarious.

Why is this so hilarious? Why is it to merely suggest that men are being disadvantaged in some area's met with derision?

It's like there's a "winner takes all" towards sexual discrimination, and that if you not on the most oppressed team, then you need to sit down and shut up.

Haelium

If women were equal in the workplace then they would be able to attain positions of power themselves and hire other females.

The "wage gap" is closing, and has been closing for a long time. If you take a look at employment figures you will find that the rate of male unemployment is higher, girls get better points in the leaving cert and there are currently more women in college than men. Men are more prone to suicide and are more likely to be imprisoned.


Yet still, women are discriminated against, and if you disagree then you're a member of the evil patriarchy and intimidated by "Strong independent women".


When women finally earn more than men, do you think there will be a discussion about anti-male discrimination? I don't think there will, I suspect that the mentality will suddenly turn to "Oh well women are just better adjusted for the modern world because cooperation and communication etc etc"

dr.bollocko

RDM_83 again wrote: »

No I read the Guardian and IT.

In your post you stated that



Show me a metric in which younger Irish females are in a worse position than males in relation to employment or any other area where discrimination can be accurately measured (rather than self reported). For example you say small businesses don;t hire Females , I could reply that males aren;t considered for office or female gender positions, neither of us is giving any information to back up our views, but "its laughable to suggest that males may be disriminated against"

http://www.ictu.ie/equality/gender/csostatisticson.html

--Kaiser--

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Check out the equality in the workplace info.


Totally unreasonable you say.

The state says it's unlawful.

I agree with the state.

Hmmmm, so it's illegal to discriminate on disability? How many blind pilots do you see?
It's illegal to discriminate on age, I'd like to see an 80 year being interviewed to be a fireman.

and so on and so on....

maggy_thatcher

dr.bollocko wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/maternity_leave.html
Employers are not obliged to pay women on maternity leave.
Try again.

They're not obliged to pay women on maternity leave, however they are obliged to keep her position open for up to 42 weeks, as well as cover her vacation time as if she was a full-time employee. In small businesses, this means that the company will often have to hire a temporary contract position to cover the missing person, and then spend plenty of money training them up. Then, more often than not it seems, the woman will hand in their notice, forcing the company to then go and have to find a permanent replacement, which, had they been told 42-weeks previously, wouldn't have had to go and mess around with a temporary contractor.

Like it or not, as long as maternity leave is exclusively a women only benefit, there will always be something in the back of the mind of the employer that, given two equal applicants, one male, and one female, will push in favour of the male as this extra cost/risk isn't there. All they have to do is find any small excuse for it that's not covered in discrimination legislation as well and they're covered as well.

The solution to this is not introducing further discriminating acts such as gender quotas, but to harmonize the benefits so that it doesn't matter what your gender is, you're equally entitled to it.

That's my view anyway.

Scanlas The 2nd

dr.bollocko wrote: »

http://www.ictu.ie/equality/gender/csostatisticson.html

You do realise just because women get paid less on average doesn't means they are discriminated against. I'd bet good money men are more likely to ask for a pay rise.

Also all we are looking at here is correlation not causation. Tall people generally earn more than shorter people.

Perhaps a woman of the same height earns the same as a man of te same height Nd height is the underlying discriminant. The truth is the data I've seen isnfar from conclusive and only seems to measure correlation.

Madam_X

If there were just comments like "Men face discrimination and sexism in some areas and aren't being heard" it would be a reasonable way to broach things (and it is a true statement) but "White males are the most discriminated group in western society" is caricature territory and less likely to be taken seriously. Just think about it for a second like: no senior businessmen/political leaders are white men?

It's true Dr. Bollocko - who are these people that say it's all right for men to face unfairness (apart from some militant feminists) as is being claimed? Not anyone here anyway.
And indignation about people not doing anything about it? Who should be doing something about it? Those who are so angered by it and feel affected by it perhaps...?