Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

FactCheck

Just for posters who may not be familiar with the nuances of British politics - if you read the hashtags, the "boys" it refers to are not the male voting public in general. It's the male leaders of the main parties (Cameron, Clegg, Miliband) who are variously prevaricating and wibbling at the thought of having to include the Greens, UKIP, and/or the Scottish National Party in the general election leaders' debates.

I wouldn't want someone writing an angry letter to some random politician you'd never heard of before today and getting it wrong.

The message of the poster isn't "What are you afraid of, stupid male voters. Vote for these women." It's "What are you afraid of, David Cameron, invite these party leaders to debate you".

It's an unpleasant, goading, egotistical approach but this is par for the course in UK politics and it's positively gentle compared to five minutes of Prime Minister's Questions. This nasty, bullying crap is absolutely pervasive in British politics (to an extent that Irish or, say, American politics simply doesn't have) and ironically it's one of the main reasons why so few women (and sane people in general) would never consider entering political life. The Greens pay a lot of lip service to making politics friendlier to women but by embracing this macho crapola they are perpetuating the attitudes that discourage them in the first place.

Piliger

I disagree ... if that is a poster for their campaign and it refers to 'What are you afraid of boys" then it is address ALL men. Don't be naive.

FactCheck

I'm not naive. I would venture to say I am informed, given that I actually live in the country and follow its politics closely.

The upcoming general election and the invitations (or lack thereof) to the leaders' debates have been the main domestic political story of the last month or so.

It's all optics and nonsense, of course - the debates make no difference whatsoever to the outcome and are of interest only to wonks and journalists who have all long since made up their minds.

If you read the hashtags, and/or know anything about the news, the "boys" is very definitely aimed at the other leaders and Cameron in particular. The Greens have adopted this "what are they afraid of" tone in numerous interviews on the likes of Radio 4 and Newsnight too.

But by all means spend a few minutes sending a letter to them. I'm sure they're dying to hear from someone who isn't even in their country, let alone their constituency, and has no idea of the context the picture was produced for. I'm sure that's the most productive, meaningful, and efficient way for you to spend 10 minutes improving the rights of men.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

FactCheck wrote: »

I'm not naive. I would venture to say I am informed, given that I actually live in the country and follow its politics closely.

The upcoming general election and the invitations (or lack thereof) to the leaders' debates have been the main domestic political story of the last month or so.

It's all optics and nonsense, of course - the debates make no difference whatsoever to the outcome and are of interest only to wonks and journalists who have all long since made up their minds.

If you read the hashtags, and/or know anything about the news, the "boys" is very definitely aimed at the other leaders and Cameron in particular. The Greens have adopted this "what are they afraid of" tone in numerous interviews on the likes of Radio 4 and Newsnight too.

I actually spent some time canvassing for the Brighton & Hove Green Party as well as volunteering in their office as I mentioned earlier in this thread. I'm reasonably well read when it comes to UK politics.

A lot of their marketing seems to suggest that female politicians are superior to their male counterparts because of their gender. Natalie Bennett once tweeted that they had a new candidate who was transgender and that the Greens were the first party in the UK to do this. It's the same kind of oneupmanship which I find repugnant. I have a very high opinion of Caroline Lucas and it's a real shame this poster doesn't concentrate on her achievements as an MP rather than gender.

This boys club notion that they're pushing really irks me. Sure, most MPs, CEO's and the like are straight white men. Thing is, most boys are excluded from this club as well.

The party has completed ignored men. It's the same strategic error that has caused young people to vote for the likes of the BNP or UKIP or even lead to them becoming completely disillusioned with politics altogether. I don't mind that the Greens have ignored men, but material such as this suggests that they don't have a high opinion of us as a gender and also makes the mistake of homogenising us as a hive-minded population.

As an aside, I recently watched an episode of Prime Minister's Questions. It was disgusting. I feel sorry for anyone whose full time job is to analyse and comment on this tripe.

FactCheck

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I actually spent some time canvassing for the Brighton & Hove Green Party as well as volunteering in their office as I mentioned earlier in this thread. I'm reasonably well read when it comes to UK politics.

A lot of their marketing seems to suggest that female politicians are superior to their male counterparts because of their gender. Natalie Bennett once tweeted that they had a new candidate who was transgender and that the Greens were the first party in the UK to do this. It's the same kind of oneupmanship which I find repugnant. I have a very high opinion of Caroline Lucas and it's a real shame this poster doesn't concentrate on her achievements as an MP rather than gender.

This boys club notion that they're pushing really irks me. Sure, most MPs, CEO's and the like are straight white men. Thing is, most boys are excluded from this club as well.

The party has completed ignored men. It's the same strategic error that has caused young people to vote for the likes of the BNP or UKIP or even lead to them becoming completely disillusioned with politics altogether. I don't mind that the Greens have ignored men, but material such as this suggests that they don't have a high opinion of us as a gender and also makes the mistake of homogenising us as a hive-minded population.

As an aside, I recently watched an episode of Prime Minister's Questions. It was disgusting. I feel sorry for anyone whose full time job is to analyse and comment on this tripe.

Don't get me wrong, as I said initially, it's a terrible poster. It's bad, full stop, for the Greens to perpetuate the goady bull****. It's bad for their image as a "fresh alternative" for them to be seen to do it. It undercuts their supposed female-friendliness.

And it's offensive most of all to anyone with an interest in decent public relations or poster design!

That said, I am very, very certain that my reading of it (the "boys" is aimed offensively squarely at Cameron and Miliband, not the male voting population in general) is correct, and most of the British population who will be seeing it would agree with me. And as "proof", so to speak, I can offer this article from the Independent, published a few hours ago, analysing the poster exactly as I did:

The Green Party have hit out at their continued exclusion from the leader debates with a new poster that boldly asks: “What are you afraid of boys?”

The poster shows Green party leader Natalie Bennett and Caroline Lucas MP stood side by side as they challenge broadcasters to invite the Greens onto TV and be included in the leaders debates.

It is the latest move in the Green’s campaign to be included in the debates after Ofcom decided the party was not prominent enough to qualify for airtime alongside Nigel Farage, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and David Cameron.

The poster is not intended as an attack on a hive-mind of men in general, it is intended as an attack on the (supposed) cowardice of two or three men in particular.

If Thatcher (who abhorred debates and refused to ever participate in them, and IMO on this she wasn't wrong, they are a media circus and offer nothing to the electorate) were still around the poster would have read "What are you so afraid of Maggie?" or perhaps a reference to big girls blouses (er, or something... this poster designing is harder than it looks..!)

ancapailldorcha

maybe

I'm aware of the debates, I just don't follow hashtags. My opinion of the poster was one I formed in conjunction with other material the party has produced. Of course this poster is aimed Messrs Cameron, Miliband, Clegg & Farage (<shudder>). Dave has only demanded the Greens' presence as he knows it's a request that will not be met as they're actually left wing whereas Labour are centrist while who knows where the amorphous entity that is the Lib Dems are at.

FactCheck

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm aware of the debates, I just don't follow hashtags. My opinion of the poster was one I formed in conjunction with other material the party has produced. Of course this poster is aimed Messrs Cameron, Miliband, Clegg & Farage (<shudder>). Dave has only demanded the Greens' presence as he knows it's a request that will not be met as they're actually left wing whereas Labour are centrist while who knows where the amorphous entity that is the Lib Dems are at.

I think it would be better to criticise that other material, though. Because I think that to people (and it's perfectly fair enough for Irish people who don't live in the UK not to be completely up to date with this stuff, why would you spend more time thinking about Farage than you absolutely have to) who don't follow it closely, this poster appeared to be far more offensive than it actually is.

The first two commenters here both assumed this was an attack on all male voters, and the message of the poster was "vote for these women, because they are women". While it's a terrible poster, that is not it's message.

(For anyone who still considers my reading to be "naive", my naivety is apparently shared not only by The Independent but also by the Huffington Post and the New Statesman, who also describe the poster as a goading attack on Cameron, Clegg and Miliband.)

ancapailldorcha

maybe

FactCheck wrote: »

I think it would be better to criticise that other material, though. Because I think that to people (and it's perfectly fair enough for Irish people who don't live in the UK not to be completely up to date with this stuff, why would you spend more time thinking about Farage than you absolutely have to) who don't follow it closely, this poster appeared to be far more offensive than it actually is.

I spent a lot of time thinking about Farage because it's not as unforseeable as I'd like to think that he might attain a position of power. Anyway, that's probably beyond the scope of this thread.

FactCheck wrote: »

The first two commenters here both assumed this was an attack on all male voters, and the message of the poster was "vote for these women, because they are women". While it's a terrible poster, that is not it's message.

To be honest, I was dismayed that the Greens had stooped to so low a level. As I said before, I have a very high opinion on Lucas. I have a friend who's a Geologist who's spoken with her and she's extremely active and well informed on environmental issues, most notably fracking. Personally, I just found the thing to be condescending. The party's Facebook page had a fairly spirited discussion as well.

Piliger

FactCheck wrote: »

I'm not naive. I would venture to say I am informed, given that I actually live in the country and follow its politics closely.

The upcoming general election and the invitations (or lack thereof) to the leaders' debates have been the main domestic political story of the last month or so.

It's all optics and nonsense, of course - the debates make no difference whatsoever to the outcome and are of interest only to wonks and journalists who have all long since made up their minds.

If you read the hashtags, and/or know anything about the news, the "boys" is very definitely aimed at the other leaders and Cameron in particular. The Greens have adopted this "what are they afraid of" tone in numerous interviews on the likes of Radio 4 and Newsnight too.

But by all means spend a few minutes sending a letter to them. I'm sure they're dying to hear from someone who isn't even in their country, let alone their constituency, and has no idea of the context the picture was produced for. I'm sure that's the most productive, meaningful, and efficient way for you to spend 10 minutes improving the rights of men.

This is just an apologist view that facilitates this kind of sexist prejudice. You appear to think people in Ireland who read UK newspapers every day and see as much or more UK television that people in England don't know as much as you do ? Wow.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Piliger wrote: »

You appear to think people in Ireland who read UK newspapers every day and see as much or more UK television that people in England don't know as much as you do ? Wow.

No he (presuming FactCheck is a man) doesn't. He opened by explaining the aim of the Greens to be invited to the leaders' debate.

Maguined

FactCheck wrote: »

Just for posters who may not be familiar with the nuances of British politics - if you read the hashtags, the "boys" it refers to are not the male voting public in general. It's the male leaders of the main parties (Cameron, Clegg, Miliband) who are variously prevaricating and wibbling at the thought of having to include the Greens, UKIP, and/or the Scottish National Party in the general election leaders' debates.

The message of the poster isn't "What are you afraid of, stupid male voters. Vote for these women." It's "What are you afraid of, David Cameron, invite these party leaders to debate you".

FactCheck wrote: »

That said, I am very, very certain that my reading of it (the "boys" is aimed offensively squarely at Cameron and Miliband, not the male voting population in general) is correct, and most of the British population who will be seeing it would agree with me. And as "proof", so to speak, I can offer this article from the Independent, published a few hours ago, analysing the poster exactly as I did:



The poster is not intended as an attack on a hive-mind of men in general, it is intended as an attack on the (supposed) cowardice of two or three men in particular.

The political leaders do not decide who get's invited to the leaders debates and who does not. The format is actually proposed and controlled by the broadcasters. The broadcasters all decided not to invite the Greens because they are considered non-influential because of how little support they have so allowing them on the debates would be wasted time in the views of the broadcasters.

David Cameron has already publicaly said he will not participate in the debates unless the Greens are invited. Whether this is to show genuine support or more likely because he feels the Greens would only steal votes from Labour and not the Tories is personal speculation.

So either the Greens are so inept they are not aware of how the Leaders Debates are organised or they are aware and wanted to score a cheap shot against the "boys" while claiming they are the party for gender equality.

Piliger

Maguined wrote: »

The political leaders do not decide who get's invited to the leaders debates and who does not. The format is actually proposed and controlled by the broadcasters. The broadcasters all decided not to invite the Greens because they are considered non-influential because of how little support they have so allowing them on the debates would be wasted time in the views of the broadcasters.

David Cameron has already publicaly said he will not participate in the debates unless the Greens are invited. Whether this is to show genuine support or more likely because he feels the Greens would only steal votes from Labour and not the Tories is personal speculation.

So either the Greens are so inept they are not aware of how the Leaders Debates are organised or they are aware and wanted to score a cheap shot against the "boys" while claiming they are the party for gender equality.

Indeed. What is evident is the ineptitude and offensiveness of this Green Party leadership.

Gits_bone

donfers wrote: »

sexism exists, is it always a bad thing and damaging? no

why? because the sexes are different

first we must define it, does it mean treating the sexes differently? well then is that so bad, the sexes are different

the reality is that some people are more programmed to whinge about it than others because they knew their case will be heard more favourably

there are countless examples of sexism every day, I am constantly carrying stuff for women, moving things, doing physical jobs - none of the women call me a sexist for doing so, I just happen to be physically stronger than them

there are cases of what I would describe as damaging or malicious sexism but unfortunately those cases are often drowned out by the whinging victim class who trivialise the issue by claiming that every setback they suffer must be a result of some (more often than not) patriarchal conspiracy

it gets tiring

we must strive to highlight the real stuff, for example father's rights and the disgraceful way women are treated in some countries far far from here and we must weed out and expose the hypocritical garbage

100% agree. We are different humans, but different does not mean not equal.

Another guy in AH started saying you can't say men are stronger than women. I was making a point about difference in pay because of different levels of performance. I said "Men are better laborers than women". He comes back "my sister is a better laborer than me.

I also can't stand the blatant sexism allowed by women in calling for more women to be on radio or companies with aims to have more women in management positions. If they are not good enough they shouldn't get it.

runawaybishop

No

Gits_bone wrote: »

100% agree. We are different humans, but different does not mean not equal.

Another guy in AH started saying you can't say men are stronger than women. I was making a point about difference in pay because of different levels of performance. I said "Men are better laborers than women". He comes back "my sister is a better laborer than me.

I also can't stand the blatant sexism allowed by women in calling for more women to be on radio or companies with aims to have more women in management positions. If they are not good enough they shouldn't get it.

And that would be a sexist statement, just one of many casual statements that pervade society.

Gits_bone

runawaybishop wrote: »

And that would be a sexist statement, just one of many casual statements that pervade society.

No it's not. Get 10 men and 10 women and the men will be better, due to male strength.

Seriously?

Gits_bone wrote: »

No it's not. Get 10 men and 10 women and the men will be better, due to male strength.

How does that help in managerial position ?

True the wage gap is myth, but its not because men are in some way better than women.
For example young unmarried professional women out earn their male counterparts but thats attrubuted to a greater number of them vs men being better educated.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Gits_bone wrote: »

No it's not. Get 10 men and 10 women and the men will be better, due to male strength.

In terms of strength, the average man is indeed stronger than the average woman. However, there are other aspects to be considered such as motivation, work ethic, personality, etc... which are case-specific.

ALiasEX

I have to click so I have some experience to post about

Seriously? wrote: »

Hardly sexism, more general faecebook you-go-girl rubbish.
ps. you don't have to click it

How about this one then. (I have only read a bit of the article)

http://elitedaily.com/dating/gentlemen/12-qualities-find-woman-never-let-go/749353/

12 Special Qualities A Woman Has That Mean You Should Never Let Her Go

"1. She’s smarter than you.

Every man needs a smarter woman to help him get through life in one piece. They say that behind every great man is a greater woman – they aren’t lying. Without woman, man is little more than an ego-trip.

Enter a smarter woman into his life and suddenly that ego has a purpose, a direction, and the wisdom not to screw everything up."

runawaybishop

No

Gits_bone wrote: »

No it's not. Get 10 men and 10 women and the men will be better, due to male strength.

No, its sexist as you are basing the ability to be a good labourer on sex.

Wibbs

maybe

or logic and common sense. In the majority of cases men are stronger than women, so it would make sense to conclude that the average man would be a better labourer than the average woman all other things being equal. It's hardly "sexist" to suggest that surely?

runawaybishop

No

Wibbs wrote: »

or logic and common sense. In the majority of cases men are stronger than women, so it would make sense to conclude that the average man would be a better labourer than the average woman all other things being equal. It's hardly "sexist" to suggest that surely?

Don't call me Shirley :pac:

A blanket application of suitability based on nothing more than gender sounds sexist to me. You can definitely make the argument than men in general are stronger than woman so why not state that "stronger people make better labourers" rather than bring gender into it?

DoYouEvenLift

If you want to see some of the strongest self control displayed on video, ever, then watch the men in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOCD_T9Qqpc

Gits_bone

runawaybishop wrote: »

Don't call me Shirley :pac:

A blanket application of suitability based on nothing more than gender sounds sexist to me. You can definitely make the argument than men in general are stronger than woman so why not state that "stronger people make better labourers" rather than bring gender into it?

To prove that men and women are different.

Different =/= not equal.

Wibbs

maybe

ALiasEX wrote: »

I have to click so I have some experience to post about

How about this one then. (I have only read a bit of the article)

http://elitedaily.com/dating/gentlemen/12-qualities-find-woman-never-let-go/749353/

I lolled at this "Without woman, man is little more than an ego-trip.". Yea right. Which gender is more likely to be found taking selfies to spread around on social media eager for ego validation? Answers on a postcard...

This one's funny too.

"When a woman loves you she loves you with her entire soul. It’s not the same sort of love that men experience – men always were and always will be more egocentric than women.

Women, on the other hand, have the uncanny ability to devote themselves entirely to the person(s) they love."

Which gender is more likely to break off a relationship or instigate divorce(70% of the time in the latter)? It would be my personal opinion and observance that Womens(tm) love is more conditional as a general rule. Indeed I'd nearly reverse the genders in the above statement, if I wanted to make dodgy generalisations.

Or this.

"Every man – and I mean every man – needs a woman who will call him out on his sh*t. Guys have an uncanny ability to make poor decisions and do stupid things."

Oh I really lolled at that one.

Let's turn this nonsense around and imagine someone wrote the same article reversed.

Without a man, a woman is little more than an ego-trip.

A man's love is not the same sort of love that women experience – women always were and always will be more egocentric than men.

Every woman – and I mean every woman – needs a man who will call her out on her sh*t. Women have an uncanny ability to make poor decisions and do stupid things.

Can you imagine the shítstorm of offence? The fact that this article was written by someone claiming to be a man is even dafter. Talk about putting an entire gender on a pedestal while denigrating ones own.

Actually reading other articles of his and other men on that site reads like a breakdown on how to be a socially awkward simp.

Gits_bone

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In terms of strength, the average man is indeed stronger than the average woman. However, there are other aspects to be considered such as motivation, work ethic, personality, etc... which are case-specific.

Without strength you can't work as a laborer.

Also since you say everything is case specific why is there the argument men get paid more than women? If it's all case specific you can't say that.

Also is this "pay" argument judging men and women against the same job? Or the average wage?

Wibbs

maybe

runawaybishop wrote: »

Don't call me Shirley :pac:

A blanket application of suitability based on nothing more than gender sounds sexist to me. You can definitely make the argument than men in general are stronger than woman so why not state that "stronger people make better labourers" rather than bring gender into it?

Because the overwhelming number of stronger people will be men. It's descriptive, not sexist.

Gits_bone

There's sexism in that diet coke ad as well.

Have a woman in a bikini playing rugby? Ad gets pulled.
Have a guy take off his shirt and then have a group of women biting their lip at him. It's fine.

alchemist33

Time to get something off my chest --- man flu. (reference to chest and flu purely coincidental)

We all know men have shorter lifespans and are slower to get themselves checked out by doctors, even when experiencing symptoms. Yet the media, and society in general (and I include some men in this) are constantly driving home the message that men are wimps when it comes to health, can't handle pain etc. It's become axiomatic that a sick man, short of having an actual heart attack, should be able to struggle on when they're sick because they're somehow weak.

Not a massive issue, I know, but it just annoys me.

newport2

alchemist33 wrote: »

Time to get something off my chest --- man flu. (reference to chest and flu purely coincidental)

We all know men have shorter lifespans and are slower to get themselves checked out by doctors, even when experiencing symptoms. Yet the media, and society in general (and I include some men in this) are constantly driving home the message that men are wimps when it comes to health, can't handle pain etc. It's become axiomatic that a sick man, short of having an actual heart attack, should be able to struggle on when they're sick because they're somehow weak.

Not a massive issue, I know, but it just annoys me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/10536083/Man-flu-the-truth-that-women-dont-want-to-hear.html

Carlos Orange

No

alchemist33 wrote: »

Time to get something off my chest --- man flu. (reference to chest and flu purely coincidental)

Not a massive issue, I know, but it just annoys me.

It actually annoys me a lot. The last 2 times I have taken time off work sick women have made fun of it and mentioned man flu. It isn't why I take pretty poor care of myself but at a societal level it isn't uncorrelated either. And I disagree it isn't a massive issue. If women in Ireland on average lived 49 weeks for ever year men did then society would view it as a massive issue and launch a Manhattan project style plan to fix the problem. Since it's men people just shrug.

py2006

I'm in a work place where there is more women then men. Since Xmas ALLthe women have either left early, come in late, taken days off or all of the above and not one male has taken time off.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Gits_bone wrote: »

Without strength you can't work as a laborer.

Women don't have strength?

Gits_bone wrote: »

Also since you say everything is case specific why is there the argument men get paid more than women? If it's all case specific you can't say that.

I don't know where you're getting this from. When I mentioned case-specificity, I was referring to traits of potential employees.

Gits_bone

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Women don't have strength?



I don't know where you're getting this from. When I mentioned case-specificity, I was referring to traits of potential employees.

Yes, are you saying traits of employees doesn't affect what they earn?

And women have less strength then men, this is something you'd learn in 4th class.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Gits_bone wrote: »

Yes, are you saying traits of employees doesn't affect what they earn?

And women have less strength then men, this is something you'd learn in 4th class.

I was referring to attributes such as willingness to go the extra mile, punctuality and the like. This is the sort of behaviour which can result in pay increases. So, yes.

Generally speaking, women have less strength than men, it's not universal.

DoYouEvenLift

Wibbs wrote: »

I lolled at this "Without woman, man is little more than an ego-trip.". Yea right. Which gender is more likely to be found taking selfies to spread around on social media eager for ego validation? Answers on a postcard...

This one's funny too.

"When a woman loves you she loves you with her entire soul. It’s not the same sort of love that men experience – men always were and always will be more egocentric than women.

Women, on the other hand, have the uncanny ability to devote themselves entirely to the person(s) they love."

Which gender is more likely to break off a relationship or instigate divorce(70% of the time in the latter)? It would be my personal opinion and observance that Womens(tm) love is more conditional as a general rule. Indeed I'd nearly reverse the genders in the above statement, if I wanted to make dodgy generalisations.

Or this.

"Every man – and I mean every man – needs a woman who will call him out on his sh*t. Guys have an uncanny ability to make poor decisions and do stupid things."

Oh I really lolled at that one.

Let's turn this nonsense around and imagine someone wrote the same article reversed.

Without a man, a woman is little more than an ego-trip.

A man's love is not the same sort of love that women experience – women always were and always will be more egocentric than men.

Every woman – and I mean every woman – needs a man who will call her out on her sh*t. Women have an uncanny ability to make poor decisions and do stupid things.

Can you imagine the shítstorm of offence? The fact that this article was written by someone claiming to be a man is even dafter. Talk about putting an entire gender on a pedestal while denigrating ones own.

Actually reading other articles of his and other men on that site reads like a breakdown on how to be a socially awkward simp.

Or how to be a balless, beta, pandering white knight. They're the kind of men who would walk in on their wives cheating on them with a gang of other men and apologise for interrupting.

ALiasEX

ALiasEX wrote: »

What about the first line? It sounds like blaming the victim to me

Also assuming Jay-Z did something wrong (or do we now know what happened in the elevator)

I doubt they would start an article off with

"If the Solange-Beyoncé-Elevatorgate scandal taught us anything, it’s this: You don’t mess with husbands."

If it was Jay-Z doing the attacking.

I bet they would be more likely call him the m word.

Gits_bone

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I was referring to attributes such as willingness to go the extra mile, punctuality and the like. This is the sort of behaviour which can result in pay increases. So, yes.

Generally speaking, women have less strength than men, it's not universal.

Yes and are you saying men and women have the same willingness to go the extra mile etc as men?

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Gits_bone wrote: »

Yes and are you saying men and women have the same willingness to go the extra mile etc?

Of course. You can't claim that those traits are gender-dependent.

Gits_bone

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course. You can't claim that those traits are gender-dependent.

But you can't use the "women are paid less than men" thing then.

Also I haven't seen whether this pay scale is related to the average womans wage or average womans wage compared to man of same job.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Gits_bone wrote: »

But you can't use the "women are paid less than men" thing then.

What are you on about? I've never mentioned women getting paid less than men.

Gits_bone

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What are you on about? I've never mentioned women getting paid less than men.

That's what I've been on about, you decided to involve yourself.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Gits_bone wrote: »

That's what I've been on about, you decided to involve yourself.

It's a forum. It happens.

Gits_bone

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What are you on about? I've never mentioned women getting paid less than men.

Gits_bone wrote: »

That's what I've been on about, you decided to involve yourself.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a forum. It happens.

So which is it? You are involved in the discussion about salaries or not?

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Gits_bone wrote: »

So which is it? You are involved in the discussion about salaries or not?

I thought you were on about men being stronger than women.

D'Agger

No

Gits_bone wrote: »

So which is it? You are involved in the discussion about salaries or not?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I thought you were on about men being stronger than women.

Gits_bone I've read through the last two pages or so and all I'm seeing are short sentences about men being stronger than women and then you jumping to salaries, now you're asking 'are you involved in the discussion or not' when the discussion hasn't even gotten off the ground - based on your lack of clarity regarding the exact point you're trying to make (imo).

Can you clarify what you're on about please in order to allow a better discussion

Gits_bone

D'Agger wrote: »

Gits_bone I've read through the last two pages or so and all I'm seeing are short sentences about men being stronger than women and then you jumping to salaries, now you're asking 'are you involved in the discussion or not' when the discussion hasn't even gotten off the ground - based on your lack of clarity regarding the exact point you're trying to make (imo).

Can you clarify what you're on about please in order to allow a better discussion

My point leads back to when I complained about people complaining about the inequalities in pay scale. I then started talking about women v men as labourers. Men will be better labourers (with the exception of a very few) so this would mean they would get paid more.

I was using the very obvious where there is a clear difference in performance of a man and woman.

Men perform better at some jobs than women and women perform some jobs better than men. Hence why there is (maybe there even isn't!) a difference in salaries.

Take an admin in an engineering firm. Likely to be working with engineers on big money, but the admin is not going to be on as good money. The position is likely to be filled by a woman also.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Gits_bone wrote: »

My point leads back to when I complained about people complaining about the inequalities in pay scale. I then started talking about women v men as labourers. Men will be better labourers (with the exception of a very few) so this would mean they would get paid more.

I was using the very obvious where there is a clear difference in performance of a man and woman.

Men perform better at some jobs than women and women perform some jobs better than men. Hence why there is (maybe there even isn't!) a difference in salaries.

Take an admin in an engineering firm. Likely to be working with engineers on big money, but the admin is not going to be on as good money. The position is likely to be filled by a woman also.

Have you any data to back this up?

iptba

Gits_bone wrote: »

Also I haven't seen whether this pay scale is related to the average womans wage or average womans wage compared to man of same job.

When there is talk of women earning less than men, this is based on all the jobs women do versus all the jobs men do so not a like-for-like comparison.

Gits_bone

iptba wrote: »

When there is talk of women earning less than men, this is based on all the jobs women do versus all the jobs men do so not a like-for-like comparison.

It's always brought up. But it never says if it's average wage or average wage for same job. I don't think in the slightest women get paid less for the same job.

I'd like to see examples.

_________________________________

What about the sexism in people asking for more women in a prime time radio slot just because they're a woman? That's annoying.

iptba

Gits_bone wrote: »

It's always brought up. But it never says if it's average wage or average wage for same job. I don't think in the slightest women get paid less for the same job.

I'd like to see examples.

I've seen and heard over the years plenty of random people repeat the statistics as if they relate to the same job, so I imagine it's a significant issue i.e. that a lot of people don't understand what the statistic relates to.