If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Firstly, it actually is discriminatory, as it stereotypes women as the carer.
Secondly, the person who is best able to give care is given custody. This isn't always women, much as the right-wing press like to claim otherwise. Usually this person is the woman because she has already given up employment to care for her child, and so can put the hours in.
I said it wasn't negative discrimination. That didn't mean it wasn't positive discrimination.
Of course it isn't always women but it very often is. Also just because women don't hold certain jobs doesn't mean they can't because some women do get there. It depends what they want to do. Surely it's discrimination expecting them to work in certain industries if they just don't want to?
The subject matter implied you were saying that women enjoy positive dscrimination in family matters. I asked you to justify it.
As for the rest of the post, say what? That makes no sense at all.
and there's no such thing as postive discirmination, for every person who benefits for a 'positive' steroetype, there's someone else who was screwed over to provide that extra benefit of the doubt
Arguing that women are discriminated against because they do not hold many jobs that you as a man think are succesful or 'better' seems short sighted.
All very interesting, but what is your point?
OK then, simple test.
What is the better job with a better salary? (choose any two)
a. cleaner
b. CEO
c. secretary
d. MP
Women are grossly under-represented in the top echelons of business and politics. Now I hope you're not suggesting that's because all the women want to be secretaries and cleaners...
It isn't just about gender, but gender is a significant reason as to why there are so many white middle-class male MPs and CEOs.
More importantly, did I get the question right? I'm on tenterhooks here...
I don't know about fixed quotas, because I don't think they work, but I think that society will be a better place when all women have the same opportunities. They don't at this stage, to pretend otherwise is ludicrous.
I doubt it will ever happen, certainly not in my lifetime. But it'd be great to see that 50% of the CEOs and MPs are women, because it would illustrate that people are being selected on ability, not on possession of a penis.
I'm not saying that they do have the same opportunities but you can't judge that they don't from something as general as emplyoment rates in a few industries.
well throughout my schooling ive been told "girls are more mature, girls are better for general workforce, girls are cleverer"
isn't that sexist considering they don't know me?
thats how growing up has been for the past 10-15 years, then you wonder why boys are continusly doing crapper in growing up - positive discrimination
So what did they tell you men are good at? Fixing shelves?
Look at news and how for some reason every year they feel it needs to be headlined that girls have beat boys again.
How so?
Because the job isn't attractive to them, because the voters don't want that particular candidate?
There are others reasons. Sure, I agree it should be higher considering the demographic but just because 52% of the population are female doesn't mean that 52% of MPs should be. Ditto CEOs.
No it wouldn't.
Selection by ability wouldn't give you such an even split.
Do you actually have a point, or are you just spouting off some half-baked witterings in a highly hysterical manner?
Leaving aside that it is a proven psychological and physiological fact that girls mature quicker than boys until the age of about 18, how does pointing this out make boys more immature? I'm genuinely interested in what thought process lead you to that conclusion.
Bomberman, do you have a point also? What you state about the media coverage of exam results actually illustrates the opposite of what you are arguing. When the boys were doing better it was never mentioned- because girls were expected to be academically inferior. Nobody cared when it was girls who were doing worse in schools, and there was no gnashing of teeth when girls were behind in education.
That shows where the bias really is.
I compared breast and cervical cancers with both prostate and testicular cancer.
The death rate for breast cancer is 29 in 100,000 women and for prostate cancer it's 27 in 100,000 men.
Both breast and cervical cancer screening programmes have enabled doctors to pick up and treat more women before they develop symptoms. Because we do not routinely screen for prostate cancer in the UK, the disease is very often detected only when it has spread away from the prostate gland to other parts of the body. Yet prostate cancer is the commonest male cancer in the UK.
72% of women now diagnosed with breast cancer are likely to survive for at least 20 years, yet for men with prostate cancer the figure is closer to 40%. More worrying is the fact that the number of men being told they have prostate cancer has increased by 25% over the last five years to 27,200.
Additionally, testicular cancer is the single biggest cause of cancer-related deaths in men aged 15 to 35 years in the UK. Currently, about 1500 men a year (around 1 in 400) develop the disease. Unfortunately, the number of UK cases has trebled in the past 25 years and is still rising. Interestingly the number of women diagnosed with cervical cancer, whilst twice as high, has actually dropped by 13 just in the last five years.
Now I don't dispute that the incidence of female cancers is higher, but that wasn't my point. Through the introduction of screening programmes not only have we been able to detect the conditions in the first place, but by detecting them earlier we are able to treat. There are no such programmes for these male cancers, nor is there the same level of media attention on them. I guess it's just not emotive enough a subject.
Sources: Cancer Research UK, BBC Health News, NetDoctor, Statistics.gov.uk
My point is more that you seem to be manipulating facts and statistics just to try and be right rather than think about what your saying.
As Men of Kent said if you split by abilities are you trying to say that you will get a cross section of employees at every level directly related to the cross section of the population? Of course you wont but then you try to suggest this is heavily influenced by gender which I just don't buy.
What I said was more to Moon Rat in that schools do preach that message a lot.
What about then on a more obscure note, seeing as I haven't seen any real argument about why the positive discrimination with cancer, car insurance? Because men claim more does that mean Kermit that your a crapper driver than your wife? Its a conclusion based purely on statistics just like yours on employment figures?
Silly question here...
Show me some proof, you hear some people say this, it's never backed up
The same controversy, if not more would be raised if a woman checked her vagina on TV. It's majorly the fault of censorship imo. However I don't disagree on the fact that more money should be spent on testicular cancer... I don't personally think it's a sexist thing, but more that breast cancer is perhaps more easy to treat and more common? You could make the same comparison between leukemia and bowel cancer... Which is funded more?
I have honest to god never heard that message preached in school.
Not from the media, no. WHat percentage of women that you know have either had a smear test, or have been offered one? How many men have been offered a screening for either postate or testicular cancer?
I think the figures would be in stark contrast.
Part of that is because such screening programmes for men just don't exist. Now whilst there is a test for prostates coming into place, it isn't routinely offered and yet the risks are just as high.
Sorry, I don't remember it. It wouldn't surprise me though if the reaction was bad, for thevery reasons you mention. People are dumb.
Partly because it's not necessary. A screening programme exists so you aren't reliant on women checking themselves for cervical cancer. Funnily enough there isn't such an outcry over breats checks.
Not overtly, no. How ever which do you think elicits a more emotive response. The two women cancers, or the male one.
Look at the recent outcry over Herceptin. Huge publicity about the fact that an unlicensed drug is not being offered routinely. Little outcry over the PSA (?) tests for prostates which would diagnose it in the first place.
As far as commen goes there isn't a huge difference.
Caught early enough, both testicular cancer and prostate cancer are easy to treat. The problem arises because the current delays mean that patients end up with secondary tumours and it's those which kill.
52% of the population is female.
About 6% of the MPs are female.
No, a cross-section wouldn't directly match this, but don't you think that it's an awfully large discrepancy to put down to women "not wanting the job" and women "not being as good at it". Unless you are trying to suggest that all women just love scrubbing toilets and babies so much that they want to make a career out of it.
Gender isn't the only contributory factor, to say so would be ridiculous. It is a very significant contributory factor though- to deny it would be equally ridiculous.
As I said, the fact that there is now the gnashing of teeth because girls out-perform boys illustrates that the bias is still very much against women getting "above their station".
1. Nobody gnashed their teeth when boys out-performed girls- there were no "inquiries" into the performances of girls.
2. The idea that girls out-performing boys is down to a systemic failure is inherently sexist. Whilst you are quite happy to argue that the glaring lack of women in senior positions is because "they aren't good enough/don't want to", you don't seem quite so happy to put the argument in reverse. Maybe boys don't do as well because they don't want to?
Maybe you should pay more attention to my posts then.
Odd, I must say, how it was you who was defending the car insurance industry not so long ago, and it was me that was condemning it. Make your mind up.
No it isn't.
But anyway.
If the glaring lack of women in senior positions, and the glatring discrepancy in wages is not down to gender as a major contributory factor, then what is it down to?
Oh, and what "positive discrimination" about cancer? The women's cancer charities got off their arses and got campaigning, and the male cancer charities didn't. If you want male cancers to be campaigned for, get off your arse and do it, instead of bleating that its "discrimination" that women did a better job of marketing their cancers.
Do you actually have a point, or are you just choosing the very few areas where it could be argued that women enjoy a slight advantage (I would even dispute that) to illustrate that men are "hard done by" and "discriminated" against.
I truly find this argument astounding. Women gain equality, or have a slight advantage, in a few limited areas, and it is all down to "positive discrimination". Strangely enough you then deny this discrimination in all the other areas, where women are still far behind men in terms of rights and success.
You also haven't answered my questions.
1. How does saying girls are more mature make boys immature? Similarly, how does saying girls do better make boys fail? I want to know how on earth you can come to such a ridiculous conclusion.
2. If the glaring absence of women in top jobs, and the huge pay discrepancies, not down to gender, what is it down to? That women would rather knit and play with babies all day?