|
|
Post by tinner on Jul 12, 2023 20:12:20 GMT
So how do you suggest we best right the wrongs of the past?. By not repeating the same mistakes. Everyone has the same legal rights and has done since the 1960s. Employment laws have given complete equality in law for about the same period of time. Certainly within the last 40. The fact some people faced discrimination who are mostly dead today doesn’t affect the prospects today of anyone else. Unless it’s inherited wealth, in which case that’s a question for everyone, not based on gender, as I sure as hell won’t be getting any. I fail to see how a female oxbridge graduate raised in Surrey has some kind of systemic disadvantage over say, a skinny kid from Southmead who’s parents are alcoholics. It was a cute trick by the rich to socialise their guilt amongst people in council houses in Liverpool, and for wealthy lawyers driving range rovers to feel downtrodden by the man who comes to clear the asbestos from their renovation, but I’m not buying it. So I guess I’m saying you’ve got to look at the consequences of identity politics because they balkanise groups and fraudulently promote race and gender ahead of affluence and burden those who’ve done nothing wrong to pay a price to people who’ve never even suffered any substantial form of discrimination in their lives. Absolutely spot on....it is amazing how many people supposedly outraged by discrimination, are against equal opportunity and hide behind the positive discrimination banner feeling righteous......when in actual fact they are effectively encouraging deceisions based on sex / skin colour. |
|
|
|
Post by willytopp84 on Jul 13, 2023 3:18:17 GMT
Good luck to her on an interim basis! If I was Dale Vance I'd get Darryl Clarke in as gaffer pretty soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Jul 13, 2023 5:37:24 GMT
By not repeating the same mistakes. Everyone has the same legal rights and has done since the 1960s. Employment laws have given complete equality in law for about the same period of time. Certainly within the last 40. The fact some people faced discrimination who are mostly dead today doesn’t affect the prospects today of anyone else. Unless it’s inherited wealth, in which case that’s a question for everyone, not based on gender, as I sure as hell won’t be getting any. I fail to see how a female oxbridge graduate raised in Surrey has some kind of systemic disadvantage over say, a skinny kid from Southmead who’s parents are alcoholics. It was a cute trick by the rich to socialise their guilt amongst people in council houses in Liverpool, and for wealthy lawyers driving range rovers to feel downtrodden by the man who comes to clear the asbestos from their renovation, but I’m not buying it. So I guess I’m saying you’ve got to look at the consequences of identity politics because they balkanise groups and fraudulently promote race and gender ahead of affluence and burden those who’ve done nothing wrong to pay a price to people who’ve never even suffered any substantial form of discrimination in their lives. I don't feel a burden. I feel a duty to try and help individuals or groups who have been treated unfairly. Not because I have to but because I believe it is right. You obviously can do as you wish but I couldn't disagree more strongly. I note you didn't comment on how my example with the cat and dog is far more like the situation we are discussing than your example which seems to involve having to kick someone/something. It isn't about doing anyone down but is about trying to level the playing field across the board. Lastly, if you believe that everyone has had the same legal rights since the 60s you are very wrong. No idea why you have that idea. Plenty of groups were legally being discriminated against well in to the 2000's prior to the introduction of the equality act. Mostly women and disabled people. Nearly always being paid significantly less money per hour for the same employment... which even with the introduction of the act sadly still happens today within some organisations. We'll have to just agree to disagree as I have no doubt neither of us will be changing our minds. I agree in financial terms . We should help those who are economically disadvantaged through access to training and support. Most of the pay equality data doesn’t factor in things like hours worked, occupational dangers etc. when they’ve done that, they’ve found it’s level. The studies you’re referencing are merely getting a group of women and a group of men, and working out their average pay. Not looking at things like career choice, men’s preference for STEM and women’s for socially based roles, which aren’t as highly paid. Childbirth is one area women face a significant biological disadvantage, that’s for sure. However, men die younger and have greater rates of disease, I don’t see men campaigning for a shorter working lifespan as a result. We all have our cross to bear. I also don’t see many campaigns to get women into bin collections, sewage treatment and all the other nasty jobs someone has to do. It’s mainly about getting in the boardroom. Quite happy to let the men do all the dangerous, back breaking work which causes occupational illness. Rather than level up everything, I say let men do the dangerous work if they’re better suited, and let women do the socially based work. Constructing a narrative that there’s been some giant conspiracy against them while all of these points go completely ignored doesn’t work for me. Men traditionally got paid more but men traditionally worked longer hours in less favourable conditions. Nowadays they still work the same roles but should expect the same pay. Let’s have a conversation about getting girls down mines and into sewers. They can achieve the same hazard pay so why not! If anyone wants to do any job it’s on them. I’m mot recommending this as a mandate - men and women gravitate towards these kinds of work naturally. So I’m advocating for continuing to allow people to do the work that comes naturally to them and receive the pay due - but don’t then analyse the pay disparity and call it discrimination, it’s just the result of the choices people make. |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jul 13, 2023 5:46:38 GMT
I don't feel a burden. I feel a duty to try and help individuals or groups who have been treated unfairly. Not because I have to but because I believe it is right. You obviously can do as you wish but I couldn't disagree more strongly. I note you didn't comment on how my example with the cat and dog is far more like the situation we are discussing than your example which seems to involve having to kick someone/something. It isn't about doing anyone down but is about trying to level the playing field across the board. Lastly, if you believe that everyone has had the same legal rights since the 60s you are very wrong. No idea why you have that idea. Plenty of groups were legally being discriminated against well in to the 2000's prior to the introduction of the equality act. Mostly women and disabled people. Nearly always being paid significantly less money per hour for the same employment... which even with the introduction of the act sadly still happens today within some organisations. We'll have to just agree to disagree as I have no doubt neither of us will be changing our minds. I agree in financial terms . We should help those who are economically disadvantaged through access to training and support. Most of the pay equality data doesn’t factor in things like hours worked, occupational dangers etc. when they’ve done that, they’ve found it’s level. The studies you’re referencing are merely getting a group of women and a group of men, and working out their average pay. Not looking at things like career choice, men’s preference for STEM and women’s for socially based roles, which aren’t as highly paid. Childbirth is one area women face a significant biological disadvantage, that’s for sure. However, men die younger and have greater rates of disease, I don’t see men campaigning for a shorter working lifespan as a result. We all have our cross to bear. I also don’t see many campaigns to get women into bin collections, sewage treatment and all the other nasty jobs someone has to do. It’s mainly about getting in the boardroom. Quite happy to let the men do all the dangerous, back breaking work which causes occupational illness. Rather than level up everything, I say let men do the dangerous work if they’re better suited, and let women do the socially based work. Constructing a narrative that there’s been some giant conspiracy against them while all of these points go completely ignored doesn’t work for me. Men traditionally got paid more but men traditionally worked longer hours in less favourable conditions. Nowadays they still work the same roles but should expect the same pay. Let’s have a conversation about getting girls down mines and into sewers. They can achieve the same hazard pay so why not! If anyone wants to do any job it’s on them. I’m mot recommending this as a mandate - men and women gravitate towards these kinds of work naturally. So I’m advocating for continuing to allow people to do the work that comes naturally to them and receive the pay due - but don’t then analyse the pay disparity and call it discrimination, it’s just the result of the choices people make. Oh dear. Pray tell, what percentage of the male workforce actually work down mines and sewers? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2023 5:50:12 GMT
I agree in financial terms . We should help those who are economically disadvantaged through access to training and support. Most of the pay equality data doesn’t factor in things like hours worked, occupational dangers etc. when they’ve done that, they’ve found it’s level. The studies you’re referencing are merely getting a group of women and a group of men, and working out their average pay. Not looking at things like career choice, men’s preference for STEM and women’s for socially based roles, which aren’t as highly paid. Childbirth is one area women face a significant biological disadvantage, that’s for sure. However, men die younger and have greater rates of disease, I don’t see men campaigning for a shorter working lifespan as a result. We all have our cross to bear. I also don’t see many campaigns to get women into bin collections, sewage treatment and all the other nasty jobs someone has to do. It’s mainly about getting in the boardroom. Quite happy to let the men do all the dangerous, back breaking work which causes occupational illness. Rather than level up everything, I say let men do the dangerous work if they’re better suited, and let women do the socially based work. Constructing a narrative that there’s been some giant conspiracy against them while all of these points go completely ignored doesn’t work for me. Men traditionally got paid more but men traditionally worked longer hours in less favourable conditions. Nowadays they still work the same roles but should expect the same pay. Let’s have a conversation about getting girls down mines and into sewers. They can achieve the same hazard pay so why not! If anyone wants to do any job it’s on them. I’m mot recommending this as a mandate - men and women gravitate towards these kinds of work naturally. So I’m advocating for continuing to allow people to do the work that comes naturally to them and receive the pay due - but don’t then analyse the pay disparity and call it discrimination, it’s just the result of the choices people make. Oh dear. Pray tell, what percentage of the male workforce actually work down mines and sewers? I'll leave you to it Oldie. State of the replies, littered with inaccuracies that are commonly spouted. Apparently they know the studies I'm referencing too. Must be a mind reader. Mind isn't for changing. |
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Jul 13, 2023 5:50:14 GMT
I agree in financial terms . We should help those who are economically disadvantaged through access to training and support. Most of the pay equality data doesn’t factor in things like hours worked, occupational dangers etc. when they’ve done that, they’ve found it’s level. The studies you’re referencing are merely getting a group of women and a group of men, and working out their average pay. Not looking at things like career choice, men’s preference for STEM and women’s for socially based roles, which aren’t as highly paid. Childbirth is one area women face a significant biological disadvantage, that’s for sure. However, men die younger and have greater rates of disease, I don’t see men campaigning for a shorter working lifespan as a result. We all have our cross to bear. I also don’t see many campaigns to get women into bin collections, sewage treatment and all the other nasty jobs someone has to do. It’s mainly about getting in the boardroom. Quite happy to let the men do all the dangerous, back breaking work which causes occupational illness. Rather than level up everything, I say let men do the dangerous work if they’re better suited, and let women do the socially based work. Constructing a narrative that there’s been some giant conspiracy against them while all of these points go completely ignored doesn’t work for me. Men traditionally got paid more but men traditionally worked longer hours in less favourable conditions. Nowadays they still work the same roles but should expect the same pay. Let’s have a conversation about getting girls down mines and into sewers. They can achieve the same hazard pay so why not! If anyone wants to do any job it’s on them. I’m mot recommending this as a mandate - men and women gravitate towards these kinds of work naturally. So I’m advocating for continuing to allow people to do the work that comes naturally to them and receive the pay due - but don’t then analyse the pay disparity and call it discrimination, it’s just the result of the choices people make. Oh dear. Pray tell, what percentage of the male workforce actually work down mines and sewers? Well, widen to dangerous work. Any job with occupational health hazards. You’re only picking this out because you don’t like it and want to split hairs, Oldie. |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,564 
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jul 13, 2023 6:21:09 GMT
Oh dear. Pray tell, what percentage of the male workforce actually work down mines and sewers? Well, widen to dangerous work. Any job with occupational health hazards. You’re only picking this out because you don’t like it and want to split hairs, Oldie. I'm sure the families of Yvonne Fletcher, Fleur Lombard and Sarah Bryant would disagree with you about hazards, as would the likes of Kate Nesbitt. I've seen plenty of women working in my local tip and on the bin lorries. |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jul 13, 2023 6:55:53 GMT
Oh dear. Pray tell, what percentage of the male workforce actually work down mines and sewers? Well, widen to dangerous work. Any job with occupational health hazards. You’re only picking this out because you don’t like it and want to split hairs, Oldie. None of the above, I quoted you directly. So, there are around 1000 people working in coal mines at the handful of mines still operating I have no idea of their gender. By contrast, in our armed forces "At 1 October 2022, 11.4 per cent of the UK Regular Forces were Female (16,590 personnel)" Is that a less dangerous job? Answers on a postcard to; Sorry, I haven't a clue, Blinkered St Somewhere in the Gulf. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jul 13, 2023 7:42:49 GMT
So how do you suggest we best right the wrongs of the past?. By not repeating the same mistakes. Everyone has the same legal rights and has done since the 1960s. Employment laws have given complete equality in law for about the same period of time. Certainly within the last 40. The fact some people faced discrimination who are mostly dead today doesn’t affect the prospects today of anyone else. Unless it’s inherited wealth, in which case that’s a question for everyone, not based on gender, as I sure as hell won’t be getting any. I fail to see how a female oxbridge graduate raised in Surrey has some kind of systemic disadvantage over say, a skinny kid from Southmead who’s parents are alcoholics. It was a cute trick by the rich to socialise their guilt amongst people in council houses in Liverpool, and for wealthy lawyers driving range rovers to feel downtrodden by the man who comes to clear the asbestos from their renovation, but I’m not buying it. So I guess I’m saying you’ve got to look at the consequences of identity politics because they balkanise groups and fraudulently promote race and gender ahead of affluence and burden those who’ve done nothing wrong to pay a price to people who’ve never even suffered any substantial form of discrimination in their lives. No, that is not how this works. I can see how you are misunderstanding this now. This is how it works: female oxbridge graduate raised in Surrey has some kind of systemic disadvantage over a male oxbridge graduate raised in Surrey. Or A black male oxbridge graduate raised is Surrey has some kind of systemic disadvantage over a while male oxbridge graduate raised is Surrey. It's the like for like comparisons that tend to have the systemic disadvantage inherent in them. Board rooms are still male dominated. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jul 13, 2023 7:49:28 GMT
I don't feel a burden. I feel a duty to try and help individuals or groups who have been treated unfairly. Not because I have to but because I believe it is right. You obviously can do as you wish but I couldn't disagree more strongly. I note you didn't comment on how my example with the cat and dog is far more like the situation we are discussing than your example which seems to involve having to kick someone/something. It isn't about doing anyone down but is about trying to level the playing field across the board. Lastly, if you believe that everyone has had the same legal rights since the 60s you are very wrong. No idea why you have that idea. Plenty of groups were legally being discriminated against well in to the 2000's prior to the introduction of the equality act. Mostly women and disabled people. Nearly always being paid significantly less money per hour for the same employment... which even with the introduction of the act sadly still happens today within some organisations. We'll have to just agree to disagree as I have no doubt neither of us will be changing our minds. I agree in financial terms . We should help those who are economically disadvantaged through access to training and support. Most of the pay equality data doesn’t factor in things like hours worked, occupational dangers etc. when they’ve done that, they’ve found it’s level. The studies you’re referencing are merely getting a group of women and a group of men, and working out their average pay. Not looking at things like career choice, men’s preference for STEM and women’s for socially based roles, which aren’t as highly paid. Childbirth is one area women face a significant biological disadvantage, that’s for sure. However, men die younger and have greater rates of disease, I don’t see men campaigning for a shorter working lifespan as a result. We all have our cross to bear. I also don’t see many campaigns to get women into bin collections, sewage treatment and all the other nasty jobs someone has to do. It’s mainly about getting in the boardroom. Quite happy to let the men do all the dangerous, back breaking work which causes occupational illness. Rather than level up everything, I say let men do the dangerous work if they’re better suited, and let women do the socially based work. Constructing a narrative that there’s been some giant conspiracy against them while all of these points go completely ignored doesn’t work for me. Men traditionally got paid more but men traditionally worked longer hours in less favourable conditions. Nowadays they still work the same roles but should expect the same pay. Let’s have a conversation about getting girls down mines and into sewers. They can achieve the same hazard pay so why not! If anyone wants to do any job it’s on them. I’m mot recommending this as a mandate - men and women gravitate towards these kinds of work naturally. So I’m advocating for continuing to allow people to do the work that comes naturally to them and receive the pay due - but don’t then analyse the pay disparity and call it discrimination, it’s just the result of the choices people make. You do know that is a complete social construct. It's to do with Boys being given Meccano sets and Lego and Girls being given Barbie dolls at a young age. At the age of 2 or 3, both sees are being told what societies expectation of them is. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jul 13, 2023 7:50:01 GMT
I agree in financial terms . We should help those who are economically disadvantaged through access to training and support. Most of the pay equality data doesn’t factor in things like hours worked, occupational dangers etc. when they’ve done that, they’ve found it’s level. The studies you’re referencing are merely getting a group of women and a group of men, and working out their average pay. Not looking at things like career choice, men’s preference for STEM and women’s for socially based roles, which aren’t as highly paid. Childbirth is one area women face a significant biological disadvantage, that’s for sure. However, men die younger and have greater rates of disease, I don’t see men campaigning for a shorter working lifespan as a result. We all have our cross to bear. I also don’t see many campaigns to get women into bin collections, sewage treatment and all the other nasty jobs someone has to do. It’s mainly about getting in the boardroom. Quite happy to let the men do all the dangerous, back breaking work which causes occupational illness. Rather than level up everything, I say let men do the dangerous work if they’re better suited, and let women do the socially based work. Constructing a narrative that there’s been some giant conspiracy against them while all of these points go completely ignored doesn’t work for me. Men traditionally got paid more but men traditionally worked longer hours in less favourable conditions. Nowadays they still work the same roles but should expect the same pay. Let’s have a conversation about getting girls down mines and into sewers. They can achieve the same hazard pay so why not! If anyone wants to do any job it’s on them. I’m mot recommending this as a mandate - men and women gravitate towards these kinds of work naturally. So I’m advocating for continuing to allow people to do the work that comes naturally to them and receive the pay due - but don’t then analyse the pay disparity and call it discrimination, it’s just the result of the choices people make. You do know that is a complete social construct. It's to do with Boys being given Meccano sets and Lego and Girls being given Barbie dolls at a young age. At the age of 2 or 3, both sexes are being told what societies expectation of them is. |
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Jul 13, 2023 8:07:15 GMT
By not repeating the same mistakes. Everyone has the same legal rights and has done since the 1960s. Employment laws have given complete equality in law for about the same period of time. Certainly within the last 40. The fact some people faced discrimination who are mostly dead today doesn’t affect the prospects today of anyone else. Unless it’s inherited wealth, in which case that’s a question for everyone, not based on gender, as I sure as hell won’t be getting any. I fail to see how a female oxbridge graduate raised in Surrey has some kind of systemic disadvantage over say, a skinny kid from Southmead who’s parents are alcoholics. It was a cute trick by the rich to socialise their guilt amongst people in council houses in Liverpool, and for wealthy lawyers driving range rovers to feel downtrodden by the man who comes to clear the asbestos from their renovation, but I’m not buying it. So I guess I’m saying you’ve got to look at the consequences of identity politics because they balkanise groups and fraudulently promote race and gender ahead of affluence and burden those who’ve done nothing wrong to pay a price to people who’ve never even suffered any substantial form of discrimination in their lives. No, that is not how this works. I can see how you are misunderstanding this now. This is how it works: female oxbridge graduate raised in Surrey has some kind of systemic disadvantage over a male oxbridge graduate raised in Surrey. Or A black male oxbridge graduate raised is Surrey has some kind of systemic disadvantage over a while male oxbridge graduate raised is Surrey. It's the like for like comparisons that tend to have the systemic disadvantage inherent in them. Board rooms are still male dominated. Economic comparisons are more powerful. As I’ve said before, identity based one’s are the dream ticket of the wealthy. |
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Jul 13, 2023 8:11:41 GMT
I agree in financial terms . We should help those who are economically disadvantaged through access to training and support. Most of the pay equality data doesn’t factor in things like hours worked, occupational dangers etc. when they’ve done that, they’ve found it’s level. The studies you’re referencing are merely getting a group of women and a group of men, and working out their average pay. Not looking at things like career choice, men’s preference for STEM and women’s for socially based roles, which aren’t as highly paid. Childbirth is one area women face a significant biological disadvantage, that’s for sure. However, men die younger and have greater rates of disease, I don’t see men campaigning for a shorter working lifespan as a result. We all have our cross to bear. I also don’t see many campaigns to get women into bin collections, sewage treatment and all the other nasty jobs someone has to do. It’s mainly about getting in the boardroom. Quite happy to let the men do all the dangerous, back breaking work which causes occupational illness. Rather than level up everything, I say let men do the dangerous work if they’re better suited, and let women do the socially based work. Constructing a narrative that there’s been some giant conspiracy against them while all of these points go completely ignored doesn’t work for me. Men traditionally got paid more but men traditionally worked longer hours in less favourable conditions. Nowadays they still work the same roles but should expect the same pay. Let’s have a conversation about getting girls down mines and into sewers. They can achieve the same hazard pay so why not! If anyone wants to do any job it’s on them. I’m mot recommending this as a mandate - men and women gravitate towards these kinds of work naturally. So I’m advocating for continuing to allow people to do the work that comes naturally to them and receive the pay due - but don’t then analyse the pay disparity and call it discrimination, it’s just the result of the choices people make. You do know that is a complete social construct. It's to do with Boys being given Meccano sets and Lego and Girls being given Barbie dolls at a young age. At the age of 2 or 3, both sees are being told what societies expectation of them is. Actually, no. When both sexes were raised with androgynous expectations the choice was more pronounced, not less. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aas9899Looks like you’re been reading activism rather than scientific analysis! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2023 8:36:53 GMT
You do know that is a complete social construct. It's to do with Boys being given Meccano sets and Lego and Girls being given Barbie dolls at a young age. At the age of 2 or 3, both sees are being told what societies expectation of them is. Actually, no. When both sexes were raised with androgynous expectations the choice was more pronounced, not less. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aas9899Looks like you’re been reading activism rather than scientific analysis! By that isn't what the outcome of that study says though! It says there were larger differences. But they were not split in the same way. So yes there were differences but they were NOT split in the traditional way you have outlined (that males do more dangerous things and women like more sociatal things). Even your own evidence doesn't support what you're saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Kipper on Jul 13, 2023 9:17:33 GMT
With women's football set to become a billion-pound industry, I fear it will now be only a matter of time before mixed teams become the norm. Some suggest this will increase attendance for lower-league clubs. Rovers might well have speedy wingers named Daphne and Irene. Oh, I expect transgenders will be competing!
|
|
|
|
Post by DrFaustus on Jul 13, 2023 9:36:14 GMT
With women's football set to become a billion-pound industry, I fear it will now be only a matter of time before mixed teams become the norm. Some suggest this will increase attendance for lower-league clubs. Rovers might well have speedy wingers named Daphne and Irene. Oh, I expect transgenders will be competing! So what? |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jul 13, 2023 9:42:05 GMT
With women's football set to become a billion-pound industry, I fear it will now be only a matter of time before mixed teams become the norm. Some suggest this will increase attendance for lower-league clubs. Rovers might well have speedy wingers named Daphne and Irene. Oh, I expect transgenders will be competing! So what? Provocative 😱 |
|
|
|
Post by DrFaustus on Jul 13, 2023 9:46:13 GMT
Not intentionally, just intrigued to know what would be the issue. For all anyone knows, there may well be trans players in our league and elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by BelieveItWhenIAmSatInIt on Jul 13, 2023 9:57:46 GMT
Dam hell! State of this thread! Gammon central.
For what it is worth, I would swap Emma Hayes for Joey Barton in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrFaustus on Jul 13, 2023 10:04:05 GMT
Dam hell! State of this thread! Gammon central. For what it is worth, I would swap Emma Hayes for Joey Barton in a heartbeat. Who's that aimed at? |
|
