Feminism vs social justice

[magnkarl]

Sorry to the admins that we took over that other thread, not my intention at all.

To continue our discussion I've made this thread. 

Last discussion point:

 

Posted 49 minutes ago (edited) · Report post

 

Quote

 

  1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

It boils down to the following: the theory doesn't compare apples with apples. If you want to compare the whole male workforce with the female workforce you'd need to find people who make the IDENTICAL choices when it comes to family and work priority. Men and women make different choices.

 

 

That's a silly cop out. You're never going to be able to have identical people and situations to compare in any situation.

Yes, simple averages are not going to tell an in-depth and complete story but if you want a more in-depth appreciation of things then you look at those other factors and adjust for them.

What you said in your post was:

 

Quote

 

 

Gender pay gap and why it's a myth.

 

 

In response, from the article you provided a link to:

 

Quote

 

People who want to argue that the 80% figure is mythical therefore need to be very precise in saying exactly what is mythical about it.

The most accurate summary is something like the following:  “It’s a myth that women get paid only 80% of what men do when they have the same skills and experience and are doing the same work, but it’s also a myth to claim that economics shows there is no gender discrimination in labor markets because studies show that economic factors cannot explain all of the gender wage gap.”

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never said there wasn't any wage gap between men and women, I said that the 80% gap is as untrue as it gets. I've discussed this with a lot of both male and female economists and they put the percentile at around 98%. With all the added risks that mostly men take in hard labour I don't know if 2% is much of an issue.

Here are some other stats that go the other way:

Men are 25% less likely to graduate from our university in Winchester than women - does anyone make noise about this? The system is clearly favouring one gender since first grade where boys are put on pills if they are "boisterous" because feminine behaviour is the benchmark that all students should work to.

Studies show that men are just as likely to experience abuse as women, by their father, brother, mother, sister, wife or partner. Men just don't speak about it. Women have charities, government funding, government boards and a minister for Women and Equality. Why is there even Women in her title?

When men report abuse by their female partners they are more likely to be arrested than their partner. For the same crime a man serves 60% more time in jail than a woman. 

Men are 4 times more likely to be homeless than women, have you ever heard the term "man's shelter", because I've heard the term "woman's shelter".

Men make up 80% of suicide victims in Western Europe and America, 92% of workplace deaths across the globe, 97% of the deaths in combat and close to 80% of homicide victims.

The pendulum needed to be swung back in the 50's, but the sense from older feminists and people who experience these new age feminists every day is that they are arguing for points that are getting more and more obsolete. New Age Feminists don't discuss equality, they discuss women.

The waters get muddled by young women that have no clue what they are protesting or arguing about, it's hard for the other students to make up their own minds when they are constantly dealing with people like below who will ban people from different viewpoints to hold talks and events.

It's a great discussion anyhow.

Exclaimer: I just think it's a very important discussion to have because as an employee at a university I see this kind of thing very often and it's really started to irk me lately when certain people with differing views to the student organisations (mainly the left leaning ones) get barred and banned from talking.

Edited April 30, 2017 by magnkarl

[chrisp65]

If you know of boys being given medication because they are boisterous you need to report that to the police, now.

Man up.

[Dodgyknees]

What the hell is this?

[magnkarl]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

If you know of boys being given medication because they are boisterous you need to report that to the police, now.

Man up.

I've spoken to many parents about this exact subject, and yes it has come to discussions like you say above. 1/8 British boys are diagnosed with ADD or other attention disorders. 1/7 American boys are. Instead of parents dealing with the fact that boys are more energetic than girls they are drugged, that is the sad truth.

[magnkarl]

Just now, DK82 said:

What the hell is this?

Just a discussion that erupted in another thread, haha

[Rugeley Villa]

Probably not relevant to this thread or does not offer anything, but girls just seem to do better at school because they seem to take more interest. Thinking back to my school days, I hardly remember any girls who never took it seriously but there was loads of boys who couldn't give a shit. Maybe this applies to further education too? Even in toddlers girls are normally more advanced.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Rugeley Villa

[magnkarl]

Just now, Rugeley Villa said:

Probably not relevant to this thread or does not offer anything, but girls just seem to do better at school because they seem to take more interest. Thinking back to my school days, I hardly remember any girls who never took it seriously but there was loads of boys who couldn't give a shit. Maybe this applies to further education? 

To some extent I agree, but then wouldn't you say that we are not engaging the boys in the right way? Instead we are forcing boys to do something that works great for girls.

[Chindie]

Stereotypes rule in this thread.

[Rugeley Villa]

5 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

To some extent I agree, but then wouldn't you say that we are not engaging the boys in the right way? Instead we are forcing boys to do something that works great for girls.

What would be the right way to engage the boys(no jimmy saville jokes ) ?  Forcing boys into what?

Edited April 30, 2017 by Rugeley Villa

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, Rugeley Villa said:

What would be the right way to engage the boys(no jimmy saville jokes ) ?  Forcing boys into what?

This is a great point for discussion. I won't involve Jimmy.

In my opinion boys are much more practical than girls who like theory. I always enjoyed the classes where I could use my hands (again, no Jimmy jokes) and not follow the strict rules of school back in 1972. I especially liked the classes where we could debate something, hence why I'm now working with politics students.

[Rugeley Villa]

2 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

This is a great point for discussion. I won't involve Jimmy.

In my opinion boys are much more practical than girls who like theory. I always enjoyed the classes where I could use my hands (again, no Jimmy jokes) and not follow the strict rules of school back in 1972. I especially liked the classes where we could debate something, hence why I'm now working with politics students.

Which again points out why construction is full of males who without sounding sexist are more cut out and built for the job. Us males do tend to suffer the rules a bit more and tend to try to fight against them more so than females. I mean I might be way off the mark regarding the latter statement but it's just a general observation. I do tend to find that females who never had a dad about are more prone to not accepting rules or being told what to do. Again this may be way off the mark.

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Which again points out why construction is full of males who without sounding sexist are more cut out and built for the job. Us males do tend to suffer the rules a bit more and tend to try to fight against them more so than females. I mean I might be way off the mark regarding the latter statement but it's just a general observation. I do tend to find that females who never had a dad about are more prone to not accepting rules or being told what to do. Again this may be way off the mark.

All valid points. It just shows that men and women are different - and that is not necessarily a bad thing. This is why men don't have many pressure organisations like women - we sort of get on with things in my opinion. My beef is with people who hurt other people's right to free speech by behaving like many New Age Feminists do at my campus in Winchester. As I said before I am probably a bit coloured by being close to this sort of thing every day I go to work, so it might not be a big of an issue as I think it is.

[Rugeley Villa]

2 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

All valid points. It just shows that men and women are different - and that is not necessarily a bad thing. This is why men don't have many pressure organisations like women - we sort of get on with things in my opinion. My beef is with people who hurt other people's right to free speech by behaving like many New Age Feminists do at my campus in Winchester. As I said before I am probably a bit coloured by being close to this sort of thing every day I go to work, so it might not be a big of an issue as I think it is.

We are definitely different and anyone who says otherwise is wrong imo.

[Chindie]

17 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

All valid points. It just shows that men and women are different - and that is not necessarily a bad thing. This is why men don't have many pressure organisations like women - we sort of get on with things in my opinion. My beef is with people who hurt other people's right to free speech by behaving like many New Age Feminists do at my campus in Winchester. As I said before I am probably a bit coloured by being close to this sort of thing every day I go to work, so it might not be a big of an issue as I think it is.

Men don't have as many pressure groups as women because the world has largely been shaped by traditional male roles. They don't need pressure groups to change basic things about the world, and it's only as other pressures have come about (mental health, for instance) that male interest groups have started to appear. Meanwhile women have required pressure and support to change the structure and to level the playing field.

I don't think many people are hurting people's right to free speech. People can say what they like. Other people don't have to listen, or respect that, or avoid criticising that speech, nor do as an organisation have to provide a platform for that speech. Should a person's speech be found to contravene the law they can face the consequences of that as well.

This whole topic is a non-entity.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Chindie

[snowychap]

55 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I never said there wasn't any wage gap between men and women, I said that the 80% gap is as untrue as it gets.

That's not quite correct.

Whilst your first mention of it was about this '77p point' thing, when asked to elaborate you wrote (as quoted above in your opening post for this thread) : Gender pay gap and why it's a myth.

You haven't been particularly precise in what is mythical and what isn't let alone very precise (as per the article that you linked) and you appear to have followed up with more statistics that may or may not be able to be substantiated (and may or may not have the meaning which you seek to imply with them) and one that appears to be just the result of anecdote (discussed this with a lot of both male and female economists and they put the percentile at around 98%).

I must admit that I'm not interested enough in the topic of a gender pay gap to do the amount of reading on the subject that would do it justice (whether that's looking in detail at the ONS datasets or reading through up to date papers on the subject) and certainly not in the space of time which would be meaningful for engaging in a timely discussion on the subject in this thread.

On a more general note, though, I have to say that I find your method of putting an argument across very difficult to engage with, chief amongst the issues for me is the use of claimed statistics (and/or claimed facts) without any real context (and with no link to sources so that we can put them in context) but with huge stress on implied meaning(s).

Edited April 30, 2017 by snowychap

[magnkarl]

7 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Men don't have as many pressure groups as women because the world has largely been shaped by traditional male roles. They don't need pressure groups to change basic things about the world, and it's only as other pressures have come about (mental health, for instance) that male interest groups have started to appear. Meanwhile women have required pressure and support to change the structure and to level the playing field.

I don't think many people are hurting people's right to free speech. People can say what they like. Other people don't have to listen, or respect that, or avoid criticising that speech, nor do as an organisation have to provide a platform for that speech. Should a person's speech be found to contravene the law they can face the consequences of that as well.

This whole topic is a non-entity.

The problem is that it isn't a non-entity in universities around the country. People are getting banned from speaking because their views don't match that of the loudest groups in the universities. For example Judy Tindel (was invited to speak at Labour youth) and Milo Yiannopolous (was invited to speak at a conservative youth group) were barred at Winchester uni for not fitting into the "norm" that a very loud minority at our campus has. My university isn't the only uni where this goes on at.

As I've said I might be causing a storm in a glass of water here because I am exposed to this every day, so it might be a pretty non-entity outside of my circles. If so I'm sorry.

Edited April 30, 2017 by magnkarl

[Rugeley Villa]

2 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

The problem is that it isn't a non-entity in universities around the country. People are getting banned from speaking because their views don't match that of the loudest groups in the universities. For example Judy Tindel (was invited to speak at Labour youth) and Milo Yiannopolous (was invited to speak at a conservative youth group) were barred at Winchester uni for not fitting into the "norm" that a very loud minority at our campus has. My university isn't the only uni where this goes on at.

What is the norm at the university?

[magnkarl]

Just now, Rugeley Villa said:

What is the norm at the university?

The norm up until about 2 years ago was that people who condone violence and terror weren't allowed to speak. We've had a wide range of people speak who had pretty extreme views, but they were allowed to anyway so that the students could discuss and debate. Now basically anyone who doesn't fit into a very weird, morphed sense of reality gets banned. Germaine Greer is one of the most banned people around the country because she's an old style feminist and she has some views on the trans-issues that these people don't like.

[StefanAVFC]

As stated previously, Milo is purely a troll who says things purely to get a reaction. He deliberately goes to places to stir up outrage. Barring trolls from speaking is not suppressing free speech. 

He's even been banned from Twitter which is frankly impossible to do.

The right to free speech allows you to say whatever you want, but it does not magically exempt you from the consequences of your free speech. Whether this is societal consequences or legal consequences.

[StefanAVFC]

Also I'm not sure why the thread is called "feminism v social justice"; as if two are in competition with one another.