Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Potty-Mouthed Princess


  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#1 Eagles

Eagles
  • 436 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 01:52 PM

 

How do you feel about this? I basically think it is a load of bs, without any real facts to back anything up. I just think it's an all around tasteless way of drawing attention to the cause. 


Edited by Eagles, 22 October 2014 - 01:52 PM.


#2 KyloRen

KyloRen
  • Snoke says I'm special.



  • 5,117 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 02:40 PM

I find it funny how people are more offended by swearing, which kids are already doing behind parents backs anyway, than all the inequality in the world.

#3 Florg

Florg
  • 705 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 02:46 PM

What exactly do you think is a "load of bs"?

 

You can search the claims they make in the video and find a bunch of links providing information / the corresponding study



#4 Katya

Katya
  • cougar slut

  • 6,850 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 03:55 PM

What do you think is load of bs? The fact that women don't have the same rights as men?
I spent almost a fucking decade of my life being a military/in the police force, doing exactly the fucking same job as my comrades, and yet I never earned the same as they did. Ridiculous enough, my husband, who at the time was a fucking rank below me was earning more than me when we met.
I faced the fucking same dangers as all the other guys, I worked even more just because I'm a woman and I had to prove every fucking day I deserve to be there as much as anyone else. For some, I was a pair of walking fucking boobs carrying a weapon, needless to say I heard a lot of jokes, and not all of them came from people outside the force.
 
I'm not a feminist, buy I get seriously pissed off when people say women don't have reasons to fight for equality.
 
Ask your friends/family/random people in the street, you'll find examples of women getting underpaid/discriminated for having a fucking vagina, real quick.
 
A couple of months ago, it was all over the news that some Portuguese companies were making their female employees sign a "contract" of something like that stating they will not get pregnant in the next 5 years... There's your fucking sexual equality.
 
 
Now, where's that fucking swear jar?


#5 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 04:09 PM

Sounds like a good idea for a contract, violate it and you get terminated. Seems fair.

#6 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,913 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 04:18 PM

Damn, this is some pretty brutal satire.

 

Now imagine a video with little boys swearing that much. It would be much more accepted, because for some reason society seems to look away at guys spewing profanity. SHOULD THIS SECOND SCENARIO HAPPEN IF SOCIETY WAS JUST?



#7 DonValentino

DonValentino
  • Neocodex Handegg League Champion/Daddy

  • 2,462 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 04:21 PM

Sounds like a good idea for a contract, violate it and you get terminated. Seems fair.

 

I honestly can't take you seriously anymore.

 

Do I understand why a company would do this from a business standpoint? Yes, you don't want to hire someone who might be out for a long period of time, it'll cost money to train someone new.

 

Is it a gross violation of human rights? Yes. You can't make someone sign away their ability to have children, are you freaking kidding me, that is so perverse. We are heading in a dangerous direction if people think that is an acceptable practice. 



#8 Katya

Katya
  • cougar slut

  • 6,850 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 04:26 PM

I would like to point out that men have the right to a paternity leave absence as well. But did anyone asked them to sign a contract stating they will not get their partner knocked up?



#9 Eagles

Eagles
  • 436 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 06:55 PM

There are many other factors that lead into the notion that "Women get paid 20 some odd cents less than men per dollar". Men are more likely to work a 40 hour week, men are more likely to take on higher paying jobs in the work force, and men typically have more experience than women because women may have to take time off for a child or other reasons. Also, it is perfectly legal for women to sue if they feel they are being discriminated upon because of gender. One final note, men commonly major in higher payer fields than women. Thats just how it is. Yet people are going to sit there an complain that women are paid less for EXACTLY the same job. Sure, it might be the same job, but chances are they are less qualified than their male counterparts. 



#10 Swar

Swar
  • com muito orgulho, com muito amor <3


  • 9,089 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 06:57 PM

There are many other factors that lead into the notion that "Women get paid 20 some odd cents less than men per dollar". Men are more likely to work a 40 hour week, men are more likely to take on higher paying jobs in the work force, and men typically have more experience than women because women may have to take time off for a child or other reasons. Also, it is perfectly legal for women to sue if they feel they are being discriminated upon because of gender. One final note, men commonly major in higher payer fields than women. Thats just how it is. Yet people are going to sit there an complain that women are paid less for EXACTLY the same job. Sure, it might be the same job, but chances are they are less qualified than their male counterparts. 

 

Be prepared for the replies.



#11 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 07:06 PM

I honestly can't take you seriously anymore.

 

Do I understand why a company would do this from a business standpoint? Yes, you don't want to hire someone who might be out for a long period of time, it'll cost money to train someone new.

 

Is it a gross violation of human rights? Yes. You can't make someone sign away their ability to have children, are you freaking kidding me, that is so perverse. We are heading in a dangerous direction if people think that is an acceptable practice. 

 

It's not taking away their ability, it just means they can't work for that particular company. That's not an infringement, 



#12 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,913 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 07:11 PM

There are many other factors that lead into the notion that "Women get paid 20 some odd cents less than men per dollar". Men are more likely to work a 40 hour week, men are more likely to take on higher paying jobs in the work force, and men typically have more experience than women because women may have to take time off for a child or other reasons. Also, it is perfectly legal for women to sue if they feel they are being discriminated upon because of gender. One final note, men commonly major in higher payer fields than women. Thats just how it is. Yet people are going to sit there an complain that women are paid less for EXACTLY the same job. Sure, it might be the same job, but chances are they are less qualified than their male counterparts. 

Well, you would complain if you were just as qualified as another person doing the exact same job, but you got paid less. There's no irrationality in that.



#13 Jess

Jess
  • 🍴Aioli-American🍴



  • 9,216 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 07:15 PM

Can we quit using the word payed? 



#14 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 07:19 PM

Well, you would complain if you were just as qualified as another person doing the exact same job, but you got payed less. There's no irrationality in that.

 

 

I've never seen an example of two people with the same experience, qualifications and role being paid different amounts in a professional company. 



#15 Hawk

Hawk
  • hawk·ish·ly

  • 9,682 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 07:20 PM

I've never seen an example of two people with the same experience, qualifications and role being paid different amounts in a professional company. 

If they are, it's because someone wasn't pushing hard enough for a higher salary.  Or couldn't up-sell themselves, which, coincidentally in business, is a desirable trait.



#16 Eagles

Eagles
  • 436 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 07:23 PM

I was literally typing the exact thing Frizzle just said. Sure the gender wage gap exists, but its not because a hired employee is simply a woman. Rather it is a difference in qualifications 



#17 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,913 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 07:29 PM

Can we quit using the word payed? 

Payed payed payed

 

Screw grammar :p



#18 Swar

Swar
  • com muito orgulho, com muito amor <3


  • 9,089 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 07:34 PM

I was literally typing the exact thing Frizzle just said. Sure the gender wage gap exists, but its not because a hired employee is simply a woman. Rather it is a difference in qualifications

You can't say it's always because of this and ignore the fact that women don't have the same rights and treatment as men yet :/

#19 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,913 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 07:38 PM

If they are, it's because someone wasn't pushing hard enough for a higher salary.  Or couldn't up-sell themselves, which, coincidentally in business, is a desirable trait.

 

I was literally typing the exact thing Frizzle just said. Sure the gender wage gap exists, but its not because a hired employee is simply a woman. Rather it is a difference in qualifications 

There IS a factor related to discrimination in the wage gap. 

Any given raw wage gap can be decomposed into an explained part due to differences in characteristics such as education, hours worked, work experience, and occupation, and an unexplained part which is typically attributed to discrimination.[19] The U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee shows that "as explained inequities decrease, the unexplained pay gap remains unchanged.[20] Cornell University economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn stated that while the overall size of the wage gap has decreased somewhat over time, the proportion of the gap that is unexplained by human capital variables is increasing.[21]

Using Current Population Survey (CPS) data for 1979 and 1995 and controlling for education, experience, personal characteristics, parental status, city and region, occupation, industry, government employment, and part-time status, Yale University economics professor Joseph G. Altonji and the United States Secretary of Commerce Rebecca M. Blank found that only about 27% of the gender wage gap in each year is explained by differences in such characteristics.[22]

(same source as Hawk's, aka Wikipedia)



#20 Eagles

Eagles
  • 436 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 07:42 PM

So, because that portion of the gender wage gap is unaccounted for, you are basing your opinions on the ASSUMPTION that it is simply discrimination. I see a startling lack of evidence



#21 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,913 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 07:50 PM

So, because that portion of the gender wage gap is unaccounted for, you are basing your opinions on the ASSUMPTION that it is simply discrimination. I see a startling lack of evidence

Bias favoring men[edit]

Several authors suggest that members of low-status groups (e.g. women, racial minorities) are subject to negative stereotypes and attributes concerning their work-related competences.[62][63] Similarly, studies suggest that members of high-status groups (e.g., men, whites) are more likely to receive favorable evaluations about their competence, normality, and legitimacy.[64][65][66]

David R. Hekman and colleagues found that men receive significantly higher customer satisfaction scores than equally well-performing women.[67][68][69][70][71]

Similarly, a study (2000) conducted by economic experts Claudia Goldin from Harvard University and Cecilia Rouse from Princeton University shows that when evaluators of applicants could see the applicant’s gender they were more likely to select men. When the applicants gender could not be observed, the number of women hired significantly increased.[72][73] David Neumark, a Professor of Economics at the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues (1996) found statistically significant evidence of sex discrimination against women in hiring. In an audit study, matched pairs of male and female pseudo-job seekers were given identical résumés and sent to apply for jobs as waiters and waitresses at the same set of restaurants. In high priced restaurants, a female applicant’s probability of getting an interview was 35 percentage points lower than a male’s and her probability of getting a job offer was 40 percentage points lower. Additional evidence suggests that customer biases in favor of men partly underlie the hiring discrimination. According to Neumark, these hiring patterns appear to have implications for sex differences in earnings, as informal survey evidence indicates that earnings are higher in high-price restaurants.[61]

 

Barriers in science[edit]

In 2006, the United States National Academy of Sciences found that women in science and engineering are hindered by bias and "outmoded institutional structures" in academia. The report Beyond Bias and Barriers says that extensive previous research showed a pattern of unconscious but pervasive bias, "arbitrary and subjective" evaluation processes and a work environment in which "anyone lacking the work and family support traditionally provided by a ‘wife’ is at a serious disadvantage."[74] Similarly, a 1999 report on faculty at MITfinds evidence of differential treatment of senior women and points out that it may encompass not simply differences in salary but also in space, awards, resources and responses to outside offers, "with women receiving less despite professional accomplishments equal to those of their male colleagues."[75]

Research finds that work by men is often subjectively seen as higher-quality than objectively equal or better work by women compared to how an actual scientific review panel measured scientific competence when deciding on research grants. The results showed that female scientists needed to be at least twice as accomplished as their male counterparts to receive equal credit[76] and that among grant applicants men have statistically significant greater odds of receiving grants than equally qualified women.[77]

 

Anti-female bias and perceived role incongruency[edit]

Research on competence judgments has shown a pervasive tendency to devalue women's work and, in particular, prejudice against women in male-dominated roles which are presumably incongruent for women.[78] Organizational research that investigates biases in perceptions of equivalent male and female competence has confirmed that women who enter high-status, male-dominated work settings often are evaluated more harshly and met with more hostility than equally qualified men.[79][80] The "think manager – think male" phenomenon[81] reflects gender stereotypes and status beliefs that associate greater status worthiness and competence with men than women.[82] Gender status beliefs shape men's and women's assertiveness, the attention and evaluation their performances receive, and the ability attributed to them on the basis of performance.[82] They also "evoke a gender-differentiated double standard for attributing performance to ability, which differentially biases the way men and women assess their own competence at tasks that are career relevant, controlling for actual ability."[83]

Alice H. Eagly and Steven J. Karau (2002) argue that "perceived incongruity between the female gender role and leadership roles leads to two forms of prejudice: (a) perceiving women less favorably than men as potential occupants of leadership roles and (b) evaluating behavior that fulfills the prescriptions of a leader role less favorably when it is enacted by a woman. One consequence is that attitudes are less positive toward female than male leaders and potential leaders. Other consequences are that it is more difficult for women to become leaders and to achieve success in leadership roles."[84] Moreover, research suggests that when women are acknowledged to have been successful, they are less liked and more personally derogated than equivalently successful men.[85] Assertive women who display masculine, agentic traits are viewed as violating prescriptions of feminine niceness and are penalized for violating the status order.[86]

That enough evidence for you?



#22 Eagles

Eagles
  • 436 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 07:52 PM

I don't have time to read that right now as I have class tomorrow at 8, but I will tomorrow morning!



#23 Kate

Kate
  • 🐟🐳


  • 7,366 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 07:53 PM

So is this debate about equality or little kids swearing.



#24 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,913 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 07:56 PM

So is this debate about equality or little kids swearing.

It's little kids swearing, talking about feminism. Of course the discussion would lean towards feminism, the core message of the video.



#25 Kate

Kate
  • 🐟🐳


  • 7,366 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 October 2014 - 08:10 PM

It's little kids swearing, talking about feminism. Of course the discussion would lean towards feminism, the core message of the video.

 

That doesn't answer my question. This is in the debate section, so the subject of argument should be clear, shouldn't it?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users