Women's March on London

[Jenny1]

The bit that you quoted Mick Mac was arguing that there's a conflict, or indeed a contradiction, between being a successful woman who gets to the top of her profession and marching for women's rights. I don't see those things as contradictory. By implying that they do conflict with each other Piers Morgan implies that 'getting ahead' is good, while campaigning for women's rights by marching isn't. That's why I made the assumption that you didn't agree with the march.

[Jenny1]

Hi TheCat. Of course no march, political protest or indeed political party is going to be perfect. You raise an interesting point about explaining the banner 'The future is female' to your son. I think if I were to discuss that with my nephew, or one of my god sons, we would agree that this slogan should not be seen as excluding them (if it was written and carried in a spirit of exclusion - then it would of course have been wrong). I think we could have an interesting conversation about how the vast majority of human history has seen men in positions of economic, social and political dominance and that this has led to a movement that fights to re-balance that history.

Piers Morgan's impressions of the Washington March (and accompanying marches around the world) disagree completely with my own. He concludes that 'this march wasn't about women's rights' but was rather a 'man-hating frenzy by some very nasty women'. I doubt that's how most people will have experienced it.

[civilservant]

TheCat Wrote:

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

> When I read banners like "the future is female", how am I meant to get on

> board with such a divisive slogan, and also look my son in the eye and tell him that according to

> these people (who claim to espouse equality) the future is not for him.

many of us have a similar problem with regard to our daughters, TheCat

how to look them in the eye and reassure them that they might have an equal future, just like you'd hope for your son, in spite of the divisive rhetoric spouted by generations of men, of whom Trump is just the latest

the difference, though, which is that these girls actually live, here and now, in a world where they are worse off on every metric, and no sign of it getting better.

[jaywalker]

Reversing a dualism does not disperse the dualism: it just leads to war (whatever the injustices, which here are certainly appalling).

[TheCat]

civilservant Wrote:

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

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > When I read banners like "the future is female",

> how am I meant to get on

> > board with such a divisive slogan, and also look

> my son in the eye and tell him that according to

> > these people (who claim to espouse equality) the

> future is not for him.

>

> many of us have a similar problem with regard to

> our daughters, TheCat

> how to look them in the eye and reassure them that

> they might have an equal future, just like you'd

> hope for your son, in spite of the divisive

> rhetoric spouted by generations of men, of whom

> Trump is just the latest

>

> the difference, though, which is that these girls

> actually live, here and now, in a world where they

> are worse off on every metric, and no sign of it

> getting better.

I also have a daughter, who I teach to be the best she can be. Full stop. Not "be the best you can be, despite the fact that you're female". By even bringing her gender into it, I'm giving her an excuse to blame someone else for any setbacks she may suffer.

You almost had my support for your comment until you said females are worse off "on every metric". Which shows you've swallowed the 'female victimhood' arguement completely. Do a bit more research and you'll see there are many, many areas where girls and women are outperfOrm boys and men. Do I have a problem with these areas? Not at all...good on the girls...but to say that this is still a 'mans world' is to only see the facts that support your pre-existing position

And referencing 'generations' of divisive male dominance and implying that this justifies divisive commentary in favour of females is just like saying two wrongs make a right. Why be divisive at all?

[TheCat]

Jenny1 Wrote:

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

> Hi TheCat. Of course no march, political protest

> or indeed political party is going to be perfect.

> You raise an interesting point about explaining

> the banner 'The future is female' to your son. I

> think if I were to discuss that with my nephew, or

> one of my god sons, we would agree that this

> slogan should not be seen as excluding them (if it

> was written and carried in a spirit of exclusion -

> then it would of course have been wrong). I think

> we could have an interesting conversation about

> how the vast majority of human history has seen

> men in positions of economic, social and political

> dominance and that this has led to a movement that

> fights to re-balance that history.

>

> Piers Morgan's impressions of the Washington March

> (and accompanying marches around the world)

> disagree completely with my own. He concludes that

> 'this march wasn't about women's rights' but was

> rather a 'man-hating frenzy by some very nasty

> women'. I doubt that's how most people will have

> experienced it.

That's a reasonable comment Jenny. I would probably argue the toss on the 'spirit' in which some (only some, not all) that these protesters carried such slogans. Feminists know very well the destructive 'power of words', and they should be equally careful with how they themselves word things. But anyway, I risk being deliberately obtuse when we have just reached an uneasy shared ground:)

[rendelharris]

TheCat Wrote:

Do a bit more

> research and you'll see there are many, many areas

> where girls and women are outperfOrm boys and men.

But are any of those areas in salary and/or promotion? If females are outperforming males academically but still lagging behind in terms of equal pay and promotion prospects, it won't do them much good, will it?

[????]

I *think* in fact I'm pretty sure that women are now earning more than males at the youngest age breaks. This isn't to say your general point isn't true but there has been some progress.

[TheCat]

???? Wrote:

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

> I *think* in fact I'm pretty sure that women are

> now earning more than males at the youngest age

> breaks. This isn't to say your general point isn't

> true but there has been some progress.

Correct. Women in their 20's now out-earn their male counterparts.

[Loz]

civilservant Wrote:

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

> girls actually live, here and now, in a world where they

> are worse off on every metric, and no sign of it getting better.

You really need to stop reading the Guardian! It's a bit 'post truth' on stuff like this.

Full time women in their 20's earn more than equivalent males

Full time women in their 30's earn the same than equivalent males

Full time women in their 40's and above earn significantly less than equivalent males.

Part time women earn way more than part time men. But part timers in general earn less (per hour) than full timers.

So, it's much more complicated that some would like to say.

https://fullfact.org/economy/UK_gender_pay_gap/

Maybe equalising maternity and paternity leave would go a long was towards correcting this?

And, as an extra, current university entrance students are 67% female. Men outnumber women significantly in STEM subjects, but women outnumber men significantly in medicine and dentistry.

[rendelharris]

Massive cherrypicking Loz: if you look at the article you've linked, the chart shows that across all workers (the light blue bars), 16-17 is the only age group where women earn more than men. 18-21 women are 3% worse off, 22-29 4%, 30-39 12%, 40-49 25%, 50-59 27%, 60+ 22%.

"Part time women earn way more than part time men" - only, according to your article, in the 16-17, 22-29 and 30-39 age groups, in all the others men earn more.

[civilservant]

yes, cherrypicking, and the reference to Fullfact is mischievous because it doesn't legitimise the assertion

the correct metric is lifetime earnings (or expected lifetime earnings)

until quite recently, women earned less than men in every age group, but it looks like there's been a bit of recent play-field levelling (which was first reported in the Guardian?).

what WOULD be interesting is to see whether this earnings advantage persists as the cohort ages

[TheCat]

ah....so the 'correct' metric for such a complicated and nuanced issue is clearly the one number which you have chosen?

who's cherry picking now?

What this data (and many other studies) show, is that the gender pay gap is largely the result of different career choices which women make versus men (i.e. becoming a teacher and not a dentist, or often choosing part-time over full -time employment, or doing less over-time hours). Many of these choices have to do with the pressures of having children. So I will concede that there is a serious and meaningful discussion to be had about how we can better balance childcare/parenting between the sexes. As this will free-up women (and men) to have more flexibility in the choices they make with regards to family versus career.

What I do not concede, and what is frequently misrepresented by the press, is that the wage gap is a result of discrimination. When I read or hear the phrase 'women get paid less than men FOR THE SAME WORK' I want to poke my eyes out, as its a complete fallacy. The gender pay gap (as its commonly reported) is an aggregate of all men and all women, it does not compare people of the same experience doing the same job. Studies have again and again shown that for the same experience in the same role, with the same company the pay gap is negligible, and if it is not, then we have had the Equal Pay Act for nearly 50 years, and that is illegal.

[TE44]

http://www.equalpayportal.co.uk/statistics/

[TheCat]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> TheCat Wrote:

>

> Do a bit more

> > research and you'll see there are many, many

> areas

> > where girls and women are outperfOrm boys and

> men.

>

> But are any of those areas in salary and/or

> promotion? If females are outperforming males

> academically but still lagging behind in terms of

> equal pay and promotion prospects, it won't do

> them much good, will it?

Rendel, I don't dispute that there are legitimate concerns for equality of women in many areas, what I was trying to highlight is the problem with people saying things like 'on ALL metrics' women are worse off. There are also areas where men are disadvantaged and they receive precious little attention in popular media.

We've obviously already had a discussion here on the gender pay gap, which im sure could go on for some time!...but there are other areas which deserve attention...

Just as we are concerned that only 25% of FTSE board members are female, we should also be concerned that...

>75% of homeless are men

>90% of those imprisoned are men

>90% workplace deaths are men

National spending on Women's specific Health issues dwarves spending on mens specific health issues.

Women face some problems more keenly than men, just as men face some more keenly than women. We should address all as best as possible. I just get annoyed when some people seem to think that because one has been born male then they've just clipped their Golden Ticket....

[LondonMix]

I think sexism and patriarchy are damaging to both sexes but I do believe the consequences (at times invisible) for women are greater. The most pervasive forms of gender bias are totally inculcated in the population and perpetuated by both men and women.

People talk about funding for women's health issues but the way the medical establishment treat women is full of bias. Women in both the US and the UK are less likely to be taken seriously and given pain medication for the same ailments suffered by men. Even for assessments that should be straightforward -- like blood clot prevention protocols-- systematic gender bias has been revealed. This article in the NY Times really highlights how embedded and pervasive gender bias is in medicine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/opinion/a-fix-for-gender-bias-in-health-care-check.html

When it exists (invisibly) in a scientific realm like medicine, how pervasive do you think it is in other aspects of life? Men in the West are privileged in ways most of us can't even appreciate, which isn't to say that they too aren't victims of patriarchy and archetypal gender roles.

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Massive cherrypicking Loz: if you look at the

> article you've linked, the chart shows that across

> all workers (the light blue bars), 16-17 is the

> only age group where women earn more than men.

> 18-21 women are 3% worse off, 22-29 4%, 30-39 12%,

> 40-49 25%, 50-59 27%, 60+ 22%.

Sorry, but you accuse me of cherry picking? Ha ha. My post showed a balanced view of how sometimes men are better off and sometime women are better off. Yours was just pure cherry picking. Though it did at least agree (even if accidentally) with my original point that civilservants original proposal that women were behind 'on every metric' was wrong.

The problem with your figures is that people are mixing in full-time and part-time roles, something the head of the ONS described as 'misleading'. Most statistical studies into the pay gap divide the workforce into 5 cohorts - Fulltime 20-29 (sometimes 18-29), FT 30-39, FT 40-49, FT 50+ and part-time. Once you separate full and part time earning a completely different picture emerges. And, taking gender away, do you really expect part time workers to earn the same as full time workers??

> "Part time women earn way more than part time men" - only, according to your article, in the 16-17,

> 22-29 and 30-39 age groups, in all the others men earn more.

OK, as an overall average across all ages, part time women earn significantly more than part time men. Happy? And, one for the Rendel Cherrypicker, because you'll also know that this is a curious stat, in that even though women are way, way in front here, because part time work pays less than full time and there are far more women in part time work than men, it still results in an overall negative effect on the earnings gap.

Here's another source for your cherry picker: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37198653

Anyway, my assertion was that the gender pay gap is a lot more complicated than some would have you believe. Both you post and my post back that premise. Yay.

(I see you completely ignored the university entrance stuff. Did your cherry picker swerve away and crash on that one?)

[rendelharris]

See TheCat above for an example of how to disagree without being rude or descending to the tactics of the playground.

[Loz]

Oh, please rendelharris. You really should take note of your own advice. I initially wrote a nice, balanced post to add to the debate. If you want to add or debate those, then fine. But you waded in, unfairly, with the cherrypicking accusations - ironically backed with a set of utterly cherrypicked stats. Did you really not expect it to come back to you?

If you keep it clean, I will.

[Loz]

civilservant Wrote:

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

> yes, cherrypicking, and the reference to Fullfact

> is mischievous because it doesn't legitimise the

> assertion

Actually, it does. What do you say in my post that wasn't backed by that reference? But I admittedly did change that reference at the last minute - the original one I was going to post was http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37198653. But I like Fullfact more as a thoroughly neutral site.

> until quite recently, women earned less than men in every age group, but it looks like there's been

> a bit of recent play-field levelling (which was first reported in the Guardian?).

>

> what WOULD be interesting is to see whether this earnings advantage persists as the cohort ages

Hang on - this is a big departure from your 'every metric'!

But yes, I agree. With the newer generations seeing level full time earnings up to 39 year old (assuming anything within a few percent is "level"), the real problem area is the 40+ age groups. And the question is: is this a generational thing or a mother thing?

If it's generational, then it will probably correct itself over the mid-term future. But, if it's a mother thing, then then best solution would be to encourage more men to take on the primary carer role, or even a true shared parental role. The new 'shared parenting leave' has, I think, only exacerbated the problem, not helped fix it.

I did see an article a few weeks ago regarding pay differential of men who do take on primary carer, but sadly I can't find it anywhere.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

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

I initially wrote a

> nice, balanced post to add to the debate.

Would that be the "nice balanced post" which began with the silly and patronising line "You really need to stop reading the Guardian!"?

[Loz]

Oh, grow up rendleharris.

[rendelharris]

You left out "get a life" - may as well get all the clich?s of those without an argument in.

[Jules-and-Boo]

Not sure when we moved away from Trump and its objective being to protect and stand up for fundamental values that have recently come under attack namely human rights, equality, dignity, safety and health.

I hope it doesn't become a blanket feminist movement. It could be so much more.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The Daily Mail : http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_58d98af1e4b0f805b322d870

Cutting straight to the issues that matter. 🙄