• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Equal Pay/Equality

One of the greatest mind the world has ever produced? Ohh please all he was doing was formulating pre existing neo liberal economics for the American market,which is itself a rehashing of the ideas of Ricardo and Smith albeit in a more ugly and vulgar form . In fact if anyone was a genius in this field it was Hayek. However if you think Friedman is one of the greatest minds the world has produced I would recommend reading a book or two. I am guessing you would argue that Friedman is a greater genius than a man such as Marx which is utterly risible.

As for my education,don't doubt it. I would back my education to be at least the equal of yours.

I'm sorry but if you're going to try and paint Marx (the main protagonist in the side that lost) as anything other than a dangerous, villainous charlatan then there really is nowhere we can go with this conversation.

And I'm not doubting that you've misused your education, merely that you can be (thanks to the Internet) backed up by the uneducated, unwashed masses.
 
I'm sorry but if you're going to try and paint Marx (the main protagonist in the side that lost) as anything other than a dangerous, villainous charlatan then there really is nowhere we can go with this conversation.

And I'm not doubting that you've misused your education, merely that you can be (thanks to the Internet) backed up by the uneducated, unwashed masses.

I am not looking for any sort of back up here. I consider Marx as a genius{though I am not a communist}. So If the last ten years has proven anything it is that free market capitalism has failed by its own criteria. It is hanging on,just as communism did in the Soviet Union,like a tired old man carrying his shopping home. Though it is obvious we will not agree on this.

Plus the unwashed used to get support prior to the internet. Watt Tyler did not do so badly and I doubt he had heard of Google or whatsapp.
 
Nothing like straight, midddle aged white males complaining about discrimination :lol:

Classic

I just think it's contradictory to fix discrimination against 'minorites' by discriminating against the 'majority'
- which is often how people put forward their solutions on the subject.
 
Really getting on my tits hearing that women should be promoted for the sake of being women ahead of others. What about finding the best person for the job?

Seeing licence fees go towards hearing such drivel is also pretty annoying.

I was listening to the radio where somecontinueke one in three have been sexually assulted apparently since age 15. Would love to see what they are classing as sexual assult before stating such a fact in a news bulletin.

Also on the radio was a bleeding heart liberal who was moaning that there are too many male presenters, and so they should be put out of a job in favour of women. How about finding out what the paying licence fee holder wants?

Finally, I am sick of hearing and reading 'England star scores hatrick etc' or 'England did well last night' before being led into a piece involving womens football. I would like to know prior as to what the news piece is about and decide whether it is of interest to me to continue.

I've noticed this a lot on Five Live recently.

They no longer distinguish gender when reporting on (women's) football, The Ashes etc any more.

Ok, I get the equality argument but this policy does detrimentally affect the quality of the reporting - it makes for misleading headlines and content.
 
It is a recurring theme in this country, and it comes up in discussions in racism as well. The faux outrage is hilarious.

Any thread on this board where a 'minority' group receives attention about the discrimination they face is often filled with abuse, dismissal and sometimes vitriol from the majority straight, middle aged, white males on this board, the dominant social group world wide and the one that receives least discrimination. Any attempt to correct disparities is seen as an affront, because it threatens the dominant position held by this group.

The Rooney rule is an excellent example of the problem with letting the system sort itself out without some kind of encouragement. How many black coaches were there in the NFL before it came in? Most likely because subconsciously at best or consciously at worst, people thought white coaches made more cerebral, better coaches. The evidence since has disproved that theory.

I bet NFL forums at the time were filled with all the usual hate filled crap at the time it was implemented too.

The Rooney Rule wasn't strictly affirmative action though, as there were no quotas for minorities. This is clearly distinct from Labours all-female shortlists in which only women could be elected. The analogy for this would be the league saying only black coaches could be hired.

Interestingly looking at the numbers, I wonder on the effect the Rooney Rule really had. In the 11 years before the Rooney Rule, 5 new black coaches were hired. In the 11 years to date since the Rooney Rule in 2003, 9 new head coaches were hired, excluding interim head coaches.

I do wonder how much difference the Rooney Rule has made, as there was clearly the beginnings of a trend in the 90s towards black head coaches. Before 1989 only Tom Flores has coached a Superbowl era NFL team, between then and the Rooney rule 6 new black head coaches were hired and most of those had significant stints at multiple teams.

I also wonder if there are any negative effects on black coaches through the last decade. Does it make any of them question their ability, if they really deserve the interview or if they are only offered because the management have to find a black coach to interview. At least before the rule if you got an interview it was because the GM thought you were a serious candidate, since the rule there is reason for doubt.

There has clearly been improvement since the rule was introduced but how much of that can be attributed to the rule itself and how much to a naturally changing trend in NFL circles is an interesting question IMO.
 
I've noticed this a lot on Five Live recently.

They no longer distinguish gender when reporting on (women's) football, The Ashes etc any more.

Ok, I get the equality argument but this policy does detrimentally affect the quality of the reporting - it makes for misleading headlines and content.

This drives me crazy on the BBC. I feel like there is a clear directive to give more prominent coverage to Womens sports. I don't really have a problem with that but the way they make the headlines vague to fool readers.

Give womens sport more coverage by all means, but don't try to falsely increase readership figures by misleading users. Be proud of Womens sport.
 
This drives me crazy on the BBC. I feel like there is a clear directive to give more prominent coverage to Womens sports. I don't really have a problem with that but the way they make the headlines vague to fool readers.

Give womens sport more coverage by all means, but don't try to falsely increase readership figures by misleading users. Be proud of Womens sport.

exactly, promote it for what it is not what you want people to think it is
 
I've noticed this a lot on Five Live recently.

They no longer distinguish gender when reporting on (women's) football, The Ashes etc any more.

Ok, I get the equality argument but this policy does detrimentally affect the quality of the reporting - it makes for misleading headlines and content.

I actually have very little interest in women's sports but can I ask what exactly is misleading about (using the OP's example) 'England did well last night' to talk about women's football?

There is nothing misleading about that whatsoever. England women's team are a football team. The players are all English citizens last time I checked? The only reason it is 'misleading' is because we have become programmed that 'England' means only our men's teams. Like I said, I have no interest in women's sports (or the radio, what year are we in ffs?) but whatever the bbc are doing, they aren't saying anything which isn't true.





prejudice is prejudice, and how do you know we are all straight??????

:lol:

Even if I didn't know some of the posters, statistically, 90% of the posters on this board would be straight. I'd be willing to bet that we are not an accurate representation of the population.

Moreover, like you Ben, I've been on this board for a long long time and it is fair to say that you get to know about other posters' personal lives. I thus know for sure Scara is married with a kid and so unless he's particularly late to the game, I'm pretty sure he's straight. You've talked about your life (and perversions ;)) on here before. I'm pretty sure superted and Richie have talked about their partners in the past as well?

And yes prejudice is prejudice (though I reject the view that all prejudice is equal) but there is a difference between the prejudice that enforces current patterns of domination (and it has been proven in multiple studies that certain groups are much more likely to get called back for interview even if cvs are exactly the same) and prejudice that aims to correct those inequalities.



I just think it's contradictory to fix discrimination against 'minorites' by discriminating against the 'majority'
- which is often how people put forward their solutions on the subject.

What is your solution? Considering those in the 'majority' often either cannot see/ acknowledge the privileges they receive by dint of their Y chromosome or relative lack of melanin or are too apathetic to do anything about it?

Especially as most people who support this kind of thing do not support giving roles to people who are underqualified for the position but who historically are less likely to receive it due to factors often outside their control?
 
Last edited:
To the above first point... Factually yes, it's true to say that. Contextually it's confusing, which, when you're reporting news, is a bad thing.
 
So surely that would have been the perfect time for the excellent female politicians to rise to the top? Nobody trusted/liked the middle aged men in charge, there was a massive opportunity there. And there are some fantastic female MPs that I've worked with - Sarah McCarthy-Fry for example (despite being an MP for the other lot).

Without the positive discrimination that put so many terrible female cabinet members to the front, these other, excellent women may have stood a better chance.

Right....but the middle aged men were still the majority of MPs, the majority of lords, I'm guessing the majority of civil servants too. These people fit a certain profile and it is these people who decide who will go where.

I don't really understand why some women MPs being terrible at their job means that other female MPs should or would be disadvantaged in some way? Certainly nobody would ever dream of suggesting a similar argument for the male MPs that are complete macarons and who have dominated the past few governments?

Was McCarthy Fry even in the last labour government?
 
The Rooney Rule wasn't strictly affirmative action though, as there were no quotas for minorities. This is clearly distinct from Labours all-female shortlists in which only women could be elected. The analogy for this would be the league saying only black coaches could be hired.

Interestingly looking at the numbers, I wonder on the effect the Rooney Rule really had. In the 11 years before the Rooney Rule, 5 new black coaches were hired. In the 11 years to date since the Rooney Rule in 2003, 9 new head coaches were hired, excluding interim head coaches.

I do wonder how much difference the Rooney Rule has made, as there was clearly the beginnings of a trend in the 90s towards black head coaches. Before 1989 only Tom Flores has coached a Superbowl era NFL team, between then and the Rooney rule 6 new black head coaches were hired and most of those had significant stints at multiple teams.

I also wonder if there are any negative effects on black coaches through the last decade. Does it make any of them question their ability, if they really deserve the interview or if they are only offered because the management have to find a black coach to interview. At least before the rule if you got an interview it was because the GM thought you were a serious candidate, since the rule there is reason for doubt.

There has clearly been improvement since the rule was introduced but how much of that can be attributed to the rule itself and how much to a naturally changing trend in NFL circles is an interesting question IMO.

Richie, I'll reply to your post in a bit, have to head off to do something else. Dammit, this is reminding me why I barely even post in SNV anymore, let alone get into discussions in random, I certainly do not have the time for this :lol:
 
In response to the original post, I cannot agree more. I'm sick of women or minorities getting positions or promotions just to fill a quota.

I also have to say that if I ran a business and had two identical candidates, one woman and one man then I'd hire the man, purely because of maternity leave. It must be a nightmare for companies having a member of staff disappear for close to a year then come back, then go again and then want to do 3 days a week instead of 5 when they come back. If they changed it to parental leave and either/both parents got it then it would be different but until then I'd take the man all day long.

Another thing, I know it's a generalisation but it is true in my experience, women tend to be bitchy and gossipy in an office and men aren't anywhere near as bad.

People need to realise that there are good reasons why a company might take on a man over a woman and it doesn't make it discrimination, it's sensible.

As a hiring company you have to weigh up all these things and if the woman comes out as the best candidate then hire them, if not then so be it.

I can't argue with equal pay though, if men and women are doing the same job then they should get the same pay, no reason not to.
 
I just think it's contradictory to fix discrimination against 'minorites' by discriminating against the 'majority'
- which is often how people put forward their solutions on the subject.


What is your solution? Considering those in the 'majority' often either cannot see/ acknowledge the privileges they receive by dint of their Y chromosome or relative lack of melanin or are too apathetic to do anything about it?

Especially as most people who support this kind of thing do not support giving roles to people who are underqualified for the position but who historically are less likely to receive it due to factors often outside their control?

i think when a countries social and cultural make up changes rapidly, like England's has over the last 40-50 years or so, that it takes a long time for this change to filter down - i think it's far to easy to say the lack of XY and Z represented in the workplace is down to discrimination and IMV there are many other reasons as to why this is the case.

wording this loosely so as to not dig myself a hole - a relatively high percentage of immigrants live in poverty when they first come to the country, meaning higher education is financially out of their reach which in turns means that a relatively low percentage of the second generation will have the opportunity to gain the qualifications required to work in illustrious jobs and so on - this means 20 years after the initial influx of immigrants that the percentage of ethnic minorities in high position roles will be disproportionately low when compared to their percentage of the population. multiply that over the years/generations and whilst the percentage will rise - it will always be somewhat lower when compared to the overall make up of the population. basically i don't think there is much of a problem to fix, it's just that it will take many generations before it starts to level out, naturally.

(i think the above can be loosely translated to women in the workplace as id imagine there was a similarly low percentage of women gaining higher education if we were to go back X amount of years)

i say this as working class white guy with no higher education - so im open for this to be totally wrong btw - but's it's how i see the situation.
 
as id imagine there was a similarly low percentage of women gaining higher education if we were to go back X amount of years)

There's an argument that one of the reasons education has suffered in the West over the last couple of generations is women being able to get better jobs than a school teacher.
 
Right....but the middle aged men were still the majority of MPs, the majority of lords, I'm guessing the majority of civil servants too. These people fit a certain profile and it is these people who decide who will go where.

I don't really understand why some women MPs being terrible at their job means that other female MPs should or would be disadvantaged in some way? Certainly nobody would ever dream of suggesting a similar argument for the male MPs that are complete macarons and who have dominated the past few governments?

Women are already fighting against a common opinion that politics is more suited to men and that they're inherently bad at it. By forcing the **** to the top it only reinforces the opinion.

That effect isn't there for men as they are seen as the norm in politics.

Was McCarthy Fry even in the last labour government?

Yeah, she was somewhere low down in the treasury - non-cabinet role.
 
In response to the original post, I cannot agree more. I'm sick of women or minorities getting positions or promotions just to fill a quota.

I also have to say that if I ran a business and had two identical candidates, one woman and one man then I'd hire the man, purely because of maternity leave. It must be a nightmare for companies having a member of staff disappear for close to a year then come back, then go again and then want to do 3 days a week instead of 5 when they come back. If they changed it to parental leave and either/both parents got it then it would be different but until then I'd take the man all day long.

Another thing, I know it's a generalisation but it is true in my experience, women tend to be bitchy and gossipy in an office and men aren't anywhere near as bad.

People need to realise that there are good reasons why a company might take on a man over a woman and it doesn't make it discrimination, it's sensible.

As a hiring company you have to weigh up all these things and if the woman comes out as the best candidate then hire them, if not then so be it.

I can't argue with equal pay though, if men and women are doing the same job then they should get the same pay, no reason not to.

Good point re; hiring. Tend to agree to much chat and more the fact that hole life is always brought to the office and this tends to manifest itself in the office. Also one has to be very careful nowadays what you can or cannot say as anything can be deemed non-pc.
 
I can't argue with equal pay though, if men and women are doing the same job then they should get the same pay, no reason not to.

I'd agree with you, but I dislike this 'same job' argument because no two people do the same job. Two people may be in similar jobs with the same job title, but no company pays two people to do the same work.

Here is a fantastic TED talk by Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook on the issue of women in the workplace. She makes a number of great points IMO.

[video=youtube;18uDutylDa4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18uDutylDa4[/video]
 
Back