The gender gap

[Cunt]

Way to miss the point...

If the candidates put up for election are, let's say, 70% male, then with no voter preference either way, you are going to have a mostly male set of representatives elected...

Voters vote those folks in too.

What are you suggesting be done instead? Disregard votes for some candidates? Or by some voters?

[JimC]

Way to miss the point...

If the candidates put up for election are, let's say, 70% male, then with no voter preference either way, you are going to have a mostly male set of representatives elected...

Voters vote those folks in too.

What are you suggesting be done instead? Disregard votes for some candidates? Or by some voters?

Simply that political parties should attempt to assemble candidates that at least approximate the gender proportions of the electorate, rather than putting forward a much higher proportion of male candidates...

[pErvinalia]

The education industry I worked in generally has fixed salaries for any given position or number of years of experience, unaffected by gender, so it's not the kind of private enterprise free-for-all that 42 was describing. However, even in this controlled wages environment, statistically women end up with lower overall lifetime wages and superannuation savings, partly because of taking time off for childbirth and child care, and partly because they are perhaps less pushy in going for promotions to deputy etc. There is some evidence of the beginning of a culture change, where some husbands are prepared to take a few years off after the birth of a child while the wife returns to work.

Now i know this is going to be a woefully broad generalisation, but in my experience female colleagues always seem more explicitly interested in doing a good job than the men, and the men always seem more interested in securing others' respect than doing a good job.

I agree.

Cunt consistently ignores - deliberately or otherwise the dynamics of control. power and social positioning of males and females. The decks have historically been loaded against women and now they are trying to do something about it. The 'meritocracy' you seem to be so keen on assumes that everyone is in the same starting position with the same chances available to them and the same available path. It simply isn't the case.

I can't even begin to address Cunt's idiotic and hateful nonsense (if it's not hateful, it's some sort of mental illness that causes him to believe this). I'll fucking explode. What you write here is so bleedingly obvious, it really shouldn't need saying. But the world is full of idiots who have next to zero ability to think rationally and coherently. Not that explaining this to those types in the past has done any good. Whether consciously or sub-conciously, they hate women. Interesting to compare Cunt's statement about white leaders with DaveDodo's in my signature. I wonder if Cunt has read much of Dave's incoherent rambling? I wonder if he knows how much of a pejorative it is to be compared to DaveDodo?

[Forty Two]

The education industry I worked in generally has fixed salaries for any given position or number of years of experience, unaffected by gender, so it's not the kind of private enterprise free-for-all that 42 was describing. However, even in this controlled wages environment, statistically women end up with lower overall lifetime wages and superannuation savings, partly because of taking time off for childbirth and child care, and partly because they are perhaps less pushy in going for promotions to deputy etc. There is some evidence of the beginning of a culture change, where some husbands are prepared to take a few years off after the birth of a child while the wife returns to work.

Taking time off seems to be a solid reason for not being promoted ahead of someone who did not take time off. If a man takes a year or two off to be a stay at home dad, he's making a sacrifice at work.

The argument is made that women are the ones who "have to" stay home more than men. However, I would argue that the decision of who "gets to" stay home with the kids is by-and-large determined by women. How many men do you know who were the ones who could say that they, not their wives, would stay home with the kids? The answer is, almost none. That decision is controlled by women.

And, I say "get to" stay home, because one way to look at that is cost/benefit. If you stay home with the kids you lose earnings - because it's not an employer's decision or concern if you decide to have kids. What if the employer believes the world is overpopulated already? She has to pay for your decision to the contrary? But, as for the benefit, you get to be home with your children. That's a very valuable thing. To many people, it's worth less money. In a free country, people get to decide for themselves what to do.

There may be a culture change were some men are "willing" to stay home for years. However, also in the culture change is the what some women are "willing" to go to work and leave the kids at home and let their husbands stay home instead. That's as dramatic a culture shift as the men's attitudes.

And lastly as to culture shifts. Why is it assumed that an equal distribution of child care culture is better than one where women opt to do the bulk of it, and men opt to be the worker bees? Or where that decision is made by husband and wife together? There seems to be some assumption on the part of the left where a culture that everyone splitting home care tasks equally is good and men and women doing different things by and large is bad.

[Cunt]

Simply that political parties should attempt to assemble candidates that at least approximate the gender proportions of the electorate, rather than putting forward a much higher proportion of male candidates...

I understand, you want more vag in the leadership roles.

You should vote for that.

Myself, I would rather the choices be made by voters, even if they don't lead to 'gender parity'.

Once you get proper representation of men:women in politics, will you start making it fair for other groups? Should we have fair representation of every disadvantaged group?

Artificially leveling things seems ok in jobs which don't matter much, like 'educating' children, but if it is important work, it should be based on the best person for the job, not on what their genitals look like, or what colour or economic background they have.

So try out gender parity in childrens education. Once you show it working there, we can move on to even more important stuff. Like governing people who disagree with each other on fundamental questions.


Speaking of fundamental questions, why not get fair wages for everyone, instead of just wealthy white women?

Wages for men aren't fair either, you know. Might have more people behind your cause if it didn't look a lot like good old fashioned skirt-trailing on your part.

[pErvinalia]

...in jobs which don't matter much, like 'educating' children...

You can't really believe this, can you?

[Cunt]

...in jobs which don't matter much, like 'educating' children...

You can't really believe this, can you?

If you think education matters a lot, I'm with you.

If you think teachers have to be super, you and I will probably disagree. To me, they are mostly regular people. All the really big brains, big greeds and big makers are doing other things. It's kind of sad, but mostly those in education are the 'b' team.

Basically, if you behave, do what is asked of you in school and have reasonable social skills, but no serious drive or talent, you will probably end up in education.

If you have any drive at all, it will probably take you directly out of it.

Of all the teachers I have met, I would say MAYBE 5-10% decided to be teachers. The rest just drifted into it because they had to finish SOMETHING.

Let me explain it another way. There are great and terrible teachers. Both are equally protected by their unions. If the job was really important somehow, that would be absolutely terrible for a large group of students, sentenced to below-average teaching.

[pErvinalia]

You weren't talking about teachers (I certainly don't agree with your simplistic opinion about them above). You said teaching children was unimportant.

[Cunt]

I meant the job as it is now. Public education.

I mean, having a lot of it available is important, what I'm saying is that the jobs aren't. (or maybe they simply aren't treated that way)

Shit teachers keep shitting it up for years. If the job was really important, that wouldn't be allowed to happen.

[pErvinalia]

You're making no sense. Is educating kids important or not?

[laklak]

Put them to work in the match factory, teaching them to read just encourages them to assume they're equal to their betters.

[JimC]

Simply that political parties should attempt to assemble candidates that at least approximate the gender proportions of the electorate, rather than putting forward a much higher proportion of male candidates...

I understand, you want more vag in the leadership roles.

You should vote for that.

Again, are you being wilfully blind? In most democracies with party politics, the choosing of political candidates for election in a given electorate is not voted on by the public, it is controlled by the party concerned. It's been well known for a long time, at least here in Oz, that the processes (often rather murky) that lead to the selection of candidates has traditionally put forward many more men than women. This is actually changing to a degree, little by little, but the historical legacy remains when you look at the gender proportions in state or federal parliaments.

[mistermack]

All UK firms (with more than 200 workers) have to have published the pay gap between men and women by today, otherwise they end up in court. They don't get paid for this. If the govt. want these figures, they should pay for the work.

In other news, the sheer incompetence of women mass killers was highlighted recently by the woman who tried to shoot up Youtube. The only person she managed to kill was herself.

And they think they should get paid the same !!

[Rum]

I meant the job as it is now. Public education.

I mean, having a lot of it available is important, what I'm saying is that the jobs aren't. (or maybe they simply aren't treated that way)

Shit teachers keep shitting it up for years. If the job was really important, that wouldn't be allowed to happen.

I would tend to agree. Here in the UK teaching is relatively well paid, secure and 'respectable'. As most people here know I'm on the left of politics, but I have to say that self seeking unionisation of teaching has been one of the biggest blocks to improving education here. The teaching unions pretty much always object to change of any kind (the two biggest have opposed every single test regime ever - the rights and wrongs of testing require another thread).

I attended many a meeting before I retired, where my job was to try to introduce some policy or practice to assist the less able and those with trouble accessing their schooling, only to hit a brick wall with the unions or just unenthusiastic complacent teachers.

Attempts by the government to reform teaching have only increased the paper work load and that in turn increased the resentment and added to low moral amongst teachers. A nasty little unvirtous circle.

It may be different in other countries and of course there are exceptions here too - usually when the head teacher sets a better overall tone.

[Forty Two]

Way to miss the point...

If the candidates put up for election are, let's say, 70% male, then with no voter preference either way, you are going to have a mostly male set of representatives elected...

Voters vote those folks in too.

What are you suggesting be done instead? Disregard votes for some candidates? Or by some voters?

Simply that political parties should attempt to assemble candidates that at least approximate the gender proportions of the electorate, rather than putting forward a much higher proportion of male candidates...

What if one sex isn’t as interested in running?