Emily vs. The Gammons

[eFestivals]

Just now, Dave_c said:

I am actually, and neither my son or daughter have questioned their sexuality or what jobs they can and can't do because of it.

so your kids never ever repeated something weird they'd heard somewhere? That would make them pretty damned unique.

Or are you thinking it's impossible for anyone to gender stereotype for the kid to pick up on and repeat?

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

2 minutes ago, Quark said:

It's not a mild threat. It's not even approaching a threat. I'm as threatening as a wet lettuce. My point was don't automatically turn it into "oh I'm being attacked" and make it out that everyone's being horrible to you.

I work in procurement. It's not generally on commission basis at all. If you could tell my boss I should be getting commission payment for finalising my contracts I'd appreciate it.

Re: Carrie Gracey the BBC told her she would be paid in line with Sopel when she took the role.  She also had 30 odd years of experience, which I'd personally class as a ton of experience as well.  And the BBC admitted they were wrong and paid her £280k in back pay.

As for the headliners piece, yes I'm sure some acts are paid more by Glastonbury than others.  In the same way I'd pay more to see some acts than I would others.  Bookers etc would, I assume, look at data on sales, streams, ticket sales, historic popularity etc and make a call on what is appropriate to pay an artists.  Will Sigrid be pad the same as KIllers?  Of course not, that would be silly.  They aren't doing the same job - Sigrid will be playing a far smaller catalogue of songs to a much smaller audience. But would I expect, for example, Beyoncé and Kanye to have been paid in a similar bracket? Yes I would, and I'd expect the fest to be able to justify the difference in either direction. And if it turns out that female acts on any stage are consistently being paid less than male acts performing at similar times on sikilar stages to similar crowds, again the festival has questions to answer.

This is about trends over time and comparing like for like in large samples of data to show average pictures over the population.  And those studies consistently show that a pay gap exists, and it's down to more than life choices.

It's a little bit threatening to say 'I haven't even started XXX yet', as if you are about to. There's nothing wrong with an opposing viewpoint and I appreciate talking about it without being called a troll just for having one. But forget it, it's not the point.

I agree the BBC paid her 280K, but it sounds like it was more of a technicality that they had "promised" Gracie to be paid "in-line" with the N. American Editior, than a dertermined effort to keep her down and oppressed. When Sopel was appointed it was done so because he had more experience and was on air more often. Gracie got upset because of the "promise" and sued. Not really sexist in my view - if Gracie was a man, I bet he would have sued for a broken promise as well.

That's the thing about the entertainment industry/sports etc, equality is so difficult to pin down. Beyonce are in the same bracket sure, but will they ever be exactly the same? I'm sure one of them is earning more than the other - I'd predict Bey makes more than Kan, but who knows for certain. If there were two indie groups, say Warpaint and Deerhunter (again I'm not entirely sure if they're similar in size), and they got paid hugely different sums, then I'd agree but if one is paid 20k and the other is paid 25k, then I don't think that would be because of sexism either. Agents also come into play too and have their own demands, but it's not just flat out sexism, it just feels too easy to trot out. You know what I mean?

[DefLeppard]

11 minutes ago, hfuhruhurr said:

Because they're smarter than us.

Far too many men think "balls is best" when hiring, when promoting. That's why we need legislation and action to tackle this at every stage.

And probably why people on here are totally gobsmacked at your arguments for pay gaps. There is no excuse. There is no justification.

Is that true? Genuine question as I haven't seen anything to suggest that. I don't agree with any of the points that megatron is making. It's abundantly clear that there's a problem and strides towards improvement can only be a good thing but I've personally experienced plenty of men and plenty of women who are terrible at their jobs and bullshit their way into positions which they are then shit at. As soon as we start saying that women are smarter than men we open up the floor to suggestions like 'men are more practical than women' etc. which clearly isn't true either. Some men are morons. Some men are clever. Some women are morons. Some women are clever. There may well be scientific research which finds that women are more pre-disposed to natural intelligence than men, in which case I apologise for questioning you on this but in general I think the sooner everyone realises the obvious truth that we're a product of the environment within which we've been placed and there are good and bad people at everything imaginable in every gender, race, sexual orientation etc. demographic, the sooner I can stop watching the news and wondering what the hell is wrong with everyone!!

Ps. The ranting part of this message was not aimed at you hfuhruhurr because obviously you weren't suggesting anything sinister. I just went off on one and it was tied to the same message.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The girl is 4. Where the fuck has she picked up a sexist stereotype from if there's not sexist stereotyping happening?

And do you think such sexist stereotyping helps or hinders equality?

I don't know why she doesn't know. She's 4 years old - I doubt she's done her research into careers and firefighter diversity properly. All she would need to do is watch Fireman Sam and she would see female firefighters in that.

Firefighters in the UK are represented 95-5% Male-female. Is it stereotyping or just the truth? Sterotypes come from somewhere afterall. Also, we're all taught about different jobs at primary/secondary school. Girls have just as much exposure to all that as boys do. I'm sure there are some foolish men and women who discourage girls and boys from doing certain jobs - without a doubt - but I just think this little girl will grow up and when she's 16-18, she'll decide what to do based on what she likes as an adult, not because of toys or stereotypes or what she knew when she was 4.
 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, DefLeppard said:

but I've personally experienced plenty of men and plenty of women who are terrible at their jobs and bullshit their way into positions which they are then shit at.

so on that part of things they're even.

So why are the average pay levels? Why is it that more women are in the lowest paid jobs than men?

(and no, it's not "they take time off for kids", because that's happening before they might take off for kids).

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

Firefighters in the UK are represented 95-5% Male-female. Is it stereotyping or just the truth? 

if the truth is that imbalance, the next thing should be to ask why rather than just shrug it off as a meaningless nothing.   

Remember, you said earlier about asking. So why aren't you asking?

[DefLeppard]

Just now, eFestivals said:

so on that part of things they're even.

So why are the average pay levels? Why is it that more women are in the lowest paid jobs than men?

(and no, it's not "they take time off for kids", because that's happening before they might take off for kids).

I may have not put across my point properly. I'm using that as an example of why it's terrible that the gender pay gap exists. I'm saying everyone is naturally equally terrible and brilliant across all demographics and any strides towards equality need to be celebrated.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

27 minutes ago, Doug85 said:

I'm guessing he is trying to use a simple analogy of why girls are given dolls to play with as a child in the first place, same reason as to why boys are given GI Joe or Action Man to play with- It's this culture that is ingrained into society that causes issues later on in life. Same with the whole argument that a boys room should be blue and a girls room should be pink etc. These things are all historically ingrained into our minds but why do we do it? Unfortunately this manifests into other things later in life mentioned on the thread. 

Yeah, there's definitely this kind of gender nonsense when kids are super young, but generally it doesn't stay that way their whole tweens/teens/adult life. There are of course a lot of women who want to become mothers and housewives early on, but there's nothing wrong with that. They're free to do what they want. That's the whole point I'm trying to make, is that we all have equality of opportunity.

For example, I had a blue room, played with Lego, Mechano, model planes etc, but by the time I went to uni, I studied history. Now I hate blue, rarely wear it, and having almost nothing blue in my ouse. My sister had the pink room, the barbies etc, but when she got to 18, she could think for herself and chose to study accounting. She still wears pink sometimes, but with a lot of other colours too. I just think it's more down to our modern society being very much less sexist today

[hfuhruhurr]

5 minutes ago, DefLeppard said:

Is that true? Genuine question as I haven't seen anything to suggest that. I don't agree with any of the points that megatron is making. It's abundantly clear that there's a problem and strides towards improvement can only be a good thing but I've personally experienced plenty of men and plenty of women who are terrible at their jobs and bullshit their way into positions which they are then shit at. As soon as we start saying that women are smarter than men we open up the floor to suggestions like 'men are more practical than women' etc. which clearly isn't true either. Some men are morons. Some men are clever. Some women are morons. Some women are clever. There may well be scientific research which finds that women are more pre-disposed to natural intelligence than men, in which case I apologise for questioning you on this but in general I think the sooner everyone realises the obvious truth that we're a product of the environment within which we've been placed and there are good and bad people at everything imaginable in every gender, race, sexual orientation etc. demographic, the sooner I can stop watching the news and wondering what the hell is wrong with everyone!!

Ps. The ranting part of this message was not aimed at you hfuhruhurr because obviously you weren't suggesting anything sinister. I just went off on one and it was tied to the same message.

On the "smarter than us" thing, it was a response to more going to uni - kinda flippant I guess, but we were in daft argument territory - if getting to uni requires brains... oh bugger, I just shot my foot off.  

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

she'll decide what to do based on what she likes as an adult

yep.

Where that decision will be shaped by all of her experiences to that point.

Experiences where she will have experienced the fact that there's jobs which are considered "women's work" (as well as "men's work"), where the "women's work" less valued, and with "that's what women do".

Any individual might shrug that off and do "men's work". But the facts of the averages show that as a whole it's not being shrugged off, and that it's causing opportunities for all women to be more limited than they'd otherwise be.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

if the truth is that imbalance, the next thing should be to ask why rather than just shrug it off as a meaningless nothing.   

Remember, you said earlier about asking. So why aren't you asking?

Because I think the matter has been solved - I believe most women don't want to become firefighters - generally speaking of course. Women prefer different subjects at university. At the moment in the UK, much of western and northern Europe, N. America and Australia/NZ, we have almost perfect equality of opportunity. Everyone's free to do what they want. Why do I need to ask about the imbalance if everyone's free to do what they want?

[Quark]

19 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

It's a little bit threatening to say 'I haven't even started XXX yet', as if you are about to. There's nothing wrong with an opposing viewpoint and I appreciate talking about it without being called a troll just for having one. But forget it, it's not the point.

I agree the BBC paid her 280K, but it sounds like it was more of a technicality that they had "promised" Gracie to be paid "in-line" with the N. American Editior, than a dertermined effort to keep her down and oppressed. When Sopel was appointed it was done so because he had more experience and was on air more often. Gracie got upset because of the "promise" and sued. Not really sexist in my view - if Gracie was a man, I bet he would have sued for a broken promise as well.

That's the thing about the entertainment industry/sports etc, equality is so difficult to pin down. Beyonce are in the same bracket sure, but will they ever be exactly the same? I'm sure one of them is earning more than the other - I'd predict Bey makes more than Kan, but who knows for certain. If there were two indie groups, say Warpaint and Deerhunter (again I'm not entirely sure if they're similar in size), and they got paid hugely different sums, then I'd agree but if one is paid 20k and the other is paid 25k, then I don't think that would be because of sexism either. Agents also come into play too and have their own demands, but it's not just flat out sexism, it just feels too easy to trot out. You know what I mean?

Not intended as threatening, poor wording, point taken.Equally, coming in with "the gender pay gap is down to life choices" is a pretty trolly way of approaching this, n'est-ce pas? Learnings for all concerned. Now we're in a discussion

The point that I would say you're either missing or skipping over in all of this is the overall trend and wider picture.  In isolation, yes you could say that the situation would have been the same if the roles were reversed.  But when that incident is consistent with behaviours across a much wider picture, you have to accept that it's adding more weight and support to the conclusions that are being drawn. If I eat an oyster and I'm ill, maybe it was just a bad oyster and I got unlucky. Or maybe I'm allergic to oysters. Fair enough.  But if I eat oysters on 100 separate occasions and I'm ill every single time, the chances are pretty bloody strong that I'm allergic to oysters.

So yes, there will be cases, and I'm even sure industries, where sexism and discrimination have nothing to do with it, of course there will. And there will be cases where women are coming out better than men; some of the studies have shown that there are areas where women are better paid than men for the same roles. But when the overall data trend points to the same thing, you can pull out as many individual examples as you like, but unless there are enough cases to change the direction and conclusion of that overall data set, at some point you've got to accept that we're allergic to oysters.

EDIT: I really have to do some work.  Non-reply is not a strop off, it's more likely that I've realised I have a deadline, and if I don't make it I won't get the commission payment on my contract

Edited April 4, 2019 by Quark

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

Because I think the matter has been solved - I believe most women don't want to become firefighters - generally speaking of course.

"you believe"? Wouldn't it be better to look more deeply into it and know?

(PS: most women don't want to be firefighters same as most men don't want to be firefighters - so that's not a meaningful answer for the gender imbalance of firefighters)

Edited April 4, 2019 by eFestivals

[musky]

34 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

Yeah, but that girl is 4. I would bet my life savings on the fact she would realise women could be firefighters by the time she was 18

Do you imagine for one second that that has always been the case? It’s taken a long hard struggle (which is still ongoing) to even get to this point. But the point is there is still a massive way to go. 

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

Just now, eFestivals said:

yep.

Where that decision will be shaped by all of her experiences to that point.

Experiences where she will have experienced the fact that there's jobs which are considered "women's work" (as well as "men's work"), where the "women's work" less valued, and with "that's what women do".

Any individual might shrug that off and do "men's work". But the facts of the averages show that as a whole it's not being shrugged off, and that it's causing opportunities for all women to be more limited than they'd otherwise be.

So, you believe we're just mindless robots who are shaped by experiences around us and we have no free thought at all to make decisions? I just don't believe it. I believe women are intelligent enough to choose what they want to do when the time comes, not based on when they were 4 and they didn't know that women could be firefighters. It'd be interestig to see if this little girl becomes a firefighter. I doubt it, but it'd be interesting.

It was different in decades ago when there were physical barriers for women applying to do certain jobs. Those barriers were lifted in the 60s and 70s. Women can do anything they want now in the 21st century - in the west anyway

[gigpusher]

Wow this thread is staggering!! If you are a white straight male please don't presume you know what it's like to be female and how you could end up having a totally equal life. The differences in how boys and girls are treated starts from before they are born and any woman who ends up in a male dominated profession is a fucking legend who has had to fight against so much shit for so long. 

I personally don't know a woman who has not experienced some level of sexual assault. I had my first experience when I was 8 years old in a swimming pool when 2 grown men (in their 30's) offered to help my friend and I swim. I was perfectly capable of swimming but he just wanted to grope anyway. We got out of the pool pretty quickly. I've had men grope my breasts in front of me, try to kiss me without asking permission because they saw my 18 birthday badge and assumed (wrongly) that I would be pissed. They only apologised when my boyfriend came back. While watching my husband run a marathon a few years back a man stood behind me and rubbed himself up against me. It was really crowded and impossible for me to get out easily. 

I've been in offices where men dismiss women's idea and tell them to go make the tea. I've had male bosses who have taken the credit for my good ideas and gotten pay rises out of it too. I've worked in technical companies where I've never seen a man take minutes at a meeting even if they end up being taken by women in more senior positions. It's just not deemed man's work. 

I've seen the difference in how my nieces get greeted from my nephew and other male kids when they go to parties. Older people always tell girls they are pretty first or that they are dressed well whereas boys gets asked what are they doing. 

There was a very interesting programme on the BBC about it a couple of years back about how sexist perceptions affect children who were only about 8. 

 

The thing is sexism helps nobody. It's the reason for the high suicide rate for men. We should all want to become better people and honestly it really sickens me that people try to deny its existence. How about we try and change the world for the better for everyone. If a little bit of positive discrimination is needed in the short term, then so be it. 

Also, if you think things are bad for women in general, women of colour have it even worse. Having Janelle, Janet and Lizzo etc on the bill this year makes my heart soar. I hope they are epic and girls grow up thinking I can be that bad ass. 

 

 

[DefLeppard]

7 minutes ago, hfuhruhurr said:

On the "smarter than us" thing, it was a response to more going to uni - kinda flippant I guess, but we were in daft argument territory - if getting to uni requires brains... oh bugger, I just shot my foot off.  

Yeah sorry didn't mean to get pedantic. Saw that and wondered whether it was true and then it just sent me off on a rant about people claiming that there's any rational basis behind the gender pay gap.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

4 minutes ago, Quark said:

Not intended as threatening, poor wording, point taken.Equally, coming in with "the gender pay gap is down to life choices" is a pretty trolly way of approaching this, n'est-ce pas? Learnings for all concerned. Now we're in a discussion

The point that I would say you're either missing or skipping over in all of this is the overall trend and wider picture.  In isolation, yes you could say that the situation would have been the same if the roles were reversed.  But when that incident is consistent with behaviours across a much wider picture, you have to accept that it's adding more weight and support to the conclusions that are being drawn. If I eat an oyster and I'm ill, maybe it was just a bad oyster and I got unlucky. Or maybe I'm allergic to oysters. Fair enough.  But if I eat oysters on 100 separate occasions and I'm ill every single time, the chances are pretty bloody strong that I'm allergic to oysters.

So yes, there will be cases, and I'm even sure industries, where sexism and discrimination have nothing to do with it, of course there will. And there will be cases where women are coming out better than men; some of the studies have shown that there are areas where women are better paid than men for the same roles. But when the overall data trend points to the same thing, you can pull out as many individual examples as you like, but unless there are enough cases to change the direction and conclusion of that overall data set, at some point you've got to accept that we're allergic to oysters.

EDIT: I really have to do some work.  Non-reply is not a strop off, it's more likely that I've realised I have a deadline, and if I don't make it I won't get the commission payment on my contract

Yeah, I appreciate the discussion. It's a slow work day here and I've got little else to do

I get your point about the oysters thing, but is the music industry or any other industry doing that a hundred times a year? I doubt there's an industry in any capitalist country in the world that wouldn't want to save money (if the gender gap was true) and hire only women, or companies/agents could make a shit ton of money, but "ewww, not if they're women...". If there's money to be made, I just think people - like leeches - are going to do that. I doubt anyone listened to Beyonce and said, "This is fucking amazing, but wait! She's got a vajayjay and I don't like making money that way", and I can't foresee an agent passing on a girlband and missing out on a massive windfall - especially not as often as people think. I'm sure it's happened, but in the last 50 years, there's just been sooooo many big female acts, it's hard to believe.

[eFestivals]

Just now, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

So, you believe we're just mindless robots who are shaped by experiences around us and we have no free thought at all to make decisions?

Is the world only black and white? Is it not possible to make our own choices while having those choices shaped - and limited - by what we know of the world around us? 

Did you play with mecanno (and every other toy) because you bought it yourself from the shop because of a personal want for it, or were your experiences led by what other people did towards you (such as buying you a particular toy)?

[Wooderson]

Good few blerts on this thread. ?

Fair fudge to you tho @H.M.V righteous stuff. Maith an cailín!

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

"you believe"? Wouldn't it be better to look more deeply into it and know?

(PS: most women don't want to be firefighters same as most men don't want to be firefighters - so that's not a meaningful answer for the gender imbalance of firefighters)

Well, okay, when I say believe, it's what I believe based on all the evidence I've read and heard - and there's been quite a lot to suggest that the social construction theory is nonsense.

Yeah, okay, if you really thought I meant in absolute terms, yeah, most men don't want to be firefighters either, but from the pool of people who do, there's obv a lotta lotta more men wanting to be FF than women.

[eFestivals]

Just now, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

and there's been quite a lot to suggest that the social construction theory is nonsense.

so it was just luck that you played with lego and meccano, and not dolls? And the same 'luck' is working for all males, with a similar 'luck' of dolls for girls?

C'mon. you're not that daft, surely?

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

9 minutes ago, musky said:

Do you imagine for one second that that has always been the case? It’s taken a long hard struggle (which is still ongoing) to even get to this point. But the point is there is still a massive way to go. 

No, it's definitely not always been like that. But as of the last thirty+ years etc when women caught upto and overtaken men at university, I don't think there's much more to do apart from weed out the actual bigots, not just labelling every difference in society on "sexism". It's just such a lazy trope to roll out.

We have complete freedom of choice at the moment. More women choose primary school jobs for example. There's nothing wrong with that - I feel like to artificially engineer a 50-50 split between the genders is pointless and a timewaste. Men can do it if they want and we shouldn't judge them if they do, likewise if a woman wants to be a firefighter - we shouldn't judge her or tell her she can't do it, but we shouldn't engineer equality just for the sake of it.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

yeah, most men don't want to be firefighters either, but from the pool of people who do, there's obv a lotta lotta more men wanting to be FF than women.

the fact of who are firefighters proves that. So the next thing is to ask 'why?' there's that difference.

Is being a firefighter promoted (in more than just a formal way) as a potential job opportunity to girls in the same way as it is to boys?

Or perhaps does the low number of female fightfighters suggest to women that's not really what women do, and so cause them not to do (in the same proportions)?

Edited April 4, 2019 by eFestivals

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

so it was just luck that you played with lego and meccano, and not dolls? And the same 'luck' is working for all males, with a similar 'luck' of dolls for girls?

C'mon. you're not that daft, surely?

Haha. No, but thanks for callin me an idiot though I think you've missed my point on that one.

I said I played with Lego and Mechano. They were easy presents to buy for a boy, I agree - and I chose some myself, but it had zero bearing (baring?) on me choosing to study history at university. My point is that the social construct gender norms idea doesn't play out like a lot of people think.

By that logic, did you play with website editing toys when you were a little boy (I'm assuming you're male), and then later on grow up and think, "yeah, I want to have and edit a website because I played with that as a kid"? Or did you decide to do that through freewill? I think the latter.