Feminism/Equal rights

* at folk complaining about the number of sets in women's tennis, as if they're getting paid by the hour to do a shift at Roland Garros.

They should just pay them all £8.75 an hour, and if the women don't want to play the full 5 sets then they should stay behind after a match to make up the hours. Perhaps they could pick up litter, or re-string the rackets.

Same goes for any men that win in straight sets, no knocking off early if you want to get your full wage.

 

Demand a pay rise and use sexual discrimination if they refuse.

 

If they want the same prize money in tennis & other sports why have a men’s & womens competition? Why aren’t they petitioning for one competition?
Give them the chance of true equality, I suspect they won’t really want that much equality though, even though the same prize money they want will be on offer.

 

anyway hardly matters at all at the moment. Peopleism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

my cleaner agrees with or without clothes

 

I stand corrected. Did not expect to see those stats. My point about skill level stands but if the women draw the numbers they deserve the pay.

 

Do you think it's a myth that the vast majority of women will be happier in later life if they have taken the time in their earlier life to start a family? Do you think that less women in CEO positions or similar positions is because they are oppressed?



I'd be interested to know if you disagree with any of what is said by Peterson there.

Another quote by Peterson:

"One of the things that higher levels of testosterone in utero seems to predict is less interest in people and more interest in things".

https://www.researchgate.net/public...cross_Cultures_Robust_and_Surprising_Findings

"Women reported themselves to be higher in Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth, and Openness to Feelings, whereas men were higher in Assertiveness and Openness to Ideas. Contrary to predictions from evolutionary theory, the magnitude of gender differences varied across cultures. Contrary to predictions from the social role model, gender differences were most pronounced in European and American cultures in which traditional * roles are minimized"

 

Something that needs to be put to the Roland Garros Committee before the Event starts again in 2089

 

I wish you were a boss in my place, maybe we could get some women on the so called harder jobs. I can assure you there are no women on certain jobs in my place because it is far too heavy for them.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. But I think it depends a lot more on how the life turns out for the woman, rather than anything to do with a supposed natural drive to be more people oriented. It’s a completely separate question tbf.

It certainly had something to do with it. The evidence from available studies backs it up.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51751915

https://theconversation.com/why-are-there-so-few-women-ceos-103212

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-there-so-few-female-leaders/

8 minutes and a lot of it was waffling. While I find agreement with him on some topics, Peterson isn’t the gospel on life and there’s far too much data that disagrees with his simplified notion in that video that women simply leave big law firms in their 30’s. There are far more layers to it than simply saying it’s because women aren’t happy and want marriage and/or family. I have no doubt that it plays its part, and everyone’s hormones and chemical make up influences their decisions, but it’s still really inaccurate to state “by nature, women are more people oriented”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...nder-discrimination-remains-rife-survey-finds

Studies find that workplace discrimination is still rife, that this discrimination affects their mental health. A lot of women don’t have the courage report it. A lot of women in other studies report that male dominated workplaces makes it harder for them to progress in their careers. I really think his marriage/family/unhappy argument, is ignoring far too many other aspects of why women struggle to get ahead in their careers.

Even on am empirical level, women’s greater emotional intelligence is born out of gender roles and the traditional male expectation to be the strong silent type. Gender neutral classroom experiments showed that gender stereotypes are already in force in the mind by age 7. But when you remove the things that reinforce those stereotypes, boys and girls quickly learn that they’re not bound by traditional gender roles, and you see a much more even spread of development in terms of thing like, but not limited to, confidence and emotional intelligence.

Have a watch, it’s really interesting.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09202lp


It’s not sexist to accept that biology (and *) influences behaviour, but I find it far too simplistic to state that women are more people oriented by nature.

I can’t find much about this.

You cut off the bottom of that extract.
“Possible explanations for this surprising finding are discussed, including the attribution of masculine and feminine behaviors to roles rather than traits in traditional cultures.”

This study concludes that it has a flaw in that it is entirely self reported, in terms of gender differences, rather than having a mix of both natural and controlled data sets. It recognises that it has great difficulty in interpreting cross cultural gender differences due to the method used, and the biological argument relies on consistency across various cultures, when this study accepts views that both biology and culture play a role in determining behaviour.

 

Still waiting on an answer to why someone should be disadvantaged because of their biological make up.

 

There are physical differences between the average man and woman. You already knew this though.

 

I’m not saying they should be disadvantaged, I’m saying I don’t think they should be paid the same as others that can do more jobs. But if I was to go to my employers and bring this up I would be some sort of misogynist, this is the situation I was raising, women wanting equal pay but not doing the equivalent tasks in the workplace of the men.

 

What do you think fo the different sort of weight divisions in boxing or that?

 

On a lighter note This Pandemic has had no effect on the viewing. Figures of Large sections of Women’s Sport

 

Less pay is a disadvantage though. I’ve given my thoughts on this mate, it’s not their fault they can’t lift as much, and you’re clearly not a misogynist. I get your grievance with it, and I assume there’s a lot more to your work than lifting so it’s up to management to try and spread the workload, maybe?

They’re there for a reason and serve their purpose, I suppose. There were too many mismatches when boxing was a free for all.

 

Would that not fall into that category of biological differences? People are different, a lot of people seem to think equality means we’re all the same. It’s not that in the slightest.

 

Yes for a dozen years or so Women have been paid the same as men in Grand Slam Tennis.
Just imagine that in Big Business Offices. For 8 weeks a year Men will work for 42 hours a week and Women 26 hours for the same pay.
Oh but it is okay though because apparently some women have said they would not mind working the 42 hours!!

 

Fair enough mate, my grievance is more to do with us all being graded on the same contract and pay. They have sent women up to do jobs that I know they won’t be able to and I have raised the issue, we used to be on different contracts that meant you were paid the more jobs you could do but they changed it. I still think that was fairer because now you have lazy * doing one job getting paid the same as others that can do them all. That’s across the board not just one gender.

 

I don’t think equality means we’re all the same as we’re clearly not, and I’ve already expressed my pessimism about how close to true equality we can achieve. We should always strive towards equality as much as possible, and with the boxing example, weight classes give smaller boxers a chance at a world title.