It could be. But on this one occasion I mentioned it wasn’t. And that’s not my issue. I don’t want women to get jobs just because they are women. I want the right person to get the job whether male, female or giraffe.
I took issue with your generalisation that women don’t get top jobs because they don’t want them as much. Maybe that is true on some occasions, but to generalise like that across the board is ridiculous!
I actually don’t know what to say to this. Men didn’t have to fight for the right to vote, they were given it purely because of their gender.
I’m just against inequality as you and I see plenty of people undeservedly getting jobs above far better qualified applicants, not necessarily because of their gender but because they know the right people or went to the right school.
The point about women not getting top jobs because fewer of them apply is true.
I’ve read several articles by both women and men that say that fewer women are heads of the worlds leading companies, not because they aren’t qualifed but because fewer want to do it.
It was only after World War 1 that men who didn’t own a property or who were in the army, were given the vote.
So although they didn’t specifically have to fight to get the right to vote, the government felt it was unfair that they shouldn’t have the vote while serving in the army.
But all men over 21 were given the right to vote before all women over the age of 21 were. Emmeline Pankhurst had to die before women were granted equality in that area. Women have always been under represented in parliament despite making up half the population. And that really is the only point for the minister of women and equalities. The decisions that affect us all are being mainly made by men. They just want to attempt to ensure women are fairly represented/not screwed over. They’re not there to give women more rights than men.
Really don’t see why that is such a problem for some.
I understand about Emily Pankhurst but the gap between women getting the vote and men getting it it wasn’t that much but women of today go on about it as if they were the only people being discriminated against.
A lot of their husbands were being sent to fight in a war where they would have to stand and sleep in a freezing, muddy ditch, in appalling conditions that you wouldn’t subject an animal to, while being shot at for over four years and millions of them not coming home and not even having a vote.
Just have a thought for the millions of men who fought their right, as well as, your right to vote.
How exactly is this relevant to the minister for women and equality? Genuinely confused. And do you want me specifically to think about the men who went to war? How often should I be doing that?
And who are these women who always go on about the vote? I only mentioned it as an example of women in government being under represented. I think women fighting for the vote usually mainly gets mentioned at election time in a “women fought for years to get the vote so you should definitely vote” context.
And somehow we got into a discussion about thinking about the men who went to war. As if I have never thought about that
Because you said “Emmeline Pankhurst had to die before women were granted equality in that area.”
As if women didn’t have the vote because they were women, while men fighting in a war, that a lot of them wouldn’t come back from, also didn’t have the vote.
Research does tend to point to men and women who spend the same time in service to roughly have the same salary progression. Research also shows men tend to have more time spent/experience/hours worked per week on average compared to women.
Research also proves that disagreeable people tend to get more promotions and pay rises than agreeable people. Women have a tendency to be more agreeable than men.
Example:
2 people are offered 5% pay rise. The agreeable person says, ‘that’s cool, thank you’. The disagreeable person says ‘that’s not reflective of the growth in clients/sales I’ve helped bring to the company and unless I get a 30% bonus I’m going to take some of our new clients to another company’
The argument about returning to work after children is that the less experienced employee should get an equal pay rise and promotional path, despite not being as experienced. Still I agree it’s a debatable issue.
Still take the most exteme example Laura and Carla both start in a company at the age of 18. Laura gets pregnant at the age of 18 and continually has child after child for the next 10 years. Carla has no children but becomes more experienced and more and more of an asset to her company. Her pay grade goes up 10 times what it was when she joined 10 years ago. Laura returns to work. Should Laura and Carla have pay parity?
This is all great and all, but none of that is what I said, so who are you arguing with?
I was simply taking issue with the generalisation that all women are the same and that they don’t want success as much as men. Because clearly some of them do. It might still be fewer women, but to say women as a whole do not want something is idiotic.
And no clearly if someone hasn’t been doing the same job for years on end they shouldn’t get the same pay as someone who has again, I never said anything different. You’re just making points that no one is going to disagree with for the sake of it.
Anyway I think I’ll leave you all too it now. Sick of repeating myself. It’s like talking to a brick wall. The lack of understanding is frustrating. A lot of thick things are being said in this thread and I don’t like thick people.
In 1866, Parliament gave the vote to “respectable working men”,
Also, in 1884 they gave it to people who lived in the countryside
Then after the First World War all the men who didn’t own property, including soldiers, were given the vote because the government didn’t think it was fair when they were fighting for their country.
Identity politics are prospering because party politics are failing though.
It’s the only way in a lot of instances for agendas too be addressed and not compromised.
Fully understanding that’s not the overall meaning on the individual post.
I’m just enjoying that a woman is showing that she can be just as incompetent, corrupt, nasty, mean etc. as a man. I’m all for giving women as many opportunities as possible to show that they can be just as shit as men haha
She is extremely right wing.
She wants to bring back capital punishment and until recently was against gay marriage.
I can see he being kicked out of the Tory party after more public humiliation and then joining UKIP or The Brexit party, who will welcome her with open arms.
Keeping hold of Patel will make him even more unpopular than he already is and Johnson is a popularist so, unless she has some dirt on him that he doesn’t want to get out, he will see sense and sack her.
again, I never said anything different. You’re just making points that no one is going to disagree with for the sake of it.
