I'll see if I can help. What you say about feminist groups is true to a much greater extent about any other lobbyist group anywhere in the world. The whole point about lobbying is to try to influence people. Actually behaving in the way you describe is usually counter-productive but the reason lobbyist groups usually exist is to correct a perceived injustice or to fight against that and people have this awful tendency to over-react (my negative feedback comment from above). I really think you should reconsider your point about press bias. If you actually look at the content, most of the press in the UK is extremely anti-feminist. With regard to your perception of the two issues: (1) I don't think such pressure, if it exists at all, is very damaging. I think quotas are often damaging but monitoring outcomes of policies by measuring some sort of data should never be an issue, unless it leads to discriminatory practices. To take one of PnP's points it now seems accepted wisdom that men negotiate harder than women when discussing salary. It would be much better if companies reacted to that by paying those men less, since their behaviour adds nothing to the business and just wastes time and resource. (2) I think you are missing the point here. Over my life time business has moved away from being totally dominated by men. Throughout that process it has never been acceptable for males to make gratuitous comments about each other's appearance. I've been working for over 35 years and I've never once heard a male colleague say to another male business acquaintance, anything like hey, you've got great hair, or your trousers are nice, or your chest looks really fit in that shirt. Why do you think that is? I think its because its hugely ingrained that such comments are personally intrusive and have no place in a business relationship. So basic courtesy stops it happening. Now unfortunately one other aspect of human behaviour is that people are very tribal and quite often ignore the rules of courtesy when dealing with people who are a little different to them. So when women started to appear in businesses they didn't get treated the same way somehow. So intrusive comments about a woman's appearance are now thought to be 'compliments' and therefore they are not only acceptable but it is some sort of intrusion on liberty or fun to take offence at them. So it is the male behaviour that created the double standards! If you check anything you might say to a woman business acquaintance against the criterion 'would I normally say that to a man' you will find yourself talking to women about their skills and abilities rather than their looks and everyone will have more fun.
I'll deal with all this later. But just quickly: Men did not provide food. This was an assumption. Modern research strongly suggests that the majority of early Man's (oh! See that word?) calories were got by women. The foraging was mainly done by women. Protein from successful hunts was an occasional thing. 2) The idea that women's traditional work was "less intensive" may surprise anyone who has taken care of several kids at once, done all the laundry and cleaning by hand, all the cooking etc. Anyway. That's all I have time for now. COYS!
The lack of women in the PL is appalling, whether it's owners, administrators, managers, coaches, players, officials etc
Is someone saying that? I have literally never met anyone who has ever said that. Did someone say it on this thread? Eh? Is society being run by people saying that? Are we over-run and bullied by people saying that? Like - there is loads more people saying that than not saying that? And they're really powerful? And reasonable people agree with them? And this is a genuine problem that must be dealt with? **** - you better get on it. Good luck, my brave friend. Try to win football back for us men and end this madness. making everything better like it was in The Good Old Days.
I'm trying to find your bit about things taking time to change, women being used to doing what their granny did etc. want to put it in my article, but I cant find it.
EDIT : DONT READ. FINAL VERSION IN LATER POST done a bit more now. New bit in bold. Amended bit in bold and italics : Many people are probably aware of the recent events which resulted in the departure of the Chairman of advertising company Saatchi and Saatchi, Mr Kevin Roberts. Roberts was in the news after giving an interview in which he was asked why relatively few of the most senior positions within the advertising industry were held by women. Roberts’ answer was essentially to defend his industry’s record, by suggesting that the answer was not due to lack of opportunity for women, but due to the choices that individual professionals were making. Specifically, Mr Roberts claimed that it was his experience that women in the advertising industry did not tend to have the “vertical ambition” to take the very highest positions in the industry, and that they preferred to remain in technical roles. Aside from these remarks, Mr Roberts was in fact highly complimentary of women working in his industry, and was openly critical of what he described as the values by which men tended to judge themselves, ie favouring rank over happiness and other factors which he suggested women in his industry tended to favour. In addition to these remarks, when asked to comment on statements made by a female advertising executive called Cindy Gallop, which had been to the effect that the advertising industry is prejudice against women, Roberts remarked that he regarded Gallop’s comments as being motivated by an interest in self advertisement. There is no doubt that Roberts made a mistake in responding to the question about Gallop as he did. Because even if he was correct, then all he succeeded in doing by being dragged into what appeared to arguably amount to a personal spat, was to give Gallop further publicity. Furthermore, Gallop’s response was to invite criticism of Roberts’ other comments, to be made via twitter. And indeed, the responses which she received, which typically criticised the behaviour of “white men” in business, and stated that the issues referred to by Roberts were “not negotiable”, alarmed Saatchi’s parent company sufficiently for them to effectively sack Mr Roberts. And they didn’t stop there. The company’s senior management published a series of comments criticising Roberts and his remarks, such as the comment by Publicis Communications’ Chief Executive who wrote, “Kevin's remarks were expressed in a way that I find offensive in terms of language and tonality. Behaviour like this is simply unacceptable in our Groupe”. No holding back there ! My initial reaction to this news story, was one of concern. My initial view was that Roberts’ comments were actually generally balanced, constructive, positive and informative, and I considered the response from the parent company both alarming and – in terms of their heavy handed criticising of this previously highly respected colleague – somewhat distasteful. In fact, the story reminded me of other recent news items which have related to womens’ rights in business and industry, such as the highly publicised spat involving the response of a female barrister to a comment made to her by a male solicitor that her photograph was “stunning”, within his reply to her request to join his Linkedin network. I can certainly see how the solicitor’s remark in this instance could be considered inappropriate, however I would suggest that many people would consider one of the following reactions to having received such a message : a) be pleased by the friendly nature of the comment, and respond seeking to develop a personable business relationship b) accept the comment as a compliment and don’t respond c) reply, stating something like, "Dear ----, Thank you for accepting my request. I also hope that there are opportunities to work together at some point. Whilst writing, I would add that I noticed your comment about my photograph. Whilst I am sure that this was made with good intentions, I personally find such comments unwelcome, and would request that you desist from making further similar comments, which might be open to misinterpretation. I hope that this does not cause offence. Many thanks once again for accepting my connection, and I look forward to the possibility of us doing business together at some point. Kind regards, ----" The barrister in this instance did not choose one of these options, but instead chose to accuse the solicitor publically in the national press and media of sexist and repressive behaviour, and publically threatening to report him to his regulatory authority unless he made a full public written apology to her. For many, the barrister’s actions represented – at best – an unjustifiable over reaction, however again, she was given unfaltering support from womens’ rights groups and consultancies specialising in the rights of women in business, within the media. An example of a typical response from such groups being that of an organisation by the name of FabianWomen’sNetwork, which wrote, “Take a look at how fantastic…CRProudman handled social media sexism”. In both of the instances referred to above, men appeared to be portrayed relatively unfavourably. An issue closely related to that discussed by Roberts, is that of the average pay of men and women. Statistics are regularly published on this matter, and they show that although the gap between the average man’s pay and the average woman’s pay has reduced considerably, there is still a significant gap. Organisations such as the Fawcett Society in the UK, campaign specifically on this issue, and they cite as the reasons for mens’ average pay being higher than womens’ average pay as follows : - Discrimination - Unequal caring responsibilities - A divided labour market - Men in the most senior roles http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/policy-research/the-gender-pay-gap/ And this is not untypical of reactions to published data which records mens’ average pay as being higher than womens’ average pay. In fact, such figures are often presented in a way which appears to intend to solicit the response of an assumption that the difference between the figures must represent discrimination and men being paid more than women for doing the same job. More closely examined data however suggests that this is not the case, and that equality legislation, as introduced for example in the UK, has succeeded in removing pay discrimination between genders, and that broadly speaking men and women receive the same pay for doing the same jobs. And on this basis, the Fawcett Society is currently campaigning for the introduction of fines for companies who do not close their gender pay gap. In fact however, there are other factors at play, and they are not limited to the ones identified by the Fawcett Society. Indeed, in order to understand the labour market, and changes taking place in society, one needs to look at how the roles of men and women in society have developed and changed over the centuries. Throughout the ages, men and women have worked together in partnership, in the way most suited by their biological forms. Men generally took the lead roles in hunting for food, and in fighting wars which have beset civilisation since the beginning. In fact, contrary to the feminist movement’s portrayal of men as the oppressor of women since the year dot, what they were actually doing was protecting women, and thereby protecting the species. Some might even argue that women had it relatively easy during these periods, by being provided physical protection and safety by men. But whatever view one has, it can be seen that there was never a ‘battle’ of the sexes, but a mutual battle of survival as men and women together combated the elements, struggles for food, invasions and whatever else the cruel world could throw at them. More lately men have tended to have undertaken more labour intensive and dangerous jobs in the work place than women. Indeed, even today, in the 21st century, men are more than 20 times more likely to die in the workplace than women (http://www.alcumusgroup.com/male-workers-20-times-likely-females-die-work/) . This is a statistic that seems to have passed the Fawcett Society by, but in case they are reading and would like that statistic in percentage terms, for the avoidance of doubt it means that a man is 2000 % more likely to die at work than a woman is. The reason for these different allocations of roles throughout our development of a species and beyond, is that these were the roles that the respective genders were best suited to. Indeed, to an extent, they were the roles that biology evolved us into having as a species. Whatever the political correctness of such a statement, it is an inescapable fact. Men evolved as the leader of the species during our most difficult periods of history, because they were the physically stronger gender. They took us into war. They led the hunt for food. And as a result, men developed the role as the leader of the group, both within the family unit and within society as a whole. A review of history will reveal that almost all leading painters, poets, mathematicians, philosophers, pianists, were men. Is this right ? Is this because men are naturally better at these things than women ? Well, in most or all cases, the answer is simply ‘no’. The reason that men took the lead in these professions, is that as man was the warrior leader, it was natural that all occupations focused on the man. This did not represent the oppression of women, it is just the way things were at that time. Men went into an occupation – whether that was as soldier or artist – and women tended to stay at home and focus on raising the family and tending the home. Was that necessary ? I can’t see why. Was it fair ? Possibly not. But just as I and other men are owed no favour on account of previous generations of men tackling large mammals for food, and fighting off invading hordes, I and they are owed no retribution on account of man’s historical dominance of the arts and sciences. Just as I have never fought off a Viking invasion, or shot across trenches in Belgium, neither have I oppressed women, inadvertently or otherwise. But due to the success of the partnership between men and women, society has now evolved – in developed countries at least – to a stage where it no longer has to worry on a daily basis about hunting for food, or swinging axes at one another, and we have the luxury of turning our attention to more luxurious matters, such as gender pay ratios, and we can adapt the roles of genders in society accordingly. So now we are finally making changes to our society, to make them more applicable to our environment and to the benefit of all. It is right and beneficial for society for those changes to be made. And they are being made. Legislation has been introduced to make discrimination against genders (ie women) illegal. It is nearly 50 years since it was illegal in the UK for men and women to be paid different amounts for doing the same thing. Opportunities are being opened up in business. Indeed, companies are generally making positive efforts to try to employ as many women as possible, and for them to move to the most senior roles, as quickly as possible. Does this amount to discrimination against men ? Well, possible technically, yes. But I would advocate that it is a price well paying. Because as it stands business is missing out on a wealth of talent. The best manager I have ever worked for was a woman. The solicitor I worked with that I respected the most was a woman. The politician that I respect the most was a woman. There are some great women leaders out there, and some incredibly talented professionals. And the more that they can be encouraged into business, and into leadership roles, the better it will be not just for the individual woman, but for business as well, not just because of their individual talent, but because of what they can add in terms of personality and ability to individual companies and to the business sector as a whole. And the more women that can be seen to be working in senior positions, and often in roles traditionally associated with men, the more women will want to follow. The quicker the whole process will happen. But there are limits on this process. And in spite of the comments of Publicis Group, and of many feminist bloggers and twitterers around the world, and contrary to the explanation provided by the Fawcett Society, this is likely to be at least in part for reasons such as or similar to those raised by Kevin Roberts for which he got the sack. Because I for one believe Kevin Roberts. I believe his industry expertise, and I believe him when he says that in his experience women do not tend to step up to the plate to take the most senior positions in that industry. And there are several reasons why this might be the case, and why the fact that we are not even now seeing a full gender spread across and throughout professions, does not necessarily mean – and in light of the very strenuous regulatory, legislative and social pressure on business to be seen to advance and expand the roles of women – is not likely to mean, that this is as a result of discrimination. The real issue here is that once full equal opportunity is provided (which I believe HAS been achieved), that does not mean that results will show an immediate even distribution immediately. This is for two reasons. Firstly, changes take time. What has taken place here in society is a genuine revolution. After centuries, millennia, of a separation of roles based on gender, in a relative blink of an eye, society has changed the rules of the game. In fact its turned it on its head. Rather than putting up barriers against women, it is now ushering them in. But, for so long now, women have been used to seeing men do one thing and women do another. It will take time, for women to feel that the normal thing for them to do, is not to follow the routes of their mothers and grand mothers, but of their fathers and grandfathers. For some, the realisation and self actualisation of those opportunities will come quickly, but for many it will take longer. And just as equal opportunity in dangerous professions such as construction, and active efforts of the construction industry to recruit female workers, has had little effect on the gender ration in that industry, meaning that – as mentioned above – a man is still 20 times more likely to die at work than a woman, so too will it take time for women to make the cultural shift from tending towards their traditional roles, and venturing further and further into what was a man’s realm. This is what happens when there is a revolution. Even after the revolution has taken place, it takes time for people to come to terms with it; even those people for whose direct benefit the revolution occurred. So when Kevin Roberts observes that in his experience women are currently less likely to want to take the senior positions, I believe him. It will come, but it will take time, and no matter how many times, and how hard womens’ rights bloggers etc bash businesses over the head, it will make no difference. Attention needs to be focused elsewhere; to show young women what opportunities there are; to encourage them to take them; to make them believe and realise that it is not only acceptable for them to take them, but desirable. To inspire women to follow new paths. I believe that Kevin Roberts’ comments, for which he was roundly criticised and sacked, in some ways do that. Perhaps he didn’t go far enough in his comments. Perhaps instead of saying “women aren’t doing this, theyre happy doing that”, he should be saying “women aren’t doing this. And we find it frustrating. Because women make great leaders, and we want them to lead.” But regardless, I firmly believe that what he did say was still closer to being helpful than those who constantly berate business leaders, and “white men” for not doing enough. The other reason why a full change isn’t implemented immediately, is that – controversial as it may be to say it – there are differences between men and women. That’s obviously a very broad brush generalisation, and we are all different as individuals, but nevertheless there are character traits that are generally more pronounced on the whole in one gender than another. And that – aside from issues of physical differences – will lead, even in the long term, to genders not making identical choices. How that will play out will be very interesting to see. But whether it means that in 100 years time there will be more top business leaders who are women than men, or the other way around, I don’t believe anyone can know. But the one thing that I hope for is that everyone will be there on merit, and that people will be in whatever positions they are through free choice and in order to best suit their abilities, rather than due to increasing amounts of restrictions being placed on society to ensure that people continue to be identified by their race, gender, age and whatever else, and allocated role accordingly in order to keep those counting such irrelevant matters happy. In the mean time, I believe that whilst it’s important to continue to encourage women to take the new opportunities available to them, I also believe that it is important to be fair to all during the transition period…. not much more left I don't think.
Many people are probably aware of the recent events which resulted in the departure of the Chairman of advertising company Saatchi and Saatchi, Mr Kevin Roberts. Roberts was in the news after giving an interview in which he was asked why relatively few of the most senior positions within the advertising industry were held by women. Roberts’ answer was essentially to defend his industry’s record, by suggesting that the answer was not due to lack of opportunity for women, but due to the choices that individual professionals were making. Specifically, Mr Roberts claimed that it was his experience that women in the advertising industry did not tend to have the “vertical ambition” to take the very highest positions in the industry, and that they preferred to remain in technical roles. Aside from these remarks, Mr Roberts was in fact highly complimentary of women working in his industry, and was openly critical of what he described as the values by which men tended to judge themselves, ie favouring rank over happiness and other factors which he suggested women in his industry tended to favour. In addition to these remarks, when asked to comment on statements made by a female advertising executive called Cindy Gallop, which had been to the effect that the advertising industry is prejudice against women, Roberts remarked that he regarded Gallop’s comments as being motivated by an interest in self advertisement. There is no doubt that Roberts made a mistake in responding to the question about Gallop as he did. Because even if he was correct, then all he succeeded in doing by being dragged into what appeared to arguably amount to a personal spat, was to give Gallop further publicity. Furthermore, Gallop’s response was to invite criticism of Roberts’ other comments, to be made via twitter. And indeed, the responses which she received, which typically criticised the behaviour of “white men” in business, and stated that the issues referred to by Roberts were “not negotiable”, alarmed Saatchi’s parent company sufficiently for them to sack Mr Roberts. And they didn’t stop there. The company’s senior management published a series of comments criticising Roberts and his remarks, such as the comment by Publicis Communications’ Chief Executive who wrote, “Kevin's remarks were expressed in a way that I find offensive in terms of language and tonality. Behaviour like this is simply unacceptable in our Groupe”. No holding back there ! My initial reaction to this news story, was one of concern. My initial view was that Roberts’ comments were actually generally balanced, constructive, positive and informative, and I considered the response from the parent company both alarming and – in terms of their heavy handed criticisism of this previously highly respected colleague – somewhat distasteful. In fact, the story reminded me of other recent news items which have related to womens’ rights in business and industry, such as the highly publicised spat involving the response of a female barrister to a comment made to her by a male solicitor that her photograph was “stunning”, within his reply to her request to join his Linkedin network. I can certainly see how the solicitor’s remark in this instance could be considered inappropriate, however I would suggest that many people would consider one of the following reactions to having received such a message : a) be pleased by the friendly nature of the comment, and respond seeking to develop a personable business relationship b) accept the comment as a compliment and don’t respond c) reply, stating something like, "Dear ----, Thank you for accepting my request. I also hope that there are opportunities to work together at some point. Whilst writing, I would add that I noticed your comment about my photograph. Whilst I am sure that this was made with good intentions, I personally find such comments unwelcome, and would request that you desist from making further similar comments, which might be open to misinterpretation. I hope that this does not cause offence. Many thanks once again for accepting my connection, and I look forward to the possibility of us doing business together at some point. Kind regards, ----" The barrister in this instance did not choose one of these options, but instead chose to accuse the solicitor publically in the national press and media of sexist and repressive behaviour, and publically threaten to report him to his regulatory authority unless he made a full public written apology to her. For many, the barrister’s actions represented – at best – an unjustifiable over reaction, however again, she was given unfaltering support from womens’ rights groups and consultancies specialising in the rights of women in business, within the media. An example of a typical response from such groups being that of an organisation by the name of FabianWomen’sNetwork, which wrote, “Take a look at how fantastic…CRProudman handled social media sexism”. In both of the instances referred to above, men appeared to be portrayed relatively unfavourably, individuals have been exposed to very bad treatment, and the responses of organisations which specialise in the promotion of womens’ rights have appeared unbalanced and at times malicious. This is of no help to anybody. An issue closely related to that discussed by Roberts, is that of the average pay of men and women. Statistics are regularly published on this matter, and they show that although the gap between the average man’s pay and the average woman’s pay has reduced considerably, there is still a significant percentage gap. Organisations such as the Fawcett Society in the UK, campaign specifically on this issue, and they cite as the reasons for mens’ average pay being higher than womens’ average pay as follows : - Discrimination - Unequal caring responsibilities - A divided labour market - Men in the most senior roles And on this basis, the Fawcett Society is currently campaigning for the introduction of fines for companies who do not close their gender pay gap. http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/policy-research/the-gender-pay-gap/ And this is not untypical of reactions to published data which records mens’ average pay as being higher than womens’ average pay. In fact, such figures are often presented in a way which appears to intend to solicit the response of an assumption that the difference between the figures must represent discrimination and men being paid more than women for doing the same job. More closely examined data however suggests that this is not the case, and that equality legislation, as introduced for example in the UK, has succeeded in removing pay discrimination between genders, and that broadly speaking men and women receive the same pay for doing the same jobs. In fact however, there are other factors at play in headline pay statistics, and they are not limited to the ones identified by the Fawcett Society. Indeed, in order to understand the labour market, and changes taking place in society, one needs to look initially at how the roles of men and women in society have developed and changed over the centuries. Throughout the ages, men and women have worked together in partnership, in the way most suited by their biological forms. Men generally took the lead roles in hunting for food, and in fighting wars which have beset civilisation since the beginning. In fact, contrary to the feminist movement’s portrayal of men as the oppressor of women since the year dot, what they were actually doing was protecting women, and thereby protecting the species. Some might even argue that women had it relatively easy during these periods, by being provided physical protection and safety by men. But whatever view one has, it can be seen that there was never a ‘battle’ of the sexes, but a mutual battle of survival as men and women together combated the elements, struggles for food, invasions and whatever else the cruel world could throw at them. More lately men have tended to have undertaken more labour intensive and dangerous jobs in the work place than women. Indeed, even today, in the 21st century, men are more than 20 times more likely to die in the workplace than women (http://www.alcumusgroup.com/male-workers-20-times-likely-females-die-work/) . This is a statistic that seems to have passed the Fawcett Society by, but in case they are reading and would like that statistic in percentage terms, for the avoidance of doubt it means that a man is 2000 % more likely to die at work today than a woman is. The reason for these different allocations of roles throughout our development of a species and beyond, is that these were the roles that the respective genders were best suited to. Indeed, to an extent, they were the roles that biology evolved us into having as a species. Whatever the political correctness of such a statement, it is an inescapable fact. Men evolved as the leader of the species during our most difficult periods of history, because they were the physically stronger gender. They took us into war. They led the hunt for food. And as a result, men developed the role as the leader of the group, both within the family unit and within society as a whole. And these structures have remained in place ever since. And since the age of the dinosaurs, and since the age of conquest and invasion, the structures have become less and less necessary. We haven’t been a nation of hunters since around the days of Robin Hood. We haven’t been successfully invaded for probably about as long. Yes, there were still centuries where the vast majority of work was highly dangerous, and perhaps it is not surprising that society was not pressured to change the established structures until comparatively recently. But now our workers don’t spend months at sea battling scurvy, pirates and the elements, and we don’t spend half of our lives down a mine or at the workhouse. The last major war, involving a substantial proportion of the male population in armed conflict, finished 70 years ago. But due to the success of the partnership between men and women, society has now evolved – in developed countries at least – to a stage where it no longer has to worry on a daily basis about hunting for food, or swinging axes at one another, or sailing the oceans stuck in cramped, dangerous, stinking gallies, and we have the luxury of turning our attention to more luxurious matters, such as gender pay ratios, and we can adapt the roles of genders in society accordingly. Furthermore, a review of history will also reveal that almost all leading painters, poets, mathematicians, philosophers, pianists, were men. Is this right ? Is this because men are naturally better at these things than women ? Well, in most or all cases, the answer is simply ‘no’. The reason that men took the lead in these professions, is that as man was the warrior leader, it was natural that all occupations focused on the man. This did not represent the oppression of women, it is just the way things were at that time. Men went into an occupation – whether that was as soldier or artist – and women tended to stay at home and focus on raising the family and tending the home. Was that necessary ? I can’t see why. Was it fair ? Possibly not. And this must change. So now we are finally making changes to our society, to make them more applicable to our environment and to the benefit of all. It is right and beneficial for society for those changes to be made. And they are being made. Legislation has been introduced to make discrimination against genders (ie women) illegal. It is nearly 50 years since it was illegal in the UK for men and women to be paid different amounts for doing the same thing. Opportunities are being opened up in business. Indeed, companies are generally making positive efforts to try to employ as many women as possible, and for them to move to the most senior roles, as quickly as possible. Does this amount to discrimination against men ? Well, possible technically, yes. But I would advocate that it is a price well worth paying. Because as it stands business is missing out on a wealth of talent. The best manager I have ever worked for was a woman. The solicitor I worked with that I respected the most was a woman. The politician that I respect the most was a woman. I have personally been more impressed with the talent and ability of proportionally more of my female colleagues than my male colleagues. There are many great women leaders out there, and many incredibly talented professionals. And the more that they can be encouraged into business, and into leadership roles, the better it will be not just for the individual woman, but for business as well, not just because of their individual talent, but because of what they can add in terms of personality and ability to individual companies and to the business sector as a whole. And the more women that can be seen to be working in senior positions, and often in roles traditionally associated with men, the more women will want to follow. The quicker the whole process will happen. But there are limits on this process. And in spite of the comments of Publicis Group, and of many feminist bloggers and twitterers around the world, and contrary to the explanation provided by the Fawcett Society, this is likely to be at least in part for reasons such as or similar to those raised by Kevin Roberts for which he got the sack. Because I for one believe Kevin Roberts. I believe his industry expertise, and I believe him when he says that in his experience women have not tended to step up to the plate to take the most senior positions in that industry. And there are several reasons why this might be the case, and also (and perhaps more significantly) why the fact that we are not even now seeing a full gender spread across and throughout professions, does not necessarily mean – and in light of the very strenuous regulatory, legislative and social pressure on business to be seen to advance and expand the roles of women – is not likely to mean, that this is as a result of discrimination. The real issue here is that once full equal opportunity is provided (which I believe HAS been achieved), that does not mean that results will show an immediate even distribution immediately. This is for two reasons. Firstly, changes take time. What has taken place here in society is a genuine revolution. After centuries, millennia, of a separation of roles based on gender, in a relative blink of an eye, society has changed the rules of the game. In fact its turned it on its head. Rather than putting up barriers against women, it is now ushering them in. But, for so long now, women have been used to seeing men do one thing and women do another. It will take time, for women to feel that the normal thing for them to do, is not to follow the routes of their mothers and grand mothers, but of their fathers and grandfathers. For some, the realisation and self actualisation of those opportunities will come quickly, but for many it will take longer. And just as equal opportunity in dangerous professions such as construction, and active efforts of the construction industry to recruit female workers, has had little effect on the gender ratio in that industry, meaning that – as mentioned above – a man is still 20 times more likely to die at work than a woman, so too will it take time for women to make the cultural shift from tending towards their traditional roles, and venturing further and further into what was a man’s realm. This is what happens when there is a revolution. Even after the revolution has taken place, it takes time for people to come to terms with it; even those people for whose direct benefit the revolution occurred. So when Kevin Roberts observes that in his experience women are currently less likely to want to take the senior positions, I believe him. It will come, but it will take time, and no matter how many times, and how hard womens’ rights bloggers etc bash businesses over the head, it will make no difference. Attention needs to be focused elsewhere; to show young women what opportunities there are; to encourage them to take them; to make them believe and realise that it is not only acceptable for them to take them, but desirable. To inspire women to follow new paths. I believe that Kevin Roberts’ comments, for which he was roundly criticised and sacked, in some ways do that. Perhaps he didn’t go far enough in his comments. Perhaps instead of saying “women aren’t doing this, theyre happy doing that”, he should be saying “women aren’t doing this. And we find it frustrating. Because women make great leaders, and we want them to lead.” But regardless, I firmly believe that what he did say was still closer to being helpful than those who constantly berate business leaders, and “white men” for not doing enough. The other reason why a full change isn’t implemented immediately, is that – controversial as it may be to say it – there are differences between men and women. That’s obviously a very broad brush generalisation, and we are all different as individuals, but nevertheless there are character traits that are generally more pronounced on the whole in one gender than another. How we deal with pressure, our organisational skills, our people skills. These may all be areas in which the genders tend to be weaker or stronger than the other, and simply the type of things that we enjoy doing. And that – aside from issues of physical differences – will lead, even in the long term, to genders not making identical choices. There is also the significant issue of the fact that females have developed biologically to give birth to children. That is a matter that we can not change by either legislation or social pressure. And how that will be addressed in future will be interesting to see. And the extent to which all of these differences will effect the extent to which differences between roles of men and women in business and industry will remain or differ in the long run, will be very interesting to see. But whether it means that in 100 years time there will be more top business leaders who are women than men, or the other way around, I don’t believe anyone can know. But the one thing that I hope for is that everyone will be there on merit, and that people will be in whatever positions they are through free choice and in order to best suit their abilities, rather than due to increasing amounts of restrictions being placed on society to ensure that people continue to be identified by their race, gender, age and whatever else, and allocated roles accordingly in order to keep those counting such irrelevant matters happy. In the mean time, I believe that whilst it’s important to continue to encourage women to take the new opportunities available to them, I also believe that it is important to be fair to all during the transition period. As a human being, I am grateful to my male forebearers for protecting my female forebearers. I am grateful to my female forebearers for looking after their husbands and their children. I can understand how some women who feel that their female forebearers have been oppressed by their male forebearers, might feel as if they have an axe to grind against men alive today, even if I don’t believe they are right to do so. Just as I and other men are owed no favour on account of previous generations of men tackling large mammals for food, and fighting off invading hordes, I and they are owed no retribution on account of man’s historical dominance of the arts and sciences. Just as I have never fought off a Viking invasion, or shot across trenches in Belgium, neither have I oppressed women, inadvertently or otherwise. But regardless, what history has shown, is that humanity succeeds when men and women work together. For most of our history, that has been in very different roles. That is changing. Men and women will henceforth work and play in much more similar manners. There will be opportunities for all. And it’s vital in my opinion, that this continues to be a collaborative effort. Men and women are not best fighting one another, but working together, and this must be the way forward. For this reason, it is neither helpful nor acceptable for gender terror campaigns to be launched against individuals such as Mr Roberts, and such as the lawyer who complimented another lawyers’ photograph. If they have done wrong, then they should be put right. But in a constructive manner, not a vindictive or backstabbing one. Similarly, it is not acceptable for womens’ rights bloggers and tweeters to make negative comments about “white men”. Nor is it helpful for them to respond to discussions by simply saying that gender issues are “not negotiable”. Nor is it helpful for womens’ rights movements to campaign solely on selectively selected issues that mislead and only tell a part of the story, or to put undue pressure on individuals and organisations who are already bending over backwards to help. Decisions need to be made on an informed basis, not the presentation of a graph with two lines on, and a barrow full of vitriol. We are within a transition period at the moment, with opportunities having been opened open and attitudes in society changed. And whilst the top female talent needs to be taken to the top as quickly as possible, until the time when the female talent pool is as populated through choice to the extent that the male talent pool has been, care needs to be taken to ensure that promotions continue to be suitable and meritiorious, and the standard of female excellence maintained. Whilst moving women into senior positions will act as an accelerant to others, and should be encouraged, rewards must be made to both genders based on merit. Furthermore, women should not be encouraged to blame any hurdle that they face in their career upon perceptions of discrimination. What is needed from all is positivity, collaboration, constructive and open discussion, and mutual encouragement of women in the work place to make the most positive decisions, so that society and business can make best use of their talent. There is already a huge amount of female excellence in business, and every day when there is more is a victory. But in order to achieve this, the solution is not a battle of the sexes.
"not much more left I don't think." Incredible modesty. Job done. All research into and analyses of society (throughout ALL of time, it seems) is complete. What next? That aside I've got a shock for you you Rob: I agree with LOADS of that. Many individuals who would (rightly or wrongly)come to label themselves "feminist" would agree with loads of that. Who can argue with: "Is this because men are naturally better at these things than women ? Well, in most or all cases, the answer is simply ‘no’." or "So now we are finally making changes to our society, to make them more applicable to our environment and to the benefit of all. It is right and beneficial for society for those changes to be made. And they are being made." and (more controversial but I agree a bit): "Does this amount to discrimination against men ? Well, possible technically, yes. But I would advocate that it is a price well paying." Or your stated aim for basically a truly egalitarian society. So we all want an egalitarian society, right? Good. Now have we got there? Well it's not egalitarian right now, we both agree. How do we get there? What are the tools and what are the blocks? This is where we differ. I would argue that every single one of the benefits for women that you have mentioned, (women finally being educated, having access to more roles and occupations, being able to vote etc etc), every single one of them, came about through a will for social change that, though evolved, was in no means necessary and going to happen no matter what. I would say that those changes came about through people doing stuff to make them happen. And many of those people doing that, encouraging that, allowing that to happen...were feminists. I say that people doing stuff which may or may not at the time be labeled "feminism" has been, will continue to be, something that helps achieve a more desirable society. You think that feminism is a block to a fairer society. Yes - it sometimes is. All things can be misapplied/misunderstood. You point out that there are cases in the news where seeming injustices and stupid behavior has resulted due to this thing "feminism". And I have already told you more than once that I agree - this happens. Perhaps your two cases are cases in point, maybe they're not - that's not important. I agree that it happens and I told you earlier on (if you were reading) that I myself have been absurdly attacked on social media for pointing out that the VAT on sanitary products was at a special low rate of VAT, not a special high rate of VAT. I told you this before but you ignored it. Do I think it's dumb that the guy got the sack for saying that at Saatchi and Saatchi? Yes - it's absurd. Awful really. And what about that one where the scientist said that women disrupt labs because of their crying and distracting the men? What a knob. What a knobbish thing to say. I bet the social stigma he would have found on campus might have even made him think about what he's saying (and thinking). But sacking him? I feel really uncomfortable about that. I would not sack him. At the very least there's a bloody strong argument for saying that events like this are not positive (!). And not just for the man in question. Here's why not just for the man in question: Incidents like this and the lawyers and the Gucci and Gucci thing give people a very justified concern if not anger. And, more importantly these isolated incidents (you're talking about a plague of feminism ruining our lives and preventing a freer society and your two examples are a year apart and involve a total of two men being victims) are enough for people to form a somewhat skewed narrative of what's going on. But I think that you, my friend, may be feeling the effects of the ole confirmation bias. We all do it. I have a thing where I think that people who drive silver BMWs drive like ****ers. But when I drive I completely ignore the incidents where silver BMW-drivers don't drive like ****ers. They are literally non-events. I don't notice them. Likewise when a driver of some car which is not a silver BMW drives like a ****er I don't think "Huh - that ****er was not driving a silver BMW. Hmm...". But every time a silver BMW driver acts like a ****er I'm like "See? ****ing arseholes!". I even know I'm doing it! I know that this is almost certainly confirmation bias. But notice how I have to say "almost certainly"? I'm human. You might practice confirmation bias whilst watching football. Come to an early judgement about a player (Lamela always gives the bloody ball away) and then only notice the times when he gives the ball away and maybe not notice the entire games where he doesn't do it once. We sometimes only notice evidence that confirms our theory and ignore evidence which refutes it. I basically think that people often have massive doses of confirmation bias going on when talking about stuff like how all the feminists are out to get you (and how all the stuff they do is terrible). The absurd injustices (and they are injustices) hit the headlines. Oh no! Not another one! Oh God those feminists thinking they're on the side of the angels but instead getting people sacked, smearing them in the press! They do it every day! They do it all the time! But go ahead. Look around you every day. Are they? Are they really? 1) I think people like feminists have caused many steps towards the egalitarian society we both want by making all those changes that you mention in your post. (You can't say that women getting the vote is a good thing and then say that feminism never does good things). BUT 2) Bad things are done in the name of feminism and a vague sense of PCness within private business and government. Individuals occasionally lose their jobs because of ridiculous and mindless over-reactions. Nitwits on Twitter attack men for being misogynist for doing things that make us feel "Blimey - that wasn't that bad." So is feminism's influence a good or bad thing? Please take the time to think about it and not just react. Can you understand why I think that 1) outweighs 2)? Not asking for you to do a complete 180 and come out screaming that all women who shave their legs are traitors to the cause. Just asking you to consider if you can see why lots of people think that 1) is a really good reason not to then come to the conclusion that feminism is only a negative, repressive force in society. We have listed countless steps forward, just in tangible legal ways, that progress has been made. Some of these steps happened in the last couple of years. I think that feminism (and the questions it raises about our assumptions about many, many aspects of human life and understanding) is still useful. Even when all the laws are sorted we will learn more, be smarter if we continue to question the results of millennia or patriachy. Your assessment of hunter-gather societies was a great example of how feminism can make us think again, make us think smarter. As you say for most of history scientists, including those that studied Early Man (Oh - did you notice that word this time?) through anthropology and archaeology made a bunch of assumption like you did. Because they were men, most likely. Assumptions like "Men got all the food". It's funny actually because on reading your piece on how in early human development men almost literally went out and brought home the bacon whilst women stayed home and tidied the cave, did their nails etc I was actually thinking "Does he think that these times were literally like The Flintstones? The man going off to "work"? Basically gender roles from the 1960s slapped onto cavemen? (Oh - see the ending of that word again? Do you ever notice it, Rob?) And then, on looking for a bit of evidence I found this article: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists. See the picture at the top. Lol. Read this article. Also have a peruse of just the first page or so of this: http://www.worldclass.net/geo/Reilly/menwom1.htm And then this maybe (It's just a review of a book called "Distorting the Past. Gender and the Division of Labor in the European Upper Paleolithic"): http://www.paleoanthro.org/static/journal/content/PA20080091.pdf Little quote from the first: "In the Philippines population, women are involved in hunting and honey collecting and while there is still a division of labour, overall men and women contribute a similar number of calories to the camp*. In both groups, monogamy is the norm and men are active in childcare." Here's a quote from the second: "Women's work was steady and regular. Men's work was more spectacular, but less reliable. In a society that lacked the means for preserving food, gathering was more reliable than hunting" And a nugget from the third link in case the title of that book gave you the heebie-jeebies: "Personally, I approach “feminist” perspectives to life in general with a bit of caution, because I could not disagree more with those whose aim is not to correct the extant biases that put women in a lower or less important position in many activities or situations than men" See lots of assumptions have been made in academia. Assumptions that came about, perfectly understandably, because all the ones doing it were men. They couldn't help but make a bunch of assumptions that were there entirely because all people doing that studying were men. And so to this day you, Rob, have the impression that men got all the food for humans in the past. You think that gender roles are as old as time and have only ever been one sort of thing - that we have spent more time being non-egalitarian than egalitarian. Here's another assumption that I would say was due to your being a product of a patriarchal society: "Men have tended to have undertaken more labour intensive and dangerous jobs in the work place than women". We have this idea that men "worked" and women "did housework". Like they're different. Like eight hours manning (Hey see that word there? Hey, Rob, Do you ever see that word there? Hmm. I wonder if that has an effect on society what with it always being there sort of in the background, sort of invisible but sort of being used by us all the time) a shop or ploughing the fields is real work and that mopping, cooking, doing hours and hours of laundry etc etc is a special sort of work. Probably a less valuable sort of work if you were to ask someone who doesn't do that sort of work. It's all work. In fact economists now measure this labour and factor it in when calculating GDPs (http://blogs.wsj.com/juggle/2010/04/01/valuing-household-work-the-gdp-question/). And if you want to talk about dangerous occupations as a result of natural differences in biology how about giving birth? Getting pregnant and giving birth are still the main causes of death for young women in poor countries. Attempting to give birth has been one of the most dangerous things that most humans did in their entire lives up until very recently. So I think that feminism will help us achieve our shared goal of a more egalitarian society. As a side-benefit it'll also make us smarter and wiser as if it gives us a sort of lens through which we can question assumptions, maybe see things in a more useful perspective. As I was labouring to say to PNP the abstract effects of patriachy are important. At university my philosophy teachers (nearly all men btw) had a distinct habit of using the female pronoun quite often. So they'd be making up an example and they would say: "If a person has knowledge then they must have justified true belief. She must have a belief, it must be true..." Now to me this was a fantastic lesson. Because it was REALLY notable. Every time I imagined "a person doing x" I would find myself, without realising it, ascribing a male gender to them. Or not even (anywhere near consciously) attributing a gender to them but still somehow being surprised when that word "she" popped up. To this day I make an effort to notice when I'm talking about an animal in a field and (as almost everyone does) saying "Hey - look at him!" when I see a lizard, a bird or something. I genuinely think that this practice is beneficial mentally. Not noticing it will help lead you to think things like "Men got all the food in the old days". Stuff like this is dynamite if you want to learn about the world, keep asking smart questions and avoid absurd, false conclusions. -------------------------------------------------- (Like your conclusion in another thread that blacks are thick and have never invented anything. There are so many incredible resources to help you understand why, fundamentally, Eurasians enslaved Africans and not the other way round. It's not to do with black people are inherently thick. And you don't have to say how you hate them. Try a book called "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. Another reasons that Europe dominated so much of the world for a while is a fascinating story and shows what effects blind luck has to do with European domination more than the superiority of the white man. Ghengis Khan. In a nutshell his armies cut their teeth fighting the most advanced civilisations of the time in modern China. Learned how to kick their arse. And when he fought them he would kill all of them. All of them. And destroy their cities. He then went West, came across the Middle East, more incredibly advanced cultures from where we get a gigantic chunk of our modern knowledge. Absolutely devastated them. He'd learned how to win against the Chinese. Everyone else was easy. So a scouting party was sent into Europe. A scouting party. They came across an army of Hungarian knights, thought to be among Europe's best, who were heading off a-crusading. The *****l SCOUTING PARTY came across them, utterly destroyed them. Once word was out that there was this place called Europe and it looked totally ****-overable the actual forces moved towards Europe. But then! Oh! Ghengis Khan died. This meant that all the *****ls had to go back to the Steppes and decide on a new Khan. A new Khan was chosen and the invasion and annihilation of Europe never happened. Pure chance. Europe got away by the skin of its teeth. Even more luckily the *****ls controlling gigantic swathes of Asia meant that trade routes could flourish and technologies and ideas could spread. This is how Europeans got gunpowder. Hmm - I wonder what they'll do with all that gunpowder?) *So I was wrong about that, with this tribe anyhow though they are a bit exceptional
Gary Lineker in just his underpants? I'd have sooner seen Hayley McQueen. Or Natalie Sawyer. Just think of the backlash if they'd done it
Rob, literate people know how to read and understand writing. You have shown a distinct lack of evidence that you are reading people's posts. I have pointed it out several times and the evidence is black and white. But I took the time to read your post. Just as I took the time to look at and analyse that photo a few days ago (remember that? You never responded to my comments even though I took the time to make them). Please now take the time to actually read my post. And don't "read the post of that crazy feminist who's gonna say x, y and z". Please just read it. In your own words forget the demographic and just read what another human has bothered to take the time to say.
BTW Rob I under-stated how much of your post I sort of almost, sort of nearly agree with too. The stuff about gender roles not being a matter of oppression - that these roles were not the result of some "Battle of the Sexes"; that it's fine to say that women and men are inherently different and, as a generalisation, you can say "women are better at x, men are better at y"; that the knitting together of feminine and masculine traits and proclivities is not just a matter of justice but of having better businesses, better governments etc...
I can even see now that you are blatantly a closet feminist, Rob. Definitely the most misogynistic feminist I know but the closet ones always protest the loudest!
Ive got about half way through your response Lenny. Appreciate a lot of the comments you make. I got as far as the Flintstones bit, that made me Will read the links and the rest of it tomorrow. Regarding the feminist movement, I don't think it is your selective argument thingy, because everything that i see from such people is bias, inconsidered, misleading, and unhelpful. That's the main point that ai make towards the end of my article, namely thst it's no longer a question of men v women as it might have been innthe 20th century,mit's about working togethor in an honest, positive and collaborative way. From everything I see, that's not what the feminist movement's about. I take your point about feminism having done a lot of good. But the difference now as I see it, is that in the past people didnt want change, and didnt believe in it. Now they do. People are converted. Men are on the same side as this. Shouting abuse and being horrible to them is no longer the answer.
I apologise btw Lenny for not reading your posts properly. A lot of this was just because I was getting frustrated with how the discussion was going,mand he general opposition to my views, and tbh, there were times when I just skim read because I thought, "i cant really deal with more of this atm". Re the tampons, yes I did reread that and saw that id got the wrong end of the stick. Just pleased I never spent that half day researching it !
