Harvey Wankstain

[madthatter]

No one is saying because if your sex or skin colour you can’t have an opinion, but that to say everything is fine from that position and ignoring simple facts does smack of a point of view which doesn’t get challenged and yes, backs up what I was saying.

 

I'd say a few on here have expressed that opinion and it seems quite a common held belief by a fair few where whites and opinions on racism are concerned.  I once heard a black man on a popular talk show say blacks can't be racist!  I mean, come on!  

 

And as a percentage black on black violence is more prevelant. Are you saying that’s to do with percentages, a higher percentage are black on black crime in London - now why would that be. Tie in the fact that most are in social deprevation - and you’ll have an answer.

 

Well that's kind of what I'm saying about culture and lack of opportunity.  Same in the US:  Many black communities blame 'whitey' for their social issues and the fact they are black so therefore treated unfairly.  Studies on African immigrants show that a significant proportion do better than the average white person.  It just shows that focusing solely on race is a nonsense.

 

If you are a white, middle class, middle aged male, you have all the power in this society. Even if you don’t feel like it.

 

To a point - I'd say if you're middle class in the UK and have access to a better education then yes.  Being female or 'ethnic' may actually be a plus or 'USP' in today's world.  We won't change that though by stirring up racial divides or gender/class wars, imo.   I agree we need a social overhaul, but it has to be done from the ground up and by eliminating race, gender etc as factors.  We do however, need to highlight cultural 'issues' i.e. white working class attitudes to education or black gang culture.  While the cards are against both groups currently, they can still help themselves to a large degree.  That's something some cultures can't accept.

 

 . . . and breathe!

 

Anyway, do you think she had a point in her article? 

Edited January 18, 2018 by madthatter

[Not in Crawley]

I think it’s clear I don’t and never did.

 

Honestly I think you’re getting a bit muddled up about what systemic issues regarding equality there are, and everything points to the fact that if you control the power, you control the narrative, if you want that to change - absolutely acknowledge progress- but simply don’t say there is no issue within western society regarding inherently sexist and invidious structures.

 

The fact we are disgusting and the position of white middle class men is being questioned is certainly a good thing.

[madthatter]

The fact we are disgusting and the position of white middle class men is being questioned is certainly a good thing.

 

Speak for yourself . . .

 

but yes, I agree.  Just no need to make it about race and sex.  Why not focus on the privilege and look at how we can change a system in a way that doesn't involve quota filling, daft things like Rooney rules or assuming every white man is complicit in some power hoarding plan.

 

Saying it's about middle class white men is no different to saying terrorism is about Muslims.

 

I'm not muddled either - you brought all this up, I just disagree about what systematic issues there are and how much of an actual issue some of these things really are.

Edited January 18, 2018 by madthatter

[kent_white]

Sorry mate - that’s just a bit naive.

 

Well thanks very much.

 

I literally can't think of a single example in my entire adult life where a woman I know has genuinely told me she's felt held back because of her sex.

 

In my entire working career - I've worked under 2 male bosses and 6 female bosses.

 

My current Chief Executive is female.

 

In my world at least - I just don't encounter this 'gender bias'. Even the pay gap doesn't appear to hold up to scrutiny when you adjust it for variables.

 

I realise this is largely anecdotal - maybe other posters have got examples of where their female friends or other halves have been overlooked in favour of their male counterparts on account of the fact they have vaginas?

[madthatter]

 

I literally can't think of a single example in my entire adult life where a woman I know has genuinely told me she's felt held back because of her sex.

 

 

 

And to think all they had to do was give HW some sex and up the ladder they went . . . oh the irony  

[MalcolmW]

I started work in the late sixties, and my early supervisors had started in the forties or fifties. The work was clerical, and you might say unisex, although typing and data prep were exclusively female. They told me that when they had married their wives were obliged to stop work (by the employer), although they often returned to work, generally part-time after more than a decade.

From there it progressed to women having to request permission to continue to work after marriage, though of course they left during their first pregnancy.

Male new recruits who were viewed as exceptional would be treated as future managerial material would be transferred around sections in a department so that they could understand how the whole department functioned. They might also switch departments to further broaden their understanding.

Female new recruits who were viewed as exceptional did not receive such treatment, as they were expected to leave at some relatively early stage in their career. So instead of transferring between sections they got to know the whole of one section only.

I can give two examples with very different outcomes. A female school-leaver who was exceptional learnt the whole of her section's work, and in due course in the eighties became chief clerk of the section. Her prospects of progressing higher were cramped by her experience being in a limited area. Her first husband deserted her (for the wife of her twin brother) so she had not left at the usual age. Eventually she remarried and had a son, but as she was by now 40 she managed to benefit from maternity pay benefits. Then at 50 or a little older she got a very generous early retirement package when the company was seeking to shed older staff to prepare  for a future merger, which eventually came several years later.

The second one was a very ordinary member of a typing pool. There was a vacancy for a senior management secretary linked to her department. No-one was considered outstanding, so they decided to wait six months and see who shone. In the interim they promoted a young woman who was engaged to a bloke in Gloucester, and so would soon be leaving Manc. But having been installed for a few months the engagement was broken off, and she spent the next 25 years as a poor management secretary. Her boss in my time lived for the weeks she was on holiday and he could borrow the bright young star from the pool to deputise (she eventually got the job herself when the long-time incumbent retired.

[Cheese]

Claims of sexism and racism and sexual abuse must be overblown, because they've never happened to me or anyone I know. People obviously only make these claims for financial gain, and obviously the first thing you'd do if you were falsely accused of something is pay off your accuser.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Cheese

[bolty58]

I don't get this 'as a white man' thing.  Saw a very interesting documentary on whites in S Africa at the moment.  Two wrongs n all that . . . 

 

My point being racism is all over the world, but less of an issue here than many other places; and if you think it's a 'white man' thing your completely wrong. Of course racial discrimination happens here.   It's no great surprise that as the majority 'race' is white, of course the majority of racial incidents are going to be by whites against non-whites - that's purely due to %'s.  Not inherent racism in one race.

 

Folk need to get past the colour of skin part an look at equality of opportunity.  That, and culture(s) are the biggest issues today.

 

Apologies, Bolty

 

 

No worries mate. I suppose it can't be avoided. I'll try to avert my eyes.

[Not in Crawley]

Well thanks very much.

 

I literally can't think of a single example in my entire adult life where a woman I know has genuinely told me she's felt held back because of her sex.

 

In my entire working career - I've worked under 2 male bosses and 6 female bosses.

 

My current Chief Executive is female.

 

In my world at least - I just don't encounter this 'gender bias'. Even the pay gap doesn't appear to hold up to scrutiny when you adjust it for variables.

 

I realise this is largely anecdotal - maybe other posters have got examples of where their female friends or other halves have been overlooked in favour of their male counterparts on account of the fact they have vaginas?

My boss is female, and you are right you are using local (for a social perspective) and largely anecdotal stories. Which is why, it’s naive at best, wilfully ignorant at worst - and I know you’re not stupid so stop using basic anecdotes to back up a none argument.

 

Read the facts, it’s not about being overlooked - why are there more female teachers but more male heads, why do women earn less then men overall? Why the fuck has a senior journalist have to resign after being paid less than her male counterparts?

 

It’s endemic in the way cultural structures are built.

[kent_white]

My boss is female, and you are right you are using local (for a social perspective) and largely anecdotal stories. Which is why, it’s naive at best, wilfully ignorant at worst - and I know you’re not stupid so stop using basic anecdotes to back up a none argument.

 

Read the facts, it’s not about being overlooked - why are there more female teachers but more male heads, why do women earn less then men overall? Why the fuck has a senior journalist have to resign after being paid less than her male counterparts?

 

It’s endemic in the way cultural structures are built.

1) - probably because as I've already mentioned a large proportion of the time when women are building up the necessary skills and experience to become headteachers is interrupted by having and nurturing their children. You could also argue that from a biological point of view - having greater amounts of testosterone makes taking risky behaviours (such as putting yourself forward for promotion etc) more likely.

 

2) - As I've already pointed out - it's my understanding that once you account for variables - women don't actually earn less than men overall. If you interpret the data without taking these variables into account then you draw poor conclusions.

 

3) - Because that senior journalist (who I'd never even heard of before) was comparing her pay to one of the most well known presenters in radio. IE the same reason (albeit on a much smaller scale) why Madonna gets paid more than Wagner off X Factor - despite the fact that they both do the same 'job'.

 

I'm fully aware that I'm using some anecdotal evidence - but I'm also aware that of the 'problem' was as widespread as you appear to think it is - I would have encountered numerous examples of it happening and would have done my best to fight the corner of whoever was being discriminated against. But as I say - I've never seen this force in action - maybe you have and can give me specific examples? Maybe I just have lived a life where this problem hasn't manifested itself to any noticeable degree?

 

I take your point that you feel it's a systematic, endemic problem. However - I think that we have moved and continue to move in a direction which aims to forcibly ensure parity. I'd say we're pretty close if not actually at that point already and far too much energy and time is being devoted to a problem which doesn't exist to the extent that we pretend it does.

 

I'd much rather we focused on the real disparities - such as those between the regions or health inequalities rather than the largely theoretical one between the sexes.

[madthatter]

1) - probably because as I've already mentioned a large proportion of the time when women are building up the necessary skills and experience to become headteachers is interrupted by having and nurturing their children. You could also argue that from a biological point of view - having greater amounts of testosterone makes taking risky behaviours (such as putting yourself forward for promotion etc) more likely.

 

2) - As I've already pointed out - it's my understanding that once you account for variables - women don't actually earn less than men overall. If you interpret the data without taking these variables into account then you draw poor conclusions.

 

3) - Because that senior journalist (who I'd never even heard of before) was comparing her pay to one of the most well known presenters in radio. IE the same reason (albeit on a much smaller scale) why Madonna gets paid more than Wagner off X Factor - despite the fact that they both do the same 'job'.

 

I'm fully aware that I'm using some anecdotal evidence - but I'm also aware that of the 'problem' was as widespread as you appear to think it is - I would have encountered numerous examples of it happening and would have done my best to fight the corner of whoever was being discriminated against. But as I say - I've never seen this force in action - maybe you have and can give me specific examples? Maybe I just have lived a life where this problem hasn't manifested itself to any noticeable degree?

 

I take your point that you feel it's a systematic, endemic problem. However - I think that we have moved and continue to move in a direction which aims to forcibly ensure parity. I'd say we're pretty close if not actually at that point already and far too much energy and time is being devoted to a problem which doesn't exist to the extent that we pretend it does.

 

I'd much rather we focused on the real disparities - such as those between the regions or health inequalities rather than the largely theoretical one between the sexes.

 

In one!   Anecdotally, my current Head is female and is single with no children.

 

My last head was female (they've all been actually) she had children but became a head later in her career.

 

Vaginas really do get in the way of careers, unless you're a Hollywood actress it would seem.

[bolty58]

Well put Kent. 

 

This is purely to provoke thought and discussion. If one is not a creationist and believes in the theory and science of evolution then why would one question the way society has evolved?

 

We are probably seeing further evolution now that some women prefer careers other than child birth and rearing and the role of the traditional male as a protector and provider is diminished in some cases.

 

Just don't quite get why some people seemed to get so bent out of shape about a social system which has brought us to where we are. I do know women who have a career who believe that, certainly from the point of view of bringing up well adjusted, healthy children, things were better as they were. I am married to one.

 

No doubt the 'generational thing' will be put forward as an argument but I reckon there's more to it than that. It's not all women that want the career path - many still have the strong maternal instinct and want to be stay at home mums. Equally, a strong woman in business, politics etc. can be a marvellous thing. The matchless Maggie for example.

 

Put simply, it's horses for courses and that's how it should be.

 

I know we have moved a million miles for the thread's intent but always good to have a healthy debate. If a woman is the best 'man for the job' she should get it and a woman performing the same work with the same productivity as a man should be on equal pay.

 

In the main, I think we are pretty much there but that won't stop some heavily pierced, short haired, fashion faux pas hobgoblin without make up needing to march in the streets to feel relevant.

[Dr Faustus]

Fuck, trouble in paradise

[madthatter]

 

 

We are probably seeing further evolution now that some women prefer careers other than child birth and rearing and the role of the traditional male as a protector and provider is diminished in some cases.

 

Just don't quite get why some people seemed to get so bent out of shape about a social system which has brought us to where we are. I do know women who have a career who believe that, certainly from the point of view of bringing up well adjusted, healthy children, things were better as they were. I am married to one.

 

 

In the main, I think we are pretty much there but that won't stop some heavily pierced, short haired, fashion faux pas hobgoblin without make up needing to march in the streets to feel relevant.

 

Aye.  I have known several women that were quite career minded but due to wanting to raise a family in later years changed their priorities.  As Kent alludes to above, 'tis a beautiful thing and not something we should see as a negative.  The amount of 'Daddy day cares' I see daily tells me the traditionally seen male and female roles have shifted considerably. 

 

I guess business is different to my line of work and can imagine in more cut throat industries this being more of a career killer for females.  I'm not being totally silly mentioning vaginas.  Hormones, innate desires whatever you want to view it as - it's real and only applies to females.  Unfortunately some can't have both a successful career and children.  I'd call it capitalism rather than innate sexism.

 

Most SJWs fit that last description to a tee where their motives are concerned.  Self-importance rather than a real desire to help others or change things for the better.

[gonzo]

I think you need to study human biology.

[madthatter]

I think you need to study human biology.

 

My understanding is that only females can birth children.  Do you know different?

[gonzo]

My understanding is that only females can birth children. Do you know different?

Do men not have a maternal instinct?

 

Or any other hormones that would get in the way of a career?

 

As for vaginas getting in the way of a career, I've seen many a man fuck his life up because of his cock and balls.

[Whites man]

 Most SJWs fit that last description to a tee where their motives are concerned.  Self-importance rather than a real desire to help others or change things for the better.

When someone starts to question the motives of the those holding differing views they usually have a pretty weak argument.

[madthatter]

Do men not have a maternal instinct?

 

Or any other hormones that would get in the way of a career?

 

As for vaginas getting in the way of a career, I've seen many a man fuck his life up because of his cock and balls.

 

 

A paternal one I suppose but nothing like a female's make up in that regard.  You could argue that's cultural to a degree but given our history as a species, and looking at other cultures, there's a pretty strong pattern.

 

Perhaps I should have been more explicit as the hormone comment was solely to do with pregnancy and after care.   I thought it was obvious to be fair.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Indeed.

 

With regard to blokes fucking up their career because of their cock and balls, there will always be a woman involved too (well most times anyway). Not sure how much of that is driven by a desire for kids, just a desire for shagging.

[madthatter]

When someone starts to question the motives of the those holding differing views they usually have a pretty weak argument.

 

And you say this why?

 

I'm disagreeing with the views that 'type' hold, yes, and I've said why.  And in my experience (and I've known a fair few like that) the driving force within them is a selfish one - albeit well intentioned.

 

I didn't realise I'd put forward an argument, just an opinion, or perception, based on experience.

 

Aren't all our motives inherently selfish when you boil it all down?

[madthatter]

Indeed.

 

With regard to blokes fucking up their career because of their cock and balls, there will always be a woman involved too (well most times anyway). Not sure how much of that is driven by a desire for kids, just a desire for shagging.

 

This is the debate for me.  There are clear differences to male and female biology and all our sexual actions (the very thing that drives all biological life) but the main goal is to conceive.  

 

For most mammals it's pretty simplistic.  Biggest, strongest male gets to shag.  In primates it's with the alpha female and all the other females utilise their maternal instincts to help raise those kids.  This enables the strongest genes to prosper and keeps social harmony.

 

We are far more complex socially and, due to our evolution, our child rearing is the most complex of all mammals as our young take so long to mature and reach independence.  Naturally, we lived in packs where males would hunt, build, protect etc and females would rear young, collect plants, firewood etc.  Again, this was what we needed to do to survive and keep breeding.  For this to be effective we also needed pair bonds hence the development of marriage as a cultural norm across the species.

 

Nothing in our biology has changed but our environment has, dramatically so.  We're still learning to adapt but as society changes so quickly it's hard to settle.

 

We are essentially still an ape that learned to walk and talk and our driving forces have not changed.

 

Men have an urge to spread their genes far and wide (for the good of the species- so long as they prove their worth to the ladies) women have to be more conservative (for the good of the species) and deep down that need for help and support is very real and primal.

 

All the high brow thinking in the world won't change that, but our culture often overlooks this basic, natural instinct.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Interesting to see that new zealands pm is pregnant.

Good luck to her.

[gonzo]

Interesting to see that new zealands pm is pregnant.

Good luck to her.

She will obviously stand now her hormones have taken over and let a man do the job.

[MalcolmW]

She will obviously stand now her hormones have taken over and let a man do the job.

 

Standing down for 6 weeks after the birth, at least that's her plan.