Films that would not be made today

[Achtung Englander]

Achtung, I really think you need to get out of the mindset that income = equality. That attitude is basically Victorian. With the hours you work I'm guessing that your partner shoulders a greater share of the childcare, and as the parent of two young children (5 & 7), I'm intimately aware of how much work, effort and frustration that involves. I imagine your partner would be incredibly hurt to learn that you feel there is inequality in your relationship because you make the greater financial contribution to the household... particularly if her choice to work part-time was made due to raising a child.

Inequality in your relationship. That is not what I said. She did give up her time to raise my child and in that time I am wholly appreciative of the fact but now he is full time school, she still opted for a part time role. Now we are not equal in regards to financial responsibility. I continue to be the higher bread winner out of her choice. So we are not equal. Financially speaking.

[Wrathbone]

We just passed a civil partner law so men and women have the same rights as a marriage without getting married. So there is quite literally nothing to stop women now for getting want they want and if the sisters want to help each other in once was male dominated roles, let them. The past is dead. There are laws now in place that is completely in favour for women and helping women to achieve success. Its up to them.

The laws, while clearly a step in the right direction, have not yet changed the reality of the situation. They're not effectively enforced, often because women who raise relevant issues such as harassment in the workplace are ridiculed, called liars or exaggerators, or are made to feel that raising issues in the first place would be detrimental to them. Saying "there are laws in place, so if you don't get what you want then it's your fault" is dangerously dismissive. This is not a solved problem.

[Sly Boots]

Achtung, I really think you need to get out of the mindset that income = equality. That attitude is basically Victorian. With the hours you work I'm guessing that your partner shoulders a greater share of the childcare, and as the parent of two young children (5 & 7), I'm intimately aware of how much work, effort and frustration that involves. I imagine your partner would be incredibly hurt to learn that you feel there is inequality in your relationship because you make the greater financial contribution to the household... particularly if her choice to work part-time was made due to raising a child.

Inequality in your relationship. That is not what I said. She did give up her time to raise my child and in that time I am wholly appreciative of the fact but now he is full time school, she still opted for a part time role. Now we are not equal in regards to financial responsibility. I continue to be the higher bread winner out of her choice. So we are not equal. Financially speaking.

How old is your child? I'm trying to work out what you mean by full-time school, because there is a world of difference between normal 9-3pm school and boarding school or university... the latter would mean you would be able to pursue a career once again, the former just doesn't. I say this with confidence because this is an issue myself and my wife have been wrestling with for several years, and which currently sees her working nights as it's the only way we can find where we can both look after and raise our children while still earning enough to run a household without letting work suffer.

I'm also struck by the use of "raise my child" and continuing to stress perceived inequality through the lens of financial contribution. I'll be charitable and say I find these views very old-fashioned.

[Strudel]

Nothing is stopping them in this country now.

Except people who hold ridiculously biased views such as:

all I witnessed was bitching, back-stabbing, hatred and clikey clikey groups...all the men just got on with it

IMO women are confused

the people who work longer hours have predominately been men

women gravitate towards marketing

You say women want X, Y, and Z... well so do men. You're taking a diverse group of people and claiming that because some of them want different things they must all be confused because they should all think alike.

Women don't "gravitate" towards marketing, it's just a job that done a much better job of accepting women than, say, the horrific hyper-masculinity of city finance, where bravado and showmanship are seen as more worthwhile than compassion, empathy, and diplomacy (and look what a clusterfuck that's led to).

You seem to suffer from some very sever confirmation bias, where every woman who does something you dislike is confused or wrong and all men are perfect.

I too have worked in offices where people worked late, and most of them were men; why? From what I saw it was usually because the men pissed about more through the day and so had to stay longer to get their work done. Did some women stay late too? Yes, mostly because they took on other people's work to help everyone get out sooner. Did some guys stay late to do the same? Absolutely. The amount of time and effort people put into work has little to do with their gender or sex; there are significant systemic biases across the whole of society that make life generally more difficult for women in the aggregate.

You keep going on about how everything needs to be equal, but it's a straw-man argument; women are not fighting to be treated equally in some areas and beneficially in others. Women aren't saying they shouldn't be allowed to join the armed forces; the only people making that argument are men. One of the biggest rationales for not letting women vote was that voting was an aggressive and often violent affair back in the day and men "didn't want women to have to deal with that" - ignoring the fact that maybe women should be given the choice, rather than being told what is and isn't for them to do.

It's possible to be for equality and also recognise that systemic and structural bias in the current system needs to be countered. It's not a meritocracy if the means of being considered aren't equal as well.

[Achtung Englander]

I don't know. I am not here to justify the stupid decisions of men. Nor am I ever going to justify sexism or male discriminatory. In my experience I have not personally encountered a situation where a women was turned out for a role because of her gender but then again I am not a women. If women still find it hard to get on in the workplace because of men than is completely wrong. If a male mindset is preventing women from doing what they want do that needs to change but I also a pragmatist. I recognise the fact we are built differently for a reason and that is reflected in how society is shaped.

I am all for women rights as much as I am for male rights. The civil law is a good step in the right direction. Now let us change the divorce laws and paternity laws. Let us work for true equality. If that is not want women want...than...what ?. Sorry I am confused here. You are arguing for equality here but not equality there. Than that is not equality.

I am not here to create a Twitter war as I am genuinely interested in what you guys have to say. I would say we are agreeing in almost everything but I am from the pov that women can never be equal to men because of biology. That is not to say they are inferior, just not equal. There are things I cannot do because I am a man. There are things women can do better than me because nature selected them to do that. You mention the city dickheads. I agree there are a bunch of twats but there are some women stock brokers and that is great but the nature of the job is to be a bastard. I make money at your loss. Most women do not want to work in that environment.

[Strudel]

But you're not for women's rights if you think such nonsense as "Star Wars Solo is a casualty of the all female hero trend." because (beyond the fact that Solo was not about a female hero in the slightest) it betrays a significant cognitive bias that you might want to spend some time considering, as do many of your other comments.

You talk a lot about the situations you've encountered and I think it might help to consider the fact that a lot of women have spoken at length about how their experiences are markedly different; they have experienced a lot of inequality, they have been discriminated against. You caveat almost all your statements about equality with "but". YOUR male mindset is preventing women from doing what they want; being a pragmatist doesn't excuse or reduce that in any way - it's not even relevant because the two things are not related. Society is not shaped the way it is because of an inherent difference between men and women; it's shaped this way because men have shaped it to be detrimental to women.

[Achtung Englander]

OK

I see your point. Let us see where all of this finally leads us. We are on the same train

fyi - I really enjoyed Rogue One and disliked The Force Awakens. As I said this whole Solo boycott is what I observed. I genuinely do not give a shit about Star Wars or any pop entertainment for that matter

[Strudel]

The Solo boycott had nothing to do with a "female agenda" though - it was just that it was seen as a shit film. The actual boycott didn't really have any effect; the fact the film was critically panned and didn't really do anything was what really led to the poor box-office showing. That and releasing it just after Avengers Infinity War.

I actually thought Solo wasn't that bad. It wasn't spectacular but it was fun enough for what it was.

[DjchunKfunK]

I would say we are agreeing in almost everything but I am from the pov that women can never be equal to men because of biology. That is not to say they are inferior, just not equal.

You need to dis-guard this mindset because as well as being a falsehood that has been propagated by male dominated society, it doesn't actually bear any relation to the discussion around equal rights.

Additionally, if you are not equal then ipso facto one of you is inferior. If you really believe that women cannot be truly equal to men then you only support women's equality up to a point, which is not actually equality.

[Wrathbone]

I think (hope) he means not equal in the sense that men and women aren't the same, not that there's a difference in value.

[Achtung Englander]

I think (hope) he means not equal in the sense that men and women aren't the same, not that there's a difference in value.

this.

I accept I am wrong in some of my thinking

[Tichinde]

If you ask me unless a man and a woman are working in the same role, on the same contract, for the same company, doing the same hours, with the same level of experience and they both match the same performance based pay raise indictators consistently.....comparing their pay is fucking retarded.

Not seen Solo yet, probably should get round to it.

[Wrathbone]

If you ask me unless a man and a woman are working in the same role, on the same contract, for the same company, doing the same hours, with the same level of experience and they both match the same performance based pay raise indictators consistently.....comparing their pay is fucking retarded.

On an individual basis, yes, but there's sense behind looking at gender pay differences (and other demographics) on a macro scale across comparable roles. If the average male GP is earning substantially more than the average female GP across the UK, there's clearly a discrepancy. If you compare Dr Jane in the North West to Dr John in London, that's pointless.

[Achtung Englander]

give me your opinions on this. I know Peterson is not everyone cup of tea but watch the videos and let me know your thoughts as you can tell my leanings are towards his thought process

[Strudel]

So on the first one, no one is arguing for Equality of Outcome in the way he defines it which is regardless of effort expended, all outcomes are the same. Quite the contrary, what is being argued for is that the outcome is the same for the same effort exerted (whether that be pay for work done, success in getting a job given same qualifications and performance at interview etc.) So he's setting up a false premise to knock it down.

Second, he says that (and I'm paraphrasing) you can't say that people who work hard do well because it implies poor people don't work hard. This is a classic statement from some who has done very well and is refusing to accept that the system is biased towards them. It's not true that working hard will lead to success. It CAN if you're lucky, but that's the point, just hard work is not enough. That's the fundamental problem with The American Dream - it's completely contrary to actual empirical evidence; it requires a lot more than just hard work.

Next they make the classic error of saying women aren't as compelled by tech careers and no-one is stopping them. Again, it's just not true. Computing was basically pioneered by women who were then shut out of it in the first half of the 20th century. Now, tech is heavily male dominated because men have made it that way.

On the pay disparity they show complete naivete on how it is computed. The 21% pay disparity in the US accounts for things like part time vs full time work and the type of work being done. You can't just say "men work full time and women work full time and men work riskier jobs and so that's why they get paid more". The calculations incorporate all that and still find that women are paid 20% less than men. That's a LOT of money. He says that ideologues focus only on one variable (i.e. sex) because they're too stupid to think of any others; quite the opposite it's because they have accounted for all the others as well as possible, precisely to try and isolate the impact of this one variable.

I'll have to watch the second one later as I should probably try and do some work today ¬_¬