http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...UN-report.html
Oh dear, :no:
Printable View
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...UN-report.html
Oh dear, :no:
The usual crap. It's never men are underrepresented in childcare, primary school teachers, daycare centres, nursing etc etc. Perhaps women don't want to be MPs in the main. To be so driven to say anything and do anything to get ahead is abnormal.
Women also have been found to earn more for their level of seniority. As on average women take time off work for children, then can take the next year off with the child, and repeat as many times as they want they don't get promoted as fast. Women also wish to persue a career at expense of all else far less often than men do.
I want to work. I like working. I like being important (relatively speaking compared to sitting in front of the TV in my pajamas). My wife already talks of going part time after having children. Do we need councelling? She might be flawed in wanting to have a family and not chase promotion by working all hours of the day and night.
Women in prison is a bad thing. So, locking up men is OK then?
~:smoking:
ah, the beloved institution demonstrating its own irrelevance.
Unfortunately, it is no different throughout most of the rest of the world.
I'm impressed with the name of the outfit:United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
Just wanted to see what their letterhead stationery might look like. Business cards must be two-part fold-out affairs.
So: the U.N.C.E.A.F.D.W. ("Un-keef-do"?).
Wait; here's the wiki art on it; it's the CEDAW, and been around since '81 after a '79 resolution. US hasn't signed on.
LOL - they're against 'Mothers' Day' as being oppressive against women. :laugh4:
I think I may have found my retirement-job. I wanna position with these folks. Looks like steady money for minimal work - it could take me 30 years to bring the US around to accepting this Convention and its protocols.
Saudi Arabia is a member. Honestly, how high can the standards be? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Lazy buggers. :wink2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
So how did N.O.W. get their own little UN organization?
Seriously, they want this "integrate gender studies and feminist research in university curricula and research programmes"?
Useless crap like that shouldn't be put in universities.
CR
Feminists should seriously be taken instead of taken seriously.
Is anybody really surprised by this sort of timewaste?
Bonus points to all of you attentive readers out there.... "Women in Britain are paid less than men, under-represented in politics and being imprisoned for minor offences, a UN report has found."
In other words, women have been imprisoned, period. But by lumping it with the first two comparative statistics, they force you to a natural association, assuming that women are more likely to be locked up, even though the report says no such thing.
As for being under-represented in politics, I'd like to know how they reach that conclusion. If it's simply 50% of population means 50% of politicians must be women, then they've got trouble. Women out there will be conservatives at slightly less the rate than men, but still in substantial numbers.
N.O.W. (and their new friends in the U.N.) have said repeatedly that any politician that does not explicitly endorse their organization on all counts does not represent women.... They may run out of women before they find 50% of office holders that endorse all of N.O.W.'s positions. I mean, if Kay Bailey Hutchinson is out to get women in the end, this is going to be a pretty high bar.
Shush, Don. C'mon, man. Don't kill my chance for a retirement gig. :laugh4:
All I gotta do is write about how watching Baywatch leads to genital multilation in Uganda, a couple of times a month. Or how describing a hiring policy being described as a "glass ceiling" is itself slanderous and discriminatory - having assigned 'glass', that flimsiest, most easily broken of barriers , disrespects women's ability to break-thru.
Cut a bro a break, dude. :)
I kinda of feel for these people, I mean having the ability to give birth automatically deals you a big disadvantage, and to be honest being consistently paid less than others even though I am better qualified would piss me off as well.
It must suck being a chick tbh...
What I do not get is why they are paid less for the same job, apart from that, being able to give birth is a privilege, I tried it and failed... :shrug:
:inquisitive: Husar...
Anyway, you'll notice they don't say paid less for the same job, but paid less overall. Inevitably a result of the choices women make in their careers, not the fact that a woman with identical experience gets paid less than a man.
CR
That study may not say that, but there are countless studies which does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Women are very often paid less for equal work. Which is just sad.
That is pretty much true for the Netherlands at least, not that often really, more like all the time. Has to do with the man-female relation is still pretty conservative here when compared to France or the Scandinavian country's, company's are too shy to invest in women which is stupid, half of the talent is never really tapped.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
:laugh4: @ article.
Good luck on your retirement job efforts, Kukri. When the organization doesn't take off in the U.S., just do more articles about how that's sexism.:smash:
Women are paid less because men pay for everything on dates and generally end up paying for all of the woman's silly follies once it becomes a relationship.
Feminists like to pick and choose their equalities.
Sounds more like you should be doing a better job at picking and choosing women ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus