[LargeAndInCharge]

this is my first serious debate topic!!!

a while ago someone made a post about men not being treated fairly so here is the link i found while workin at college:


Discrimmination against men in the UK

http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/dam.htm

[Dr43%er]

Lots of sound bites with no fact to base it on.

Lets just take one. Higher male unemployment. Have you ever thought that this may be due to women filling the low paid jobs? Go to your local Asda/Tesco and the like. Count the number of men and women on the till. You will be lucky to see 10% of them are men. Women are more likely to take a minimum pay job. This is repeated in non skilled factory's, warehouses, restaurants/bars. Male pride stops them stacking shelves. They would rather claim dole. Over all the average wage for a woman is lower than then of a man. What would you rather have. A lower wage and a male only gym or the other way round?

I am not saying there is no inequality, but it is on both side. The paper you printed has as much value as a political manifesto.

[Matt10k]

Originally posted by Dr43%er
Lots of sound bites with no fact to base it on.

Lets just take one. Higher male unemployment. Have you ever thought that this may be due to women filling the low paid jobs? Go to your local Asda/Tesco and the like. Count the number of men and women on the till. You will be lucky to see 10% of them are men. Women are more likely to take a minimum pay job. This is repeated in non skilled factory's, warehouses, restaurants/bars. Male pride stops them stacking shelves. They would rather claim dole. Over all the average wage for a woman is lower than then of a man. What would you rather have. A lower wage and a male only gym or the other way round?

I am not saying there is no inequality, but it is on both side. The paper you printed has as much value as a political manifesto.

Strange. My first job at 16 was in a restaurant and there were more male waiters working there. I then worked in asda at 18 and there were, as you say more women on the tills but there were also more men stacking the shelves.

So you see, your personal experience that you have seen more women working low end jobs counts for little unless you have statistical evidence to back it up.

Thus, the sources the OP listed (if true) still hold more merit than your/ our hearsay...

[Dr43%er]

A 10 second search found this.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=591

Low Pay Jobs
292,000 jobs below national minimum wage in UK

Estimates from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) show that the number of jobs paid below the national minimum wage in the UK was 292,000 in Spring 2007, amounting to 1.2 per cent of all jobs in the labour market.

In Spring 2007 there were three rates for the national minimum wage: one for those aged between 16 and 17 (Ł3.30 per hour), one for those aged between 18 and 21 (Ł4.45 per hour) and one for those aged 22 and over (Ł5.35 per hour).

The number of jobs paid below the national minimum wage were:
• 16,000 jobs (4.1 per cent) held by those aged 16 to 17,
• 45,000 jobs (2.5 per cent) held by those aged 18 to 21 and
• 231,000 jobs (1.0 per cent) held by those aged 22 and over.

People in part-time work were almost three times as likely as people in full-time work to be paid less than minimum wage, with 2.1 per cent of part-time jobs and 0.8 per cent of full-time jobs falling below the minimum wage.

Jobs held by women were more likely to fall below the minimum wage than jobs held by men (1.4 per cent compared with 0.9 per cent). This was due to the greater number of women in part-time jobs.

Estimates for 2006 have been revised downwards by 40,000 jobs, most of which comes from the 22 and over age group.

It is important to note that these estimates do not measure non-compliance with the national minimum wage legislation. The survey used to provide these estimates does not indicate whether individuals fall into a category that is exempt from the legislation, such as apprentices or new trainees.



Please note the bit about women workers.

[Matt10k]

Originally posted by Dr43%er
A 10 second search found this.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=591

Low Pay Jobs
292,000 jobs below national minimum wage in UK

Estimates from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) show that the number of jobs paid below the national minimum wage in the UK was 292,000 in Spring 2007, amounting to 1.2 per cent of all jobs in the labour market.

In Spring 2007 there were three rates for the national minimum wage: one for those aged between 16 and 17 (Ł3.30 per hour), one for those aged between 18 and 21 (Ł4.45 per hour) and one for those aged 22 and over (Ł5.35 per hour).

The number of jobs paid below the national minimum wage were:
• 16,000 jobs (4.1 per cent) held by those aged 16 to 17,
• 45,000 jobs (2.5 per cent) held by those aged 18 to 21 and
• 231,000 jobs (1.0 per cent) held by those aged 22 and over.

People in part-time work were almost three times as likely as people in full-time work to be paid less than minimum wage, with 2.1 per cent of part-time jobs and 0.8 per cent of full-time jobs falling below the minimum wage.

Jobs held by women were more likely to fall below the minimum wage than jobs held by men (1.4 per cent compared with 0.9 per cent). This was due to the greater number of women in part-time jobs.

Estimates for 2006 have been revised downwards by 40,000 jobs, most of which comes from the 22 and over age group.

It is important to note that these estimates do not measure non-compliance with the national minimum wage legislation. The survey used to provide these estimates does not indicate whether individuals fall into a category that is exempt from the legislation, such as apprentices or new trainees.



Please note the bit about women workers.

If you are 16, it’s not difficult to get a minimum wage job and employers certainly don’t discriminate by sex so those getting below minimum wage must be under 16.

Also, on the point you made on part time jobs- if more women choose to work part time, it is their choice. For example I know a lot of the girls working at asda when I was there were younger and worked part time whilst they were at college or uni (not as a career prospect) so I’m not really sure what your post is trying to prove, if anything.

[Dr43%er]

Ever thought the women (1%) over 22 that do do part time jobs do them as they can not get the full time jobs as they may be looking after family or can't get a full time job as they have no skills.

You asked for some stats rather than hearsay. I found some very quickly. You want some more?

http://www.frauen.bka.gv.at/DocView.axd?CobId=20555

As I have said, I know there are time when thing fall in the favour of both sides. But I would rather take a government funded paper than a paper with no back up from a bunch of disenfranchised men.

[Matt10k]

Originally posted by Dr43%er
Ever thought the women (1%) over 22 that do do part time jobs do them as they can not get the full time jobs as they may be looking after family or can't get a full time job as they have no skills.

You asked for some stats rather than hearsay. I found some very quickly. You want some more?

http://www.frauen.bka.gv.at/DocView.axd?CobId=20555

As I have said, I know there are time when thing fall in the favour of both sides. But I would rather take a government funded paper than a paper with no back up from a bunch of disenfranchised men.

But the stats you posted don’t prove that women are discriminated against? You said yourself, chances are more women 'choose' to work part time to raise children. I’d have to remind you, that having kids is another ‘choice’ and that in cases where a couple do not remain together, women are far more likely to receive and 'want' custody of the child in nearly all cases, they will win that custody.

To me, there is no accuse for allowing yourself to become pregnant, then complaining you aren’t able to work full time. Saying that, it is still possible for a woman to work full time with a child but why bother? Benefits make up the differance. My sister is a single mother and works part time and the benefits she recieves add up to what would get for a full time job on minimum wage. This makes it around Ł140 a week + her job salary. Were you not aware that single mothers get this benefit?

[Dr43%er]

The first posters article raised a point that I picked on. Male unemployment is higher, with out looking at the reasons. I was simply showing it is not as black and white as the paper was claiming.

At no point did I say women were discriminated against. Please don't put words in my mouth.

On choosing part time work. If you have a couple with a child and one has higher earning potential, would it not be the sensible choice to have the one that could earn the most go out and do that? As this is usually the male (see the pay gap stats) then it follows that the female would stay at home or work part time. If she did choose to stay at home to raise the child then she (as would be for him) are not classed as unemployed. Thus skewing the figures more.

"To me, there is no accuse for allowing yourself to become pregnant, then complaining you aren’t able to work full time"

Where has that been claimed?

Full credit to your sister for working when she could stay at home. But would you rather she went out to full time work and had someone else raise the child? This goes for single fathers too.

"Were you not aware that single mothers get this benefit?"

Of course I am. Are you a not aware that single fathers get this benefit too? Where is the discrimination?

[Matt10k]

This thread is about areas in which men are discriminated. It seemed you were trying to refute any evidence given by showing areas in which you think women are discriminated even if you didn’t say it, I thought you were implying it. If you weren’t I apologise.

I agree it isn’t black and white. Even the statistics don’t take into account all the issues. I.e. women choosing lower paid jobs or working part time more often doesn’t demonstrate anything other than it being their choice.

In the same jobs, women receive the same pay, there is no pay gap between men and women now in any area of the uk. If there was I think this would be the only evidence of actual discrimination. If one particular man has a higher earning potential than one particular woman it is due to other factors, such as that the woman did not pursue a career or has lower academic achievements. As I said, many women may choose to stay at home and raise the children in this circumstance than men.

If you are trying to say men have a higher earning potential than women in general, you are wrong. I also didn't mention men being discriminated on the points you raised so don't put words in my mouth either. Single fathers do receive benefits too but as I stated earlier, in custody cases where a man wishes to have custody of his child, in nearly all cases the woman receives the custody.

[Dr43%er]

"in custody cases where a man wishes to have custody of his child, in nearly all cases the woman receives the custody."

But that is not part of the point the paper was making on unemployment. If we want to move on to that, then yes I believe that women do get the better deal. But I still say the paper has no back up other than someone's ramblings. Have you actually looked at the site it comes from? A 5 year old could do better. If the poster was planning to use this as a document in any course work and they referenced this I would expect them to fail.

All the way through I have agreed that there are inequalities to both men and women. My main gripe is the paper and its over zealous rhetoric.

"Matrimonial & Family Law – this is wrecking the lives of about 100,000 innocent men and 200,000 children every year,"

Have they asked the kids if their lifes have been wrecked?

"preventative healthcare programmes for female cancers, and none for male"

Balls, if you pardon the pun.

"false allegations of rape used effectively by women against men they wish to attack"

I am not saying this does not go on, but how the hell is this discrimination? Yes the authorities must act so men can make false accusations too.

The whole thing reads like a child having an argument.

[Matt10k]

I used that because it tied into my other point of how men are discriminated in certain areas.

Also, I looked at the OPs stats. The statistics are probably correct but I agree, there is so much that statistics can’t tell us and they are so easy to manipulate.

Makes a change really to see statistics that are being manipulated to make women look bad instead of men. Usually the feminazi influenced media like to manipulate them to make men look bad.

Your point on cancers- breast cancer does in fact recieve far more funding than male cancers despite the fact that male only cancers account for a far larger proportion of mortality rates than the amount they recieve funding for.

On you point about rape- the discrimination occurs when rape allegations are not followed up and investigated correctly- the fact that men’s names are often released before they are even proved guilty. Must be great for all the innocent men who get tarnished by a rape allegation. Also the laws classifying what is rape, making it easier for women to claim rape when they were simply too drunk and couldn't remember consenting. You see, the laws themselves make it discriminating...

It is a shame Ron21 was banned, he knew most of the information off hand and posted many respectable sources for his information as well as seemeing to have a good knowledge of the subject in general.

I would say check out his thread but I think all his posts were deleted.

[Dr43%er]

On the cancer thing I agree. But I was on about them stating that there was NO preventative health programs. This is simply incorrect.

On the rape point I agree with you on names being released. But if a woman makes a false claim they as a rule get found out and get prosecuted. There is nothing anyone can do to stop someone making a false accusation.

On Ron21. I am sure he did know a lot. But having a debate would be pointless as the second he disagreed with something I said he would just post...

^spam.

or say it was pointless arguing as I knew nothing.

We may have different view points, but at least we have had the good grace to listen to each others points and reply in a polite manner. So on that front I am glad I am having this conversation with you and not Ron.

[GiRTh]

Originally posted by Dr43%er
On Ron21. I am sure he did know a lot. But having a debate would be pointless as the second he disagreed with something I said he would just post...

^spam.

or say it was pointless arguing as I knew nothing.

We may have different view points, but at least we have had the good grace to listen to each others points and reply in a polite manner. So on that front I am glad I am having this conversation with you and not Ron.

Agreed. Ron used to resort to name calling at the drop of a hat.

I'd enter this debate but I think any discrimination men receive is so narrow and specific that it is hardly worth debating.

[Dr43%er]

How do Girth. Long time no speaky.

[Matt10k]

I'd enter this debate but I think any discrimination men receive is so narrow and specific that it is hardly worth debating. [/quote]

I’m glad you won’t be adding to this debate GiRth. I’m sorry but if you aren’t bothered you shouldn’t have bothered posting. It’s clearly evident that discrimination of men isn’t narrow and specific and there’s evidence to support it.

And thanks Dr43%er, I checked the OP’s source again and it is wrong and misleading in several areas. It makes a good example of when statistics can be misinterpreted. There are better articles out there that give a more realistic view of how men could/ are being discriminated, ways, I think we appear to agree on.

I suppose Ron just wasn’t diplomatic enough. I told him his points would be better appreciated if he wasn’t so aggressive in his approach. Still there will always be the people that come here and ignore all the facts they are given and it can be frustrating. Some are also just as bad at throwing insults around such as ‘sexist’ or ‘bigot’. This just shows how ill-informed they are.

[GiRTh]

Originally posted by Dr43%er
How do Girth. Long time no speaky.

Hello Doc. Hows it going?

Originally posted by Matt10k
I’m glad you won’t be adding to this debate GiRth. I’m sorry but if you aren’t bothered you shouldn’t have bothered posting. It’s clearly evident that discrimination of men isn’t narrow and specific and there’s evidence to support it.

the discrimination is very narrow and specific. Are men being trafficked into prostitution? Are men not allowed to vote? Are men treated like slaves? No. Thus, the dscirimination is somewhat specific. You yourself can barely come up with the figures to back up your claims.

[Matt10k]

Originally posted by GiRTh

Hello Doc. Hows it going?

the discrimination is very narrow and specific. Are men being trafficked into prostitution? Are men not allowed to vote? No. Thus, the dscirimination is somewhat specific. You yourself can barely come up with the figures to back up your claims.

Girth, everytime Ron gave you evidence, you chose to ignore it. I see no point in debating it with you either. I'd prefer to talk to people who actually do listen and don't appear to be so close minded.

[Dr43%er]

If I was wrong and someone showed me I would hold my hands up and accept it. I don't think Ron would ever do that. That is not a good debater. From the little I saw he just resorted to insults if he could not win.

Anyway, I hope we have some more good ding dongs in the future as i have enjoyed this.

Have to shoot. See you about.

[Matt10k]

Originally posted by Dr43%er
If I was wrong and someone showed me I would hold my hands up and accept it. I don't think Ron would ever do that. That is not a good debater. From the little I saw he just resorted to insults if he could not win.

Anyway, I hope we have some more good ding dongs in the future as i have enjoyed this.

Have to shoot. See you about.

To be honest, I thought Ron was terrible at debating too but that's not to say he wasn't intelligent and didn't make some good points.

I'm the same as you. I have changed my mind on many things when given sufficient evidence. I believe both men and women are oppressed in different ways and that one is no more relevant than another.

Heck, if someone could show me enough evidence, I'd even believe in God! Just can't see that ever happening...

Anyways

[GiRTh]

Originally posted by Matt10k
Girth, everytime Ron gave you evidence, you chose to ignore it. I see no point in debating it with you either. I'd prefer to talk to people who actually do listen and don't appear to be so close minded.

The evidence Ron gave were usually specific cases in incredibly grey areas. I listened or, it would be more accurate to state, I read his posts but still thought he was trying to claim something sinister was happening when there are much more sinister forms of oppression endured by women around the world. Why ignore that issue and debate the fact that British men dont rule the roost in the way they used to. It's a pointless debate.

[Dr43%er]

I am not to bad Girth mate. Hope you is well. Anyway, I really do have to shoot.

I will have to tell you of my latest Nodis run in another time.

Keep well.

[Matt10k]

Originally posted by GiRTh

The evidence Ron gave were usually specific cases in incredibly grey areas. I listened or, it would be more accurate to state, I read his posts but still thought he was trying to claim something sinister was happening when there are much more sinister forms of oppression endured by women around the world. Why ignore that issue and debate the fact that British men dont rule the roost in the way they used to. It's a pointless debate.

It's not pointless at all. If you think it's pointless, why keep adding to this thread? Why keep telling me you think it's pointless? I don't think it is pointless at all and can talk about it if I want.

And also specific evidence as you keep saying doesn't negate it at all in my opinion. It is still relevant. If women were being descriminated in a 'specific' way, I would care too.

[Tom]

I disagree with the thread title purely based on the fact that women are discriminated against in some areas, and men in other areas so its sort of a level playing field. It just appears that men are discriminated against more because men are psychologically prouder than women and until recent years have always felt they have been above women and in control. Men also like power more than women do. As women become more independent and are gaining equal status and rights to men (even though they have it anyway, I'm talking in terms of tradition, thoughts, reputation etc), men- especially older men- are beginning to think are they becoming less powerful. It just happens to be that things aimed at men in the past are now being aimed at women.

[Sunny_01]

Isnt it really sad that anyone is discriminated against though, in a perfect world we would each be treated as individuals who have equal rights.

When 2 posters mentioned child custody and how men suffer at the hands of the courts I really had to put my two pennies in. I totally agree that this is a huge area of inequality for men in this country. I couple of friends of mine have both suffered because of the terrible family court system we have. One male friend would certainly be the better main care giver to his 2 children, he adores them, he always puts his kids first. His ex is a vile creature who would rather leave them with a babysitter she hardly knows, than in the hands of their capable father while she goes out and gets off her rocks on whatever takes her fancy.

I truly believe that the family courts in this country should have more power to enforce their rulings, sadly though they just dont send women to prison for failing to fulfill agreements made.

[GiRTh]

Originally posted by Matt10k
It's not pointless at all. If you think it's pointless, why keep adding to this thread? Why keep telling me you think it's pointless? I don't think it is pointless at all and can talk about it if I want.

And also specific evidence as you keep saying doesn't negate it at all in my opinion. It is still relevant. If women were being descriminated in a 'specific' way, I would care too.

Women are being disciminated against in specific and broad ways. Why dont we talk about that? Why dwell on this tired old argument justifiying a somewhat misogynistic point of view?

The fact that British men dont rule the roost as much as they used to is not down to discrimination it down to some thing else called equality.