[Football] Call me old fashioned....

[highflyer]

Glad I missed that. We are living through a strange period of over- balancing.

We are certainly living through a period of balancing, but given that women (and BAME) remain significantly under-represented at the top end of media, politics and most businesses, whilst also being over-represented in unpaid, insecure and low paid work...how do you reckon we are OVER-balancing exactly?

Unless you think where we have reached is now the correct balance based on inherent attributes of some kind? In which case 'old fashioned' would be an understatement.

 

[Swansman]

We are certainly living through a period of balancing, but given that women (and BAME) remain significantly under-represented at the top end of media, politics and most businesses, whilst also being over-represented in unpaid, insecure and low paid work...how do you reckon we are OVER-balancing exactly?

Unless you think where we have reached is now the correct balance based on inherent attributes of some kind? In which case 'old fashioned' would be an understatement.

Would be nice with a different type of balancing though.

Pay media, politics and business clowns less, pay important professions more.

 

[RossyG]

We are certainly living through a period of balancing, but given that women (and BAME) remain significantly under-represented at the top end of media, politics and most businesses, whilst also being over-represented in unpaid, insecure and low paid work...how do you reckon we are OVER-balancing exactly?

Unless you think where we have reached is now the correct balance based on inherent attributes of some kind? In which case 'old fashioned' would be an understatement.

Maybe equality of outcome isn’t a good thing.

Maybe women are happier with a more equal home/life balance than working insane hours in a ruthlessly competitive business world.

 

[GT49er]

Disgraceful, why are you not including QQIP2SAA along with LGBT.

No reason mate, just prejudice - can't stand those snarky QQIP2SAAs......











P.S. Haven't got a clue what a QQIP2SAA is (and I think I'd rather keep it that way)!

 

[highflyer]

Would be nice with a different type of balancing though.

Pay media, politics and business clowns less, pay important professions more.

Yes, (apart maybe politicians who are not paid particularly high wages in the UK for the job they are meant to do) I agree 100%

Economic inequality is also a very big problem and balancing there is still going in the wrong direction.

 

[rippleman]

No creditably for a start. Pardon my ignorance but have they played at the highest standard in the appropriate Premier League.

I might start forging a career in Netball commentary. Let’s face it not difficult!

Don't know who else was on but Alex Scott MBE has 140 caps for England and represented GB at 2012 Olympics. I think that gives her some kind of understanding of the game, don't you?

And since when did you have to be a sports superstar to commentate on sport? How many boxing world titles did Harry Carpenter win? How many FA Cups were won by Motty? How many Olympic ice skating gold medals did Barry Davies win?

Your argument is puerile and pathetic.

 

[Bakero]

I don’t see why Alexander Solzhenitsyn made such a fuss. He sold a load of books and won the Nobel Prize for Literature, didn’t he?

I've read the Gulag Archipelago and A Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich, but have no idea what point you're making. Care to expand?

 

[highflyer]

Maybe equality of outcome isn’t a good thing.

Maybe women are happier with a more equal home/life balance than working insane hours in a ruthlessly competitive business world.

Who mentioned equality of outcome? Do you actually think there is equality of opportunity now? If you do, how do you account for the patterns in outcomes?

Of course everyone would be happier with more balanced lives. Once we have moved away from our insane version of free market capitalism maybe we'll get that. People are different in what makes them happy and it would be nice to give genuinely equal choices and chances to everyone.

Gender inequality has negative effects on many men as well as women. Obviously. But on average, women still get the sh*tty end of the stick in the UK, and even more so around the world.

 

[RossyG]

Do you actually think there is equality of opportunity now? If you do, how do you account for the patterns in outcomes?

STEM subjects go out of their way to attract women, but the vast majority of applicants are men.

The Humanities subjects don’t try to attract men, but they don’t try to put them off either, yet the vast majority of applicants are women.

Equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome. Why? Because men and women are different and make different choices.

You don’t find many women on oil rigs or on dustcarts, either. As for women getting the shitty end of the stick, most accidents and fatalities at work happen to men, so I disagree.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

STEM subjects go out of their way to attract women, but the vast majority of applicants are men.

A difference that doesn't exist to anywhere near the same extent in many other countries. Women are put off applying and studying the relevant subjects through school and college by cultural expectations, not by intrinsic differences.

 

[RossyG]

A difference that doesn't exist to anywhere near the same extent in many other countries. Women are put off applying and studying the relevant subjects through school and college by cultural expectations, not by intrinsic differences.

A convenient excuse and an unfalsifiable theory.

Marie Curie won the Nobel Prize more than a century ago, yet most girls don’t wish to emulate her.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

A convenient excuse and an unfalsifiable theory.

Marie Curie won the Nobel Prize more than a century ago, yet most girls don’t wish to emulate her.

Marie Curie was also Polish and moved to France in her mid 20s, which if anything bears out my point. To the extent that she's well known in this country it's as a scientist who died of cancer probably caused by her own work, it's not like schools are plastered with posters suggesting girls follow her example.

 

[RossyG]

Marie Curie was also Polish and moved to France in her mid 20s, which if anything bears out my point. To the extent that she's well known in this country it's as a scientist who died of cancer probably caused by her own work, it's not like schools are plastered with posters suggesting girls follow her example.

As I said, the STEM subjects are doing all they can to attract girls. Science programmes have female presenters. There are prominent female scientists. Schools would love nothing more than to have oodles of girls doing Physics A-Levels. But far more men are interested in science than women.

 

[brighton_tom]

Most matches I watch I switch on the Tv at kick off, get myself a beer/cuppa/snack at half time, and switch off at the final whistle. So barely listen to pundits. They all talk a load of shite so makes no difference to me.

 

[highflyer]

STEM subjects go out of their way to attract women, but the vast majority of applicants are men.

The Humanities subjects don’t try to attract men, but they don’t try to put them off either, yet the vast majority of applicants are women.
.

So you believe that this pattern of applications is because of genetic differences rather than deeply embedded social factors? In the same way men are genetically better football commentators presumably, to get the discussion back to the topic initially started by the (old fashioned) OP?

 

[Springal]

Who's arsed? Does anyone really listen to or learn anything from 'pundits' ?

The Carragher / Neville dissection of games on a Monday are decent, but pundits for other games are generally just fed what to say by producers / researchers.

Surely no-one thinks Jamie Redknapp is watching the game and asking for what clips to be drawn up to be 'discussed' at half time. Right?

 

[RossyG]

So you believe that this pattern of applications is because of genetic differences rather than deeply embedded social factors?

Yes.

In the same way men are genetically better football commentators presumably,

No. It’s not about being better it’s about wanting to do something.

 

[ConfusedGloryHunter]

Most matches I watch I switch on the Tv at kick off, get myself a beer/cuppa/snack at half time, and switch off at the final whistle. So barely listen to pundits. They all talk a load of shite so makes no difference to me.

So do I but it is vitally important that the person I have put on mute has a willy.

 

[ozzygull]

Who cares? Men constantly comment on women's sports that they have never played at any level. I don't get in a tizzy fit about it.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

As I said, the STEM subjects are doing all they can to attract girls. Science programmes have female presenters. There are prominent female scientists. Schools would love nothing more than to have oodles of girls doing Physics A-Levels. But far more men are interested in science than women.

The proportion of engineers who are women in the UK is the lowest in Europe. It's also dramatically lower than in India, for example. So even if there are intrinsic reasons for women being drawn towards particular subjects, there are clearly cultural and social reasons for the scale of the disparity in this country. Either that or female babies in the UK are having their genetics altered at birth.