|
Post by Vegas on Jul 21, 2017 11:37:05 GMT
Boy are you in for a treat, here. Ask him about his friend who works at Walmart and married a black woman. I can't be a racist because I have two black children living in my house. There is no way to ever get "certain people" to understand how stupid, and inherently racist, such statements are. Having two black children living in my house is not what makes me non-racist. But comprehending such concepts is simply beyond the cognitive abilities of "certain people". That was never the point of mentioning that guy, asshat. The point that was he was the kind of guy who - if Cine ever accused him of living a life of privilege, in that douchey-Cine tone of his, in the real world - would probably wind up beating the shit out of Cine.. But, feel free to create your own narrative.... Why let a little thing like reality get in the way of you internet fuckwads from circle-jerking each other... yet, again? EDIT: See... He's the kind of guy that has an understanding/empathy of race issues... but, would have little tolerance for Cine's douche-filled cuntery. And, that this non-issue ultimately creates division with people who would normally be on your side. THAT was the point, moron.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jul 21, 2017 13:34:41 GMT
Various privileges exist. The worlds not a fair place. Aside from trying to treat everyone as you would like to be treated I'm not really sure what more there is to do about it.
Even if we all treated each other properly there would still exist privileges.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 21, 2017 15:06:55 GMT
Boy are you in for a treat, here. Ask him about his friend who works at Walmart and married a black woman. I can't be a racist because I have two black children living in my house. Check and mate, SJWs! Also... there are poor white people! BOOM. I just wish people would stop calling it "privilege", you know? It hurts all the feelings. It's important to soothe the feelings.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 21, 2017 15:29:52 GMT
I can't be a racist because I have two black children living in my house. Check and mate, SJWs! Also... there are poor white people! BOOM. I just wish people would stop calling it "privilege", you know? It hurts all the feelings. It's important to soothe the feelings. If you are shown to be wrong.... just be a bigger asshole about it. Way to go, Cine. Way to go. For the record, yes... There are poor white people out there... who don't really need to be told about how "privileged" they are by dip-shitted whiney assholes on the internet. And "soothing" is part of the healing process.. for all races. Saying things in a pretentious, condescending tone of an asshole.... doesn't actually make those things not real.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 21, 2017 15:58:51 GMT
Exactly, man! How can there be disparity if there are poor white people, too?! So glad you went on the record! Dude, yes! Heal your feels! You've nailed this topic.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 21, 2017 16:10:47 GMT
Exactly, man! How can there be disparity if there are poor white people, too?! So glad you went on the record! Dude, yes! Heal your feels! You've nailed this topic. I know some wealthy black folks. I even know a wealthy Native American family with two brothers who own their own business and have...get this...white employees! Take that "privilege" shit somewhere else I tells ya'!
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 21, 2017 16:43:56 GMT
Exactly, man! How can there be disparity if there are poor white people, too?! So glad you went on the record! Dude, yes! Heal your feels! You've nailed this topic. I know some wealthy black folks. I even know a wealthy Native American family with two brothers who own their own business and have...get this...white employees! Take that "privilege" shit somewhere else I tells ya'! Just remember: You guys are gonna chaff if you don't use lube........
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 21, 2017 16:45:50 GMT
"For the record!"
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 21, 2017 17:00:19 GMT
"For the record!" Yeah... Y'know, like.... For the record, you are an asshole. It's recorded... for posterity. Like your well known hypocrisy.. What do you always say about making a second post concerning the same point? But... Don't worry, crybaby... "It's different when Cine does it"... and, Cash will be here any second to stroke your ego and give you those affirmations that you cry out for....
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 21, 2017 17:16:53 GMT
"For the record!" Yeah... Y'know, like.... ... literally anything posted in a digital environment. So bold! Don't be mad bro.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 21, 2017 17:31:56 GMT
... literally anything posted in a digital environment. So bold! Don't be mad bro. You really do need Cash. This is just pathetic. Have fun thinking that whatever that post was meant to accomplish having achieved that goal.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 21, 2017 17:54:27 GMT
Really, the biggest complaint I have with this post is the notion that just because you name areas where men have it worse that there's no such thing as male privilege. All you've done is show that there's (perhaps) certain female privileges. If the latter is true, and these are things that can be addressed socially, then they should be; just as if there are areas where males have privilege and these are things that can be addressed socially, they should be as well. This shouldn't really be a game of who's got it worse, or a game of "well, I have it bad in some ways so you should just shut up about the ways you have it bad." Even when it comes to your list, most of those are things we can't do anything about and I don't think are socially fixable problems: especially something like "don't live as long." Stuff like "more likely to kill themselves" might be socially fixable, but it would depend on knowing the reasons WHY they're more likely to kill themselves. Stuff like "murdered, assaulted, robbed," are the same, but the way to fix those is to figure out how to fix crime in general, not telling criminals to start murdering, assaulting, robbing women more. The biggest socially fixable one I see there is that men are "more likely to serve a custodial sentence than a woman for an equivalent crime." If true, that would be an example of female privilege and definitely something worth addressing. If "male privilege" is a more popular concept it's probably because feminism HAS had to spend decades fighting for women to have equal rights, so they're still very attuned to the ways in which society are still slighting women. I don't think most liberals (though I could be wrong) would say that there are NO ways where women have it better/men have it worse; but I too often find that the only times you see such things brought up is when someone is trying to deny the legitimacy of many of the claims made about male privilege (which could be correct regardless of whether there's any "female privilege"). Even your "which looks worse?" seems to imply a kind of "men have it worse, so women should stop complaining" mentality as opposed to a "we should work to fix 'male privilege' problems, as well as some of these problems that men are more likely to face." To me, the latter is a much more productive, moral attitude to have. Now, if you want to debate any of these specific issues in depth I'm probably not your man. Others would know the statistics and relative facts far more than myself; I'm just trying to speak of it on a very generalized, basic level. From my post "Now it is undeniable that in some circumstances men have advantages, the problem is that any example of this given ignores any situation where women have advantages and ignores the men who don't benefit." But why is "male privilege" the only one talked about? Yes, women had to fight for equality, just as men had to fight before that to achieve the freedoms we all now have. Does the term "Female privilege" exist? Of the things I listed as male disadvantages, they are verifiably true. Most of the "Male Privileges" are based on feelings. For example, the one about "feeling safe walking alone at night" Women may well feel more at risk, but they aren't, so what exactly are men supposed to do about it? You're a clever person, one of the ones I respect most, but even here you seem to feel compelled to defend the concept. Why is that? I'm a liberal, a true liberal, not one of the current crybabies who riot when they don't get their own way. This means I have to judge every individual based on that individual, so the concept of applying "privilege" to an entire demographic is alien and wrong. And making an argument about one group having advantages while ignoring their disadvantages is just dishonest. RE "from your post:" I think the gist of my post was that what you point out is not a problem. If there are situations where men have the advantage and these can be remedied socially, they should be; if there are situations where women have the advantage and these can be remedied socially, they should be the. The existence of either doesn't invalidate the other. It reminds me of arguments between lovers/spouses where one side will point out a fault of the other, and the other will point out a fault right back. The solution is that both should remedy the faults, not that one negates the other and should be ignored. If male privilege is more talked about I'm guessing it's because feminism has such strong academic support, and there's thus a longer tradition now of women recognizing areas where they've gotten the short-end of the stick. I'm honored that you respect me, but if I feel "compelled to defend the concept" it's only to the extent that I've outlined above: where there are social imbalances for certain groups, we should endeavor to right those imbalances. If you admit there are imbalances against women, then they should be remedied; if there are imbalances against men, they should also be remedied. What I dislike is the notion that when the former are mentioned someone feels compelled to mention the latter as typically a way of shutting down the conversation. It shouldn't be "our ills are worse than yours so shut about yours," it should be "we both have ills so let's try to fix them."
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 21, 2017 23:30:38 GMT
No. There is an earnings gap, not a pay gap. The Pew research is referring to earnings, not pay .. Tescos in the UK reported a 2% gender wage gap when audited. This was due to mangers of bigger units earning more. The only time you see any job advertised that pays more based on gender is when one gender is a valued commodity, such as male nurses. The current furore about the BBC gender (and ethnic) pay gap, which has now become apparent after a forced reveal of pay levels within the corporation, would suggest that this is a real, continuing problem, no matter the lip service paid to ideals by large companies who ought to know better. So much so that I understand that a group of female presenters are considering a class action against their employers. www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/revealed-pay-packets-of-96-bbc-presenters-who-earn-more-than-150000-a3591151.html You understand that in the entertainment industry what matters is what the individual brings, right? You cannot pay men and women exactly the same amount as no two individuals can be paid the same amount. that should be obvious. Lets compare the top male and female earners. Chris Evans in 2016 was hosting the BBC 2 Breakfast Show, the daily flagship of BBC Radio. Which is pretty much the most popular radio program around, accounting for 60% of the channels listeners. He was also under contract as Top Gears main host. Top Gear being the BBCs most profitable export. Claudia Winkelman in the same time period has a weekly radio show on Sunday night and co hosted Strictly Come Dancing. The value of Evans to the BBC is obviously significantly higher. On top of which the TV jobs are not the same. The Strictly job is purely hosting. Introduce the acts and do the odd interview. The Top Gear gig wasn't, the presenters on that are the show. Evans was physically doing more work on more popular programs. So on what basis should Evans and Winkleman be paid the same amount?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 21, 2017 23:36:32 GMT
From my post "Now it is undeniable that in some circumstances men have advantages, the problem is that any example of this given ignores any situation where women have advantages and ignores the men who don't benefit." But why is "male privilege" the only one talked about? Yes, women had to fight for equality, just as men had to fight before that to achieve the freedoms we all now have. Does the term "Female privilege" exist? Of the things I listed as male disadvantages, they are verifiably true. Most of the "Male Privileges" are based on feelings. For example, the one about "feeling safe walking alone at night" Women may well feel more at risk, but they aren't, so what exactly are men supposed to do about it? You're a clever person, one of the ones I respect most, but even here you seem to feel compelled to defend the concept. Why is that? I'm a liberal, a true liberal, not one of the current crybabies who riot when they don't get their own way. This means I have to judge every individual based on that individual, so the concept of applying "privilege" to an entire demographic is alien and wrong. And making an argument about one group having advantages while ignoring their disadvantages is just dishonest. RE "from your post:" I think the gist of my post was that what you point out is not a problem. If there are situations where men have the advantage and these can be remedied socially, they should be; if there are situations where women have the advantage and these can be remedied socially, they should be the. The existence of either doesn't invalidate the other. It reminds me of arguments between lovers/spouses where one side will point out a fault of the other, and the other will point out a fault right back. The solution is that both should remedy the faults, not that one negates the other and should be ignored. If male privilege is more talked about I'm guessing it's because feminism has such strong academic support, and there's thus a longer tradition now of women recognizing areas where they've gotten the short-end of the stick. I'm honored that you respect me, but if I feel "compelled to defend the concept" it's only to the extent that I've outlined above: where there are social imbalances for certain groups, we should endeavor to right those imbalances. If you admit there are imbalances against women, then they should be remedied; if there are imbalances against men, they should also be remedied. What I dislike is the notion that when the former are mentioned someone feels compelled to mention the latter as typically a way of shutting down the conversation. It shouldn't be "our ills are worse than yours so shut about yours," it should be "we both have ills so let's try to fix them." Pretty much exact. Advantages and disadvantages exist for all people. An attractive women from a rich family has a much bigger life advantage than a short man from a single parent council estate. To use "Male Privilege" as an example of female oppression by men is so weak I don't know why anyone falls for it. There is also the marketing aspect. People talking about MAle Privilege are actually talking about female disadvantage, but frame the argument in such a way to place blame on men for something they have no control over.Thats not vert productive in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 22, 2017 18:28:09 GMT
I wish that people would stop telling me that this is some how a privilege of mine. No it's not... or, at the very least, one that I don't benefit from.... as I do not plan to embark on a criminal career in the foreseeable future. All whites have the privilege, even if it's only taken advantage of by white criminals. You don't have to be a criminal to say that it's a privilege you have. Can't wait for the ad campaign on that one...
Man... Who knew being so privileged brought such benefits?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 24, 2017 9:07:32 GMT
You understand that in the entertainment industry what matters is what the individual brings, right? You cannot pay men and women exactly the same amount as no two individuals can be paid the same amount. that should be obvious. Individuals can always be paid the same amount my friend. That is why pay bands exist. To argue otherwise, as a general explanation for inequality in pay, is just special pleading for an iniquitous state of affairs. In any case the issue here is not that inequality of pay exists at the top end of the scale within the BBC generally but that at this utmost top end, which has suddenly become transparent, virtually all are white and male , while it's further down the league table, where more women and ethnics do appear, that pay levels are still not equal to their white male colleagues. If one is to argue that every instance here is due to a historical or contractual 'special reason' then why cannot women and ethnics have had equal 'special reasons'? I don't know either. But in any case I am pleased that you accept that there is a pay gap here to be noted and addressed (i.e. not just an earnings one), just as I pointed out.
You'd be better off sending these observations to the large group of females currently voicing their dissatisfaction to the BBC's DG - individuals who might, presumably, be expected to be aware of conditions pertaining. As said above, outside of the few unique superstars with presumed special claims - although strangely almost entirely white and male, as observed above - who might well provide an argument for exceptional remuneration, the majority of roles are quickly comparable and show a clear imbalance between salaries when compared by the key of gender and ethnicity. it is moreover a difference that the BBC itself admits has to be addressed over the next two years as a matter of urgency.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 24, 2017 18:14:40 GMT
You understand that in the entertainment industry what matters is what the individual brings, right? You cannot pay men and women exactly the same amount as no two individuals can be paid the same amount. that should be obvious. Individuals can always be paid the same amount my friend. That is why pay bands exist. To argue otherwise, as a general explanation for inequality in pay, is just special pleading for an iniquitous state of affairs. In any case the issue here is not that inequality of pay exists at the top end of the scale within the BBC generally but that at this utmost top end, which has suddenly become transparent, virtually all are white and male , while it's further down the league table, where more women and ethnics do appear, that pay levels are still not equal to their white male colleagues. If one is to argue that every instance here is due to a historical or contractual 'special reason' then why cannot women and ethnics have had equal 'special reasons'? I don't know either. But in any case I am pleased that you accept that there is a pay gap here to be noted and addressed (i.e. not just an earnings one), just as I pointed out.
You'd be better off sending these observations to the large group of females currently voicing their dissatisfaction to the BBC's DG - individuals who might, presumably, be expected to be aware of conditions pertaining. As said above, outside of the few unique superstars with presumed special claims - although strangely almost entirely white and male, as observed above - who might well provide an argument for exceptional remuneration, the majority of roles are quickly comparable and show a clear imbalance between salaries when compared by the key of gender and ethnicity. it is moreover a difference that the BBC itself admits has to be addressed over the next two years as a matter of urgency.
So Robert Downey Junior and Elizabeth Olsen should have been paid the same amount for Age of Ultron should they? Why did Scarlett Johansson get paid almost three times more than Chris Evans? Its kinda like Johansson and RDJ brought more start power than their co stars..... And the BBC does have bands......Can you name any woman or BEM who could justifiably command a bigger salary than Evans? Or is that not important? Trevor Macdonald was on £600k and presented the news four times a week, should he have got as much as Evans? If so why? Do you expect anyone to believe that a company that prevents white men from applying for jobs and has spent ten of millions of tax payers money on diversity initiatives, is intentionally paying women less because they have vaginas? And who are these women? Your previous link made no mention of them.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 25, 2017 11:20:33 GMT
So Robert Downey Junior and Elizabeth Olsen should have been paid the same amount for Age of Ultron should they? Why did Scarlett Johansson get paid almost three times more than Chris Evans? Its kinda like Johansson and RDJ brought more start power than their co stars..... I think you are still missing the point. Everyone can accept that for particular reasons someone can be paid uniquely more (although part of the outrage at the BBC disclosures is that some salaries as so high.) What has led to more sustained furore is that at the levels revealed (white) men are represented so disproportionately than women and any of those from an ethnic background.
Indeed, and which is answer, outside of the issue of unique talents, then to your "You cannot pay men and women exactly the same amount as no two individuals can be paid the same amount. that should be obvious."
www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/managementstructure/seniormanagement/salarybands
So QED then, people ought to be paid the same for the same. And even then if we admit the exceptions likely through the particular workings of show business, there is no reason why, as already observed that a table of 'unique talent' should not show blind in terms of race and gender.
Here you almost seem to be saying that no woman could ever be worth as much. I hope this is not the case. (Although perhaps the BBC thinks so, as only one woman, appears amongst their top ten earners, I believe.) Otherwise the observation still stands that there is a distinction between a perhaps inflated market worth of an individual and the salaries paid across a whole band (here, that of the topmost earners taken together) which will always be the critical issue. And here you are being needlessly crude. I admit there's the irony of the BBC being 'caught out'. But that is what makes the instance so striking and significant and suggests the disadvantage of lip service over transparency in such matters. But none the less the disparity between the salaries of white men and the rest in the BBC, at the topmost level, at least is plain to see. So unless you are suggesting that salaries in the sector examined show blind equality between men and women (and the races) ... QED. What is reasonable to assume (and makes the mooted nationwide statutory audit of salaries so urgent) is that similar discrepancies and embarrassments might be presumed to exist just as much in other companies - especially those without such an ostensibly politically correct employment policy as the BBC claimed.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 26, 2017 0:39:12 GMT
FilmFlaneurNAme any BEM you think should be paid more than Chris Evans and why? White people represent about 87% of the British population, why wouldn't you expect white people to dominate any field? So name the woman you think should be paid as much as Evans and tell us why? I'm suggesting no such thing. I am asking you to name anyone at the BBC that isn't a white male that you think deserves to be paid the same as Evans and why? Can you guess my questions here? Which female or BEM talent should be paid the same as Evans and why? Look, Graham Norton hosts the Eurovision Song Contest,the BAFTAs, has a radioshow and his own chat show which is broadcast in Scandinavia, Poland, America, Canada, Ireland, Pakistan, India, Australia and many, many more. So tell us why he shouldn't earn more than Tess Daly or Trevor Nelson? Name any BEM or female star that is worth as much financially to the BBC. You can't because there aren't any. Where it has been done the pay gap is tiny and explainable. Tescos was 1 or 2% based on the unit size of stores.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 26, 2017 11:53:07 GMT
NAme any BEM you think should be paid more than Chris Evans and why? White people represent about 87% of the British population, why wouldn't you expect white people to dominate any field? ... So name the woman you think should be paid as much as Evans and tell us why? Your 87% point may be taken as reasonable (if we ignore any weighting for ethnics in the entertainment business of course) ... until one recalls women make up 52% of the general population! So on that basis where is the equivalent representation in the top earners league at the BBC? Once again though, to isolate Evans as you do again, as the only example, is still to miss the wider point. And, if you are not implying that no ethnic or female could ever be worth what he is paid as you say, then perhaps the argument is more that no other ethnic or female could ever be worth as much as 9 out of 10 of the BBC's highest paid employees? Each time the implication broadens then, rightly, the more uncomfortable it ought to make one feel. I can only repeat here what I have already said; that no one is disputing the value of great talent, the issue is whether, if talent is really 'blind', why the top earners as a whole in the BBC are disproportionately white and male with only one female in the top ten. To argue that all nine white men are "just worth more" begs an uncomfortable question. Incidentally in answer to your repeated interrogation, a good few commentators have indeed questioned Evans' massive salary and its value to the licence holder, especially when comparing him to others at the BBC, male or female. I hope that helps. Repeating a question which does not address the obviousness of general white privilege and pay weighting as shown at the BBC, at least at the pay scales revealed, but instead focussing on just one individual's perceived value here is not helping, though I can see how the distraction would be useful. This does not effect the observation of the make up of the top earners in the BBC. As already mentioned, the only argument would be that, when considering the lop-sidedness of the group, women and ethnics can never, or very rarely, be worth the same as their white contemporaries. I don't think one can convincingly argue that Evans and Norton (or any of those other 9 out of 10 top earners at the BBC) are there 'just at the moment' over women and ethnics, and that the situation has ever been different.
I can see why you might wish to highlight a company example which is most favourable to your opinions; but here we are considering the specific example of the BBC ... where the only explanation offered so far for top earners being almost exclusively white and male generally is, apparently, that 'no one is a good as Evans'- even when the striking imbalance shows across the whole band of earners covered - i.e. not just between Evans and the nearest worker. But this is something I shan't repeat again.
Incidentally according to a 2016 report from the careers site Glassdoor, women in the UK earn 5.5 per cent less than their male counterparts for doing the exact same job. i.e, when you’re comparing apples and apples. “At this very detailed level, I thought we wouldn’t find anywhere near as big a pay gap as we did,” says Dr Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at Glassdoor and the man behind the study. “That was my biggest surprise.” This while a report from the Women and Equalities Select Committee has argued that the pay gap has barely shrunk in the past four years despite the Government’s pledge to eradicate it in a generation.
|
|