UK Gender Inequality Explained With Cereal

Ramelle investigates the gender gap in work and education within the UK and explains further appalling statistics - with cereal.
Subscribe Here Now: bit.ly/1mw9zkx
Despite women making up 60% of British universities, they earn £5,000 less a year on average than their male colleagues.
What do you think? Do we still need feminism? Are you a feminist? How do you think we can make the world a more equal place?
What would you like explained, and how?
Comment below
Tweet us / livemaguk #ExplainedWith
or FB us: / livemaguk .

[@sharkfacemlg]

Equality of opportunity>Equality of outcome.

[@lunastar7293]

I think that this is partly true. Girls at a young age are lacking confidence in maths, and are taught by their peers what they can and can't do due to their gender, which is absolute nonsense. It doesn't help when schools can sometimes reinforce the idea because they treat girls and boys differently (example P.E lessons-girls and boys are separate and do different things) nor does it help when toys and clothes get gendered, the problem is our society and how we are brought up.

[@tweet02]

that goes both ways men are also discouraged by a lot of things against jobs in care and socials also men have a BIOLOGICAL advantage which is why it is often split up, although i agree in younger years it should not be separated, but in the higher/upper years, puberty really takes part in reasoning towards your statement. Feminism can't solve biology, so you're half right

[@huveja9799]

Interesting perspective on what other uses a cereal can have, which by the way, would not be highly recommended for health if they have sugar. If I understand what you are saying correctly, women should earn the same as men for the same position, and they should also occupy the same percentage of the "top" positions, and if we achieve that equality of outcomes, we will have a more "just" world, right?, at the same time you totally discards the impact of men's disadvantages in the educational system, but it doesn't matter, because in some places equal outcomes are a must, but in other places it is not necessary, right? Let's start with a small mental exercise, you have two football players for the same position, but one trains for longer, invents new moves, takes more risks on the playground, scores more goals, and attracts more people in each match than the other player, are you going to pay both players the same (i.e. equal outcomes discarding the performance in the position)? why would that create a more "just" society? Now another little mental exercise continuing with the context of football players, now you have men's football, and women's football, why don't women compete against men and on the contrary, have a separate league? the answer is quite simple, men and women have a sufficiently different biology to produce differences between both sexes. On average, men are stronger, faster, have faster reflexes, have better spatial orientation and are more competitive than women. That is in the average, but if you go to the top of those characteristics, the differences are accentuated, a "top" woman may probably can beat an "average" man, but she will not be able to beat a "top" man. That is why separate leagues are created, the differences in performance are significant so that it is better that they do not compete directly (and if they do, the men would always win, unless of course they are not allowed to win). So, men play football better and create a better show that attracts much more people than women's football, would you pay both sexes the same (i.e. equal outcomes discarding the performance in the position)? why would that create a more "just" society? To finish, another small mental exercise, but changing profession, let's go to medicine now, you have two cardiac surgeons, one of them works longer hours, is a better surgeon (a much higher rate of recoveries and a much lower rate of deaths), is willing to take over the riskiest surgeries and is constantly updating himself, while the other surgeon is not as good (more death rate), works less hours, and is a bit outdated. Now, let's assume that we live in a "just" world of equal outcomes, you need a heart surgery, and the only thing you know about those surgeons is that; i. both occupy the same position (i.e. both are cardiac surgeons), and ii. both earn the same, therefore, with that data you would choose both with the same probability, right? That's the "just" right? So from what I understand, you expect that those biological differences, which for example are clearly manifested in sports, are not manifested in the work environment, right? for example, it doesn't matter if men take more risks, work longer hours, do the riskiest jobs, are willing to relocate, are more competitive, all that doesn't matter right? the outcomes have to be the same, right? that's a "just" society, right? .. by the way, that's why there are more male surgeons than women.. so please, if you are unlucky enough to need a surgery, in the name of justice, choose the woman, that leaves me a free place with a man, I clearly prefer to have the surgery with him .. meritocracy is better for my health, not equality of outcomes ..

[@oliverrienhardt5074]

that cereal that he ate at the end needed more milk. we all know that cereal has a 40 to 60% ratio to milk

[@God-ft4uc]

A balanced society and an equal one are somewhat different.

[@joshburch37]

Thank god I thought the comment section was going to be full of stupidity

[@thisisacrappyusername892]

Thanks God

[@trinity4827]

@Prest10 The problem is that there is fields that there is a systematical exclusion of women in subtle as well as obvious ways, such as underestimation by gender, systemic discouragement generated by discrimination that starts from school, in addition to the discrimination and harassment that women who finally manage to enter these fields experience on a daily basis.

[@huveja9799]

Interesting perspective on what other uses a cereal can have, which by the way, would not be highly recommended for health if they have sugar. If I understand what you are saying correctly, women should earn the same as men for the same position, and they should also occupy the same percentage of the "top" positions, and if we achieve that equality of outcomes, we will have a more "just" world, right?, at the same time you totally discards the impact of men's disadvantages in the educational system, but it doesn't matter, because in some places equal outcomes are a must, but in other places it is not necessary, right? Let's start with a small mental exercise, you have two football players for the same position, but one trains for longer, invents new moves, takes more risks on the playground, scores more goals, and attracts more people in each match than the other player, are you going to pay both players the same (i.e. equal outcomes discarding the performance in the position)? why would that create a more "just" society? Now another little mental exercise continuing with the context of football players, now you have men's football, and women's football, why don't women compete against men and on the contrary, have a separate league? the answer is quite simple, men and women have a sufficiently different biology to produce differences between both sexes. On average, men are stronger, faster, have faster reflexes, have better spatial orientation and are more competitive than women. That is in the average, but if you go to the top of those characteristics, the differences are accentuated, a "top" woman may probably can beat an "average" man, but she will not be able to beat a "top" man. That is why separate leagues are created, the differences in performance are significant so that it is better that they do not compete directly (and if they do, the men would always win, unless of course they are not allowed to win). So, men play football better and create a better show that attracts much more people than women's football, would you pay both sexes the same (i.e. equal outcomes discarding the performance in the position)? why would that create a more "just" society? To finish, another small mental exercise, but changing profession, let's go to medicine now, you have two cardiac surgeons, one of them works longer hours, is a better surgeon (a much higher rate of recoveries and a much lower rate of deaths), is willing to take over the riskiest surgeries and is constantly updating himself, while the other surgeon is not as good (more death rate), works less hours, and is a bit outdated. Now, let's assume that we live in a "just" world of equal outcomes, you need a heart surgery, and the only thing you know about those surgeons is that; i. both occupy the same position (i.e. both are cardiac surgeons), and ii. both earn the same, therefore, with that data you would choose both with the same probability, right? That's the "just" right? So from what I understand, you expect that those biological differences, which for example are clearly manifested in sports, are not manifested in the work environment, right? for example, it doesn't matter if men take more risks, work longer hours, do the riskiest jobs, are willing to relocate, are more competitive, all that doesn't matter right? the outcomes have to be the same, right? that's a "just" society, right? .. by the way, that's why there are more male surgeons than women.. so please, if you are unlucky enough to need a surgery, in the name of justice, choose the woman, that leaves me a free place with a man, I clearly prefer to have the surgery with him .. meritocracy is better for my health, not equality of outcomes ..

[@girlwriteswhat]

It's very easy to make one gender look overwhelmingly privileged when you only look at a one slice of life (money and power) and when you only look at a portion of that. I'd also like to know where you got your pay gap stats from. According to the ONS, which tracks hourly pay (excluding overtime), the wage gap for full time work is 9.1% and the gap for part time work is *negative* 5.1%. That is, women earn higher average hourly wages than men do when working part time. I mean, I'm sure I could break down the data in such a way as to be able to claim that "on an annual basis, part time working women earn *35% LESS* on average than part time working men." But that would be dishonest. And none of these stats take into account that women are the VAST majority of recipients of mandatory income transfers between individuals, and men the VAST majority of the payers. The stats on pay count the alimony and child support a man is forced to pay an ex as his income, not hers. A woman rolling in her ex-husband's monthly earnings who chooses to put in 5 hours a week at an art gallery "for something to do" is going to be considered identical to one who's actually doing poorly financially. So is a woman like I was a few years ago--working fewer and fewer hours a week and being increasingly supported by my partner--a situation I much prefer to the first years we were together and I was working and earning like mad to support the family and he was in school, sporadically employed or job-seeking. They don't take into account gaps in spending power versus earnings. Men and women have roughly equal decision-making power in terms of spending. Men on average earn more than a dollar of after tax income to get a dollar of spending power, while women on average earn less than a dollar. Who's more privileged? The people who work less to get the same spending money, or the ones who work more? They don't take into account the availability of government benefits, or the "taxpayer gap"--men pay the majority of the taxes, women pull the majority of tax-funded services. In fact, one report done on cumulative net taxes in New Zealand found that over an 80 year lifetime women consume $150,000 more in public services than they pay in taxes. Only men who die between 40 and 80 years of age will ever show a net positive contribution to the tax base. And of course, they point to the people at the very tippy top--the 1%ers--and say, "there's more men there, men must be privileged." This is called the Apex Fallacy--a tendency to look at the most successful men and see them as somehow representative of all men. It's a form of survival bias--you concentrate on the people or things that made it through a selection process while ignoring those that didn't. A classic case of survival bias was in WWII, when planes would return full of bullet holes. It was recommended that extra armor be placed on the areas that showed the most damage. Problem is, those are the planes that made it back. The planes that didn't make it back were the ones that took bullets in other areas. So let's look at things this way: for every Steve Jobs, there may have been 100 or 1000 men who tried something similar and lost their life savings. For every Rolling Stones, there's dozens and dozens of bands who never made it out of their garage, or who squeak out an existence playing in bars. For every Mark Zuckerberg, there's hundreds of kids who sunk every penny they had into an app that went nowhere and then got a job pruning trees or something. So let's take a look at the bottom 20%, shall we? Unsheltered homeless: 80-90% male Suicides: ~80% male Incarcerated: 85-95% male Workplace deaths: 90-95% male And let's take a look at some things that aren't just about money (feminists seem to care way too much about money): Men are the majority of those with addiction problems, they die more often and at younger ages of 14 of the leading 15 causes of death. They are vastly more likely than women to involuntarily lose custody of and contact with their children after divorce. In fact, when social services removes a child from the care of a mother, they frequently place that child in foster care, even when there is a fit and willing father available. Men are also the only people who can have the responsibilities of parenthood forced on them against their will, and if they are not married to the mother that responsibility comes with no default parental rights. In the US, public housing for women who can't afford to support their kids is a subsidized townhouse. For men in the same position, it's prison. Not sure if this is different in the UK. Oh, and if men were treated exactly like women are in the criminal justice system in the UK, 5 of every 6 men in prison wouldn't be there. In the US, under identical conditions and for the same crimes, women are less likely to be charged, twice as likely to avoid conviction, when convicted are twice as likely to avoid incarceration, and when incarcerated serve sentences about 60% shorter than men. Being a mother (married or single) increases the system's leniency toward women. Being a married father gets you nothing, but being a single father will actually get you a higher likelihood of being convicted and a longer sentence. Men are more likely to be victims of violent crime, including murder. A survey done by a US charity found that 10% of Americans have been, or know someone who's been, falsely accused of a crime, and roughly 80% of those falsely accused were men. Many of the issues I've raised here are a little bit more potentially life-wrecking than not earning quite as much as someone else or being on minimum wage. If I had to choose between giving up 17% of my income and losing custody of my kids, I know which one I'd pick. Hint: it ain't the freaking money. If I had to choose between going to prison for 5 years for something a different sort of person would get probation over, and not being able to become an MP, I know which I'd pick. Hint: it's the one that allows me to live a normal life, even if I don't get to be powerful. If I had to choose between not getting promoted at work and having no reproductive rights... yeah, you guessed it. Your mileage may vary, of course.

[@gregwebster1599]

karen straughan. Thanks for adding some clarity too this very silly narrative. Love your work!

[@ottobond5868]

broooooooooooooooo who has the time like...

[@zetaleonis4745]

Does anyone have any idea of where I could find statistics like these for the UK? Im currently doing an essay and I’d love to add an equal weighted argument as great as this!

[@LAlexanderOBriensFilms]

This comment was 1000 times more useful than the video

[@theaveragejoe6320]

How about we just eat toast instead?

[@zaynahjannat929]

all the men in these comments are pressed

[@Idrive2011]

Mate stfu you uneducated twat, the ''pay gap'' has been disproved and is actually just the fact that men work longer hours, overtime and more dangerous jobs.

[@hsoper3800]

@@Idrive2011 what a perfect example

[@arcaneshatter3334]

@@Idrive2011 ur makin us perfectly fine men look bad g shut up

[@Idrive2011]

You're not perfectly fine lmao, you use the word g. What are you a fucking chav scrubber?

[@PJemus]

there are many simple explanations for this but obviously you should just say what you think before researching it. Do Women Earn Less than Men?

[@PJemus]

prove it.

[@MrApplesucksass]

LiveMagUK Construction: Male dominated Registered Nurses: Female dominated Construction: Risks to workers include (1): - Falls from working at height, - Crush injuries in excavation work, - Slips and trips, - Being struck by falling objects, - Moving heavy loads, - Bad working positions, often in confined spaces, - Being struck or crushed by a workplace vehicle, - Receiving injuries from hand tools, - Inhalation of dust, - Handling of rough materials, - Exposure to dangerous substances (chemical and biological), - Working near, in, or over water, - Exposure to radiation, - Loud noise, - Vibration from tools or vibrating machinery. Registered Nurses: Risks to workers include (2): - Can be exposed to contagious and infectious diseases - Can come into contact with chemicals - Overexertion - Radiation - Violence at work Construction workers paid on average (3): $28, 400 Registered Nurses paid on average (4): $68, 000 Engineering: Male dominated Risks to Engineers may include (5): - The Operation of Plant Regulations and Approvals - The Operation of Conveyors and Bulk Materials Handling Systems - The Operation of Winding and Lifting Plan - The Safe Operation of Mobile Plant - The Failure of Structures - Inadequate Operator Protection on Mobile Plant - Contact with Moving or Rotating Plant - Safe Access to Mechanical Plant and Structures - Inadequate Energy Dissipation and Isolation - The use of Fluid Power Systems - Circumstances Leading to Uncontrolled Fires - The Ignition of Flammable and Explosive Substances - Fire and/or Explosion Initiated by Plant in or Near Hazardous Zones or Hazardous Areas - The Handling, Transportation and use of Dangerous Goods - Exposure to Hazardous and Toxic Substances - Exposure to Noise, Vibration and Temperature - The use of Cutting and Welding Equipment - Working in Confined Spaces and Restricted Areas Engineers paid on average (6): $119, 000 Sources: (1) osha.europa.eu/en/faq/faq1/what-are-the-main-hazards-in-construction (2) www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/occup_workplace/nurse.html (3) www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/construction-laborers-and-helpers.htm (4) www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes291141.htm (5) www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/miners-and-explorers/safety-and-health/resources/mechanical/key-risks (6) www.bls.gov/ooh/management/architectural-and-engineering-managers.htm Credit to and advised further reading: anti-feminism-pro-equality.tumblr.com/wagegap2 "Child-free women also earn less than men" - Source? "female-dominated sectors are less well-paid than male" - Not strictly true, but as shown above, there are well evidenced reasons for these discrepancies which do not require sex based wage gaps as a explanatory factor.

[@diesel4384]

LiveMagUK No its does not. You have made an illogical inference, that does not appear to be based upon empirical evidence. "Child-free women also earn less than men". Which men? Child-free men? single men? Never married men? You need to be specific here and provide references to the data you obtained that conclusion from for it to be of any value. "and female-dominated sectors are less well-paid than male" Which sectors? Nursing vs Deep sea fishing? Again, where are your sources of this data? "even though they demand similar levels of training" Cannot comment since you are being vague and are not being specific to what you are talking about. "which alone shows just how much society undervalues female labour." Another illogical inference. The free market does not discriminate against anyone. You get paid what you are worth to your employer. Moreover 'society' does not value anyone, since 'society' has no opinions, people do. Have you not even earned your GCSE's or what? Don't expect anyone to take you seriously without providing evidence for your claims.

[@huveja9799]

Interesting perspective on what other uses a cereal can have, which by the way, would not be highly recommended for health if they have sugar. If I understand what you are saying correctly, women should earn the same as men for the same position, and they should also occupy the same percentage of the "top" positions, and if we achieve that equality of outcomes, we will have a more "just" world, right?, at the same time you totally discards the impact of men's disadvantages in the educational system, but it doesn't matter, because in some places equal outcomes are a must, but in other places it is not necessary, right? Let's start with a small mental exercise, you have two football players for the same position, but one trains for longer, invents new moves, takes more risks on the playground, scores more goals, and attracts more people in each match than the other player, are you going to pay both players the same (i.e. equal outcomes discarding the performance in the position)? why would that create a more "just" society? Now another little mental exercise continuing with the context of football players, now you have men's football, and women's football, why don't women compete against men and on the contrary, have a separate league? the answer is quite simple, men and women have a sufficiently different biology to produce differences between both sexes. On average, men are stronger, faster, have faster reflexes, have better spatial orientation and are more competitive than women. That is in the average, but if you go to the top of those characteristics, the differences are accentuated, a "top" woman may probably can beat an "average" man, but she will not be able to beat a "top" man. That is why separate leagues are created, the differences in performance are significant so that it is better that they do not compete directly (and if they do, the men would always win, unless of course they are not allowed to win). So, men play football better and create a better show that attracts much more people than women's football, would you pay both sexes the same (i.e. equal outcomes discarding the performance in the position)? why would that create a more "just" society? To finish, another small mental exercise, but changing profession, let's go to medicine now, you have two cardiac surgeons, one of them works longer hours, is a better surgeon (a much higher rate of recoveries and a much lower rate of deaths), is willing to take over the riskiest surgeries and is constantly updating himself, while the other surgeon is not as good (more death rate), works less hours, and is a bit outdated. Now, let's assume that we live in a "just" world of equal outcomes, you need a heart surgery, and the only thing you know about those surgeons is that; i. both occupy the same position (i.e. both are cardiac surgeons), and ii. both earn the same, therefore, with that data you would choose both with the same probability, right? That's the "just" right? So from what I understand, you expect that those biological differences, which for example are clearly manifested in sports, are not manifested in the work environment, right? for example, it doesn't matter if men take more risks, work longer hours, do the riskiest jobs, are willing to relocate, are more competitive, all that doesn't matter right? the outcomes have to be the same, right? that's a "just" society, right? .. by the way, that's why there are more male surgeons than women.. so please, if you are unlucky enough to need a surgery, in the name of justice, choose the woman, that leaves me a free place with a man, I clearly prefer to have the surgery with him .. meritocracy is better for my health, not equality of outcomes ..

[@Vioflora]

He starts by saying 'feminism, but aren't men and women supposed to be equal?' Feminism only speaks of equality. get your knowledge straight please!

[@Idrive2011]

Yeah but these internet crazies really want men to be extinct or something

[@damianbylightning6823]

Gender pay gap - I never knew rape and dominance fantasies could be turned into such persuasive propaganda when aimed at cretins. Well done.

[@arcaneshatter3334]

what the fuck

[@damianbylightning6823]

@@arcaneshatter3334 Reality and others' opinion of it, can be like that.

[@ifitwasntforthemango]

I HOPE YOU'RE USING DAIRY FREE AND CRUELTY FREE MILK THERE YOUNG MAN

[@MegaJacko4]

I think with our generation is that we are at the beginning of the transition out of the idea that women stay with their parents until they get married, then they stay home look after their husbands, then become a mother, stay home look after her children, stay home, clean, cook and look after her husband, stay home, grow old, stay home and die. That was the norm for hundreds of years. Now more opportunities are starting to open up to women but we still have this idea that women are housewife's and mothers. That is our job life. It was only 100 years ago that women had to really fight just to vote. So its pretty assumable that its gonna take another 100 years for women to start being seen as equal.

[@huveja9799]

Interesting perspective on what other uses a cereal can have, which by the way, would not be highly recommended for health if they have sugar. If I understand what you are saying correctly, women should earn the same as men for the same position, and they should also occupy the same percentage of the "top" positions, and if we achieve that equality of outcomes, we will have a more "just" world, right?, at the same time you totally discards the impact of men's disadvantages in the educational system, but it doesn't matter, because in some places equal outcomes are a must, but in other places it is not necessary, right? Let's start with a small mental exercise, you have two football players for the same position, but one trains for longer, invents new moves, takes more risks on the playground, scores more goals, and attracts more people in each match than the other player, are you going to pay both players the same (i.e. equal outcomes discarding the performance in the position)? why would that create a more "just" society? Now another little mental exercise continuing with the context of football players, now you have men's football, and women's football, why don't women compete against men and on the contrary, have a separate league? the answer is quite simple, men and women have a sufficiently different biology to produce differences between both sexes. On average, men are stronger, faster, have faster reflexes, have better spatial orientation and are more competitive than women. That is in the average, but if you go to the top of those characteristics, the differences are accentuated, a "top" woman may probably can beat an "average" man, but she will not be able to beat a "top" man. That is why separate leagues are created, the differences in performance are significant so that it is better that they do not compete directly (and if they do, the men would always win, unless of course they are not allowed to win). So, men play football better and create a better show that attracts much more people than women's football, would you pay both sexes the same (i.e. equal outcomes discarding the performance in the position)? why would that create a more "just" society? To finish, another small mental exercise, but changing profession, let's go to medicine now, you have two cardiac surgeons, one of them works longer hours, is a better surgeon (a much higher rate of recoveries and a much lower rate of deaths), is willing to take over the riskiest surgeries and is constantly updating himself, while the other surgeon is not as good (more death rate), works less hours, and is a bit outdated. Now, let's assume that we live in a "just" world of equal outcomes, you need a heart surgery, and the only thing you know about those surgeons is that; i. both occupy the same position (i.e. both are cardiac surgeons), and ii. both earn the same, therefore, with that data you would choose both with the same probability, right? That's the "just" right? So from what I understand, you expect that those biological differences, which for example are clearly manifested in sports, are not manifested in the work environment, right? for example, it doesn't matter if men take more risks, work longer hours, do the riskiest jobs, are willing to relocate, are more competitive, all that doesn't matter right? the outcomes have to be the same, right? that's a "just" society, right? .. by the way, that's why there are more male surgeons than women.. so please, if you are unlucky enough to need a surgery, in the name of justice, choose the woman, that leaves me a free place with a man, I clearly prefer to have the surgery with him .. meritocracy is better for my health, not equality of outcomes ..

[@isentient666]

Here is a thought... Do Women Earn Less than Men?

[@proxxgeo1054]

Darrell Lim how the heck do you do that

[@adamhope9030]

Got sources doe?

[@sovietunionjack1505]

When analysing a set of stat's, it is not possible to avoid the question WHY? And every time I see this type of narrative on youtube ... They never do ask "why?" ... I wonder why?

[@AllAboutBritain]

Some of these figures are now quite out of date and there has been progress since this video was made.

[@charlottelivingstone8813]

Waaaaay too much milk going on?! Love the video.

[@mrsollyette]

Im a feminist and as the difference is exaggerated, the problem grows with it... The more attention radical feminists get and the more actions of women are recognised the more severe the gap grows. The only way to solve this is to not place gender as the be all and end all - lets face it that wont happen! Brilliant, thought provoking video with not enough views

[@Shedecidestodeleteherlife344]

I agree. Misandrists and Radical Feminists get more attention, than the true Feminists, who ACTUALLY fight for equality, and are against oppression/gender inequality in both Men and Women.

[@karmenbear]

I don't understand why everybody cant get paid the same amount for the same job and experience. It should be based on education and experience alone. Then if everything you say is true women would make more than men because they have better scores in school.

[@diesel4384]

Everyone does get paid based upon their qualifications, experience and their hard work. The free market is gender neutral. Businesses want to make profits, and reduce expenses. If you could pay women 25% less for the same work, all businesses would hire solely women, so that they could cut costs and therefore make more profits.

[@karmenbear]

Being a woman I would never do that. I don't really think that its gender neautral. Because I may don't see it. The statistics say other wise. ;)

[@diesel4384]

Karmen Durbin I have absolutely no idea what you just said, but the evidence shows that women out earn men, when you compare comparable men and women and not just a gross average comparison.

[@DxBlack]

Karmen, don't call the drink juice when the bottle say bleach...statistics can be compiled in such a way that it makes a statement true, even if the real figures would disclose a contradictory conclusion. The truth of the matter is that there are more men in the job market. That alone skews the "gap" towards men with a solid, modifiable number, used to "verify" the "wage gap". And as said before, those men tend to take jobs with more risk and more reward, because women do not want those jobs...unless you're saying you'd love to go out on a crabbing vessel for 3 months, risking life, limb, and your mental state for upwards of $30,000 then be my guess.

[@huveja9799]

Interesting perspective on what other uses a cereal can have, which by the way, would not be highly recommended for health if they have sugar. If I understand what you are saying correctly, women should earn the same as men for the same position, and they should also occupy the same percentage of the "top" positions, and if we achieve that equality of outcomes, we will have a more "just" world, right?, at the same time you totally discards the impact of men's disadvantages in the educational system, but it doesn't matter, because in some places equal outcomes are a must, but in other places it is not necessary, right? Let's start with a small mental exercise, you have two football players for the same position, but one trains for longer, invents new moves, takes more risks on the playground, scores more goals, and attracts more people in each match than the other player, are you going to pay both players the same (i.e. equal outcomes discarding the performance in the position)? why would that create a more "just" society? Now another little mental exercise continuing with the context of football players, now you have men's football, and women's football, why don't women compete against men and on the contrary, have a separate league? the answer is quite simple, men and women have a sufficiently different biology to produce differences between both sexes. On average, men are stronger, faster, have faster reflexes, have better spatial orientation and are more competitive than women. That is in the average, but if you go to the top of those characteristics, the differences are accentuated, a "top" woman may probably can beat an "average" man, but she will not be able to beat a "top" man. That is why separate leagues are created, the differences in performance are significant so that it is better that they do not compete directly (and if they do, the men would always win, unless of course they are not allowed to win). So, men play football better and create a better show that attracts much more people than women's football, would you pay both sexes the same (i.e. equal outcomes discarding the performance in the position)? why would that create a more "just" society? To finish, another small mental exercise, but changing profession, let's go to medicine now, you have two cardiac surgeons, one of them works longer hours, is a better surgeon (a much higher rate of recoveries and a much lower rate of deaths), is willing to take over the riskiest surgeries and is constantly updating himself, while the other surgeon is not as good (more death rate), works less hours, and is a bit outdated. Now, let's assume that we live in a "just" world of equal outcomes, you need a heart surgery, and the only thing you know about those surgeons is that; i. both occupy the same position (i.e. both are cardiac surgeons), and ii. both earn the same, therefore, with that data you would choose both with the same probability, right? That's the "just" right? So from what I understand, you expect that those biological differences, which for example are clearly manifested in sports, are not manifested in the work environment, right? for example, it doesn't matter if men take more risks, work longer hours, do the riskiest jobs, are willing to relocate, are more competitive, all that doesn't matter right? the outcomes have to be the same, right? that's a "just" society, right? .. by the way, that's why there are more male surgeons than women.. so please, if you are unlucky enough to need a surgery, in the name of justice, choose the woman, that leaves me a free place with a man, I clearly prefer to have the surgery with him .. meritocracy is better for my health, not equality of outcomes ..

[@Canalus]

So who'd be eating these metaphorical cereals?

[@Canalus]

Uuhh, no more questions, your honor.

[@theaveragejoe6320]

Satan. In the end, we all die. In the long run, none of this matters.

[@Canalus]

@@theaveragejoe6320 why the fuck is it taking so long.

[@Persiphone4]

People are talking about how the reason women aren't earning as much is because they aren't aiming for the higher paying jobs. I think then that girls should be taught to set their goals high and not be afraid or feel that it isn't their place to be a leader, because we're all just as capable as men.

[@Persiphone4]

Diesel Wait... What? Please tell me you're not blaming every single mother for the criminals in this world.. And why does it have to be the mother to raise the child? PS just because you think motherhood is the most admirable position a woman can get, doesn't mean everyone agrees with you, or that you're right. I actually find that quite offensive. What would you think if I said that the most admirable thing men can do is be fathers? There's far more to life than just raising children.

[@DxBlack]

***** I get where he's coming from (to a limit). Good mothers are important in today's society, and the hard work that higher paying jobs entail leaves no time for parenting properly...you can see evidence in that by how men are treated commercially (Mothers Day: sales, sales, sales. Fathers Day:..Outback Steakhouse commercials), due to the impression that they are all about their work and not their families (which isn't even close to true), as well as the street violence issue that plagues countries with high single-mother ratios (which is basically only the United States...) Now, what I DON'T agree with is that there shouldn't be some form of reformation of how girls are treated at a young age, so they stop worrying about marriage (a-la-"take care of me for the rest of my life") and try for higher paying jobs until they decide that its time (IF they decide) to build a family...because I'm more sick of you girls complaining about how you're being mistreated/discriminated when all you want to do is sit on your ass and have some-man bust theirs to pay the rent and buy your food, because that's what your mother set for you as an example of how you should be living your life...and THAT is what's truly wrong, NOT your wage rates as they are now.

[@huveja9799]

Interesting perspective on what other uses a cereal can have, which by the way, would not be highly recommended for health if they have sugar. If I understand what you are saying correctly, women should earn the same as men for the same position, and they should also occupy the same percentage of the "top" positions, and if we achieve that equality of outcomes, we will have a more "just" world, right?, at the same time you totally discards the impact of men's disadvantages in the educational system, but it doesn't matter, because in some places equal outcomes are a must, but in other places it is not necessary, right? Let's start with a small mental exercise, you have two football players for the same position, but one trains for longer, invents new moves, takes more risks on the playground, scores more goals, and attracts more people in each match than the other player, are you going to pay both players the same (i.e. equal outcomes discarding the performance in the position)? why would that create a more "just" society? Now another little mental exercise continuing with the context of football players, now you have men's football, and women's football, why don't women compete against men and on the contrary, have a separate league? the answer is quite simple, men and women have a sufficiently different biology to produce differences between both sexes. On average, men are stronger, faster, have faster reflexes, have better spatial orientation and are more competitive than women. That is in the average, but if you go to the top of those characteristics, the differences are accentuated, a "top" woman may probably can beat an "average" man, but she will not be able to beat a "top" man. That is why separate leagues are created, the differences in performance are significant so that it is better that they do not compete directly (and if they do, the men would always win, unless of course they are not allowed to win). So, men play football better and create a better show that attracts much more people than women's football, would you pay both sexes the same (i.e. equal outcomes discarding the performance in the position)? why would that create a more "just" society? To finish, another small mental exercise, but changing profession, let's go to medicine now, you have two cardiac surgeons, one of them works longer hours, is a better surgeon (a much higher rate of recoveries and a much lower rate of deaths), is willing to take over the riskiest surgeries and is constantly updating himself, while the other surgeon is not as good (more death rate), works less hours, and is a bit outdated. Now, let's assume that we live in a "just" world of equal outcomes, you need a heart surgery, and the only thing you know about those surgeons is that; i. both occupy the same position (i.e. both are cardiac surgeons), and ii. both earn the same, therefore, with that data you would choose both with the same probability, right? That's the "just" right? So from what I understand, you expect that those biological differences, which for example are clearly manifested in sports, are not manifested in the work environment, right? for example, it doesn't matter if men take more risks, work longer hours, do the riskiest jobs, are willing to relocate, are more competitive, all that doesn't matter right? the outcomes have to be the same, right? that's a "just" society, right? .. by the way, that's why there are more male surgeons than women.. so please, if you are unlucky enough to need a surgery, in the name of justice, choose the woman, that leaves me a free place with a man, I clearly prefer to have the surgery with him .. meritocracy is better for my health, not equality of outcomes ..

[@Alpha-j2k]

He shows why the pay gap is there. The top positions are mostly held by men this may be due to sexism but the pay gap is not.

[@DxBlack]

It's far from sexist when women who have the means, mind, and freedom to attempt to reach higher positions in their careers choose not to, even when asked. Also, the wage gap is factored from across ALL occupations, including those that a "woman" (because a real woman would actually stick her neck out, in matter the risk) typically will pass over...such as oil-rig workers, most large-scale construction, military combat, etc. It's always straight to the office with those ladies, and then they complain about why the men above them keep climbing out of the crap-hole that was their previous position, instead of trying to climb out themselves.

[@joshburch37]

+Darkwiz666 a company is more likely going to try to get a lot of women working in the higher position to try to look like a progressive company that's what I would want to do if I owned a T-shirt-company than I would like to feel and look progressive it is just good business

[@liandrysanguishinshin7955]

DxBlack source, women don't want to lol?

[@Siwikiw]

Good vid, can't say I agree though. If you simply think about how the study was made on the wage gap, you'll already see problems with those statements. Clearly, it would be ideal for every industry to be 50% male and female, but that seems to be pretty far fetched for now. In addition, in modern times, I don't think we should choose a country's representatives because of their gender but for their qualifications, thus 50% male and 50% female in congress/parliament/other is just ridiculous. I don't want to be disregarded for jobs simply because the company wants 50% male and 50% female instead of qualified individuals; it would simply be outrageous, and ironically, sexist. Original video with the cereal thing. It could be thought more in depth imo next time though.

[@huveja9799]

Interesting perspective on what other uses a cereal can have, which by the way, would not be highly recommended for health if they have sugar. If I understand what you are saying correctly, women should earn the same as men for the same position, and they should also occupy the same percentage of the "top" positions, and if we achieve that equality of outcomes, we will have a more "just" world, right?, at the same time you totally discards the impact of men's disadvantages in the educational system, but it doesn't matter, because in some places equal outcomes are a must, but in other places it is not necessary, right? Let's start with a small mental exercise, you have two football players for the same position, but one trains for longer, invents new moves, takes more risks on the playground, scores more goals, and attracts more people in each match than the other player, are you going to pay both players the same (i.e. equal outcomes discarding the performance in the position)? why would that create a more "just" society? Now another little mental exercise continuing with the context of football players, now you have men's football, and women's football, why don't women compete against men and on the contrary, have a separate league? the answer is quite simple, men and women have a sufficiently different biology to produce differences between both sexes. On average, men are stronger, faster, have faster reflexes, have better spatial orientation and are more competitive than women. That is in the average, but if you go to the top of those characteristics, the differences are accentuated, a "top" woman may probably can beat an "average" man, but she will not be able to beat a "top" man. That is why separate leagues are created, the differences in performance are significant so that it is better that they do not compete directly (and if they do, the men would always win, unless of course they are not allowed to win). So, men play football better and create a better show that attracts much more people than women's football, would you pay both sexes the same (i.e. equal outcomes discarding the performance in the position)? why would that create a more "just" society? To finish, another small mental exercise, but changing profession, let's go to medicine now, you have two cardiac surgeons, one of them works longer hours, is a better surgeon (a much higher rate of recoveries and a much lower rate of deaths), is willing to take over the riskiest surgeries and is constantly updating himself, while the other surgeon is not as good (more death rate), works less hours, and is a bit outdated. Now, let's assume that we live in a "just" world of equal outcomes, you need a heart surgery, and the only thing you know about those surgeons is that; i. both occupy the same position (i.e. both are cardiac surgeons), and ii. both earn the same, therefore, with that data you would choose both with the same probability, right? That's the "just" right? So from what I understand, you expect that those biological differences, which for example are clearly manifested in sports, are not manifested in the work environment, right? for example, it doesn't matter if men take more risks, work longer hours, do the riskiest jobs, are willing to relocate, are more competitive, all that doesn't matter right? the outcomes have to be the same, right? that's a "just" society, right? .. by the way, that's why there are more male surgeons than women.. so please, if you are unlucky enough to need a surgery, in the name of justice, choose the woman, that leaves me a free place with a man, I clearly prefer to have the surgery with him .. meritocracy is better for my health, not equality of outcomes ..

[@entertainmentworld12083]

EQUALITY WILL NOT COME BY BLAMING EACH OTHER WOMAN AND MAN THIS STATMENT MADE BY ME IS FOR BOTH THE WOMAN AND MAN ,TO GET GENDER EQUALITY ,INSTEAD OF FEMALE SAYING I HATE MAN OR BLAMING MALE OR MALE SAYING WOMAN ARE USELESS OR BLAMING WOMAN FOR THERE BIOLOGICAL LOOK,I WILL SUGGEST YOU A VERY SIMPLE WAY OF BRINGING EQUALITY WITHOUT ANY VIOLANCE ,IT IS VERY SIMPLE AND POWERFUL WAY BY DOING IT WE ALL CAN ACHIEVE GENDER EQUALITY WITHIN 1 YEAR -ROLE OF FEMALE FEMINIST WHO STANDS FOR THE RIGHTS OF GIRLS AND WOMAN MUST BE-MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM WHICH WOMANS AND GIRLS FACE IN THERE DAILY LIFE TIME AND ALSO MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF THE MALE PRIVILAGES AND ALSO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF THE MALE WHICH HE FACE IN HIS DAILY LIFE AND MALES DESIRE OF PARENTING . ROLE OF MALE FEMINIST WHO STAND WHO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF THE MALE IN HIS DAILY LIFE,ALSO THE MALE FEMINST MUST ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF THE FEMALE WHICH THE FACE IN THEIR DAILY LIFE INCLUDING STEROTYPES FACED BY THEM ,GIRL ABUSE,CHILD MARRIAGE , DOMESTIC VIOLANCE AND GENDER PAY GAP THE LIST IS ENDLESS BEACUSE OF THE BAD SOCIETY AND RELEGION. FEMALES MUST LOVE MALES AND MALES MUST LOVE FEMALES ,WHEN THEY BOTH WILL SUPPORT EACH OTHER INSTEAD OF FIGHTENING WITH EACH OTHER WE WILL ACHIEVE GENDER EQUALITY IN A SUPER EASY AND PEACEFUL WAY AND WE WILL ACHIEVE IT WITHIN 1 YEAR OR 2 BUT FOR THIS TO HAPPEN YOU MUST FOLLOW WHAT I AM SAYING ,IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. IMPORTANT ROLE FOR FEAMLES- INSTEAD OF HATING EACH OTHER FEAMLES MUST LOVE EVERY FEMALE AND BE UNITED FOR GENDER EQUALITY,BEACUSE UNITY I THE REAL POWER AND STRENGTH .

[@amandaclouse8740]

Women are less likely to negotiate starting salaries. This is yet another reason why women may 'seem' like they are being discriminated against when reality is it is up to them to negotiate and start at a higher pay. Another thing is, women tend to work more minimum wage jobs. This is again not because of sexism but because of family and life choices. If a women gets pregnant before attending college, which is common, she ends up more likely to be stuck working low-waged jobs. On top of that, if she is raising kids on her own, which is the most common scenario in single parents, she is stuck more often than not working part-time. Women get custody of children more than 80% of the time. When men do get granted custody, they are FAR less likely to get child support (how is that not SEXIST?!). On the off chance he does get support, he will be awarded FAR less than a woman. Sexism isn't the definition of women being discriminated against! It goes both ways.

[@claykid]

the one on the right

[@jacobshistoryhomework9970]

Wait how did he get the milk

[@arcaneshatter3334]

special order 👀

[@MsDaideyMaingi]

This is an interesting and funny way of showing inequality. Of course just like climate change, race, poverty etc we have people who are willing to overlook gender inequality because they assume it doesn't affect them. Also, because they refuse to engage with people's experiences. Better to not let them distract the work on equity.

[@hsoper3800]

@Batman wow great comeback mate

[@joshcraftanimates5309]

Ok can I just represent this with a scale |--------------------| So back in the 1930’s there was a very well known female inequality so we use our scale to represent this inequality; |--👩------------👨--| But, over the last century this gap was slowly closed and women were given more opportunities like a balanced education, job opportunities etc. |--------👨👩------| But soon enough people would realise STEM jobs (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) were mostly men, while non STEM jobs such as teaching, nursing and other job’s were had women. It’s surprising to hear that on average, boys and men have lower average grades than women. So in jobs like teaching etc it’s harder for men to flourish in an environment with less men to look up to, although it may be the same for women in STEM jobs, boys grow up in an environment where they are increasingly surrounded by female teachers, and with no men to look up to, boys would continue to lack behind in stuff like grades and average test scores. And it’s like we are blind to our future, being to focused on stuff such as humanities future. But within a decade or so, woman will become the breadwinners of most families and dads could end up getting the short end of the stick and looked down upon. Now, I’m not saying woman and girls are going to take over the working world, I’m just addressing the fact that if we don’t stop get our crap together, it’ll be like the 1930’s again but now men get less of a choice Now, face-bookers / twitterers smite me!

[@lordollsworth]

2023: |-----👨--👩-🏳️‍🌈-|

[@tomssalvis8146]

Women already have equal pay in a way Men work more dangerous jobs and work more hours + retire at a later age

[@georgeallen8385]

why did he pour the milk first it hurt me

[@ritaoforiwaaasamoah2404]

Why noy

[@TheUndulyNoted]

You didn't quote a single piece of peer reviewed research to back up your claims, if you want people to accept these statistics there needs to be EVIDENCE otherwise for all I know you're just chatting hot air

[@ghostgaming2512]

His points are both valid and invalid at the same time lol yeah less women have those jobs but it has nothing to do with inequality they are free to choose to try for those jobs I know women who have jobs like that and they are very strong willed people much like there male counterparts in those types of jobs because women choose to have lower paying jobs they can't complain because they might as well claim that a teacher deserves as much money as a CEO which simply does not make any sense whatsoever

[@illustriouspics1]

Jesus, this is all pure bullshit. Yes, there is a wage gap, but not for the reasons propagated by people like you. The reason there are more men in politics and high paying jobs is simply that fewer women choose to embark on those particular paths. What you're suggesting is that we should alter the current rates such that the distribution becomes equal. If fewer women choose to go into engineering and computer science, doesn't that say more about the choices made by women instead of feeding a conspiracy that simply doesn't exist? Women do not get paid less, there are just fewer women in positions that offer higher salaries.

[@MrApplesucksass]

LiveMagUK Citations, sources, studies, peer reviewed journals, facts, statistics, evidence would be kindly appreciated rather than having to rely purely on your assertion that this is the case.

[@GwaziMagnum]

LiveMagUK There's the point of high risk jobs to consider. More men tend to work in high risk/danger fields than women (ex: Electrician, Construction worker etc.) and such jobs tend to pay more due to hazard pay. Why more men go into high risk fields is partly culture based, but also has to do with things such as testosterone like DaStCI87 mentioned, and in some fields like firefighting also has to do with physical requirements which by genetic nature a male is more likely to get into. Not to also mention many women go into fields such as child care, which speaking as an ECE (Early Childhood Education) student needs to be somewhat affordable for parents to prevent sending families into poverty, which results in lower paid workers in that specific field. Then there's the matter of Pregnancy, women being the only sex capable of having children will on average need to take more time off than men simply due to medical reasons involving pregnancy complications, child birth and recovery. Breaks like these give male workers more time in the field on average, making them more likely candidates for raises and promotions simply by being at work more often. We also need to address a large influence in things such as women's chosen fields, and area's of education is culture. Until culturally we learn to remove gender stigma's and just treat people as people, no amount of law changing is going to fix the problem. At least not result discrimination in the sense of hiring people for being part of a minority in the workplace rather than for their skills. Even then though, there's still matters such as hormones and how they naturally influences a sex's interests, skill sets and behaviours. So flat out 50/50 (or 52/48 if we go according to the actual sex ratio) in every field just isn't feasible without reviving the very discrimination people want to get rid of.

[@ge2719]

Gwazi Magnum exactly, 96% of workplace deaths are men... so in fitting with his breakfast analogy i think he needs to let the milk go sour and lumpy

[@andrewforpes181]

LiveMagUK That's because female-dominant sectors are things like teachers. Of course they're less well paid.

[@uxroopz]

LiveMagUK No, it's not. It's about supply and demand.

[@emmarooney6457]

Why hasn't this got more views????? Well done :) x

[@Andrewkosche]

It really comes down to the qualifications met by the individual, and education is a small factor in terms of qualification

[@sageseeker9197]

Let me put it in terms you understand: Bob is a accountant. Jane is a accountant. Bob and Jane's boss is... let's go with, white, straight, christian male who believes women are supposed to get married, have kids, and settle down, and that women shouldn't work as hard a men or that it's unnatural for a woman to have a job. Because of this personal belief that is held by the majority of society, Bob ends up getting promoted even though both Jane AND Bob put in the same amount of work and quality. Because the boss decides who gets paid more, the boss gets to control who gets promoted and how much who gets paid. Translate that into societies like Japan, where even if a woman is so much as dating, she could be let go because they believe women should be housewives and not breadwinners.

[@Andrewkosche]

SageSeeker okay cool you’ve made up a hypothetical situation that can easily be reversed with different ideologies. I get your point but until statistical proof can show this is happening on a statistically significant scale your hypothetical isn’t very useful. I’m not trying to be rude or anything but I think political decision need to be based off of stats and objective truths. And yes a lot of other cultures have some seriously fucked up ideology about equality. Many in the US do as well. I personally just believe in equality of opportunity over equity. If Jane is really worth having the same pay and position as bob it would be in that business’s, or competitors, to hire her and make money with her. That in my opinions one of the beauties of capitalism. Sorry for the lengthy response 🤪

[@Ouch990]

While yes its true women have it shitty in the work place it is my own belief that males find much more discrimination within social situations. For example, a study conducted in the UK in 2014 showed that if a male was hitting a female companion 98% of the time a stranger came to the aid of the women comparatively a stranger intervened 21% of the time when the victim was male. Secondly a small yet interesting study conducted by an Australian news channel depicts a man and women taking photos of a beach with children on, the women took photos for half an hour uninterrupted whilst the man was stopped and questioned within the first 10 minutes. Also, in the world of gaming (I know this seems strange but bare with me on this one). Jack Thompson, a man majorly opposed to video games, was ridiculed and became a laughing stock for claiming GTA made people violent, yet Anita Sarkeesian claims games such as GTA promote violence towards women and has gained substantial backing, begging the question: So its okay to slaughter males in video games but not females? Rant over...

[@djessen]

Like si tu regardes en 2024 xd😂😂😂😂😂

[@nnoted9819]

Woman

[@hyeonminha]

bigger the better ;)

[@mattscholes6314]

this is incredibly misleading

[@nicolaspitrakou8066]

My teacher put this on in class me and probably everyone else in the room thought "what the fuck is this shit" and he also acted as if this was true but the most heartbreaking thing about this was that I was sure he wasn't a feminist

[@mariamy4858]

His is actually really interesting! Yeah I've thinking about stuff like gender roles and expectations f how different sexes are expected to act perhaps there is still a lot of disrespect for woman is higher class jobs and mabey some of it is due to less woman going out to try and get those jobs? Not sure really

[@diesel4384]

LiveMagUK Such as.....?

[@lucasmurray7651]

i don't agree with it but i can understand them sacking pregnant women because why pay people for having time off when you can pay for full time workers

[@carolineyates7658]

This is brilliant! Going to show this today as part of International Women's Day.

[@MORGEEZA]

not very positive to show tho

[@huveja9799]

Interesting perspective on what other uses a cereal can have, which by the way, would not be highly recommended for health if they have sugar. If I understand what you are saying correctly, women should earn the same as men for the same position, and they should also occupy the same percentage of the "top" positions, and if we achieve that equality of outcomes, we will have a more "just" world, right?, at the same time you totally discards the impact of men's disadvantages in the educational system, but it doesn't matter, because in some places equal outcomes are a must, but in other places it is not necessary, right? Let's start with a small mental exercise, you have two football players for the same position, but one trains for longer, invents new moves, takes more risks on the playground, scores more goals, and attracts more people in each match than the other player, are you going to pay both players the same (i.e. equal outcomes discarding the performance in the position)? why would that create a more "just" society? Now another little mental exercise continuing with the context of football players, now you have men's football, and women's football, why don't women compete against men and on the contrary, have a separate league? the answer is quite simple, men and women have a sufficiently different biology to produce differences between both sexes. On average, men are stronger, faster, have faster reflexes, have better spatial orientation and are more competitive than women. That is in the average, but if you go to the top of those characteristics, the differences are accentuated, a "top" woman may probably can beat an "average" man, but she will not be able to beat a "top" man. That is why separate leagues are created, the differences in performance are significant so that it is better that they do not compete directly (and if they do, the men would always win, unless of course they are not allowed to win). So, men play football better and create a better show that attracts much more people than women's football, would you pay both sexes the same (i.e. equal outcomes discarding the performance in the position)? why would that create a more "just" society? To finish, another small mental exercise, but changing profession, let's go to medicine now, you have two cardiac surgeons, one of them works longer hours, is a better surgeon (a much higher rate of recoveries and a much lower rate of deaths), is willing to take over the riskiest surgeries and is constantly updating himself, while the other surgeon is not as good (more death rate), works less hours, and is a bit outdated. Now, let's assume that we live in a "just" world of equal outcomes, you need a heart surgery, and the only thing you know about those surgeons is that; i. both occupy the same position (i.e. both are cardiac surgeons), and ii. both earn the same, therefore, with that data you would choose both with the same probability, right? That's the "just" right? So from what I understand, you expect that those biological differences, which for example are clearly manifested in sports, are not manifested in the work environment, right? for example, it doesn't matter if men take more risks, work longer hours, do the riskiest jobs, are willing to relocate, are more competitive, all that doesn't matter right? the outcomes have to be the same, right? that's a "just" society, right? .. by the way, that's why there are more male surgeons than women.. so please, if you are unlucky enough to need a surgery, in the name of justice, choose the woman, that leaves me a free place with a man, I clearly prefer to have the surgery with him .. meritocracy is better for my health, not equality of outcomes ..

[@ldhd0090]

You seem to directly associate outcome of successes and occupation representation with equality of opportunity. EVERY SINGLE SHRED of evidence you presented has contributed nothing to the question of whether the UK is sexist or not. Your logic seems to mimic the following examples, "oh hey, on average, men earn more money than women; sexism there", "oh hey, more man in these particular occupations; a bit more sexism there". You do not consider any factors whatsoever and jump straight to sexism. Women earn better grades than men in education, do you really think that's due to sexism against men? How about 90% of prisoners being male, do you think the judicial system is sexist against men? Of course not, that's an absurd thing to suggest. Men just don't work as hard in school, men just commit more crimes, statistically. So why is it that when the exact same argument is used to suggest that the (supposed) sexism is acted against women, all of a sudden that absurdity is taken seriously on no grounds whatsoever? In my eyes, the same argument used to defend a different sex is nothing if not sexist (discrimination due to circumstance of birth genitalia). You try to be humorous (and in my opinion pretty pathetically) around a topic which you're portraying to be very serious. I'm not saying I know what the factors are that cause men to have all of those successes of outcome over women, but to instantly assume that it just "must be sexist" is quite frankly stupid and irrational at the very least. And for the record, there is more and more reliable evidence that sexism is not the driving factor of the success disparity in the workplace, but that's another issue. The main issue is your hypocrisy, illogicality and simplistic idiocy.

[@vmssmith1764]

Smelly

[@benyboy539]

It's funny because he thinks he's important.

[@guyfitzwilliams437]

men cant get pregnant

[@hsoper3800]

Trans men can.