| Serena's arse 16:15 - May 29 with 24791 views | sainthelens |
Have a look guys...she's on court now. Wonderful it is. |  | | |  |
| Serena's arse on 00:35 - Jun 6 with 2116 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Serena's arse on 23:59 - Jun 5 by E20Jack |
Yep, happy to recap.
I wasn’t saying any “crap”, I was telling you an actual account of a story that happened a mere few weeks back. Similar to your story about the table tennis game and your dislike of bullies, surely a story doesn’t count as “crap” just because it came from someone else? Does it? But yes, I gave that story as an example why I find it so frustrating that people strive for equality by being non inclusive.
It is important that you paraphrase what I actually say too or at least give it context, which is “new age feminism” - not feminism, they are wildly different. I am making these stats up because I can’t remember them but can look if you really want to - they won’t be too far off the mark. I believe a recent research study found that something like 95% of women believed in equality of the sexes while only 25% of women identified as being a feminist or for feminism. That’s because in this new age, equality and feminism don’t mean the same thing, women are distancing themselves from it in their droves as this movement grows, which is also encouraging.
Yes I also think it’s absolutely clear that sexism, racism, homophobia and all forms of historical bigotry in fact, is on a sharp decline, it would be ridiculous to suggest it isn’t. Look around you. You point to 1 member of my 8 strong board being a woman, 20 years ago that would likely be zero, and now it represents a much larger % than the female customer base in the organisation and in fact the female work force within the organisation (the actual organisation).
You pointed out that numbers in my organisation were split, as a reason to accuse the company of bigotry/discrimination due to “only” 1 of 8 board members being female. I accurately pointed out that your figures lacked context and understanding of the organisation at hand. The core of the business (where any promotions to the level you are talking about) is male dominated or outsourced. Hence the higher up the chain you go the more male dominated it will be, that’s maths more than bigotry.
Very similar to saying the fashion industry is dominated by women who form a large part of the high pay structure and then pulling up stats showing it isn’t because of 10,000 male workers behind the till at topman. The fact is that it is the female designers and models, integral to the core of the industry that get those jobs, not the majority of workers in the industry that are minimum wage shop workers, then attempting to say the industry is discriminative off the back of those figures without context. (I have no idea about the fashion industry by the way, it was a like for like example of what you are putting to me).
Yes I also pointed out that our customer base is massively male dominated. You attempted to equate that to a grocery store. I correctly told you that they are nothing alike. Our customer base is interest driven, grocery stores are driven by every day necessity. Humans need water everyday but we don’t all seek a career in it, yet motorbike companies will generally have people involved in the organisation that love motorbikes and have been a customer of any type of motorbike company prior to seeking a career path in the sector. That is interest driven recruitment, that is key in our industry.
I personally know the CEO and many board members of both the previous company and now the merged company, almost all have extensive gaming and trading CV’s. Some on the board may not, but they would bring other skills to the table, of which the female on that board would be able to tell you I would assume, unless she was one of the few women in the trading sector making successful multi million pound trades?
It’s only as patronising as you saying I am making up what I am saying when I am clearly not. The thing is Lisa, you actually don’t understand the industry, but it’s not patronising at all, why would you? You aren’t involved in it. It is not a discredit to not understand an industry you are not in, I don’t understand the drinks industry as you would, I wouldn’t take offence to you telling me that if I clearly did not understand the structures of said company as you did.
You are a very intelligent women, so I am not putting it down to stupidity, hence why I think your comparisons to Tesco, your dismissing of my off the cuff story while allowing your quite similar one to stand, your presenting of facts without context / or listening to my perfectly rational explanation (from a person you know to be heavily involved in that industry globally).. comes across as disingenuous. An attempt to verbally spar with someone on the internet as opposed to having an actual debate.
I still am none the wiser about what you disagree with by the way. Would you attend a lunch where it was under the proviso that men go first? I certainly wouldn’t and hope you would feel similarly disappointed in the lack of understanding of the day we were supposed to be celebrating. My morals transcend gender, although I have a sneaking suspicion yours may not? [Post edited 6 Jun 2018 0:15]
|
Use the clothing industry if you prefer. It doesn’t much matter. The representation of board equating to customer is an absolute nonsense. In your industry as much as all others.
As for the drinks Industry bit.
I happened to own (part own) a drinks company - now sold. One of several companies I’ve owned over the years as a hobby.
My actual day jobs as executive and non executive director are across a wide range of sectors, the reason I know one of the board directors is because i worked with her. For a FTSE 100 company that owned casinos, bingo, etc etc. The sort of stuff I know ‘nothing’ about.
And 1 board member out of 8 doesn’t represent a higher percentage than the 51% that work for your organisation, however much you say men do the actual work. And it’s the Plc board I was referring to. I made that clear in my first reply to you,
Anyway - I’m not remotely interested in entering a never ending conversation with you.
Have a good night. |  | | |
| Serena's arse on 01:12 - Jun 6 with 2097 views | E20Jack |
| Serena's arse on 00:35 - Jun 6 by londonlisa2001 |
Use the clothing industry if you prefer. It doesn’t much matter. The representation of board equating to customer is an absolute nonsense. In your industry as much as all others.
As for the drinks Industry bit.
I happened to own (part own) a drinks company - now sold. One of several companies I’ve owned over the years as a hobby.
My actual day jobs as executive and non executive director are across a wide range of sectors, the reason I know one of the board directors is because i worked with her. For a FTSE 100 company that owned casinos, bingo, etc etc. The sort of stuff I know ‘nothing’ about.
And 1 board member out of 8 doesn’t represent a higher percentage than the 51% that work for your organisation, however much you say men do the actual work. And it’s the Plc board I was referring to. I made that clear in my first reply to you,
Anyway - I’m not remotely interested in entering a never ending conversation with you.
Have a good night. |
It isn’t nonsense though, you just don’t understand the industry so are brushing it off as that. The fashion example was just to show how skewed your statistics were, statistics you then seemed to base your point of view on. You equated mixed sex jobs like minimum wage shop workers (of whic we have 4000 shops), office staff and admin to the core of the business which is male dominated, and those that make successful million pound trades and then comparing salaries and bonuses. It didn’t make sense then and it still doesn’t now. Representation on the board will generally have people with extensive knowledge in this sector with a high industry driven portfolio, which as mere happenstance of the industry will more often than not be men.
So you were involved in a drinks company as I said then? And would also know more about the industry than I would too. I wouldn’t dream of trying to assume I knew that industry better than you and certainly would not take it as patronising or offensive if you told me that upon making mistakes regarding the structures or showing lack of understanding, you seem to take a lack of understanding as a weakness though, which is why you get defensive. It isn’t a weakness, you just are not involved in my industry so won’t undertand it as well as myself, being on a board that owns bingo halls and casinos really doesn’t change that, it is the peripheries of what my industry is all about and wildly different to the organisation we are discussing (also FTSE 100 btw).
We have already been through the 51%. The core of the company is 99% male. They make up about 4% of the business, the other 96% is mixed jobs and female dominated jobs. Payroll, shop staff, HR, admin, call center etc etc. People from these backgrounds are not going to make it onto the Plc board, you seem to be suggesting they should have just as much chance as industry experts involved in core operations making multi million pound trades? Like I said, you don’t understand the business, you just don’t. If you did, you would not be talking about the 51% composition of people that come under the companies payroll as to make your point, because it doesn’t equate it.
It’s only never ending if one party continues to peddle inaccuracies while the other spends his time correcting them or providing context that if not applied makes those stats heavily misleading to the point of astonishment.
And yet after all this, I am still none the wiser what it is you actually disagree with. [Post edited 6 Jun 2018 1:58]
|  |
| |
| Serena's arse on 04:58 - Jun 6 with 2066 views | E20Jack |
| Serena's arse on 19:26 - Jun 5 by moonie |
Equal prize money in tennis.? |
In general, yes. Both should be paid the same. I actually prefer watching the women’s game as there are so many differing contrasting styles.
In Grand Slams, absolutely not. I think it is ridiculous they get paid the same as the men - and I am someone who is and always will be about total equality. | |
| |
| Serena's arse on 08:32 - Jun 6 with 2005 views | pikeypaul |
I agree the females are good to look at but for level of performance and ability they are way behind the men which can be said for so many things in life.
The little London girl and her arse licking pet dog from Cimla are on ignore but looking at E20s posts it’s nice to see he has put her back in her box. |  |
| |
| Serena's arse on 08:58 - Jun 6 with 1999 views | moonie |
So a consensus could view the fact men and women get equal is madness .
Wonens game often last half as long and at women are often tedious and predictable .
The real draws are men | | | |
| Serena's arse on 11:42 - Jun 6 with 1955 views | Highjack |
| Serena's arse on 04:58 - Jun 6 by E20Jack |
In general, yes. Both should be paid the same. I actually prefer watching the women’s game as there are so many differing contrasting styles.
In Grand Slams, absolutely not. I think it is ridiculous they get paid the same as the men - and I am someone who is and always will be about total equality. |
The huge majority of tennis players both male and female rely almost entirely on sponsorship to make money, prize money doesn’t really make much of an impact until you get to the big tournaments which is always populated with the absolute elite players who are all very wealthy anyway from said sponsorship.
Should the doubles winners and mixed doubles winners get the same prize money as the men’s and ladies singles winners? What about the wheelchair winners? Everything should always be equal right? |  |
| |
| Serena's arse on 12:15 - Jun 6 with 1928 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Serena's arse on 01:12 - Jun 6 by E20Jack |
It isn’t nonsense though, you just don’t understand the industry so are brushing it off as that. The fashion example was just to show how skewed your statistics were, statistics you then seemed to base your point of view on. You equated mixed sex jobs like minimum wage shop workers (of whic we have 4000 shops), office staff and admin to the core of the business which is male dominated, and those that make successful million pound trades and then comparing salaries and bonuses. It didn’t make sense then and it still doesn’t now. Representation on the board will generally have people with extensive knowledge in this sector with a high industry driven portfolio, which as mere happenstance of the industry will more often than not be men.
So you were involved in a drinks company as I said then? And would also know more about the industry than I would too. I wouldn’t dream of trying to assume I knew that industry better than you and certainly would not take it as patronising or offensive if you told me that upon making mistakes regarding the structures or showing lack of understanding, you seem to take a lack of understanding as a weakness though, which is why you get defensive. It isn’t a weakness, you just are not involved in my industry so won’t undertand it as well as myself, being on a board that owns bingo halls and casinos really doesn’t change that, it is the peripheries of what my industry is all about and wildly different to the organisation we are discussing (also FTSE 100 btw).
We have already been through the 51%. The core of the company is 99% male. They make up about 4% of the business, the other 96% is mixed jobs and female dominated jobs. Payroll, shop staff, HR, admin, call center etc etc. People from these backgrounds are not going to make it onto the Plc board, you seem to be suggesting they should have just as much chance as industry experts involved in core operations making multi million pound trades? Like I said, you don’t understand the business, you just don’t. If you did, you would not be talking about the 51% composition of people that come under the companies payroll as to make your point, because it doesn’t equate it.
It’s only never ending if one party continues to peddle inaccuracies while the other spends his time correcting them or providing context that if not applied makes those stats heavily misleading to the point of astonishment.
And yet after all this, I am still none the wiser what it is you actually disagree with. [Post edited 6 Jun 2018 1:58]
|
You’re none the wiser because instead on actually reading and understanding what I’ve said you are arguing against a straw man argument you’ve set up in your head. And then claiming you’re right.
I’ll give you a specific example if you prefer.
Your COO, has a background of retail (supermarkets) retail (pharmacies) and retail banking.
So the ‘fact’ that the traders in your organisation are male, is irrelevant. He doesn’t come from a trading background. Saying that it’s bound to be a man because that’s who works in the business is nonsensical. The PLc board are a mix of private equity people, lawyers, some industry specialists, bankers, property people and people who’ve previously run luxury furnishings and accessories companies.
With a couple of exceptions, they aren’t there because the trading floor is male dominated, they haven’t come from that environment. So whether the trading floor is dominated by men or otherwise, it’s irrelevant. You repeating it over and over doesn’t change it’s irrelevance.
It’s exactly the same as me saying the reason for all Swans players being short is because people from Swansea are short. They don’t come from Swansea so that’s not a valid reason for that anomaly. It’s also made up for clarity to explain a point.
Do you understand now? I do hope so, because I can’t describe it any more simply if not. If you still don’t understand, I can’t help. | | | |
| Serena's arse on 12:55 - Jun 6 with 1892 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Serena's arse on 04:58 - Jun 6 by E20Jack |
In general, yes. Both should be paid the same. I actually prefer watching the women’s game as there are so many differing contrasting styles.
In Grand Slams, absolutely not. I think it is ridiculous they get paid the same as the men - and I am someone who is and always will be about total equality. |
Good news for the Swans though presumably?
I was worried about our drop in income this year, but given we used to play 38 games a season and now have 46 games, our income is actually going up!
Fantastic. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Serena's arse on 13:00 - Jun 6 with 1893 views | Swanjaxs |
Eight pages about a lady's bottom! 😎 |  |
| |
| Serena's arse on 15:37 - Jun 6 with 1830 views | Ambergambler |
| Serena's arse on 14:44 - Jun 5 by pikeypaul |
Daria Kasatkina v Sloane Stephens coming up in 30 minutes worth watching just for the marvellous legs on the Russian,enjoy it boys I know I will. |
You come across as a right pervy old git. | | | |
| Serena's arse on 15:45 - Jun 6 with 1821 views | pikeypaul |
| Serena's arse on 15:37 - Jun 6 by Ambergambler |
You come across as a right pervy old git. |
Ha ha ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜
Don’t call me old I am younger than most on this site although enjoying a very early retirement.
I must admit I like a good pair of legs on a woman.
If that is Pervy guilty as charged. [Post edited 6 Jun 2018 15:50]
| |
| |
| Serena's arse on 18:23 - Jun 6 with 1759 views | Ambergambler |
| Serena's arse on 15:45 - Jun 6 by pikeypaul |
Ha ha ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜
Don’t call me old I am younger than most on this site although enjoying a very early retirement.
I must admit I like a good pair of legs on a woman.
If that is Pervy guilty as charged. [Post edited 6 Jun 2018 15:50]
|
Ok - you come across as a right pervy git - better? | | | |
| Serena's arse on 19:10 - Jun 6 with 1717 views | pikeypaul |
I think you will find there are things more Pervy than watching tennis on ITV4.
But if that's your opinion then fine. | |
| |
| Serena's arse on 02:26 - Jun 7 with 1630 views | E20Jack |
| Serena's arse on 12:55 - Jun 6 by londonlisa2001 |
Good news for the Swans though presumably?
I was worried about our drop in income this year, but given we used to play 38 games a season and now have 46 games, our income is actually going up!
Fantastic. |
Why would this have any impact for the Swans?
You are being disingenuous again Lisa. Swansea now play in a lesser tier than last year. If the Premier league announced that 10 of the 20 teams had a compulsory obligation that when they play each other matches become 180 mins instead of 90 mins, no doubt clubs would want that extra exposure and workload covered and compensated in terms of payment, and rightly so. Are you seriously saying you disagree?
Do you think women and men should be paid the same in the Grand Slams then? The more we talk the more I am convinced your answer would change depending on which gender was the subject, which is such a shame considering how good a poster you can be.
It was evident when you claimed I missed the irony that a presenter on a show was male (as if that is a bad thing or even matters) yet failed to register or note the irony that the presenter of Big Brother is female (the other example in the same post). That is new age feminism, not a desire for equality. [Post edited 7 Jun 2018 9:47]
| |
| |
| Serena's arse on 02:30 - Jun 7 with 1626 views | E20Jack |
| Serena's arse on 11:42 - Jun 6 by Highjack |
The huge majority of tennis players both male and female rely almost entirely on sponsorship to make money, prize money doesn’t really make much of an impact until you get to the big tournaments which is always populated with the absolute elite players who are all very wealthy anyway from said sponsorship.
Should the doubles winners and mixed doubles winners get the same prize money as the men’s and ladies singles winners? What about the wheelchair winners? Everything should always be equal right? |
I think the female doubles players should get paid as the men’s doubles, I think the female wheelchair players should be getting the same as the men’s wheelchair players. What each category is awarded in terms of prize money is up to the tournament. But in the same category, singles, doubles, mixed, wheelchair - however you would like to break it down, then all genders should be paid the same PROVIDING they do the same amount of work, which is to get to 2 or 3 sets before the opponent. | |
| |
| Serena's arse on 02:49 - Jun 7 with 1621 views | E20Jack |
| Serena's arse on 12:15 - Jun 6 by londonlisa2001 |
You’re none the wiser because instead on actually reading and understanding what I’ve said you are arguing against a straw man argument you’ve set up in your head. And then claiming you’re right.
I’ll give you a specific example if you prefer.
Your COO, has a background of retail (supermarkets) retail (pharmacies) and retail banking.
So the ‘fact’ that the traders in your organisation are male, is irrelevant. He doesn’t come from a trading background. Saying that it’s bound to be a man because that’s who works in the business is nonsensical. The PLc board are a mix of private equity people, lawyers, some industry specialists, bankers, property people and people who’ve previously run luxury furnishings and accessories companies.
With a couple of exceptions, they aren’t there because the trading floor is male dominated, they haven’t come from that environment. So whether the trading floor is dominated by men or otherwise, it’s irrelevant. You repeating it over and over doesn’t change it’s irrelevance.
It’s exactly the same as me saying the reason for all Swans players being short is because people from Swansea are short. They don’t come from Swansea so that’s not a valid reason for that anomaly. It’s also made up for clarity to explain a point.
Do you understand now? I do hope so, because I can’t describe it any more simply if not. If you still don’t understand, I can’t help. |
No I am none the wiser because you entered a debate like a bull in a china shop because you thought someone not pandering to women was offensive. When it is carefully explained as to why, you created a load of nonsensical stats which had no relevance to the debate, your point, or interests of accuracy simply because you did not understand the data you were spouting.
I have simply responded to you, how can I be creating a strawman argument? My points are simple, you do not create equality by promoting inequality, my company is not discriminatory, my industry is male dominated (actual industry, not people on the till in the shops). Which of those factual points is strawman then? The rest of this has been simply correcting your poor grasp of the industry you are denouncing and explaining why the gender pay gap widely screamed by new age feminists, is actually in the main, a job pay gap - which is expected.
You started going on about gender split in my organisation and the gender pay difference. This has everything to do with customer base as it is interest driven recruitment. In other words you have to be an expert in that field prior to getting a job with us, you can only be an expert in that field if you are interested in that field and our customer base (which shows is a great marker of public interest) is 99% male. Your stats are rubbish and simply don’t understand the structure of the organisation. You also went on to tell me that I made it up that out of 20,000+ employees that key operations were only run by a small %. You obviously did not know or consider that we had 4000 retail shops and you are essentially comparing bonuses of retail staff to central operations and kicking up a fuss because they differ. Amusingly you then suggested employing a women to correct such awful business structure? (Which as an aside, is ironically the most discriminatory thing in this whole exchange).
As for the Plc board - I have painfully tried to explain to you that there are large differences between men and women, given free choice and complete equality of opportunity - you will not find an equal split of genders in jobs. You just won’t. Look at Sweden.
Women that do wish to venture into what is usually regarded as male dominated areas (not due to discrimination but due to natural choice and thus weight of number) can do so, yourself and aforementioned ex work colleague are proof of this. The same can be said for men who wish to go into midwifery or psychology for example. But to expect those numbers to be equal is utterly ludicrous and shows a complete lack of understanding of human nature, and it will be something you will forever have to moan about even if there was a utopian world where discrimination wasn’t even a word. Because numbers won’t get split evenly in many sectors, many won’t even get close. That works both ways.
There will still be more women in psychology, teaching and nursing, there will still be more men in senior business executive roles. That’s physiological make up, that isn’t inequality. [Post edited 7 Jun 2018 4:23]
| |
| |
| Serena's arse on 03:08 - Jun 7 with 1615 views | E20Jack |
| Serena's arse on 08:58 - Jun 6 by moonie |
So a consensus could view the fact men and women get equal is madness .
Wonens game often last half as long and at women are often tedious and predictable .
The real draws are men |
Not really.
Do the same amount of work, at the same job in the same sector - get paid the same.
The majority of the time both sexes are best out of 3 sets so equal pay is certainly deserved. In the grand slams the men are expected to entend that and go best of 5 while the women stay best of 3. Sometimes as a result matches don’t even last 45 mins, while men’s matches could easily run 4 hours+.
But as someone who goes to tournaments all over the world, I don’t see much of a difference in interest between the men’s and women’s game. In fact, give it 2 years and interest in the women’s game will probably be higher than the men’s as there is very little backing up the big 4 who are on their way out.
The women’s game is booming and the depth is exceptional. [Post edited 7 Jun 2018 12:53]
| |
| |
| Serena's arse on 13:06 - Jun 7 with 1524 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Serena's arse on 02:49 - Jun 7 by E20Jack |
No I am none the wiser because you entered a debate like a bull in a china shop because you thought someone not pandering to women was offensive. When it is carefully explained as to why, you created a load of nonsensical stats which had no relevance to the debate, your point, or interests of accuracy simply because you did not understand the data you were spouting.
I have simply responded to you, how can I be creating a strawman argument? My points are simple, you do not create equality by promoting inequality, my company is not discriminatory, my industry is male dominated (actual industry, not people on the till in the shops). Which of those factual points is strawman then? The rest of this has been simply correcting your poor grasp of the industry you are denouncing and explaining why the gender pay gap widely screamed by new age feminists, is actually in the main, a job pay gap - which is expected.
You started going on about gender split in my organisation and the gender pay difference. This has everything to do with customer base as it is interest driven recruitment. In other words you have to be an expert in that field prior to getting a job with us, you can only be an expert in that field if you are interested in that field and our customer base (which shows is a great marker of public interest) is 99% male. Your stats are rubbish and simply don’t understand the structure of the organisation. You also went on to tell me that I made it up that out of 20,000+ employees that key operations were only run by a small %. You obviously did not know or consider that we had 4000 retail shops and you are essentially comparing bonuses of retail staff to central operations and kicking up a fuss because they differ. Amusingly you then suggested employing a women to correct such awful business structure? (Which as an aside, is ironically the most discriminatory thing in this whole exchange).
As for the Plc board - I have painfully tried to explain to you that there are large differences between men and women, given free choice and complete equality of opportunity - you will not find an equal split of genders in jobs. You just won’t. Look at Sweden.
Women that do wish to venture into what is usually regarded as male dominated areas (not due to discrimination but due to natural choice and thus weight of number) can do so, yourself and aforementioned ex work colleague are proof of this. The same can be said for men who wish to go into midwifery or psychology for example. But to expect those numbers to be equal is utterly ludicrous and shows a complete lack of understanding of human nature, and it will be something you will forever have to moan about even if there was a utopian world where discrimination wasn’t even a word. Because numbers won’t get split evenly in many sectors, many won’t even get close. That works both ways.
There will still be more women in psychology, teaching and nursing, there will still be more men in senior business executive roles. That’s physiological make up, that isn’t inequality. [Post edited 7 Jun 2018 4:23]
|
What on earth are you waffling on about now?
The ‘nonsensical stats’ as you call them aren’t mine, they are from a published report by your organisation.
‘You have to be an expert in the field to get a job with us’. No you don’t. I’ve pointed out the backgrounds of the PLC board and also used your COO’s retail background as an example.
‘Our customer base is 99% male’. No it’s not. And that’s irrelevant anyway. As I pointed out, businesses with largely female customer bases are also seen to have largely men at Plc board level.
‘You’re essentially comparing bonuses of retail staff to central operations and kicking up a fuss because they’re different’. No I’m not, the data is split into quartiles and gap analysis is prepared using both mean and median. I’m comparing like with like.
‘You obviously did not know we had 4000 shops’. Yep, I did.
‘You went on to say that I made it up that out of 20,000 staff key operations were only run by a small percentage’. Nope - you said that the large number of women were ‘HR, marketing and admin’ when I pointed out 51% of the workforce was female in your male dominated industry.
‘There are large differences between men and women given free choice and complete equality of opportunity you will not find an equal split of genders in jobs’. The large differences do not cover those qualities necessary for a seat on a PLC board, but there is nowhere near complete equality of opportunity. Your own company acknowledges this by laying out a plan for how they are going to attempt to creat a more equal environment. I have never encountered anything at all at a PLc board level which a woman can’t do due to gender differences. Strangely, the role doesn’t tend to encompass lifting heavy weights or running more quickly.
‘There will be more men in senior business executive roles due to physiological makeup not inequality’. And there you show your true colours. Which have been obvious throughout.
Carry on on your own from now on. I see little point in discussing further. | | | |
| Serena's arse on 13:37 - Jun 7 with 1493 views | E20Jack |
| Serena's arse on 13:06 - Jun 7 by londonlisa2001 |
What on earth are you waffling on about now?
The ‘nonsensical stats’ as you call them aren’t mine, they are from a published report by your organisation.
‘You have to be an expert in the field to get a job with us’. No you don’t. I’ve pointed out the backgrounds of the PLC board and also used your COO’s retail background as an example.
‘Our customer base is 99% male’. No it’s not. And that’s irrelevant anyway. As I pointed out, businesses with largely female customer bases are also seen to have largely men at Plc board level.
‘You’re essentially comparing bonuses of retail staff to central operations and kicking up a fuss because they’re different’. No I’m not, the data is split into quartiles and gap analysis is prepared using both mean and median. I’m comparing like with like.
‘You obviously did not know we had 4000 shops’. Yep, I did.
‘You went on to say that I made it up that out of 20,000 staff key operations were only run by a small percentage’. Nope - you said that the large number of women were ‘HR, marketing and admin’ when I pointed out 51% of the workforce was female in your male dominated industry.
‘There are large differences between men and women given free choice and complete equality of opportunity you will not find an equal split of genders in jobs’. The large differences do not cover those qualities necessary for a seat on a PLC board, but there is nowhere near complete equality of opportunity. Your own company acknowledges this by laying out a plan for how they are going to attempt to creat a more equal environment. I have never encountered anything at all at a PLc board level which a woman can’t do due to gender differences. Strangely, the role doesn’t tend to encompass lifting heavy weights or running more quickly.
‘There will be more men in senior business executive roles due to physiological makeup not inequality’. And there you show your true colours. Which have been obvious throughout.
Carry on on your own from now on. I see little point in discussing further. |
I am sorry if you see straight answers as “waffling”, again I can only put that down to you really not understanding the topic you are attempting to discuss, but will happily try and clarify your clear confusion as I address your effort bit by bit.
The nonsensical stats are perfectly fine. They are nonsensical if you are using them to suggest there is a gender pay gap or indeed a gender inequality of opportunity. That was explained to you very carefully. A bit like me showing how good Man City are at attacking by showing how many clean sheets they keep - it would be nonsensical, the stats would be acccurate but totally pointless and irrelevant.
Yes you do have to be an expert in the field to get a job with us. Your bone of contention seems to be the Plc board, I am not a member of that board and don’t know the selection process, but they count for 8 of our workforce, over 10% which are women. What I do know is that central operations, or the actual business we are talking about, you HAVE to be an expert in this field. How do I know? Because I set the criteria.
Yes our customer base is 99% male. Female accounts make up 22% of our database, over 20% of those are from the same households as previously restricted male account holders. But again, you wouldn’t know that as you don’t understand the business or the industry.
You are not comparing like for like at all for the reasons explained. Males make up 99% of our industry, they will attract the larger salaries and thus bonuses, you are then including them in statistical data against female dominated and mixed areas of the business, which are paid very modestly due to the menial nature of the work. It is another example of you looking at stats, not understanding them and coming to a conclusion so far removed from reality it is bordering on the ludicrous.
If you knew we had 4000 shops (you clearly didn’t) then you wouldn’t have accused me of making up the fact that it is only a small % of that overall number that contribute to central operations. You also wouldn’t have laughably criticised the structure that you clearly didn’t understand and even more ironically put men down and suggest they employ a woman to improve what you mistakenly thought was a poor structure. These 4000 shops is also why your stats are nonsense in terms f making the point you are trying and failing to make.
Yep our industry is 99% dominated my males. The actual industry. The rest is till staff, HR, admin etc which many are female dominated and mixed as painfully explained to you many times now. If you think someone behind the till at Topman constitutes the actual fashion industry then be my guest. But you are again being disingenuous for reasons only you know. I assume it is that I dare to suggest women are treated equally as opposed to given preferential treatment?
It has nothing to do with what a woman CANT do at plc board level, you are showing you have no idea what this discussion is about. Are you saying there are obstacles in psychology that men cannot do? Teaching? Nursing? Or as usual with you, does this only work one way?
It is about desire not ability. Listen to what you are being told in this discussion and actually take it on for a second.
I have showed my true colours by factually saying there is more women in professions that lend themselves to their natural strengths? And the same goes with men? You are simply offended that anyone dare actually want equality, you do not want equality, you want preferential treatment. You are the only one in this conversation who has shown any form of sexism or bigotry.
You constantly “see little point in debating” anything when you have absolutely no basis to your view, it is a pattern seen time and time again on here with you. When you have a point you are an excellent poster. You are probably a very nice level headed woman in real life, but when you feel you are beaten you turn into a very ugly online character that is condescending, abusive, intentially obtuce and extremely disingenuous. You often complain at behaviour of others that you are showing not only initially but magnified ten fold, it is extreme hypocrisy.
My true colours have been the person standing up for both sexes in absolutely everything here. Yours is distorting the truth to back one sex, while putting down the other and pushing for a tyrannical equality of outcome while ignoring all scientific and common sense evidence which points to the fact that the sexes are not the same, don’t make the same choices and have different interests and qualities.
You are just going to have to get used to it. [Post edited 7 Jun 2018 13:55]
| |
| |
| Serena's arse on 13:55 - Jun 7 with 1470 views | moonie |
Why is it that the men's final at Wimbledon is on the last day ,main feature.
The women's final is merely a precursor to the main event which is the Men's Final . It's why it came with higher prize money.
Depends what people want. A smash in the guts 60 minute 6-2 6-1 or a three hour plus battle .
I've lost count of the putrid women's finals over the years . | | | |
| Serena's arse on 14:00 - Jun 7 with 1465 views | E20Jack |
| Serena's arse on 13:55 - Jun 7 by moonie |
Why is it that the men's final at Wimbledon is on the last day ,main feature.
The women's final is merely a precursor to the main event which is the Men's Final . It's why it came with higher prize money.
Depends what people want. A smash in the guts 60 minute 6-2 6-1 or a three hour plus battle .
I've lost count of the putrid women's finals over the years . |
The women’s Australian Open in January was a fantastic final. Two absolute warriors. Halep coming into it with a severely injured ankle and Wozniacki harbouring old mental scars from past near misses in a tournament she battled back from 5-1 and 30-0 down in the final set against Jana Fett, a feat rarely seen. I found it far more interesting than the men’s which although went 5 sets, had a very inevitable feel about it. [Post edited 7 Jun 2018 14:02]
| |
| |
| Serena's arse on 14:09 - Jun 7 with 1452 views | moonie |
My problem is I've watched too many ladies Wimbledon finals over the years.
I was brought up on Rosewall, Hoad, Emerson ,Newcombe, Roche ,Santana, then on to McEnroe,Gerulitus,Leconte,all artists with a raquet that outweighed anything women's tennis could serve up,apart from King,Martina ,Evert, Graf .
Still, it's al about opinions and soon we ll all become tennis experts | | | |
| Serena's arse on 14:18 - Jun 7 with 1435 views | E20Jack |
| Serena's arse on 14:09 - Jun 7 by moonie |
My problem is I've watched too many ladies Wimbledon finals over the years.
I was brought up on Rosewall, Hoad, Emerson ,Newcombe, Roche ,Santana, then on to McEnroe,Gerulitus,Leconte,all artists with a raquet that outweighed anything women's tennis could serve up,apart from King,Martina ,Evert, Graf .
Still, it's al about opinions and soon we ll all become tennis experts |
Women’s tennis is exceptional, it depends what facet of the game you appreciate really. I strongly suggest you watch Muguruza v Halep starting now. Brute strength and precision v finesse and movement.
Men’s tennis is becoming predictable and one dimensional as equipment is becoming more advanced and the physical side of the game evolves. Male tennis players are now dominated with height and strength with a focus on serve and ground stroke power. Points can end very quickly. Which is why the clay season is so good.
Wimbledon men’s tennis is probably now the most dour of competitions and thankfully the grass court season is a short one. With the fast surface combined with the way men’s tennis has gone, points will probably be less strokes than ever seen before at this years competition with top quality rallies at a premium. | |
| |
| Serena's arse on 14:39 - Jun 7 with 1422 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Serena's arse on 13:37 - Jun 7 by E20Jack |
I am sorry if you see straight answers as “waffling”, again I can only put that down to you really not understanding the topic you are attempting to discuss, but will happily try and clarify your clear confusion as I address your effort bit by bit.
The nonsensical stats are perfectly fine. They are nonsensical if you are using them to suggest there is a gender pay gap or indeed a gender inequality of opportunity. That was explained to you very carefully. A bit like me showing how good Man City are at attacking by showing how many clean sheets they keep - it would be nonsensical, the stats would be acccurate but totally pointless and irrelevant.
Yes you do have to be an expert in the field to get a job with us. Your bone of contention seems to be the Plc board, I am not a member of that board and don’t know the selection process, but they count for 8 of our workforce, over 10% which are women. What I do know is that central operations, or the actual business we are talking about, you HAVE to be an expert in this field. How do I know? Because I set the criteria.
Yes our customer base is 99% male. Female accounts make up 22% of our database, over 20% of those are from the same households as previously restricted male account holders. But again, you wouldn’t know that as you don’t understand the business or the industry.
You are not comparing like for like at all for the reasons explained. Males make up 99% of our industry, they will attract the larger salaries and thus bonuses, you are then including them in statistical data against female dominated and mixed areas of the business, which are paid very modestly due to the menial nature of the work. It is another example of you looking at stats, not understanding them and coming to a conclusion so far removed from reality it is bordering on the ludicrous.
If you knew we had 4000 shops (you clearly didn’t) then you wouldn’t have accused me of making up the fact that it is only a small % of that overall number that contribute to central operations. You also wouldn’t have laughably criticised the structure that you clearly didn’t understand and even more ironically put men down and suggest they employ a woman to improve what you mistakenly thought was a poor structure. These 4000 shops is also why your stats are nonsense in terms f making the point you are trying and failing to make.
Yep our industry is 99% dominated my males. The actual industry. The rest is till staff, HR, admin etc which many are female dominated and mixed as painfully explained to you many times now. If you think someone behind the till at Topman constitutes the actual fashion industry then be my guest. But you are again being disingenuous for reasons only you know. I assume it is that I dare to suggest women are treated equally as opposed to given preferential treatment?
It has nothing to do with what a woman CANT do at plc board level, you are showing you have no idea what this discussion is about. Are you saying there are obstacles in psychology that men cannot do? Teaching? Nursing? Or as usual with you, does this only work one way?
It is about desire not ability. Listen to what you are being told in this discussion and actually take it on for a second.
I have showed my true colours by factually saying there is more women in professions that lend themselves to their natural strengths? And the same goes with men? You are simply offended that anyone dare actually want equality, you do not want equality, you want preferential treatment. You are the only one in this conversation who has shown any form of sexism or bigotry.
You constantly “see little point in debating” anything when you have absolutely no basis to your view, it is a pattern seen time and time again on here with you. When you have a point you are an excellent poster. You are probably a very nice level headed woman in real life, but when you feel you are beaten you turn into a very ugly online character that is condescending, abusive, intentially obtuce and extremely disingenuous. You often complain at behaviour of others that you are showing not only initially but magnified ten fold, it is extreme hypocrisy.
My true colours have been the person standing up for both sexes in absolutely everything here. Yours is distorting the truth to back one sex, while putting down the other and pushing for a tyrannical equality of outcome while ignoring all scientific and common sense evidence which points to the fact that the sexes are not the same, don’t make the same choices and have different interests and qualities.
You are just going to have to get used to it. [Post edited 7 Jun 2018 13:55]
|
“Your bone of contention seems to be the Plc board, I am not a member of that board and don’t know the selection process, but they count for 8 of our workforce, over 10% which are women”.
My post was about your PLC board.
But thanks for saying that sometimes I’m an excellent poster and probably nice in real life. It’s always great to have a more junior man saying something complimentary. Makes us feel all validated. It’s so sweet you think it’s your place to comment. | | | |
| Serena's arse on 14:56 - Jun 7 with 1403 views | E20Jack |
| Serena's arse on 14:39 - Jun 7 by londonlisa2001 |
“Your bone of contention seems to be the Plc board, I am not a member of that board and don’t know the selection process, but they count for 8 of our workforce, over 10% which are women”.
My post was about your PLC board.
But thanks for saying that sometimes I’m an excellent poster and probably nice in real life. It’s always great to have a more junior man saying something complimentary. Makes us feel all validated. It’s so sweet you think it’s your place to comment. |
Initially yes, but you have since been told that women and men are not the same and have different qualities and interests in the main, which is why we have female and male dominated industries. It then expanded to a load of inaccuracies and round the house approaches that showed up your lack of understanding of the business and the industry as a whole.
No need to thank me, or indeed reel off your sexist remarks and clear complexes. It was a genuine comment. I am damn sure you are a nice person off here, and in the main on here to be fair, you just don’t know half as much as you like to think you do which often ends up in threads like this where you back yourself into a corner so decide to get abusive/bigoted/condescending (delete as appropriate) but would be fairly confident that this is simply a nuance of your internet posting style.
You are not in my industry so I am not your junior, but if you do want to enter it then send me your CV and will happily take a look. Considering you are 20+ years older than me I would fully expect to recommend you to a board role should the CV hold up and you could then accurately make that claim, although your lack of knowledge of the industry would absolutely hold you back for any meaningful central operations roles.
And of course it is my place to comment, why wouldn’t it be? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
