Slashdot Mirror

Sorry, the entire paragaraph you just quoted merely states more thoroughly that the pay gap may be due to a large variety of reasons - several of which I highlight in my challenge to find some reliable evidence that there is in fact a pay disparity of note.

Shit, you've bolded the bit that specifically highlights that market segregation is usually a factor. Women working part time earn less than men working full time? Holy shit, who would have thought that?

That's not a pay gap, that's a number of hours gap.

Women working as cleaners not lawyers in Estonia? That's not a pay gap, that's a difference in professions.

Evidence on education? Here: http://education.gov.uk/publications/eorderingdownload/00389-2007bkt-en.pdf

Look, I can back up my assertions with evidence. Still fucking waiting.

Straw-man. AmiMoJo made no such point at all.

AmiMoJo:

Equality of treatment in education and the workplace: Really? Women are still not treated as equals, earning on average less than men doing the same job.

I addressed the workplace, and I have addressed education, now with evidence.

I'm not asking for an awful lot here. Just equality between the sexes. What's so wrong with that?

This is a system whereby every time someone connects a new computer to the Internet, it will ask a series of probing questions and if you don't answer them all correctly (or at any point imply you have a child in the house), a massive (and wildly-inaccurate) web-filter will be put in place, in theory blocking anything about:

• sexual messages;
• violence;
• gambling;
• bullying;
• alcohol/drugs;
• abuse on social networks;
• self-harm;
• anorexia;
• grooming;
• radicalisation (religious and political); and
• suicide.*

• Because these are all things that children need protecting from and shouldn't be able to find out about (on the Internet; offline everything is fine). Oh, and because user-generated content tends to contain a lot of this, many of the existing filters just block all blog sites. And anything that flags certain keywords.

  Oh, and this is to protect children from "sexualisation and commercialisation." But it won't block adverts. Or the Daily Mail (who are, of course, behind this block - presumably to drive desperate children to their website?).

  And this will require putting "government sponsored filtering and snoop-ware software on every machine in the country" as part of what will be one of the largest state-sponsored mass-censorship programmes in a democracy.

  So you think nothing of value will be lost here? You might want to have another think.

  *List taken from the Government's response to the consultation on this.

On the other hand, there has to be a nationalized standard for curriculums. I'm so confused... :-(

That would be sensible, wouldn't it? But see: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum

In the UK, Academy Schools and Free Schools are 'freed' from the National Curriculum. The National Curriculum is set by academics and teaching professionals, so obviously has a left-wing bias and the Conservative part of the current coalition government is helping to correct that.

On the other hand, there has to be a nationalized standard for curriculums. I'm so confused... :-(

That would be sensible, wouldn't it? But see: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum

In the UK, Academy Schools and Free Schools are 'freed' from the National Curriculum. The National Curriculum is set by academics and teaching professionals, so obviously has a left-wing bias and the Conservative part of the current coalition government is helping to correct that.

> Notice that they end with ".UK", I'm in Europe too.

UK is really not representative of European culture in general.

No single country is.

So teach your kids about body-ownership. Teach them that conformity is evil and it's important to be true to yourself.

That's fine, but remember they get influenced by more than just their parents. From the main PDF here (which I linked to before):

43. Opinions are divided about the robustness of existing academic evidence that exposure of children to pornography directly causes harm, although Papadopoulos is strongly of the view that it is detrimental to young people’s development (Papadopoulos, 2010; see also Flood, 2009). However, many contributors to the Review, including child protection organisations, schools, local authorities, child psychologists, youth workers, agony aunts, women’s organisations and internet safety organisations amongst others, provided compelling examples to illustrate their concern that pornography has a negative impact on children and young people. For example, children became convinced that they had to behave and look like the on-screen participants in order to have ‘proper’ sex; which generally meant sex without any basis in love or display of affection or equality; and to conform physically to some very narrow gender stereotypes.

It is not unreasonable to want to prevent your children from being exposed to hardcore pornography at the age of 7.

Why? Not only will they likely discover it anyway, but it is highly unlikely they'll be hurt by it. In fact, I've seen no evidence to reach such a conclusion.

At the age of 7, perhaps, but at 13+ hardcore porn can have an effect on what teenagers see as "normal".

Here's one bad example: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18282560 and here ""Certain behaviours that I only used to have bored 40-year-olds asking me about goes now right down to the under-16s asking me about it."".

This report might include some research, I don't have time to read it right now.

The school trips part of your argument (at least) is bogus. At state schools in Britain, nobody is obliged to pay for school trips (see http://www.education.gov.uk/popularquestions/childrenandfamilies/parenting/a005627/i-have-received-a-letter-from-my-childs-school-asking-for-contributions-towards-a-school-trip-do-i-have-to-pay) and merely being unemployed isn't going to stop you getting the begging letter.