It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why Things Don't Seem To Be Changing

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 12:36 AM
While using public transport earlier today on my way home, I stumbled upon a noteworthy article while browsing for the latest in news on my phone. It came after I accidentally tapped an advert from another website, but it must have been my destiny to do that, because given many of my threads over the last week, this one was gold. I noticed so many glaringly obvious logical fallacies and misrepresentions of issues, which is now — sadly for me — normal when reading normal MSM articles. CLICK HERE to read the article in question and, if you feel you are a critical thinker, see how you feel while digging into this. Otherwise, please continue as I perform my own analysis of the article down below.

I did a full commentary on the article, which was difficult to sit through — even though it did not take long to do. I will now present the worst of the worst section (the "Lisa Heap" one clearly being the most awful to read through) which includes Lisa Heap's response to a newspaper article and her persistence in representing and helping "victims" (like those mentioned earlier in the original article) "achieve justice" for women everywhere. The following extract is an exact copy from the original, the only changes are underlined key words and squared brackets to enclose MY commentary:

Title: ‘My Boss Told Me To Dress Sluttily To Get A Client’
Date: April 11, 2017.

[My Article/Commentary Start]

'Women defined by the way they look'

Lisa Heap, the Women's Lead Organiser at the Victorian Trades Council Union says she hears stories like these almost every day. “We’re still seeing women [and men] as being defined by the way they look at work,” she says. [You mean men aren't judged on their appearance in the workforce as well?] “And, as stupid as it sounds seeing as women make up half the workforce [which means your following conclusion doesn't seem stupid, it actually is stupid], it’s because women are still seen as an oddity in relation to work.”

In March, The Daily Mail took this leering attitude to new heights when it published a shocking [for the content, or the issue?] front page comparing British Prime Minister Teresa May’s perfectly uneventful outfit to that of her Scottish counterpart, Nicola Sturgeon, whose dress choice [would she ware the same outfit at home or if she could choose what to wear?] was similar. The paper [as in the editor, opinion piece writer or what?] treated them like exotic birds in a zoo, [dehumanising them because their outfits are being critiqued?] critiquing every inch of their appearance from the slimness of their legs to the fabric of their clothes. “So, is this proof the fashion world fails to cater for career women and there really are so few options for a high-powered female that everyone ends up dressing the same?” [Is the newspaper aware that 99% of men in similar positions of power choose to wear suits when out in public? Maybe they forgot that before you took the bait.]

The newspaper asked coyly.

Well no. It’s proof [its not even strong evidence at this stage] that once again [we are reverting back to the past?] women aren’t taken seriously in the workplace, and are looked at like they’re freaks - even if they’re two of the most powerful humans on the planet. [Oh dear, obvious hyperbole, so I'll let it slide.]

The law says 'no'

Australian law is supposed to protect women [actually, it is supposed to protect people] from having to face the perpetual barrier of appearance in their workplaces and let them get on with the job. But Heap says the law is largely toothless [not yet, in your eyes] as very few women ever speak up if they feel they’re being asked to change their clothes, hair or makeup in a discriminatory way, [why do we hear so many cases of it happening? This would need to be happening the majority of workplaces to be true] for the very real fear of being persecuted. [Did you mean punished? It's a little different from persection, even if hyperbole is permitted.]

“I’ve represented women in these sorts of discrimination situations and the system does not work well for them at all,” Lisa Heap says. [The law is now your primary target, isn't it?] “If you make a complaint you’re potentially jeopardising your employment if you’re still working there. [You cannot be fired for making a complaint due to request for you to change your dress code.] If you’re not there and you’ve left you’re likely only [I bet a law change would help that.] going to be looking for compensation or an apology. We know compensation amounts are very low and it’s a very difficult process.” [almost as if you need it to not be a delusion in order to win, right?] Plus, she says, you risk getting the reputation as ‘difficult’ with future employers. “It’s a damaging, difficult process,” Heap says. [Gee, I can think of similar reputation damages to men that are far worse in accusation and in actual consequences, but I'll refrain, for now.]

In fact, when a woman does speak up it makes headline news around the world, because it’s so unusual. [You should tell the author of this thread that, she used anecdotal accounts to show the same thing.] Last year UK receptionist Nicola Thorp was fired for refusing to wear high heels at PricewaterhouseCoopers. [She was not fired, she was sent home without pay. No mention of the "appearance guidelines" featured in her contract either.] After collecting 150,000 petition signatures [what % of the population is that again?] she forced the UK government to investigate the way bosses [you mean female bosses too?] treated women at work in terms of their appearance. “It is fair to say that what we found shocked us,” Labour MP Helen Jones who headed the committee said. “We found attitudes [not laws?] that belonged more, I was going to say in the 1950s but probably the 1850s might be more accurate [attitudes about dress code have changed dramatically since then, I'll concede that] than in the 21st century.“

[Continued: 1 of 2]

edit on 28/4/2017 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 12:36 AM
It’s not normal for us to be treated this way

Lisa Heap says the only way women will ever see change is when workplaces begin admitting that there’s a problem. “It’s an unpopular line because people believe we have equality,” she says. [Is your criteria for equality reasonable or even possible with men also in the workforce?] “But every indicator we have says this is not the case. The number of women who are making complaints around sexual harassment has increased. [Could the broadening definition of the term be causing this?] The number of women who are experiencing discrimination returning to work after pregnancy is increasing. [Because they are women, of because - like me - they take time off?] The gender pay gap is increasing. Every indicator we have tells us gender equality [when you get around to compiling that work of fiction, I'd recommend not including all stuff about dress codes if you want to be taken seriously] hasn’t been achieved at work. And yet we [all of society, or just feminists?] like to accept as a country that we have got equality.”

Only when workplaces start taking this problem seriously, and women work together collectively [all women in the country, or only those being targeted for their appearance?] to stand up for their rights will there be any sort of change, Heap says. She yearn[s] for the day when women can wake up, put on something safe, comfortable and functional [you mean like men do as well, but can still be requested to change their uniform?] and simply do their jobs. [If they cannot do their jobs without feeling uncomfortable about performing the job they are in due to their dress alone, it's more likely a problem withe individuals and not the culture of the workplace.]

“It’s not normal,” she adds, “for us to be treated this way.” [Hyperbole, or hysteria?]

[My Article/Commentary End]

OK, I feel bad for not giving you a stronger trigger warning before inviting you to read an article that would, by most accounts, cause non-feminists brain damage from reading and then absorbing what you have just experienced, after the last sentence is complete. While I have suffered brain damage myself, I had to prevent you from knowing before witnessing the truth, otherwise you would have said "I don't care what BS they are peddling, they are idiots. Well the BS they are peddling is bad, worse than I anticipated.

If you have done a lot of research, seen the persistent resistance to accept reality, and witnessed the absurdity of the replies when feminists are ever told about the comments or asked the questions I did above, you would understand why the above might not be as bad as it sounds.

Yes, I am aware this is a pro-feminist piece written by a feminist on issues feminists are known to fixate on and that her audience in mind was certainly not somebody critical of feminism, you do have to wonder how anything can[u/]change when this is the standard nonsense they still promote amongst each other.

[Complete: 2 of 2]

edit on 28/4/2017 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 02:37 AM
Because genders are not equal. The genetic difference between a man and women is 15 times greater than one man to another or one women to another. Men are as genetically similar to women as they are to male chimpanzees.

Men (in general) are stronger, have deeper voices, are less sensitive, have higher testosterone, lower estrogen and larger hearts and lungs. That makes them naturally better performers for a great deal of jobs. That's why men hunted and women gathered. Only recently has there been a surge of jobs that men and woman have nearly equal qualifications for.

But (again, in general) there will always be a higher number of jobs that men are better suited for than can be said for women. And as long as that's the case, the fight for equality in the workplace will be a long one.
edit on 4/28/2017 by scojak because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 02:15 AM
That's not the same with gender equality as it was several years ago. The spirit and the enthusiasm with which we all treat the power of women is growing (as mentioned my Oprah in her Golden Globes Speech
However, the language will illustrate the changes not so quickly. As mentioned in some articles on 123 Essay and Education Gender, such constructions and words as "male jobs", "female character", etc. are going to be still used and they are subconsciously treated as gender prejudiced. It happened already in England, with a woman who grew outraged because of the instruction on her daughter's hat: "Give it to your mom, she knows how to wash it."

edit on 9-1-2018 by denvincent because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2018 by denvincent because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

log in