BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Males still dominate the top positions

The glass ceiling is extremely variable. The two deciding and overlapping factors, being whether women have children and which profession they are in. The choice or even the perceived threat of having children will see the glass ceiling start to crystallize. From personal experience this is not true of all professions though. The medical profession is one example where having children as a doctor, nurse, physio etc. will not necessarily hinder your chances of advancement. The glass ceiling is removed if women choose not to have children in many cases but this is hardly encouraging. The glass ceiling as a concept seems obsolete faced with the tangled reality of women in the workplace in the wake of feminism. I believe factors such as socialization of gender and the existence of gendered spaces are better for interpreting issues of women in the workplace. Politics and the legal profession are gendered spaces, which through my studies I have seen have a deleterious effect on women who find themselves there. Compounded with the socialization of the passive female voice, politics certainly looks set to continue in a male dominated fashion. Just the very discussion about women not reaching the top shows that women wont be happy about any position they ever hold ! Why aren't women fighting for more of the same positions they have achieved. Why does it have to be the TOP positions. Is this not by default, pathetic ? Feminism was necessary in certain fields but having to be honest... Men helped and allowed much of what has happened to help feminism thus far. Feminism, i feel has overstayed it's welcome. It is globally obvious that men are not seeing women the way they used to. This is good in one way and disastrous in another. The word marriage is becoming a swear word. Anyway... i could carry on with that perspective but i feel that today's feminists should tread carefully because the backlash to feminism is a silent one. There can only be so much of a shift to TRY to balance things. If men feel unjustly oppressed (which is already the case), Women are going to have to pick up the slack there in the future as well. It is being seen, discussed, & publicized hugely all over already, women are increasingly not as valuable and respected by men anymore. Women challenging men on any platform will end where ? In the current system of things, i cant see this being a good thing. It is unfortunate that many women abused their granted freedoms by blindedly accusing men as a whole. Women were given the Olympic torch to carry and it seems "in many ways", they are allowing the flame to extinguish. The consequences for much of this is unfealt yet. Our daughters will have to answer for this and our sons are already answering for it to some degree now. Women messed up again by wanting EVERYTHING too quickly.
Males still dominate the top positions

Taking a look at the legal profession we can see that the percentage of women in the highest powered jobs is minute. The position of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary holds only 8.33% of women, High Court judges is 10.09% and the position of Recorder is made up of 14% women. If we look at deputy judges the percentage takes a small leap to 27%[http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/keyfacts/statistics/women.htm]]. With figures like these it is hard to argue that the glass ceiling has disintegrated.
No female Prime Ministers, or even party leaders, since Margaret Thatcher

Equality is not measured by how many leaders from a certain group get a job; but, by whether or not they were discriminated in competing for those jobs. It is not surprising that there are less female prime ministers, currently, since men compete for these positions in higher numbers than women. For every 8 male politicians running and campaigning for an office, there is only 1 female politician. The lack of female prime ministers is due to statistical unlikelihood, rather than discrimination. Also I'd like to point out that Australia had a female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.
No female Prime Ministers, or even party leaders, since Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher became the Conservative party leader in 1975 and went on to become the Prime Minister in 1979. But a female in the top positions in government is not a regular occurrence. In fact Maggie is one of only three women to have served under the four Great Offices of State (Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary). Margaret Beckett only held the position of Foreign Secretary for one year from 2006-2007, so she can be seen as little more than a token piece, placed there for statistical value only. If the people’s government cannot deliver equality, how can we say the glass ceiling has gone?
Maternity and paternity leave are not yet equal

No corporation, in almost every country on the earth will even offer their male employees something close to paternity. But, most countries mandate by law, that women get a set amount of maternity leave. If parental leave is the standard that we're using for business success and equality, then it is men, who are the unsuccessful and unequal ones. The truth is that, the lack of any kind of paternity leave for the male, indicates that there is a "glass ceiling" hovering over fathers heads, and is preventing them from good parents. It would benefit every family, if fathers were allowed to spend time with their new borns, like women can.
Maternity and paternity leave are not yet equal

Employers worry when they hire young/middle aged women. They fear that after hiring a woman, she will only cost the company money by getting pregnant and going on maternity leave. To combat this attitude, maternity and paternity leave should be equal. Currently, paternity leave is a maximum of two consecutive weeks. These two weeks must be taken within 56 days of the child’s birth.[http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Moneyandworkentitlements/Parentalleaveandpay/DG_10029398]] This can be contrasted with the long maternity leave that is allowed for. Women are entitled to 52 weeks of maternity leave from day one of employment. Women are entitled to maternity pay for 39 weeks if they have been working for their employer for 26 weeks.[http://www.worksmart.org.uk/rights/what_time_off_work_am_i_entitled]] Father’s also do not have the right to take time off work to attend antenatal classes, this allowance is for pregnant employees only.
Glass Ceiling more like sticky floor

WIll it be possible to have one employee? But seriously, this argument is incredibly stupid. Different people have different abilities and should be paid accordingly. Otherwise people would never try to do better than their peers and we would be a nation of mediocrity. And forcing companies to hire two people for every 1 position is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Not only is it incredibly inefficient but it would severely cripple most business. And, to make matters worse, once people are chosen only for their sex instead of ability, experience and qualifications the quality of the product they produce will decline so rapidly I would not be surprised if the company vanished off of the face of the earth. Futhermore, it makes no sense to treat someone who just took 5 years off to have children as though they just took a two week vacation. In many fields they will be so far behind that it will take years for them to catch up. And you are suggesting that companies should be forced to pay for that catching up the same amount they pay someone who has all the knowledge that was revealed during that time?
Although many accusations are made that animal research provides "inaccurate results" it is the most accurate method available at this time.

There are constant accusations made by animal rights activists that animal research provides inaccurate results. These accusers make no effort to suggest an alternate method of study that would be more effective. The truth is that it is the most effective and safe way of testing available currently. A more appropriate argument would be the usual, that it is unethical but debating that it is not the best way to solidify results that is readily available at this time is a fruitless argument.
no

You people who believe that animal testing is right, obviously dont think about how the animals feel. Animals suffer and die from this animal testing that you horrible people believe is right. Would you like to be tested? Exactly, and neither do the animals so i think you should just rest your case already because i have proved all you people wrong. I would like to point out to the person who wrote the above statement that the world we live in was created by dominating all other creatures. Animal suffering at the hands of humans is as old as the day is young. Whether or not you agree with animal testing, know that simply by being a human being (and not isolated from society living alone on subsistence hunting/farming) you are contributing to the suffering of animals. Just because it's not in front of your eyes, doesn't mean it's not there.
Allows us to advance as a species

Yes it may save human beings, but how important are we really to animals? technically we are animals and we should respect that. we can test new drugs on willing humans, becqause if they want a drug for them then they shouled offer it up, not a innocent animal who doesnt hae a say in it. Its like a dog would test you for a new treat, how would you feel about that? Humans are not dominant over all other species. Yes, we may have advances and more knowledge of the world but that makes us no more important.
Animal research has played a vital role in a great many of the major medical advances of the last century

According to the US-based Foundation for Biomedical Research, 'animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century - for both human and veterinary health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with lab animals.' Without such testing, most, if not all of these procedures that save thousands of lives and elevate the pain of millions of people would simply not be possible. Just a few of the many named examples of the advances made possible through animal testing include [source: Foundation of Biomedical Research]: Smallpox eradication (testing with cows) Polio eradication in the developed world (mouse & monkey) Availability of insulin (fish & dog) Tetanus vaccines (horse) Rubella vaccines (monkey) AIDS treatment (monkey)
Allows us to advance as a species

Medical testing on animals saves human beings, it allows us to advance as a species. How else can we test new drugs? almost every drug we used has been tested on animals scientists save a bunch of people and only hurt one animal, and most times its not severe at all. That's a gain. If people want to step up and participate in an experiment fine by me id happily find the best treatment for cancer on a human or a mouse so long as its found. Scientists hopes aren't to make the animal uncomfortable or hurt. Its to help millions of more animals and humans.
humans are animals as well so tenchinally we can test are own kind because it is "animal testing"!!!

You forget to mention that the only other ways to find if some thing is good to put out on the market is to test ourselves. Not only would this be dangerous to all humans, saying that if a person were to leave and there was a prolonged reaction to this medicine, and this person were to socialize ith others, they could be passing on the disease without even knowing it, thus creating an epidemic. Also, companies would be sued on charges of murder or man sluaghter. Most if not all medicines are tested on animals. Let me ask you, would end your live to find the cure to a cold? There is a vast amount of wildelife out there who keep on reproducing and growing in numbers. If by stopping animal testing and you get your way, you will no doubt be the reason millions of lives are lost. Besides, your just sad because most of you are probably vegetarians. besides, if we're animals too explain why no other organisms have our superior intellect. Besides, if, by chance, you get your way, have fun watching evryone lose their live
Couldn't agree less old chap

Only unsympathetic people towards animals would think this!! What if you were the one with drops of neat shampoo being put into your eyes, unable to blink to wash it out? How would you like to have a cigarette put in your mouth and not be able to remove it because your hands were tied? The list goes on, and so does the pain for animals!! As for saying that it helps research, crap!! an animals body and make-up is not the same as a human...so why would you need to experiment on them? I say, anyone that thinks that, should be locked in a room with the animals they have tested on!! -------------------- Too true. But these people have no conscience and don't care about causing suffering. Just like slave traders or concentration camp guards had no care for the humans they tortured. To be fair researchers aren't inhumane, evil and intentionally cruel people. They have worked and studied for years believing that animal testing is the best way forward. By the time they have graduated, it is so hard-wired into their way of thinking that it is next to impossible to convince them otherwise. Generally, they try hard to make conditions better for the animals they test on but often aren't allowed to change conditions too much for fear of skewing the results. Government regulations also state that animal testing is obligatory before any tests can be carried out on human beings. It's sad but true. Don't blame the researchers too much - they're just doing what they have been convinced is the best thing to do.
animal testing

Scientists may be finding pig parts to use for humans when there is a shortage of parts, but to say this is just a job for them is insane. Lots of times it doesn't work out okay, as there are complications. Pigs are completely different species to humans. Their insides may be similar to humans, but not identical. They have evolved over time, to create the ideal mechanism for PIGS. Not Humans. There is so much more a scientist could be doing then just "using pig parts". For a start, they could be developing a way of testing drugs not using animals, cheaply and more efficiently. And besides, the reason there is a shortage in the first place is because not enough people are donating organs. If when people died, they donated their organs to either be used in operations, or for medical testing, then firstly we wouldn't have to abuse animals like we do when we test on them, and secondly we wouldn't have to use pig parts just to waste scientists time. From a 14 year old point of view.
Animal experiments retard medical progress due to providing misleading results

Obviously, human and animal anatomy differs, there is no argument for that. However, I would like to first consider the truly massive similarities between all living things on the planet. Something like 17 million generations ago, humans and cauliflowers are related [Nigel Caulder, The Life Game]]. Logically, there are treatments for certain things which work in both humans and cauliflowers. In practice, these tend to be parasites common to all living things, and they tend to be ones that a humans ability to move will take care of. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8104495.stm]] More closely related (by several orders of magnitude) are mammalian life forms, pigs, rabbits, monkeys, mice and so on. Chimpanzees, in fact, are often quoted as sharing 99% of their genetic composition with humans. For these reasons, mammals are better subjects to use than cauliflowers. The subjects chosen are so good that hundreds of national and international medical research institutions around the world recognise animal testing as a valid method of verifying the compatability of new and improved drugs. These bodies are composed of people who have studied medicine for sometimes more than 50 years, and are considered some of the most educated and knowledgeable people in modern society. If there was no merit to these methods, then why would such learned people continue to accredit them? Maybe they were traumatised by a mouse as a small child, or maybe a rabbit ate their loved ones. But more probable, is that they have access to much more experimental data than animal rights group like to shout about, and make an informed decision on that basis. I notice that there is no research quoted in the argument opposite dating from the last 50 years (save the comments about cancer and HIV treatment being pointless) when genetics have been fully understood. People in the 1960's had no idea which animals differed in which ways from humans genetically, and there was a lot of guesswork involved, I would also accept that in the past there have been a very few instances where animal research as been a hindrance. But this is a new age of thought and discovery, the amount of knowledge the human race has gained is vast, and the point is now completely irrelevant.
There are no satisfactory alternatives to animal research

Alternatives to animal testing do exist and scientists already use them. In fact, they are mandated to do so by law wherever possible. Such alternatives exist in the form of computer modeling and in vitro testing (testing on a cell culture). However, living organisms are incredibly complex systems. The only possible way to build a model that accurately represents them is through animal research. It is currently not possible to build a complete human model as it is simply too sophisticated for current computers. For example, no computer model could predict the effect of a electrode insertion therapy for Parkinson's disease on the human brain, which is capable of performing 100'000'000'000'000'000 operations per second. Yet this can be done using an animal model. Computer models are currently at the stage of predicting molecular interactions, however they are still a great way to go before they could accurately model even the most basic of organisms, let alone the incredibly complex human body. Furthermore, it would be in the pharmaceutical companies' interests to do use alternatives wherever possible - imagine the cost to housing, maintaining and testing on animals.
Number 2 is a lie, there ARE alternatives to animal testing! Other companies use them, and animal testing doesnt prove anything, because although close, they arent people.

My teacher used a non-animal tested soap, and it literally burned her skin. It is unsafe to use products not tested on animals. AND most alternatives don't work as well and products, like that soap could be dangerous and harmful substances. Alternatives such as computer simulation cannot compare to the real thing. its like a thief replacing a black smith's gold with stone and hope he wont notice. Alternatives are not reliable.
Future medical developments will depend on continued animal research

Vivisector Nobel Prize winners have used vivisection because that is how they were trained. They know nothing else. When you have to choose a prize winner from a list of vivisectors, you are going to have to choose a vivisector. Except when someone finds the usual cause of gastric ulcers by testing on themselves, after that ignorant James Black held up research by his erroneous conclusions based on torturing non-humans. But then you deny their findings for ten years before grudgingly having to accept them. --------- Animal 'research' does not have the capacity to be at the 'forefront' of medical research for the simple to understand reason that BEFORE one could even venture to try and create an accurate 'model' of a human disease one would have to ALREADY understand it from having studied it FIRST in humans! This assumes that the creation of an animal 'model', in any meaningful sense of the word, is even possible, which it is not due to reasons of species variation. Firstly, other species differ in form and function. They do not possess the appropriate, i.e. identical, internal or external anatomy or physiology to start with. Secondly, when one attempts to 'recreate' a spontaneous disease, which only occurs -naturally- in a particular species, namely humans, through artificial and arbitrary means, what you get is in no way identical to the human disease it is intended to 'model'. Further, such is the random and haphazard nature of the 'method' used to attempt to create it, you get a different outcome every time. Each attempt at a 'model' bears little resemblance to the last, let alone to the natural, spontaneously developing human condition.
Number 2 is a lie, there ARE alternatives to animal testing! Other companies use them, and animal testing doesnt prove anything, because although close, they arent people.

Most likely your teacher had an allergic reaction of some sort, because a computer cannot always predict an allergic reaction from person to person. Almost all products I use arent tested on animals, and they are actually better than the few things I have that are. I am going to get everyone I know to stop buying products tested on animals.