The road to hell is paved with male feminists. They are sneaky and manipulative. 90% of the assault allegations of late are against self professed male feminists
He listed 4 reasons why women earn less a) and c) are biological. And b) is because they are better human beings on the whole.
Bo's points a) Have more time off work with women issues. Not that these issues are not serious, but women have more time off with this sort of thing. Having worked for 30 years I know this to be true. In fact one of my bosses was debilitated once a month, she still came to work but she savaged people for no reason. This is a medical issue not a "biology one". b) They have more time off to care for relatives Women tend to be the ones to do that, while their husbands continue to bring in the needed money so the woman can take care of a relative. Women are also more empathetic and socially caring c) They have time off to have children, sometimes up to a year or more (a lot of which is unpaid). My own colleague took 4 years off from work to have 4 kids she wanted to have, but she was 10 years at the company, we did the same job but time served meant she got paid more than me with my 2 years despite taking 4 of that 10 years off. Her husband could have taken the time off instead, but that was their family decision, nothing to do with the employer d) They work less hours in general (they work more part time jobs etc Cleaner, bar work, retail) Women on average do not want to work 80 hours a week, which is what you need to do if you want to get into the top 10% of earners I am a man and I don't want to work 80 hours a week either. But more men than women want to put in those hours, it's just a statistical fact. None of the above is using biology as a reason to pay women less. Employers want those who will be the best to make that company more profitable, and are not responsible for an individual's life choices.
feminists and even worse, male feminists make such bullshit arguments. I am always suspicious of male feminists, what are they looking for by siding with this intersectional bollocks, more tail? Nothing makes a pussy dry up faster than a male feminist
Also note the male feminist made "testosterone" seem like a bad thing. Do you consume a lot of soy mate? Genuine question
Not at all, you have completely misunderstood my post. A woman in the same role, and with the same qualifications, as a man, earns exactly the same salary wise...to do otherwise is illegal. But accumulatively, over the course of her career, she will earn less because she will take more time off, to care for/give birth to children, to care for elderly relatives, women also go through menopause in their 40's or 50's which sometimes requires weeks or even months off work. There are far more women doing part time hours compared to men also
Lets not forget professionals negotiate their salary Bo. And it is a statistical fact that women don't push as hard for more money as men to, we're natural risk takers women are not (ON AVERAGE) and lets look at the competitive edge for selling yourself for less. If a man and a woman who are equally skilled and experienced apply for a job and the woman asks for 3k less a year, she is getting that job, especially in a company with tight margins. Add in the modern diversity quotas and yep a shoe in, everyone is falling over themselves to hire women today Feminists just don't want to factor in professionals negotiating, time served, experience level, skills level, commitment. nope, they just want to look at the average between men and women, they have no interest in analysing the data, because they know the myth is destroyed if you do analyse why there is differences
Blimey, you finished now Phoebe, got yourself so wound up you needed 4 posts to reply. Did you post this thread to find someone to row with? Let's respond to a couple of these doozies This is a medical issue not a "biology one". - If you don't know the connection between Medical and Biological then I give up now Women on average do not want to work 80 hours a week - anyone who wants to work 80 hours is a ****ing imbecile. However in my experience there are enough females with this drive. Perhaps you should broaden your horizons. My own colleague took 4 years off from work to have 4 kids she wanted to have - see that little judgemental line. Did the father not want the children, just her was it? I repeat my point, producing a next generation is a public service. You probably want/have children, but you're not prepared to risk your place in the pecking order, so a coward as well as a fool we did the same job but time served meant she got paid more than me with my 2 years despite taking 4 of that 10 years off. - quite right, it is the law that the time off shouldn't impact her career, otherwise professional women would have to choose between biological and professional needs. That sound fair to you? Sounds to me that someone isn't very good at his job? Also note the male feminist made "testosterone" seem like a bad thing - now who's jumping to conclusions? Not saying it is a bad thing at all, I am packed with it after all. Simply saying that this kind of discussion is weird on a male orientated forum, and I wouldn't expect much support. Equally I don't want to debate dozens of posters on it.
This post is bollocks mate, all of it I will only quote the first BS argument cos I don't have time, I am at work This is a medical issue not a "biology one". - If you don't know the connection between Medical and Biological then I give up now" ^^ Menstruation is a biological function, people with abnormal menstruation that causes them extreme anger seek medical assistance for the condition. maybe you think someone who suffers this is qualified to hover over the nuke button? Cos to deny them the control of a nuke would be sexism? (hyperbolic example) Ugh really?
If I have, I apologise. However I think the point is that men and women should receive the same rate for the same job. It may be illegal not to do it, but you know there are ways round the law. The furore at the BBC showed that the men (part of the problem) making the rules can skew it in their favour with slightly changed responsibilities and job titles. I think a level playing field is all that is asked (tough for a Chelsea supporter to grasp )
Wow. So women should be barred from running for President? You'll need to explain this utterly bizarre statement to me, cause I haven't got the faintest idea why you think I've said that?
Some Counter arguments: This is a medical issue not a "biology one". - If you don't know the connection between Medical and Biological then I give up now. Medical, Biological, same difference. I agree. But biologically there are things that women can do that men can't. Men can't get pregnant or give birth to children, so a woman taking the time off to have children is not a choice that the mother or father make, it is something imposed on them by nature. Women have to have children, men can't. If you are saying there is an issue with maternity pay, then that is another issue. If you think that women should get more time off, at FULL salary, to care for their children, i dont think that will fly with many employers, Europe already has the most progressive and best maternity/paternity policies in my opinion (bearing in mind women mostly do this because men also cannot breastfeed, so if it is breastfed it NEEDS to be the mother that cares for the child). Women on average do not want to work 80 hours a week - anyone who wants to work 80 hours is a ****ing imbecile. However in my experience there are enough females with this drive. Perhaps you should broaden your horizons. Yes there are a lot of females with this drive.....there are just more men with that drive, and that is an irrefutable fact I am afraid. My own colleague took 4 years off from work to have 4 kids she wanted to have - see that little judgemental line. Did the father not want the children, just her was it? I repeat my point, producing a next generation is a public service. You probably want/have children, but you're not prepared to risk your place in the pecking order, so a coward as well as a fool Both of them probably wanted the child, but again, unfortunately nature dictates that it has to be the woman that carries and gives birth to it, and breastfeeds it. Also women are just better, generally, at caring for children, this is also nature at work. Are there great male carers? Yes, but even looking at the animal kingdom, Females instinctively make better carers for young ones, again, this is irrefutable. we did the same job but time served meant she got paid more than me with my 2 years despite taking 4 of that 10 years off. - quite right, it is the law that the time off shouldn't impact her career, otherwise professional women would have to choose between biological and professional needs. That sound fair to you? Sounds to me that someone isn't very good at his job? This is the part of this I want to address "it is the law that the time off shouldn't impact her career" it shouldn't, but it does, especially with professional jobs like lawyers or corporate bigwigs and investment banking etc. Taking a year off means you lose touch with contacts, and your relationship with your superiors, through zero contact, inevitably suffers. Again, if a man took a year off from such a role, the effect would be the same, it is an unfortunate consequence of being absent for such a long time in a professional role. Ideally this wouldn't be the case, but inevitably it is, I am afraid. Obviously it is a parent's choice to stay off work and have children, and again, nature dictates that it has to be the woman who does this, atleast in the carrying and birthing stages. Also note the male feminist made "testosterone" seem like a bad thing - now who's jumping to conclusions? Not saying it is a bad thing at all, I am packed with it after all. Simply saying that this kind of discussion is weird on a male orientated forum, and I wouldn't expect much support. Equally I don't want to debate dozens of posters on it. I didn't take your mention of testosterone as any sort of slight against men, personally, so I wont say any more on this.
A reasonable response. By the way, wasn't arguing for equal pay during time off, that is unworkable I agree, nor was I arguing for a change in maternity/paternity laws. The crux of my argument is that when a woman returns to work, she should not be penalised for having been off to have a baby. I get your point about contacts being lost, and there is the technology moving on issue sometimes, but as far as possible the woman should be reintegrated as quickly as possible, and her future salary should not have been left a year behind. In essence I think you are more accepting of the difficulties in resuming her career than I am. None of the issues above are insurmountable if there is a will towards proper equality.
The data shows there is a disparity. So now you try to identify/understand the CAUSES of the disparity. The disparity is an N variable problem, and stattery has shown that the variable labelled "gender" is statistically no more dominant (significant) than other variables (age, education, upbringing social class etc) that were considered.
Yup. The fact that there is an overall, accumulative gap in overall earnings between men and women as a whole is a fact. My main contention is that, when such a disparity arises, people are so quick to automatically claim that it is solely due to discrimination or the "big bad, privileged, white, straight male" keeping everyone else down, when a lot of times, there are perfectly good reasons for disparity. The example I gave regarding the disparity between exam result in boys and girls is a useful analogy i think.
it's not that her salary has been left behind a year. It's more that she's another year behind in the career ladder - say going up for promotion
