 |
posted by Matt on 02:17 PM February 27th, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
AngryMan writes "In 2004 the Blair government commissioned a report into the gender 'pay gap'. It is published today, and surprise, surprise, it repeats the usual feminist myths. "Women earn 17% less than men", "There is widespread discrimination within the system", blah blah blah. The feminist account usually takes no account of men's and women's different priorities and life-choices, or the fact that men have greater cultural and psychological incentives to chase money, or the fact that women have other socially-acceptable ways of getting money apart from working for it. Instead, it describes everything in hopelessly simplistic terms of an evil conspiracy against women. Whenever feminism does take account of women's choices, it claims that these choices are invalid, and the result of cultural brain-washing. "It is because of structural problems; because of young girls' choices in schools and the fact that our careers education system completely fails to make them realise that the choices they make will determine what they earn". If women are happy with the choices they make, then what's the problem?
I'd also like to hear an answer to this one: If women are cheaper to employ than men, then why do employers ever hire men at all?"
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
|
by SpikeRants on 08:54 PM February 27th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
When my wife and I got married, she started working where I had been working for the past year and a half, making about $2 more an hour than I was, and I was her senior in departments as well as time!
Now, I work as a land surveyor, and she as a collections agent for a mortgage company. I work outside in the elements, driving irons into the hard ground, walking over 4 miles some days, nearly getting shot, run over, or stabbed by errant equipment. She, on the other hand, sits at a computer and paints her nails. I make $14 an hour after nearly 2.5 years at it. She, after 2 years, makes $16/hr.
Pay gap? Yup. In the ladies favor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 11:32 PM February 27th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
a British Warren Farrell. Of course, we could use a couple thousand more of his type in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Raymond Cuttill on 03:16 AM February 28th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"Society as a whole needs to provide girls with more, strong female role models."
Well, we had a female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher in 1979-1990; we’ve had Queen Elizabeth II from 1952 to date, and some feminists want to make God female, so how much higher do they want to go?
Of course, there’s talk about “work of equal value” and things like that. Given half a chance some committee will decide who gets how much, like they did in Canada.
Meanwhile back at the Equal Opportunities Commission one story is “The gender equality duty is coming - are you ready for April 2007?”. In April 2007 all public services will have a duty to ensure sexual equality of public services. If any service is deemed unfriendly or inaccessible to women the EOC will be after it. (The EOC where they employ 80% female).
Why work when you can get this?
Divorce cases with a high price tag
ALAN MILLER, a City fund manager, was ordered to give his ex-wife a £5 million [Raymond: about $8 Million] settlement for their marriage, which lasted fewer than four years.
I’ve also looked at the Government statistics on workplace deaths. There’s no analysis by sex there, but don’t worry the Government will do all it can to help women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by robrob on 10:59 AM February 28th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
One of the well known reasons for this gap (apart from hours worked, typical career choices etc) is the time off that many women take to have children. In some cases, it can amount to 2 out of 3 years or 3 out of 5 years if there is more than one child.
Of course, the average equivalent male continues to work, gains experience, promotion, bonuses and annual increases. When the female returns to work, evidently some of her peers will have progressed, will earn more money, be more senior and if they move companies, attract more money.
I genuinely believe that it's only a matter of time before companies are legally obliged to apply the same virtual advances in pay, experience and promotion to women who are absent through pregnancy.
That's the day I either down tools or become a house dad.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
