Gender Equality

JRant

dr.bollocko wrote: »

This kind of thread still exists in a world where people legitimately believe that the young white male is the most sinned against person in the world. And I find that laughable.

I personally don't agree with gender quotas in some areas.

However we live in a society where many small businesses don't like to hire women because of the risk of having a bambino, for example. When women do attain high positions they generally get paid less than their male counterparts.

The right person should indeed get the job, regardless of race, creed, gender etc. However they should also have the same opportunity to get that job and I don't believe that we exist in a society where that is currently happening.

I think gender quotas is a not very clever attempt at solving this problem so I don't agree with it.

But to suggest that the worst incidents of sexism happen to be cases of sexism against males is depressing / hilarious.

I think you'll find we live in a society where anything goes against young white males. You can say whatever you like about them and nothing will be said.

The small business example has many different facets to it though. With such tight margins an employer will look at their situation and ask can they really afford to pay maternity pay and hire new staff to cover. For most the answer is no unfortunately.
Also if we're all equal why is the law allowed to discriminate against men. Men are allowed lift consideribly more weight in the workplace, why?
For decades we've had gender discrimination in the insurance industry, if this had of been the other way round the outcry would have been deafening.

RDM_83 again

dr.bollocko wrote: »

However we live in a society where many small businesses don't like to hire women because of the risk of having a bambino, for example.

This is exactly the sort of statement that is shows the bias towards a female positive viewpoint rather than looking at demographic information

In Ireland today there is a massively higher male unemployment rate, however this is not a concern * what is a concern is that more females aren;t being hired


* http://www.datosmacro.com/en/unemployment/ireland

dr.bollocko

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

All other things being equal, if there were no such thing as maternity leave, I would agree that it would be sexist. Since there is, this is a significant outlay of time and money that an employer potentially has to deal with, to not to take this into account would be foolish, especially in your example of a small time business

So your premise is now that men are more sinned against than women but it's OK to consider a woman as a potential baby production factory when hiring her for a job? And that that is completely reasonable to take into account?

And that it's not sexist?

In fact it's foolish not to consider this?

And you don't see any flaw in this logic?

Employers are not obliged to pay women on maternity leave.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/maternity_leave.html

dr.bollocko

RDM_83 again wrote: »

This is exactly the sort of statement that is shows the bias towards a female positive viewpoint rather than looking at demographic information

In Ireland today there is a massively higher male unemployment rate, however this is not a concern * what is a concern is that more females aren;t being hired


* http://www.datosmacro.com/en/unemployment/ireland

Who said that it wasn't a concern?

What aspect of the media's coverage of the past 5 years / recession / unemployment rates / coverage of social welfare has led you to believe for even one second that people are more worried about women getting better jobs than the ridiculously high unemployment rate?

Do you listen to some bizarrely feminist pirate radio station where the economy is only discussed of its impact on young female executives?

Or, with the benefit of further assessment, can you accept that your above statement is an inaccurate misrepresentation of my position?

dr.bollocko

JRant wrote: »

I think you'll find we live in a society where anything goes against young white males. You can say whatever you like about them and nothing will be said.

To quote chris rock. If we're losing then who is winning?

The small business example has many different facets to it though. With such tight margins an employer will look at their situation and ask can they really afford to pay maternity pay and hire new staff to cover. For most the answer is no unfortunately.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/maternity_leave.html
Employers are not obliged to pay women on maternity leave.
Try again.

Also if we're all equal why is the law allowed to discriminate against men. Men are allowed lift consideribly more weight in the workplace, why?

You're misunderstanding gender equality. Men, in general, can lift more. Gender equality refers to equal rights and opportunities. Not some erosion of gender identity so that a man or woman cannot be treated differently in any scenario.

For decades we've had gender discrimination in the insurance industry, if this had of been the other way round the outcry would have been deafening.

On the one hand you're saying, oh, employers can not hire women because they pop out the babbies and the poor employer has to look at the bottom line and that is fine.

However on the other hand when statistics show that a young male is more likely to crash than the equivalent young female this is not ok and is sexism?

Your logic is flawed there.

--Kaiser--

dr.bollocko wrote: »

So your premise is now that men are more sinned against than women but it's OK to consider a woman as a potential baby production factory when hiring her for a job? And that that is completely reasonable to take into account?

And that it's not sexist?

In fact it's foolish not to consider this?

And you don't see any flaw in this logic?

Employers are not obliged to pay women on maternity leave.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/maternity_leave.html

I don't think I said anything about male discrimination and certainly didn't have a premise. And yes, it is completely reasonable to take into account given that it is a very likely to happen (depending on the age of the woman). Nor should a woman who takes such leave be afforded the same opportunities of a male peer who, all other things being equal, doesn't have a 6 - 12 month gap in his career

dr.bollocko

jaja321 wrote: »

Would you agree with parental leave instead of maternity leave - where the leave can be split by the parents as they see fit? Thereby going some way to eliminating the situation whereby women of childbearing age may be seen as a less desirable hire, making equal opportunity more likely, and giving men the opportunity to spend more time with their young children.

Now this is something I could get behind.

Pool the parental leave and let the couple decide how to use it.

Shenshen

JRant wrote: »

That could well be applied to teaching aswell and may be a reason for girls outperforming boys in school. There are far to many female teachers but if men don't want to do the job what are they to do?

One of my profs at university years ago put the following suggestion to us :

Male dominated sectors, generallty speaking, are prestigious and offer more financial returns.
However, if in the past a shift took place and a male dominated secote became a female dominated sector, the social prestige previously associated with the work dropped along with the money that could be made in that sector.
She gave us the example of teachers and librarians. Both used to be highly respected professions, but have seen a significant drop in both public respect and renumeration since they became mostly female jobs.

As a result, men become even less likely to take an interest in these professions. A self-enforcing cycle.

geetar

dr.bollocko wrote: »

So your premise is now that men are more sinned against than women but it's OK to consider a woman as a potential baby production factory when hiring her for a job? And that that is completely reasonable to take into account?

And that it's not sexist?

In fact it's foolish not to consider this?

And you don't see any flaw in this logic?

Employers are not obliged to pay women on maternity leave.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/maternity_leave.html

one of my relatives has had three female staff go on maternity leave in the last 2 years. one of which only returned for 6 months before getting pregnant again.

its damaging to businesses and is very frustrating to employers and i think thats a reasonable assertion to make.


now, if you had real gender equality, men would also be entitled to paternity leave, and this wouldnt be a discriminating issue. instead of asking why employers discriminate over maternity leave, ask why is the system exploitable, allow women to hold employers hostage, and why these same rights arent applicable to men.

--Kaiser--

jaja321 wrote: »

Would you agree with parental leave instead of maternity leave - where the leave can be split by the parents as they see fit? Thereby going some way to eliminating the situation whereby women of childbearing age may be seen as a less desirable hire, making equal opportunity more likely, and giving men the opportunity to spend more time with their young children.

I'm not arguing for or against maternity leave, I'm arguing about things as they are in this country

Pole Monkey

LOL women.

We're supposed to believe they're just as capable as men but they need quotas, affirmative action and special support to bring them up to the same level of achievement.

It's just a fukking joke. :pac:

mod: banned.

RDM_83 again

No I read the Guardian and IT.

In your post you stated that

dr.bollocko wrote: »

This kind of thread still exists in a world where people legitimately believe that the young white male is the most sinned against person in the world. And I find that laughable.

But to suggest that the worst incidents of sexism happen to be cases of sexism against males is depressing / hilarious.

Show me a metric in which younger Irish females are in a worse position than males in relation to employment or any other area where discrimination can be accurately measured (rather than self reported). For example you say small businesses don;t hire Females , I could reply that males aren;t considered for office or female gender positions, neither of us is giving any information to back up our views, but "its laughable to suggest that males may be disriminated against"

dr.bollocko

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I don't think I said anything about male discrimination and certainly didn't have a premise. And yes, it is completely reasonable to take into account given that it is a very likely to happen (depending on the age of the woman). Nor should a woman who takes such leave be afforded the same opportunities of a male peer who, all other things being equal, doesn't have a 6 - 12 month gap in his career

Under the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004 at least 2 weeks have to be taken before the end of the week of your baby's expected birth and at least 4 weeks after. You can decide how you would like to take the remaining weeks. Generally, employees take 2 weeks before the birth and the remaining weeks after. If you qualify for Maternity Benefit (see below) at least 2 and no more than 16 weeks must be taken before the end of the week the baby is due.

Payment during maternity leave

Your entitlement to pay and superannuation during maternity leave depends on the terms of your contract of employment. Employers are not obliged to pay women on maternity leave. You may qualify for Maternity Benefit which is a Department of Social Protection payment you have sufficient PRSI contributions. However an employee’s contract could provide for additional rights to payment during the leave period, so that, for example, the employee could receive full pay less the amount of Maternity Benefit payable.

From the link I posted earlier.

If the two candidates are equal then the man gets an advantage because he's not having a baby. Particularly in a small business. We'll have to accept this. Small businesses, in general, this is more likely to happen.

He has an advantage because of his gender in an age where most young families rely on two incomes.

He (the hypothetical man hired above a woman because of his lack of popping out a sprog) has taken advantage of what is a discriminatory hiring policy.

That's not OK. You could use the same argument to suggest that a man deserves to be paid more for the same work. Which is also sexist.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/equality_authority.html

Check out the equality in the workplace info.

Under the equality legislation discrimination based on any one of 9 distinct grounds is unlawful. These grounds are:

Gender
Civil status
Family status
Sexual orientation
Religion
Age (does not apply to a person under 16)
Disability
Race
Membership of the Traveller community.

Totally unreasonable you say.

The state says it's unlawful.

I agree with the state.

jackofalltrades

dr.bollocko wrote: »

But to suggest that the worst incidents of sexism happen to be cases of sexism against males is depressing / hilarious.

Why is this so hilarious? Why is it to merely suggest that men are being disadvantaged in some area's met with derision?

It's like there's a "winner takes all" towards sexual discrimination, and that if you not on the most oppressed team, then you need to sit down and shut up.

Haelium

If women were equal in the workplace then they would be able to attain positions of power themselves and hire other females.

The "wage gap" is closing, and has been closing for a long time. If you take a look at employment figures you will find that the rate of male unemployment is higher, girls get better points in the leaving cert and there are currently more women in college than men. Men are more prone to suicide and are more likely to be imprisoned.


Yet still, women are discriminated against, and if you disagree then you're a member of the evil patriarchy and intimidated by "Strong independent women".


When women finally earn more than men, do you think there will be a discussion about anti-male discrimination? I don't think there will, I suspect that the mentality will suddenly turn to "Oh well women are just better adjusted for the modern world because cooperation and communication etc etc"

dr.bollocko

RDM_83 again wrote: »

No I read the Guardian and IT.

In your post you stated that



Show me a metric in which younger Irish females are in a worse position than males in relation to employment or any other area where discrimination can be accurately measured (rather than self reported). For example you say small businesses don;t hire Females , I could reply that males aren;t considered for office or female gender positions, neither of us is giving any information to back up our views, but "its laughable to suggest that males may be disriminated against"

http://www.ictu.ie/equality/gender/csostatisticson.html

--Kaiser--

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Check out the equality in the workplace info.


Totally unreasonable you say.

The state says it's unlawful.

I agree with the state.

Hmmmm, so it's illegal to discriminate on disability? How many blind pilots do you see?
It's illegal to discriminate on age, I'd like to see an 80 year being interviewed to be a fireman.

and so on and so on....

maggy_thatcher

dr.bollocko wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/maternity_leave.html
Employers are not obliged to pay women on maternity leave.
Try again.

They're not obliged to pay women on maternity leave, however they are obliged to keep her position open for up to 42 weeks, as well as cover her vacation time as if she was a full-time employee. In small businesses, this means that the company will often have to hire a temporary contract position to cover the missing person, and then spend plenty of money training them up. Then, more often than not it seems, the woman will hand in their notice, forcing the company to then go and have to find a permanent replacement, which, had they been told 42-weeks previously, wouldn't have had to go and mess around with a temporary contractor.

Like it or not, as long as maternity leave is exclusively a women only benefit, there will always be something in the back of the mind of the employer that, given two equal applicants, one male, and one female, will push in favour of the male as this extra cost/risk isn't there. All they have to do is find any small excuse for it that's not covered in discrimination legislation as well and they're covered as well.

The solution to this is not introducing further discriminating acts such as gender quotas, but to harmonize the benefits so that it doesn't matter what your gender is, you're equally entitled to it.

That's my view anyway.

Scanlas The 2nd

dr.bollocko wrote: »

http://www.ictu.ie/equality/gender/csostatisticson.html

You do realise just because women get paid less on average doesn't means they are discriminated against. I'd bet good money men are more likely to ask for a pay rise.

Also all we are looking at here is correlation not causation. Tall people generally earn more than shorter people.

Perhaps a woman of the same height earns the same as a man of te same height Nd height is the underlying discriminant. The truth is the data I've seen isnfar from conclusive and only seems to measure correlation.

Madam_X

If there were just comments like "Men face discrimination and sexism in some areas and aren't being heard" it would be a reasonable way to broach things (and it is a true statement) but "White males are the most discriminated group in western society" is caricature territory and less likely to be taken seriously. Just think about it for a second like: no senior businessmen/political leaders are white men?

It's true Dr. Bollocko - who are these people that say it's all right for men to face unfairness (apart from some militant feminists) as is being claimed? Not anyone here anyway.
And indignation about people not doing anything about it? Who should be doing something about it? Those who are so angered by it and feel affected by it perhaps...?

Bipolar Joe

dr.bollocko wrote: »

If the two candidates are equal then the man gets an advantage because he's not having a baby. Particularly in a small business. We'll have to accept this. Small businesses, in general, this is more likely to happen.

He has an advantage because of his gender in an age where most young families rely on two incomes.

He (the hypothetical man hired above a woman because of his lack of popping out a sprog) has taken advantage of what is a discriminatory hiring policy.

That's not OK. You could use the same argument to suggest that a man deserves to be paid more for the same work. Which is also sexist.

You are effectively damning all men who get a job that a woman also applied for. I'm meant to feel guilty just by virtue of being a guy? Do I not seek employment because I run the risk of accidentally being sexist by proxy? What do you suggest?

Haelium

dr.bollocko wrote: »

http://www.ictu.ie/equality/gender/csostatisticson.html

How does that show that young women are at a disadvantage?

Women's annual income was around 70% of that earned by men in 2008, though after adjusting for time worked, women's hourly earnings were around 90% of men's.

Men worked an average of 39.4 hours a week in 2010 compared with 30.9 for women.

If you don't put the hours in, you don't get promoted to higher positions. The wage gap is simply a product of different priorities. Women don't want money as much as men do, there is less social pressure for women to have money than there is for men.

How is this difficult to understand? Somebody please explain where this becomes an issue of discrimination.

RDM_83 again

And in all of my posts I have specifically stated that I am referring the younger age group,

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'm sure sexism exists against woman at older ages

RDM_83 again wrote: »

younger Irish females

RDM_83 again wrote: »

that shows younger men in a significantly better position than younger woman

So for each of those measures that show disadvantage is higher among females the only two that are in anyway relevant are

"Women's income in 2006 was around two-thirds of men's income. After adjusting for differences in hours worked, women's hourly earnings were around 86% of men's."

and

"The proportion of men at risk of poverty in 2006, after pensions and social transfers, was 17% compared to 19% of women."

In relation to the 2nd I would hazard that this difference is due to single parent families, I would also hazard if the figures were from 2009/2010 rather than 2006 this situation would be reversed due to decimation of the construction industry.

In relation to the 1st statement for younger woman I do not believe this would be the case, in much of these differences in earnings can be attributed to the carrier breaks carried out by females in late to mid 30's for child rearing

IvySlayer

Gender quotas are stupid, end of story.

Here's another example of sexism that no-one cares about, many countries in Europe have mandatory military service, but it only applies to men. Funny how women aren't screaming for equality there?

dr.bollocko

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Why is this so hilarious? Why is it to merely suggest that men are being disadvantaged in some area's met with derision?

It's like there's a "winner takes all" towards sexual discrimination, and that if you not on the most oppressed team, then you need to sit down and shut up.

Well I think there are certainly imbalances in gender. Do you think I was not angry when those tossers at the RSA ran the "He drives, she dies" campaign? And similar disgusting crap?

Now it's important that we represent both genders and that the rights of both are championed. However the balance historically has been males are better off, females worse off. I still think that the imbalance in terms of gender equality is still much worse for women than it is for men. However I do accept that men require representation too.

We're discussing this in an online discussion forum where the majority of posters are male. I'm not trying to antagonise here. Just trying to raise some counterpoints.

JRant

dr.bollocko wrote: »

To quote chris rock. If we're losing then who is winning?



http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/maternity_leave.html
Employers are not obliged to pay women on maternity leave.
Try again.


You're misunderstanding gender equality. Men, in general, can lift more. Gender equality refers to equal rights and opportunities. Not some erosion of gender identity so that a man or woman cannot be treated differently in any scenario.



On the one hand you're saying, oh, employers can not hire women because they pop out the babbies and the poor employer has to look at the bottom line and that is fine.

However on the other hand when statistics show that a young male is more likely to crash than the equivalent young female this is not ok and is sexism?

Your logic is flawed there.

That Chris Rock is one funny individual alright.

Try re-reading what i actually wrote. I said it was unfortunate that this situation should come about.
New employees, who need to trained up, cost an employer money for the first 3-6 months of their employment. This is accounted for in any budgeting for the company. Losing one member of staff from a small team can have a serious knockon effect to any small business.

I'm fully aware of what gender equality means and I stand by what I said. Equal rights and opportunities should be applied to both equally or not at all. Is the females back more important than a males?

There is no flaw in my logic.
Statistics can prove that 0% of men will have a baby so are not likely to spend the best part of a year on maternity leave. So why can't this be applied in the workplace if stats proving male drivers are more dangerous on the road and are fleeced accordingly?

dr.bollocko

Haelium wrote: »

How does that show that young women are at a disadvantage?



If you don't put the hours in, you don't get promoted to higher positions. The wage gap is simply a product of different priorities. Women don't want money as much as men do, there is less social pressure for women to have money than there is for men.

How is this difficult to understand? Somebody please explain where this becomes an issue of discrimination.

So you're saying that the two stats are directly related?
That a man and woman working the same job, the man works 9 hours more than the woman every week?

The 30.9 hours is an average meant to highlight a difference. Not a justification that states that all women work less anyway.

How is that difficult to understand?

dr.bollocko

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

You are effectively damning all men who get a job that a woman also applied for. I'm meant to feel guilty just by virtue of being a guy? Do I not seek employment because I run the risk of accidentally being sexist by proxy? What do you suggest?

I certainly didn't say anywhere that we should have a gender associated guilt over applying for a job. That's an appeal to emotion which makes little sense to me. I'm simply stating that I think there's an inequality there.

OK. Men don't go on maternity leave. What if the woman is incapable of having a baby?

Should she state this in an interview to make it more equal for her?

Shenshen

IvySlayer wrote: »

Gender quotas are stupid, end of story.

Here's another example of sexism that no-one cares about, many countries in Europe have mandatory military service, but it only applies to men. Funny how women aren't screaming for equality there?

Well, while that still was in place in Germany, women's groups actually were campaigning for "same rights, same duties".

Haelium

dr.bollocko wrote: »

So you're saying that the two stats are directly related?
That a man and woman working the same job, the man works 9 hours more than the woman every week?

The 30.9 hours is an average meant to highlight a difference. Not a justification that states that all women work less anyway.

How is that difficult to understand?

It doesn't take a professional sociologist to see the link between the two statistics.

Directly related? No.
Highly related? Yes.

RDM_83 again

Madam_X wrote: »

If there were just comments like "Men face discrimination and sexism in some areas and aren't being heard" it would be a reasonable way to broach things (and it is a true statement) but "White males are the most discriminated group in western society" is caricature territory and less likely to be taken seriously. Just think about it for a second like: no senior businessmen/political leaders are white men?
/QUOTE]

You see my problem with Dr.B's post is that he specifically mentioned that its ridiculous to consider young men as the most discriminated group, which I have issue with as by almost any measure younger males are at a worse position than younger females.

dr.bollocko

JRant wrote: »

That Chris Rock is one funny individual alright.

Try re-reading what i actually wrote. I said it was unfortunate that this situation should come about.
New employees, who need to trained up, cost an employer money for the first 3-6 months of their employment. This is accounted for in any budgeting for the company. Losing one member of staff from a small team can have a serious knockon effect to any small business.

I'm fully aware of what gender equality means and I stand by what I said. Equal rights and opportunities should be applied to both equally or not at all. Is the females back more important than a males?

There is no flaw in my logic.
Statistics can prove that 0% of men will have a baby so are not likely to spend the best part of a year on maternity leave. So why can't this be applied in the workplace if stats proving male drivers are more dangerous on the road and are fleeced accordingly?

Do you think that I agree with either argument? I am saying that you are saying on the one hand, discrimination based on the bambinos is OK but that discrimination based on the young male drivers stat is not.

dr.bollocko

Haelium wrote: »

It doesn't take a professional sociologist to see the link between the two statistics.

Directly related? No.
Highly related? Yes.

In what way are they highly related and applicable to a specific situation where women and men are working the same job with the same contracted hours and the man earns more?

Scanlas The 2nd

dr.bollocko wrote: »

In what way are they highly related and applicable to a specific situation where women and men are working the same job with the same contracted hours and the man earns more?

It's too simplistic, I'd bet men are far more likely to ask for a pay rise or threaten to quit otherwise.

IvySlayer

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, while that still was in place in Germany, women's groups actually were campaigning for "same rights, same duties".

Is that the same in Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland? Why not.

Also in the US every male 18-25 has to by law place his name on the register in case of conscription.

Shenshen

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Do you think that I agree with either argument? I am saying that you are saying on the one hand, discrimination based on the bambinos is OK but that discrimination based on the young male drivers stat is not.

I thought there had been a court ruling against that sometime last year or so, and that insurers can no longer offer cheaper rates to women based on those stats?

Shenshen

IvySlayer wrote: »

Is that the same in Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland? Why not.

Also in the US every male 18-25 has to by law place his name on the register in case of conscription.

I've never lived in Austria, Sweden, Denmark or Finland, so I suggest you research the subject yourself.

I grew up in Germany, which still had susbcription back then, and I can say that there were several campaigns to extend the subscription to women as well.
Those campaigns achieved that women can join the military in functions other than the medical corps, and as conscription has ceased in Germany, inequality is no longer an issue in that particular area.

IvySlayer

Shenshen wrote: »

I've never lived in Austria, Sweden, Denmark or Finland, so I suggest you research the subject yourself.

I grew up in Germany, which still had susbcription back then, and I can say that there were several campaigns to extend the subscription to women as well.
Those campaigns achieved that women can join the military in functions other than the medical corps, and as conscription has ceased in Germany, inequality is no longer an issue in that particular area.

I don't think they were at all. They were campainging for women to be allowed to serve into the military, not to extend the conscription. The ECJ ruled that women were allowed to serve but nothing was done as for conscription.

hurpederp

The problem here is that when whenever a pro-female approach, either to do with politics, employment, pay etc is mooted, it is done so under the auspices of gender equality. However, there are fundamental differences between men and women, in their economic, social and personal outlooks that are strong argument against quotas.

"Men earn more than women. Men occupy more positions of power. Therefore introduce quotas."

"But women have a higher academic average in school. Women get higher points in the leaving cert. Therefore introduce gender quotas on the amount of A grades. "

The logic is exactly the same in the above examples. In fact, as an environment analogous to work school is pretty much the best example to use. If you advocate quotas in one it follows logically that you follow quotas in the other.

But, then if you say, "Well girls work harder in school than boys. Boys mess and drink and fight and kick leather bladders instead". That would be true. But in confirming that as true you recognise that there exists a fundamental difference in outlook between both genders, a difference in outlook that you cannot then dismiss when confronted with the work situation.

dr.bollocko

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It's too simplistic, I'd bet men are far more likely to ask for a pay rise or threaten to quit otherwise.

It is possible however again, the stats on either side are very very open to interpretation. But this is only because people have used initiatives to attempt to improve what was a huge huge imbalance only a few decades ago.

In this case I think the fairest route to take is to allow a couple to decide for themselves how much parental leave each parent should get, regardless of gender. So, you can take X months off between the two of you now split it up yourselves.

This would be a more equal solution to my mind.

However the law states that even during the recruitment process women should get a fair shake when it comes to being hired.

Her gender, and as a result of this her likelihood to have babies is not a fair reason to refuse them a job if they are the best candidate.

And I wholeheartedly agree with that.

dr.bollocko

Shenshen wrote: »

I thought there had been a court ruling against that sometime last year or so, and that insurers can no longer offer cheaper rates to women based on those stats?

Yep. That's true. And I am still awaiting a reduction in the cost of my car insurance.

Shenshen

IvySlayer wrote: »

I don't think they were at all. They were campainging for women to be allowed to serve into the military, not to extend the conscription. The ECJ ruled that women were allowed to serve but nothing was done as for conscription.

Editorials from Alice Schwarzer (essentially the mother of feminism in Germany), in two separate journals :

http://www.aliceschwarzer.de/publikationen/aliceschwarzer-artikel-essays/cicero-gleiche-rechte-gleiche-pflichten/

http://www.emma.de/hefte/ausgaben-2002/maijuni-2002/editorial/

She elaborates that she is for the abolishion of conscription, but if conscription has to continue she very clearly states that it should be equal for men and women. Same rights, same duties.

Shenshen

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Yep. That's true. And I am still awaiting a reduction in the cost of my car insurance.

You don't want to be holding your breath there.
Mine went up quite a bit, though, this year.

kowloon

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, while that still was in place in Germany, women's groups actually were campaigning for "same rights, same duties".

I believe mandatory service in Germany was done away with last year, don't quote me on that though.

I'm very against social engineering, I don't think positive discrimination works. It might solve the problem of under-representation but it only worsens the underlying condition. Hiring one group over another to fill a quota never leads to harmony and the person who's been passed over being happy about it. This applies to racial and gender equality.
I'm not sure it would be fun for someone to know they're in the company as the token quota hire either.

I have no problem voting for a woman or working for one. One strange thing I've come across though is that female bosses tended to treat the male employees better. Maybe it's just the bosses I've had, has anyone else noticed this?

Shenshen

kowloon wrote: »

I believe mandatory service in Germany was done away with last year, don't quote me on that though.

I won't, because I've said that myself in that very post. "While it was still in place", feminists were campaigning for equal duties.

I'm very against social engineering, I don't think positive discrimination works. It might solve the problem of under-representation but it only worsens the underlying condition. Hiring one group over another to fill a quota never leads to harmony and the person who's been passed over being happy about it. This applies to racial and gender equality.
I'm not sure it would be fun for someone to know they're in the company as the token quota hire either.

I have no problem voting for a woman or working for one. One strange thing I've come across though is that female bosses tended to treat the male employees better. Maybe it's just the bosses I've had, has anyone else noticed this?

I do agree with it to some degree, but only in certain circumstances.
I think that without positive discrimination, prejudices will take much, much longer to disappear. So in the initial phases of any large social change, some positive discrimination can actually be a very positive and effective force.

However, at this point in the history of gender equality in this country, I don't think it would be the right tool at all. It's been pointed out time and again throughout the thread that what's holding women back is not so much a glass ceiling or an old boys club, although I've no doubt that those might still exist in some areas, but the simple practicalities and laws in Ireland. No legal right to joint parental leave and no affordable childcare being the most pressing of them.

So rather than introducing a new law putting pressure on employers, how about changing laws to take pressures off families and free up valuable human resources?

Edit : Whoops, overlooked your last sentence there.
I've seen that, yes. And I've seen make bosses treating their female staff better. I've never seen it to an extend that would worry me, though, overall it was always very subtle. I blame biology for that one.

kowloon

Shenshen wrote: »

I won't, because I've said that myself in that very post. "While it was still in place", feminists were campaigning for equal duties.

Sorry!

geetar

dr.bollocko wrote: »

So you're saying that the two stats are directly related?
That a man and woman working the same job, the man works 9 hours more than the woman every week?

The 30.9 hours is an average meant to highlight a difference. Not a justification that states that all women work less anyway.

How is that difficult to understand?

the statistic explains why there is a gap, not just simply showing the gap.


if women want more women working in science, engineering etc. they need to apply for these courses, not complain.

if women want to earn as much as men, they need to work the same hours.

there are equal opportunities for both sexes. im highly against any pay discrimination between sexes, however im also against the misuse and manipulation of statistics to blame "men" for the discrepancies caused by women themselves.

all quotas do is ensure the workplace, whether its the Dáil or a chinese takeaway, becomes diluted by inferior staff in order to balance the gender books. the inferiority is not inherently gender based, but a by product of the amount of women who choose to pursue demanding 3rd level education in comparison to men.

the women who do pursue careers feel outnumbered and at a disadvantage, but thats not at the fault of men. its at the fault of the women who chose not to pursue a 3rd level education. by making men the dominating presence in 3rd level education, they will statistically remain the majority in the workplace too.


at one point, yes women were discriminated against, and in some cases they still are. however, the playing fields have been levelled a while now, and its up to women to pick up their own slack and stop playing the blame game.

maggy_thatcher

A good video explaining the reasons for the pay gap is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow

It's US-centric, but most of the reasons still apply here.

dr.bollocko

geetar wrote: »

the statistic explains why there is a gap, not just simply showing the gap.


if women want more women working in science, engineering etc. they need to apply for these courses, not complain.

if women want to earn as much as men, they need to work the same hours.

there are equal opportunities for both sexes. im highly against any pay discrimination between sexes, however im also against the misuse and manipulation of statistics to blame "men" for the discrepancies caused by women themselves.

all quotas do is ensure the workplace, whether its the Dáil or a chinese takeaway, becomes diluted by inferior staff in order to balance the gender books. the inferiority is not inherently gender based, but a by product of the amount of women who choose to pursue demanding 3rd level education in comparison to men.

the women who do pursue careers feel outnumbered and at a disadvantage, but thats not at the fault of men. its at the fault of the women who chose not to pursue a 3rd level education. by making men the dominating presence in 3rd level education, they will statistically remain the majority in the workplace too.


at one point, yes women were discriminated against, and in some cases they still are. however, the playing fields have been levelled a while now, and its up to women to pick up their own slack and stop playing the blame game.

I am all for discussion. Even hearty discussion.

But the above is a bullshit diatribe that cheapens the arguments of others by association with such crap.

geetar

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I am all for discussion. Even hearty discussion.

But the above is a bullshit diatribe that cheapens the arguments of others by association with such crap.

care to explain and reference to what is "crap"?

all of my points are valid, and have been made numerous times before.

if you want to discuss things and have "hearty" discussions, you have to give rebuttal, and not dismissive vague cop-out statements