Gender Equality

smash

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI

dr.bollocko

geetar wrote: »

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

Your entire post contained no points which have not already been discussed and your attitude would look little out of place in the 50's. In fact I have said that I disagree with gender quotas in most instances.

If you wish to come out with "its up to women to pick up their own slack and stop playing the blame game" then by all means carry on but don't actually expect to be taken seriously.

Miss Lockhart

I think there should be parental leave to be shared between both parents. I think a certain amount should be mandatory for each parent and the remainder should be used how the couple choose.

Employers should not be looking at potential female employees and thinking "they could take maternity leave", they should be looking at all potential employees and thinking "they could take parental leave".

That would leave the issue of all parents being possibly disadvantaged in terms of career progression compared to non-parents, in the same way that women are often disadvantaged compared to men. In that case the question would be whether society values children enough to make such discrimination against parents illegal, or not.

Shenshen

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

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


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

Very good video, though.

I've still got that hypothesis of one of my university profs in the back of my head, though :

If a profession or field is male dominated, wages will be higher.
If there is a shift towards the profession becoming more equal or even female dominated, wages in that sector drop.

IT might actually be a good current example. Wages used to be quite high, it was a profession that even inspired awe back in the 80s and very early 90s, when it was pretty much a male-only domain.
These days, with way more females working in the profession, wages have fallen, and social status has as good as disappear altogether.

geetar

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Your entire post contained no points which have not already been discussed and your attitude would look little out of place in the 50's. In fact I have said that I disagree with gender quotas in most instances.

If you wish to come out with "its up to women to pick up their own slack and stop playing the blame game" then by all means carry on but don't actually expect to be taken seriously.

did you watch Maggy_Thatcher's video?

here it is again . the video supports all of my so called "crap".

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

it phrases what i was ultimately trying to say very clearly.

its not crap, its true. the choices women make in their education are their own choices. if they want equality, its up to them to make better long term choices in terms of education, and "pick up their slack".

the perceived disadvantage is due to misleading statistics which don't explain the real reasons for discrepancies.

for same hours, same pay, same job in america the pay gap is 2%, which is itself negligible. its safe to assume the statistics in ireland would show a similar story

maggy_thatcher

Shenshen wrote: »

IT might actually be a good current example. Wages used to be quite high, it was a profession that even inspired awe back in the 80s and very early 90s, when it was pretty much a male-only domain.
These days, with way more females working in the profession, wages have fallen, and social status has as good as disappear altogether.

That sounds a lot like Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Wages did not fall because women started working in IT. They fell because of supply/demand (and, compared to other fields, they're still quite reasonable).

IT in the 80s/90s was a very different animal to what it is now!

Shenshen

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

That sounds a lot like Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Wages did not fall because women started working in IT. They fell because of supply/demand (and, compared to other fields, they're still quite reasonable).

IT in the 80s/90s was a very different animal to what it is now!

Well, wouldn't that hold true in other fields, then?
I know that engineers are currenlty paid highly because there aren't many around.
So if women today start becoming engineers, the supply situation will change and wages will drop.

JRant

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.

That is not what i am saying at all. I merely pointed out how some small businesses might approach the situation. Not saying it's right at all.

maggy_thatcher

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, wouldn't that hold true in other fields, then?
I know that engineers are currenlty paid highly because there aren't many around.
So if women today start becoming engineers, the supply situation will change and wages will drop.

But it's not because women become engineers, it's just because more people become engineers. The fact that those new engineers are women is irrelevant, and just clouds the issue.

If the class size stays the same, and a higher %age of those entering are women, then I don't believe that the wages will drop.

Madam_X

RDM_83 again wrote: »

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.

Young white males are the most discriminated group in western society? It's just not true.
I already mentioned all the middle-aged white men in positions of power - how can it be that they are a persecuted group when young, and suddenly a more advantaged one when middle-aged?
If the framing of the argument didn't include resorting to the nugget of how young white men (and middle-class too) are the most discriminated group in society, I guarantee there would be far less frustrating arguing and banging of the head against the wall. It wouldn't trivialise any discrimination/sexism men within that demographic genuinely do face either.

Who's blaming men for there being less women in politics etc btw? I would deem it the result of a culture where women are less inclined to see themselves working in that area/have less interest in it, but I wouldn't blame men.

Ellis Dee

Something not mentioned in the OP is that the new law applies only to boards with more than three members.:cool:

How many Icelandic companies employ more than 50 persons? Not many, I'd expect, given that the population of the country is only around 315,000 - a quarter of Dublin.

And what percentage of the country's total workforce is employed by those companies?

The problem with gender quotas is that they always leave those opposed to genuine equality with the argument: "She wouldn't even have that position if it weren't for that damn quota."

Let's see if it works for Iceland. And for all of those who say we in Ireland should ape everything the Nordics do, how about just adopting their liberal abortion laws while we're at it?:)

dr.bollocko

geetar wrote: »

did you watch Maggy_Thatcher's video?

here it is again . the video supports all of my so called "crap".

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

it phrases what i was ultimately trying to say very clearly.

its not crap, its true. the choices women make in their education are their own choices. if they want equality, its up to them to make better long term choices in terms of education, and "pick up their slack".

the perceived disadvantage is due to misleading statistics which don't explain the real reasons for discrepancies.

for same hours, same pay, same job in america the pay gap is 2%, which is itself negligible. its safe to assume the statistics in ireland would show a similar story

To go from one point of an argument and from that point to jump immediately to the diatribe you posted is in fact crap I am afraid.

What do you think influences women's choices they make in their education?

What about situations where women are a majority in a certain industry? Why are they not represented in the upper echelons of said industry?

There are plenty of studies of the pay gap and I have read many of them. Some from CNBC who deny it exists, others from studies who accounted for hours worked, equality of positions and still found an unexplained wage gap.

To suggest, without looking at the whole study, that it is simply up to women to buckle down and cop on and stop whinging, which is what you did, strikes me as a load of old bullshit.

So that's what I'll call it.

smash

Madam_X wrote: »

Young white males are the most discriminated group in western society? It's just not true.
I already mentioned all the middle-aged white men in positions of power - how can it be that they are a persecuted group when young, and suddenly a more advantaged one when middle-aged?

Over the last few decades a lot has changed and young white males are perceived as being privileged by other groups because historically they were. The middle aged men you talk off fall into this category, because they basically grew up climbing the ladder of success without much 'interference' from other groups. That's my opinion on it anyway.

maggy_thatcher

Ellis Dee wrote: »

The problem with gender quotas is that they always leave those opposed to genuine equality with the argument: "She wouldn't even have that position if it weren't for that damn quota."

It'll leave those in favour of genuine equality with the same argument as well.
I'm in favour of gender equality (right down to the level of I believe places like here or here should lose any/all state funding until such time as they remove their discriminatory entry practices.), but am going to explicitly avoid voting for any woman in a political party that has discrimination policies on who is being selected, unless she can prove that she didn't get the nomination because of her gender.

Zulu

Madam_X wrote: »

Those who are so angered by it and feel affected by it perhaps...?

But those women pushing for quotas are either already in politics or have no interest in becoming politicians. They simply don't trust men to represent them, or don't believe men can represent them - so they want to see more (other) women in those roles.

Madness I know, but they really buy into that sexist bullsh1t no matter how batsh1t crazy it sounds!

RDM_83 again

Madam_X wrote: »

Young white males are the most discriminated group in western society? It's just not true.

I never mentioned race and I never mentioned class (I personally think class is a greater barrier to social mobility than gender or race), and as this conversation is about Ireland, I do genuinely think that a certain type of young white male is the most discriminated group in Irish society, a young traveller guy (though I'd believe they're discriminated against for a reason!).

But too answer my question, if young men aren;t discriminated against how come they come out demographically so much worse than the equivalent aged female (and too remove any bias you could compare a young black man with a young black woman, a young working class guy with a young working class woman etc). If its not discrimination why is it? I think its to do with gender differences and tendencies to poor career choices but this defense is generally not acceptable when issues of female disadvantage are highlighted it should not be acceptable

smash wrote: »

Over the last few decades a lot has changed and young white males are perceived as being privileged by other groups because historically they were. .

And this is the answer.

JRant

Shenshen wrote: »

Very good video, though.

I've still got that hypothesis of one of my university profs in the back of my head, though :

If a profession or field is male dominated, wages will be higher.
If there is a shift towards the profession becoming more equal or even female dominated, wages in that sector drop.

IT might actually be a good current example. Wages used to be quite high, it was a profession that even inspired awe back in the 80s and very early 90s, when it was pretty much a male-only domain.
These days, with way more females working in the profession, wages have fallen, and social status has as good as disappear altogether.

Teaching is mainly female dominated, pays very well and has an awful lot of respect in society.
Bio-tech is also heavily weighted in favour of women and they're paid pretty good money.
IT is beyond satuarated, as will programming be in a couple of years. Nothing to do with gender just to many people applying for to few jobs.

Annasopra

smash wrote: »

This is constantly mentioned by experts and backed up by the stats on women who study politics or political subjects in college.

Which experts are you talking about?

recylingbin

Huckleberry Finn wrote: »

In Iceland, a law passed in March 2010 which requires Icelandic companies with more than 50 employees to have at least 40% of both gender represented on their boards by September 2013.

How can we make this happen in Ireland?

Also I think it should apply to elected representatives through candidates put forward for election. To ensure 40% of both gender are represented in the Dáil. There seems to be a majority of men on government committees and in Dáil Éireann. Quite evident by the majority of middle aged men in parliament.

Political parties should also ensure that their proposed candidates cover all ages groups equally, 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s. To curtail political family dynasties I would suggest parties discourage children of former politicians going forward for election.

Do you agree with some or all of this? For a start I think similar legislation as done in Iceland should occur here.

Why should it happen?
All companies/countries should be meritocracies not legislated muppetoriums.

smash

mango salsa wrote: »

Which experts are you talking about?

Economists, politicians, lecturers... Listen to any debate on the subject.

Annasopra

smash wrote: »

Economists, politicians, lecturers... Listen to any debate on the subject.

Right ok... absolutely no source just waffle

jackofalltrades

Shenshen wrote: »

Very good video, though.

I've still got that hypothesis of one of my university profs in the back of my head, though :

If a profession or field is male dominated, wages will be higher.
If there is a shift towards the profession becoming more equal or even female dominated, wages in that sector drop.

IT might actually be a good current example. Wages used to be quite high, it was a profession that even inspired awe back in the 80s and very early 90s, when it was pretty much a male-only domain.
These days, with way more females working in the profession, wages have fallen, and social status has as good as disappear altogether.

I've worked in the IT industry, on the services side and wages were never high and there was never much "status" to speak of.
Long hours for poor wages, with little recognition have been the norm. Employers only see it as as a barely tolerated cost.

If you look at the Airline industry, more women have been training as pilots and at the same time wages and conditions have been falling. Commercial pressures and oversupply of labour though is the cause behind this.

Shensen wrote:

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.

I can find very little evidence of a campaign for women to be included in military conscription. None that gained any meaningful support amongst women anyway.

K-9

Sweden tried shared parental leave, it doesn't work while you've attitudes like men are the hunter gatherers and pregnancy and children are womens things.

They had to bring in mandatory paternity leave to force men to take it up and women taking up all the parental leave.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

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.

Shenshen

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I can find very little evidence of a campaign for women to be included in military conscription. None that gained any meaningful support amongst women anyway.

Please see the two links I posted.
The lady who wrote those articles is the frontwoman of feminism in Germany, editor of the most widely spread feminist magazine and a highlt active campaigner since the late 60s.

Shenshen

K-9 wrote: »

Sweden tried shared parental leave, it doesn't work while you've attitudes like men are the hunter gatherers and pregnancy and children are womens things.

They had to bring in mandatory paternity leave to force men to take it up and women taking up all the parental leave.

It's working in Germany, without anything being mandatory. The number of fathers taking parental leave went from 5% in 2007 to 25% in 2010.

beanie10

Huckleberry Finn wrote: »

In Iceland, a law passed in March 2010 which requires Icelandic companies with more than 50 employees to have at least 40% of both gender represented on their boards by September 2013.

How can we make this happen in Ireland?

Also I think it should apply to elected representatives through candidates put forward for election. To ensure 40% of both gender are represented in the Dáil. There seems to be a majority of men on government committees and in Dáil Éireann. Quite evident by the majority of middle aged men in parliament.

Political parties should also ensure that their proposed candidates cover all ages groups equally, 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s. To curtail political family dynasties I would suggest parties discourage children of former politicians going forward for election.

Do you agree with some or all of this? For a start I think similar legislation as done in Iceland should occur here.

This is the most ridiculously stupid suggestion I have ever heard!

Why not go the whole way op.
Give men 9 months paid paternity leave when wife / girlfriend gives birth.
Oh and while we're at it we should have complete equality across the board- equal number of men, women foreign nationals too. Can't be seen to be discrimination against those lot!:rolleyes:

Zulu

K-9 wrote: »

Sweden tried shared parental leave, it doesn't work while you've attitudes like men are the hunter gatherers and pregnancy and children are womens things.

They had to bring in mandatory paternity leave to force men to take it up and women taking up all the parental leave.

Of course you're right that they had to bring in mandatory paternity leave, but I wonder about the implication that men had to be "forced" to take leave.

It could just as easily be spun that the need for mandatory paternity leave was born out of fathers not getting their fair share of leave; that it was introduced to force women to give up portion of the parental leave to men.

It's disingenuous to suggest that men simply didn't want to take the leave; it would oversimplify an issue needlessly vilifying men's attitudes to child care. In reality, of course there's more to it.

New mothers aren't always eager to jump back into the 9-5 work place. New mothers can be eager to maximise the amount of leave available to them with their babies - which is completely understandable. The blame lies with the couple, not the father. The couple were left with the decision on how to divide up the parental leave, and the couples decided.

Blaming people because of their gender isn't a solution to gender inequities.

K-9

Zulu wrote: »

Of course you're right that they had to bring in mandatory paternity leave, but I wonder about the implication that men had to be "forced" to take leave.

It could just as easily be spun that the need for mandatory paternity leave was born out of fathers not getting their fair share of leave; that it was introduced to force women to give up portion of the parental leave to men.

..........

Blaming people because of their gender isn't a solution to gender inequities.

That's why I was careful to put in that women would have to change their culture as well, it would take another change to parenthood which in fairness men have done over the last couple of decades.

So I wasn't blaming any sex at all, I don't underestimate the Irish Mammy!

Shenshen

K-9 wrote: »

That's why I was careful to put in that women would have to change their culture as well, it would take another change to parenthood which in fairness men have done over the last couple of decades.

So I wasn't blaming any sex at all, I don't underestimate the Irish Mammy!

I think you've both put a finger on something a lot of feminists are trying their best to ignore and wish away.
Society has reached a point where the biggest obstaclt to gender equality is no longer men's attitudes (although there's always room for improvment ), but women's attitudes.
Feminism itself promoted equality, but many women these days will try to use it for female-only benefits. I find that highly detrimential to the actual issue.

That is one reason why I would promote providing equal opportunities and removing unnecessary obstacles, but not pushing the advantages for women regardless of circumstances.

In short, paternal leave should be available, and the should be encouragement for men to take it. But the decision on how to use it and how to plan and manage career and income are still up to the individual.

smash

mango salsa wrote: »

Right ok... absolutely no source just waffle

Do a search for Matt cooper gender quota and I'm sure you'll find a few radio interviews. This is also interesting reading.

K-9

Shenshen wrote: »

I think you've both put a finger on something a lot of feminists are trying their best to ignore and wish away.
Society has reached a point where the biggest obstaclt to gender equality is no longer men's attitudes (although there's always room for improvment ), but women's attitudes.
Feminism itself promoted equality, but many women these days will try to use it for female-only benefits. I find that highly detrimential to the actual issue.

That is one reason why I would promote providing equal opportunities and removing unnecessary obstacles, but not pushing the advantages for women regardless of circumstances.

In short, paternal leave should be available, and the should be encouragement for men to take it. But the decision on how to use it and how to plan and manage career and income are still up to the individual.

Maybe it would just change itself, I doubt it though because feminism does a bad job reconciling career and family imo. As for parental leave we don't even have a weeks paid paternity leave here.

Shenshen

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe it would just change itself, I doubt it though because feminism does a bad job reconciling career and family imo. As for parental leave we don't even have a weeks paid paternity leave here.

I know, one of my biggest griefs with the Irish system. Even when adopting a child, the mother is legally entitled to maternity leave, but there is no such right for the father. As far as I know, he doesn't even have a legal right to take unpaid paternity leave. I'm finding that highly discriminatory against both parents.
Against the mother because she has no choice but to be the one to stay home, and against the father for not being equal under the law to the mother.

In my opinion as a convinced feminist, that definitely does need work.

maggy_thatcher

Shenshen wrote: »

I know, one of my biggest griefs with the Irish system. Even when adopting a child, the mother is legally entitled to maternity leave, but there is no such right for the father. As far as I know, he doesn't even have a legal right to take unpaid paternity leave. I'm finding that highly discriminatory against both parents.
Against the mother because she has no choice but to be the one to stay home, and against the father for not being equal under the law to the mother.

In my opinion as a convinced feminist, that definitely does need work.

Until we have a referendum abolishing Article 41.2 of the constitution, I don't see a way out of this, but there seems little political will to do so.

Zulu

The real shame isn't that the mother has no choice, or even that the father has no rights. The real shame is that the child is denied that access to their father; that the state effectively blocks/obstructs the father/child the opportunity to build a bond.

Shenshen

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Until we have a referendum abolishing Article 41.2 of the constitution, I don't see a way out of this, but there seems little political will to do so.

Sounds like that does needchanging a whole lot more than 42.5

Jester252

I find this quotas to just be stupid. If I (male) went for a job and a woman went for the same job and she won. While I will have no hard feeling but if after that the company announces that the reached the woman quota I would sue that company into the ground

King Of Wishful Thinking

Can't believe people are still arguing about gender wage gaps. They have been debunked so many times now that one wonders what it is that has to be done to quash the never-ending dogma that women in western society earn 75% of what men do and the cause of that is sexual discrimination. It just isn't true and it seems to me, that those that peddle that nonsense, do so for reasons of societal pay-off and not out of any great belief in what they are saying, as there can't really be any, it's a myth.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-media-myth/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q0yvN_kdOE

Capt'n Midnight

Wonders how long before someone sues for reverse discrimination.

We constantly hear how margins are tight in the commercial world and any competitive advantage should be used. If women can do the same job as men on 15% lower income ( or whatever ) then something doesn't add up.


Here and in the UK accountants are over represented on board and Engineers / technologists are under represented. It's an artificial construct caused because tax avoidance is more important than creating new products or providing good service.

However, since the proportion of women in accounting is much higher than in science/engineering can someone suggest how we can get the bean-counters off boards and women on ?

Scanlas The 2nd

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wonders how long before someone sues for reverse discrimination.

We constantly hear how margins are tight in the commercial world and any competitive advantage should be used. If women can do the same job as men on 15% lower income ( or whatever ) then something doesn't add up.


Here and in the UK accountants are over represented on board and Engineers / technologists are under represented. It's an artificial construct caused because tax avoidance is more important than creating new products or providing good service.

However, since the proportion of women in accounting is much higher than in science/engineering can someone suggest how we can get the bean-counters off boards and women on ?

Reverse discrimination makes no sense.

Discriminating against men is discrimination the same way as against women.

Zulu

Zulu wrote: »

Secondly, if you agree with gender discrimination in order to get equality of numbers, why 40% & not 50%?

I think it should be made up of 60% of each gender.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

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

Care to point out where young men are better off than young women? Men have a higher employment rate is the only one I can find but they also have a higher unemployment rate, both explained by they being more likely to claim for a family.

As for the wage gap over and over again, once per-hour pay is factored in women make about 90% as much as men. Considering the pretty huge difference in hours worked men seem much more likely to work more overtime and to work full-time rather than part-time which easily explains the 10% gap. Add the fact that in terms of experience right now men will have been in more jobs for longer and hence reached "the top" and be paid more the difference in pay is more than explained.

As for the lovely bull**** of trying to turn any point mentioning where men come out worse than women as evidence of claiming young white males are the most discriminated against group, just about no-one is saying that. In Ireland men have lower life expectancy, higher risk of homelessness. Young men go to university less than women, have a higher unemployment rate, the suicide thing. Most people who are being painted as self-pitying caricatures aren't even claiming those things as evidence of discrimination against men, just that there's plenty were men come out worse and different results don't imply different opportunities.

Eoin

Huckleberry Finn wrote: »

Let's put this into perspective. Have a look at Norway's parliament. They considered 37% to be unequal and were worried about it. What makes us so different?

Have a look at Ireland's paternity leave: 0 days provided by law.

Compare that with Norway: "Norwegian parents may choose to take a total of 46 weeks of leave at 100 per cent pay or 56 weeks at 80 per cent pay."

I would be very surprised if this inequity doesn't have an impact on the gender balance.

The likes of Mitchell O'Connor can talk as much as they want about publishing pay scales etc, but until they accept that some of the differences that benefit women more than men need to be addressed, this will either stay as rhetoric or a stupid system of enforced quotas.

dr.bollocko

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it should be made up of 60% of each gender.

Care to point out where young men are better off than young women? Men have a higher employment rate is the only one I can find but they also have a higher unemployment rate, both explained by they being more likely to claim for a family.

As for the wage gap over and over again, once per-hour pay is factored in women make about 90% as much as men. Considering the pretty huge difference in hours worked men seem much more likely to work more overtime and to work full-time rather than part-time which easily explains the 10% gap.

Now we've seen in here videos which explain the wage gap. And then weve seen studies which suggest the explanations themselves are flawed and that there is still a wage gap.

The studies I have checked have indicate a number of interesting points. For two diff genders working the same job there appears to be a wage gap. This is one end of the argument. The wage gap is a myth is the other end.

I have posted some info. I will endeavour to post more I have read when I get the opportunity to relocate them if you're actually interested. I don't accept that the difference is explainable by factors such as working less hours.

Add the fact that in terms of experience right now men will have been in more jobs for longer and hence reached "the top" and be paid more the difference in pay is more than explained.

Fact?

As for the lovely bull**** of trying to turn any point mentioning where men come out worse than women as evidence of claiming young white males are the most discriminated against group, just about no-one is saying that.

I am not sure who that particular paragraph is aimed at however this aggressive stance to defending gender identities in gender rights is fine.

However the kind of stuff which says women need to stop moaning and work harder deserves to be called out for the uneducated nonsense that it is.

Shenshen

Eoin wrote: »

Have a look at Ireland's paternity leave: 0 days provided by law.

Compare that with Norway: "Norwegian parents may choose to take a total of 46 weeks of leave at 100 per cent pay or 56 weeks at 80 per cent pay."

I would be very surprised if this inequity doesn't have an impact on the gender balance.

The likes of Mitchell O'Connor can talk as much as they want about publishing pay scales etc, but until they accept that some of the differences that benefit women more than men need to be addressed, this will either stay as rhetoric or a stupid system of enforced quotas.

I'm not so sure it's a benefit to women... it's what is at the moment keeping me from having children. I've no intention of staying at home, my husband would do that.

dr.bollocko

I guess it re-affirms the idea that a woman's role is to be a care giver for offspring first.

Which is unfair to the father because they're not getting bonding time with their child.

Eoin

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm not so sure it's a benefit to women... it's what is at the moment keeping me from having children. I've no intention of staying at home, my husband would do that.

Benefit is probably the wrong word, but it's at least an option the mother has that the father doesn't. All parental leave gives you is the right to 14 weeks off (if you're there a year or more). There are no social welfare payments and it can be postponed by the employer under certain circumstances. If none of those things are factors, then it's brilliant that your husband can take the leave instead, but that's not the reality for a lot of couples.

I'm not saying that it's a cake walk for the mothers or anything like that, I'm saying that I think it goes a long way to explaining some of the gender imbalance.

jackofalltrades

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Until we have a referendum abolishing Article 41.2 of the constitution, I don't see a way out of this, but there seems little political will to do so.

This is my principal criticism of the feminist movement. Removing this article and providing for greater equality in parenting would free up women to stay on at their careers and reach the higher up positions in business/politics.

But they seem to shy away from the option where they might have to concede advantage. Instead they opt for a position of superiority, wherein they get to have a family and then continue on in their career and reach levels where a man wouldn't with an equivalent gap in his career due to child minding.

dr.bollocko

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Now we've seen in here videos which explain the wage gap. And then weve seen studies which suggest the explanations themselves are flawed and that there is still a wage gap.

The studies I have checked have indicate a number of interesting points. For two diff genders working the same job there appears to be a wage gap. This is one end of the argument. The wage gap is a myth is the other end.

I have posted some info. I will endeavour to post more I have read when I get the opportunity to relocate them if you're actually interested. I don't accept that the difference is explainable by factors such as working less hours.

How often are 2 jobs exactly the same? Just about the only examples I can think of are ones with published payscales.
Do you really not think that the 10% difference in average pay (not equal pay for equal work) can be explained by more overtime, more full-time workers, more experience and the very top being dominated by men due to old policies.
Looking at the public sector it seems pretty likely that within a decade or two when the last of the people who started under the rule where women had to quit will be gone that the top positions could be majority female. Will that be discrimination?
Working on average a third more hours causing on average a 10% higher per-hour pay-rate just doesn't seem objectionable to me.

Fact?

You don't think that the hangover from 30 years ago when women were expected to quit when they had a kid makes any difference to average pay?

I am not sure who that particular paragraph is aimed at however this aggressive stance to defending gender identities in gender rights is fine.

However the kind of stuff which says women need to stop moaning and work harder deserves to be called out for the uneducated nonsense that it is.

Women on average work less hours, are more likely to be part-time, less likely to work overtime and likely to be less experience. On average these likely contribute to the "pay gap". I fail to see the discrimination here. The point again is illustrated by young men having a higher unemployment rate than young women. No-one seems to call that discrimination but by definition if the genders were reversed it seems it would be evidence of discrimination.

--Kaiser--

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I guess it re-affirms the idea that a woman's role is to be a care giver for offspring first.

Which is unfair to the father because they're not getting bonding time with their child.

It's more important for a woman to have time off, at least for the first couple of months - if only for breast feeding and physical recovery from what can be quite an ordeal

jackofalltrades

Shenshen wrote: »

Please see the two links I posted.
The lady who wrote those articles is the frontwoman of feminism in Germany, editor of the most widely spread feminist magazine and a highlt active campaigner since the late 60s.

Oh I did read through those articles, (albeit using Google translator so my understanding of them isn't 100%). But I don't think two articles by one woman constitutes a campaign. Certainly not when you compare it to other feminists campaigns and especially when compared to the current campaign for quotas for non-executive board members/political party nominations.

maggy_thatcher

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

It's more important for a woman to have time off, at least for the first couple of months - if only for breast feeding and physical recovery from what can be quite an ordeal

So make 4-8 weeks of the parental leave mandatory for each parent, and then have the couple divvy the remainder between them? That seems like the best option.