A fair shake

amcalester

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

quora :
"Equality of outcome is a measure to reach a predetermined quota. In practice that means when you have 10 equally qualified candidates, you pick the one who happens to be born belonging to the cohort of people currently underrepresented in your company. For example, if you have 10 equally qualified candidates, and only 1 of them is female and you need her to meet your quota, that effectively means the woman has a 100% chance of being hired, and the men a 0% chance, purely based on their gender."

Who determines the quota? And what happens when not enough women apply for labouring jobs? Do we just stop building so as not to upset the "equality" of outcome brigade?

Sassygirl1999

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

quora :
"Equality of outcome is a measure to reach a predetermined quota. In practice that means when you have 10 equally qualified candidates, you pick the one who happens to be born belonging to the cohort of people currently underrepresented in your company. For example, if you have 10 equally qualified candidates, and only 1 of them is female and you need her to meet your quota, that effectively means the woman has a 100% chance of being hired, and the men a 0% chance, purely based on their gender."

It's hilarious in a sad way.

Females are far outperforming males in Education.
They're far outperforming males in graduating with Honors.
They're receiving far more in terms of state/private initiatives to give them a boost in obtaining employment.
In many industries, females outperform males in terms of promotions and income until they're around 30...

But still.. that's not enough. The mere suggestion of competition really threatens you, doesn't it?

BrokenArrows

Id love to interview women who think they are paid less for the same work.

Top questions to ask.
1. How many hours did you work per week on average over the last 5 years.
2. How many times did you ask and fight for a pay raise over the last 5 years.
3. How are you actually performing when compared against your male counterpart that is paid more.

Id expect the answers to be:
1. Less than the male i am comparing myself against.
2. None or asked but didn't fight for it when told NO.
3. Worse.

Im male and my answers are:
1. About 30% more than my required hours that i am not paid for.
2. In 5 years i have asked for a pay rise 4 times, told no each time, fought for it, received a pay increase 3 times, found another job after being told no once and was given a rise in order to stay.
3. Id say im performing about the same as my other counterparts.

Gimme A Pound

There is no gender pay gap here. Name one company that has a policy of paying less to women with the same training, qualifications and experience as men for the same job.

Atoms for Peace

I always give it a fair shake after taking a leak.

jiltloop

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

close the gender pay gap as originally in the OP

What pay gap? The one in Hollywood that Meryl Streep talks about? Yah that's a legitimate pay gap, it doesn't exist in Ireland though for the most part.

pickarooney

Grayson wrote: »

If you'd read the next part of what I'd written then maybe you might understand.

Women take X amount of time off. Men take less. therefore women take a greater hit than men when it comes to their careers.
However some countries give men better paternity. That means men and women take off the same, or close, amount of time. This has two benefits.
1) men get to spend more time with the kids.
2) Both men and women take off the same amount of time from work after a birth.

That is more equal than saying that the childrearing is all the womans job and men should go back to work to support the family. Both get to spend that valuable time with the child after birth.

I think it's Finland that is the only country in the world where men spend more time with children than women and it's because they are given every opportunity to do so. In every other country men never get the chance.

Why do we persist with this narrative that women are suffering because their careers are taking a hit rather than men are suffering because they get less time to spend with their children?

Who are these people who prioritise work over their children (and why on earth are they having babies)?

Titzon Toast

I'll truly believe things are equal when I see women working on bin trucks or laying bricks on a building site.
Funny how these types of jobs aren't being fought over by feminists isn't it?

seamus

Brantley Slow Sledgehammer wrote: »

Becoming a parent causing a woman's career to take a hit - I just can't correlate that with social inequality.

If you have a baby you have to stop working for some time. There's nothing unfair about this.

To be fair, there is a social inequality in this regard in relation to expectations.

How many women have you heard asked in an interview - "How do you balance the demands of being a successful <CEO/Writer/Musician> with the demands of being a mother?"

It's pretty standard, right?

How many times have you heard the word "Father" used in that statement? Very rarely. A man is not asked how he balances work life and home life, becuase he's not expected to. It's virtually always assumed that a father who's a successful something has a wife at home caring for his kids. But a successful woman juggles being a childminder with her "day job".

It's subtle, but assumptions are also usually expectations, too. Women are expected to be the primary carer, even when they have a career.

Which is not fair either on men or women; plenty of men are the "rock" on which successful women lean, but they get no recognition, instead it's assumed their wife is both the breadwinner and the primary carer. It's not fair that men are expected to do long hours and to hell with family. I've seen it first-hand; men asking for time off to care for children and being asked why their mother can't do it. A woman who asked for a day off cos their child is sick would never be asked, "Why can't the father do it?".

That's the social inequality. Many womens' careers still take the hit when they have a baby because it's expected; because society says it should and because economically they may have no other choice.

Perfectly illustrated in the fact that men get two weeks paternity leave, women get six months maternity leave.

The J Stands for Jay

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

ROFlCOPTER, all the basket cases.

Look all we want is a fair shake not more misogyny

No more misandry.

The J Stands for Jay

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

close the gender pay gap as originally in the OP

Is step one to reduce the pay of women under 30 by 17% to bring them in line with their male counterparts?

nullzero

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

Equality of outcome is all us gals want

Well you have to work for that individually.
Equality of opportunity doesn't equal equality of outcome which is itself dependent on the individual.
Do you just want everything handed to you based on your gender?

Sassygirl1999

There is so much stress in the workplace these days that we need a new approach , we need to increase agreeableness in line with the dog eat dog competitive nature of our workplaces , equality of outcome increases agreeableness it has been found in Scandinavia and the workers tend to be more content

Sassygirl1999

Brantley Slow Sledgehammer wrote: »

There is no gender pay gap here. Name one company that has a policy of paying less to women with the same training, qualifications and experience as men for the same job.

A quick google brings back millions of examples here's one
http://theconversation.com/how-skills-and-personality-traits-contribute-to-the-gender-pay-gap-81684

Sassygirl1999

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

There is so much stress in the workplace these days that we need a new approach , we need to increase agreeableness in line with the dog eat dog competitive nature of our workplaces , equality of outcome increases agreeableness it has been found in Scandinavia and the workers tend to be more content

Feminist drivel. You want a helping hand to avoid competition, and to gain benefits due entirely to your gender. This isn't about equality. This is about lack of personal responsibility in choosing your education, making career choices and dealing with the consequences of your decisions.

It's interesting how nobody complains about the thousands of men who are stuck at the low end of employment, and have been for decades. When it comes to women, it's discrimination or unfair. When it comes to men, it's just that they weren't good enough. :rolleyes:

Now... instead of throwing out soundbites taken from a feminist-Marxist manifesto, perhaps you might answer some of the questions put to you throughout this thread?

Sassygirl1999

Deleted User wrote: »

Feminist drivel. You want a helping hand to avoid competition, and to gain benefits due entirely to your gender. This isn't about equality. This is about lack of personal responsibility in choosing your education, making career choices and dealing with the consequences of your decisions.

It's interesting how nobody complains about the thousands of men who are stuck at the low end of employment, and have been for decades. When it comes to women, it's discrimination or unfair. When it comes to men, it's just that they weren't good enough. :rolleyes:

Now... instead of throwing out soundbites taken from a feminist-Marxist manifesto, perhaps you might answer some of the questions put to you throughout this thread?

losers can be male or female you know, its not an exclusive label

Sassygirl1999

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

losers can be male or female you know, its not an exclusive label

Impressive response. :rolleyes: really? That's it? Sad, just sad.

Maxpfizer

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

There is so much stress in the workplace these days that we need a new approach , we need to increase agreeableness in line with the dog eat dog competitive nature of our workplaces , equality of outcome increases agreeableness it has been found in Scandinavia and the workers tend to be more content

Honestly, if you want to do a good job with these arguments you need to cite actual case studies and offer real solutions.

The company I used to work for paid everyone in my position minimum wage. So there is no "man's pay" and no "woman's pay" there was just "minimum wage".

Two of the people who started on the team with us were older men who were married and had a couple of kids and these guys were clocking overtime like nobody's business. Like I'd be doing my 40 hours a week and these 2 blokes would be pulling 60 to 70 hour work weeks. One guy worked every single day for 3 entire months. Even at minimum wage that is a lot of, well earned, extra cash.

You already know where this is going but it should be clear already that these 2 men alone were creating a "Gender Pay Gap" in the team.

One of them was quite tall so I don't doubt he was also responsible for the "Height Pay Gap" too.

Guess what though. Eventually the assistant team lead left and we needed a new assistant team leader. If only there was some employee who had been working his arse off for the company and pulling long shifts and building up experience. So guess who got shifted up a level?

So now these guys are not only unbalancing the equal gender pay of one team but they are unbalancing the whole equal gender pay of the entire company.

How do you solve a situation like that?

I mean, that's what you are missing here. You've pointed out there is a pay gap and you've implied you want to close it. How though?

You don't have many options here.

Do you ban these dudes from working overtime?
Do you force women on the team to work more to "balance the books"?
Do you employ extra women to balance the hours?
Maybe introduce a special "women's rate" that give the women more money to counter the mens additional hours worked?

What about the promotion?

Again, you have few options.

You could say that companies can only promote in even numbers so that you can always have an even number of men and women being promoted?

You could have a rule that only a man can replace another man at a higher level and only a woman can replace another woman at a higher level?

What's your ideas here?

Have you even bothered to look into the demographics of the national workforce? Is it a flat 50-50 split? Should ALL professions be split 50-50 where only a man can replace a man and only a woman can replace a women? Should all new recruitment be organised in such a way that any time a company adds to it's workforce it has to be 50-50?

What about people who do not conform to the gender binary? Do non-binary folks even exist in your equal pay utopia?

What have you got in terms of solutions? Do you even understand the causes of the "gap" to begin with?

Maxpfizer

pickarooney wrote: »

Why do we persist with this narrative that women are suffering because their careers are taking a hit rather than men are suffering because they get less time to spend with their children?

Exactly. I think it's mostly because what we see is people speaking on behalf of other people rather than asking the affected individuals themselves.

I am sure that for many men chasing that promotion and pay raise at work there is a woman at home driving them to do so.

How many wives would say to their husbands "you know what hubby we don't need the extra 10k per year let one of the women in your office have this one and we'll close that pay gap"?

How many women are quite happy for the father to work a bit more while she works a bit less? Nobody ever really seems to ask them.

Sassygirl1999

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Honestly, if you want to do a good job with these arguments you need to cite actual case studies and offer real solutions.

The company I used to work for paid everyone in my position minimum wage. So there is no "man's pay" and no "woman's pay" there was just "minimum wage".

Two of the people who started on the team with us were older men who were married and had a couple of kids and these guys were clocking overtime like nobody's business. Like I'd be doing my 40 hours a week and these 2 blokes would be pulling 60 to 70 hour work weeks. One guy worked every single day for 3 entire months. Even at minimum wage that is a lot of, well earned, extra cash.

You already know where this is going but it should be clear already that these 2 men alone were creating a "Gender Pay Gap" in the team.

One of them was quite tall so I don't doubt he was also responsible for the "Height Pay Gap" too.

Guess what though. Eventually the assistant team lead left and we needed a new assistant team leader. If only there was some employee who had been working his arse off for the company and pulling long shifts and building up experience. So guess who got shifted up a level?

So now these guys are not only unbalancing the equal gender pay of one team but they are unbalancing the whole equal gender pay of the entire company.

How do you solve a situation like that?

I mean, that's what you are missing here. You've pointed out there is a pay gap and you've implied you want to close it. How though?

You don't have many options here.

Do you ban these dudes from working overtime?
Do you force women on the team to work more to "balance the books"?
Do you employ extra women to balance the hours?
Maybe introduce a special "women's rate" that give the women more money to counter the mens additional hours worked?

What about the promotion?

Again, you have few options.

You could say that companies can only promote in even numbers so that you can always have an even number of men and women being promoted?

You could have a rule that only a man can replace another man at a higher level and only a woman can replace another woman at a higher level?

What's your ideas here?

Have you even bothered to look into the demographics of the national workforce? Is it a flat 50-50 split? Should ALL professions be split 50-50 where only a man can replace a man and only a woman can replace a women? Should all new recruitment be organised in such a way that any time a company adds to it's workforce it has to be 50-50?

What about people who do not conform to the gender binary? Do non-binary folks even exist in your equal pay utopia?

What have you got in terms of solutions? Do you even understand the causes of the "gap" to begin with?

look if you work (more) you get paid obviously but if all the worlds resources are not distributed in equal proportions then it is unfair, stop the attempts to render the world more unfair in a 'just' way

Maxpfizer

seamus wrote: »

That's the social inequality. Many womens' careers still take the hit when they have a baby because it's expected; because society says it should and because economically they may have no other choice.

Perfectly illustrated in the fact that men get two weeks paternity leave, women get six months maternity leave.

Are the women unhappy with this though?

Presumably if the men got 6 months leave also then they will BOTH take that hit to their careers?

So people without kids should maybe be forced to take a 6 month "career hit" two to three times in their working life?

Or maybe people with kids shouldn't take any "hit"?

Like how would you even begin to enforce any of this.

More importantly SHOULD you even enforce this?

What if a couple decides on their own that the man will keep working and keep bringing in the money? What if a disproportionate amount of couples opt for the "she gets 6 months, he gets 2 weeks" option?

You say it's "society" who decides this but society is made up of millions of these individual couples. What do the actual individuals involved think? Can they afford to have both people off work for 6 months? If not then who would they prefer to have working vs staying at home?

What about folks with no kids? Do they feel entitled to some kind of recognition from their employer for not taking 6 months off?

What can we even say if we don't know the answers to these basic, I would say fundamental, questions?

Maxpfizer

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

look if you work (more) you get paid obviously but if all the worlds resources are not distributed in equal proportions then it is unfair, stop the attempts to render the world more unfair in a 'just' way

So you basically have no answers then? No ideas. No solutions.

What a waste of time.

seamus

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Are the women unhappy with this though?

Presumably if the men got 6 months leave also then they will BOTH take that hit to their careers?

So people without kids should maybe be forced to take a 6 month "career hit" two to three times in their working life?

Or maybe people with kids shouldn't take any "hit"?

Like how would you even begin to enforce any of this.

More importantly SHOULD you even enforce this?

What if a couple decides on their own that the man will keep working and keep bringing in the money? What if a disproportionate amount of couples opt for the "she gets 6 months, he gets 2 weeks" option?

You say it's "society" who decides this but society is made up of millions of these individual couples. What do the actual individuals involved think? Can they afford to have both people off work for 6 months? If not then who would they prefer to have working vs staying at home?

What about folks with no kids? Do they feel entitled to some kind of recognition from their employer for not taking 6 months off?

What can we even say if we don't know the answers to these basic, I would say fundamental, questions?

That's a lot of irrelevant questions. Men get 24 fewer weeks than women because it's socially expected that women will/want to take lots of time and men won't/don't want to.

It's a reflection of overall attitudes. The amount of leave available to both parents should be equal. So then people are free to choose to structure their leave whatever way they feel, and they're not confined to having to do it in a way that the woman has to take six months off (someone has to mind the kid) and the man can only take two weeks (because his employer doesn't have to allow anything else).

The rest of your stuff about enforcement (wtf?) and childless people is an irrelevant tangent really.

Grayson

JayZeus wrote: »

“The chart below shows that Finland is the only country where a square (which represents men) appears above a circle (representing women), showing the minutes of childcare duties performed each day by both sexes.

But it also shows that both mothers and fathers in Finland spend relatively few hours each day with school-age children, since both are normally working full time. And also that women still do the bulk of the childcare for pre-school children in every country, including Finland.“

If a mother and a father both spend too little time with their kids, but the father spends 8 minutes per day more with their kids than their mother, who wins? Not the kids. But yay for gender equality!

Now, go see how many marriages end in divorce. Then look at suicide rates. Then look at murder count. Average lifespan for men vs women.

The nordics and scandinavia are not even half as good at living the balanced family life as some people like to believe.

Don’t believe the hype. Or an OECD report being used to suggest there’s some perfect system in place in Finland. There isn’t. Fathers can take parental leave if they want it. That’s different alright. As it turns out, they mostly don’t avail of it, because they don’t need/want/wish to take the hit on family income.

So you're arguing that men should spend less time with their children?

Personally I'm in favor of mandatory maternity/paternity leave that's equal for each gender. There should also be state funded childcare places so that both men and women can go to work if they wish to.

btw, here's another article about the finnish system.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/dec/04/finland-only-country-world-dad-more-time-kids-moms

Maxpfizer

seamus wrote: »

That's a lot of irrelevant questions. Men get 24 fewer weeks than women because it's socially expected that women will/want to take lots of time and men won't/don't want to.

It's a reflection of overall attitudes. The amount of leave available to both parents should be equal. So then people are free to choose to structure their leave whatever way they feel, and they're not confined to having to do it in a way that the woman has to take six months off (someone has to mind the kid) and the man can only take two weeks (because his employer doesn't have to allow anything else).

The rest of your stuff about enforcement (wtf?) and childless people is an irrelevant tangent really.

Socially expected by whom? Do you think society is made up of people who aren't the very men and women you are talking about?

You say the questions are irrelevant but you seem to have no concept of what couples actually want.

If the amount of time available to each is equal then how are they likely to choose to divide up that time?

I mean where did the 6 months and 2 weeks divide come from? Society? Well who makes up that society?

xckjoo

seamus wrote: »

That's a lot of irrelevant questions. Men get 24 fewer weeks than women because it's socially expected that women will/want to take lots of time and men won't/don't want to.

There's also the physical part of creating a life, bringing it to term and nursing...

Maxpfizer

Grayson wrote: »

So you're arguing that men should spend less time with their children?

Personally I'm in favor of mandatory maternity/paternity leave that's equal for each gender. There should also be state funded childcare places so that both men and women can go to work if they wish to.

btw, here's another article about the finnish system.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/dec/04/finland-only-country-world-dad-more-time-kids-moms

If it's "mandatory" then isn't that unfair to couples who are fine with a traditional approach?

What if a couple decide on their own that the man will keep working and the woman will maybe not even go back to work until the kids are in their teens?

The "mandatory" thing simply doesn't work for me and I don't think it's a good approach.

seamus

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Socially expected by whom? Do you think society is made up of people who aren't the very men and women you are talking about?

Of course. But you seem to be saying, "That's what people want, so don't change it!". If that's what people want, then making it a more open choice will make no difference to them.

What you're basically saying is, "People don't need choices because they don't choose anything else". It is socially ingrained that women care for the children regardless of their career, and men have a career regardless. Of course many people choose that. Many others have no option.

You say the questions are irrelevant but you seem to have no concept of what couples actually want.

It's irrelevant what people want so long as they have the freedom to make the choice. If someone wants a traditional stay-at-home mother and working father, great! If someone wants to reverse the roles, great! If someone wants a good 50:50 split, great!

But at present, only one of those is really supported in any way by the state, and in a constant feedback loop it remains the "norm", even if that norm is unequal.

Give parents the freedom to choose, and it doesn't affect anyone who wants the norm, but it will remove all expectations that everyone should stick with the "norm".

If the amount of time available to each is equal then how are they likely to choose to divide up that time?

That doesn't matter once they have the freedom to make that choice.

I mean where did the 6 months and 2 weeks divide come from? Society? Well who makes up that society?

Well, exactly. So it comes from social norms, which are ingrained societal inequality. Reinforced by the law.

monkeybutter

seamus wrote: »

Of course. But you seem to be saying, "That's what people want, so don't change it!". If that's what people want, then making it a more open choice will make no difference to them.

What you're basically saying is, "People don't need choices because they don't choose anything else". It is socially ingrained that women care for the children regardless of their career, and men have a career regardless. Of course many people choose that. Many others have no option.

It's irrelevant what people want so long as they have the freedom to make the choice. If someone wants a traditional stay-at-home mother and working father, great! If someone wants to reverse the roles, great! If someone wants a good 50:50 split, great!

But at present, only one of those is really supported in any way by the state, and in a constant feedback loop it remains the "norm", even if that norm is unequal.

Give parents the freedom to choose, and it doesn't affect anyone who wants the norm, but it will remove all expectations that everyone should stick with the "norm".

That doesn't matter once they have the freedom to make that choice.

Well, exactly. So it comes from social norms, which are ingrained societal inequality. Reinforced by the law.

Stop angling for a cushy stay at home dad setup would ya.

seamus

monkeybutter wrote: »

Stop angling for a cushy stay at home dad setup would ya.

I hope the delicious irony in this is intentional

Sassygirl1999

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Honestly, if you want to do a good job with these arguments you need to cite actual case studies and offer real solutions.

The company I used to work for paid everyone in my position minimum wage. So there is no "man's pay" and no "woman's pay" there was just "minimum wage".

Two of the people who started on the team with us were older men who were married and had a couple of kids and these guys were clocking overtime like nobody's business. Like I'd be doing my 40 hours a week and these 2 blokes would be pulling 60 to 70 hour work weeks. One guy worked every single day for 3 entire months. Even at minimum wage that is a lot of, well earned, extra cash.

You already know where this is going but it should be clear already that these 2 men alone were creating a "Gender Pay Gap" in the team.

One of them was quite tall so I don't doubt he was also responsible for the "Height Pay Gap" too.

Guess what though. Eventually the assistant team lead left and we needed a new assistant team leader. If only there was some employee who had been working his arse off for the company and pulling long shifts and building up experience. So guess who got shifted up a level?

So now these guys are not only unbalancing the equal gender pay of one team but they are unbalancing the whole equal gender pay of the entire company.

How do you solve a situation like that?

I mean, that's what you are missing here. You've pointed out there is a pay gap and you've implied you want to close it. How though?

You don't have many options here.

Do you ban these dudes from working overtime?
Do you force women on the team to work more to "balance the books"?
Do you employ extra women to balance the hours?
Maybe introduce a special "women's rate" that give the women more money to counter the mens additional hours worked?

What about the promotion?

Again, you have few options.

You could say that companies can only promote in even numbers so that you can always have an even number of men and women being promoted?

You could have a rule that only a man can replace another man at a higher level and only a woman can replace another woman at a higher level?

What's your ideas here?

Have you even bothered to look into the demographics of the national workforce? Is it a flat 50-50 split? Should ALL professions be split 50-50 where only a man can replace a man and only a woman can replace a women? Should all new recruitment be organised in such a way that any time a company adds to it's workforce it has to be 50-50?

What about people who do not conform to the gender binary? Do non-binary folks even exist in your equal pay utopia?

What have you got in terms of solutions? Do you even understand the causes of the "gap" to begin with?

I see what you are trying to do here, you are making it seem like equality of outcome can only exist in a tyrannical type system, this would not be the case of it was only applied to the gender pay gap

Sassygirl1999

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

I see what you are trying to do here, you are making it seem like equality of outcome can only exist in a tyrannical type system, this would not be the case of it was only applied to the gender pay gap

I mean Marxism failed every time, but a water downed version of it to equalize the genders ONLY could work, everybody doesn't need to get equal, just men/women /other in the same societal bands get the same outcome

seamus

seamus wrote: »

The rest of your stuff about enforcement (wtf?) and childless people is an irrelevant tangent really.

Actually it's not... Single Childless people make up a reasonably large proportion of any population, and yet, they're being included in a system that rewards people who have children.

If this is really about equality or fairness, then their situation would be taken into account... not simply dismissed because it's inconvenient.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

I mean Marxism failed every time, but a water downed version of it to equalize the genders ONLY could work, everybody doesn't need to get equal, just men/women /other in the same societal bands get the same outcome

Equal in what way though.

What right do men have that women don't have in modern Ireland or the west in general?

The J Stands for Jay

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

look if you work (more) you get paid obviously but if all the worlds resources are not distributed in equal proportions then it is unfair, stop the attempts to render the world more unfair in a 'just' way

You need to give your laptop to a kid in Bangladesh and your car to a lad in Venezuela.

The J Stands for Jay

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

I mean Marxism failed every time, but a water downed version of it to equalize the genders ONLY could work, everybody doesn't need to get equal, just men/women /other in the same societal bands get the same outcome

Wouldn't the only way to achieve your vision be to pay the child minder at the same rate as the CEO?

Sassygirl1999

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Equal in what way though.

What right do men have that women don't have in modern Ireland or the west in general?

read the OP and close the gender pay gap !

Sassygirl1999

McGaggs wrote: »

Wouldn't the only way to achieve your vision be to pay the child minder at the same rate as the CEO?

no because the employment roles wouldn't be in the same societal band , CEO would be in the CEo band and child minder in the child minder band

Heat_Wave

amcalester wrote: »

Unlike those women.

Am I right?

Being laughing at this all evening

Sassygirl1999

McGaggs wrote: »

You need to give your laptop to a kid in Bangladesh and your car to a lad in Venezuela.

your just having a laugh

Sassygirl1999

Heat_Wave wrote: »

Being laughing at this all evening

ok you need a life, Fridays can be way better when you leave your bedroom

Stheno

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

ok you need a life, Fridays can be way better when you leave your bedroom

Do you think the gender pay gap exists in all professions?

Sassygirl1999

Stheno wrote: »

Do you think the gender pay gap exists in all professions?

unlikely
the gaps if they exist in a profession would be indexed
Future gaps could then be prevented using a societal band index

Stheno

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

unlikely
the gaps if they exist in a profession would be indexed
Future gaps could then be prevented using a societal band index

So that's a no? Do you think there is much of a gap between single childless women and men?

Sassygirl1999

Stheno wrote: »

So that's a no? Do you think there is much of a gap between single childless women and men?

depends

Franz Von Peppercorn

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

equality of outcome needs to be part of the next wave of reforms

Communism then. Because while rich women are poorer than rich men, rich women are richer than middle class, and working class men.

Sassygirl1999

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

unlikely
the gaps if they exist in a profession would be indexed
Future gaps could then be prevented using a societal band index

So, we are no more than the "group" someone decides us to be. Don't you see the extremely huge ability for such a system to be abused?

Are you really so quick to remove the emphasis on individuality from western culture? You do realise that one of the core reasons for western economic success is the ability for the individual to rise above other individuals, and that group (or collective) systems have been gradually replaced in the last few decades? Look at the emerging countries in Asia, which originally had collective systems, have switched to a more individualistic system which has resulted in their economies and standards of living exploding.....

TBH, your belief in such a system (if it was brought into being) could easily destroy the prosperity of Western nations.

Sassygirl1999

Deleted User wrote: »

So, we are no more than the "group" someone decides us to be. Don't you see the extremely huge ability for such a system to be abused?

Are you really so quick to remove the emphasis on individuality from western culture? You do realise that one of the core reasons for western economic success is the ability for the individual to rise above other individuals, and that group (or collective) systems have been gradually replaced in the last few decades? Look at the emerging countries in Asia, which originally had collective systems, have switched to a more individualistic system which has resulted in their economies and standards of living exploding.....

TBH, your belief in such a system (if it was brought into being) could easily destroy the prosperity of Western nations.

destroy the inequality too , have you another suggestion?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Communism then. Because while rich women are poorer than rich men, rich women are richer than middle class, and working class men.

Ahh but with divorce rulings switched to being more equal (as we've seen in China and other male power centered countries), rich women can be richer than rich men... and have the kids too.

But yes, it's essentially Marxism that she's spouting.

Franz Von Peppercorn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ahh but with divorce rulings switched to being more equal (as we've seen in China and other male power centered countries), rich women can be richer than rich men... and have the kids too.

But yes, it's essentially Marxism that she's spouting.

Not really. If someone came for the privileges of middle class feminists they’d revert to FG or the Torys.