Modern Feminism-Good for Society?

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

I am not the one threatening mass social engineering, starting with indoctrinating children which you suggested...in some twisted attempt to facilitate a feminist ideology imposed on every one.

Who is?

Silentcorner wrote: »

Typically, you use a passive aggressive style in an attempt to undermine me, as I said earlier, feminism is everywhere these days, I am entitled as you are to my opinion...maybe it's a different opinion you feel threatened by.

The most locations I see feminism these days is on here with people complaining about it.
I don't feel threatened by your opinion, at all. I see it is archaic and I think it is a worthwhile probing it so it can be seen what is behind it. Never had any suggestion that you not be entitled to have, but I too, and others, are entitled to challenge it.

joe40

Silentcorner wrote: »

I didn't think I'd have to explain this one....as a person drives around on their daily business, they can see with their own eyes who does the tough, outdoor, physical labour day in day out working often in miserable weather...when do we see or hear from CEOs in our day to day life?

I really am at a loss. Are you saying Men work harder than women.

Silentcorner

Tell me how wrote: »

Who is?



The most locations I see feminism these days is on here with people complaining about it.
I don't feel threatened by your opinion, at all. I see it is archaic and I think it is a worthwhile probing it so it can be seen what is behind it. Never had any suggestion that you not be entitled to have, but I too, and others, are entitled to challenge it.

Nor should you be, but don't infer that I'm threatened by anyone, it's an age old method of attempting to undermine a poster..

Feminism is everywhere these days, and well you know it, it's typical slippery language from you... a poster just earlier mentioned how the UN, EU and Irish Government are all striving to close the gender pay gap, make women's sport more visible, achieve what they define as equality in aspects of our lives...by discriminating against men in those same areas...you only see people offering a divergent opinion on here because it is not tolerated in many other places.

As it imposes it's will on people, more and more people will form opinions on feminism, better get used to people ridiculing the logical inconsistencies.

Silentcorner

joe40 wrote: »

I really am at a loss. Are you saying Men work harder than women.

Are you on a wind up?

anewme

Silentcorner wrote: »

Are you on a wind up?

You clearly are.

joe40

Silentcorner wrote: »

Are you on a wind up?

No.
I teach in a secondary school and know plenty of 16 year old boys chomping at the bit to get out of school to go farming or building.
Many will be hard workers but an outdoor physical job is what they want to do.
They would hate an office job.

There are many ways a job can be hard.

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

Nor should you be, but don't infer that I'm threatened by anyone, it's an age old method of attempting to undermine a poster..

You literally just did that yourself.

Silentcorner wrote: »

I am entitled as you are to my opinion...maybe it's a different opinion you feel threatened by.

Silentcorner wrote: »

Feminism is everywhere these days, and well you know it, it's typical slippery language from you... a poster just earlier mentioned how the UN, EU and Irish Government are all striving to close the gender pay gap, make women's sport more visible, achieve what they define as equality in aspects of our lives...by discriminating against men in those same areas...you only see people offering a divergent opinion on here because it is not tolerated in many other places.

As it imposes it's will on people, more and more people will form opinions on feminism, better get used to people ridiculing the logical inconsistencies.

Please don't tell me what I know, I have no desire or need to pretend something is anything other than how I see it. It is interesting though that you see UN, EU and Irish institutions as striving to close a pay gap and also argue that this pay gap does not exist. Why then are these male dominated institutions putting effort in to this?

What example have you of these same bodies discriminating against men in order to make womens sport more popular?

The only logical inconsistencies I see here are people denying there is a wage gap, but then explaining why it exists and pointing out how massive organisations are trying to help to overcome it.

Leg End Reject

Tell me how wrote: »

Not many boys grow up dreaming of doing road repairs or climbing telephone poles or picking up rubbish bins either do they.

You seem very threatened about even having a path where females might be able to envisage to being able to pursue many of the opportunities which are open to men. As evidence with your comments on education earlier, even the suggestion of them being able to do so is indoctrination akin to the Nazi brainwashing I think it was you implied.

What careers are only open to men?

Silentcorner

joe40 wrote: »

No.
I teach in a secondary school and know plenty of 16 year old boys chomping at the bit to get out of school to go farming or building.
Many will be hard workers but an outdoor physical job is what they want to do.
They would hate an office job.

There are many ways a job can be hard.

Look, just leave it, there are crossed wires here somehow.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Most men don't end up as CEO's either. There are any number of positions between being an intern and having the top job. And all these can be challenging, motivating, rewarding and fulfilling.

And extremely competitive. As you said most men don't end up as CEO's, however the point being glossed over are the numbers of men who attempt and fail to reach those top positions.

Feminists and others, look at the numbers of men in those roles, and assume that there must be barriers preventing women from being represented, and while there are likely some barriers, anti-discrimination laws are in place to prevent most of what used to go on. The point being that less women make the push for the CEO or upper management positions, than men, because they choose to have a family. Men and women both fail at being ambitious, but when it comes to women, there must be something unfair involved.

I know plenty women who want both a family and a meaningful career. It doesn't have to be either/or for men, why should it be for women?

Actually, the same option that is available for men.. is available for women. You decide that your husband will become the primary caregiver, and parent in the family. However, let's be honest here, most women who want to have children, want the experience of seeing their babies grow up, learn to walk, speak, etc, which would be put in jeopardy by having the kind of responsibilities that go with those top positions.

As to why we shouldn't change the whole system to accommodate their desires for both? It's unfair to those people who are single or didn't want/can't have children, and have decided to focus on their careers. They're willing to put in more time and stress to see the company succeed. Which is, pretty much, what a company is likely to want from their staff.

Silentcorner

Tell me how wrote: »

You literally just did that yourself.





Please don't tell me what I know, I have no desire or need to pretend something is anything other than how I see it. It is interesting though that you see UN, EU and Irish institutions as striving to close a pay gap and also argue that this pay gap does not exist. Why then are these male dominated institutions putting effort in to this?

What example have you of these same bodies discriminating against men in order to make womens sport more popular?

The only logical inconsistencies I see here are people denying there is a wage gap, but then explaining why it exists and pointing out how massive organisations are trying to help to overcome it.

There is nobody denying that there is an earnings gap, like there is a massive spending gap between the genders, both are the consequences of people's individual choices and not the responsibility of massive bureaucracies and academia to impose, through state intervention, social engineering at all levels of an individuals life....especially as those entities do not operate in the Private sector, where the vast majority of companies are small and cannot afford to engage in the diversity nonsense spewing out of the Gender Studies Departments across the developed world.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Feminists and others, look at the numbers of men in those roles, and assume that there must be barriers preventing women from being represented, and while there are likely some barriers, anti-discrimination laws are in place to prevent most of what used to go on. The point being that less women make the push for the CEO or upper management positions, than men, because they choose to have a family. Men and women both fail at being ambitious, but when it comes to women, there must be something unfair involved.

You cannot fault anyone for looking at a situation and asking 'how do we improve it'. Every company does so every year in terms of the sales book and profit margin. For anyone to look at top performing roles and considering is there an equal gender split is just that in a different way. Why is that a bad thing?

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, the same option that is available for men.. is available for women. You decide that your husband will become the primary caregiver, and parent in the family. However, let's be honest here, most women who want to have children, want the experience of seeing their babies grow up, learn to walk, speak, etc, which would be put in jeopardy by having the kind of responsibilities that go with those top positions.

Yes, but as we have seen on this thread, many people seem to think women are more innately suited/motivated towards care roles and so there are likely some women who ultimately assume that position because there was no consideration offered or facilitated within their situation that it might be any different.

Deleted User wrote: »

As to why we shouldn't change the whole system to accommodate their desires for both? It's unfair to those people who are single or didn't want/can't have children, and have decided to focus on their careers. They're willing to put in more time and stress to see the company succeed. Which is, pretty much, what a company is likely to want from their staff.

No one is advocating that we change the whole system, I certainly am not. I am simply saying that it is better that we giver people every opportunity to maximise their own potential in a way that is of their choosing. That includes informing them that they could do roles which may be primarily occupied by the other gender to this point, and that to facilitate them doing so, (whether male or female) we don't limit their chances because a traditional inherent bias.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

You cannot fault anyone for looking at a situation and asking 'how do we improve it'. Every company does so every year in terms of the sales book and profit margin. For anyone to look at top performing roles and considering is there an equal gender split is just that in a different way. Why is that a bad thing?

It's not. When it's done in the spirit of constructive criticism, which is lacking in an obvious agenda to elevate one gender over another.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I know that there are people out there who have genuine (and unbiased) concerns about the system (system engineers/analysts), and want to improve it. I'm 110% behind these people. However, I suspect they're a minority when it comes to talking about the lack of women in senior positions.

Because, again, nobody is too concerned about the loads of men who fail to achieve success.. Or that due to the numbers of women who choose to have a family, there will be more men available to compete for those positions. You, yourself, just skipped over it, to reply to the remainder of the post.

Yes, but as we have seen on this thread, many people seem to think women are more innately suited/motivated towards care roles and so there are likely some women who ultimately assume that position because there was no consideration offered or facilitated within their situation that it might be any different.

Yes, well, I've noticed there's no reluctance to claim a gender stereotype when there's a positive involved. For example, the idea that women are the better parent, and should be the sole custodian of children in a divorce or separation.

People are very quick to assign gender stereotypes for all manner of situations.

As for who is pushing girls and young women into particular roles, you might want to reconsider a few things. Women, as mothers, tend to spend the most time with the children. In Education, for both primary and secondary levels, women clearly outnumber (scroll to the bottom) the male teachers (assuming that these male teachers are encouraging some traditional roles for their students, which I find unlikely).

So, perhaps the question should be asked whether it's women who are encouraging these gender stereotypes, because if we look at media/movies/etc the last two decades, they've been showing/saying that women can be anything they want to be.

No one is advocating that we change the whole system, I certainly am not. I am simply saying that it is better that we giver people every opportunity to maximise their own potential in a way that is of their choosing. That includes informing them that they could do roles which may be primarily occupied by the other gender to this point, and that to facilitate them doing so, (whether male or female) we don't limit their chances because a traditional inherent bias.

There is always going to be some individual bias. That's part of human nature, both by men and women directed towards women. We have laws already that seek to minimize the impact of that, and to provide people with avenues to claim against it.

You see, I'm at a bit of a loss as to where this supposed influence is coming from that limits women from choosing their careers... I generally find that the people who complain about there not being enough women in politics, or another role, have no interest in doing that role themselves. They expect others to step up into that role... rather than accepting that women already choose for themselves what they want to do. And for how long.

Which is one of the reasons I'm so against the idea of gender quotas, or other initiatives that allow women to sidestep the competitive nature that exists in most industries, because positions are in demand.. desirable. Although, when women don't want those positions, the desire is to make them more suitable.. regardless of how suitable/unsuitable they were for everyone that went before them.

jrosen

Where is next? Do we really want to go down the road of gender quotas? Or gender diversity?
Is that not just another form of discrimination? I certainly wouldn’t want to be promoted over my male counterpart simply because the company needed more women in a particular role if my male counterpart was more qualified for the position?
It’s insulting to women I think. If we are pushing for equality don’t we want to stand over our roles and positions knowing we earned them through hard work?

Silentcorner

jrosen wrote: »

Where is next? Do we really want to go down the road of gender quotas? Or gender diversity?
Is that not just another form of discrimination? I certainly wouldn’t want to be promoted over my male counterpart simply because the company needed more women in a particular role if my male counterpart was more qualified for the position?
It’s insulting to women I think. If we are pushing for equality don’t we want to stand over our roles and positions knowing we earned them through hard work?

There are already gender quotas in a lot of workplaces today, many men cannot go for certain roles or promotions across the professional and corporate world...of course, this is not reported in media so I cannot provide proof, but talk to any man who works in State institutions, Global Corporations, Media, the push to close the gender pay gap requires men to be pushed back and discriminated against.

There are gender quotas in politics, we have an Education Minister who is a first term TD and went straight into cabinet...her gender was more important than her experience or lack thereof.

Whether or not there are quotas in media isn't clear but there certainly is a huge culture shift away from men in front of the cameras or on radio in recent years...not with the best of results it has to be said.

Typically Male Culture has also seen a surge in the cultural change...with disastrous results, politics and sport/culture do not mix well, in fact it threatens the viability of many cultural endeavors...and we are only a few years into it!

The real impact will be felt in those small SME's who simply can't afford to keep up with the demands of the feminist/diversity mob.

...Ghost...

Tell me how wrote: »

Not for the first time, people are saying within a single post something doesn't exist but then give some form of an explanation as to why it does.

If this works out as men typically earning a greater percentage, this must mean that women are either not working as hard, or have to do other things than work which they aren't paid for.

Which do you think it is?

The bit you are missing is the difference between a "gender pay gap" and a "difference in pay".

If a man and a woman do exactly the same job and all benefits are equal, but the man had earned 50k in 2020 when the woman only earned 40k in 2020. If they both worked the same hours and no overtime, this would be a gender pay gap. However, if the reason the man made an extra 10k that year was for working extra hours to the value of 10k, then this is NOT a gender pay gap, it is a difference in pay.

The above is the simplified version for the perceived gender pay gap.

Does nobody consider that women have the greatest spending power no matter who earns the money? Broadly speaking, women make almost all the purchasing decisions and joint funds are half jokingly referred to as her funds. I know this to be the case with every couple I know.

the_pen_turner

...Ghost... wrote: »

The bit you are missing is the difference between a "gender pay gap" and a "difference in pay".

If a man and a woman do exactly the same job and all benefits are equal, but the man had earned 50k in 2020 when the woman only earned 40k in 2020. If they both worked the same hours and no overtime, this would be a gender pay gap. However, if the reason the man made an extra 10k that year was for working extra hours to the value of 10k, then this is NOT a gender pay gap, it is a difference in pay.

The above is the simplified version for the perceived gender pay gap.

Does nobody consider that women have the greatest spending power no matter who earns the money? Broadly speaking, women make almost all the purchasing decisions and joint funds are half jokingly referred to as her funds. I know this to be the case with every couple I know.

im a carpenter. i would say 90% of my domestic work is superficial work that women want, changeing doors, new flooring, panelling, curtain poles, floating shelves, wardrobes, hanging pictures etc.
the other 10% is repairs mostly with the odd job for men.

anewme

the_pen_turner wrote: »

im a carpenter. i would say 90% of my domestic work is superficial work that women want, changeing doors, new flooring, panelling, curtain poles, floating shelves, wardrobes, hanging pictures etc.
the other 10% is repairs mostly with the odd job for men.

Do men not want doors changed, new floors, etc.?

...Ghost...

the_pen_turner wrote: »

im a carpenter. i would say 90% of my domestic work is superficial work that women want, changeing doors, new flooring, panelling, curtain poles, floating shelves, wardrobes, hanging pictures etc.
the other 10% is repairs mostly with the odd job for men.

Funny you mention that. About 10% of Penneys/Dunnes/Tesco etc clothing department is for men. I've watched them all shrink over the years to the point that I now shop in 1 mens clothes shop, or online.

Curiously it's most often the women sitting at tills or organising displays while the men work in the cold stores and do the heavy lifting. Because equality :pac:

...Ghost...

anewme wrote: »

Do men not want doors changed, new floors, etc.?

Not if there are working doors and floors to begin with. Most men couldn't give a damn as long as these things are functional.

the_pen_turner

anewme wrote: »

Do men not want doors changed, new floors, etc.?

not really. not that iv found. sometime yes but its rare. its also in the 10% above.
men are happy enough with the doors they have. men are often driven by function over form and if something works fine then why change it. we spend our money on other things.

nothing wrong with women changing stuff. its great for trades like me,

the_pen_turner

...Ghost... wrote: »

Funny you mention that. About 10% of Penneys/Dunnes/Tesco etc clothing department is for men. I've watched them all shrink over the years to the point that I now shop in 1 mens clothes shop, or online.

Curiously it's most often the women sitting at tills or organising displays while the men work in the cold stores and do the heavy lifting. Because equality :pac:

bar work clothes or socks or underware i dont remember the last time i bought normal clothes. its years. could be 5 or more. my GF or mother often buys me cloths for presents so i have no need,

...Ghost...

the_pen_turner wrote: »

bar work clothes or socks or underware i dont remember the last time i bought normal clothes. its years. could be 5 or more. my GF or mother often buys me cloths for presents so i have no need,

Sox and Jox every Xmas. It's them feminists :pac:

anewme

the_pen_turner wrote: »

not really. not that iv found. sometime yes but its rare. its also in the 10% above.
men are happy enough with the doors they have. men are often driven by function over form and if something works fine then why change it. we spend our money on other things.

nothing wrong with women changing stuff. its great for trades like me,

I got a lot of work done on my home recently and it was my men friends who specced most of the work for me, eg, this door, this glass this finish these handles, this paint etc.

hatrickpatrick

anewme wrote: »

This is the charter on this forum.

I'd say racism, misogyny and hate speech are very clearly against the charter.

Racism to me is hate speech. As is traveller bashing or bashing others.

The rules of the forum are simple but absolute..

We have one guiding principle: Don't be a dick.

Do not post any material that you know or should know is hateful, abusive, harassing, false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, vulgar, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or illegal.

You are free to express your views in a forceful manner provided you remain civil. Hate speech, insults, and purposely inflammatory remarks (i.e., trolling) will not be tolerated. Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm. If we tell you to refrain from behaviour that we regard as uncivil, or that in our view detracts from a productive discussion, do so or face revocation of your posting privileges.

We reserve the right to delete any post for any or no reason whatsoever.

I'm aware of the charter. I happen to not agree with it. It's beside the point though, the point is that you and others on the TLL thread were calling for new rules to be imposed restricting the range of political or social opinions which people are allowed to express, and that is inherently extremely authoritarian.

Let me ask you a couple of questions. Bear in mind that they refer specifically to the idea of posting on Boards.ie, not general societal participation.

In what way does posting the word "boobs" on a forum specifically designed to be irreverent and to take the piss out of literally everything count as an offense under literally of the Charter rules you have posted above?

If you accept that it doesn't, do you accept that you are calling for new rules to be imposed on this site?

If a poster holds far right political beliefs, should they be allowed to argue in favour of them in a debate with a poster who holds far left beliefs?

If a poster believes that abortion counts as murder because life begins at conception, should that poster be prohibited from openly stating these beliefs in a political debate?

If somebody opposes gay marriage for traditionalist reasons, should that person be prohibited from saying so in a political debate?

If somebody believes that modern gender identity theory is made-up and that biological sex should be the only delineator of male and female, synonymous with the word gender and the terms man and woman, should they be prohibited from stating as such in a debate?

If somebody believes, as others have alluded to in this thread, that there are inherent differences between men and women which give rise to different outcomes, should this be prohibited from discussion?

Should people be prohibited from making snide remarks, regardless of gender, about celebrities and people who are not actually present here in this debate?

If somebody believes that the political ideologies associated with fundamentalist Islam are dangerous for Western democracy, should they be allowed to say so? If they believe that, for this reason, immigration to the West should be restricted by Western governments as a form of "cultural protectionism", should that poster be banned for stating as such?

On a non-political forum such as After Hours, should people be prohibited from making silly and crass jokes, such as posting the word "boobs" as a response to a thread about feminism in order to stir the pot and ridicule the debate?

If somebody believes that the modern world is too beholden to identity politics ideology and they oppose this, should they be prohibited from stating so in a debate?

In my view, if your answer to literally any of these questions is "yes", you are an authoritarian (traditionally conservative, I might add!) individual, and a bully. You want others to be silenced because you don't like what they have to say, and in so saying, you are essentially claiming that your own opinions or beliefs are so important - indeed, that you as an individual are so important - that the site's rules should be changed to accommodate your sensibilities.

I, on the other hand, would disagree with most of the beliefs I'm using as hypothetical targets for censorship in my post. The difference is that I do not regard myself as important enough to demand that debates be censored and moulded in a way which artificially gives my beliefs more credibility or breathing space than the community would organically give them if allowed to breathe freely.

I'll just throw out another one as food for thought. I'm about as far left as you can get on most issues, which you will see if you have a gander at my posting history from the last few years since the FG-FF government has been in place (yes, I'm including the ridiculous "coalition that wasn't a coalition" confidence and supply sh!te in that definition, so four going on five years), I campaigned heavily in favour of Repeal and Gay Marriage, and I certainly don't believe that men and women aren't individuals who can't or shouldn't make their own decisions about how to live their lives.

In fact, over the last year I have very seriously considered joining Sinn Fein as a card carrying member, although I feel I will always be drawn more towards left wing independents and away from party organisations. When it comes to international politics, I'm a Bernie and Corbynite every step of the way. Even most left wing folks I know find my beliefs a little too radical to be palatable!

One of ex-girlfriends, on the other hand, is one of the furthest right wing people you will ever meet. When we dated eight years ago she was certainly less far right than she is now, but she opposed Repeal with a militant passion straight off the bat for intensely personal and traumatic reasons, she would regularly go on #SaveTheEighth leaflet drops at the same time as I was going on #RepealTheEighth leaflet drops while we were dating, she very quickly cooled on gay marriage and ended up opposing this too, and over the years she has become full-on far right.

She is now a card carrying member of the Irish Freedom Party and takes part in their seminars and even their anti-lockdown activism. She supports Donald Trump, was hoping to get over to the States to attend CPAC this year when it looked like travel restrictions might not last as long as they have, she's on a first-name basis with more or less every far right ideologue and public figure in this country (just last week she was telling me that John McGuirk is a personal friend, as she had to cut a phone call short to watch his appearance on Prime Time), she previously attended court appearances of Ben Gilroy to show moral support, I'm fairly sure she's quite pally with people such as Maria Steen, etc.

On almost any political issue you could mention, myself and her would be standing on opposite sides of the crash barriers separating protesters and counter protesters at a given event, and screaming ourselves hoarse hurling tirades of opposition at eachother through megaphones.

Do you personally find it strange that we're still extremely close, we talk on the phone most days each week, we cheer eachother on in our respective (and diametrically opposed) political activism, and have a bit of craic sometimes engaging in thunderdome-esque shouting matches over our current beliefs, while at other times enjoying ridiculing politicians we happen to have a mutual disdain for?

Do you believe that I should have cut her out of my life because she doesn't agree with me about social politics? Do you believe that I should be calling for her accounts here, on Twitter, on Facebook, on Instagram etc to be taken down because the causes she promotes are right wing and fall under the modern, authoritarian definitions of "hate speech"? Do you believe it is a moral failing on my part that, unlike many of her close friends and some members of her family from before her journey into the far right, I haven't ostracised and abandoned her as a person?

Because that is the inevitable conclusion which the championing of ideological censorship leads to. That's the reality of it. And I don't want to live in a world in which people even if they're people I don't agree with - aren't as free as I am to set out their political stall and fight for what they believe, from the bottom of their heart, are worthwhile things to fight for.

Maybe I'm unusual in this, but the absolute number one most important political beliefs that I personally hold are absolute freedom of speech and absolute freedom of political expression and participation. I fundamentally do not believe that democracy exists if there are any limits places on which ideals can compete for the peoples' consent to govern. All you have in those cases is a pseudo-democracy at best, a sham.

What you and many modern feminists call for is for people whose views are diametrically opposed to yours, to be pushed out of every public gathering space there is. And as far as I'm concerned, opposing the arrival of this kind of hideous dystopia - the beginnings of which we have been able to see during the latter half of the 2010s - should be something which united left and right alike. We know what a world in which people who disagree with the current zeitgeist are ostracised looks like, and I for one am more than happy for this to be the hill that I die on, more so than literally any other political or social issue.

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

I got a lot of work done on my home recently and it was my men friends who specced most of the work for me, eg, this door, this glass this finish these handles, this paint etc.

Why did you need men to do this? You're enforcing a gender stereotype there.

mohawk

...Ghost... wrote: »

The bit you are missing is the difference between a "gender pay gap" and a "difference in pay".

If a man and a woman do exactly the same job and all benefits are equal, but the man had earned 50k in 2020 when the woman only earned 40k in 2020. If they both worked the same hours and no overtime, this would be a gender pay gap. However, if the reason the man made an extra 10k that year was for working extra hours to the value of 10k, then this is NOT a gender pay gap, it is a difference in pay.

The above is the simplified version for the perceived gender pay gap.

Does nobody consider that women have the greatest spending power no matter who earns the money? Broadly speaking, women make almost all the purchasing decisions and joint funds are half jokingly referred to as her funds. I know this to be the case with every couple I know.

Speaking as someone who has managed both men and women in the past. You are missing a small piece as to why sometimes men can be earning more than women in some sectors for the same role. Men are more likely to ask for and push for pay rises. Men generally ask for more money when being offered the role. Obviously if the man asks for more then what’s allowed on the salary scale they don’t get it.
Other colleagues of mine have also noted this trend over the years.

robodonkey

anewme wrote: »

I got a lot of work done on my home recently and it was my men friends who specced most of the work for me, eg, this door, this glass this finish these handles, this paint etc.

To add, research is clear on the purchasing power in households, regardless of who earned the money, is with women. And not just for home furnishings and the like.

https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy

joe40

mohawk wrote: »

Speaking as someone who has managed both men and women in the past. You are missing a small piece as to why sometimes men can be earning more than women in some sectors for the same role. Men are more likely to ask for and push for pay rises. Men generally ask for more money when being offered the role. Obviously if the man asks for more then what’s allowed on the salary scale they don’t get it.
Other colleagues of mine have also noted this trend over the years.

I'm not in a management role, and work in public sector, so have no experience of what you talk about. But if it is true surely that supports the idea that a gender pay gap exists.

mohawk

mohawk wrote: »

Speaking as someone who has managed both men and women in the past. You are missing a small piece as to why sometimes men can be earning more than women in some sectors for the same role. Men are more likely to ask for and push for pay rises. Men generally ask for more money when being offered the role. Obviously if the man asks for more then what’s allowed on the salary scale they don’t get it.
Other colleagues of mine have also noted this trend over the years.

Studies have shown that theres an unconscious bias around this, both on the part of the employer and the candidate, whereby men who negotiate are seen as understanding their worth (and can be perceived as more valuable based on the fact that they've negotiated), whereas women who attempt to negotiate often face backlash, are seen as pushy, aggressive, or even naive about their value.

I've heard a number of stories where a woman was told there was no avenue for negotiation, no one she could speak to, only to find that her male counterparts had been facilitated and paid more.

I myself had an experience with a recruiter where he told the employer my salary expectations based on what he saw as the market rate for someone with my qualification, (ignored my performance, specialist knowledge and experience) and never consulted with me. When I told him my expectations he refused to relay it to he employer.