Modern Feminism-Good for Society?

Roger_007

anewme wrote: »

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

The truth about the vast majority of household spending decisions are made by the woman in the case of heterosexual relationships. (I have yet to meet a man who wanted a new/upgraded kitchen or bathroom). This is not a new phenomenon, it has always been the case.
I have a friend who has been an estate agent for many years. He told me once that when a heterosexual couple are buying a house that you are essentially selling to the woman. If she’s not happy then there is no deal. If she is happy then he will be ‘persuaded’ to go along with it.
Men have little say in most domestic matters. The house rules are what the woman wants.

joe40

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

You obviously believe passionately in this idea and I don't totally disagree.

However, can you point to any time in the past where there was unlimited, consequence free, "free speech". There have always been limits sometimes extremely limited and unfair.

There is also a point I think you're missing is that people calling for limits to your free speech are also expressing an opinion and their right to free speech permits that opinion.

If you think there should be no limits to what I say fair enough. If I then call for the banning of a particular group then I am simply expressing my free speech.

You might object about what I'm saying but you can't deny my right to say it.
Which is all grand until what I am saying is acted upon.
That is the problem, no speech or message, in itself, is harmful until it is acted on.

So a poster calling for a post to be removed is expressing an opinion. In unfettered free speech that opinion, as expressed, is valid.

You may dislike that opinion intensely, but from your own outlook, as expressed here, you should not have a problem with them voicing that opinion. After all free speech.. etc

silverharp

Teofimo98 wrote: »

You have to be clear about what you mean when mentioning the gender pay gap.

Studies have shown there is very little difference in wages when various factors are accounted for. Men did get slightly more if recall correctly, that could be due to better negotiating.

If you are a bad negotiator you can't expect to be paid as well as a good negotiator for the same job. It's each individual's responsibility to negotiate with employers regarding their salary. The real world isn't like a primary school classroom.

that was the observation that Jordan Peterson summed up as, there are more disagreeable men then there are disagreeable women.

stefanovich

true-or-false wrote: »

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.

From my experience it seems to be human nature to overvalue yourself at some point in your career, usually early on, and get frustrated when you feel you are not compensated fairly.

It generally goes something like this:
* Get hired
* work for 2 or 3 years
* expect raise for "seniority"
* get frustrated that expectations do not meet reality
* a few more years pass
* finally get raise
* reflect and realise you were overvaluing yourself early on

If the media and popular culture keep telling you you are a victim it is easy to blame it on sexism/ racism whateverism when you are at the frustration stage.

Now, I am not saying sometimes they are right but in a lot of cases I see it appears to be the men who are explicitly at a disadvantage due to "positive discrimination".

Another complication for women is pregnancy which can really confuse things as you are technically employed while on maternity but not working on the job and gaining experience.

What's fair?

For the employer they comply with law and do not discriminate but are they at a business disadvantage?

Or they do discriminate, better for business but not for the woman or the government agenda and they open themselves up to litigation, not good for business either.

At the end of the day it is introducing an tolerable inefficiency because it encourages more women to work, increases the worker base and increasing GDP.

Childcare also increases GDP.

Same reason tax rules favour the working couple rather than the single earner family.

true-or-false

true-or-false wrote: »

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.

The same studies show the manner in which the genders approach these negotiations are different too.. that matters.

Besides, in most companies which are large enough to have a HR department, negotiations for salary increases will be handled by them, not the manager, and HR departments have vastly more female staff than male staff. Also most businesses will have a company rule book (of some sort) with avenues to appeal should you feel that you've been ignored, dismissed, or victimised in some manner... which includes pay reviews, and promotions. Again which would be initially handled by HR.

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.

Honestly, I haven't. Both when I worked as a general employee, and a manager. Nor from conversations with other managers, have I heard of this. The difference in salary, typically, comes down to who has provided the most value to the company, not simply in hours worked, but the effect of those hours. If we're talking about drone work, it rarely matters.. if we're talking about customer relations of some sort, that usually means retention of customers or generating new sales.

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.

Hardly representative of employment. Recruiters are generally dodgy anyway. There's some good individuals and companies, but the majority aren't worth much. In any case, I've never allowed a recruiter to set the terms of my employment. They are facilitators, connecting you with the company, but once negotiation starts, they have no role to play.

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

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

I didn't NEED men to do this.

The poster previously said that men are not that bothered about doors/floors etc once they are there, but I find men just as particular about finishes.

I have a number of friends who built their own homes or refurbished their own homes via Architects and it makes perfect sense to piggyback on their learnings.

I'm talking more about manufacturers etc. The products and finishes were of course chosen by myself. Id have no clue what is the best brand stone slab to use for example. Its not my bag. And not going to spend hours going through catalogues or research if someone has already done it.

jrosen

Roger_007 wrote: »

The truth about the vast majority of household spending decisions are made by the woman in the case of heterosexual relationships. (I have yet to meet a man who wanted a new/upgraded kitchen or bathroom). This is not a new phenomenon, it has always been the case.
I have a friend who has been an estate agent for many years. He told me once that when a heterosexual couple are buying a house that you are essentially selling to the woman. If she’s not happy then there is no deal. If she is happy then he will be ‘persuaded’ to go along with it.
Men have little say in most domestic matters. The house rules are what the woman wants.

Was absolutely our experience when house hunting. In fact the houses my husband went to view alone the agents asked when he would be coming back with the boss. Even the house we bought he was asked what they needed to do to get me over the line.
I think women like gender bias when it suits them.

TomTomTim

More pay gap nonsense

The gender pay gap is a scandal - we must resolve to end it

The persistence of the gender gap infuriates women who experience it. And so many of us do. Across the EU, women earn on average 14.1% less per hour than men.

The persistence of the gender pay gap is down to a number of factors: women tend to be overrepresented in low pay sectors of the economy and women tend to do more part-time work than men.

But we should not forget the role played by discrimination, which sees women getting paid less for doing the same work as their male counterparts, or the persistence of the glass ceiling, which often results in very few women occupying senior positions in organisations.

The persistence of the gender pay gap cannot simply be argued out of existence. Countless papers and studies have been written which have concluded that, yes, the gap is real, and have set out some of the ways it can be addressed.

There are some who will try to dismiss the gap or claim it hardly exists at all. So many of us are so tired of having to hear our experiences dismissed. We should not have to constantly prove what is so obviously true.

It would really help if she gave some examples of the first bolded part. Regardless, even if it is true what can be done? It's illegal to do so, so if there's cases, there should be legal action. That's the whole point of the law.

JimmyVik

true-or-false wrote: »

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.

Im a crap negotiator. The two women on my team do far better than myself and the other male in salary negotiations. Both of them have been off 1 year out of the last 4 with maternity leave, they never stay late, and they get whatever days off they like (if one of the men wants a day off that one of the women wants off, the woman gets it), yet they still do better when negotiating salary. I asked the boss once what gives. He said he was afraid to give the women less or the same as us for a pay rise, even if they hadnt been there half the year , so he gives them more so as not to stir the pot. When they both started, they started on exactly the same salary as us at the time.

Now it doesnt bother me that much because i know thems the breaks, but nobody can come into my place and say there is a gender pay gap, unless they mean that the women do better.

Oh, and all the women got the day off the other day for international womens day, as they did last year too. No such thing for men.

joe40

Teofimo98 wrote: »

Yes that's what I thought, women in most households women control their husband.

No I don't think so. You must not think highly of Men if you think majority can be controlled by Women. (Some are, and vice versa)
Any healthy relationship is a partnership with both taking different skills, opinions and outlooks to the relationship.
That is the only way it can work. Controlling from either side is a disaster.

jrosen

joe40 wrote: »

No I don't think so. You must not think highly of Men if you think majority can be controlled by Women. (Some are, and vice versa)
Any healthy relationship is a partnership with both taking different skills, opinions and outlooks to the relationship.
That is the only way in can work. Controlling from either side is a disaster.

I would agree with you. Each partner does have different skills opinions and outlooks. We all bring something different to the table. In my own exp and that of all my own friends, there are areas we run with and areas that are discussed in depth. I think when something it more important to one person than the other they tent to take the lead in those decisions.

anewme

Teofimo98 wrote: »

Yes that's what I thought, women in most households women control their husband.

Ahh stop with the outdated generalisations.

In other news from way back in the 50's many households are not even married.

stefanovich

joe40 wrote: »

No I don't think so. You must not think highly of Men if you think majority can be controlled by Women. (Some are, and vice versa)
Any healthy relationship is a partnership with both taking different skills, opinions and outlooks to the relationship.
That is the only way it can work. Controlling from either side is a disaster.

In my case it's an ongoing power struggle :pac:

Teofimo98

Teofimo98 wrote: »

I'm just giving my opinion as I see it, most wives control their husbands.

Whereas I'd say that most husbands chose to step away from certain roles, and encourage their wives to step forward into the moderating influence. And vice versa.

In my experience with friends, most of the men (not all) are pretty crap at budgeting, and have all had problems with credit cards. Women, perhaps due to the amount of shopping they've been exposed to, have a better grasp of budgeting, and the awareness on where money comes from (and paying back credit card interest before it becomes a problem).

It's not about control.. except in some circumstances, based on individual personalities. It's about deciding who is best suited for the work involved.

Leg End Reject

Teofimo98 wrote: »

I disagree, I've never noticed a difference in "being good with money" based on gender. Some men are good, some are bad, likewise with women.

I think most wives do control their husbands in subtle ways, it's not due to men "choosing" to be controlled, it's because they have less relative value in the relationship. For example, I believe it is far more common for husbands to have to ask for permission to go for a few drinks with friends than it is for wives.

If a grown man asks his wife or partner for permission to go out that says more about him than it does about her.

While some men and women are susceptible to coercive control, most are assertive and confident enough to retain a sense of self, and a level of independence outside their relationship.

the_pen_turner

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.

im not saying women dont turn to men for advice on these things. women are the driving force behind most of this spending.

Silentcorner

Honestly, I thought we had grown out of an ideology imposing itself on relationships in the public arena...I feel sorry for those feminists who have convinced themselves that having/caring for a family or home is unpaid labour....jesus life is tough enough without carrying that chip on your shoulder.

EmmetSpiceland

Leg End Reject wrote: »

If a grown man asks his wife or partner for permission to go out that says more about him than it does about her.

While some men and women are susceptible to coercive control, most are assertive and confident enough to retain a sense of self, and a level of independence outside their relationship.

No one is asking for permission, it’s just about being “considerate”.

I would never just head out with the lads after work without calling home to let my partner know. If it turned out she had something on I’d take a “rain check” and head home.

It would be disrespectful, and incredibly selfish, not to, at least, give a “heads up” and make sure it was ok.

I’d imagine a lot of guys are hiding behind their partners when they say they aren’t “allowed” out, just using it as an excuse not see certain lads.

anewme

the_pen_turner wrote: »

im not saying women dont turn to men for advice on these things. women are the driving force behind most of this spending.

In my case it was anyway as no one else is going to pay:pac:

Leg End Reject

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

No one is asking for permission, it’s just about being “considerate”.

I would never just head out with the lads after work without calling home to let my partner know. If it turned out she had something on I’d take a “rain check” and head home.

It would be disrespectful, and incredibly selfish, not to, at least, give a “heads up” and make sure it was ok.

I’d imagine a lot of guys are hiding behind their partners when they say they aren’t “allowed” out, just using it as an excuse not see certain lads.

Now, now, E, you know full well that other poster specifically mentioned asking for permission rather than a considerate heads up.

EmmetSpiceland

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Now, now, E, you know full well that other poster specifically mentioned asking for permission rather than a considerate heads up.

If anyone is asking for permission they are not in a healthy relationship, they have a surrogate mother.

Leg End Reject

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

If anyone is asking for permission they are not in a healthy relationship, they have a surrogate mother.

As I implied ...

stefanovich

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

If anyone is asking for permission they are not in a healthy relationship, they have a surrogate mother.

A lot of men will just avoid conflict for a quiet life. Much better to stand up for yourself early on. You don't want to suddenly realise you are being controlled when you've got kids to consider.

ReganBrady

That's good as efforts are being put on the floor to make the equality as a real thing, yes in civilised countries where it's now we can notice and experience as well, but as the whole impact of this yet to be seen as on facts, would say there is always a beginning and it's been started, true its great to see everyone the same way whatever they are and belongs to, it should be taken in as smoothly and yes I do respect feminism as the first step of efforts.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

A lot of men will just avoid conflict for a quiet life. Much better to stand up for yourself early on. You don't want to suddenly realise you are being controlled when you've got kids to consider.

True enough. It's important to establish early certain boundaries.

Most of my friends are women, many of whom I've dated previously. It's just a thing with me, that I tend to have better friendships with those who know me best. When I have a new girlfriend, though, often that woman will seek to limit my friendships (for all manner of reasons), and I establish early that I'll continue seeing those friends... if she can't trust me with these friends, then that's an issue that needs resolving early, rather than allowing it to simmer.

We all need to establish our own space, and authority in a relationship. Few women will continue to respect you if you fold whenever she wants something. And vice versa.

Everyone seeks to exercise some control over their partners, but it's not as negative as some posters want to suggest.

Eric Cartman

true-or-false wrote: »

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.

‘Unconscious bias’ , youve almost marked the whole card of ‘poppycock bingo’ in this thread

applehunter

Tell me how wrote: »

Angela Merkel, Nicola Sturgeon, Jacinda Ardern, are just a few who would disagree with this.

Instead of presuming what women's nature is, why not listen to what it is they say they want?

I do.

This is what women tell me and they are sick of being told otherwise.

Women in weekend newspaper magazines & media in general are not what most women think.

...Ghost...

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.

Not at all missing it. It's called added value and applies to some roles most notably in sales or client retention roles. Negotiation of salaries can be done at interview stage (first, second or final interview depending on hiring policy). Also salary negotiations can be had at review stages, or if you are brave enough....at any time by pointing out another employer is offering more for your services. If you are worth the asking and the employer is smart, you will get a raise.

Back in the day I was in sales and for some summer work in between college semesters I applied to a sales company to help fund my education. I had plenty of similar experience behind me and the starting basic salary was 29k with commission, car phone etc. Reviews were after 6 and 12 months where based on performance, you could get a 2k increment in basic salary each time. In my mind, I knew I was going to make them money, so I pushed for the 33k basic in the first interview and pointed to my experience. I got it with no trouble because I said I could get more elsewhere, but I has heard good things about them. There were 11 other people starting including 4 women and only one other person (a male) had negotiated and got an extra 1k to start. I was paid more than the team leader, but then...I also proved my value and made them a lot of money in the short time I was there. If you don't ask, you don't get. NOT a gender pay gap. It's an individuals ability to negotiate. My sister can negotiate better than me and has been paid well more than her male colleagues when she was working.

JimmyVik

Teofimo98 wrote: »

I disagree, I've never noticed a difference in "being good with money" based on gender. Some men are good, some are bad, likewise with women.

I think most wives do control their husbands in subtle ways, it's not due to men "choosing" to be controlled, it's because they have less relative value in the relationship. For example, I believe it is far more common for husbands to have to ask for permission to go for a few drinks with friends than it is for wives.

- Im just meeting the lads for a pint.
- Its 10 o'clock, dould you not have done that earlier.


- I was thinking of heading off for the weekend with Paul and the lads.
- Oh, and what do their wives think of this. Are you leaving me on my own all weekend?


- im off for a quick pint.
- Hang on, i'll come with you


- Does my bum look big in this.
- Silence
- Can you not answer a simple question.
- No, it doesnt look big. It looks normal.
- Why couldnt you just say that the first time i asked. It does doesnt it.
- Yes
- Whack

JimmyVik

...Ghost... wrote: »

Not at all missing it. It's called added value and applies to some roles most notably in sales or client retention roles. Negotiation of salaries can be done at interview stage (first, second or final interview depending on hiring policy). Also salary negotiations can be had at review stages, or if you are brave enough....at any time by pointing out another employer is offering more for your services. If you are worth the asking and the employer is smart, you will get a raise.

Back in the day I was in sales and for some summer work in between college semesters I applied to a sales company to help fund my education. I had plenty of similar experience behind me and the starting basic salary was 29k with commission, car phone etc. Reviews were after 6 and 12 months where based on performance, you could get a 2k increment in basic salary each time. In my mind, I knew I was going to make them money, so I pushed for the 33k basic in the first interview and pointed to my experience. I got it with no trouble because I said I could get more elsewhere, but I has heard good things about them. There were 11 other people starting including 4 women and only one other person (a male) had negotiated and got an extra 1k to start. I was paid more than the team leader, but then...I also proved my value and made them a lot of money in the short time I was there. If you don't ask, you don't get. NOT a gender pay gap. It's an individuals ability to negotiate. My sister can negotiate better than me and has been paid well more than her male colleagues when she was working.

Also if a man fails at negotiating a pay rise he would be more likely to just leave to get it in another company.
Women dont like to move job so much for various reasons.