Good news for businesses as RTE announce women are now working for free until the end of the year
Comments
-
Those guys back then, could legitimately have called themselves progressives with a straight face. They were fighting against very real prejudices and doing some very fine and brave work to break down barriers.
Modern progressives, from what I can see, are largely to blame for much of the division and hatred we see in society today. Trying to divide everyone up into as many groups or "types" as possible, generating fake outrage, and pitting everyone against each other.
How exactly does highlighting the lack of hard evidence to support the theory of a gender pay gap, make someone a racist anyway? Very strange logic there. Like I said, mental gymnastics!
"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives, and it puts itself into our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." (John Wayne)
7 -
I'm glad peopleare finally standing up for that long-oppressed and downtrodden group, white males.
Honestly, reactionaries are beyond satire sometimes.
0 -
Yes, I'm sure it was conservatives who pushed for all the key social changes we've seen over the last few centuries. Conservatives are well know for...progressive attitudes.
Honestly?
0 -
One of the worst, if not worst, developments in our countries has been the purposeful division and encouraged hatred between men and women.
As is usual, it is a handful of lunatics that drive this narrative of victimhood and blame, and a further handful that outright want to undermine society for their own sickly ends.
Men and women need to stick together as the team they are, voice their objection to these crazy things as one, and tell these looney's that they don't represent anyone but looney's.
6 -
Okay. I see the pattern here. Make a statement, meet resistance, deflect, insult indirectly, deflect, deflect etc.
Grand.
3 -
Advertisement
-
The god damn pay gap argument has still not died it seems, There is no Pay gap, it is made up by feminists to pit men and women against each other. Men and women are paid the same per hour in jobs as it is against the law to discriminate, All other considerations are internal politics or personal circumstance due to life decisions and nothing the public need to get involved in.
5 -
All other considerations are internal politics or personal circumstance due to life decisions and nothing the public need to get involved in.
Except when it goes entirely the other way, in which case we need to step in, to remind people that equality is the goal here, because feminists are not going to complain that women are being paid or receiving more benefits than men.
4 -
If you want more money you ask for it , if you’re denied, you leave
0 -
Of course. Nobody seems to like realising that they are reactionaries, and they are the type of person who has stood in the face of every step of social progress in history. They imagine there was some exact moment, just a few years ago, when everything was ok, but now it has gone too far and they must roll things back. They (i.e. you) are like the doomsday cults where the end of the world, oddly enough, is always a few years ahead during their own lifetimes.
Tell yourself you would have been at the forefront of social progress if you like. You might even believe it.
0 -
Tell yourself you would have been at the forefront of social progress if you like. You might even believe it.
Except, I know I wouldn't have been. Which is the case for the vast majority of people. However, the problem with your perspective is that you're stuck in two-sides mode, lacking any appreciation for the nuances involved in social progress. You're a product of the modern social science/social justice movement, or as you prefer, the "woke" movement (which alas has been taken over by misguided progressives constantly seeking the next glorious crusade).
Standing on the sidelines, isn't the same as opposing social change. That's the other problem with your perspective. It's the continuation of the American-led agenda which says you're either with us or against us. No middle ground.
The funny thing is that I suspect you're pushing beliefs that you'll never ever commit yourself to. You'd be happy sitting at a cafe arguing political science, and dredging up vague references to theories created by people far smarter than you.. but in the end, all you would do is talk. Action is for other people. So, you would criticise, complain, judge others, etc, but not actually commit to bringing about the changes that you talk about. After all, while other peoples' sacrifices are worthy of acclaim, you wouldn't want to sacrifice anything yourself. Well, except for some small superficial gestures like taking on free-trade coffee, or products that you "know" (but not really know) that come from enlightened co-ops.
As for being a reactionary, and people not liking being that way... that's nonsense, since reactionaries tend to be very proud that they're standing against change.. and in many cases, they are right to do so. A lot of social change is misguided, with limited research performed to determine how it will effect change. In most cases, the movement to bring about change is chaotic/destructive, lacking any real direction, and simply lucky that something positive comes about from it. But I'm pretty sure you're incapable of understanding this because you've embraced the religion of sacrificing others for some greater ideal, or vague objective.
So.. yeah... your repeated posts to this thread show just how limited your understanding is, your constant need to project beliefs on to others, without any basis of evidence for doing so. Nobody said anything about standing against social change, and yet, you felt the need to call me a reactionary. I suspect you're looking for a pat on the head for showing how enlightened you are. Alas... you haven't shown any kind of real understanding, or even appreciation for the drivers behind social change, and so.. no pat on the head.
1 -
Advertisement
-
I love your idea about doing research on social change. I hope all the research on ending slavery was comprehensive enough for you.
0 -
Slavery never ended... It still exists in many parts of the world.
As I said earlier though: Make a statement, meet resistance, deflect, insult indirectly, deflect, deflect etc.
You don't defend your statements. You make wild claims about posters, and try to show some kind of enlightened perspective, but you don't understand the topic well enough to expand anything... independent of the sources that provided the initial ideas. Which is why everything you provide ends up as a deflection.... without any substance or form.
4 -
There's a new form of slavery that needs ending.
The slavery of dogma. The chains of the brainwashed modern liberal.
The modern day liberal does not want social change or social cohesion. You want social discord and anarchy!
"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives, and it puts itself into our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." (John Wayne)
2 -
Are you suggesting there's no reactionary dogma? Bit of a blind spot there mate.
0 -
If there's still slavery, that's good from your perspective, right? An opportunity to do some research into whether it should be eliminated. We don't want to rush into any changes now, do we?
"reactionaries tend to be very proud that they're standing against change.. and in many cases, they are right to do so. A lot of social change is misguided, with limited research performed to determine how it will effect change. In most cases, the movement to bring about change is chaotic/destructive, lacking any real direction, and simply lucky that something positive comes about from it. But I'm pretty sure you're incapable of understanding this"
0 -
Well, you've just proved my point. You didn't understand... hence your need to repeat what I said. In addition to picking at a minor part of the original post, ignoring the remainder. You haven't countered what I said even slightly. That should tell you something.
3 -
haha.. you must have misinterpreted his post entirely, if that's your reaction. Very strange response.
1 -
Your objection to fighting obvious injustices is that we need to do 'research' to make sure the change isn't 'misguided'. I'm sorry if quoting your stated reason for being 'anti-woke' makes you sound ridiculous. Maybe that should make you think?
0 -
Now that is funny... that's what you took from my posts? Hmm.. ok.
Look, it's fine. I have little interest trying to convince the ideologically driven woke advocate of anything. I know from experience, (and the range of responses by you), that it leads nowhere.
In any case, I'll be ignoring anything more from you, unless you decide to come back to the thread topic.
3 -
I think we're dealing with an obvious troll here.
Nothing of substance to add to the discussion. Just cliched cookie cutter statements, lazy stereotyping and the occasional insult thrown in for good measure.
Best to leave them to it.
"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives, and it puts itself into our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." (John Wayne)
3 -
Advertisement
-
I genuinely wonder what kind of people really buy in to articles like this.
My wife earns significantly more than me but we pretty much pool our resources when it comes to things like buying a new car or buying stuff for the house. Even if we go out for dinner or when we pay for vacations it's all coming out of the joint account. So obviously if someone wants to give her a 14.4% pay raise then I'd be delighted with that. Might be able to get a brand new gaming PC for Xmas!
Of course it does mean that within the context of our marriage there is a gender pay gap!
Is the pay gap really only relevant for people in quite decent jobs or in roles where pay is maybe related to performance or sales?
For people working minimum wage jobs there obviously can't be a pay gap. For many jobs paying just above minimum wage in my experience they tend to have scales of pay and different categories of jobs will be paid the same.
The concern for me would be that if a certain company has more men doing overtime then they will have a gender pay gap almost immediately based on that. Meaning that you either need to deny employees the opportunity to earn that extra money or you need to tell them that they can do overtime if they want but colleagues who don't do overtime will be getting paid extra to sit at home in order to balance the books.
Anyway, yes, please give my wife a 14.4% pay raise! Ireland should be a much more gender equal society blah blah blah and I wouldn't mind a new telly for the living room.
1 -
Do you not wonder if people are against it because they feel like government control over how much people should or should not earn might be a dangerous path to go down?
I have this niggling suspicion that closing the gender paygap would not have more money coming into our household as the government mandates that my wife earns more money. But rather would see us put in a situation where an upward trajectory in our earnings is stunted because corporations start tightly controlling what each employee is allowed to earn. Can I work overtime to earn a bit more? Maybe not because that would create a pay gap? What if I take on extra work and close some big deals, will my bonus, pay raise and status in the company reflect that? Maybe not because that might create a pay gap.
The only people who would really benefit are women who are probably already near the top of the foodchain in the the business world. Some lady earning minimum wage is still going to earn minimum wage regardless. Corporate backing for these kind of schemes seems counter-intuitive. As if "the pay gap" is being set up as a future excuse for stagnating wages. Can't pay anyone too much because that's not equality.
If you want to bring up history then you should at least acknowledge that sometimes things that appear as "social progress" on the surface are anything but. Giving women more money seems like a pretty great plan to me. Seems a bit too good to be true though so I wonder what the catch is. This isn't really the kind of world where people are just giving people pay raises and promotions and all that for nothing.
0 -
I don't know why reactionaries reject the label, it's really weird. But if you walk like a duck and talk like a duck, you are a duck sir.
The bad news for you and for the rest of us is that you are likely to move even further to the right as you get older.
0 -
I'm not proposing the government controls what people are paid, but it seems like a sound policy to ban paying - say - disabled or gay people (or indeed women) less for the same work.
The pay imbalance between men and women is of course much more complex than some folks would pretend, based on a lot of the factors discussed in this thread. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise.
On your final point, I wonder if you have any examples of progressive policies over the last 100 years which have turned out to be 'anything but'? I'm not really sure what you are referring to there.
0 -
The article misrepresents what the pay gap is. It's the difference in the average wage, and its widely accepted that things like overtime affect it. No one who's looking at this in an educated and official capacity is arguing that women should just simply be paid more for the work they're doing now.
You mentioned that there couldn't be a pay gap at minimim wage level. When I worked minimum wage the men generally got pay increases and promotions quicker than women, so women were kept at minimum wage for longer. That's the kind of stuff the pay gap highlights.
Now in that job, the men were promoted quicker because they were more physically capable. But the role really didnt require much physical capability (our heaviest item was maybe a 6-pack of 2L soft drinks and we were all in our 20s so we were pretty fit), and certainly once a guy made supervisor he wasn't stacking shelves anymore. So why did physical capability get him promoted? Because the guys would insist they were better suited to stacking shelves, because they didnt want to go on the tills and have to deal with customers. We had all-women shifts where deliveries would come in and there was no difference in the time it would take to get the shelves stacked, but when the guys were there they'd insist that they do stock.
So the lads were dealing with stock and the women were by default left on the tills. At supervisor level you're gonna be dealing with ordering, so when a gap opened up, it would usually be a guy who would be most suitable for the role due to his experience with orders. Looking at this as one promotion, it makes perfect sense.
But it wasn't one, or even a handful of cases, it was every promotion on the shop floor. But it still seems fairly legit, right? If the lads had more stock experience and the women didn't try to get any?
I'm a woman, and I used to always take in the Sat morning deliveries (there were no men usually on that early shift). One weekend our chill delivery was late, and so I was still doing it when one of the lads came in. He came to me and said he'd take over. I said no, I was in the middle of it and sure I preferred to do the stock. He said I was a girl and shouldn't do stock, and that the crate I was holding (comfortably, while he talked to me) was too heavy for me. I insisted. He insisted. As a woman, I felt that if I let this turn into a scene, I'd get the blame, particularly since the norm was for guys to do the orders. So I gave in.
That guy got promoted after about 6 months.
I worked in that shop for 2.5 years, and I really dont think there was ever any hope of a woman being paid more than minimum wage. And at the time, I accepted that was what I was worth, because I was "less capable". I think if we had been measuring the gender pay gap back then, particularly within the business I was working, it would have empowered me to look at what was happening and at why I was passed over, to take a business case to the boss, to let me get experience, to let me prove myself and to earn the extra pay.
It seems like fairly trivial stuff on the face of it, but these are the biases that steer the direction of a person's life, including men's.
2 -
I worked in that shop for 2.5 years, and I really dont think there was ever any hope of a woman being paid more than minimum wage. And at the time, I accepted that was what I was worth, because I was "less capable". I think if we had been measuring the gender pay gap back then, particularly within the business I was working, it would have empowered me to look at what was happening and at why I was passed over, to take a business case to the boss, to let me get experience, to let me prove myself and to earn the extra pay.
It's possible, but consider how things stand today. There are heaps of articles, tv shows, etc all talking about women in the workplace. The laws and general perspective on equal conditions is well advertised and promoted by the government, and through the use of social media. And yet, there is still a major emphasis in government incentives and sponsorships to place more women in entrepreneur positions, or management. Even after thirty years of that kind of attention, the "gap" remains in numbers of women in such positions vs those of men.
The truth of the matter is that people have preferences. Many people don't want to assume positions of authority, or take on the extra work involved. I certainly didn't for the first decade of my career, even while I watched others take up those positions. I heard their complaints about the work involved, the stress, etc, and I didn't want that for myself. Sure, the salary increases were appealing but it wasn't enough. And that's what you tend to find if you speak to women on the operational level... they don't want all the hassles that come from going managerial.
It was only in my 30s that I gained the ambition to rise in my industry, and once that ambition was established, I was able to rise. I had the experience from dozens of operational roles, with the managerial knowledge made known to me through formal/informal sources. It wasn't hard to get...
Society has shifted considerably over the last three decades, and that includes the ambitions of women in the workplace, but unless women are willing to put themselves into the same positions as men, competing with men, they're going to be left behind. Except where women already dominate.. in which case they're competing against other women, which in many ways is harder (the excuses about competing with men can't be used).
It seems like fairly trivial stuff on the face of it, but these are the biases that steer the direction of a person's life, including men's.
I'd say that we now live in a society which favors women. In and out of the workplace. The range of supports available to women, based entirely on their gender, are extremely broad. From investment opportunities to start businesses, educational grants for third level, the implementation of quota's, internship programs, etc all solely available to women.
You described your own example.. well.. I worked for a data processing center which had over 200 female staff, and about 6 males. Not one of the managers were male, and no males were promoted to those positions while I was there, or even after I had left (I stayed in contact with many of them). It was known and accepted that it was a female dominated company... and if you were unhappy, the only choice was to move on. It remained that way until it closed shop three years later. Was it discriminatory? Yes, definitely. Could I have fought it? Yeah, maybe. But it was simply easier to move elsewhere.
Biases in the workplace are always going to exist... and we have a choice. We can avail of our rights per the law, we can struggle through the difficulties hoping things will change, or simply move on. The stigma towards those who don't stay in companies long-term is quickly disappearing, so it's possible to keep moving until you find the kind of organisation you want.
1 -
Biases in the workplace are always going to exist... and we have a choice. We can avail of our rights per the law, we can struggle through the difficulties hoping things will change, or simply move on.
We do have a choice, but the options above are only the ones you approve of. Clearly there's an additional choice, to work towards improving gender equality in the workplace.
0 -
Improve gender equality... in what way, and to what extent?
You see, from my perspective, we have moved away from gender equality being the goal with the strong focus on benefiting women in the workplace. It certainly made sense having such a focus 10-20 years ago, but I don't see the same need for it now, and yet, if anything, the range of supports/benefits for women in the workplace (or to get them there) are increasing as time goes by. Would you say that focus on women is encouraging gender equality?
Remember when benefits made exclusive to males was considered to be sexist? And yet, that is the case now with women, except it's not sexist... even though the statistics clearly show that women who are ambitious/driven, and choose their industries carefully, outperform their male counterparts. (at least until they take off time to start a family, or take flexi-time positions)
0 -
Improve gender equality... in what way, and to what extent?
By measuring and analysing the gender pay gap, for one.
Would you say that focus on women is encouraging gender equality?
In the cases I've seen, yes. Obviously there are some areas where we need to focus on men, and in particular boys/young men in areas like mental health or education. But based on the privileges men have which help them advance in most workplaces, the most common focus in the workplace is women.
You say you don't see the same need for a focus on women now, because you see all the benefits women have. When faced with a woman saying "that's not enough", what qualifies you to say it is? Surely the easiest way to settle that dispute is by measuring say... a gender pay gap?
0 -
Advertisement
-
By measuring and analysing the gender pay gap, for one.
It has. By multiple organisations looking from all kinds of angles, and it's been disproven to be as a result of any kind of discrimination. Unless you're intent on changing the choices that people make.. or by raising salaries in unprofitable industries, then it's not going to disappear.
In the cases I've seen, yes. Obviously there are some areas where we need to focus on men, and in particular boys/young men in areas like mental health or education. But based on the privileges men have which help them advance in most workplaces, the most common focus in the workplace is women.
What are these privileges that men have but women don't?
You say you don't see the same need for a focus on women now, because you see all the benefits women have. When faced with a woman saying "that's not enough", what qualifies you to say it is? Surely the easiest way to settle that dispute is by measuring say... a gender pay gap?
That's a deflection.
As for what qualifies me to say that it is... wasn't the objective to make a fair society for both genders, where gender was not an important distinction between them? That a person with the right skills/abilities/education could succeed where their gender was not a factor? No? Then, I guess I'm not qualified to say it is, since I thought we were aiming for a better society, rather than simply putting women in the position men had, long before I entered the workforce.
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
