"Gender Pay Inequality"

[ShakeQ]

Hello

I hope the moderators of Stand Your Ground don't mind me linking to another forum. Just wanted to let members know about a blog discussion happening on "gender pay inequality".

If you'd like the chance to directly counter some feminist rhetoric, pop on over and add your thoughts.

Mind The Gap

Have fun!

[Tigerman]

Hello

I hope the moderators of Stand Your Ground don't mind me linking to another forum. Just wanted to let members know about a blog discussion happening on "gender pay inequality".

If you'd like the chance to directly counter some feminist rhetoric, pop on over and add your thoughts.

Mind The Gap

Have fun!

Thanks for the info - it got me thinking though - I mean it almost seems a deliberate tactic of feminists to WHINE about a 'problem' they DON'T HAVE to put US on the defensive - that way we are sidelined and distract6ed from the UNEQUAL benefits us guys get in terms of tax spending, EQUAL pay for women doing DIFFERENT and less onerous jobs not to mention overt and covert quota hiring. 

[gwallan]

Hello

I hope the moderators of Stand Your Ground don't mind me linking to another forum. Just wanted to let members know about a blog discussion happening on "gender pay inequality".

If you'd like the chance to directly counter some feminist rhetoric, pop on over and add your thoughts.

Mind The Gap

Have fun!

Thanks for that. Given the likely censorship...

I'm a tax consultant in Victoria, Australia.

This "gender pay gap" debate continues to amuse those in my profession. I see the full income detail for thousands of individuals every year. There is no "gender pay gap" that is not easily explicable. The most common differentiating factor is simply hours worked.

When adjusted for hours worked women earn 99% of the male average. I think that's a small premium to pay for not being a member of the gender that incurs 95% of workplace death and injury.

This article speaks only of those in executive positions, a tiny minority of the populace.

to Sylvie Tungsten...
These are astonishingly sexist comments. Men are "selfish". Men are "bullies".

In a like vein I could suggest that female led workplaces are gossip ridden and thrive on character assassination.

Reality check. Men actually strive harder for higher incomes because that is what they believe women expect of them - with good reason. The corollary is the time, effort and frequent angst women apply to their physical appearance.

to Barbara...
By "equity" do you mean equality of opportunity or of outcome? Isn't the Peter Principle sufficient guarantee of incompetence already?

Given that virtually all the homeless and the bulk of the unemployed are "white, male and heterosexual" it seems the "patriarchy" has been off it's game a bit in recent times.

[Garak]

gwallan,

I am sure you will be banned in short order.

[Garak]

You got a bite:

Hardly think the patriarchy is "off it's game" when the vast majority of the world's assets/property are owned by men and most of the world's unpaid labor is done by women.

Unpaid labor??

What would that be? Would that be like the labor it takes to get from the house to the car and the car to the mall.

[ShakeQ]

Unpaid labor??

What would that be? Would that be like the labor it takes to get from the house to the car and the car to the mall.

Childbirth labour?

[Garak]

Unpaid labor??

What would that be? Would that be like the labor it takes to get from the house to the car and the car to the mall.

Childbirth labour?

Childbirth labor! Women have the power to abort (atleast here they do) and when they decide to have the baby they think someone should pay them??

Wait! Someone already does pay them for that, it's called child alimony.

[Bobx23456]

The average female is WAY OVERPAID.  If they were paid in proportion to their comtribution they would be lucky to get 50 %.

Actually, without men they would all rapidly starve.  Everything they get is from men. 

Blessings

Bob

[Mr. X]

Yes the gender pay gap makes no sense according to the SYF explosion http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_new_girl_order.html

According to this, SYFs have a whole lot of money to spend on fun, fashion and frivolous things. Someone making 75 cents to the dollar probably wouldn't be doing that.

[The Gonzman]

Actually, without men they would all rapidly starve.  Everything they get is from men.

4. Negative global generalizations about either gender like "Men are Pigs" or "Women are whores" are not allowed.

[gwallan]

You got a bite:

Hardly think the patriarchy is "off it's game" when the vast majority of the world's assets/property are owned by men and most of the world's unpaid labor is done by women.

Unpaid labor??

What would that be? Would that be like the labor it takes to get from the house to the car and the car to the mall.

That has progressed. This fool clearly doesn't even know what a "company" or "asset" actually is. It's all regurgitated womens studies pap.

Again in case of censorship...

I seem to recall you introduced the rest of the world to this discussion. I reference other western countries for the larger statistical, but otherwise similar, demographic only.

On womens domestic labour see my other response to youself. I do believe it's highly undervalued. It may interest you to know that I was involved in a nineties fed govt submission to extend paid maternity leave to women outside the public sector.

Where we run into trouble here is the sexism inherent in the presumption of such greed and selfishness on behalf of men. There is a provable net transfer of wealth from men to women both directly and indirectly(ie through the tax system). It remains to be seen if women would be equally generous. Surveys of women who are primary breadwinners in both the US and the UK tend to suggest they are not. They particularly seem to resent supporting a stay at home male partner. A man's worth is largely predicated on his ability to provide. This is why striving for higher incomes is so much more important to them.

And as I've said elsewhere it's who gets to spend it that really matters. The US research on discretionary spending was done by one of the larger US business publications - possibly Forbes. Why do you think almost all television advertising is aimed at women? Why do you think the large majority of retail outlets are female specific?

As for "women don't control much..." I don't see many men "controlling" vast assets either. Do not extrapolate the power enjoyed by a tiny handfull of men(and often women too) to the male population at large. This is the feminist mistake - the "frontman" fallacy. Those at the bottom particularly - the homeless, the unemployed, those with no choice but to do the really dangerous and dirty work - tend to be men regardless of who's at the top. A few more women in executive jobs will not change this and may even enhance it.

[dr e]

The average female is WAY OVERPAID.  If they were paid in proportion to their comtribution they would be lucky to get 50 %.

Actually, without men they would all rapidly starve.  Everything they get is from men. 

Blessings

Bob

Bob - Negative generalizations about either gender are against the rules here.  I will give you the benefit of the doubt and offer you a chance to explain why this post doesn't break that rule.  If you choose not to explain then consider this your second warning.

[K9]

T: said, "Your assumptions on sharing assets are based on Western law...most women in the world do not live under these laws."

This is a standard feminist tactic. When numbers for your country don't fit a required outcome, add in numbers from western civilization. When those numbers still don't add up, include the poor nations and see if that does the trick. Doesn't the rest of the world have enough problems without Western civilization poking around?

Feminist math doesn't add up. I might also add, that who was behind this study, who did the study, and their agenda be examined, as well as having the raw data available for peer review. We've been lied to too many times to just up an accept any study as gospel.

In my mind, as Gwallan said, it's not who owns it or even who earns it, it's who gets to spend it.

I for one, am not willing to spend one more second considering women's issues until we see equality in family court and reproductive choices. I've already spent a lifetime advocating equality only to be told I'm a sexist pig misogynistic patriarch. When everything is added up at the end of the day, women are a privlaged class in law and quality of life. Here we see feminists begrudging a few extra (if even) pennies to pass on to their families. These same men are the ones doing the dirty, dangerous disgusting work that no female will have.

[gwallan]

K9. She's proceded to the next step - play the victim. I must be a mean bastard.

gwallan :

01 Feb 2008 1:01:11pm

T...

Here we go again with the "most women in the world". You make it sound as though there are billions of poor women in second and third world countries being starved by their wealthy, asset ridden husbands.

Wake up. Those husbands are just as poor and oppressed as their wives(notwithstanding feminist agit prop). They all work their backsides off and nobody has the luxury of arguing about "assets" - they have none, male and female alike.

Even in the west the only "asset" the vast majority of individuals will ever own is the family home - and that only if they're lucky. Could I also suggest you learn the definition of "company" (hint: company, group) and also learn about what "assets" are and their different types.

Her response to the mean man. This is the second time in a few days I've had this this tactic used against me.

T :

01 Feb 2008 1:32:02pm

Oh dear..the " male expert" coming out, having to instruct the "little woman" in her ignorance..pleeaaase.. I certainly don't need any so called "economic" lessons from you. Do your self a favor and go and read some UN publications on the issue.

One last try.

gwallan :

01 Feb 2008 3:49:11pm

Previous posters seem to have been correct. You really are quite offensively sexist and one sided. I could care less what your gender happens to be. For all I care you can be a piece of green cheese from Mars. What I see in the world are human beings, male, female, children. It's human beings who are oppressed. It's human beings who are poverty stricken. I'm not willing to reserve compassion for preferred groups, particularly based on gender. THAT is sexism.

I've read UN publications, World Bank publications, IMF publications, ATO publications, ABS publications. At a global level you can use various of these things to prove anything. They all depend on exactly the things you are railing against. Even in a tiny demographic like Australia it's near impossible to accurately define wealth - as distinct from income - by gender. It's all guesswork and is based on the same sort of modelling that Marilyn Waring was picking holes in twenty years ago.

Incidentally Marilyn Waring was the New Zealand MP who resigned over US nuclear armed ships docking in NZ ports. It brought down the National Party government led by Robert "Piggy" Muldoon. She was referenced in earlier postings by "T" who at that point clearly wanted me positioned as an evil capitalist. Please don't tell my lefty mum - she'd have apoplexy.

[Bobx23456]

Yes the gender pay gap makes no sense according to the SYF explosion http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_new_girl_order.html

According to this, SYFs have a whole lot of money to spend on fun, fashion and frivolous things. Someone making 75 cents to the dollar probably wouldn't be doing that.

At seventy five cents they are way overpaid, on average.  Considering the amount of actual work done, the pay shouldn't be even fifty cents.

Blessings

Bob