Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The council didn't offer them bonuses, because they were mostly women.
The Supreme Court ruled on this several years ago. It's not really up for dispute, just as evidence that at least one "side" actually does want equality.
It seems that people get rather disgruntled by inequality when it works against them.
The second reason for the article is that it isn't isn't something I think I read in Hello! or some other magazine a few years ago that "debunked" blah-di-blah. It's a well grounded legal case that went to the highest court in the land and found unfair discrimination against women.
Kilkrazy wrote: The council didn't offer them bonuses, because they were mostly women.
Well, they were mostly women and they weren't offered bonuses. I don't see anything in the article you linked that implies causation, other than the council being hard up for money.
Ashiraya wrote: In Sweden women still only earn about 80 öre to the crown. I am not sure why people keep pretending this is not a thing.
Usually because it cuts into their identity as an oppressed white male, never catching the breaks.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Ashiraya wrote: In Sweden women still only earn about 80 öre to the crown. I am not sure why people keep pretending this is not a thing.
Is there somewhere that breaks down how in equal jobs they don't get equal pay? I always see the 70% number thrown around, but no context to it. Is that number an aggregate of the total work force, or is it an actual representation of the average discrepancy for equal work/position?
Kilkrazy wrote: Definitely not. The West is about 100 years into its progress in developing sex equality. Women still earn only 70% of men's salaries, comprise only 5% (or whatever) of executives, and so on.
I cannot believe the gender wage gap is being perpetuated in this thread. This is a myth that's been disproven ages ago and no reputable economist takes it seriously.
Allow me to be the one to ether you on this subject.
A PAY GAP exists yes, but there is no WAGE GAP. People usually don't realize there's a difference because they just buy the feminist myth at face value. No females experiences an employer saying, during hiring, "You will be paid only 80% of John here, because you are female."
An overall >>>earnings gap<<< (pay gap) exists because women don't get into the same work men do (let's see, a diploma in TRAVEL & TOURISM isn't going to net the same amount of money as a degree IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING OR PROGRAMMING) and therefore don't earn as much, on average they don't work as many hours, women take MORE vacation time (resulting in less pay, sources below), leave to have children, take MORE SHORT-TERM SICK DAYS resulting in less money, the list goes on. CHOICES.
If there were obvious wage gaps, as being incorrectly asserted in this thread, then:
1) why aren't these women suing the hell out of these companies that are clearly breaking the law? Where are all these clear-cut class-action lawsuits?? Answer: they aren't happening because pay inequality isn't happening.
2) why aren't these greedy capitalist companies just hiring ALL WOMEN if they do the same work/quality/hours and do it for 20% less? Answer: because pay inequality isn't happening.
The sad thing is, even that moron Obama and his lackeys perpetuate this nonsense, but then again what else can you expect from Leftist politicians? LOL.
Watch some of these videos below for visual guides to explain the above to you, though I doubt many itt will because the red pill is not something conducive to their digital safe spaces: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA HOFF-SOMMERS, A LEADING FEMINIST, EVEN DISPUTES THE WAGE-GAP AS BABYISH ECONOMICS:
Watch Lord Milo destroy two feminists at the same time:
Coarse language, due to superimposed 'thug life' theme as Ben DESTROYS THE WAGE GAP MYTH NSFW:
I know Dakka is a very Liberal forum, so I'll provide some sources for my 'hate facts', lol:
Watch Lord Milo destroy two feminists at the same time:
Awww, that's cute. You gotta crush.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Then I'd argue you stay in only parts of Dakka. I'd say it's 50/50, there's some fairly vocal right wing posters on here.
Occasionally I jump into threads here that are political and breaking, the rest of my time is in the swap shop, P&M, and 40K/Fantasy general. I'm mainly a lurker, but when the pay lie gets thrown out, I have to jump in.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/04 21:25:52
People usually don't realize there's a difference because they just buy the feminist myth at face value.
People don't realize there's a difference because differentiating wage from pay is splitting a hair.
The wage gap has notably shrunk since Feminists first started raising a stink about it, and in some professions its gone entirely. Law enforcement for example once had a very harsh pay gap between men and women, but it's been virtually eliminated. However the wage gap still exists, like in teaching for example;
Differences in Teacher Sex and Racial-Ethnic Background
Despite the fact that sex and race-ethnicity are not accounted for in formal salary scales in the public or private sector, some differences in the salaries of teachers are associated with sex and racial-ethnic background once other teacher and school characteristics are taken into account. Specifically,
White and Hispanic male public school teachers earn higher salaries than their female counterparts. Male public school teachers earn between 10 to 13 percent more than females, on average, and a little more than half of this difference is accounted for by differences in the characteristics of male and female teachers. The remainder of the difference may be due, in part, to differences in the labor markets for males and females.
Married females receive lower salaries than nonmarried females, while for males, no difference associated with marital status is identified, all else equal.
Racial-ethnic differences among teachers were observed only for male public school teachers. The only statistically significant difference in salaries observed related to racial-ethnic background is the 4 percent difference favoring white (not of Hispanic origin) males over blacks (not of Hispanic origin). ~ http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/95829.asp
A more complete study is available at IWPR, and is published yearly. The Gender Wage gap gets into a whole host of issues, and indeed Feminists sometimes push for more than the evidence can provide (example; though I think it should be the other way around, teacher's getting paid less than software engineers isn't just about which sex works the field but how valued the field is, and teachers just aren't valued as much as software engineers). But you're not going to make all that go away by pretending pay and wage are somehow different things, or that Feminists only debate the differences between male and female earnings using a single metric.
Watch Lord Milo destroy two feminists at the same time:
Awww, that's cute. You gotta crush.
Ahh a personal slight at my sexuality, excellent argument!
Oh, not intended as a dig at your sexuality. My apologies, I can see how you could take it that way. I was riffing on the hyperbolic title you bestowed upon you hero.
Man-crushes are common amongst hetero men. It's how we organize the pack. I had one on Phil Anselmo when I was in high school.
This Milo guy seems like a right tit, though. A cursory glance at his resume makes him look like he is a professional troll. I'd be wary of hitching your horse to such a wagon.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Pay is pay. The only difference to be accounted for is if one is being paid a wage or a salary. I.E. You're demanding that we recognize a difference between pay and wage that does not exist. Creating a difference between pay and wage might serve your conclusion, but it has no basis in reality, and it certainly isn't related to the argument feminists put forth on the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: I had one on Phil Anselmo when I was in high school.
James Roday all the way
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/04 21:39:36
I understand, that generally if a woman is working the same hours as a man, at the exact same job, they are paid generally the same.
The earnings gap is often then refuted as "woman choose worse jobs for money, take more time off, are more unwilling to do overtime" etc etc
The issue I have with those that say this is they then never look into *why* this happens. They just state that's how it is.
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
MrDwhitey wrote: I understand, that generally if a woman is working the same hours as a man, at the exact same job, they are paid generally the same.
A factor that almost always gets left out (and it's always confused me why its not discussed more), is the geographic variations of the jobs market. Women in lower income areas/families are more likely to work than women in higher income areas/families (and there may be a bell curve of some kind at play between the lower, middle, and upper income brackets). I've never seen a study that took the data on the wage gap and broken it down by geographic region, i.e where do women work, where do men work, and how do the geographic variations influence the pay scale. I don't even know if ones ever been done. It would be one intensive study to put out. I've always wanted to know if, and if so how, the wage gap data might look different once geography is accounted for.
The earnings gap is often then refuted as "woman choose worse jobs for money, take more time off, are more unwilling to do overtime" etc etc
The issue I have with those that say this is they then never look into *why* this happens. They just state that's how it is.
Agreed. It's kind of an ironic rebuttal, because it doesn't really rebut anything in the current discussion being put forth by feminists, which includes trying to account for why woman work in jobs that are worse and pay less, why don't they work more overtime, and why do they take more time off. As if simply stating that this occurs somehow invalidates the stated position women are paid less than men when they should be paid the same. Take for example the average pay of maids (a women dominated field) vs the average pay of janitors (a male dominated field); It's about a $3000 difference for virtually identical work. A big reason that gap exists is because Janitors are seen a labor, while maids are seen as "help" so the characteristics of the way people look at the jobs (and the way they are hired) accounts a lot for the difference in earnings. It's not like employers look up their employees junk and then pay them accordingly. The argument hasn't been about that since the 60s and 70s. Now its about the social demographics and factors that result in women being paid less than men, and that isn't remotely refuted by acknowledging the exact issues that feminists (and others to be fair) are looking into in trying to explain why women can make less than men.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/04 22:08:41
Watch Lord Milo destroy two feminists at the same time:
Awww, that's cute. You gotta crush.
Ahh a personal slight at my sexuality, excellent argument!
Its only a 'slight' against your sexuality (don't even get me started on the politics of that) if the person who replied knew you were male, which you'd given no evidence of. Even if they went off 'male dominated game/forum' and 'opinion that tends to be held by men', you pointed out how even feminist women also hold your position.
Why must I always choose beween certain death and probable death.
Watch Lord Milo destroy two feminists at the same time:
Awww, that's cute. You gotta crush.
Ahh a personal slight at my sexuality, excellent argument!
Its only a 'slight' against your sexuality (don't even get me started on the politics of that) if the person who replied knew you were male, which you'd given no evidence of. Even if they went off 'male dominated game/forum' and 'opinion that tends to be held by men', you pointed out how even feminist women also hold your position.
And even then, it's only a "slight" if one assumes being homosexual is bad.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Kilkrazy wrote: The council didn't offer them bonuses, because they were mostly women.
Well, they were mostly women and they weren't offered bonuses. I don't see anything in the article you linked that implies causation, other than the council being hard up for money.
You will find the evidence and findings in the judgement of the court.
MrDwhitey wrote: I understand, that generally if a woman is working the same hours as a man, at the exact same job, they are paid generally the same.
A factor that almost always gets left out (and it's always confused me why its not discussed more), is the geographic variations of the jobs market. Women in lower income areas/families are more likely to work than women in higher income areas/families (and there may be a bell curve of some kind at play between the lower, middle, and upper income brackets). I've never seen a study that took the data on the wage gap and broken it down by geographic region, i.e where do women work, where do men work, and how do the geographic variations influence the pay scale. I don't even know if ones ever been done. It would be one intensive study to put out. I've always wanted to know if, and if so how, the wage gap data might look different once geography is accounted for.
The earnings gap is often then refuted as "woman choose worse jobs for money, take more time off, are more unwilling to do overtime" etc etc
The issue I have with those that say this is they then never look into *why* this happens. They just state that's how it is.
Agreed. It's kind of an ironic rebuttal, because it doesn't really rebut anything in the current discussion being put forth by feminists, which includes trying to account for why woman work in jobs that are worse and pay less, why don't they work more overtime, and why do they take more time off. As if simply stating that this occurs somehow invalidates the stated position women are paid less than men when they should be paid the same. Take for example the average pay of maids (a women dominated field) vs the average pay of janitors (a male dominated field); It's about a $3000 difference for virtually identical work. A big reason that gap exists is because Janitors are seen a labor, while maids are seen as "help" so the characteristics of the way people look at the jobs (and the way they are hired) accounts a lot for the difference in earnings. It's not like employers look up their employees junk and then pay them accordingly. The argument hasn't been about that since the 60s and 70s. Now its about the social demographics and factors that result in women being paid less than men, and that isn't remotely refuted by acknowledging the exact issues that feminists (and others to be fair) are looking into in trying to explain why women can make less than men.
The fact is that despite all the considerations about child care and so on, which are valid, time and again women successfully bring court cases in which it is proved that they have been paid less than men in the same organisation for doing the same job or an equivalent one. This ranges from the Birmingham cleaning ladies to traders in the richest banks in the city of London.
Either it is still true that women often are penalised for being women, or somehow the legal system has been subverted in a mysterious way to allow women to successfully bring these cases though they are lies.
Which is it?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/04 23:04:23
What about that feminazi agenda that's keeping us struggling men down? Oh, won't someone think of the poor struggling men!
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Birmingham City Council liable for £757m equal pay claims
12 November 2012
Birmingham City Council has revealed it will have to pay at least £757m to settle equal pay claims brought by mainly women who missed out on bonuses.
Last month 174 people who worked in traditionally-female roles won a ruling at the Supreme Court over the pay.
The £757m includes claims by that group and hundreds of other city council workers.
What recourse does a man has who didnt get the bonus?
Likely none, the employer can claim reward based on merit.
However if you have a minority card to play, of any applicable type, then you must get your bonus regardless of merit or the employers are seen to be bigots.
Equal opportunities might be well intentioned, though under Blair I doubt even that, and we are still in the shadow of that government. Even if well intentioned at the set up though, the application is often highly unfair.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Differences in Teacher Sex and Racial-Ethnic Background
Despite the fact that sex and race-ethnicity are not accounted for in formal salary scales in the public or private sector, some differences in the salaries of teachers are associated with sex and racial-ethnic background once other teacher and school characteristics are taken into account. Specifically,
White and Hispanic male public school teachers earn higher salaries than their female counterparts. Male public school teachers earn between 10 to 13 percent more than females, on average, and a little more than half of this difference is accounted for by differences in the characteristics of male and female teachers. The remainder of the difference may be due, in part, to differences in the labor markets for males and females.
Married females receive lower salaries than nonmarried females, while for males, no difference associated with marital status is identified, all else equal.
Racial-ethnic differences among teachers were observed only for male public school teachers. The only statistically significant difference in salaries observed related to racial-ethnic background is the 4 percent difference favoring white (not of Hispanic origin) males over blacks (not of Hispanic origin). ~ http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/95829.asp
A "fix" to that, is to do as my state has done... Now, I must preface this by saying that I'm not actually IN school yet (I'm in school to become a teacher), but the pay charts are public record and can be pulled up for the state of Washington. The scales break down basically the same as a military pay scale does.
There are two scales: teachers with a Master's and teachers without. From there, it's 0 years, 1+ years, 2+ years, etc. etc. The state has a baseline pay for every teacher, with individual districts providing a boost to that pay on a district level (ie, a teacher working in Seattle proper is gonna get paid a higher salary than a teacher working in Chelan.
PrehistoricUFO wrote: The sad thing is, even that moron Obama and his lackeys perpetuate this nonsense, but then again what else can you expect from Leftist politicians? LOL.
And this is what I am supposed to 'take seriously'?
Embarrassing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: I understand, that generally if a woman is working the same hours as a man, at the exact same job, they are paid generally the same.
The earnings gap is often then refuted as "woman choose worse jobs for money, take more time off, are more unwilling to do overtime" etc etc
The issue I have with those that say this is they then never look into *why* this happens. They just state that's how it is.
They also say there is no racism involved, and yet, in Sweden of all places Uppdrag Granskning showed that a job that was taken when Mohammed Al-Abnir called was surprisingly often available when Markus Persson called a minute later.
Ashiraya wrote: In Sweden women still only earn about 80 öre to the crown. I am not sure why people keep pretending this is not a thing.
Is there somewhere that breaks down how in equal jobs they don't get equal pay? I always see the 70% number thrown around, but no context to it. Is that number an aggregate of the total work force, or is it an actual representation of the average discrepancy for equal work/position?
I don't see the pay gap (as distinct from a wage gap) as a problem. If women work less hours, take more holidays, take time off to raise kids, and in turn get less promotions, then it's the woman's choice to do that.
Yes, there's more males in my engineering classes than there are females, and I'd love to see more females in it.... but it's absolutely not harder for a female to get in to it**. If less women decided to get in to engineering because their parents didn't encourage them enough, take it up with their parents.
Encourage your kids, regardless of their gender, to get in to STEM fields and higher paying jobs, teach them to fight for bonuses and pay rises, teach them not to take time off work to care for kids of their own, because in most western countries these days the only thing stopping you from earning more is your own choices. Someone discouraged you along the way? Toughen up buttercup, if you want that higher paying job, take it.
**In fact the university offers a bunch of sexist scholarship programs which you will be excluded from if you have are a dude because apparently the way to fight inequality in a field is with sexism.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/05 03:46:08
~1.5k
