Society/Culture Feminism - 2017 Thread - Pt II

[JCHolmes]

Gee that ad couldnt possibly generalise a gender any further. Lets paint all men as monsters waiting to be exposed even though its a minority that are women bashers or ever will be. Most men respect an love the women in their lives. Wheres the ad for that might actually make more of a difference imo considering its a majority. Passive divisive s**t is all it is.

 

[ShanDog]

Does the ad campaign really fall under the umbrella of feminism discussion?

 

[King Brown]

I gather meninists on my ignore list are behaving in the usual way - given I can't read what they have said, it is hard to argue with them.

However, Maggie5, cartwright, no doubt you are in the right, all strength to your arms.

Weren't you the dude who put money on Hillary winning when Trump took the lead?

 

[King Brown]

Just put a significant bet on Clinton @$1.82

Ouch.

 

[cartwright]

Those sorts of stats don't tell the full story.

Sure, women may earn less per annum across a broad section of jobs but I think you will find that women, on average, work less hours per week and therefore, will earn less p/a.

I suspect the reason the supposed gap has narrowed is because, on average, women are now working more hours per week compared to previous years and thus, they will earn more p/a.

A more accurate depiction of supposed pay gaps could be derived from the hourly rate women get paid vs the hourly rate men receive for doing the same role. I think you will find that if any employer was paying men more per hour to do the exact same job(or vice versa), they would be in a bit of strife because it is illegal.

How does a male principal of a school work less hours than the female principal?

I think the gap has narrowed because companies are improving the gap and women are learning how to negotiate/ask and realising you don’t have to accept the first offer.

Still not a thing.

Why not?

 

[ShanDog]

Why not?

Statistics and logic.

Work the same job; get paid the same.

We know women enter into lower paying industries far more than men. This makes an earnings gap.

So the question isn't "how do we close the pay gap?", it's "why don't men and women do the same jobs?".

 

[twotooto]

How does a male principal of a school work less hours than the female principal?

I think the gap has narrowed because companies are improving the gap and women are learning how to negotiate/ask and realising you don’t have to accept the first offer.



Why not?

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my post.

Bottom line - it is illegal to pay a man more than a woman to do the same job, or vice versa.

Further, it is also illegal to pay a man more than another man to do the same job. Same applies for two women.

Gender does not even enter the equation.

 

[fleabitten]

How does a male principal of a school work less hours than the female principal?

In that case it is likely to be the difference in accumulated experience that accounts for the gap. Male principals are less likely to have left the workforce for a period of time to have children.

http://www.aeufederal.org.au/news-media/news/female-educators-fight-pay-parity

At a federal level the Coalition Government has made several attempts since the 2014 Budget to stop new mothers claiming the government-funded Paid Parental Leave on top of maternity leave provided through their workplace – referring to women who dare to exercise their legal rights to do so as “double dippers”.

This issue particularly effects educators because they are likely to have maternity leave as part of their industrial agreements. If the cuts were implemented it would cost educators up to $11,824 and deny them the choice to spend the first six months with their newborns.

While this still remains Coalition policy, a strong campaign by unions has meant that the measure has never been able to pass the Senate, and women are still able to access both maternity leave payments.

In the education sector the key issue is not that women are paid less for the same job as men, it’s that women are not given the opportunities to get into the better paid and more secure jobs within the profession.

The AEU’s surveys of female members have found that women are significantly less likely to seek out opportunities for promotion than men and cite the difficulty in balancing work and family commitments as a key reason. The 2015 State of Our Schools survey found that at primary school level only 6 per cent of female teachers say they are actively pursuing promotion positions compared to 25 per cent of male teachers.

It clearly comes down to life choices. If a woman doesn't take time out for motherhood, there is no disadvantage.

 

[cartwright]

Statistics and logic.

Work the same job; get paid the same.

We know women enter into lower paying industries far more than men. This makes an earnings gap.

So the question isn't "how do we close the pay gap?", it's "why don't men and women do the same jobs?".

I am not really referring to the “there’s a gap between a first year teacher and a principal” type gaps. There have been stats posted where male principals earn more on average more than female principals... that’s same work, and not paid the same.


That’s a good point in getting women to do the same jobs as men. It reminded me of the github survey that showed code written by women was rated higher than code written by men (78% vs74%) only when the gender was unknown. Once the gender was known, that rating dropped.

 

[JCHolmes]

Some principals run schools that have 2200 students, some run schools with 500 students. Perhaps that is also a variable in pay.

 

[ShanDog]

I am not really referring to the “there’s a gap between a first year teacher and a principal” type gaps. There have been stats posted where male principals earn more on average more than female principals... that’s same work, and not paid the same.

The only way to confirm this discrepancy as a gendered pay gap is if two principals of the same school - one male and the other female - are paid differently one after the other in spite of having the same qualifications and experience. Is that what the stats say?

 

[Jafa]

That’s a good point in getting women to do the same jobs as men. It reminded me of the github survey that showed code written by women was rated higher than code written by men (78% vs74%) only when the gender was unknown. Once the gender was known, that rating dropped.

It should be pointed out that mens ratings dropped as well when their gender was revealed. Granted - the percentage was not as much but the trend was the same.

 

[ShanDog]

You know what? I work in a job where your pay is determined by your position and qualifications. If you hold your position for the required length of time, and attend and pass the tests for advancement to the next level of seniority, you receive the level of remuneration attached to that position. My organisation is extremely large - one of the country's big employers.

Currently, I am doing the work of around 2.5 people. This is evidenced by the fact that my area is being restructured and additional positions are being created to do the job I have been doing all year. In every sense, I have been shouldering the responsibility and workload of at least two workers because I am consistently rated at the top of my peer group (location-based, not whole-of-country) in every yearly performance review, and can be relied upon to take on more responsibility (or as many would call it - receive 'performance punishment').

Despite clearly not performing to the same standard or having the same responsibilities, my less competent peers - male and female - who lean on me for sorting their problems out, the provision of guidance, correction, subject matter expertise and unofficial oversight get paid exactly the same as me because they are at the same level and hold the same qualifications. This has been a common theme over the last 5-7 years of my employment at various levels.

In considering my own experience, I've now changed my mind. Turns out there is most certainly a pay gap. I'm earning about 50 cents to the dollar for the same work as my peers.

 

[twotooto]

You know what? I work in a job where your pay is determined by your position and qualifications. If you hold your position for the required length of time, and attend and pass the tests for advancement to the next level of seniority, you receive the level of remuneration attached to that position. My organisation is extremely large - one of the country's big employers.

Currently, I am doing the work of around 2.5 people. This is evidenced by the fact that my area is being restructured and additional positions are being created to do the job I have been doing all year. In every sense, I have been shouldering the responsibility and workload of at least two workers because I am consistently rated at the top of my peer group (location-based, not whole-of-country) in every yearly performance review, and can be relied upon to take on more responsibility (or as many would call it - receive 'performance punishment').

Despite clearly not performing to the same standard or having the same responsibilities, my less competent peers - male and female - who lean on me for sorting their problems out, the provision of guidance, correction, subject matter expertise and unofficial oversight get paid exactly the same as me because they are at the same level and hold the same qualifications. This has been a common theme over the last 5-7 years of my employment at various levels.

In considering my own experience, I've now changed my mind. Turns out there is most certainly a pay gap. I'm earning about 50 cents to the dollar for the same work as my peers.

haha too funny.

I'd say hit the boss up for a raise but as the saying goes, "efficiency breeds redundancy".

 

[ShanDog]

haha too funny.

I'd say hit the boss up for a raise but as the saying goes, "efficiency breeds redundancy".

Not allowed a raise! Damn socialist ideology pervading workplace bargaining agreements...

 

[Jobe Watson]

How does a male principal of a school work less hours than the female principal?

I think the gap has narrowed because companies are improving the gap and women are learning how to negotiate/ask and realising you don’t have to accept the first offer.

Might also have something to do with the fact that women are now graduating university more than men, and there has been a recent push to get more women into higher paying STEM fields.

Again, any company who is paying employees differently based on gender is breaking the law. For there to be a significant and noticeable "wage" gap country-wide, there would have to be hundreds if not thousands of companies breaking the law in this way. Does this seem likely?

But no, the "wage" gap does not exist - at least, certainly not even close to the level that feminists in the media would have you believe. Figures from the Korn Ferry Hay Group collected from tens of thousands of corporations in 33 countries show that the like-for-like job pay gap is roughly 1.6% in favour of men worldwide, which is a statistically insignificant number. In some countries the like-for-like pay gap is actually in favour of women.

 

[dumb]

generally i find there to be some confusion between what entails a 'pay gap'. 'work the same job' pay, as pointed out already is not much of a gap at all and acknowledged as illegal to pay people of different genders different amounts for the same job.
but the pay gap claim is usually staked on overall earnings, which on average leaves females as a whole with less money in their pockets than males. some of this is due to the careers that are followed, motherhood among other things.

i still think there are more creative ways to put more money in females pockets, or put them on the path towards that 'overall earnings disparity'.
obviously opportunity should be equal, even if females choose not to be educated in or follow typically high earning careers.
paid paternal leave could help redress some parenting imbalances - father time away from the workforce will even up with females, this in the time of supposed lack of male role models in the world.
parents should be encouraged, to encourage their children early on into a variety of pursuits.

and, we have to look past simply fixing statistics and averages. taking lower paid jobs away from females and giving them to males will fix the gender pay gap.

 

[TimmeT]

Strong post to name correlation.

ROFL typical that you're unable to refute his points and just have to play the poster.

 

[Barry Roundhouse]

ROFL typical that you're unable to refute his points and just have to play the poster.

obviously opportunity should be equal, even if females choose not to be educated in or follow typically high earning careers.

Wot. No, it shouldn't be. If someone chooses not to be educated, they have less opportunity for high paying careers.

taking lower paid jobs away from females and giving them to males will fix the gender pay gap.

Taking? This is stupid, impossible and unfair.

 

[dumb]

Wot. No, it shouldn't be. If someone chooses not to be educated, they have less opportunity for high paying careers.


Taking? This is stupid, impossible and unfair.

i think we're in furious agreement here, once we get past some semantics.

i'm not at all advocating that people should be given jobs that they aren't educated in. we can't force females to work jobs they don't want to work either.

females should have equal opportunities to follow careers if they choose, providing they gain the appropriate qualifications - even if as a whole females historically choose not to educate themselves in certain careers. you can't simply close off career avenues to them because as a whole they choose not to follow those careers (but i don't think that's what you're implying should happen anyway - you thought i just wanted to hand jobs to females, which is untrue).

my comment of taking lower paid jobs away from females, and giving them to males isn't actually a solution i would like to happen. it's a hypothetical example of how a preoccupation with statistics could give rise to unethical practices.
this instance is just maths, companies could attempt my hypothetical solution and subsequently claim they are redressing the gender pay balance.
you lower the male average by giving them the bottom end wages to compliment the higher wages of the top end, while removing lower-paid females and leaving middle-rung female employees.
i'm not advocating taking away jobs from anyone. i explained how fixing the 'gender pay gap' could be achieved, albeit unethically (hence, 'needing to look past simply fixing statistics').

 

[fleabitten]

my comment of taking lower paid jobs away from females, and giving them to males isn't actually a solution i would like to happen. it's a hypothetical example of how a preoccupation with statistics could give rise to unethical practices.
this instance is just maths, companies could attempt my hypothetical solution and subsequently claim they are redressing the gender pay balance.
you lower the male average by giving them the bottom end wages to compliment the higher wages of the top end, while removing lower-paid females and leaving middle-rung female employees.
i'm not advocating taking away jobs from anyone. i explained how fixing the 'gender pay gap' could be achieved, albeit unethically (hence, 'needing to look past simply fixing statistics').

Similarly, you could hire a female CEO and then just raise her salary until your "pay gap" didn't exist any more. Doesn't really achieve anything except make one (most likely already rich and connected) woman richer, but your earnings gap is gone.

 

[woota]

There is a pay gap - it's just the opposite of what most people think it is. In developed nations such as australia and the united states, women now make up the majority of college and university graduates. As such, women in their 20s are outearning men in their 20s. Research also shows that many corporations now promote women more aggressively than men, leading to a further earnings discrepancy between genders.

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

Gee that ad couldnt possibly generalise a gender any further. Lets paint all men as monsters waiting to be exposed even though its a minority that are women bashers or ever will be. Most men respect an love the women in their lives. Wheres the ad for that might actually make more of a difference imo considering its a majority. Passive divisive s**t is all it is.

It is the kind of thing that will be found and looked back on in 20 years as some weird and twisted propaganda. Though you have to be an utter moron to not see it as a misdirected and twisted campaign already. I would give most people other than lock and step true believers (like some in this thread) the benefit of the doubt to understand that when viewing this campaign.

 

[woota]

It is the kind of thing that will be found and looked back on in 20 years as some weird and twisted propaganda.

Yeah I think most sane adults would view it that way already. The problem is that young boys (part of the target audience) are not as immune to such propaganda as adults, as they can't really think for themselves and are more prone to believe everything they see on TV. They are going to absorb its message subconsciously and believe on some level that they're evil for being male.

 

[cartwright]

Gee that ad couldnt possibly generalise a gender any further. Lets paint all men as monsters waiting to be exposed even though its a minority that are women bashers or ever will be. Most men respect an love the women in their lives. Wheres the ad for that might actually make more of a difference imo considering its a majority. Passive divisive s**t is all it is.

While I agree with you that most men do respect the women in their lives, there is still major issues in this area. Pretending there isn't does not help anyone.

The ad in question was created on the back of a survey conducted around 2015. The following article highlights some points from the survey:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...tackle-domestic-violence-20160419-goahnf.html

"She said the 2015 National Community Attitudes towards Violence Against Women Survey showed younger people had higher levels of "attitudinal support" for violence against women than older age groups. "