• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

women are working for free till the end of the year...

" As a child, I was trained to be a “nice girl”, praised when I went to visit my grandmother, but upbraided if I asked her for more pocket money."

Well what else would you expect? I'm male and would never have asked my granny on a pension for more pocket money.
 
It's nonsense.

When you allow for the time off many women take to have children, and the overall differences in willingness to compete/negotiate, career pay scales are so similar as to not be worth discussing.

Now that couples can share maternity leave it's only personal preference that will stop a woman earning as much as a man.
 
scaramanga said:
It's nonsense.

When you allow for the time off many women take to have children, and the overall differences in willingness to compete/negotiate, career pay scales are so similar as to not be worth discussing.

Now that couples can share maternity leave it's only personal preference that will stop a woman earning as much as a man.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I really think a deeper analysis of the data than what is being presented in the soundbites (like this article) is needed.

Can't give a source, but I'm quite sure I even remember quotes being taken out of context from financial papers that actually included a deeper analysis like the one you're talking about.

It would be quite a thing if a company really could cut wage costs by 12-15% by hiring only women. What a competitive advantage that would be...

And it's not only time off women take to have children. It's also about overall time spent working. It seems that many women chose to work fewer hours than men for whatever reason. I'm a man, but chosing to work less and essentially trade money for free time ressonates with me.
 
braineclipse said:
Yeah, I really think a deeper analysis of the data than what is being presented in the soundbites (like this article) is needed.

Can't give a source, but I'm quite sure I even remember quotes being taken out of context from financial papers that actually included a deeper analysis like the one you're talking about.

It would be quite a thing if a company really could cut wage costs by 12-15% by hiring only women. What a competitive advantage that would be...

And it's not only time off women take to have children. It's also about overall time spent working. It seems that many women chose to work fewer hours than men for whatever reason. I'm a man, but chosing to work less and essentially trade money for free time ressonates with me.
Click to expand...
Can't find the link either but it sounds like we've read the same one.

As you say, who would ever pay the extra to employ a man if women are so much cheaper?
 
scaramanga said:
As you say, who would ever pay the extra to employ a man if women are so much cheaper?
Click to expand...
Men, duh. The self maintaining misogynistic cycle of business, init? o_O

According to the comments section on that the ONS reckon women get paid better than men in their 20s/30s, then it goes in our direction, but probably for predictable reasons (children). Whether that's true or not..., is a Grauniad comments section to be trusted?
 
We should never have given them the vote. First mistake. Then they start taking all our best names. Jamie. Alex. Tony(i). Peter(a).
 
Seedy Ron said:
Men, duh. The self maintaining misogynistic cycle of business, init? o_O

According to the comments section on that the ONS reckon women get paid better than men in their 20s/30s, then it goes in our direction, but probably for predictable reasons (children). Whether that's true or not..., is a Grauniad comments section to be trusted?
Click to expand...

I would not be surprised if old school sexism to some extent explain those numbers. I think quite a few men aged 40 and 50 might have gotten ahead earlier in their careers because of sexist attitudes. These things take time to actually even out.

Just to be clear, not saying that there's not still misogyny going on. Just that it's to a much smaller extent than argued by some feminists, and that using flawed logic and close to propaganda-like arguments to support any case isn't a good idea.

I would definitely count myself as a feminist, but some of the arguments put forward really are cringeworthy.
 
braineclipse said:
I would not be surprised if old school sexism to some extent explain those numbers. I think quite a few men aged 40 and 50 might have gotten ahead earlier in their careers because of sexist attitudes. These things take time to actually even out.

Just to be clear, not saying that there's not still misogyny going on. Just that it's to a much smaller extent than argued by some feminists, and that using flawed logic and close to propaganda-like arguments to support any case isn't a good idea.

I would definitely count myself as a feminist, but some of the arguments put forward really are cringeworthy.
Click to expand...
Is this you?
1414427553887_Image_galleryImage_This_is_what_a_feminist_l.JPG
 
scaramanga said:
I like that. Simultaneously telling the world you don't like Twitter or spell checkers.
Click to expand...

One of the best things I have heard Cameron say was when he first came to power and was interviewed on the radio. He was asked if he was on teletext and after a few thoughts he said " too many tweets make a taco".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back