The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Made in Dagenham > Comments

Made in Dagenham : Comments

By John Töns, published 29/10/2010

How far has wage equality really come?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
'a point that I had forgotten about is that there were also two levels of male wage.

There was the single mans wage and a married mans wage, that I assume recognised that once a man married his living expenses increased.

<It is by no means a simple problem but we can say that our society continues to place a lesser value on the contribution that women make to our society>

Totally wrong! Who gets to decide if teachers wages go up?

It is our politicans!

So to claim that society puts lessor value is spurious.

More correctly it is our politicans who perhaps are placing a lessor value, not society.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 29 October 2010 11:42:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Our politicians may be making the decision, but it's clearly not broadly opposed on society, or it would be a bigger issue than it is currently. By and large, 'nurturing' roles are seen as lower-value than 'productive' roles.

I fear you're also committing the sin of seeing this image too close-up to get a good view. Sure, women frequently work less, or in roles that are generally paid less, regardless of gender... but that in itself points to a further problem. Each time you zoom out from micro to macro, you get an added layer of complexity. Unfortunately, there's no point at which you can stop and say 'everything in this sphere is relevant, everything outside of it is not'.
Posted by James Carman, Friday, 29 October 2010 11:58:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coupla points, Mr Töns.

The first, of course, is that economic reality being what it is, in 2002 Ford stopped producing cars in Dagenham, bacause it was more expensive than both Spain and Germany.

How surprising.

Secondly, the movie "Made in Dagenham" that you cite in your opening sentence, has been described by "Easy Living" magazine as:

"A thoroughly British comedy that'll make you roar with laughter"

Of course, you have to understand both the character of Harold Wilson, and Barbara Castle's hairdo (scroll down the link below), to understand why it is so hilarious.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1183602/Strike-Bob-Hoskins-Miranda-Richardson-bring-tale-equal-pay-fight-Dagenham-big-screen.html

The third is that, according to feminists, there were 850 striking machinists, not the paltry 185 that you noted. Or the 300 reported in the Daily Mail.

http://womensgrid.freecharity.org.uk/?p=89

History is so... malleable, is it not.

As for this gem:

"We would like to believe that because we have a female Prime Minister, that we have some women in powerful jobs that somehow we have created a fair society"

Not only do we have a female Prime Minister, but also a female Governor General.

As well, in my state of NSW, we have a female Governor, and a female Premier. My local government is headed by a female mayor.

I ask you, when nearly 50% of the population is male - is that indicative of a "fair society"?

"The ultimate test of a fair society is whether or not accidents of birth make a significant different to one's life chances."

No, that's the ultimate test of a Utopian society, Mr Töns, not a fair one.

To see how an accident of birth makes "a significant different to one's life chances", drop into one of CP Australia's facilities, why don't you.

"One way to test that proposition is to simply count. Look at the distribution of the prison population..."

And 50% of those should be women too?

Look, I am 100% in favour of equal pay for equal work. But this jumble of factoids doesn't make that case, I'm afraid.

Much like the movie, it is a "thoroughly silly article that made me roar with laughter"
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 29 October 2010 12:24:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh James H... I'm so glad you saw that 'script' that Baygon is following:

"All you are writing is following the typical gender oppression script thats main aim is to be inflammatory."

I was thinking the same thing.

But what seems to have escaped everyone but Pericles (who has somehow found 'religion' on this Dagenham issue at last) the simple fact is that all these 'workers rights/womens rights/equality' issues did was to cause Ford Dagenham to CLOSE DOWN..and virtually ALLLLL except 2000 left at the engine plant our of 40,000 plus have lost.. repeat LOST their jobs.

How is that for 'equality' ? ? ?

It simply boggles the mind how the 'socialist' mentality just does not see that their system does not work.

OH wait.. I know why now...and..believe or not it's GENETIC :)

Liberals/Socialists are.. wait for it.. 'gene challenged'

Ap­pear­ing in the cur­rent edi­tion of The Jour­nal of Pol­i­tics, the re­search fo­cused on 2,000 sub­jects from The Na­tional Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study of Ad­o­les­cent Health, a fed­er­ally funded U.S. proj­ect that sur­veyed health in rela­t­ion to a range of be­hav­iors. By match­ing ge­net­ic in­forma­t­ion with maps of the sub­jects’ so­cial net­works, the re­search­ers found that peo­ple with a spe­cif­ic var­i­ant of DRD4 were more likely to be lib­er­al as adults, but only if they had an ac­tive so­cial life in ad­o­les­cence.
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/101028_liberal

So.. we can now replace our previous contempt and irritation with the likes of Baygon, Squeers and others of their Ilk (even CJ MORGAN) and now embrace a more compassionate and pity based approach because now we know they have no choice in the matter...their genes are making them do it.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 29 October 2010 4:14:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Using baygons spurious arguement, when married and single men were paid different wages, it looks like 'society' didn't value single men very much!

Pericles, good point on history, it is very malleable, some people seem to only hear what they want too hear, and ignore anything that does not follow their script.

If I can be bothered I try and find the links, to how certain working and employment laws applied only to women and children, such as the number of hours they could work. If I recall correctly it benefited women, not men, as such it would appear that women were/are valued by society more than working man.
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 30 October 2010 4:51:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very relevant comment from a piece by Adele Horin in the fairfax press: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/executive-style/executive-women/female-execs-struggle-with-mother-load-20101029-177i7.html relating to a book about women in senior management.

"Dr Ross-Smith said women who reached senior management were just as ambitious and devoted to their careers as men.

But the stark choice that faced talented women 40 years ago - career or children - no longer applied. While some women still regarded children as "death to their career", and the decision to have a child was still difficult, most wanted to have it all.

Dr Ross-Smith said it was only later some realised it was too hard, and opted out."

Ms Horin mentions a woman who took time off to have a child, then discovers that combining the 2 is simply too much, so her sympathetic boss decides she only need work 4 days a week.

Wonderful for her - she gets to work less and even gets promoted and has another kid along the way - I'm sure she's very happy.

I'm a little confused though: I was told back in 2003 by the CSA that I wasn't working hard enough and that I had a "Capacity to Earn" that I wasn't exercising, so to give me an incentive to exercise that capacity, I was going to have to pay child support based on an income 25% more than I actually took home. They didn't seem too concerned that this might make it hard for me to manage child care responsibilities, although I was caring for my children nearly 50% of the time and Mum didn't work at all...

If women require expensive subsidisation of their participation in the workforce, then they should be entitled to less pay or simply not take on the jobs. Achievement often requires genuine commitment and sacrifice and that may include making a decision that children are not compatible with a high-powered career, rather than popping out a couple of fashion accessories and handing them off to a nanny for years, then whuingeing and demanding that someone else must pay the bill for your choice.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 30 October 2010 6:39:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy