This article reflected the real problem we have with reality when it comes to gender issues.

Even though we now have 'family leave', it really means 'women's leave' and although some wowen are happy to return to the workforce soon after having a baby most actually enjoy the role of being a mother. This means their priorities change. Their priorities change from being career oriented to more family oriented. They don't want to work weekends and nights because career advance is not now their main goal in life. Men, on the other hand, don't really get a choice. Some may be able to spend time at home while a high earning wife goes to work, but for the majority of men they must continue working nights and weekends to support their families and an ever increasing mortgage. They don't always want to identify themselves by their work but they don't really get a choice.

In this context, men are actually worth more than women. They work longer and harder and often have to make the strategic decision of putting work before family because without work there is no family.

Why do feminists constantly put out 'survey results' which say women earn less than men when they work less, and less often? Why is it that women see themselves as so precious that they should receive more pay for less effort? What is wrong with feminists?

The article takes a half-truth, that men earn more than women, then goes through contortions to explain why that might be acceptable even though it's sexist without hitting reality at all. Strange.

This article seems to only look at the surface of the equal pay problems. There are many unanswered questions that would certainly play into any well reasoned analysis of the purported equal pay disparity. Unless these items are included in the discussion this is nothing more than a hollow headline grabber.

First and most importantly who did the survey, what were their qualifications for independence (or perhaps their agenda) and who answered or responded to the survey?

Second, was this a survey of before or after tax dollars in the pay packet only? Or were all the total costs of the care and feeding of an employee considered? How about super contributions, sick pay, personal time off, state and local employment taxes, government mandates, long service leave? How about benefits such as employees given a longer annual leave after a number of years?

Third, were the survey results broken out by job type? Such as salary vs hourly workers, blue collar vs white collar, straight salary vs salary plus commission, professional, self employed. Were bonuses considered? And what were they based on?

Fourth, are there employee benefits not reported in the survey that may contribute to a different weekly pay level. Flexible work schedules or job sharing or the ability to work a less than 40 hour week. How about employer paid education or tuition reimbursement.

Is there any relationship between length of service and the size of the pay packet? And what is the breakdown of male vs female length of service in each of the above job types?

I think this article was posted a bit too early - April Fools day is three weeks away.

What unadulterated rot! April Fool indeed!

The biggest problem with these sort of surveys is that they dont cover enough detail. One of the most influential factors in women earning less is that they do indeed tend to work less hours, due to family choices are often in the workforce for less time (at the same age), and are often filling jobs are that lower paid. Easy to see why generalist survey results show up the way that they do.

What the real concern should be is whether female employees are being paid the same as male employees in the same role/job. Obviously factors such as individual skill and experience have to come into payrates - it is a competitive marketplace after all. But we should be concerned if women are not provided the same reward for the same production.

Speaking from personal experience, women are usually paid as well as men in the same position. In fact the women I work with are paid more than the men in similar roles in the same business. Why? The women pay better attention to detail, have less rework, and tend to have better customer relation skills. Because they produce more, they earn more. Yes some will leave for family reasons, but then women are also more likely to stay for family reasons if you provide a flexible workplace, whereas men seem to be more likely to get dissatisfied quickly. The staff turnover result is the same.

To cut to the chase, the author is obviously male, hasnt given real thought to what the costs of employment are and doesnt appear bright enough to realise that you can prove anything you damn well please with numbers.

I really don't believe there is a wage gap between men and women when all factors are taken into account. A few years ago on ABC radio I heard a very good and simple explanation of why there is seen to be an apparent gap. Here is the link, a very worthwhile article to read.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2006/1766033.htm

I don't have any problems with people who work part time getting paid less than those working more hours than them.
What I don't like is the rate per hour being less for a female worker than a male worker doing the exact same job, with the same experience. That's fair enough isn't it?

It used to be that male nurses got more dollars per hour than female nurses, for the same work, with the same experience. We were told it was because most men had to support a family.
Apparently, women didn't need to support anyone if they had a husband! Tough if you never married!

Those days are long gone now. Unfortunately both people in a relationship these days has to work to be able to make ends meet.

If a woman then stops work to have a baby, it should not mean that when she returns to work, her hourly rate is less than a male doing the same job.

Equal hourly rates of pay for both genders with equal experience
should be a given in any job.
If one then works part time after having children, then fair enough her total wage should come down.
But not the hourly rate.

There use to be two different level of wages for men (in some jobs), there was the single mans rate and a married mans rate (which was higher than the single man)but don't hear about that.

Suzies line about male nurses and female wages was true, however what suzie forgot, is back in those days, it was the bloke who paid for the night out.

Some restraurants had two different menus, the male got the one with the prices and the female menu did not have the prices.

Suzeonline

Took the words right out of my mouth. My immediate thought after reading this article, was that hourly rates should be equitable for the type of work done.

And another, why is it assumed that women do all the child care and dealing with domestic issues? Many men share parenting and domestic chores - are their pay levels 'devalued' as a result of 'taking Timmy to hospital'?

JamesH <" Suzies line about male nurses and female wages was true, however what suzie forgot, is back in those days, it was the bloke who paid for the night out."

Oh well, fair enough then! It was perfectly ok if men were paid more per hour than women because they would pay for a movie and popcorn once a week for the little woman aye? Yeah right!

Thanks for that Severin. Men were given more pay in those days and even still these days because most people running the companies and setting the wages were men.

Suzeonline:"they would pay for a movie and popcorn once a week"

The cost of entertainment for young adults should not be underestimated. Young women tend to spend all their money on themselves, while young men spend a great deal of theirs on young women.

When I was a young bloke at uni, one of my girlfriends was a nurse. She earnt several times what I did, which was mostly "TEAS" as the student benefit was called then and a bit of p/t work.

Thinking back, I can't recall a single instance in which she offered to pay for anything at all. If ever we took her car, I was expected to put fuel in it, but if we took mine - not her problem.

Not all of my g/fs were quite like that. Mostly they would offer a small amount saying "I don't feel safe carrying cash, it's all I have" or some other lame excuse, and the very rare one would offer to go halves, which of course, I always chivalrously rejected.

I can well recall spending a couple of hundred dollars on a Friday night to ensure both of us had a good time, when my income for the week was not much more, then having to hitch hike home because the g/f hadn't even brought cab fare with her.

That may have changed, but I doubt it. Young women know full well that they have something young men regard as especially valuable and they ensure it's properly paid for.

Of course, they call it "being respectful" or something, but its funny how that often translates to "show me the money'.

The transfer of wealth between genders is the elephant in the room when discussing relative income levels. If a man is paid a wage but the wife gets to decide how the money is spent, who does the money belong to? Who enjoys the benefit?

The old saying never rang truer: "what's yours is mine, what's mine is mine".

anti,

You really don't like women very much do you? Times were different, and men wanted it that way too. Or unthinkingly accepted it. It's what I always argue about with pynchme. That's why you two are the same. pynchme would say men oppressed women into having the babies and looking after the house, and all women hated that. Well, most didn't, and most men didn't mind paying for the nights out. That's just what people did, and there was no malace or resentment like you two try to pretend.

But, as you point out, no feminist sees that side of things at all, that men pay a lot of dinners for women. Or id they do, it's just another example of controlling behaviour, or patronising.

Note: I don't think women are all thinking 'let him pay if he wants to use my body'. Heaps of chicks are like 'let him pay, and I cant wait to shag him, but no guy likes an easy chick, and he wont marry me if I put out straight away.'

Why don't you think women struggle too with new gender boundaries as much as you seem to? The way you talk they're all on top of the situation exploiting their boyfriends. You're a victim junkie.

Some chicks even now may be afraid to pay as it might be sending the signal to the guy of 'I don't want to have sex with you, don't get any ideas', when they really cant wait to get their hands on the one-eyed trouser snake.

As you say, the odd girl moves around the dance floor soliciting interest for free drinks, but the guys pay willingly. As The Strokes say, 'Trying your Luck'. The wonderful dances between the genders should be seen as just that, rather than a poor little nice guy exploited by the sluts routine.

'The transfer of wealth between genders is the elephant in the room'
Only to blind feminists. As I say about the pay gap, it's more important who spends the money than who earns it.

Houellebecq:"there was no malace or resentment like you two try to pretend."

Of course there wasn't, that was my point. Men were quite happy to be exploited in that way.

It's no doubt that most women were just as happy to be paid for.

I don't think that any of it is especially a conscious behaviour, but as you say, more a courtship dance, akin to the display behaviour of bower birds. "Look at how valuable I think you are"; "Yes, I know, is that all you've got"; "No, see?"; "I think I love you" <Fade in David Attenborough perving through binoculars while hiding behind a rhododendron>

Wealth transfer between genders is never discussed at a public policy level. When gender and earning or wealth are discussed, it's always assumed that couples are individuals for the purpose of calculation and the transfer from the higher-paid member to the lower-paid is not mentioned.

Funnily enough, it does get a guernsey in the Family Law and Child Support Acts, where it is regarded as sufficiently important as to be an obligation.

Antiseptic, for the most part, myself and my boyfriends tended to take turns paying when I went out as a single woman. Luckily, I was trained in hospitals and not uni, so I always had money.

I do agree with Houellebecq in part though, because there were certainly those men who expected to 'get a reward' if they paid for my night out.
Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. :)

I guess these days it is more an equal payment thing when young couples go out. And so it should be.

Suzeonline:"Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. :)"

Operant conditioning is well understood. If you want a behaviour to persist in the face of a non-response, make a positive response intermittently.

Suzeonline:"I guess these days it is more an equal payment thing when young couples go out"

Is it? My own kids aren't quite old enough and I no longer qualify to be part of a "young" couple, so I don't have much recent data.

I have spoken to young men I know and they indicated that they are expected to pay the lion's share, They also mentioned that their girls all leave their cards at home when going out, relying on the boys to make up any shortfall.

Perhaps the girls are smart enough to know their judgement is impaired after a few drinks/pills and they sensibly choose to leave temptation at home, while the boys know that this is their wedge?

Either way, I suspect some form of sacrifice/reward for sacrifice is always going to be with humans as part of their courtship dance.

You are very negative about the human race in general, and women in particular, Anti!

Most women I know fork out their fair share for joint outings, but then most women I know are married (and working).

My husband usually pays when we go out together, but then he gets twice the weekly spending allowance that I do, every week, and we dont go out very often (and when we do it is usually at his insistence - I like saving rather than spending). I've always been that way - just as pleasant to catch a tv movie as go to the cinema, and much cheaper! So yes, I have usually insisted that if going out is not my idea (and I'd have chosen a cheaper option), that I dont pay, or at least dont pick up the lions share of the tab. On the other hand, if going out or holidays are my instigation, then I usually pay for the lot. It doesnt matter who you are, you can only spend a $ once!

Country Gal:"You are very negative about the human race in general, and women in particular, Anti!"

If you say so; I consider myself an optimist with a sceptical bent.

The only reason I post on these gender threads is to balance the interminable self-congratulation of women and denigration of men that was the norm before I started posting.

I think it's fascinating that so many women are happy to call me "anti-women" when my posts are essentially mirroring the standard rhetoric from feminist gender warriors, albeit somewhat better-phrased.

Country Gal: "My husband usually pays when we go out together, but then he gets twice the weekly spending allowance that I do"

Why does he get a larger "spending allowance"? Is it because he IS expected to pick up the cheque out of "his" allowance when you go out, or is it because he earns more or because he has more expensive personal needs?

You say "I prefer saving", which has been a common comment from women I've known. Funnily enough, they seemed to have no preference for saving mine.

This form of wealth transfer between genders is so entrenched in our society, possibly even within our genes, that it is simply taken for granted and very rarely discussed, especially when discussing income disparities between genders.

I'm not sure if you're good with maths or not, but this is a simple algebraic statement of the situation.

If my girlfriend/wife/partner earns x and I earn x+a, but I spend a+b on joint actiivites, then she has the benefit of a real income of X+(a+b/2) while I have access to (x+a)-(a+b/2).

In other words, I only maintain a relative advantage in spending power if I spend less on joint activities than the disparity in income (IOW, if b is negative).

If I spend money directly on her, rather than on joint activities, then every dollar spent is directly transferred to her benefit. I may reagrd all this as fair exchange for her loving company, but it doesn't shange the fact that it has occurred.