I would suggest that the average woman has a different agenda to the average man. Her priority is generally to bear children and to nurture them until they become autonomous. It is not possible for a man to fulfil both these roles, so it is not ever going to be possible to achieve gender equality when the genders have this fundamental difference to start with.

I really can't see why you people keep banging on about it. It is just not going to happen. The few exceptional women out there are not going to make a difference to the average. Logic demands that 'twill be ever thus.

David

This piece is just so obviously a job application, it isn't funny.

What job are you applying for Conrad?

Of course we don't need any conjecture of how well these ideas would work. Our Public services have carried out the experiment for us under their affirmative action, or positive female discrimination schemes.

We can all see what a huge success these programs have been by looking at how efficiently our bureaucrats do things.

Personally I do not think that this will be achievable, for the following reason.

Nobody seems to agree on what the key performance indicators are?

Well Conrad, you only need look at the previous highly subjective posts, to see where the real problem lies!
i.e., conservative thinkers unable to rationalize objectively!
And the reason why now, in the USA, every one dollar of debt buys just 0.03 dollars worth of economic growth!
Hasbeen will tell us someone has to earn the dollars to pay these higher wages and salaries! And to give him his due, he'd be right!
Our inherent problems are an economy supported by an irrational model, compounded by ever increasing complexity, or put another way, make work programs and endless double handling for entirely unproductive people, some of who are bureaucrats/robber barons!?
Has would finally cotton on to the real problem, if we sent a half dozen folk out on to his 20 acres, and had some of them, half, digging holes in the ground, with the other half coming behind, refilling the holes and carefully replacing the turf; so you couldn't see where they'd been. And judged by the (in triplicate) work effort and sweat on their brows, earning every penny!
[Franchised private enterprise/ entirely unproductive parasitical practices (profit demanding middle men) hard at work and at the very top of its game!]
Has would become extremely excited, if he were asked to pay for this nonsense, and rightly so, given every taxpayer is being asked to support both private and public gold plated examples of this very activity, without which, we'd actually be able to afford to pay equal wages for equal work, rather than discriminate on the basis of a gender.
And more women in the boardrooms equates to far fewer bankruptcies and or, economic struggles, given it removes or reins in, testosterone overload related, risky behavior!
Paying people doing real productive work what they're worth, adds to the available discretionary spend, which in turn boosts the economy, and the available incomes of the currently hard pressed local employer!
Rhrosty.

I always get a good laugh when economic illiterates pretend to make an argument based on economics.

Conrad, women don't have babies as a matter of gender, they have them as a matter of sex.

This means women unequally bear the direct costs of reproduction. You have not given any reason why this should be otherwise. To the extent this basal inequality is a matter of sex, or to the extent it is or may be a logical consequence of sex, your argument is just anti-human gibberish, mere slogans of the brainwashed, illogical mid-brain herd-bleat.

When you go to buy something, for example, some butter, you're not paying for "work", you're paying for *net results*. No-one ever pays for work per se. If they did, the problem wouldn’t exist, would it? Just think about it. Would it?

If you have a choice between butter that took someone x amount of work to produce, for $1, and the same quantity and quality of butter that took someone a lot more time and effort and capital to produce, for $10, you choose the $1 butter, don't you? You don't pay $10 when you can get the same result for $1, do you? Because the end result you're aiming for is the taste of butter in your food, not sacrificing the fruits of your labour to reward someone for taking more work to produce the same thing.

Well guess what? Women are the same. They're not some kind of strange creature operating on a different principle.

It's the choices of all the people - both men and women - in paying for the *results* they want, that causes what you are calling the "gender pay gap".

According to your theory, the gender pay gap no rationale has no based in the reality of the difference between the *sexes* (not ‘genders’), and it proceeds only from sheer blind prejudice against women, and has nothing to do with the fact that women have babies.

But they do have babies, and this logical consequences.

(cont.)

(Correction: this *has* logical consequences.)

If your theory that women are undervalued in the market were correct, then there'd be no need for force and threats - the law - to reach gender equality. People like you – and everyone who agrees with you - would *voluntarily* employ women and thus do good at the same time as doing well, by gaining the huge profits, that according to your (incorrect) theory are just waiting to be picked up from the difference between women's alleged undervalue, and their alleged true value.

The reason you're not doing that, is because you're wrong. People know that if they employ women, it's probable that, whether or not the *work* is equal, then *costs and risks of costs* will not be equal, because it's NOT TRUE that the sexes are "equal". It's nonsense. No two people are ever equal. It's only true in some abstract sense divorced from reality. As soon as we compare the *reality* of two people: they are never equal. Not even identical twins are; still less for the rest of us.

Okay? Got that? So repeat after me "I, Conrad, promise myself and the world I will not talk gibberish again." Good lad.

All your economic argument amounts to is saying that by destroying capital we will make society richer. You’re just making an exhibition of confusion and foolishness.

You have to start with the facts. If you start your chain of reasoning with a proposition of fact that is not true, as you have done, you'll just end up with factual and logical nonsense. It's not factually true that women either collectively or individually are "equal" to men; and if they were, no policy would be necessary. It's also not true that people pay for "work" per se. This invalidates your entire line of reasoning.

The result is, you're bleating gibberish, backed by aggressive violence.

"Community Advocate and Operations Analyst, working in business development and policy with a focus on gender equality and intergenerational issues".

"Violent Hypocritical Parasite" is the term you're looking for.