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.

Jardine, you are worse than Dickens. You could have gone straight to your last paragraph and left out all the kerfuffle in between. I have to agree with you though.

David

you would think that after the last totally incompetent sisterhood Government we would put these inequality myths to death. The major gender equality has been in the education system where feminist dominate and again have failed by and large.

Yes, those damn feminists again, they are the root of all evil.

They should all be back in the kitchen, dressed modestly, doing what the old man tells them, and on their knees giving praise to a male God ....

That's right, at last you've got it Suse.

The only trouble is, they are too thick to see it.

Oh & you missed the barefoot & pregnant bit.

Lol Hasbeen, I bet you really would like life that way!

Perhaps an author can tackle the question of why women prefer to work in jobs that pay lower. Why do they work in areas such as nursing, education, and retail rather than banking, mining, real estate etc?

Yep Suse, just what I'd like. Fill the place up with noisy smelly brats, no way.

'They should all be back in the kitchen, dressed modestly, doing what the old man tells them, and on their knees giving praise to a male God ....'

actually Susie a few of the worn out 70's feministnow wish they did stay home and have a few kids. Many of the younger ones have woken up to the fact that selfishness leads to barenness later in life.

Aristocrat, the reason women are in those jobs is that men don't want to do those jobs and that generally women are more capable of doing them anyway. They also would rather have a lower paid job than no job at all.
David

"Barenness "(sic) Runner?
What era due you actually live in?
How do you know their men weren't firing blanks then?

For someone who thinks he is morally above the rest of us, you really are a sad little man.

Susies right, "bareness" is wrong, I'm sure they have lots of de-sexed moggies.

‘morning Conrad,

It looks a little crowded where you stand as there are so many elephants in the room with you.

I worked for over forty years with mostly US multi-nationals and ran my own business for six years. During all those years I never experienced any issues of gender inequality, unequal pay, feminism, glass ceilings or discrimination.

Sure we heard of Germaine Greer and bra burners but it never manifest in our corporate work force, men and women were on the same contracts, same benefits and same career paths. This is the world in which the Gail Kelly’s of this world exist.

There are undoubtedly many equal pay issues in the wider workforce however, these should be dealt with quite separately from political gender conflicts and quota’s. This separation must be established because the whole debate has now been crafted as a political football.

It is curious that in spite of unionized industries, strong and influential unions, EBA’s and such as FWA, this “collective” has failed to address one of most contentious employment issues of our time, equal pay and conditions?

If non unionized sectors can solve these issues, why can’t the entities specifically created to protect these entitlements do it?

When you entered this debate bouncing your political football you lost contact with reality. That is why you seem reluctant to identify from where the solution should come, employment regulators and EBA’s.

All pools of remuneration available in any organization are finite. If any one entity sucks out more for themselves then it has to be paid by those who don’t.

Unfortunately these two entities are too busy extracting more and more from the wages pool of employers to address real employment issues.

You need to stop playing populist politics and put equal pay and equal opportunities in EBA’s backed by FWA. Unless of course those responsible for negotiating them don’t want to reduce their own entitlements to allow equality?

Our feminists are getting very close to tripping themselves. They need to be very careful of that little word quota.

Start flinging that one around much, & a whole can of worms is likely to open up & devour them.

Just imagine the result if men demanded equal quotas in university entrances.

Not only would a lot less girls spend a heap of taxpayer money playing undergraduate games for years, it could disseminate whole sections of recently developed university faculties, proving so friendly to the ladies..

With no girls to fill the pews, flower arrangement, tiddlywinks, & cake decoration among others, would no longer be viable courses.

Hell universities may have to go back to actually doing something of value. What a shock to the tenured that would be.

Yes I can see how all those women at Uni must annoy you Hasbeen.

Since women are on equal educational terms now, what with 'being allowed' to attend higher education, they are getting more places at Uni because they are brighter in general....

I have a lot of trouble finding sympathy for the majority of arguments put forward by the advocates of women’s rights, from paid maternity leave, to the claims for equal pay for equal work.

The simple fact is that, all other things being equal, there are more risks associated with a female employee, especially among a predominantly male workforce. She is more likely to need time off, perhaps to care for elderly parents or sick children, or just to pick children up after school. She'll need more help with anything needing strength - even lawyers occasionally move furniture. It is much more common for a woman to change jobs when a spouse or companion is relocated, than for a man to do so. A male is far less likely than a female to bring charges against the company of discrimination, or perhaps of sexual harassment. And even when the employer is totally innocent, a disgruntled female employee may look on him as having the ‘deepest pockets’, and therefore fair game. And finally, a male employee will never get pregnant.

This is the way it is, not the way it should be. I would like to see policies in place that would counteract the inherent difficulties that women face, policies that would encourage motherhood, encourage female employment, but without biasing small businessmen and others against hiring women. Surely it is obvious that this is only possible by compensation from the government, or the general taxpayer, rather than the individual employer.

Women deserve better - no argument there, but they should get these benefits from the government, not the employer, passing the costs of children, for example, onto society as a whole. Also, it's the pregnant schoolgirls, or any young mother, that we should concern ourselves with, not with Gail Kelly.

The old wage gap myth....again

There is no such thing as a wage gap. Differences in averages have been explained ad nauseam.

Women don't earn as much as men because they don't want to. They want to do safe jobs, close to home which allow them 'flexibility' read: part time so they can drop the kids off to childcare, go to the gym and have coffee with the girls. The fact is most women don't value work like men do. Women value their family and relationships more.

So after women work less, take more sick leave, for less years in the workforce only to retire earlier and live longer, we men have to put up with this constant drivel.

Women have such a good life in the west.

Conrad, you're a good looking young man. You'll get infinitely more respect from women if you act like a man.

What next? Maybe we'll start tearing apart some guy who puts space probes on comets travelling at about 100,000 km/h, 300 million km away because of his choice in t-shirt. Oh wait...

Suse,

'women are brighter in general'

Haaaaaaaaaa.

Whatever you tell yourself. Suse.

Women are more mediocre in general. The rate of male to female geniuses is something like like 8 to 1. It's a well established fact that boys exam scores vary widely while girls are clustered around the middle.

You don't need to read books like The Bell Curve to know this is true. The fact that departments of education never release their data on gender (unless it favours girls) is proof enough.

I guess that just makes modern universities expensive degree factories.

Let's hope the government gets through the deregulation of fees. It's hugely unfair that working men subsidize middle class women's educations.

Many of the schools at Unis are little more than "Finishing" factories for haters without a clue. Girls get more degrees, Ho Hum. Just more Bugger Alls that will never earn enough to pay back the Western Suburb families that actually paid for their "Studies".

Great morality girls, vanity degrees paid off the back of forcing families to work longer hours, wash the kids every other day and taking away any Xmas break.

The only Sexism I see is Privileged White Women Whining".

I think this piece, by no means uniquely, misses a much larger "problem" which is that we are rapidly approaching a world in which very few of the jobs which we are currently training people for; men and women, white collar and blue, will need human involvement.

One of the primary concerns of organised labour for nearly the first century of its existence was reducing the standard working week as technological advances improved productivity. The interesting thing is that the emphasis on female workforce participation is completely aligned with that aim. In the late 60s well over 90% of males over 15 who were fit to work did so, full-time and about 30% of women did too (barely changed since the 30s), while about 25% of women worked part-time.

By the mid nineties male f/t employment was down to around 70% and casualised male p/t work was expanding. Female f/t employment was barely changed at around 35% or so, but over 50% of women worked p/t, many in work that exists in response to regulation rather than to fill a natural need.

It's hard to find good current data that's comparable, but I see no reason to think the trend has reversed, although female f/t work has increased somewhat.

The problem that labour, capital and the political class needs to find the courage to tackle is how to manage the transition to a world where working for wages is not a significant part of the economic model and centralised manufacturing is limited to large durable products with most consumer items manufactured locally using 3D printing and other such technologies.

We are approaching a utopian age, or at least, we could be. Couldn't we?

Beaucoupbob:

“Women deserve better - no argument there, but they should get these benefits from the government, not the employer, passing the costs of children, for example, onto society as a whole.”

Why should these costs be passed onto society? There is no woman alive who has ever had a child with the aim of benefitting society – their aim is simply to benefit themselves. Having a child is a purely selfish thing to do and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that but why should society bear the costs of one group’s selfish desires and not anothers?

Women should not have this choice. They should have to earn their lifestyle like men do without government assistance. Society does not benefit from women having children – it benefits from the shared resources of adults. The only ones who benefit from children are those who have close relationships with them but this is not an economic benefit. It is these relational benefits that women seek and not any betterment of society. This is perfectly legitimate but let’s call it what it is and not expect the taxpayer to carry the burden for it. What does the government do to aid the selfish desires of single people or couples who choose to not have children?

If the government refused to assist women to have children then at lot fewer would have the inflated sense of choice that they now enjoy. There would be more competition in the workplace between genders and women would likely rise to the top in equal numbers. While the government continues to provide a safety net for women then you will not get that competition because women who find the competition a little too hard can always opt out and become mothers.

Often you can observe women who are not doing as well as they hoped at work emphasise the fact that they are mothers as if this is their primary role or their excuse. Make the competition equal and do not allow women to opt out of it with taxpayer assistance.

When I see all these feminists and their male supporters making a REAL effort to change the lives of the many millions of their "sisters" who endure daily repression and abuse right across the planet rather than jousting at statistical straw-men in the West just to enhance their own privilege then and only then will I support them, and not before.
Having mutual-masturbatory "conferences" and issuing press releases does NOTHING to relieve the suffering of the women and girls in almost all of the non-Western societies, and THEY make up a huge majority of the female population of this world.
I doubt dodgy statistics about pay levels or the number of women at Board level in a few big companies matters a great deal to the many millions of women enduring almost slave-like lives plus violence and sexual abuse as a daily condition.
Take the battle to where it is necessary, then I'll believe you really care about women rather than you're own bank account and self image.