the costs, or risks of costs, of employing members of group B are higher, then it’s NOT TRUE that they’re equal in fact? Not even the feminists are arguing that it’s true in fact.

Therefore it’s not true in logic or ethics either. We have just established by agreement that men and women are not equal in value, and it’s simply untrue to argue that they are. Therefore there is no reason why people should not prefer males and females for different things, and in particular, why they should not value men more highly as employees, all other things being equal. PETRA IS TELLING US ITS RATIONAL AND SENSIBLE TO DO SO.

So-called equal pay is not about fairness or gender equality at all, it’s about sexist female privilege, and forcing others to pay for women’s reproductive choices on a double standard, because the costs, and risks of costs, of employing women are not equal for all the reasons Petra has explained.

It is not “unfair”, let alone an abuse of human rights, for people to recognise that women are members of the class of persons who have babies, and it is not unfair to women in general for consumers or employers to prefer employing men and value their services accordingly higher. Therefore is no such thing as a “right” to bully and threaten employers or consumers to pretend that the difference doesn’t exist, and unequally favour women, which is all that equal pay and anti-discrimination laws amount to.

Then when confronted with the self-contradictions and falsities of what you’re saying, you try to squirm out it, and defend it, try to confuse voluntary with coerced, cite minimal claims, and claim that these female privileges are really beneficial for those they are forced on.

Of course if they were really beneficial for employers:
a) they wouldn’t need you or Petra to tell them, and
b) there’s obviously no justification for laws threatening to imprison them for not agreeing with you.

You and Petra need to acknowledge your own many self-contradictions, re-think your hypocritical belief that it's okay to use aggression and threats and lies and bullsh!t and double standards and sexist bigotry and abuse to get what you want from the opposite sex.

Other people are not your slaves and your property, and you try practising what you preach.

JKJ

It is no more a “concession” to allow women to breast feed than it is to place urinals in men’s toilets. Breastfeeding costs nobody anything.

Most employers offer benefits and what you call “privileges” to employees over and above what the law demands because they know it is an effective way of attracting and retaining good staff. As a fan of free markets and deregulation, I would expect you to approve. Employers must offer the salary and benefits packages necessary to attract the candidates they want. Given the choice of employing a competent mother or a mediocre male, I’d go for the woman every time. The disruption and cost of her parenting responsibilities are more than offset by her greater abilities.

Rhian
"It is no more a “concession” to allow women to breast feed than it is to place urinals in men’s toilets."

Both sexes equally urinate; only women breastfeed. It is a sex-specific characteristic directly tied to the woman's reproductive choices. The same does not apply to urination, so your argument is
a) nonsense
b) a sexist hypocritical double standard favouring females, as usual.

"Breastfeeding costs nobody anything."

Of course breastfeeding costs somebody something. If it didn't, there would be no issue. You are contradicting yourself: arguing that the female-reproduction-specific conditions you favour are highly valuable, and yet immaterial and cost-free, both at the same time. You're talking nonsense.

You are also back to your phony premise of pretending that there is no difference between the sexes, that giving birth to and suckling babies has no costs in time, disruption, delay, or money.

But if there were no difference between the sexes, then there'd be no issue, and you wouldn't be pleading for special sex-specific conditions favouring women's reproductive choices, would you?

And stop trying to confuse voluntary arrangements with coerced. If you want to try that line, then renounce anti-discrimination and equal pay legislation, and we'll see how fair dinkum you are. I have shown above why such statutes entrench sexist female privileges, and you have responded by simply failing to deal with the issues, just trying to pretend it all hasn't happened.

The fact that employers need to have special consideration for the most productive workers is exactly what equal pay and anti-discrimination legislation are intended to stop them doing. The whole point of such legislation is to force employers to employ women, whether they want to or not, so that women can have the political privilege of forcibly externalising onto someone else part of the greater costs, and risks of costs, that inhere in being female in respect of the reproductive difference between the sexes.

If this were not so,
a) you must be arguing that employers deliberately choose to make a loss rather than to employ the better worker at the market price, which is just more nonsense and you know it;
b) you would have no objection to getting rid of such legislation, and
c) you and Petra would agree to pay the money and disruption costs of women having time off work to look after their babies. I'd like to see that!

You are completely failing to engage with the issues, and merely re-asserting your contradictory premise, that women are equal and not equal both at the same time. They are entitled to financial independende, but it is to be at other people's enforced cost. You affirm it's necessary and valuable, then you deny it exists or has any cost. It's nonsense.

“most employers offer benefits and what you call “privileges”

I am not calling “privileges” any voluntary conditions of employment. By privilege I mean where the State legally imposes a condition favouring women employees, compared to what would obtain under a voluntary dispensation. This includes equal pay legislation (equal pay for unequal costs and risks of costs = unequal pay).

“The disruption and cost of her parenting responsibilities are more than offset by her greater abilities.”

Then there’s no need to threaten people with imprisonment to force them to employ her, is there? Go ahead: answer the question. According to your theory, there is no justification for equal pay or anti-discrimination legislation, is there?

Yours is *not* a doctrine of people merely choosing what is more humanely and obviously sensible and economic - which you oppose. It is a doctrine of entrenched sexist female privilege backed up by force, self-contradiction, and outright lies.

Otherwise what are the answers to all my questions in this thread which you have steadfastly ignored from the very beginning?

JKJ

Both sexes urinate, but overwhelmingly it is men that do it standing up. Most men don’t have urinals their own homes; why should they enjoy this sex-specific privilege at work? I assure you, no ladies’ loos include urinals!

[in case you're wondering, I am not actually against urinals; just sillly arguments equating acceptance of biological reality with "privilege"]

In the example under discussion, a breast feeding MP can give a proxy vote rather than attending a vote in person. How, exactly, is that a cost to the taxpayer?

I have never argued that giving birth to and suckling babies has no costs in time, disruption, delay, or money. But there is a lot more to being a parent that these biological functions. As Toni pointed out in an earlier post, fathers can be, and often are, the primary caregiver of children. When and where they are, they get the same entitlements as mothers. If men were able to give birth or breastfeed, they would get the same treatment as women in these respects, too.

Actually, I’m not a great fan of equal pay legislation, certainly not of equal pay for work of “equal value”. Nor do I think employers should be required to provide paid parental leave, though I support unpaid leave for both parents. If we as a society decide parenthood should be supported financially (a whole other debate, and I’m pretty sure where you stand on it!) then the costs should be carried by the taxpayer, not the employer.

Of course, many employers will continue to choose to offer parental benefits, including pay, for both mothers and fathers over and above legal requirements, as a way of attracting and retaining staff and treating their employees decently. That makes perfect sense to me.