The wage/pay gap.

Pre 1970's men and women were paid different wages for the same work, what is not recognised is that some industries also had a single mans wage and a married man's wage.

Legislation came in, and men and women are paid the same wage for the same work, so any career that is covered by an award, men and women are paid the same hourly rate.

Where it is perhaps not so clear is where there are individual contracts.

But in the public service, education, health and thousands of other jobs/careers men and women are paid the same hourly rate/weekly wage/salary.

Now it gets muddy, teachers are paid more than nurses, and this varies between the states as well, some are higher, some are lower on the pay rates.

So then what each career earns begins to be compared to each other, now with teachers, I understand men are more likely to move into higher paid levels. then it is claim that male teachers earn more than female teachers, even though both male and females are paid exactly the same at the same levels and years of experience.

The other trick is too say that male teachers earn more over their career, than female teachers and the main reason is female teachers can become pregnant and take time off to raise a family. So a male teacher may put 40 years into working as a teacher and a female teacher may only work a total of 20-30 years as a teacher.

The only way a female teacher could keep the same number years and work the same number of years as a male, would be not to have children.

So in order to have the same amount of superannuation as a male teacher, two things would be necessary to make up for the loss of superannuation, female teachers who choose to have babies and break their career need to be paid an higher salary than male teachers doing the same work and that contributions to their superannuation continues, whilst they raise their children

What tend to be forgotten in the superannuation race.

Firstly men, tend to rather conveniently die earlier than women, so the odds are on that the wife will inherit his superannuation.

Secondly, divorce and property settlements, tend to favour the ex wife and she gets a significant portion of his superannuation.

And all this tops up her own retirement funds.

sorry Wolly B facts will never count against regressive narratives. You might endanger victimhood funding. Imagine you did a phd on women's studies by being accurate like your summary. You would definitely fail.

A point in the video; in the workplace women are more agreeable.
Some asked why are women more agreeable ?
It is probably in their genes.
Also I am reminded of the story of the women of Athens.
In protest about the men wanting to go to war they removed themselves
from their husbands beds.
The men soon gave in.

Much of the current feminist argument is very aggressively anti men.
If men withdrew many of the things they do for women, eg wheeling out
the bins, sorting out that noise in her car, getting those jam bottles
open, those ring pull cans, setup the video recorder, do something
about that damn dripping tap in the shower, fix the lock on the wire
door, change the light in the lounge room, get up into the roof space
on the years hottest day to check if there is a possum in the roof etc etc etc,
perhaps they might take a less aggressive attitude to their menfolk.

I am sure that women can do all these things but they don't.

runner, you are right in that I would fail.

Killarney, you claim that the' Gotcha". was typical male bullying.

Yet the female interviewer was using a technique called verballing.

She was trying to exaggerate and add negativity to what he was saying, and this is a typical female bullying technique.

I viewed the interview, I don't think it was a pivotal moment and I don't think feminism clay feet were exposed.

He did however raise some interesting ideas, that were never fully explored or finished.