CJ,

'To assert that you and your partner are somehow unique among the middle-class Gen-X masses is just a tad arrogant, not to mention dumb.'

Where did I say my partner and I were unique among middle-class Gen-X masses? Get your hand off it. If anything I expressed the opposite, claiming other couples may be like us. Actually I didn't even do that, I used my own relationship and those of people I know as an example to refute your claim, and said some people are like this, some are like that, covering most possibilities including the one you asserted.

You still haven't addressed my argument.

If 1 single woman, 1 single guy and one couple all get paid in cake. the two guys get 1 piece, the two chicks get .85 of a piece. But when the couple goes home they share their cake evenly. (Although that sounds pretty generous, in my house as my wife loves cake and would eat more than half)

Now the stats say women get 85% of what men get.

But, really, here women get 1.775 slices, men get 1.925 slices.

So that means women get paid 92%.

Obviously it varies on how many couples and how many singles, along with a multitude of other factors and how many paid and unpaid hours are done. I seem to remember a study that when all the work (paid and unpaid) was tallied up between men and women though, they ended up pretty even.

But regardless of hours worked, nobody ever accepts the pure cake argument. Those stats are distorted man.

My! So many ideas :( some of which have not been thought through thoroughly

Butchering and other comments.
Would you even employ the "seven stone” male weakling?
Or employ that male at a lower rate of pay?
Most trades categorise the work on ability, qualification, etc., so that the employer gets value for money.
I have seen women working the saw, knives, etc. Many are employed at the abattoirs. However this is an industry that exploits labour, male or female, so I will not comment further.
I was among the first to employ women in the brick and pottery manufacturing industry, when even the unions were against it.
On employing them I received a call from the union telling me that I could not employ them.
I said sorry, I have just done that. The answer was it is too dirty and heavy for woman.
I agreed that I had been reared to think that but argued it was not my right to deny them to do so if they wanted.
The women would be paid the same rate and conditions as the men. If it was heavy then ask for help. This applied for the “seven stone” weakling male.
As for dirt; washing facilities were provided. The union then said that they had to have separate toilets. No problem and so on, until I was told they had to have separate dining rooms. I balked at that, saying no employee was going to be sent to Coventry. The union organiser said but! The men swear. I laughed and pointed out to one lass and said she could put a bullock driver to shame.
When I was farming my neighbour had two daughters who could shear sheep with the best of them and no-one questioned their right to do it or treated them disrespectfully.
Common sense and experience tells me that women all over the country do many of the jobs that men do and do it just as well. Sometimes they might approach the job differently but that should not matter as long as it was done.
Continued:

I used to monitor and supervise the apprenticeship system and when asked to speak with apprentices I would tell the female apprentices to remember they were 100% females who were equal to males. Those males that complained that the women were not strong I would reply yes; but they also used their heads to solve a problem.
Sometimes they needed to use their heads when things were difficult instead of relying on brawn. Never try to be macho males, because that would fail. Enjoy the delights of being female; the chocolates, the flowers; the opening of doors, etc. This did not diminish them but rather put them in a special place.
To say that the male decided the woman was to stay at home is another insult because he earns more money. I would have thought that it would be a matter for joint discuss and a common agreement.
As far as I am concerned the role of raising children is the most important responsibility and that parent, whether male or female could not be paid enough by society for their contribution.
It is a very responsible task as the person who has the most access to the rearing of the children contributes very much to the personal and social development. Society also does influence this role and this is where we need to be careful by not becoming a self-centred, selfish society, caring little for others.
I enjoyed a 38year old marriage and there was never any consideration that my wife was less than I. When we married I made her my equal partner in the businesses. We reared a beautiful, close and considerate family.
We could talk together on any subject and although she was ill for most of our marriage, I believe she contributed equally to our success. Hence you may understand my argument that male and female should be treated equally. Different yes, but certainly equal.
Regards
Professori_au

CJ Morgan,

Re your earlier post, "Neanderthal" is such a lovely word dripping with connotations which I'm sure you are well aware of. On this occasion, you were a most ungracious tosser.

Houel:”So that means women get paid 92%.”

Well that’s crap – everybody knows we are better at everything.

Rehctub, I hope hubby is on to this spouse thing it took me two years to even hear that family assistance payments existed in this country.

Get this though:

“The Treasurer, The Hon Eric Roozendaal MLC, has received your recent email concerning Family Assistance.

As the matter you raised primarily concerned the administration of the Minister for Community Services, the Hon Linda Burney, your email was forwarded for the Minister’s attention.”

No it didn’t, not that I thought, I was asking why foster parents are means tested for caring for other peoples children. Why would Linda tell Eric who to means test?

I know what I'm going to get back - a letter from Jenny (Dir-Gen) saying "thanks for supporting us". I'll take the letter outside with a coffee, light a smoke and stare at it for awhile thinking (oh I have to quote Houel here) "WTF?"

Professor; Common sense and experience tells me that women all over the country do many of the jobs that men do and do it just as well. Sometimes they might approach the job differently but that should not matter as long as it was done.

I agree. Many women deserve the same pay as men, providing they perform the same task, or, like sheering, they get paid for the number of sheep sheered in a day, no the number of hours it takes to sheer the sheep.

My problem is when they expect to be paid the same pay, yet are exempted from several tasks, and or, they are given lieniency due to their gender. Example, when they are not allowed to lift the same as a guy. Same job, same pay. No problem!

Now as for meat workers, well there's a topic of 'self destruction' as a result of continued 'union intervention'.

You see meat workers 20 years ago enjoyed better working conditions and received higher wages (in relative terms) than most enjoy today.

It's just that they, driven by the unions were 'never satisfied'! They just kept on pushing, more pay, less hours, better working condition. They would even strike if the boss brought the wrong brand of coffee!

So this is truely a story of 'self distruction' at its worst.

As far as I am concerned the role of raising children is the most important responsibility and that parent, whether male or female could not be paid enough by society for their contribution.

Wow! if only we lived in a 'perfect world'.

You see, instead of providing an assett to society, many of todays parents actually rid themselves of their responsibilities of parenting and leave society to clean up the mess they leave behind.

I hope this is not what you call 'their contribution' to society!

Boy I wish parents could be held accountable for the actions of their children.

Decent parents, and there are many, have to watch their kids every waking moment just incase one (or many) of these 'prescious thugs' get ahold of them.