http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

So, there is a gender pay gap in Gen Y and it's that women are earning a lot more than men.

I'd say this would be the same in Australia, so what policies should the government bring in to rectify this discrimination? Or, is it something that men will have to take to streets for a peaceful protest?

See what happens when you legalise strip clubs?

From the 'Time' article:

<< Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide. >>

Clearly the answer is to marry them off, send them bush and get 'em breeding. That's why "The Farmer Wants a Wife" TV show was created.

TRUTHNOW78 is worried about women in the US earning more than men.
If indeed this is true, it is certainly not the same here in Australia.

"According to statistics from Rice Warner Actuaries and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Australian women earn an average of 17 per cent less than men, which sets them up for a lifetime of financial inequality worth up to $1 million.
The pay gap, alone, means many women can not accumulate as much wealth, have less choice about their lifestyles and have significantly lower superannuation, than men."

http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/gender-pay-gap-shows-no-sign-of-abating/story-e6frfmd9-1225838010096

In any case TRUTHNOW78, if these women in the US are making more than men in the same job, more power to them!

They would have to get paid a hell of a lot of money for many, many more years to ever come close to catching up with the years of wage inequality that women all over the world have had to put up with so far.

Oh dear, Suzie. Maths isn't your strong suit, is it?

Suzeonline:"Australian women earn an average of 17 per cent less than men"

As the article points out, it is discussing the fact that young professional women are paid more than young professional men. If a similar survey were done here, I suspect a similar result would apply. Of course, such a study would have to be privately funded - the university social studies departments wouldn't want to risk their "pro-feminist" sheltered workshop status even if they were actually up to the job. Perhaps Access Economics might have a go at it...

Let's personalise this Suzie. You're a woman who works with men and women. How many of your male colleagues doing the same job as you get paid more to do it?

Take your time, phone a friend if it helps, I realise you're not very good with numbers.

The article pointed out something that I've also pointed out in the past. That is the fact that young women are being streamed into universities at a much higher rate than young men. There are two Australian women for every Australian man at uni and that situation is getting worse, not better.

Years of gender biased educational systems and social engineering have meant that young men are being pushed into trades or services work or onto benefits, while young women are being groomed to be the professional class of the future (until they decide they want kids, of course).

My son WILL earn less than my daughter unless I take personal responsibility for ensuring he is able to access educational opportunities that he won't be encouraged to take up by policy.

Suzeonline:"The pay gap, alone, means many women can not accumulate as much wealth, have less choice about their lifestyles and have significantly lower superannuation, than men.""

Except that women tend to be the ones who control household spendiong, regardless of who earns it. Women also outlive men by many years and they inherit their husband's wealth. They are also much better at taking Government handouts than men, with the vast majority of middle-class welfare being directed at women. Advertisers know all this which is why the vast majority of advertising is directed at women, not men. I know that if a man brings his wife with him when he's buying timber from me that I must talk to her, not him,because it will be her decision,just as it was her wish to have a new TV unit or whatever it is he's gong to make.

All we heard about in the Federal election just past was "the women's vote" and it was significantly biased toward Labor, the party of handouts, until Abbott promised an even bigger handout in the form of a stupid paid leave scheme for having babies. The political parties know the way to a woman's heart - offer her cash.

In Australia the mining industry skews the figures, since very few women either want to or are capable of working in the remote places that mining occurs. If we exempt mining, I'd be surprised if women's average earnings fail to exceed men's, especially when we add in the money they have control of that someone else sweats for.

I bet the same thing applies to "Gen Y"...

Good. Its about time they started carrying more of the can, considering how much they take from it.

Antiseptic, it is not my maths we were discussing, but that of the mainly male employees of the Australian Council of Trade Unions.
But hey, they could be wrong?

As for your usual personal jibes against my profession of nursing (because they are predominantly female I assume?), we have gender equality with wages in the public health system, but not the private system.

How do I know this? Because my husband is an accountant in the private health system, and he knows exactly how much the employees make.
But hey, you could know better of course?

Suzeonline:"my husband is an accountant in the private health system"

Oh,in that case, we needn't discuss the subject at all.If your hubby said so, that's the ernd of the matter...

The reason your maths are wrong, hon (ask your husband to explain the complicated stuff, won't you) is that the article was about the relative earning capacity of a well-educated group of women working in cities. It didn;t consider the non-earning of some women who are supported by their husbands or the State, whereas the usual statistic, such as the one you quoted, adds up all the income earnt by women,including the ones who don't work and then divides by the total number of women,pretending all the while that this means something tothe women in work, who all earn the same as the men alongside them doing the same job.

I'm sure your hubby will understand my point and explain to you that conflating ing two different and incompatible data sets is not sound practice and does not yield useful relationships.

It's a bit like including social workers in the set of productive people: despite the inclusion of the word "worker", there's no evidence of productivity and hence,no useful conclusions to be drawn.

Never mind, at least you've still got doctors to understand the hard stuff, eh?

Dear Antiseptic,

If you would only google the ABS, or the
Australian Year Book, the statistics
speak for themselves:

http://www.Abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@nsf/21762195845417aeca25706c00834efa/0796FAC7CDEEA67ICA2573D200I0F2D

They make it quite clear that men earn more than women
in this country. As does a news report (ABC News) that
shows Australian men earn $1 million more on average
than women over their working lives.

cont'd ...

My apologies I stuffed up the website
that I cited in my previous post. However,
if you google:

1301.0 Year Book Australia, 2008 - Earnings.

Its the first website that comes up, and gives
all the stats.

*In any case TRUTHNOW78, if these women in the US are making more than men in the same job, more power to them!*

Err Suze, so why doesen't the same principle apply to men?

If women earn less then men, perhaps they are just lacking
in negotiating skills. Perhaps they are simply less assured.
So why blame men for this?

As we can see by your post, as long as girls are winning,
you are content with the world. Ok, so you are biased.

Dear oh dear. I see Antiseptic's reverted to form.

You don't do yourself any favours, mate.

Yabby <" Err Suze, so why doesen't the same principle apply to men?"

Simply because it has applied only to men for so many years up until now Yabby.
Isn't it well and truly the women's turn now?

Don't any of you guys have daughters?
Don't you want them to get at least equal pay for equal work?

CJ, it's interesting to note that he threw his first personal insult in reply to a post that did not personally insult him. He then continued with his sarcastic, personal insults in subsequent posts, while all other peoples' posts kept to topic.

Foxy:"If you would only google the ABS,"

Do me a favour...

For the mathematically challenged:

the Time article refers to median incomes, the ABS uses mean incomes and the data is 4 years out of date compared to the Time study.

Use of median incomes allows ys to determine what the "average" person earns: it's the value which has 50% of the sample above it and 50% below.

Use of mean incomes is not informative without understanding the median as well. It's always bugged me that the ABS refuses to publish median or modal figures.

Now that the time article has been published, some one will do the same sort of study here. Anyone care to make a bet on the result?

Yabby:"you're biased"

Yes, isn't it funny that the ones who most stridently accuse antiseptic of "misogyny" are the ones who most clearly demonstrate their hatred of men at every opportunity?

Suzeonline:"because it has applied only to men for so many years up until now Yabby.
Isn't it well and truly the women's turn now?"

LOL.My mum taught me when I was about 3 that "two wrongs don'tmake a right". What a shame your mum didn't do the same for you...

Never mind, I'm sure your hubby can explain it to you.

As for my daughter, she will no doubt earn more than my son unless my son is exceptional. Everyone's daughter's will - atleast until they decide they want kids.

TZ53HX:"I'm obsessed with antiseptic"

Yes, we know dear, you have been for years, but you're not my type. Nice bit of "keeping to topic" BTW...

"My son WILL earn less than my daughter unless I take personal responsibility for ensuring he is able to access educational opportunities that he won't be encouraged to take up by policy."

What will you do when your son starts earning more than your daughter anti? Will you rush out and help her to bridge the wage gap until they are absolutely equal. It won't happen.

I have always said I don't give a toss about wage disparity unless people are getting paid less for performing the same tasks. Women have traditionally been paid less prior to feminism and unions ensuring equal pay for equal work. Female CEOs traditionally earn less then their male counterparts for the most part but I don't see any men speaking out on their behalf. (Nor women either as generally one does not feel too sorry for anyone earning 12M a year and it is not as though the women are earning too little just the men are earning too much).

I am sure the poorest people in the US are not quibbling about Geny Y wage disparity but wondering why the minimum wage is so low and why there are not sufficient health support for low income earners in the US.

What does it matter if Gen Y girls are earning more than Gen Y boys. As the article states it only pertains to unmarried single women not to women over 26 (or whenever Gen Y cuts out).

The boys are probably earning less because they are at uni or doing an trade apprenticeship which traditionally pay poorly.

I hate to burst anyone's bubble but at some point women/men or boys/girls will earn more than one another or have higher/less university participation at some time. Particularly relevant when women (traditionally) take time out to have children.

It is pointless to keep having these conversations just to push one side of a pointless gender barrow. There will never be absolutely equal numbers of male/female anything - we need to get over it and move on.

Dear Antiseptic,

If you were to google:

"Are women earning more than men in Australia?"

you'd come up with heaps of various websites
giving you the relevant data.

The facts don't change. Men earn $1 million more
on average than women over their working lives.

ABS tells us that - "When you look at the numbers for
women aged 35 to 55 the number of women with superannuation
balances above $25,000 is well below 50% whereas more
than 66 per cent of men in that age group have super balances
well over $25,000. So the fact that women are earning less
through those years means they end up with lower super
balances and therefore less adequacy of income in retirement."

By the way, when females disagree with your arguments Anti,
it does not mean that they wish to demean you (or any men)
in any way, or that they hate men, et cetera.
This is a public forum,
and as such you have to be prepared that not everyone is
going to agree with your point of view. However, reading all
sorts of things into female responses and making personal
remarks about women you don't really know indicates
that you do have some sort of chip on your shoulder.
It also discourages females from responding to any of your
comments for fear of being attacked personally.

While we can all sympathise with your bad life experiences,
and what you've suffered personally,
they should not be allowed to influence your reactions on
a public forum such as OLO.

*Simply because it has applied only to men for so many years up until now Yabby.
Isn't it well and truly the women's turn now?*

Deary me Suze, there was silly me thinking this was about
fairness. Based on your logic, perhaps men should have a turn
at some sexual power lol.

But I don't see that either, just more and more henpecked
husbands, who do as they are told, for fear of having a crook
sex life.

I frankly think that women have more then their share of
power in our society. But the more that they cleverly bleat,
the even more power they will obtain.

Pelican:"What will you do when your son starts earning more than your daughter anti?"

Unless he takes up a profession, he won't, so you might as well ask what I'd do if the moon became cheese.

Pelican:"What does it matter if Gen Y girls are earning more than Gen Y boys."

What does it matter if men earn more than women? If the one is important, so is the other,unless you're like Suzie and Foxy, who can't seem to grasp the maths or the logical inconsistencies in their position.

Pelican:"The boys are probably earning less because they are at uni "

Read the article and you'll understand why you're wrong to say that.

Foxy:"Men earn $1 million more
on average than women over their working lives."

And women live about 8-10 years longer,meaning they get his inheritance tospend as they please after spoending his money all their lives,as well as living off his income in many cases. It is only the women who aren't in stable relationships who could possibly be disadvantaged.

My mum thought that was a pretty good arrangement, but sadly, she predeceased Dad by a few years.

Foxy:"he numbers for
women aged 35 to 55 the number of women with superannuation
balances above $25,000 is well below 50% whereas more
than 66 per cent of men in that age group have super balances
well over $25,000"

And by age 65 the average woman will have a dead husband and lots of lovely untouched super.Your point?

Foxy, I'm going to respond to youre comments regarding my manner of posting just this once, so everyone had best listen up.

I don't "attack" women, I "attack" self-obsessed entitlement junkies, rtegardless of their gender. Unfortunately, there seems to be a majority of women in that group. I also "attack" nosy parkers who feel it is their right to tell me what I should and shouldn't do, while not following their own advice. So far,the majority of those seem to be males. I have little patience for dumb-bunnies who try to punch above their weight, then cry help when the going gets tough. Once again, mostly females.

I am quite prepared to engage on the topic if the topic is to be discussed, but the moment some twit starts "playing the man", I reserve my right to do the same. My life experiences inform my views, but so do yours - so what? I don't require sympathy or anything else, but I'd like some rationality in the responses if that's possible.

Thanks for giving me the chance to clear that up once and for all.

Foxy, your comments regarding his personal manner were accurate and apt. Good on you. But it's pointless informing him of his behaviour, as he's so defensive, sarcastic and lacks the emotional intelligence to understand anyway. As I said earlier, he was the first on this topic to be sarcastic to another person. That's his style, to put down others who don't share his opinions. But it's pointless to discuss it with him, as he just doesn't have the insight. But good on you Foxy, you did the right thing.

Yabby <" Deary me Suze, there was silly me thinking this was about
fairness. Based on your logic, perhaps men should have a turn
at some sexual power lol."

Deary me Yabby, you are very naive to think a subject like this , brought up by old-fashioned males who are used to 'being in charge', is anything to do with fairness.
Your sarcastic comment about sexual power is a new low, even for you.

Foxy and TZ52HX are valiantly trying to bring sense to this debate, but people like Antiseptic don't listen to sense.

Yabby
You are a worry. The only person that gives someone sexual power over you is you. There may be cases where men hold sexual power over a woman particularly if he has lost his sex drive. It works both ways. Sexual desire is not confined to men.

Anti
The point is why are you so concerned about women earning more than men at all but not worried about the fact your daughter may earn less than your son. Statistics show this will be the case particularly if your daughter takes time out to raise children.

Why are men more entitled to higher wages? Your dislike of a sense of entitlement appears to only pertain to women yet men have been earning more than women for eons. That is the way your argument comes across.

If you really mean you believe men should earn more than women just say it don't hide behind feminism or perceptions of entitlement. Women and men are both entitled to earn what they are worth or be paid equally for equal work. It is not a competition, it only becomes one when the rules are different for either gender, which is why feminism emerged to bring about the balance.

*Your sarcastic comment about sexual power is a new low, even for you.*

Suze, there is indeed an old saying that the truth hurts. So be it.

*You are a worry. The only person that gives someone sexual power over you is you.*

No need to worry about me, Pelican. Worry about those married men
who made a commitment and are now over a barrel legally. She
makes the laws in bed and if he objects and leaves, she cleans him
out in the courts. I'm just pointing out that she has all the
power that she needs. My sympathies are with the blokes on this one.

There is no need to get all defensive, for their are plenty of women
who readily admit to misusing their powers. Why? Because they can.

*Women and men are both entitled to earn what they are worth or be paid equally for equal work.*

Actually, unless its something like piecework, all employees should
be paid what they are worth to the business and that is usually
quite different between people, even of the same gender. Some
employees make a profit for the business, others are little but
a liability, legally protected.

Not sure what sexual power has got to do with child support commitments in the courts but that is another issue I guess. Do you mean to say all these married men are not in love with their wives but have been fooled and drawn in by our sexual powers. I don't think you are giving me enough credit.

Sexual attraction works both ways Yabby otherwise women would never have sex. It is a mutually pleasurable arrangement. It is usually when other things go wrong in a relationship that sex becomes an issue.

Yabby I agree with your last paragraph but you have to have at least a minimum standard wage for the value of the work done - bonuses can work on the incentive/reward side beyond that. :)

Pelican:"The point is why are you so concerned about women earning more than men at all but not worried about the fact your daughter may earn less than your son."

The point is tht I'm not concerned at all that she'll earn less as amatter of course. I don't believe there's been any danger of that for any woman born in the last 30 years or more except insofar as lifestyle choices impact on their earning capacity.

Pelican:"Why are men more entitled to higher wages? "

Why do you ask? Who's suggested such a thing?

Pelican:"Your dislike of a sense of entitlement appears to only pertain to women yet men have been earning more than women for eons"

So? They're not earning more any more and haven't been for years. As I said earlier, I don't believe two wrongs make a right, or that the loudest complainers should be the most heavily rewarded.Both those things seem to be central to the feminist argument as expounded here. That may be due to the large number of women contributors who draw their income from the public purse, rather than through their own creative and productive efforts and who expect seniority and reward to follow extended service,no matter how uninspired.

Pelican:"it only becomes one when the rules are different for either gender, which is why feminism emerged to bring about the balance."

Feminism did indeed emerge out of a sense of injustice.Where that has lead is best shown by Suzeonline's comments.I reject her view as fatuous and self-serving.

Yabby is spot on with his comments. Women have always relied on the "power of the pussy" and it'sdisingenuous to pretend otherwise. It's just one of the aspects of this topic that are carefully avoided by the "feminists".

Yabs
That was meant to read I 'don't think you give men enough credit'.

Antiseptic
Two wrongs don't make a right but where is the wrong in the context of the article about Gen Y.

No-one is arguing women should earn more than men for the same work or that women should earn more than men period. People will earn what they earn. At the moment it is pretty equal. It will never by totally equal as you said in view of lifestyle choices but as long as the starting point and the opportunities are equal then the rest is up to us. Have more faith in your son and daughter to make the choices that make them happiest. A high income is not the meaning of life nor to happiness necessarily. The opportunities are there for both your son and you daughter if they have the aptitude and/or the desire in whatever choices they make.

As for sexual power, that is one thing that only you can give away. You guys talk about female sexual power as though you have no control over how you respond to it, which clearly you do. To repeat - give men a little more credit.

PS: Whether a man or a woman is paid by the public purse or not they are still paid for their own creative and productive efforts just as in the private sector (I have worked in both and run a business). I don't think a police officer or a nurse or a policy writer would work any less harder if they were employed by a private entity.

A good work ethic is not confined to any one sector.

Fascinating stuff. Seems to me that those unfortunate men who apparently feel threatened not only by well-paid professional women but also by women's "sexual power" might be a bit lacking in the latter commodity.

Of course, it's coincidental that they're single and middle-aged.

Pelican:"No-one is arguing women should earn more than men for the same work or that women should earn more than men period."

Actually, Suzeonline is. I'm glad to see you don't agree with her.

Pelican:"that is one thing that only you can give away"

Actually, it's a part of our biological hardwiring. Young men especially (except those like CJ, of course, the poor things) are driven very much by their desire for sex and are easily manipulated in pursuit of it. I can recall spending half my wage on my girlfriend as a matter of routine when I was a young bloke. That contribution is uncounted by the statisticians,but she owned her late model car and had a tidy deposit toward a flat while I had sex pretty regularly.

The same thing occurs in marriage.The wife soon learns that sex can be readily traded for a quid pro quo and if she's smart, she uses that. Much of the feminist effort has been aimed at pretending that quid pro quo doesn't exist as a serious factor, but I say it informs all intimate relationships between the genders.

Every young woman knows these things. My daughter knew it at 13 or less. Your argument pretends that these motives are optional and is flawed as a result.

Pelican:"A good work ethic is not confined to any one sector."

But the prevalence is quite different, hence my comment.

CJMorgan:"Look at me, aren't I clever?"

No,not really. "Castrated" is more the word I'd use.

Dear Antiseptic,

Your disclaimer that you don't attack women
simply doesn't wash. You need
to look at your own posting history and re-read
your posts on this thread to see just how you
come across to people who are trying to
have a discussion on the topic at hand.
You've not cleared anything up at all.

Dear Pelly,

Thanks for lifting the bar in this discussion.
I always enjoy reading your posts.

It's interesting
that a recent study of the National Centre for Social
and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) shows that women are
still being paid 17% less than men on average in Australia.
A difference that equals up to $224 a week, the gap
accounting for 60% of the difference between women's
and men's earnings. The ways in which this wage gap
is created is apparently through things like workplace
segregation, labour force history, the under representation
of women in large firms and so on. It wasn't until the
late 60s that women received equal pay for equal work.
There were a lot of jobs that were considered "women's
jobs," or "men's jobs," and it was legal for women to be
paid less. Many jobs are still considered to be
"women's jobs," and the skills aren't as highly valued,
that tends to be the caring professions.
Anyway, enough said. If anyone can be bothered to do a
bit of research, the facts are there, despite the denials
of a small but vocal minority.

Antiseptic: << I say it informs all intimate relationships between the genders. >>

How successful are you at such relationships? On the basis of what you write here I wouldn't have thought you'd be claiming any great expertise in intimate relationships with women.

<< I can recall spending half my wage on my girlfriend as a matter of routine when I was a young bloke. That contribution is uncounted by the statisticians,but she owned her late model car and had a tidy deposit toward a flat while I had sex pretty regularly. >>

Most of us grow out of that kind of adolescent relationship when we hit our 20s or so. A minority of men don't, apparently.

<< Castrated >>

Hardly. I'm in a loving sexual relationship with a beautiful woman. How about you?

*It's interesting
that a recent study of the National Centre for Social
and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) shows that women are
still being paid 17% less than men on average in Australia.*

Ah Foxy, men of course also do those dangerous jobs,
which women would not touch. They deserve to earn more.

The Chilian mine story is making me smile. The 30
male miners are down at the bottom, amazingly still
alive, nearly left for dead. Meantime the wives
and mistresses are up at the top, arguing between
themselves over the money. So typical!

CJ, before you crow too loudly, just remember that
all your previous relationships over perhaps something
like 30 years, failed. Finally one has worked out.
Hardly great odds.

Not crowing, Yabby. Just pointing out the silliness of Antiseptic's insult, not to mention the futility of approaching one's intimate relationships with women as transactions in exchange for sex.

Clearly, it doesn't work. Nor does attacking them.

Indeed, they're winning - as the article attests. Be afraid, be very afraid ;)

CJ, I've long ago stopped seeing the world as black and white,
more just as lots of shades of colour.

AS does in fact make some very valid points. I try to focus
and think about these points, the same with other posters,
rather then shoot the messenger.

But it seems to be an old truism that often people become
more upset by how somebody says something, rather then what they
actually say.

Now I know that its far more popular on OLO, when posters
wear their hearts on their sleeves and display oodles of
empathy. Everyone pats everyone else on the proverbial
back, in support and agreement.

But I do try to separate emotion from reason and reason
has to dominate, even if we don't like its colour.

* Be afraid, be very afraid ;)*

Of the family law courts yes indeed. I have seen
three generations of farmers build up an asset, only
to lose it at the whim of a judge. If she'd married
a shearer, she would have walked away with nothing,
suddenly the court has made her wealthy. Sadly the
courts, with the encouragement and lobbying of the
feminist movement, have turned marriage and relationships
into a lucrative business, rather then what it was
supposed to be.

I think that is a real shame.

Oh dear, Foxy, do try to avoid the faux-victimhood stuff. It demeans you.

Mean - the sum of all values divided by the number of samples in the population.

Median - the value at which 50% of the population is greater and 50% smaller. The "centre" of the group. In a normal (poisson) distribution mean and median are the same. In a skewed distribution, such as the set of all taxpayers, the median may be considerably different to the mean. That is, in such a population there is a large group on an "average" wage, a somewhat smaller,but still large group on sub-average income, with a very long "tail" made up of people on higher than "average" incomes. Every person making a $million PA is adding the equivalent of 20-50 people's wage to the sum, but only adding one to the population, meaning the mean is driven up relative to the median. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewness

In the gender-based population sets there is a postive skew, with both sets having a long "tail". The male set has a "heavy" tail, while the female set's tail is relarively thin, thanks largely to the tendency of women to choose safe, secure jobs rather than risky or arduous high-return ones. This means that using the mean figure is going to produce a male "average" that is considerably higher than the income enjoyed by the "average man", while the fenale set will do so to a lesser extent, possibly even understaing the income of the "average working woman" thanks to the large number of women on Government benefits or supported by their husband and thus "earning" nothing for the purpose of the calculation.

Tha ABS publishes only the mean values, which is OK if you're interested in the overall prosperity of the nation,but not much use if you want to look more closely at the way the income is distributed.

Feminists love the mean figure because it gives a misleading impression that, when coupled with the "invisible" wealth transfer between men and women creates an impression of disadvantage where there is none.

CJMorgan:"How successful are you at such relationships? "

Actually, I've been in 3 long-term monogamous relationships and about a dozen or so short-term ones. I've never been much for one-night stands. I'd be in such a relationship now if the situation allowed, but it doesn't. I'm glad that cheers you up. Small things, small minds, as they say.

Yabby:"Sadly the
courts, with the encouragement and lobbying of the
feminist movement, have turned marriage and relationships
into a lucrative business, rather then what it was
supposed to be.

I think that is a real shame."

I agree.

Years of gender biased educational systems and social engineering have meant that young men are being pushed into trades or services work or onto benefits, while young women are being groomed to be the professional class of the future (until they decide they want kids, of course).
--

In that respect Greer did win [and of course 2.3 billion pa to "secret wimmins business" and zip for blokes has helped].

The bias went through the whole education system and then to the workplace, hence the situation of American Beauty is exactly the same as I remember when married and living on "the Upper North Shore".

A reality check is to compare American Beauty to Death of a Salesman, 50 years before, ie same generation war but in 2000 a GENDER war dominates

Who earns more pays more taxes. Plus die earlier, retire later and draw down less social welfare. The other lot feed on that. Animal farm.

It more than evens out in the end. Females likely come out ahead in the long run. They'll never admit it, that's their game. Cant blame them either. Men just have too many natural advantages.

The whole topic is irrelevant. It's not who earns the money that counts, it's who spends it.

Houellebecq:"It's not who earns the money that counts, it's who spends it."

Bingo!

Of the family law courts yes indeed. I have seen
three generations of farmers build up an asset, only
to lose it at the whim of a judge.

--

agreed, and why I put the whole truth down in my book http://www.ablokesguide.com

Yes indeed the farmer situation made law re "asset rich income poor" [In the Marriage of Lee Steere (1985) 10 Fam LR 421] case where lawyers found a way to "take shirt off back of whole family" just as Di did to the Royal family.

But nothing like the law made on "superannuation tricks" with a whole string of cases re Qantas pilots, then Howard changed the legislation to give the wives even more in a "doing an Oliver" 3 card trick that continues to this day.

Who approves these divisive topics?

Rhetorical question.

Some women have had the effrontery to earn more than some men - storm in teacup ensues.

Dear Antiseptic,

Your life is not my fault!

Severin <"Some women have had the effrontery to earn more than some men - storm in teacup ensues."
Lol!

Foxy <"Your life is not my fault!"
Absolutely!

After reading all the moaning and groaning of all the usual good old boys on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that all the naughty, money grabbing, job stealing, single mother, divorced mother females (in fact ALL females) of this world should line up for a good flogging, and just do as they are told.

Would the manly whines stop then?

I doubt it.

*I have come to the conclusion that all the naughty, money grabbing, job stealing, single mother, divorced mother females (in fact ALL females) of this world should line up for a good flogging, and just do as they are told.*

Whatever gets you through the night, Suze. Clearly there is a kinky
side to you, that we do not know about.

Meantime some of us smartarses just enjoy pointing out the flaws
in your reasoning skills. If that gets your knickers in a twist,
so be it.

Just remember, a bit of adversity builds character :)

.

Hay Suzs, I'd like to see that.

I wonder, should that not have read "storm in a C-cup"?
It appears, some of our poster's are closet B&D ers. Any correlation?
The instant and involuntary mental image of Yabby in boots, fishnet stockings and black leather is one I could have done without.
From the vantage of Libertarian, -social or RW- shouldn't employers have the right to pay people whatever they think they are worth, regardless (or even in some cases, because of) their sex, race, creed or colour?

Dear Foxy, my life is not my fault either. Your point? Wouldn't it just be easier to acknowledge that you're wrong on this occasion?

Severin, thanks, but we don't need the thought police right now. Nice of you to drop in though.

Suzie, I see your hubby told you "he's right". No need to throw a tanty,hon, just a simple "sorry antiseptic" would have done, but I must say the tanty is far more entertaining...

Grim:"From the vantage of Libertarian, -social or RW- shouldn't employers have the right to pay people whatever they think they are worth, regardless (or even in some cases, because of) their sex, race, creed or colour?"

Well, yes. Which is why the young women in the original story are being paid more highly - their educational attainment is higher. The reason for that is what interests me, not the "higher education = higher wages" point, which is trivial.

I have been maklng the point for some time that Australian-origin tertiary students are 2:1 women, while Australian-origin apprentices, especially in the construction and mechanical trades, are over 80% young men. The article makes a similar case for the US.

Some employers, especially larger ones, may see good political reasons for employing more women in higher-paid roles and Govt has had a strong affirmative-action policy in relation to women for a long time.

The strictly libertarian view is not the only one in play. Asise from anything else there's the utilitarian point that with an aging populace we need to find a new source of workers to fill the gaps left when men retire. Some businesses may see embracing women workers as useful at this time, simply because they can't get enough men. the higher wages may be a sign of businesses trying to attract that "new" source of workers.

Either way, the new social paradigm is "woman as professional,man as tradesman". It is going to be an interesting few years ahead.

Whatever the faults of the most commonly used statistics, I suggest that comparing average incomes of each gender isn't all that useful. Perhaps the key question about justice should be what various people earn relative to what they should earn. I suggest that many blue collar jobs, especially working on farms (sorry Yabby), meatworks and saw-mills (sorry Anti) are under-paid. Many office jobs, particularly executives and much of the public service are over-paid.

What the rest of our respective genders earn isn't all that important. What we earn and what should be paid, matters more.

Hmmm. Lots of sarcasm and belittling of the male posters when they highlight an inequality in gender that goes the other way to what we normally hear rammed down our throats. Who would have thought.

You reap what you sow boys.

Girls, You're behaving exactly like the boys do on a feminist thread.

And here I was thinking you girls were all for equality. Oh, that's right, sorry, it's 'equality for women' isn't it. My mistake.

benk:"What the rest of our respective genders earn isn't all that important. What we earn and what should be paid, matters more."

That's exactly right,the use of population means doesn't allow reasonable unpicking of that knotty problem.

Houellebecq:"Girls, You're behaving exactly like the boys do on a feminist thread."

Except that they're not addrssing the point at all,let alone doing so with any degree of rationality. Apart from Suzie,who has now shown she really does believe that women should be paid more than men for doing the same job, the only "defence" has been the regurgitation ad vomitum of unrelated data from outdated and incomplete statistics.

It shouldn't be surprising that librarians, nurses and the like find maths difficult: what's disturbing is that they're regarded as "professionals" worthy of being paid as though their opinion was worth listening to and they have obviously taken that to heart.

The result is the awful mess that is feminism in the 21st century - ill-considered, poorly-informed, dismissive of contrary evidence, based on ideological rather than logical precepts,with a healthy dose of princess syndrome thrown in.

What a joke.

Further to my point above regarding the need for wokers, the following story in the fairfax press

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/politics/its-about-the-skills-stupid-20100906-14xwu.html

"the key economic issue of the next three years will be skills training. The test of how well we handle the years of economic recovery will not be how fast we get the budget back into surplus, but how many Australians acquire the new skills employers will need as the recovery rolls on."

The emphasis is on the skills required for mining and construction, which are male-dominated industries. Come on grrls the field is wide open. Imagine how much more you could earn Foxy, if you simply upped stumps and headed northwestish and Suze, I'm sure the mines would appreciate having a qualified bandaid applicator on site.

Nah, can't see that happening. Instead there will be lots of effort made to get young men to go out there, while the young women stay home on govt benefits and go to uni, perpetuating the inequality that already exists. The young blokes will happily spend lots of their money on the young women,so no prblems there. If they get knocked up by one of the aforesaid young men home on leave that's cool, he's making a motza, the CSA can take care of him.

What a great system...

Antiseptic: << the new social paradigm is "woman as professional,man as tradesman". >>

As opposed to the old paradigm of "woman indoors, man outdoors" eh? Things have gone downhill for the Neanderthal set since women asserted themselves and started to expect more from their lives than to be breeders and housekeepers. Shucks.

I have a couple of electricians working on my house at the moment. Not only are they women, buy they're lesbians to boot. OMG!

What do you have against nurses, Antiseptic? Not all of them are women these days, you know.

You're right, CJ, I should have added anthropologists to the list of the mathematically inept. Sorry about the omission.

Dear Antiseptic,

Prejudice is an irrational, inflexible attitude toward
an entire category of people. The word literally
means "prejudged." It usually implies negative feelings -
antipathy, hostility, even fear. The key feature of prejudice
is that it is always rooted in generalizations and so
ignores the differences among individuals. Thus, someone
who is prejudiced against women will tend to have a
negative attitude toward any woman, in the belief that
all women share the same supposed traits. When I said
"You life is not my fault," I was trying to make that
point. You accused me of "faux victimhood," yet you're
the one who's started threads about what you perceive
to be injustices against yourself/ men - and it somehow always
comes down to being the fault of women.

Selective perception and labelling - we understand,
that's your thing.
However, as I've stated previously as far as earnings
are concerned for Australia - the recent statistics are on
record - all you have to do is actually want to access them.

'"woman as professional,man as tradesman". >>

As opposed to the old paradigm of "woman indoors, man outdoors"'

Sounds to me like nothing has changed. 'er indoors as Authur Daley used to say.

I think electricians and plumbers and miners get paid really well. Anyway, as I always say, people know the kind of salaries to be expected from different occupations before they decide on a career.

The common feminist argument about 'womens work' paying less is weird (They say it's sexist to call it that until they need to use it to argue about pay equality). There's nothing stopping women from choosing to be miners.

I always wonder why people are drawn to being teachers and nurses and then complain about the pay. Obviously now some are wising up, and going into OH&S and HR; You still get to stay inside out of the sun and rain and stay clean and tidy, but you get paid more.

Some people like to be outside, others like to sit around and type crap on OLO and go to frivolous meetings and drink coffee. I form the latter group.

That's what education is for really. You get educated so you can get more money for doing very little work. But then when it's sunny I do sometimes envy the council workers sitting around in the sun and eating hamburgers at 930 in the morning.

Life's not so bad anti. We all have choices.

I think in this case, men are getting paid less because of their choices. See I'm consistent; I think Women get paid less when they choose to be the teachers and nurses, and men get paid less when they choose to do dirty manual work.

Of course in all this, the feminsts 'societal expectations' only apply to women of course. They're the real victims anti, and don't you forget that. If men had societal expectations to deal with then they could be considered victims too.

It is a bit disingenuous for some of you guys to pretend the issue of wage disparity has not derived from a long history of women being paid less for the same work.

Now that we have some equality in the field, and in one example a pot-stirrer poster from wayback has put up one article about Geny Y girls earning more than the boys (in the US I might add) all hell breaks loose.

For starters, it is impossible for any society to ever be perfectly equal. The logical expectation is that at any time, taking into account many other variables, the graph will dip and peak over a period of time. Comments about the hypocrisy of feminists in relation to this one article is to really diminish the capability of human beings to reason without prejudice.

I don't care if Yabby or Antiseptic resent women generally and it shows in their comments. It is their life to do and think as they like but on a site like this don't feign insult when people pull you up on it. Think what you will by all means but some of the more derisive comments get in the way of reasoned argument. And if you use put-downs then anything of sense or merit you may have to say gets lost in the negativity.

Cont/...

Cont/...

Imagine the outcry from some if a female poster was to say "men are self-serving, selfish gits who wouldn't know fidelity if they fell over it and they are all rapists and child abusers". This is exactly the sort of comments that come out of Yabby and Antiseptic in regard to women with accusations of money-hungry anti-sex extortionists. See the problem.

It is just human nature to take offence at such derisory and generalised comments. We can pretend we should just consider the 'argument' separately but we are foolish to pretend any inbuilt prejudices do not influence the argument. It certainly influences an ability to walk in another man or woman's shoes and until you do that it is superfluous to just carry on as usual with the same old anti-women comments. I don't think I have ever heard one positive thing about women from some posters on OLO and if you think that is conducive to good debate you are wrong.

To bring out the old feminists are out there trying to keep men down paranoia is beneath all of you who are usually intelligent in your reasoning skills.

nothing wrong with the new type women. If I meet a highly-paid professional chick, I'll spend more time in the gym and tanning on the beach. I could be the perfect 'trophy hubby'.

CJ, can I come to see your electricians? I'll bring my own videocam to record the 'sparks flying'. Hope they're wearing rubber for insulation.

And there comes Austin just to prove my point. All women are now tanning themselves on beaches and going to the gym while their men work hard all day.

How can all these Gen Y girls be earning so much at the beach.

Lots of hypocrisy and double standards showing here.

pelican,

'It is a bit disingenuous for some of you guys to pretend the issue of wage disparity has not derived from a long history of women being paid less for the same work. '

Not really. When are we to start looking at the objective reality around us and stop reflexively reacting to injustices past? Of course the favourite phrase of some on OLO is 'not so long ago'. Its almost as if you chicks don't want equality because then you would have to lose the victim card.

BTW as I said, the issue really should be who spends the money.

'Imagine the outcry from some if a female poster was to say "men are self-serving, selfish gits who wouldn't know fidelity if they fell over it and they are all rapists and child abusers"'

That's the sub-text of our time. 'The Vibe' of the feminist movement. You talk about living in another's shoes, well, you try being a man and being brought up with all the anti-male propaganda. Australia says No, and any misuse and abuse of stats to paint as many men as possible as rapists and abusers is fine and dandy if the aim is to help women. Magnifying and exaggerating women as victims magnifies and exaggerates men as abusers.

Take a look at this lot...

http://www.oneinthree.com.au/misinformation/

'It is just human nature to take offence at such derisory and generalised comments.'

As it is human nature for men to take offence at the majority of feminist propaganda.

'Comments about the hypocrisy of feminists in relation to this one article is to really diminish the capability of human beings to reason without prejudice. '

Female posters here have reacted in the same manner as male posters in response to feminist article about pay equality. ie sarcasm and belittling. How many times do we hear 'feminism is about equality'. At least 'equality for women' is more honest, even if it does deliberately position women as universally disadvantaged.

thread gone silly as usual - tat tah, no more emails

Back to the topic...

The Australian Council of Trade Unions,
3rd Sept 2010 has made it quite clear that:
"The unacceptable pay gap between Australian women
and men widened in the last financial year with
full-time working women earning 18% less than men..."

All anyone has to do is google

"2010-women's earnings in Australia."

There are plenty of current websites giving the current
stats.

Houlley
So you think this whole article about Gen Y is worthy of a new 'vibe' about male victimisation?

I have no time for either victimisation stances in the modern world - much rather we all got on with making our own choices and decisions regardless of gender.

"Female posters here have reacted in the same manner as male posters in response to feminist article about pay equality. "

And why are the male posters given leeway while female posters are not. Men have not traditionally been paid less so the historical relevance is not there to instigate a movement per se. There is however historical relevance in relation to child custody issues so I would always support improvements in that area. Many men deny that domestic violence is still an issue and in fact some have derided any form of assistance provided to women as though this is some sort of feminsit conspiracy. For goodness sake if women had not instigated shelters and other supports women would be still told to accept their 'lot'.

My point is that if you hold a prejudice (not confined to one gender) your position is already influenced by that prejudice or resentment in many cases.

It is the generalisations that get me.

Foxy,

This is the kind of mindless abuse of statistics that is infuriating antiseptic. Good work. I like your style Foxy, you're a very subtle wind up merchant. Get him yapping away about means and medians again.

BTW: Women earn less money than their counterparts -- 78 cents for every dollar a man gets. But they make more than 80% of buying decisions in all homes.

Would you rather earn more money or spend more money Foxy?

http://she-conomy.com/report/facts-on-women/

Over the next decade, women will control two thirds of consumer wealth in the United States and be the beneficiaries of the largest transference of wealth in our country’s history. Estimates range from $12 to $40 trillion. Many Boomer women will experience a double inheritance windfall, from both parents and husband. The Boomer woman is a consumer that luxury brands want to resonate with

pelican,

'And why are the male posters given leeway while female posters are not. '

When are they given leeway. They're constantly harangued as being misogynist neanderthals.

'It is the generalisations that get me.'

It's the hypocrisy that gets me. If you're for equality you should be just as upset about any equality regardless of gender, and if you poo poo equality for women as I do you should be just as unconcerned about the wage gap when men are behind. As I am. As anti isn't. But you must accept an element in posters objections here to this wage gap is to highlight said hypocrisy.

I love generalisations and stereotypes. I love to tell people I spent my Baby Bonus on a big screen TV. Sometimes I wonder whether men and women have totally different senses of humour. Exaggeration features very highly with me and my mates. We love expanding stereotypes about everything to a ridiculous degree

pelican,

'And why are the male posters given leeway while female posters are not. Men have not traditionally been paid less so the historical relevance is not there to instigate a movement per se. There is however historical relevance in relation to child custody issues so I would always support improvements in that area.'

As I said..

When are we to start looking at the objective reality around us and stop reflexively reacting to injustices past?

This is one of my issues with feminism; It wouldn't matter what the relative advantages to men and women are in society, feminists will never be happy. They'd be out of a job for a start. So they must, at all costs, continue to represent women as universally disadvantaged even if/when it becomes no longer the case. If they succeed, then even enforce a society where men are massively disadvantaged, do you think they'd stop there?

As I've said, I'm happy when feminists admit they are a lobby group interested in getting advantages for women wherever possible, regardless of the effects on men. When they mention equality they expose themselves as hypocrites.

I agree in principle Houlley, which is why this article is a beatup. Equality is already in the workforce for the most part hence my later reaction. Bringing attention to women earning more than men in one small area in one country (if the statistics are genuine) is nothing more than stirring the pot. And it worked on all of us (me included).

It already got Anti on his high horse about his son's prospects when really it will be down to his son's own abilities, character and choices that will determine his happiness as with all of us. None of us are given a free ride. We are all responsible for our own decisions and access is readily there for anyone who wants to take advantage.

Why is everyone down on tradies. Just because mostly men do it does not mean it should be demeaned. Most tradies earn more than the average last time I looked and so what if more men choose a trade than women. There are more female receptionists, secretaries and office workers - what is the problem with that? Men and women can be tradies or receptionists if they want to - no-one is stopping them.

The fact that it's a beatup is not under question pelican. As I said, I think to a large degree the thread is to highlight the hypocrisy of feminists and some of the female posters. If the stats were the other way around, they would be nodding their heads about the poor women being victims of societal expectations that girls don't go to university.

Now that it's men who don't go to university in the same numbers as women, those societal expectations... hey, where did they go?

They were never there in the first place. The reason now is like you say, and like I have always said regardless of the gender being discussed; Choice.

Nobody is hiding the information that being a nurse or a teacher pays poorly, and nobody is hiding the fact that you may be able to get more money if you go to university rather than doing a trade. The goalposts aren't moving and the game is fair, as it has been for considerable time. Certainly in my lifetime.

But there will always be those feminist lost soldiers, fighting away in the jungle long after the war is won, parading around their 17% gender wage gap like a badge of honour, like it's some sort of evidence of victimhood.

I think, perhaps, we should force all women into the workforce after 6 months of having kids, so as to fix this statistical anomaly. We could also force women who are happy with their work-life balance, who love their kids and only work a little because their husband doesn't earn enough, to train up and become CEOs. We can force a certain percentage of teachers, who have chosen the 12 weeks holiday and 9-3 hours, to go off into the mines to work 12 day shifts. It's a human rights issue.

Case in point.

Sleep is the latest feminist issue. Apparently women need more sleep, and their societal expectations are so much higher than mens that they need more sleep than men. The poor dears are 'time poor', and working themselves into the ground. It's a uniquely female problem apparently.

'Naomi Wolf was prompted by Arianna Huffington, publisher of The Huffington Post, and Cindi Leive, editor of US women's mag Glamour, who began a campaign about sleep earlier this year, describing it as “the next feminist issue”'

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/are-women-getting-enough-sleep-20100907-14yj3.html

If there is any evidence women have achieved equality it is articles like this. How desperate can feminists be to find some inequity in our society. Perhaps they are tired of polishing up that 17% gender wage gap argument, or are starting to feel that even the most irrational people have accepted the glaring oversights of that argument.

Is there any end to these uniquely female trials and tribulations. Is there any topic that doesn't need to be researched separately for gender and reported and emphasised only if women may somehow be doing worse than men.

These overbearing female only societal expectations are ruining the lives of women. Every day another stone is turned over to find yet another burden these downtrodden martyrs of society are carrying.

*I don't care if Yabby or Antiseptic resent women generally and it shows in their comments.*

Hang on Pelican, I do not resent women. I am just really sick
of the tearjerker stuff on OLO, about how downtrodden and
powerless women are. It is rubbish and somebody needs to
say its rubbish.

For every hard luck story about a woman that you can tell me,
I can tell you one about a man, downtrodden by a woman.

I can't remember the name of the poster, it was some time ago,
but she was clearly involved in political feminist politics.
She made it quite clear that what she was doing was not
about equity and fairness, but about lobbying for women,
as any business would do, in its own self interest.

Now you may take those comments personally, that is your choice,
not what I am writing.

The thing is, we still hear so much of this "poor women"
tearjerker stuff, that many have failed to notice that
the pendulum has swung well in womens favour.

When we point that out, a poster like Suze thinks thats ok,
because women seemingly were disadvantaged before.

What a lame excuse.

Dear Houllie,

You ask would I rather earn more money or
spend it?

To be honest with you - the money that I
earn goes into the joint bank account
that my husband and I share, and we spend
it to pay our bills. I've worked full-time
all of my married life.

If the world consisted simply of some self-
evident reality that everyone perceived in
exactly the same way, there might be
no disagreement among observers. But as this
thread illustrates, the truth of the matter is
that what we see in the world is not determined
by what exists "out there," its shaped by what
our past experience has prepared us to see and by
what we consciously or unconsciously want to see.

Knoweldge and belief about the world do not exist
in a vacuum; they are social products whose
content depends on the context in which they are
produced. A fundamentalist preacher will tend to
view pornography in one way; the owner of a
strip-club in another way. Each is inclined to
perceive facts selectively and to interpret them
accordingly.

How can this problem be resolved? The first step
would be to recognize that subjectivity and
objectivity are not two neat and separate categories;
they are really matters of degree. By exercising
caution we can attempt to be as objective as
possible. This caution involves deliberate efforts
to be conscious of one's own biases so that they can
be kept in check. To try to hunt down the relevant
facts and not ignore those that are inconvenient
for one's pet theories.

I guess total objectivity is probably
impossible to achieve, but a self-conscious effort
to be as objective as possible will produce vastly
less biased results than not making this attempt,
and it may open further channels of communication.

One can live and hope that this will happen on OLO.

*Nobody is hiding the information that being a nurse or a teacher pays poorly *

Life is relative I guess. As Foxy pointed out, our experiences
form our opinions.

Are nurses and teachers really so badly off, if you look at the
global scheme of things? Perhaps us Aussies are just too
spoiled to appreciate how good things really are here.

Farming has taught me some huge lessons in life, one of them
is to appreciate what we have and to take nothing for granted.
It is hardly being reported in the press, but WA is right now
facing one of its worst droughts ever, whilst the rain is pouring
in the East.

The ramifications, for the people involved, are huge. People
stressing out, as they are about to lose their farms. Millions
of sheep needing to be fed for the next 8 months until the
new season, nobody knows how it will happen. Already trucks
are moving thousands of sheep across the country, in a desperate
attempt to deal with the situation.

Tonight I got a bit of rain on my roof. It was unexpected, only
1-2 mm had been forecast. I'm not sure yet, but we got maybe
8 or 10 mm.

I can tell you that the sheer joy of hearing that bit of rain
on the tin roof, after such a long dry, makes all these petty
arguments about who earns a bit more then the other, seem
totally insignificant.

City people are spoiled, but they don't know it and don't appreciate
it. That is my perspective on things right now.

Dear Yabby,

Thanks for that.

Alone among living creatures, human beings
are fully self aware - capable of inquiring
and reflecting about themselves. Throughout
history, our ancestors pondered human nature...
why is the way of life of one group so
different from that of another? What makes
one group go to war with another? The list
goes on.

I love to listen to the rain on my roof at night,
but I didn't equate its importance to farmers.
I'm going to pay more attention in future.

Foxy, I think animals are "fully self aware", just like us.

The difference is we have a very important skill to to express that awareness that they don't, language.

Because we can't express our awareness to an animal in such a way that the animal understands, and vice versa, does not mean the animal does not possess full self awareness.

I reckon a day spent as a dog or a whale or an eagle would open up the eyes of any human.

I think it is worth repeating Foxy's words (and mine) earlier-

"The Australian Council of Trade Unions,
3rd Sept 2010 has made it quite clear that:
"The unacceptable pay gap between Australian women
and men widened in the last financial year with
full-time working women earning 18% less than men..."

I don't mind the genders having a go at each other about unequal pay levels, although the trade union MEN have the correct, up to date details, so there should really be no arguments should there?

Maybe we should listen to the Trade Union figures, because those big guys don't like being called liars?

Antiseptic <"It shouldn't be surprising that librarians, nurses and the like find maths difficult: what's disturbing is that they're regarded as "professionals" worthy of being paid as though their opinion was worth listening to and they have obviously taken that to heart."

CJ, you wondered why Anti septic has a problem with Nurses?
It's because we are predominantly the dreaded female profession and he feels threatened by our vastly superior intellect, and healing hands!

Ok Foxy, try to see it this way :- if your hubby only brought
home a paycheck, in months where a certain amount of rain falls
on your roof, in other months it would cost him to go to work,
you might pay huge attention to that rain!

I know the old line is that these people do it willingly. But
OTOH, if they were not out there, taking these risks of nature,
the rest of you would starve, for that food would not be grown.

Most of the people out there, taking these risks, in fact say
nothing or very little. They just face these challenges, try
to find solutions, battle on as best they can, somehow.

Over the years, I have developed a huge respect for their
courage and fortitude, against all the odds. When I then
read posts on OLO, complaining about how rough things are,
because x is earning 10% less, I can only smile.

No that's not it. He just resents any woman who has an opinion that does not concur with his opinion, whether the woman is of high intelligence or low intelligence. For him, the important 2 things are (1) she's female and (2) she doesn't share his opinion.

When those 2 conditions are met, he then goes on sarcastic attack, with personal put downs and various types of anti female rhetoric and language.

My post above was in reply to suzeonline's comments in her last post.

Dear Yabby,

Just picked up on your comment about the drought in W.A.
I'm in W.A. also, and have found this the most extraordinary winter in my memory - almost day after day of sunshine. I kept waiting for the weather to break, but the clear skies just kept coming. I'm not in the country - although live in a small city in the south-west, and I've been mindful of the effect the lack of rain is having or going to have on the farmers.

Well fair enough Yabby. You may not resent women but your comments mask that at times. There is some hypocrisy on OLO about criticism of gender and it seems open season on women at times. There is some quite personal criticism of women on OLO and some of it quite malicious. If a subject is worth raising and debating (not this thread opener) it should be quite easy to debate it on its merits.

It is also tragic that issues like DV are demeaned because it is taken as a slight on all men just because some men beat their wives. There are rotten eggs among men and women, it does not mean that by raising issues like child abuse or DV etc that we should all be muffled by politically correct waffle that detract from the very important issues of violence whether perpetrated by men or women. (using that as an example while being off-topic).

Houlley
If there is genuine disparity and it is rife there is no reason why it should not be debated but using this one example is not proof that men are earning less overall. That was my main point and as such does not prove anything as far as accusations of hypocrisy. As I said absolute equality won't exist and there will always be sectors where men/women will earn more or be more represented.

Always happy to discuss the subject rationally but when rationality leaves the thread logical debate goes out the window.

Pelican:"using this one example is not proof that men are earning less overall"

And not one person has claimed that it is. It is certainly proof that among young men and women in the majority of US cities, young women are paid more. That means it is like the canary in the coal mine, a warning of problems ahead.

What amazes and saddens me is that normally rational people like you are so locked into a "woman as victm"mindset that logical discussion of that is impossible for you.

Far from the problem being Yabby or me "hating women", the problem here is that some women are desperately scared of having to face reality, including the reality that they are much better off than the propaganda they prefer.

I suspect that a great deal of that comes down to the longstanding "damsel in distress" meme. You know that if you look helpless enough someone will go out of their way to help you. It won't wash.

Suze,here's a tip, repeating a piece of data that has been discredited doesn't make you look clever, it makes you look stupidly incompetent.

I note that none of the grrrls have actually tried to take on my argument on logical grounds. How unsurprising...

Foxy:"A fundamentalist preacher will tend to
view pornography in one way; the owner of a
strip-club in another way. "

The difference is in the power of the pussy. The preacher wants it, but the stripper knows she's got it,at least until she starts to get a bit saggy.

Reality's a bitch, isn'tit?

pelican,

I don't think the wider argument that more women are going to university than men can be refuted. I maintain that if it was more men than women going to uni, there would be nodding of heads that we must do something about this 'inequality'.

Like you I don't think this article proves anything, and I think that if men choose not to go to university it's their choice. What bugs me, is that is never the opinion of feminist commentators and if women were not choosing to go to university, it would be considered that it's all because of those dreaded 'societal expectations', and an example of the evil patriarchy and misogynist society. These same commentators normally get a knowing nod of approval from all the female posters.

If it's because of inequality that less women go to university, then it is so for men. And if feminism was about equality, they would be just as upset that so many more women than men these days are going to university. Personally I don't think either is cause for alarm when people have the choice.(Maybe that's the difference, men have choice, women have societal expectations?)

Like in my example about sleep, every study has to be genderised, and a simple thing like sleep becomes 'the next feminist issue'. Everywhere you turn there is a new tale of woe that is sold as uniquely female.

Just like Domestic Violence. This isn't a female only issue, but it is sold as that. You get stats quoted like '23% of young people were aware of domestic violence against their mothers or step-mothers by their fathers or step-fathers'

Where in fact 'This study found that while 23% of young people were aware of domestic violence against their mothers or step-mothers by their fathers or step-fathers, an almost identical proportion (22%) of young people were aware of domestic violence against their fathers or step-fathers by their mothers or step-mothers.'

'it does not mean that by raising issues like child abuse or DV etc that we should all be muffled by politically correct waffle'

Indeed!

pelican,

'As I said absolute equality won't exist and there will always be sectors where men/women will earn more or be more represented. '

Agreed. But the problem is every time women are under-represented, in ANYTHING, it's a feminist issue, and a human rights issue, and evidence of the evil patriarchy victimising the downtrodden martyrs of society. If women are under-represented in any aspect of life, in any stat, it must be fixed. Even if women have shown the don't want to do that, they must be encouraged to overcome these all pervasive 'societal expectations'. Those expectations that never seem to fall on men, and that women have somehow no responsibility in forming.

The language is all around us...

Women are being 'kept out' of science and engineering (Boys club, societal expectations, not encouraged enough), but men are 'choosing' not to do nursing and teaching.

Women are under-represented in the boardrooms (discrimination!), but men are 'choosing' to be under-represented as primary carers.

Women are 'forced' to do the 'lions share' of the housework, while men choose to 'tinker around in the shed' and LOVE DIY.

Dear Yabby,

There have been many months when my husband
wasn't able to bring in a pay cheque at all
due to the fact that he's self-employed and
there was no work for him. Mine was the only
pay cheque that kept us afloat. I imagine that's
a norm for many people - as you said - you make
the best of things together. That's life.

Dear Antiseptic,

You've proven my point about viewing things from
different perspectives.

There is nothing more
unpleasant for me than to see anyone stripped of
their power as human beings. We all have the power
to diminish and we've all seen it happen to people.
As far as male/female relationships go - if people
continue to jab at what they view as the other's
weaknesses, they need to ask themselves, is this
what you want to end up with? The man/woman who just
says, "Yes, dear," and falls asleep in the armchair
every night? To those people I'd say, Be careful what
you wish for, because you might end up stripping away
the vitality, the sexual energy of the person you once
thought as your "knight in shining armor" or "Goddess."

The key to all of this is that one person may do all they
can to keep their relationship as healthy as it can be, but
it's not enough. No matter how healthy you become, your
partner has to be working alongside you. If they're not,
then it's like one hand clapping. It has to meet the
other hand to make the sound of applause.

Anyway, much as I've enjoyed our robust discussion,
for me it's now run its course.
I'll see you on another thread.

Got a new feminist issue now...

Birth rape

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/blogs/dirty-laundry/birth-rights/20100905-14vz8.html

Doctors with poor bedside manner trying their best to get a baby out are now rapists it seems

Hoellebecq:"birth rape."

Hahaha. and they wonder why we take the piss...

Foxy, the difference in perspective is only a factor if it leads to inaccurate information being processed. The fact is that you have not even tried to address my point in realtion to education or in relation to the statistical problems caused by using simple mean figures, or of the "invisible" wealth transfer between the genders,preferring to try to pretend it's all just a product of my "perspective".

Of course, the reason for that is that for you, your "perspective" means more than facts, even if you were equiipped to understand them. The same applies to the other members of the "grrl gang" here on OLO. For me,my "perspective" means only that I am not constrained to look at data in just one approved way, but may examine things from different angles.

With all due humility, I reckon I do a pretty good job of it and my observations have bneen consistently borne out when more comprehensive investigations have been conductred. For example, I first mentioned the education gap here on OLO about 12 months or so ago and was attacked for doing so, as expected.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could have a discussion, even disagreement, without the constant denial of reality and perpetuation of misinformation that is such a feature of the "feminist" position?

Who knows, it might even mean that "feminism" becomes a field of study worth the name...

Nah, better to just rely on advocacy "research", just in case we find things out that don't suit the agenda, eh?

Dear Antiseptic,

Again, you've proven my point about perspective.
Thank You. You only see things through
a very narrow lens, you don't respect
women - your behaviour is rude and
dismissive, and than you blame me for
not wanting to discuss things with you.

I'm a librarian by profession, and
part of our job entails providing information,
answering readers questions, teaching them to
use electronic and print resources to research
effectively. In this thread I tried to refer you
to various websites, so that you would obtain
the accurate information. You were not interested.
As usual, all you're interested in is in your
own perspective - and anyone who happens to agreee
with it.

Then you blame me for not discussing things
with you. The fact remains - you're not interested
in having a discussion. I'd be happy to have one, were
you to ever say something new. You can continue to
blame gender on everything, but to me,
and and the people I know, - gender has never been
a restriction - The "feminist" revolution was
before my time, and I was brought up with the fact
that - all possible options are open
and equally acceptable for both sexes.
To me, as I've said in the past - it's a person's
individual human qualities, rather than his or her
biological sex that's the primary measure of that
person's worth and acievement.

But enough said - I don't expect you to understand
any of this - you go on doing what you've been
doing to date - and you'll keep on getting what
you've got. That's life!

Foxy:"You only see things through
a very narrow lens"

LOL. Pot, meet kettle, you'll note she's rather burnt...

As I said, I look at things form all sorts of angles. I like "what if..."

Furthermore, because I'm not trying to please a woman (the old power of the pussy and all that), it allows me to explore what-ifs that exclude the standard set of female expectations - a man to take care of them and lots of authority with absolutely minimal personal accountability.

Foxy:"You were not interested."

Au contraire, I pointed out why the data you were referring to was not relevant,being based on population means, rather than medians and being several years out of date. Your response was to simply regurtgitate the same references, without making any effort to repudiate my reasoning. You then went on to accuse me of somehow being "narrow".

In other words I was interested, but rejected your data as meaningless in the context. See the difference?

It doesn't matter how often you claim I'm somehow skewing the data, the data remain and if you don't have the skill set to understand it, as you clearly don't, then may I suggest you do your best to acquire it, instead of trying to derail the discussion, as usual?

Foxy:"ou're not interested
in having a discussion. "

Once again,au contraire. I'd dearly love to have a genuine discussion instead of the nibbling by rabbits that is about all the "feminist" view seems able to come up with.

Foxy:"to me,
and and the people I know, - gender has never been
a restriction - "

In fact,it's been a positive benefit. How else to explain the people here with "professional" jobs and no brains?

Foxy, that was a great, accurate post. That sort of thing needs to be said, otherwise the bullies of the world win. As we both know, he doesn't get it and never will; he possesses scant personal insight. So be it!

LOL,cue rabbit no 2...

Foxy, keep up the good work. You're a credit to the forum; mature, intelligent with insight and humanity. What you write here carries weight.

You've gone down in my estimation Foxy. Here I was thinking you were winding him up with your dead-brained repetition of 17% pay gap.

Simple questions you haven't been brave enough to answer...

'The fact is that you have not even tried to address my point in relation to education or in relation to the statistical problems caused by using simple mean figures, or of the "invisible" wealth transfer between the genders,preferring to try to pretend it's all just a product of my "perspective". '

Agreed.

'In this thread I tried to refer you
to various websites, so that you would obtain
the accurate information. You were not interested.'

As you were not interested in addressing these 3 simple points...

1. More women than men ARE going to university. It's fact.

2. Taking the mean without looking at the distribution of data is misleading. 1 man could earn 20 billion and skew the results.

3. The wealth transfer between men and women makes the issue of any pay inequity a small part of the story. When more women than men, by choice, choose to earn nothing, or work part time, and are supported by their partners wage there will never be equality in average pay rates.

Simple points that you refuse to address, then blame antiseptic for not looking at your vague link, where you didn't indicate anything specific or particular in said link that was adding to the debate.

Arrogance personified.

You quote your 17% pay gap like Tony Abbott yells Stop The Boats.

PS: Your link is stale and doesn't work anyway.

TZ52HS,

'Foxy, that was a great, accurate post. That sort of thing needs to be said, otherwise the bullies of the world win. As we both know, he doesn't get it and never will; he possesses scant personal insight. So be it!'

Fair enough, you think antiseptics manner is that of a bully, but I think if you think that's all that's going on here you're missing a trick.

All Foxy has done is change the subject because she cant refute the simple arguments antiseptic has put forward.

Rather than address these points, she's gone off on a tangent and twisted the argument to be all about antiseptics rudeness and alleged hatred of women. Pretty soft.

If Foxy had bothered to address his points, he would be more likely to be civil, and she well knows this. Foxy has decided how antiseptic must communicate with her, and it's all on her terms. If she genuinely wanted to debate the issue she would, but she knows she can just antagonise him and use the tone of his response to avoid the fact she cant refute his logical arguments.

It's a smokescreen.

Anti doesn't "hate" women, its just that women don't behave how he wants them to:

>>> Far from the problem being Yabby or me "hating women", the problem here is that some women are desperately scared of having to face reality, including the reality that they are much better off than the propaganda they prefer.<<<

Houllie gives advice to Foxy on how she should behave if she wants Anti to be courteous to her:

>>> If Foxy had bothered to address his points, he would be more likely to be civil, and she well knows this. Foxy has decided how antiseptic must communicate with her, and it's all on her terms. <<<

Anti & Houllie blaming others for their failure to communicate.

Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 7:16:48 PM

A prime example of avoiding the question, then sprouting a whole page of irrelevant justification.

Because Foxy has worked all her life and had joint bank accounts, that is all the information she needs to refute all the statistics about who does the household spending. Everyone is just like Foxy so there is no need to look any further

'Houllie gives advice to Foxy on how she should behave if she wants Anti to be courteous to her:'

As a response to Foxy giving advice to antiseptic on how he must behave if she is to respond to his points.

'Anti & Houllie blaming others for their failure to communicate.'

Where have I failed to communicate? Foxy is the only one here making demands. It must always be on her terms, or else she just refuses to communicate. Myself and antiseptic are still trying to get a response to 3 reasonable and logical points.

Foxy doesn't "hate" men, its just that men don't behave how she wants them to.

What Foxy is doing is exactly the same as if antiseptic decided he would ignore anybody else's opinions and neglect to address any of their arguments until they addressed him with abusive language and put-downs.

To communicate, something has to be given by both sides. Foxy is making zero concessions. She doesn't have to be nice, and she can argue about manners all she wants, but when she refuses to debate antiseptic on simple logical non-abusive points, she is the one refusing to communicate. Antiseptic on the other hand is not, he awaits a reply, and he has addressed all of Foxy's arguments.

Gentlemen,

Thank you for dedicating so much of your time
and energy to me in your posts. Wow!
I find that incredibly flattering, especially
coming from men of your charm and wit.

I've shown your posts to colleagues at work,
as well as my family,
and, they've advised me that I should
leave this thread - simply because - "what
we have here gentlemen, is a failure
to communicate."

You're obviously so much better at it than I
am, especially with each other.

I'll therefore leave you both to it.
Enjoy! ;-)

Foxy:"I'm going to cop out"

Hardly surprising.

Reality bites...

Dear Antiseptic,

Your reality does bite.

I've got the teeth marks to prove it!
;-)

[Deleted for abuse. This discussion has degraded into personal abuse. Hard to see where it started, and both sides are guilty of it, but I'm drawing the line here. Address arguments not personalities please.]

TZ52HX, I believe you have our dear Anti septic down to a T!
Foxy knows what he is like, but yet it is still difficult not to try to correct his stubborn anti-feminine views.

Foxy, I take my hat off to you.
We always end up leaving these sorts of gender-issue posts to the resident OLO-good-old-boys-club members in the end.

They can collectively beat their chests, pat each other aggressively on the heads and sing 'Kumbaya my Lord' together around a campsite somewhere.
See you all on another thread.

Of the family law courts yes indeed. I have seen
three generations of farmers build up an asset, only
to lose it at the whim of a judge. If she'd married
a shearer, she would have walked away with nothing,
suddenly the court has made her wealthy. Sadly the
courts, with the encouragement and lobbying of the
feminist movement, have turned marriage and relationships
into a lucrative business, rather then what it was
supposed to be.

I think that is a real shame.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 5 September 2010 11:06:32 PM

well now, Yabby, it is a real shame that some 'people' including men, along with women, are dishonest and unfair, ruining generations of family farming businesses, however, in some situations, those spouses have given their all for well over 20 or 30 years building up those 'family farming 3-7 generation businesses' undertaking all of the accountancy, book-keeping, and physical hard work, cooking being the least of it.

I am just one Australian woman who was a farmer that left the lot out of respect, fairness and honesty walking away with nothing quite a few years ago. I did not bother about the court system, although if I had, it was estimated today that I would be a billionairess. Something I was well aware of at the time.

Do I regret it?

Never for a moment.

Feminism is irrelevant.

My respect, morals and values are more important to me than capital and assets.

All attempts to address the subject ended quite a while ago. This spiteful sniping is unhelpful, but painfully predictable. In an effort to make it productive, I ask the following question; exactly what changes would people like to see?

Answering my own question, I would like to see pay rises for those people who work in certain blue collar industries, such as agriculture and sawmills.

I would like to see executive salaries and the gap between the public and private sector reduced.

I would like to see less social pressure on blokes to take on blue collar jobs as some effort to prove our toughness. When I was young and silly, I was one of those suckers who worked far too hard for a minimum wage, because I thought it was tough.

If neither of these suggestions help women, it is only because I cannot see any glaring injustice needing to be solved. Convince me that I'm wrong, but lets stick to the topic.

Benk, what you're suggesting is social engineering in order to produce a wage outcome. All social engineering ends in inequality. For example, traditionally throughout history certain professions have had their wages socially engineered so they receive far greater rewards than other professions, like politicians compared to nurses or lawyers compared to teachers. The list is near endless. Lawyers and politicians don't work harder than nurses and teachers, their intrinsic human worth is not greater than nurses and teachers. No, politicians and architects receive greater salaries because it has been socially engineered to be that way.

In the same way, men's wages have been socially engineered to be greater than women's wages. Traditionally men have been paid more money for doing exactly the same work. That's social engineering. That's political correctness. It only stopped in the late 60s and early 70s. Since then another type of social engineering has continued; because men consistently don't, or are unable, to take 50% child rearing responsibility, their wages overall are to this day greater than female wages. Within this overall current male wage superiority there's pockets of female wage superiority, as shown by the article that's the subject of this thread; it applies "only" to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in major American cities.

But the paranoid and overtly sexist among us see those "pockets" as a socially engineered attack against men; as if to suggest that traditional MALE wage superiority is NOT a result of "engineering".

In other words if it benefits males it's seen as quite ok and in the natural order of things. If it benefits females it's seen as an attack on men's rights.

Benk:"exactly what changes would people like to see?"

First and foremost I'd like to see an end to the massive govt spending on "women's issues" and on supporting discrimination in favour of women.

My daughter cam home from school on Tuesday covered in stckers saying "girls can do anything". Apparently she'd been to "girl's group", which is ostensibly designed to allow the girls a chance to discuss matters of concern, such as pubertal issues, relationships and so on. I've not been given any information on this program and I intend to find out more There is apparently a similarly-tasked "boy's group", but I didn't see a single sticker saying "boys can do anything".I did see quite a few stickers from the local TAFE on boys' bags though.

Now I don;t mind the girls being fed positive messages, but why can't the boys be getting a similar one, instead of being efectively told to limit their expectations to attending TAFE?

Second, I'd like to see some honesty in the reporting of issues surrounding gender. As it stands at present there is a large list of female reporters who see one of their primary roles as promoting feminism. Their reportage suffers as a result and we're all the poorer for it, even women. The Press ouncil should do something about it, but I bet they got a grant of some kind that prevents them from doing so.

Third, I'd like to see a genuinely inclusive anti-discrimination act that doesn't only worry about women and leave men to suck it up. The current Act perpetuates discrimination against men by failing to recognise any form of such discrimination. It's patronising of women and damaging to men.It leads to poor outcomes.

I'd like to see the various nastily anyi-male "Offices for the Status of Women" abolished. they create nothing and advance no good cause. Women's status has always been assured (the old powewr of the pussy again) and we don't need an institutionalised white knight to make it so.

Social engineering through unionism, solidarity or market forces?
For thousands of years it has been shown it's cheaper to pay more to one overseer with a bigger whip, than to give a hundred workers a pay rise.
In response to Benk's valid points, a few decades ago my sister went to Teacher's College, while I went to trade school. After 3 and 4 years training respectively, for the first few years we were level pegging in wages; in fact, once I started sub contracting and working on remote construction sites I was in front.
Three decades later, my sister is on $75k purely through seniority. By comparison, a boilermaker, regardless of age, working in an ordinary shop and just doing his 38 hours can probably expect to make around $40k, regardless of age.
And you wonder why we have a skills shortage?
I agreed with my sister that she should have gotten more money than me 3 decades ago, simply on the basis of sacrifice. Whereas I received a pitifully small wage for my 4 years training, she received no wage at all for hers. I knew exactly how she felt, since in all the years of my apprenticeship I got considerably less than a labourer, and when I finally achieved tradesman status, only received slightly more.
Even going to work on mine sites didn't really address this lack of disparity; sure I made big money, but so did the truckies and labourers with little or no training.
In fact, in terms of return for sacrifice, truck driving would be hard to beat. Half a dozen lessons compared to a 4 year apprenticeship and get about the same money or more for sitting on your butt in an air conditioned cab. Funny how so many truckies are ex tradespeople.
And how many truckies on mine sites are women.
How did teachers get so far ahead? Who goes on strike most often these days?

TZ52HX

So any effort to discuss any issue that affects men is evidence of paranoia and any proposal to fix these issues is social engineering. Was equal pay for equal work social engineering? What about all of the other changes that feminism has produced?

Anti

Agreed on OSW, anti-discrimination acts and the mass media. I don't believe that over-inflating the self esteem of boys in the same way that we obsess over the self esteem of girls will help boys. Boosting self esteem sets people up for failure, discourages self-improvement, isn't supported by the latest research and is paternalistic, because we protect girls alot more than boys. In short, girls are told how fantastic they are before they achieve anything, while boys are told to get off their backside and achieve a few things before they get to feel good about themselves. Guess which gender achieves more by most measures?

That "Girls Can Do Anything" campaign has been around for yonks. I've always taken it to encourage girls to consider activities and careers that were hitherto the province of boys and men.

Like taking up trade apprenticeships, for example.

As a father of two daughters, I've always thought that's rather a good thing. My elder daughter is a lawyer, while my younger one is still at high school and a member of the Air Force Cadets.

I agree that a similar "Boys Can Do Anything" campaign that encouraged boys to consider broadening their options could be a good thing. For example, we need more male nurses and teachers.

Indeed, Antiseptic could raise the issue with his local MP if he wanted to, along with his other concerns. I guess he has more fun insulting people here than actually doing something constructive about his grievances.

>>> Indeed, Antiseptic could raise the issue with his local MP if he wanted to, along with his other concerns. I guess he has more fun insulting people here than actually doing something constructive about his grievances. <<<

Instead of telling Foxy and others how they should write their contributions to OLO, Anti could simply lead by example and treat others with the same rights he demands for himself. And instead of lamenting his own victim status with the less than perfect operations of the CSA he could do as CJ Morgan has suggested.

The fact that Antiseptic chooses to do none of the above, instead accusing Suze and others as being not intelligent enough to be worthy of a considered response (and how come his abuses are never deleted?), simply means that Anti uses this forum to vent his hatred on women and any who dare to support them.

All this vitriol from a topic started by TRUTHNOW78 who has again started a topic in order to sit back and watch the bun-fight, without further contribution.

So what, a few well educated women are earning more than a few men - overall most men earn irrespective of education or intelligence.

Personally, I quite dislike the "X can do anything" campaigns. It is unrealistic and while the intentions are good it can serve to raise expectations quite different to the reality of the real world.

Yes we should be enouraging boys and girls to be self confident and provide them with information about all the options available to them but really - NO-ONE can do "anything". Younger people may take a while to find their niche, some know if from a young age or have a natural ability which can be fostered.

When recruiting for a large firm, I found a lot of this unreal expectation in younger folk and had to reaffirm the point that generally you had to start at the bottom and work your way up on merit. There was also a lot of the "me me" approach to work rather than an obligation to the employer overall or a more give-take approach. Not all young folk are like this and some with a bit of experience behind them are more aware of the realities and responsibilities.

We should (dare I say) move forward and try to look at a human perspective rather than always being bogged down in a gender perspective.

'We should (dare I say) move forward and try to look at a human perspective rather than always being bogged down in a gender perspective.'

Be happy to. But did you know pelican, that sleep is the next feminist issue. After Birth Rape that is.

'And instead of lamenting his own victim status with the less than perfect operations of the CSA he could do as CJ Morgan has suggested.'

I think he's already taken them to court hasn't he?

'All this vitriol from a topic started by TRUTHNOW78 who has again started a topic in order to sit back and watch the bun-fight, without further contribution. '

Hey, I never noticed that. Well done, what a champion! My new hero.

In all fairness, I think antiseptic has asked questions, and gotten no response. All the rest is irrelevant noise. He neither raised this topic nor asserted that women in general get paid more. All he's said as far as I can see is the three points which go un-refuted. All the dissenters have done is arrogantly quoted the same statistic and ignored the reasons anti has given for why that statistic is meaningless.

The basic summary is below...

Foxy:"You were not interested."

Au contraire, I pointed out why the data you were referring to was not relevant,being based on population means, rather than medians and being several years out of date. Your response was to simply regurtgitate the same references, without making any effort to repudiate my reasoning. You then went on to accuse me of somehow being "narrow".

I think this thread has been a good example of passive aggressive behaviour.

It also seems to me that some are threatened by any statistic that dares to suggest any women is ever any better off than any man.

Houllie

>>> It also seems to me that some are threatened by any statistic that dares to suggest any women is (sic) ever any better off than any man. <<<

Especially Antiseptic - his daughter will likely earn more than her brother - what a scandal! Maybe she's just more capable?

As for your comment that Anti has taken the CSA to court (as is his right), that was not CJ's suggestion, it was to lobby his local constituency instead of flaming 'we who dare to a difference of opinion' and are not afraid to present it.

:)

pelican, "We should (dare I say) move forward and try to look at a human perspective rather than always being bogged down in a gender perspective."

That seems to be what is being suggested at a policy level.

Frankly I would prefer that government abolished funding for many of the special advisory/advocacy groups that have grown like topsy since Whitlam's day. It would serve the interests of democracy, transparency in decision making and the budget to be rid of them. One of the common observations made in the wash-up to the recent federal election was how disaffected and angry the electorate is with the various 'focus' and other groups that influence government, often behind the scenes.

'instead of flaming 'we who dare to a difference of opinion' and are not afraid to present it.'

I think he's flaming because you're NOT presenting it. He's presenting the argument that more women than men are going to university, and that average pay rates don't take any account of the underlying distribution or the hidden transfer of money from men to women. In response, you lot are arguing that women on average get paid less than men, and he's never refuted that.

If any of you differ in opinion to his argument, I think he'd be more than happy to accommodate you in a debate.

Cornflower
I agree, this is happening more and more at a policy level but with still some improvements needed around the whole 'working family' mindset (but that is a personal beef).

Houllie
"Be happy to. But did you know pelican, that sleep is the next feminist issue. After Birth Rape that is."

Methinks you are seeing too many feminists under the bed.

Women and men are different physiologically and who knows maybe we do need more sleep. Our hormones do seem to work differently to men. Maybe men need more sleep - does it really matter and what has that got to do with the issue?

I find it odd that you think Antiseptic is an impartial voice on this topic. There are more male uni students represented in Engineering, Science and Medical disciplines at university - shock horror run to the papers.

I have recently left my job and am doing some casual work and some business research while weighing up my options. At the moment I represent the lower income end of women's wages and it was entirely my choice. Many women earn less because they work part-time while raising kids or stay at home.

There is no issue about wage disparity as long as the opportunities to access them are not prejudiced toward/against either gender. Much has been gained on this front, bar a few dinosaurs that remain, but that will change over time. These changes have not come about by osmosis and pure altruism of thought. It was because of the feminist movement that any shift was made to recognise women as more than an inferior species.

This period of transition is now less transition and more maintenance, but occasionally it does not hurt to point out legitimate disparities if they are rife in regard to experiences that might affect either men or women. Do you think shared custody arrangements would have come about without a strong men's movement to ensure the role of father is valued.

Sometimes you have to make a noise to get anyone to listen.

pelican,

'Methinks you are seeing too many feminists under the bed.'

Come'on pelican, did you read the Birth Rape link? This is the ridiculous state of feminism today.

'does it really matter and what has that got to do with the issue?'

That's my point. I was agreeing with you that why does everything have to be investigated and lobbied on gendered terms, and then reported only if women are worse off.

Do you think sleep is a legitimate feminist or equity issue? Seriously?

'I find it odd that you think Antiseptic is an impartial voice on this topic.'

Hahaha. Antiseptic, impartial? Hahahaha.

'There are more male uni students represented in Engineering, Science and Medical disciplines at university'

Yes, but as I said, that's because of societal expectations, the evil patriarchy, and the misogynist boys clubs. That there are less men at university than women, and 75% of teaching graduates are women, well, that's just men's choice.

'There is no issue about wage disparity as long as the opportunities to access them are not prejudiced toward/against either gender.'

No no no! According to feminism, if women are under-represented in any aspect of life, in any stat, it must be fixed! Even if women have shown they don't want to access certain avenues, they must be encouraged to overcome these all pervasive 'societal expectations'. You know, those expectations that never seem to fall on men, and that women have somehow no responsibility in forming.

'to recognise women as more than an inferior species.'

That's emotive hyperbole that even rivals my efforts! There were gender roles and I'm sure most men valued the roles women were doing in society. That's exactly the kind of inflammatory propaganda I'm against. You could just as easily say women thought men inferior carers. And as I said, women have 50% responsibility for societal expectations.

It appears not all women want to earn as much as their partners...

http://blogs.news.com.au/moneystuff/index.php/news/comments/my_husband_earns_less_than_me_and_i_hate_it/

Some of the comments are really enlightening...

"Yes, I could have worked full time and my husband could have quit work and become the main carer but I didn’t want to have kids and never see them. I wanted to spend time with them. I never realised before I had kids how much I would want to be a full-time mother instead of combining a career with motherhood. I always assumed I would want to keep working as I loved my job.

The one thing I have learnt is that there are many women out there who feel the same way. I have friends in the same situation and over a glass or two of wine, we all talk about it but haven’t yet come up with an answer.

I have found on many occasions when I sit down with another working mother that I don’t know, we end up discussing our lives (as mothers do), and that many of them will reluctantly admit they really don’t want to work but would rather stay at home with their kids. To the world they put on the public face that they love having a career and a family but that is so often far removed from the truth."

And this...

"The man has to protect and provide for his family since you simply CANNOT expect a woman to be both the breadwinner and the caretaker while the man just settles into some subordinate and lesser role since clearly he would only be a caretaker of the woman’s children and not mother, nurturer and maintainer.

This isn’t about feminism.
This is about what we are biologically optimised to do.

If a man cannot afford to maintain, protect and provide for his family, has reservations or half-baked desire to do so, don’t have children."

Looks like even if women break through the glass ceiling, men will never be able to break into that glass nursery.

Well you are wrong on that one Houlley. It was thought that women were inferior. Even the Bible says so apparently. It was once believed that the female brain was smaller and not capable of the intellectual feats of men.

Trouble is Houlley you find a link like birth rape and suddenly it is another feminist bandwagon. Feminism is a broad church. It is not new, just a different name. It is normally called malpractice at the worse end of the spectrum.

Women giving birth are vulnerable to being treated like a cattle run in some places but that is usually due to poor hospital practices or understaffing and sometimes just a dodgy employee - happens in all industries why not medical? I don't think it refers to normal birthing procedures where it is all hands on to get a baby out if there is a problem.

Some doctors have no bedside manner and are less consultative in the birthing room than others, thank goodness for midwives/midhusbands who are usually more attentive. Most people in the throws of labour don't usually give a toss about political correctness but overt mishandling is usually understandably not appreciated.

I don't take a women as victim perspective approach and take each incident and individual on it's merits. There is quite a bit of men-as-victim thinking going around or are you oblivious to that in your critical assessments of us all.

Grim, you illustrate my point very well. The last few decades have seen traditional women's trades of nursing and teaching turned into pseudo-"professions", with an expectation that these "professionals" should be paid as well as people doing genuinely cerebral work.

Meanwhile, the traditionally male manufacturing trades have been left to languish, losing status and dropping pay relative to those others.

The real issue is that gender equality is a zero-sum game: there is sonly so much to go around and what is gained by one side must be at the expense of the other. For millennia this was not a problem, because the genders specialised for pragmatic reasons. Women bore and raised the children and worked the fields, cooked the meals, wove the cloth, while men did the dangerous and heavy stuff like hunting and war. Anything else would not have worked and selective breeding (women choosing mates who were big and strong and men choosing ones with good childbearing qualities) ensured that it worked as well as it could and also that we as a species are specially adapted to such a lifestyle. There have always been "deviants" from this norm, from flaming queers to Boadicea, shamans, witches - the list is long. Our species has accommodated those, well or poorly depending on how well off the particular society happened to be. Rich societies can afford more deviation(s) from the norm than subsistence ones.

We live in a very rich society indeed and the deviations from the norm we can afford are correspondingly large and many. We can even afford to pay people to have children and to raise them. We can afford to subsidise some sectors of the society not to work at all and we can afford to allow some members to soak up the resources of thousands for their own benefit.

Aren't we lucky?

Does anyone think this condition can continue indefinitely? If it can't, as I'm sure it can't, then what is to become of the expensive deviations from the human behavioural norm?

Severin:"Maybe she's just more capable?"

Who knows? The fact is that she WILL get more encouragement from the education system to continue to tertiary study than my son will. I hope she does more with her education than you managed. At least she doesn't regard a welfare-dependent lifestyle as something to be proud of.

Houellebecq:"If any of you differ in opinion to his argument, I think he'd be more than happy to accommodate you in a debate."

Yeah, like that'll ever happen... Intellectual cowards are still cowards.

Pelican:"There are more male uni students represented in Engineering, Science and Medical disciplines at university"

Are there? I suspect that for Law and Medicine there are more females, as well as for Acoounting/Economics and for business.

Engineering isn't attractive to women generally because a great deal of the work is in dirty and/or remote environments and there's very little time for niceties. Engineers aren't good at politesse, on the whole.

Science is a very broad area that is well-populated with women, especially the experimental sciences, where the dexterity of many women and their ability to focus on details is a positive advantage.

Women are also well-represented in the environmental and biological sciences. Maths and physics remain male-dominated, certainly.

Pelican:"occasionally it does not hurt to point out legitimate disparities"

You mean disparities that show women are being disadvantaged,don't you? You've already made clear that you don't like the idea of discussing this particular disparity, which doesn't.

What you want is a ratchet that only goes one way and that's the great failing of feminism as a philosophy.

Houellebecq, how dare you point out that some women actually want to stay home and raise kids! Pregnancy is merely a bar to greater female achievement.It's a burden to bear, not something that should be celebrated. It must be, we have to pay perople to do it, apparently...

Pelican:"There is quite a bit of men-as-victim"

What a lot of rot. What advantage does a man get by claiming victimhood? OTOH, the damsel in distress is a long-established meme, as is the white knight charging to the rescue.

Dear Antiseptic,

Interesting point...once we leave subsistence and traditional society behind, our way of operating as a society becomes skewed and the line delineating gender specialization becomes blurred - especially in a mechanised and service-based environment.
Western society as it organises itself in modern times serves perhaps as a aberration of the norm...wonder how long it will last?
It seems that the ongoing debate between the genders as to who does what and how much each should be paid is something that arises out of a need to constantly "reassess" the rapidly evolving nature of gender participation in the workplace.

pelican,

'Some doctors have no bedside manner and are less consultative in the birthing room than others'

But does that make them rapist pelican? A woman can feel violated from a vulnerable position, so she feels raped. But when she says she IS raped, well, there must be a rapist. So, therefore, the doctor is a rapist, not just a candidate for malpractice.

'It is normally called malpractice at the worse end of the spectrum.'

As it should be. But that just isn't enough now is it, we have to call the doctor a rapist.

"You mean disparities that show women are being disadvantaged,don't you? You've already made clear that you don't like the idea of discussing this particular disparity, which doesn't."

I think if you read over my posts objectively Antiseptic you will see that is not true but if you need to hang on to that belief for your own agenda there is not much I can do about it.

The damsel in distress syndrome (feminism) as you call it came about from legitimate historical experience and there are remnants of it still around - evolution takes time. At the moment I think policy makers are more humanist and even-handed in approach hence the changes to child custody arrangements. Instead of acknowledging the positive changes you are still hellbent on seeing the all-men-are-hard-done-by view of the world. It just isn't so.

Houlley
No I would not call it rape. Not sure who thought that one up, maybe something to do with lack of consent in penetration - I am certainly no legal expert.

pelican,

'There is quite a bit of men-as-victim thinking going around'

I think there is on OLO. But if you peruse the papers any day of the week, you would think only women can be victims.

'occasionally it does not hurt to point out legitimate disparities'

I just never read any new stories when men are disadvantaged. It's just not news worthy. I suspect also as antiseptic says, that people are only interested in finding areas where women are disadvantaged. If men were found to need more sleep or not getting as much sleep we just wouldn't hear about it. As antiseptic says, we never hear about child neglect from mothers. Do you ever wonder why?

Most of my beef with feminism is the constant barrage of anti-men, women=victim man=abuser propaganda that is everywhere.

That and the turning of things like lack of sleep into a gender/equity issue and demonising poor doctors who do their job badly, calling them rapists.

Also the assumption that women don't really choose to have a work-life balance, it's all due to 'societal expectations'.

Those comments I quoted are very close to the prevailing opinion of my partner and her friends.

'I never realised before I had kids how much I would want to be a full-time mother instead of combining a career with motherhood. I always assumed I would want to keep working as I loved my job.'

'I have found on many occasions when I sit down with another working mother that I don’t know, we end up discussing our lives (as mothers do), and that many of them will reluctantly admit they really don’t want to work but would rather stay at home with their kids. To the world they put on the public face that they love having a career and a family but that is so often far removed from the truth.'

Those comments ring very true. Enemies of the sisterhood all, and the prime reason for the gender pay gap that feminists constantly quote as evidence of discrimination.

Dear Houellebecq,

Speaking as a mother, those comments ring true to me also - but these are only my perceptions and they emanate from my life experience.
Staying home with the kids is something that seemed second nature to me - it's where I wanted to be.
I do, however, seem to have the ability to separate my own agenda from current societal pressures and expectations, which tends to afford me a little more autonomy of choice in my psychological outlook.

Houlley
Perhaps my views are too tainted by OLO. My experience match Poirot's. I wanted to stay home and be with my children. I also don't care if my husband earns more than me but he does not care if I earn more than him.

This is where feminism (or more rightly people) went a bit astray along the way and we end up with a funny paradigm if you think about it. There is much fanfare even in the papers when there is a woman appointed to a Board or CEO role. However, alternatively when a there is a good news story about men who choose to be stay-at-home parents there is also much fanfare. Or hailing the appointment the increase in male nurses or female electricians.

It probably has something to do with the addressing the balance where one gender has not gained 'access' or opportunities easily due to those social expectations/conditioning that you love.

One of the things I personally lament about the whole process is the fact that women who stay at home (still in the majority) tend to miss out on various fronts while the OSW concentrate too heavily on careers and not enough on the choice aspect of feminism. When I was a teenager in the 70s the choice aspect was the mantra.

The natural progression of that was to evolve into better working conditons that afforded men and women more choices but that was when we thought advances in technology would mean more leisure hours and sharing of work. The opposite occured to serve the purposes of "economic growth" and many more hours spent at the office in many cases.

Men and women do not have these choices unless they can afford it. The best thing to do is not to worry too much about societal expectations (as reflected in policy) and just get on with the job of living. The people that really count are your family and friends, not some airy fairy organisation whose policies might only reflect the flavour of the month. "Working families" is my favourite.

Sorry, CJ, but I don't entirely agree.
"That "Girls Can Do Anything" campaign has been around for yonks...”
I have always considered prejudice to be one of humanity's greatest evils; which is basically what this thread is about. Prejudice is always instantly recognisable by sweeping generalisations, such as:
"men are stronger than women"; -which men? How old are they?
"Women are better at..."
"Men are better at..."
"Women need more..." etc., etc.; including "Girls (or boys) can do anything".
Which brings me back to one of my favourite bugbears, the American Declaration of Independence, and the notion of being 'created equal'.
Why do so many people believe that being equal means we have to all be the same?
There has grown an underlying and enormous faith in education in recent years. Specifically, the idea that anyone can do anything, with the right training and education.
Bull.
If I practised guitar 10 hours a day, 7 days a week all my life, I still couldn't play like Ritchie Blackmore.
By the same token, in Health and Safety I'm certain the major cause of accidents is putting the wrong people in the wrong jobs.
Antiseptic, -as far as I am aware- has not suggested women -or men- are being paid more for the same job, or should be.
He has however, made some generalisations.
As I think Severin pointed out, the original article was quite prejudicial and inflammatory. But the results of some very focussed surveys were just as 'anti' older, married women as men.
What was the tax bracket of these 'higher paid' women? Why were they earning more? Were they paid more, or were they working longer hours?
I think more facts are required (and fewer generalisations) before I get my jocks in a twist.

Grim you are the voice of reason.

pelican,

'One of the things I personally lament about the whole process is the fact that women who stay at home (still in the majority) tend to miss out on various fronts while the OSW concentrate too heavily on careers and not enough on the choice aspect of feminism. When I was a teenager in the 70s the choice aspect was the mantra. '

If you want to talk about choice, I think women really have the upper hand there. Sure, they don't get to choose who has the baby, but after that, they have a lot more choices in their work-life balance than men.

From Suze's link...

'According to statistics from Rice Warner Actuaries and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Australian women earn an average of 17 per cent less than men, which sets them up for a lifetime of financial inequality worth up to $1 million.'

'a lifetime of financial inequality'? No! The majority of women will spend the *family* money just like their partners. And their partners will likely die earlier, negating the supposed super problem. This is not an inequality.

'The pay gap, alone, means many women can not accumulate as much wealth, have less choice about their lifestyles and have significantly lower superannuation, than men.'

Women, if given more choice, would earn even less than men.It's their choices about their lifestyles that is the reason for the 'inequality' in the first place.

As I have said, women may well break through the glass ceiling, but men will NEVER break into that glass nursery:-)

Houllie

Some of us have broken into that glass nursery.

I think that I remember you mentioning that you had kids. Have you ever discussed with your partner the possibility of you staying home. You certainly seem able to state your point.

We have discussed it benk before having kids, and I brought up I could work 4 days and her 3, or vice versa. She was not too keen. Originally I think although she reflexively assumed women should get first dibs on staying home, she accepted she was more career minded, liked her job more and after formalising her qualifications could earn the same as me.

Then when she had our first, she lost all interest in career.
She has worked hard on creating a little community of mothers, and she is finishing her degree, but things may be reassessed when she is finished her degree and the kids start school.

There are many factors at play, ins and outs as it were, one of them being her living in my home country with no family here. Relationships are a compromise.

Suffice to say we are both happy enough with our lot, though I do dream of working part time or 9-3 when the kids start school, and it just may happen as I may also need to re-skill about that time.

Pelican:"I think if you read over my posts objectively Antiseptic you will see that is not true "

I take the general point, but your first response when this topic was raised was to try to pretend it was somehow trivial and meaningless, when it clearly is not. It is a sign that the social engineering of the past 40 years has been very successful in streaming women into professions and men into trades/labouring jobs.

Any process takes time to start and time to stop. The real problem with this process is that there is no brake - the lever has been removed and is being hidden by a cloud of self-serving "feminist" indignation that billows forth whenever it is suggested that a brake might be a good idea. Furthemore,every time a brake is mentioned, there is a rush to stand on the throttle and calls for still more fuel to be made available.

Bloody women drivers...

Houellebecq, I take your point very well.
When my children came along, my wife and I very deliberately decided we would rather be poor with a close knit family, than financially well off. Typically, I had to take it to the next level and decry the established 'wisdom' which said the mum should stay with the kids while dad works. We bought a small farm so we could both be at home.
Of course, this resulted in abject poverty, and I found I had to work long days and long weeks to make ends meet.
I probably saw less of my children, and had less 'quality time' for them than if I'd had a normal job.
Almost all the mothers I have spoken to say the same thing. They would much rather stay home and raise their children, but just can't 'afford' to.
Of course, what one can and can't afford depends very much on one's material aspirations.
I discovered long ago it's very easy to get whatever you want out of life. Just don't want anything you can't have.
I seem to recall Bob Menzies got into trouble for saying 4% unemployment was 'a good thing'.
The socialists, of course, were up in arms; maybe for industry, but not for the 4%, they said.
Of course, at that time Menzies was talking about 4% unemployment for men.
Why are we still trapped in that paradigm? Why has living become less affordable than 30 or 50 years ago?
And why do all political parties insist on doing everything they can to get everyone working, at the inevitable expense of their home and family life?
I think we've lost the plot.

Well it is trivial and meaningless Anti. Note the title refers to Gen Y only. What about all the other sectors of human population. Where is your outrage at the injustices of those disparities. If someone started a thread about stoning women in the Middle East for misdemeanours you would be the first to find some excuse for it or put it down to "why is what we do in the West any better" blah blah.

Houlley I agree that women do generaly have first dibs on the stay at home aspect of raising kids especially at the beginning but that is more due to breastfeeding needs as well as desire. Men do have less choice in this but that is changing too and people will work out what works best for them as a family and I guess those are the sorts of questions people should be asking prior to having kids or making commitments.

Social enginnering has worked for men too, there is now paternity leave and more men in female-dominated professions like nursing etc.

Yes pelican, social engineering has worked very well for men for hundreds of years. Because of social engineering women have for centuries been denied access to an 'independent' living wage and equal job opportunities and various infrastructure opportunities. In other words, a woman was forced via social engineering, to be dependent on a man if she really wanted to live the good life. Wage equality, meaning equal pay for the exact same job done, was non existent prior to the early 70s when the laws were finally changed in Oz. It's almost unbelievable that such overt social engineering was in place right up to as recently as the 70s. I used to work for the Commonwealth Bank in the late 50s, and I remember that when a woman got married she had to resign from her job; no other words for it, "social engineering".

petej,

'I used to work for the Commonwealth Bank in the late 50s, and I remember that when a woman got married she had to resign from her job; no other words for it, "social engineering".'

Social engineering in line with what I have argued is the desires of a LOT of women. The reverse engineering of feminism has given the smaller proportion of less maternal and more independent women not interested in family more choice. It's just that this choice has come at a cost to the very many women who want to stay at home.

The proof is in the pudding. The social engineering has been removed by feminism, but women aren't any happier with having their kids in child care, and resent time away at work. Women brought up hearing how wonderful this wage slave gear was did enjoy it, until they changed their minds once an alternative arrived in little kids. This phenomena lends itself to the conclusion that the previous social engineering suited more women than the current one.

Of course the choice is there to downsize your life or save like hell to afford what was granted by the old social order. I'm not saying I'd rather go back, but I hate when people act as if women are payed less on average due to some discrimination. As I said, if more women had the choice to stay home because their husbands earned enough, there would be a BIGGER wage gape due to WOMENS choices.

Amazing. So according to Houelly women resent being at work and they'd much prefer to be financially dependent and the old ways suited women and they were happier then. I've heard of 'the brave new world', but this is the first time I've heard of 'the brave old world'. The old world where women knew their place was at home and in the bedroom, joyous that being barefoot, pregnant and dependent was the pathway to fulfillment and happiness. Houelly's 'brave old world'. LOL.

Pelican:"Note the title refers to Gen Y only."

Yes, I did. Gen Y is the upcoming generation. It represents the future. The figures show clearly that in urban areas, women in Gen Y are doing better than men. In rural areas the situation is less clear-cut, for all sorts of reasons, not least the obvious one that there are fewer professional positions available in the country, while there are more blue-collar jobs that pay relatively well, such as mining.

The baby boomer generation of women are starting to inherit their husbands' wealth, but that isn't counted in the income stats - it's one of those "invisible" transfers I mentioned earlier.

A few women in Gen X are the only ones screaming "what about me, it isn't fair" as they wake up to the fact that they don't have a husband to inherit from and they don't have a career because they chose to have babies before getting rid of hubby and settling down to an easy life of Government handouts, if they ever bothered to have a "hubby" at all.

All the untaxed handouts given to those women are also uncounted in the income figures.

No matter which way you slice it, women are better off than they have ever been and men are paying for it.

'So according to Houelly women resent being at work and they'd much prefer to be financially dependent '

In a word, no. But as the experiences of the blog I quoted, my circle of friends and that of a few female posters here, many women, given the choice, with young kids, would rather be the one at home and not their partner and would rather their kids not in child care. As I said, a lot of women.

And as I said, 'I'm not saying I'd rather go back'.

But you go on twisting my words for whatever your objective is. I make the point purely to demonstrate that if more women were financially able to have their first choice, their partners would earn more so they could stay at home with their kids. This choice would have men earn a lot more than women than they do now.

One more time for the dummy, I'm not saying women don't want the choice to work, but that their decisions show that the gender wage gap is not evidence of discrimination. In fact, reducing the gender wage gap actually limits the choices of women wanting to stay at home, and the existing gap is evidence of women taking advantage of the choices they have.

It will be interesting to see if the metrosexual male and the high earning Gen Y women from this study end up battling for who gets to stay at home. It will be very hard for these women to find a man earning more than them, and I'll bet we hear even more about the 'man drought' than we currently do. Then those that settle for someone earning less will find it very hard to justify why they should be the primary carer.

Perhaps we'll end up with a lot of resentful women like the OP of the article...

http://blogs.news.com.au/moneystuff/index.php/news/comments/my_husband_earns_less_than_me_and_i_hate_it/

Or even like this female poster...

"The man has to protect and provide for his family since you simply CANNOT expect a woman to be both the breadwinner and the caretaker while the man just settles into some subordinate and lesser role since clearly he would only be a caretaker of the woman’s children and not mother, nurturer and maintainer.

This isn’t about feminism.
This is about what we are biologically optimised to do.

If a man cannot afford to maintain, protect and provide for his family, has reservations or half-baked desire to do so, don’t have children."

Very true petej. An older friend of mine had a similar experience in the banking industry. She was a rare woman that had risen to the rank of senior teller but still earned less than the young male tellers under her charge.

This is just the way it was for various social reasons and historical perceptions of roles.

Anti
We will have to agree to disagree on the importance of the statistics about Gen Y. It does not IMO opinion reflect the future given that many of those Gen Y women will drop out to have and raise children. One statistic does not reflect the future particularly when in all other age groups women are earning less than their male counterparts.

I wish it was possible for more women/men to stay at home and raise children but thanks to growthist mentality and a rise in personal debt these choices are often not available to either men or women.

*So according to Houelly women resent being at work and they'd much prefer to be financially dependent*

Petej, I'm just old enough to remember the end of those times and
how things were. There were indeed plenty of women who made it
quite plain, that they were not getting married, to go out to work.
Husbands commonly handed over their paychecks to the wives, so
they still had money to spend.

In fact it was made quite plain to me, that the expectation was
that I would provide the resources to pay the bills, what my
wife earned for casual work, would be her private spending money.
That really pissed me off, as my dream was to be self employed and
that required capital.

What has changed is expectations. The average Australian house
is now twice the size that it was in the 70s. Its also twice as
flash. To pay for it, you need two salaries. So women are now
forced to work to pay for those expectations, unlike before

Pelican:"One statistic does not reflect the future particularly when in all other age groups women are earning less than their male counterparts. "

No, but when combined with the other data, such as educational attainment and type of work being done by each gender, it suggests a trend. Trends can often be extrapolated fairly usefully, at least into the short term. When Treasury does it we call it a Forecast.

Successful control of any mechanism requires a negative feedback capability. That can be as simple as a float valve in a toilet cistern which simply shuts down the flow when the cistern is full. without it, the toilet would overflow and no doubt someone would be unhappy.

I believe that the Time article shows us that the cistern is full and we need to stop filling it.

There are undoubtedly some groups of women and men who are disadvantaged, but young professional women are not one of those groups, so why do we need the state to support them with "affirmative action" policies and the like?

pelican,

'This is just the way it was for various social reasons and historical perceptions of roles. '

Yes. But such a generous appraisal is rarely heard. Men were paid more because it was expected they would have to raise a family on their wage. Married men would also be paid more than single men, and be less likely to be laid off.

But the feminist re-writers of history would have it that it was the misogynist men selfishly keeping all the money for themselves. It seems in this version of history, we never hear about the man getting the pocket money to spend from his wife out of his wage (as my father and all my friends fathers did) but instead we are asked to believe it was always the woman being dependent on the father's whims of whether she can spend any money.

My Mother used to tell me she would go out with my father and never spend a cent even though she earned much more than him at the time. One night she discovered pokies, and kept asking him for more money until she had lost it all. She remembered it never occurred to her back then that she could have used her money.

It was the way men AND WOMEN were socialised, but we only ever hear about the poor victim women kept out of jobs and paid less money. Never shall we hear the men getting handed out pocket money from their wives and paying EVERYTHING on dates.

petej's 'social engineering', like the feminist 'societal expectations', is always portrayed as a creation of, and a benefit to, men only. The reality is men and women benefited and lost out at times, and were both responsible for setting the roles.

Houelly, I did not twist your words. My post was accurate.

Here's some of the things you wrote in the thread:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"the whole topic is irrelevant"

"it's almost as if you chicks don't want equality because then you would have to lose the victim card"

"we never hear about child neglect from mothers"

"there are gender roles"

"this is about what we are biologically optomised to do"

"women if given more choice, would earn even less than men"

"It's women's choices about their lifestyles that is the reason for their inequality"

"I love generalisations and stereotypes"

"if feminists succeed then they'll even enforce a society where men are massively disadvantaged, do you think they'd stop there?"

"Social engineering in line with what I have argued is the desire of a LOT of women"

"this is the ridiculous state of feminism today"

"Women aren't any happier"

"Previous social engineering suited more women than the current one"

"they resent time away at work"

"I hate it when people act as if women are paid less on average"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I ask that everybody read ALL the quotes listed. The thrust of my post to Houelly was that he's an old fashioned man, living in the past, in fear of female equality; a man who loves to complain about "male" inequality, and happy to have women live in the past and be financially dependent.

The quotes show he has very old fashioned ideas about his beloved old fashioned gender roles.

That's ok, he's 100% entitled to any opinion whatsoever. But Houelly old chum, please don't falsely accuse me of twisting your words. Your words speak loud and clear, as shown.

petej,

It's fun to take words out of context isn't it.

"the whole topic is irrelevant"
Yes, based on the invisible transfer of wealth and womens choices regarding being primary carer.

"it's almost as if you chicks don't want equality because then you would have to lose the victim card"
In response to female posters being threatened by any discussions of any subsection of women being paid more than men.

"this is about what we are biologically optomised to do"
Not even my quote, and put up as an example of women who aren't happy with men being primary carers, something which I have stated more women should be happy to accept. Hardly old fashioned.

"women if given more choice, would earn even less than men"
True. As a result of being out of the work force being primary carer and having their partner earn enough for this to be possible. This would mean more men earning more and more women out of the workforce.

"this is the ridiculous state of feminism today"
Birth Rape? You think that's not an unnecessarily inflammatory description?

'in fear of female equality;'

Wrong. I am all for equality of choice which I think women have. I just think the remaining inequality in average wages is due to women preferring the primary carer role rather than being discriminated against.

'The quotes show he has very old fashioned ideas about his beloved old fashioned gender roles.'

What, like wanting more men to be the primary carer and being slightly resentful of women always getting first dibs? I'm actually arguing for the other side of gender roles to be broken down. I want equality for men in the nurseries that would enable the average pay gap to disappear, but lament women are stopping this from happening.

'a man who loves to complain about "male" inequality,
Where? Most of my objections to feminism is the victim positioning of women, where I see women making a choice. I make very little comment on men as victims at all.

Just one simple example of petej's handy work. He uses the quote...

"I hate it when people act as if women are paid less on average..."

the important missing words are '...due to discrimination'.

ie. I accept that on average women are paid less, but don't think it is due to discrimination.

My point proven.

Houelly quotes:

"if femimists succeed then they'll even enforce a society where men are massively disadvantaged, do you think they'd stop there?"

"social engineering in line with what "I" have argued is the desire of a lot of women"

"women aren't any happier"

"previous social engineering suited more women than the current one"

"we never hear about child neglect from mothers"

"they resent time at work"

"there are gender roles"

"I hate it when people "act" as if women are paid less on average"

"this is about what we are biologically optomised to do"

"it's women's choices about their lifestyles that is the reason for their inequality"

"I love generalisations and stereotypes"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Oh deary me!

Yeah nice wind up job. I don't think you have a point.

Just how have you proven

' he's an old fashioned man, living in the past, in fear of female equality; a man who loves to complain about "male" inequality, and happy to have women live in the past and be financially dependent.

The quotes show he has very old fashioned ideas about his beloved old fashioned gender roles.'

Is an expressed ideal for more men to be primary carer 'old fashioned' or 'living in the past'?

You missed one quote of mine in all that work you did to prove no point.

"I'm not saying I'd rather go back".

I gave you the courtesy of clarifying my position, which is totally at odds to your claims. I'm happy enough for my comments to stand, and for you to look so foolish as to meekly claim 'My point proven' in response to me blowing it out of the water and showing up your deceptive and inaccurate quoting.

2 Houelly quotes:

#1 "I accept that on average women are paid less"

#2 "I hate it when people act as if women are paid less on average"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

He's making it up as he goes along. LOL.

Get a life.

Already explained here...

Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 13 September 2010 4:25:17 PM

This is getting boring.

#2
The exact quote is 'I hate it when people act as if women are paid less on average due to discrimination'

The important missing words are '...due to discrimination'.

ie petej likes to take people out of context. And take the piss. Ha bloody ha.

Actually Houelly, I think you shouldn't be ashamed of your old fashioned views. By pointing out one or two modern concepts you believe in, you don't wipe away all the old fashioned views you have. But I think you shouldn't deny the old fashioned views, while at the same time writing about them again and again and again.

What I did was point them out using your own words, and I can think of no better way than showing a point about someone else than using their OWN WORDS.

Other people can read the quotes, and go back for context reference if they wish. They can draw their "own" conclusions.

I hate to tell you this, but your OWN words show a very old fashioned and genderised view. That's a fact, and almost certainly something you'll never admit to openly here. But you've been betrayed by your OWN words.

Anti
It is too early, on the basis of one example, to accept this statistic as the beginning of a trend. A trend relies on more data over a longer period of time than just a first occurrence.

Do you really think wages will ever be perfectly equal over a period of time over all age groups? There will be fluctuations and I reckon 17% is not a bad differential given that this will ebb and flow depending on other variables like when apprenticeships finish and those boys start earning more than their female counterpart retail workers.

We live in a world of lobby groups and causes, and should it later be identified as a trend you can be assured there will be a movement to correct it or to shed light on the inequality.

Houellebecq you got caught out, and won't admit it, so maybe it's just best for you to move on and ignore petej posts from now on.

Petej I think now that you've made your point, as is your right, you should drop it. I agree with what you say, but maybe it's best not to continue with it as the point is well made.

Context. Look it up.

BTW: Again you quote '"this is about what we are biologically optomised to do"'

Not even my words.

In fact, I was criticising that very quote.

Which shows you are not at all serious, seeing as how you have ignored this, and you have also deliberately taken words out of context that I have re-explained and shown back in their context.

'Other people can read the quotes, and go back for context reference if they wish.'

One can only hope.

'That's a fact'
No, its your opinion.

Pelican I think you're right. There will always be lobby groups who fight to correct specific injustices, and there will always be lobby groups who oppose them.

I love reading the 4 or 5 strong men's lobby here, keeping in mind most men don't share their views. The reason I love reading their stuff is they can't stand it when even a small demographic of women move even 1% ahead of men on some statistic. They then constantly whinge about how horrible things are for men and how men are being undermined by women, or more specifically 'feminism', which they obviously hate. They totally genderise the argument. Their posts can sometimes be very funny to read.

But as you know, gender equality is pretty much impossible, because of all the variables and the countless millions of people involved. At any given time, in any given area, one gender will score over 50% and the other gender will score under 50%. I think what one should aim for is relative 50/50 equality over a broad base. I think that's about as good as it'll ever get.

Houellebecq, while you may pick out one or two mistakes in petej's quoting of you, the fact remains he had a good point, and showed pretty accurately where you are coming from philosophically. If anyone doubts that, I'd advise them to read all of your posts on the topic here in total. It's obvious he's got it right.

You got caught out, you made your responses. You've both expressed your opinions.

Move on.

Your analysis is pretty much on the mark JohnnyRotten. I think it was Grim who wisely said something along the lines of just because we are all equal doesn't necessarily mean we will always be equal. I have misquoted but couldn't find the right thread to quote him exactly.

The best we can hope for is pretty much what we have now with some minor improvements along the way.

[Deleted for abuse.]

I think pelican just called me Johnny Rotten. I know I'm a bad boy, but I didn't know I was that bad. HA.

Antiseptic you wouldn't have the guts to say that to my face.

:"Antiseptic you wouldn't have the guts to say that to my face."

Hold on, I'll go get a pair of reggies I prepared earlier...

Here you go, lots to enjoy in those.

Now, where were we? Oh yes, "guts". You see, "Johnny" (can I call you Johnny, old girl, or do you prefer "Dimwit"?), there's something deeply amusing about someone pretending to be a tough guy on an internet forum.

"ypu're so vicious
you hit me with a flower"

My apologies Johnny30 - there is another poster "JohnnyRotten" whom I confused you with. I am sure you are not rotten - welcome. :)

Anti
"You seem determined to avoid considering any form of moderation in the level of discrimination in favour of thpose women who wish to take on professional roles. I'd be interested to hear your reasons. "

I am unsure of what you mean by this? If my interpretation of your assertion is correct, I have to disagree. There is no positive discrimination directed at women (as opposed to men) in regard to tertiary participation or being attracted to professional roles. We should be asking why are boys choosing not to enter into those professions? You are asking the wrong questions. Universities don't discriminate on gender as far as entry into courses go they go purely on results particularly since the corporatisation of education.

You have to consider the fact that most women don't aspire to trades roles for various reasons although participation of women in the trades has increased just as more men are choosing nursing. Boys are choosing trades, this is not a cause of concern as you make it out to be. In my experience, and I won't generalise, boys seem more interested in technical jobs than women. Maybe that will change as time goes on - I am not psychic. I know as a young girl I had no interest in trades or technical work and it was more than a result of conditioning.

Let me ask you (in the context of a mutual understanding that life is never fully 'equal') why you don't like the idea of women earning more than men, or in this case girls earning more than boys?

[Deleted for abuse.]

pelican, "It is too early, on the basis of one example, to accept this statistic as the beginning of a trend."

Nothing wrong with cohort analysis, it is a valid statistical method for examining any differences.

However (and it is a big however), while the young women are doing well earlier on and that might be down to a range of factors including for instance better presentation at interview and possible greater willingness to switch areas to get ahead (young men are more 'loyal'), things can change later on and males could outpace females. It can be expected for example, that women would be less inclined as a group to sacrifice relationships, family and child bearing to climb the greasy pole. Later the women might return to work but many want a different role, which is reasonable.

"Now, where were we? Oh yes, "guts". You see, "Johnny" (can I call you Johnny, old girl, or do you prefer "Dimwit"?), there's something deeply amusing about someone pretending to be a tough guy on an internet forum."
Yes there is, isn't there.
The question is about discrimination, about people get differing amounts of money for doing the SAME job, on some general basis; or that some people have better access to higher paying jobs on some general basis.
Benk I think first introduced the thorny question of how do we decide which job should pay more; I suggested it could start at least on the level of 'sacrifice'; apprentices have lousy pay for three or four years in the hope of better pay at the end; surgeons spend longer at school than teachers, etc.
Truckies can get a license inside 1 week, and often make more money than tradies.
Antiseptic has made the claim that university access is being deliberately made easier for females. If this is true, then it is a clear case of discrimination -but we need to see the evidence.
That fact that more women are currently going to Uni is not in itself evidence of discrimination.
Many of our best and brightest are currently going into 'Business Studies' instead of the sciences, simply because that's where the money is.
A skilled labour shortage should -through market forces- push up the wage levels of tradies. Instead, we just import more from overseas, the wages remain low, and no one wants to do an apprenticeship which won't make them any more money.

Johnny30

All that us blokes have ever said is that the pay gap issue is more complex than some people will often acknowledge. OLO is a forum where issues are examined in all of their complexity. If you want to think what most men think, I suggest that you spend you time watching ACA and Today Tonight instead.

Grim

Thank-you for keeping it productive.

I don't believe that, in general, the trades are under-paid, relative to professions. However, a few other blue collar occupations are under-paid.

Regarding university, there is social pressure on boys to do blue collar jobs, because they are seen as tough. This pressure comes from both genders and boys need to know that conforming to it will (and should) come at a financial price.
Secondly, education providers at all levels are making more use of types of assessment that suit girls. This hasn't been a deliberate effort to help them and isn't any less fair than using assessment that suits boys, but it has happened. Boys like short answer questions and multiple choice questions (in general). Girls like assignments, because they can collaborate more with friends (in general).

Cornflower you have expressed exactly my thoughts and the characteristics of workforce participation are not static.

The generalisations about loyalty are not based on facts. It is too easy for gender discussions to degenerate into huge sweeping statements about work behaviours. Women may not appear loyal when the leave work to raise a family but I hardly think that is a bad thing.