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.