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the Time article refers to median incomes, the ABS uses mean incomes and the data is 4 years out of date compared to the Time study.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