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.