Pelican <" You have been down this 'stirring' path before Truth (not)."

Indeed.

Obviously there are not enough gender wars being waged on the other threads, so one of the 'good old boys club' decided to start one of his own.

When we have wage parity consisting of equal pay for equal work, we will have a fair society. Until then, more female wage earners than male remain behind the eight ball.

Enough said.
Now, take it away boys...

WTF?

I must have missed something over the last 20 years. In the many years that I worked in government departments there was no difference in the salaries of males and females working at the same classification level.

I spent many years working through the (then) industrial awards for hundreds of occupations. At no time did I see differences in the wage scales for males and female doing exactly the same job description.

I cannot speak for those who negotiate professional pay scales in private industry.

I must agree with Pelican: Who gives a toss. Men and women have access to almost any occupation - it comes down to personal ambition, hard work and endeavour.

WTF said....

"I must agree with Pelican: Who gives a toss. Men and women have access to almost any occupation"....

We don't give a toss either:) Why don't you ask TRUTHNOW78 what all the excitement and fuss is about and we'll both know:)

BLUE

Pelican:"Does it really matter if girls/women earn more than boys/men at some point? "

Yes, if they're doing the same work. Yes, if the wage is artificially inflated to "attract women to the organisation". Yes if it's because there are simply not enough university-educated men to compete for the professional-level jobs.

It seems to me that all of those things apply and are to some extent related. Here in Oz, thanks to the Feminist takeover of the Public Service and white-collar unions we never hear about what the genuine state of wage parity is, we always get a composite statistic that "grosses up" all the wages income earned by women and divides it by the total number of women to produce a fanciful "statistic" that doesn't tell us anything other than the fact women often take time off to have babies.

We're supposed to believe that this means all women are earning less than all men and "something must be done", usually involving some kind of handout.

As a small businessman I've simply implemented a policy of not employing young women, because they're just too expensive to have around. I can't afford to carry them while they fulfil their biological drive to reproduce and I can't afford to have staff that take a day or two off each month for a predictable event whose effects are amenable to simple control.

Eventually, when the mning boom money runs out an, as it will do very rapidly indeed with Arbib et al in chage, and when cheap petrochemical energy is a thing of the past, the country won't be able to afford to subsidise basic biology and there will be another period of social upheaval while people relearn how to be human males and human females, rather than the artificial creations of a failed ideology born of a time of plenty. That will be a battle for my children to fight, I suspect. I doubt it will be very long - a lack of resources tends to concentrate the mind much more effectively that a glut of them.

Anti, you can use that first argument to ask why men are paid more than women who do the same work. Statistics show male CEOs get paid much more than women by some millions of dollars.

Please name one profession/job where women are earning more than men for doing the same work. The only one I can think of is prostitution or pornography work, but that has always been the case and has more to do with demand and market share just as female sports players earn on average less than men for the same reason.

Men and women will never earn exactly equal wages (overall) at any point, just as tall and short people, thin and fat, blonde and brunette will never earn exactly equal wages-it will swing.

It just isn't humanly possible but the higher wages have traditionally been for men, in the past because they were the provider, and now because they generally don't take time out for raising kids.

Most senior roles in the APS are held by men, there is no differentiation as public servants are paid according to the same scale.

I for one am getting sick of the 'woe is me' gender debate on both sides.

There is almost nothing a man or a woman cannot do these days through their own efforts - almost every job is accessible if you have the capability, skills, intelligence, persistence or talent and yes sometimes there is a bit of luck.

We are all human and it is natural to see things from a personal perspective (gender-wise) but most of us surely possess some empathy for the human condition - that is men and women and we should be going down that 'human' path rather than focussing purely on gender as though that is the only way we are defined.

[Deleted flame.]