[Deleted. Responds to the previous.]

[Continuation of above remarks.]

Pelican:"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."

Do they really, or are we comparing apples and oranges again? For example, does Gail Kelly, the Westpac CEO, get paid less than her predecessor or than other CEOs of comparable organisations? Could it be that women CEOs are often in charge of relatively small private (often family) firms and don't get the same pay as CEOs of large corporations? Australian CEOs in general get paid less than US or European ones. Should the UN step in and regulate CEO pay scales worldwide?

The fact is that if women were cheaper at the same job there would be more women employed than men. The reason women have been historically discounted, as you well know, is simple - pregnancy. As an employer, given the choice of two equivalent candidates - a man in his 20s or a woman ditto - I can assure you that the likelihood of her staying in the job long enough to justify me training her will be a factor and it probably won't lead to her getting the job. Yes, he might do the dirty, but she IS going to want children and she WILL take the time to do it. These are not guesses or generalisations they are hard realities.

Moreover, introducing a PPLS doesn't address them, it simply pretends that the job the woman was doing isn't actually vital, so that it can be held open for weeks with no penalty to the organisation. Hardly an endorsement of the role of women, don't you think?

If women require subsidy to compete then they are not equally capable of competition. It's akin to suggesting that the Olympic 100m should be a handicap event.