EDUCATION
Female Scholar: Gender Pay Gap ‘So Deeply Misleading’ It’s Almost an ‘Outright Falsehood’
Sep22,2014

American Enterprise Institute scholar Cristina Hoff Sommers claims there’s not much to know. She says women already earn equal pay for equal work when you look at the data the right way.

Sommers has long criticized elements of feminist thinking, and in a new Prager University video, she characterized the gender pay gap as a fallacy that gets undue attention.

“It is so deeply misleading as to border on outright falsehood,” she said of the claim that women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man makes doing the same work.

The 77 cent figure does not account for differences in occupations — when a woman chooses to be a pediatrician, for instance, instead of a higher-paid heart cardiologist — or the fact that, according to Sommers, full-time working women tend to put in fewer hours than men.

When you control for a host of important variables, Sommers contends, “most workplace pay gaps narrow to the point of vanishing.”

Sommers claims that women internalize a misguided feminist ideology at modern American universities, and that young women should acknowledge their historic levels of freedom and demand more rigorous thinking from feminism.

“Women who are plagued by workplace injustice or sexual violence will be best helped by truth and solid research — not by hysteria and hype,” she says, before advising that young women, ”Appreciate and make good use of the unprecedented freedom that you have.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/22/female-scholar-gender-pay-gap-so-deeply-misleading-its-almost-an-outright-falsehood/

Interesting video under 6 mins, see link.

Meanwhile, here in Australia, we rely on official Australian Government statistics to find out the truth about gender pay gaps. And remember....Governments don't lie.

https://www.wgea.gov.au/.../2014-03-04-Gender_Pay_Gap_factsheet

"Among full-time employees:

18.0  The average weekly total cash earnings for those who had their pay set by individual agreement were substantially higher for men than women, resulting in a gender pay gap of 20.6%. 
The average weekly total cash earnings for those who had their pay set by collective agreement were also higher for men than women. 
The difference in full-time earnings was much smaller for those whose pay was set by award only, where women earned slightly more than men (Table 6).
This indicates that there is a more equal distribution of pay between women and men when pay is set by federal or state industrial authorities, than when it is set by agreements made collectively between employees and their employer or by individual agreement with the employer."

suse,
Once again, I'll type slowly, men and women choose different occupations and where women choose to work alongside men they receive equal pay and conditions, a female truck driver on a mine site earns the same pay as a male.
The jobs that many women, even graduates choose are not well paid but they are heavily unionised, the public service, teaching, health care, media, retail etc.
If you weren't so prejudiced and you'd watched the videos from the other thread you'd understand why this seeming "gap" exists in Liberal Western societies and is slightly less apparent in the Third World.
Our society provides limitless opportunities for personal growth and it's as near to freedom as it's possible to be, as society has become more liberal over the last 40 years men and women have tended to revert to their innate, gendered behaviour patterns. Basically most women seek to be part of a large group of other women and work better in that situation. The most efficient unit for organising males is two to five man teams, men also tend to want to be left alone in complex,stressful situations whereas women feel better if there's someone at their side.
This is why a platoon of soldiers is made up of five man fire teams and why there are midfielders, attackers and defenders on men's sports teams.
Men and women are more different than they are the same and the physical differences don't stop at the neck, the two sexes want different things out of life because taken as groups they think and behave very differently.

No....JoM, you need to read the above statistics slowly.

It says that unless women work for a Government organisation, they DO earn less than their male counterparts for the SAME job, and the SAME hours.

How is that equal, regardless of any differences in the genders?

Surely that tells you everything about pay rates Suse.

In government award situations, affirmative action has promoted many women way beyond their capacity, & pays them the same way.

In private enterprise women are offered the jobs they can handle successfully, & paid the value for those jobs.

I have employed quite a few women who were capable of handling positions considerably above where they were, but for family reasons, preferred to stay where they were. I have also had a couple who stepped back from senior positions, which required occasionally working late, as they valued family commitments higher than the pay cheque.

One of the main problem with government health & education system is too many women promoted to their 4Th or 5th level of incompetence to try to apply affirmative action, where most men stop being promoted after reaching their first or second level of incompetence.

Suse,
So my point is proven, unless there's formal equality in the terms of the contract and a structured hierarchy men and women tend to behave like men and women, when they're free to choose they take up occupations which suit them rather than the most lucrative or prestigious.
There's also the the question whether it's right to pay men and women equally in the first place, women are slower, weaker and less intelligent than men on average, why should they be paid the same?

".... women are slower, weaker and less intelligent than men on average, why should they be paid the same?"

hahaha!

Which always brings me back to a documentary I once watched - where, in an African village, the women got sick of the males not pulling their weight, so they trundled off with the kids and constructed their own village. It was a thriving community, full of life and industry.

The documentary visited the men left at the old village - and they were totally stultified...nothing was happening because the life blood of the community was missing. They were sitting around doing diddly-squat. The village was "dead"

I imagine the women returned in the long run - or the blokes would have physically come after them - however, it was a good indication of where men would be without women's impetus.

(Although, I wonder how they managed to construct a village and set it thriving being "slower, weaker and less intelligent than men"....mystery that one:)

Oh wouldn't it be bliss.

Peace & quiet, without the continual squabbling of ruckus women & children. The women could visit occasional nights to have their biological needs attended to, & they could bring the kids on Sunday afternoons for a game of cricket.

Even better, no god damn Muppets on TV.

Yes indeed, sounds good to me too Poirot!

JoM, even when presented with the truth, you still don't believe it, so there is really no point talking to you at all...

I have hired many contractors for excavation and building jobs over the years. All trades regularly have to seek workers from overseas. Why are there no women? The pay is good and the builders are happy to employ women The builders just want workers who are willing to be trained and will show up for work on time.

OK, so what about the engineers and other white collar professions associated with building where hands do not get dirty? No, once again it is men all the way. IT is the same with educational institutions obviously wasting taxpayers' dollars on women gender experts, women counsellors and a leg-up for any women who come forward, but very low interest shown.

Centrelink is emphatic that its affirmative action policies do encourage women into 'traditional' men's jobs, but there is zilch interest.

There can be no question that in those building trades and the broad range of services that support them, for instance diesel fitters, that skills and actual performance are all that count for take home pay.

It is inescapable that women and men make different choices. That does affect earning capacity. Apart from that, why is it objectionable to feminists that women might make their own choices of work and how much of themselves they want to put into work?

Feminists are the uninformed bigots where they refuse to accept the rather obvious truth that many, many women do not value the career and materialism as they the feminists do. You would think that if feminists wanted the best for women they would be celebrating the obvious fact that most women do not see work and career as the be all and and all in life.

The big problem is that government is relentlessly moving out of supporting the aged and women have high numbers there. Feminists don't see that as 'problematical' (another favourite term of the dinosaur feminists), but then as privileged educated middle class women ensconced in government and academic jobs where the super is beaut, why would they?

Suze, you can't make a comparison by dollars earned, as it's all about the rate of pay that matters, otherwise you're fudging the figures.

The other thing is, why is it that while doing the same job, say bar tending, a male is allowed to lift more weight than a female, yet the female wants the same rate of pay. Sorry, life doesn't work that way. Same pay means same task, exactly the same task.

In sport, women earn considerably less than men simply because they draw lower crowds, with the exception of tennis perhaps.

Movie stars are the same as I would suggest Angelina earns far more than a lessor known male star.

Same job same pay means for the same pay, a woman must do the same job.

Of cause there is also that ridiculous maternity leave, in fact, I openly admit that I would be reluctant to employ a woman now, especially if they demanded the same pay and I risk loosing them, having to hold their job, only to have them change their mind.
You try employing someone, and saying you might have a job for three months, six months, or indefinitely. It's called a reaction to an action.

I know that's sexist, but bills are not sex sensitive when running a business. They still need to be paid and employers have to get the best bang for their buck.

So Rehctub, you are saying the official statistics are wrong and you are right?
Lol!

My niece was a barmaid and she did everything the barmen did and more.
Her boss often stated he wanted to clone her as she was his hardest worker.

No one is saying most men aren't physically stronger than most women, and are only wanting equal pay for equal work, which is obviously not happening in the private sector.
I would have thought that most men would want equal pay deals for their wives and daughters, as for their sons?
Obviously they don't want this for the dreaded 'feminists' .

By suggesting that men do the dirtiest, heaviest work, and therefore 'deserve' more pay because they can handle dirt and heavy weights, I wonder where they are in our aged care industry?
Predominantly female Aged care workers have a very dirty, heavy job, and they get paid a pittance.
At least the 'tough' boys who dominate the mining or roadwork sectors get paid well for this work.
I would suggest that most employers in these areas would not want to hire women anyway....

The crack about intelligence was just to get under the Feminist's skin and make them post something silly, there are slight differences in mean intelligence between the genders but stark differences in distribution across the bell curve.
Most women are of average intelligence but both the genius and moron ends of the curve are dominated by men.
This explains why so many of the leaders and innovators in society are men and also why men make up the bulk of the prison population and the homeless.
So we all understand now that freedom and equality cannot coexist in the real world? Where equality is mandated by government or unions (which are a form of government) then men and women can have equal conditions, even though as others have pointed out men are still expected to do the bulk of the work.
Where formal equality is absent or not enforced men and women tend to take up roles and occupations which suit their lifestyle and their temperament.
Furthermore it's blatantly obvious that formal equality never results in substantive equality in the real world, this is simply because nature doesn't do equal.

JoM "Most women are of average intelligence but both the genius and moron ends of the curve are dominated by men.This explains why so many of the leaders and innovators in society are men and also why men make up the bulk of the prison population and the homeless."

Lol!
Where did you find the little gem about most women being of average intelligence?
Was it from neanderthalsrule.com?

I agree with the moron label for some men, but there are plenty of bright females around, although I doubt any would be in your near vicinity.

Men make up most of the prison population because they are generally more violent, but not all men are violent of course.
Maybe if they used their brains more often, like women do, they wouldn't be in jail in such big numbers :)

Suseonline, "At least the 'tough' boys who dominate the mining or roadwork sectors get paid well for this work.
I would suggest that most employers in these areas would not want to hire women anyway"

You could not be more wrong. In Queensland a mine went to the extent of challenging the Anti-Discrimination Act (legislation you would doubtless support out of feminist ignorance) to allow it to recruit and train women heavy equipment operators.

Matter of fact your global assumptions about the private sector discriminating against women are wrong and offensive too. You haven't had any exposure to the private sector, have you?

Why do you imagine that any business would not pay its well performing staff to motivate and retain them? Pay differences invariably result from differences in the skills, performance and responsibilities. The job descriptions might be generic, but the capacity and willingness of the occupants to perform, or is more often the difference, lay more of one's personal life on the line, vary according to the individual.

What has got me perplexed though is why any feminist - if she had the interests of other women at heart and respected their choices - would not be supporting women who generally CHOOSE not to sacrifice personal life for extra dollars. Maybe women want to life worth living. Surveys of women support that conclusion.

What about you entertain the very simple and obvious fact that most women go through a number of transitions in life and that is most often by choice? Few women for example who return to work after raising their family want to climb the greasy pole. To be blunt, they would choose job sharing and preferably where the responsibilities do not require any commitments outside the set work hours.

This is all known by the educated middle class women who are feminism, but it plainly does not suit their own agenda.

OTB, you couldn't be more wrong, I have worked in the private sector for the past 12 years. How about you?

Are you suggesting that the official statistics given by the government are wrong?
Why would they do that?
Do you have the correct statistics then on Australian gender specific pay rates then?

I am not going on opinions here, I am looking at facts.
You don't seem to deal in facts...

Here are a couple of examples, one secondhand, the other from my own experience, both from the 1980s. Things have improved since then, but the mindset continues.

1. All male recruiting committee discussing creation of a new technical job at a particular pay grade (requiring degree, experience). The discussion assumes male: what tasks 'he' will do etc. One of committee (my source) comments: 'there are a lot of women with this expertise, maybe we shouldn't just be assuming the applicants will be male'. 'Of course' says committee chair, 'well, if we're going to consider a women, we should create the job at a lower grade'. Which is what they did...

My source said 'I really tried to convince them to create the job at the higher grade regardless of whether a man or woman was appointed - after all we were likely to get female applicants with higher expertise (because they were prepared to take a tech support job while raising a family). Which is what happened..

Example 2.

In the 1980s I worked for a scientifically based government department. There were two scientific support units, with comparable legal responsibilities and expertise requirements, just handling different topics. When the second unit had been established, the first appointee (and head) was female and she was placed on a lower grade than the equivalent position (ie the male head) in the other unit. As she recruited staff, they were placed on lower grades again - they had to be lower than the female head, but as a result their positions were also graded lower than their equivalents in the unit with the male head. (This affected both male and female staff).

When I was recruited to the second unit (with the female head) I was therefore on a grade substantially lower than my counterpart in the first unit. The irony was that my degrees were in the area of the first unit, and were higher than those of any of the staff in that unit at the time. That was not relevant - the grade and pay differences were set in stone, although I think that has since been redressed with reviews of the grading system. (I didn't stay long).

This is an example of how historic inequities get entrenched and have unintended consequences (ie affecting males as well as females, and having no basis in differential intelligence, strength etc.), resulting in compounding injustice - absolutely less pay over time, but also less superannuation etc.

Suseonline,

I am surprised you work in the private sector. Also, that if you do, you are not expecting and negotiating for pay and conditions commensurate with your abilities and performance and not the average that puts the good and the slack in the same bag together. Honestly, why strive for superior performance in that situation? I would leave in a heartbeat and let others carry the dead weights of 'average', 'sticking to the (minimum) job description' and 'not so interested' employees.

The whole idea is to get the pay and conditions you are due, which must mean different take home pay and entitlements. Some if us like stretch targets and we are self starters who look for extra responsibility.

Numbers as in statistics are never an answer and they are not intended to be, just the possible basis for more questions. You need to be careful to inform yourself of any stated limitations on interpretation of results.

The figure quote refers to 'average'. I have spent the odd bit of time explaining to you why differences can occur: that two men working under the same generic job description can be paid differently, according to what the bring to the job, which includes commitment to go the extra distance, which often implies unpaid overtime.

There is also a very good link provided earlier and you might try to understand what is described these because it does apply here too most would imagine.

Frankly I am not surprised by self-serving media releases put out by any government agency. What I would like to believe however that there are those in the scientific community who would take them to task for apparent findings that really deserve a lot of conditions being applied and a lot more interpretation.

To be blunt, the averages are 'interesting', which means (to researchers) ensure you set them aside as probably wrong and misleading when examining the results.

Numbers may not be wrong, but shallow analysis usually is.

Suseonline please go to http://www.pistonheads.com & check out a thread, Classic from the mrs! It should give you some idea of the lack of practical knowledge displayed by many of your gender who are considered educated.

Not only is it hilariously funny, it is an education in it's own right.

Incidentally, foxy, I'm sure you would enjoy it.

It is an English site, & it just may indicate our education system is not quite as bad as we often think.

Suse,
I know you don't read articles or watch videos that you think you might disagree with so here's a picture to look at, it's easy to comprehend if you understand scientific terms such as "frequency" and "mean:
http://goo.gl/PGwBIQ

I love the internet, I go and make a cuppa and a new video appears on my Google+ and surprise! It's relevant to this discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o0euhM6bjg#t=404

OTB, I never said that I personally made less money than my male counterparts.
Nurses have a good Union, and as a general rule, we get paid roughly the same wherever we work in Australia.

Government Hospitals and community organisations actually pay a little better than Private ones, but you get better salary packaging benefits in the latter.

However, I am very aware that women in other industries are not so well off.

I agree that official statistics, with general or average numbers, are often given in many studies, including those for studies on murder, child neglect, single mothers, and domestic violence etc.

At the end of the day though, they show more truth than the biased opinions of the everyday person who may have other agendas on their minds.

Having watched that video in which the male speaker criticised Emma Watson for asking men to help, I'll just refer back to my earlier post about the all male committee deciding to grade a position at a lower pay level when they realised they would most likely get women applicants (who were likely to be more highly qualified than male applicants).

This was not a situation where women could take action - there were no women on the selection committee. A male did attempt, though unsuccessfully, to speak up for the potential women applicants. It might have worked if other men had joined him. There are still situations like this where women alone cannot change things - eg. how can women get elected to all male boards if the men are not prepared to facilitate this?

Exactly Cossomby.
Nothing will change re women on boards or in leadership positions in companies or Governments etc, until men also work towards equal opportunity for the genders.

I will say again, surely these men,who are refusing to vote for even giving women a go at all, have wives and daughters who they would like to be as successful as them?
Surely not all of them are frightened of women in power?

Cossomby, Suse,
I found being a bigot 24/7 to be a poor way to live.
You're doing exactly what Mr Molyneux described, he asked us to imagine trying to give a talk on the needs of Native Americans based on the fact that he'd known an Indian who was an alchoholic, the audience would walk out.
He also pointed out that if women really want men to change they hold all of the power to bring about such transformations.
In our society women as a group are almost solely responsible for raising and educating boys, if adult men aren't "behaving" according to feminists then whose responsibility is that?
See that's what Feminism is really all about, maintaining the subordination of society to the needs and wants of women, if women wanted change they could effect it in a generation by changing the way they raise boys.

.....I would suggest that most employers in these areas would not want to hire women anyway....

You've got that right Suze, because the crap a boss has to go through to accommodate women in their team, in remote work sites is the main reason why they don't get jobs at the same rate as men, although it's also fair to suggest many so called men are no longer men as they need all their nice little luxuries to perform their work.

But, as I say you can not compare weekly wages as you have to compare hourly rates of pay if you want to gain a true figure. Any thing else is simply fudging the figures to suit.

Suseonline, "Nothing will change re women on boards or in leadership positions in companies or Governments etc, until men also work towards equal opportunity for the genders"

Why is it important to have women on every board but not as sewer plungers? That just proves that the educated middle class women who are feminism are solely concerned with advancing their own interests.

Here is the result where such a woman who rode the feminist bandwagon was catapulted in as CEO of ABC Learning and was implicated in the catastrophic failure o that company,

"Lesson 2: Good companies need good experienced directors and [feminist bandwagon riding] ex-politicians aren't necessarily the answer.

Long time chairman, former Brisbane lord mayor, Sally Anne Atkinson, said her qualifications for the job included having lots of grandchildren. I'm sure you learn a lot about multi-billion dollar businesses when you're up to your elbows in nappies and playdoh!

According to Sally her role as chairman involved half a day a week at the ABC Learning offices, visiting ABC child care centres unannounced and making some phone calls.

Other company chairmen must be wondering why they're so slow at their job!

Sally also had a poor memory. I lost count of the number of times she said, 'privilege, I can't recall' when asked questions about key events in ABC's Learning's demise. Alan Bond would have been proud!"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-22/when-founders-flounder-lessons-from-mr-and-mrs/407744

Jay: "I found being a bigot 24/7 to be a poor way to live".

That's good to hear. So you're going to change the posts you write? (Sorry, couldn't resist!)

Seriously though...

Re "In our society women as a group are almost solely responsible for raising and educating boys". I assume you mean mothers are the predominant carers (or women at child care) of kids 0-5yrs and women are the predominant primary school teachers. But the influence of the world - predominantly men - outweighs this. Because children learn very early where the real power lies - with men, and boys emulate men regardless of what women try to do.

I tried to ban toy guns at home - so my son picked up gun-shaped objects (eg a L-shaped piece of wood) and went bang-bang. On the other hand my son is an excellent cook, not because of his mother, but because his father and grandfathers were excellent cooks, and he helped them in the kitchen from infancy. He grew up in a family where cooking wasn't a male or a female role - cooking was something everyone did.

That's what I want from feminism - for each person to have the opportunity to learn and enjoy human activities without labels.

Feminism is NOT about maintaining the subordination of society to the needs and wants of women. It's about moving from a society subordinated to the needs and wants of men, to one of balance - subordinated to the needs and wants of people - fair play for all.

cossomby,
So you concede that you have an inverted view of reality and still hold to concepts of "power" which were overturned in the 17th century?
Nobody has "power" in 2014, at least not in the way Oliver Cromwell and Charles I understood it.
With regard to gender roles they work in perfect harmony when coupled with the concept of virtue, virtuous men and virtuous women are by definition equals.
A man should look for the same qualities in a woman as he does in men, hence virtue which is the expression of essential masculine qualities such as honesty, bravery, loyalty, prudence, sympathy, mercy, humility etc.
The problem for Feminists, male and female is that through their actions and the spokespeople they endorse they've come to embody the exact opposite of virtue, you're seen as dishonest, disloyal,slothful and arrogant, all the traits virtuous men and women despise.

Cossomby, "It's about moving from a society subordinated to the needs and wants of men"

first, which 'men' might they be? Because many men would vehemently disagree with you;

and

secondly, there are women who have been doing jolly well for themselves out of that society you describe too. But again, not all women.

Please explain. Because it seems that the educated middle class feminists might be little different themselves and probably represent many of the advantaged who have always done well. Except from feminism they won the 'Entitled Victim' badge (yeah, right!) to ease their paths, get some extra benefits and feather their nests.

OTB, no one has said women can't be sewer plungers as far as I know, but it is almost impossible for them to get a look in at any leadership jobs in the business sector.

I think we can safely assume there have been some dreadful male leaders in the past, as well as now, so mentioning the few female names you know that have not been successful in leadership roles is of no consequence.

Maybe if more women were given the chance, there could be more successes for them?

Dear oh dear Jay, what. Boring F^%# life you must lead. Yes dear, are you sure dear, ok dear. Areyou ok if I lead today dear.

Men are men and women are women, it's only when we have men who wish to be feminine and wonem who wish to be masculine that problems occur. Why can't people just accept that we are different, with different skill levels in different roles.

As; for pay rates, if a msn or woman does the same job, the same hours, the same potential time away from work.....AR, now there's the problem, because men don't have monthlies and they don't pose a risk of becoming pregnant do they.

Men are from Mars and women are from Venus. Works for me.

There is no such thing as a wage gender gap. Those who persist with this myth are just poor at maths and fail to understand that the AVERAGE wage for a male and a female can be different without there being any difference between what males and females get paid when they perform exactly the same work.

Here is the best article I have seen on this wage gender gap myth.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/why-men-are-paid-more/story-e6frf7jo-1111112364659

Suseonline,

This is over old ground again.

You are welcome to start your own company where affirmative action determines the selections from the CEO down. Go for it!

Ozzie, one thing you will find on this site is that many refuse to let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Nice article, now let's sit back and watch the gender junkies shoot it to pieces.

<Men make up most of the prison population because they are generally more violent, but
<not all men are violent of course.
<Maybe if they used their brains more often, like women do, they wouldn't be in jail in such
<big numbers :)
Posted by Suseonline, Monday, 29 September 2014 3:59:36 PM

Sarcasm?

http://www.corrections.vic.gov.au/utility/publications+manuals+and+statistics/acquired+brain+injury+in+the+victorian+prison+system

Males with acquired brain injury in the prison population could be as high as 65%.

Also our prisons have become de facto mental health institutions.

<Are you suggesting that the official statistics given by the government are wrong?

<I am not going on opinions here, I am looking at facts.

Posted by Suseonline, Monday, 29 September 2014 5:15:30 PM

Statistical data is very easily manipulated. One technique is to use different methods of calculation.

Because Susie is a nurse, she earns less than males who are nurses.http://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/blog/2014/04/why-do-male-nurses-get-paid-more

Yet all things considered female/male nurses are paid the same hourly rate, when they are of equal years of experience and qualifications.

Pretty much sums it up Wally

Feminists protested that on the professional tennis circuit, males had a higher prize money, so now males and females have the same amount of prize money.

Equal?

Women have to play a minimum of 3 sets, men have to play a minimum of 5 sets, two more sets than the women.

Our society provides limitless opportunities for personal growth and it's as near to freedom as it's possible to be, as society has become more liberal over the last 40 years men and women have tended to revert to their innate, gendered behaviour patterns. Basically most women seek to be part of a large group of other women and work better in that situation. The most efficient unit for organising males is two to five man teams, men also tend to want to be left alone in complex,stressful situations whereas women feel better if there's someone at their side.

WollyB, I think you will find I have already said that nurses get paid the same, as they are on award wages.

I think you would be happier with no pesky females around at all to annoy you?
They just seem to ask too much of society don't they?
Fancy asking for equal opportunities.
They should know better and they should know their place.

Anyone fancy living in the 1950's again?

"Women have to play a minimum of 3 sets, men have to play a minimum of 5 sets, two more sets than the women"

That only applies to Grand Slams...four tournaments a year.

The vast majority of tournaments played on the world tennis circuit are three set matches whether you're male or female.

Yes Poirot, It often amuses me that women accept that they receive assistance in the likes of golf and tennis, obviously because they feel they can't compete with men, yet on the other hand expect equal pay. How does that work?

Just getting back to this thread after a busy few days:

rechab: "Men are men and women are women, it's only when we have men who wish to be feminine and wonem who wish to be masculine that problems occur. Why can't people just accept that we are different, with different skill levels in different roles."

A lot of my work has been with engineering and mining projects, outdoors, 4WD driving, surveying etc. I am perfectly capable of doing this and still being 'feminine' (although not stereotypically feminine - eg I don't wear high heels in the field, though I did succumb to a pair of smart purple steel capped boots). Actually, these industries seem to have accepted women more easily than others, and there are plenty of women driving heavy equipment on mining projects (I've spoken to project managers who prefer women drivers because they treat the vehicles better).

Note that the difference in male v. female strength is no longer an issue. Pretty well all mining is mechanised, and you need computer skills more than muscle these days. Not even men can change a tyre on one of those mega-trucks without machines.

Ozzie: "There is no such thing as a wage gender gap. Those who persist with this myth are just poor at maths and fail to understand that the AVERAGE wage for a male and a female can be different without there being any difference between what males and females get paid when they perform exactly the same work."

Reread my earlier posts. I have personally been paid less than males doing exactly the same work (and know of others as well) because of the knock-on effect of grading positions differently because of assumptions that if a women is in a position it can be paid at a lower rate. In neither of the examples I gave was the work area traditionally 'male' or 'female' but technical areas where the expertise was neutral.

My examples are some time back, and to my knowledge those agencies have improved, but in both cases the process of discrimination was so subtle that unless you knew the situation (ie an insider told you) you would probably not even be aware that there was a pay difference and how it came about. This is why I think it highly likely that similar cases still exist today

Cossomby, I'm not suggesting women can't do men's work or visa versa. It's a free country.

BTW, in your job, were you paid less than the men you worked with, rate of pay I'm talking about.

Lissa: "over the last 40 years men and women have tended to revert to their innate, gendered behaviour patterns. Basically most women seek to be part of a large group of other women and work better in that situation. The most efficient unit for organising males is two to five man teams, men also tend to want to be left alone in complex, stressful situations whereas women feel better if there's someone at their side."

This is not my experience.

1. The most inefficient and frustrating project I ever worked on was with a large group of women - no cooperation and fights all the way. But I currently work with an all-woman community group which is the most amicable and productive team ever.

2. Mostly I've worked with men:
a) in 1:1 teams. If it works, it's excellent, if it doesn't, it's quickly obvious and the team can be changed. Recently I've been working on a couple of projects with a man 30 years younger, it's a pleasure because we have very a similar mental outlook.
b) as part of a 2-5 person team, which I agree can be the most efficient but that's regardless of gender mix. (Some projects I've led an all-male team this size - in one case my team had a great laugh when people would not believe I was the leader.)
c) as part of (in some cases leader) of a larger up to 25 person team; efficiency of this depends on lots of factors (nature of project, time frame, conditions etc.) the least being gender mix.

3. I've never needed someone at my side in complex, stressful situations though I've seen some men collapse in this position. On the other hand, support in a complex, stressful position can be handy for anyone, male or female.

So, I conclude Lissa's statement is a unsupported generalisation.

(Why should my comments be considered relevant? I've had an unusually diverse career: academia, public service, private enterprise, urban and rural, with a wide range of work colleagues, male and female, and bosses male and female, good and bad.)

Rechtb: "BTW, in your job, were you paid less than the men you worked with, rate of pay I'm talking about."

Yes. There were two parallel units, each responsible for an equivalent aspect of the legislation. I worked in a regional office with the equivalent person from the other unit. My position was graded at a lower level than his so I got several thousand dollars less (even though my qualifications were higher). As it happened that person was male, but a female in that position would also have earned more.

The grading of position I held was relative to the head of my unit, which position was also graded less than the equivalent head of the other unit. Why? Because in the past when the unit I worked in was created, the head position was established at a lower grade because a female was in it and this then had a knock on effect to all subsequent positions in the unit (male and female)over the years.

[Slightly more complicated - the newly created head position was an upgrade of a position held by a female, who was promoted to it. Previously she had been doing single-handed all the work that was equivalent to the whole other unit with several staff. Overall, she lost most - lower pay for not just equal but excessive workload over a career. I left after just 2 years.)

So technically people did get 'equal pay' but the discrepancy between the units in pay for the same work was due to an earlier sexist discrimination that had become entrenched.

What's interesting is that I think very few people in the organisation (other than those in the lower paid positions) were aware of the discrepancy because of the way talking about what you earn is a bit of a taboo topic.

For years feminists have been desperate to find examples where women are getting paid less for doing the exact same duties as men and under the same conditions. There are more than enough publicity seekers for any so affected to come forward. However alleged instances are rare and certainly would be pursued by a number of taxpayer-funded bodies with an interest in furthering their own existence.

I have never worked for Award wages, but as someone has already suggested but did not say it outright, it would be an impossibility and highly costly for any organisation, public or private to discriminate. Feminists, unions, guvvy bodies, they would be all over it like a fat kid with a packet of Smarties.

The whole concept of individual workplace agreements - which I support for most employment - ensures that is most unlikely to occur. That you would be remunerated according to what you bring to the job (gender is not one!) and your performance. I knew in advance what I would be paid and generally the expected bonuses (Yay!) because I negotiated up-front and was encouraged to be very specific in my performance goals. Did I do better than women, YES!. Did I do better than men, YES! Both for the performance outcomes that were the subject of my self-initiated performance discussions.

You have to have the ability and commitment and actually put in the hard yards, no BS, and the rest will flow.
to be continued..

contd..

Commenting on sports stars, advertisers determined the prizes and pay, from cold, hard numbers of audience they drew. It is trite to mention that men sports stars attract a larger women audience.

Things have a habit of evening out over time. Technology has created a men's tennis game where the service dominates. However audiences like rallies so women's tennis is more entertaining and is doing very well.

I prefer to watch women play the round ball game, and cricket too. Female referees don't encourage nor do they cop the dives that are endemic in the men's round ball game. Sadly, a well known AFL player is introducing dives into that game now. Maybe it is time for women to get off their butts and get their own game going there too.

As for cricket, thankfully the women's game doesn't have the prima donnas, endless posing and BS of mens' cricket. Women's cricket retains a lot of the amateurism - have a go and enjoy playing with your opponent - so appreciated by audiences. The women's game doesn't have match fixing and gambling either.

On the beach: "For years feminists have been desperate to find examples where women are getting paid less for doing the exact same duties as men and under the same conditions. There are more than enough publicity seekers for any so affected to come forward. However alleged instances are rare and certainly would be pursued by a number of taxpayer-funded bodies with an interest in furthering their own existence."

I think there are lost of hidden examples because not everyone is a publicity seeker.

About 6 years ago a female relative was employed as manager (well, manager, shop assistant, cleaner, one-woman-band) of a small underperforming shop. She was really keen to prove herself and totally revolutionised the shop layout and design, built up the stock and increased turnover. The owner them fired her and employed a man. I encouraged her to take some action, since she had a pretty strong case, but she refused. She was embarrassed that she had been taken advantage off, didn't think she'd win and would be up for legal costs, worried that whatever happened, it would count as a black mark against her in future work and so on. I said that not taking action would just help perpetuate this kind of thing, but I couldn't convince her.

So, for every 'rare' case you hear about, I suspect there are a lot more than never get 'publicity.'

PS If these cases are so rare, how come I can continue providing examples from personal experience?

Cossomby, "PS If these cases are so rare, how come I can continue providing examples from personal experience?"

Anecdotal.

If there are so many examples:

- why aren't they in the media, where there are talking heads who would go ape [bleep] over them? Where the mighty dollar is involved there would be complaints and easily put through the many avenues available outside of the media; and

- if discrimination continues as has been suggested and contrary to laws, I'd sack the shebag of feminists who have been advising policy. Honestly, where have all of those millions of taxpayers' dollars been expended by these rogues um experts, all of these years?

Yeah..but, it's not about publicity, the bigger law firms take those unfair dismissal cases on a no win no fee basis and they're usually settled out of court.
I was unfairly dismissed once,forced to resign due to violence from an employer and all it took was a solicitor's letter to settle the matter and get my money and group certificate.
Employers will cave in if a mere handful of people complain on Twitter or the aggrieved employee starts a Facebook page, I don't believe women are "suffering in silence" in a society which is geared toward the needs of women and in which they're always given the benefit of the doubt even in extreme criminal cases.

https://theconversation.com/the-10-stuff-ups-we-all-make-when-interpreting-research-30816

<5. Did you maybe even want to find that effect?

<Even without trying, we notice and give more credence to information that agrees with views
<we already hold. We are attuned to seeing and accepting things that confirm what we already
< know, think and believe.

<There are numerous example of this confirmation bias but studies such as this reveal how
< disturbing the effect can be.

<10. And just because it’s peer reviewed that doesn’t make it right

<Peer review is held up as a gold standard in science (and other) research at the highest
<levels.

<But even if we assume that the reviewers made no mistakes or that there were no biases in
< the publication policies (or that there wasn’t any straight out deceit), an article appearing in
< a peer reviewed publication just means that the research is ready to be put out to the
<community of relevant experts for challenging, testing, and refining.

<It does not mean it’s perfect, complete or correct. Peer review is the beginning of a study’s
<active public life, not the culmination.

The first book that I read where feminist research was challenged, I had difficulty in believing that feminist research could actually be wrong. After all I had been brain washed into believing that the feminists were telling the truth after all their research supported their arguments.