Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Welcome back.

You've been missed.

Dear Foxy,

I've been around, I've been just trying to be a pain in the arse on other threads :)

On-topic: In my limited experience, women have either

(a) done similar work to what men do, but with more commitment, dedication and enthusiasm. I guess I'm thinking of Indigenous student support here;

or

(b) done the crummier, more repetitive, dirtier, jobs, which are paid at lower rates. I'm thinking of factory jobs, bakeries, Kodak, etc.

Maybe situations are different now, but earlier, women workers in factories where they had to start, say, at 5 a.m., usually didn't have cars, so they had to get taxis to start work. Blokes usually drove.

And of course, it's women who have to take time off to raise small children, which buggers up their careers. Perhaps their child-care should be counted as years of service. Which it is, of course.

Still a long way to go, ay Foxy ?

Love,

Joe

Show me one instance of where a woman legally gets paid less in this country simply because she's a woman.

Anyone?

Its a load of crap.

What you guys have to understand is that this is part of a UN 'equality for women' agenda.

Its designed for Africans.

It does not really have any bearing on our country or way of life but our leaders lick up to globalist UN agendas.
And it gives the feminists free reign to carry on with all sorts of illogical rubbish.

Dear Armchair Critic,

Things have definitely improved for women but
women still occupy very few high-paying
positions. Its something like only 8 of every
1000 employed women holds a high-level executive,
managerial, or administrative job. Even when men
and women do similar jobs, they often have different
titles and pay scales. The male becomes an "administrative
assistant," the female, merely an "executive secretary."
Women represent 85 per cent of elementary school teachers,
86 per cent of librarians, 84 per cent of cashiers,
96 per cent of nurses, and 98 per cent of secretaries.
Their department heads are usually men.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

We need to ask why, when women have flooded into
the work-force, does the pay-gap persist?

There are several factors that seem to be responsible.
One big one to me seems to be that women's traditional
family responsibilities may affect their careers
especially if pregnancy and child-raising causes them
to drop out of the labour market for long periods.
Also there is strong evidence that some employers still
perceive women as less able than men and don't take
them as serious candidates for promotion unless they
perform exceptionally well. In short social arrangements
have evolved in such a way that the female-dominated
jobs, such as librarians earn less than carpenters,
nurses less than accountants, and so on.

As a result - "equal pay for equal work" offers little
benefit to most female workers. It does not help much
if male secretaries are paid the same as female
secretaries, when most secretaries are female and
the job is a poorly paid one.

C

Dear Foxy,

It's women who have to take time out to raise children. So the relatively smooth career progression that men may expect is not duplicated by most women: each child means years out of the work-force, and an interrupted career path, not to mention having to pick up and re-learn and re-skill, and compete for promotion against some snotty-nosed kid just a few years out of uni. How's that for stereotyping ?

Instead of paid parental leave, maybe the Abbott government should give some thought to ensuring that mothers are less disadvantaged when they return to the work-force, that their time off raising children is at least partly counted as part of their work experience. Perhaps some sort of sliding scale could be devised, say one year of work counted for every two years of child-care, including superannuation benefits. What do you reckon ?

Love,

Joe