Gender pay gap!

[Broakham 10]

There is a simple solution to this problem. All a company needs to do is get an appropriate number of male employees to 'self identify' as female.

 

This should also make the LGBT+ community happy.

[Bargepole23 337]

2 hours ago, gaz 786 said:

Read in todays paper Clare Balding is carping on about men getting more wages than women sounds like millions a year is not enough for the poor woman .any comments fellow forumers 

Yep. I think the gender pay gap is wrong, and to refer to someone's comments about it as carping illustrates to me that you don't see it as an issue. 

 

She has every right to comment, and her own earnings are an irrelevance.

[El Cid 216]

31 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

Yep. I think the gender pay gap is wrong, and to refer to someone's comments about it as carping illustrates to me that you don't see it as an issue.

 

It is an issue, but pay rates are often set by supply and demand, especially at the top.

If a job does not attract the appropriate person, we are getting to the point where employers have to use other means to attract them.

If an employer tries to reduce pay of their workforce and advertises a job at minimum wage, job filled by mostly females, and they could end up with an equal pay claim.

[woodview 10]

48 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

Yep. I think the gender pay gap is wrong, and to refer to someone's comments about it as carping illustrates to me that you don't see it as an issue. 

 

She has every right to comment, and her own earnings are an irrelevance.

Gender pay gap for tv personalities is easier to solve as to a degree they are all doing the same job. There will be A list, B list etc. but all the A listers can't be men.

 

Elsewhere in the workplace it is similar. A male shop floor worker earns the same as the woman sitting next to him. Easy.

But, if you start doing averages then I think the picture is distorted. Lots of women leave to have family and return a couple of years behind on the scale, or go back part time, or to a less demanding role. That obviously skews the figures.

[justinelle 0]

 

We live in a male valued dominated world, and males are generally competitive whereas females are generally co-operative.   Males like power and to dominate, and nothing beats exercising power than making people work for them for as near peanuts as possible.  They want the money, and covert sadism is a way to exercise power as a psychological tools, and women often need the work, single parents etc.  Knowing in general they work harder, are more contentious than their male counterparts and the need for the work allows exploitation, which allows this subtle exercise of power.  

 

So maybe its time to start to research why males feel they have the need to have power in the first place.  All of them, or nearly all, had mothers and most would not treat them with the covert contempt those with the power they do to women not family.  It could be argued it’s the same psychological structures used for pimping, making the victims to work for peanuts, while knowing they have no option these days regarding the lack of career opportunities. 

 

So designed exploitation making the slaves work harder for less has since the crash been the flavour of the day, and this ideological standard has been implemented from the top down in government and the private sector.  Greed is good, and keeping women down and exploiting them wherever possible is found to be a widespread practice,  which suggests its more than just wages, it’s actually a male mindset.  One ought to research how this change from loving and respecting mothers transforms to exercising variations of practices  in their public and private life. 

[woodview 10]

46 minutes ago, justinelle said:

 

We live in a male valued dominated world, and males are generally competitive whereas females are generally co-operative.   Males like power and to dominate, and nothing beats exercising power than making people work for them for as near peanuts as possible . 

Wow. You e put two and two together and come up with 749.

I agree men have on average a more domineering streak, and strive to lead. But the rest is a bit too far imo.

[Halibut 12]

On 04/04/2018 at 17:42, realcockney said:

 

Prove it:roll:

Nobody can prove a hope.

[El Cid 216]

5 hours ago, woodview said:

Gender pay gap for tv personalities is easier to solve as to a degree they are all doing the same job. There will be A list, B list etc. but all the A listers can't be men.

1

What if the viewers prefered all men or all women? Should the pay and gender of those employed be set by Government decree or commercial need, ie supply and demand?

[woodview 10]

8 minutes ago, El Cid said:

What if the viewers prefered all men or all women? Should the pay and gender of those employed be set by Government decree or commercial need, ie supply and demand?

Commercial need imo

Tv personality pay is very subjective, and a bit of a side issue really. I'm not overly fussed if Clare balding gets or or less than Lineker.

Biggest issue is does Joanne get the same as Joe . I think in most cases they do nowadays.

[WiseOwl182 10]

4 hours ago, justinelle said:

All of them, or nearly all, had mothers 

No you were right first time. 100% of men had mothers. Humanity isn't sexist about it either, because 100% of women had mothers too.

 

Ps. The rest of your post was utter bilge, and teeming with misandry too.

[leviathan13 348]

Women only identify the 'patriarchy' when it comes to boardrooms and £m jobs!

 

Where are the women fighting for equality in more dangerous roles? Why don't more women want to work on oil rigs? Why aren't women promoting equality in more manual jobs?

 

No - it's all about the cushy numbers in the boardroom.

 

It's illegal to pay a woman differently to a man for the SAME job! If Balding feels she's being discriminated against, take your bosses to court!

 

Of course, if she did this, it would show how privileged she actually is as most people haven't got the finances to fight in court (family courts comes to mind where they are so biased towards women that the man has to live on change due to having to pay for representation). Yet Balding could afford the fees but would probably lose as TV presenters, i would assume, are paid according to experience, knowledge and popularity. More people like football than they do horse racing; so a presenter of MOTD is more likely to be paid more than someone presenting the racing.

 

Maybe if she was receiving minimum wage, it might be different, but she earns more than most men in this country.

8 hours ago, justinelle said:

 

We live in a male valued dominated world, and males are generally competitive whereas females are generally co-operative.   Males like power and to dominate, and nothing beats exercising power than making people work for them for as near peanuts as possible.  They want the money, and covert sadism is a way to exercise power as a psychological tools, and women often need the work, single parents etc.  Knowing in general they work harder, are more contentious than their male counterparts and the need for the work allows exploitation, which allows this subtle exercise of power.  

 

 

So maybe its time to start to research why males feel they have the need to have power in the first place.  All of them, or nearly all, had mothers and most would not treat them with the covert contempt those with the power they do to women not family.  It could be argued it’s the same psychological structures used for pimping, making the victims to work for peanuts, while knowing they have no option these days regarding the lack of career opportunities. 

 

 

So designed exploitation making the slaves work harder for less has since the crash been the flavour of the day, and this ideological standard has been implemented from the top down in government and the private sector.  Greed is good, and keeping women down and exploiting them wherever possible is found to be a widespread practice,  which suggests its more than just wages, it’s actually a male mindset.  One ought to research how this change from loving and respecting mothers transforms to exercising variations of practices  in their public and private life. 

The problem is - feminism pulls men down, claiming 'toxic masculinity' and men are too aggressive... yet feminists want to be what men are! So the paradox arises that men are toxic, but women want to be like men because they want what the men supposedly have.

 

So you hate what men are... but want to be what you hate!

[Cyclone 10]

Are you speaking for feminists now, you know what they want and how they think?