Feminism!

[wizekrak]

Professional athletes are paid in relation to how much money the bring in to the organization. Male sports have a larger audience and bring in more money through merchandising and TV rights and all that. So the players can demand more money, if you look at athlete pay relative to organizational gross income I'd wager that the rates are probably pretty similar for men versus women.

As far as wage jobs go women are typically paid the same as men, especially in unionized gigs where the wage increases are structured. It's in salary gigs where things get a little different as there is no pay structure, you're payed what you are thought to be worth. Now here's where I think the difference comes into play. I think that by nature men are more aggressive than women (for the most part) so a man is more likely to ask for a raise, or be able to work longer hours (if he doesn't have a family to support), so he may demand more money and get it. The woman may have the same job but not be as aggressive in demanding a raise, or have other obligations so that she can't eat/sleep/shit her job, so she may not feel as entitled and therefore not ask for a raise. So in this case they both do the same job but make differing levels of income. Once you get to upper management salaries are based on performance, rate of return, and politics.

I think there are too many variables present in upper management positions and other white collar jobs (doctor, lawyer, accountant, etc...) to be able to say the income gap is due to gender.

 

[basix]

I am suprised no one has brought this up, but the biggest inequality that we all see on a day to day basis is professional sports. Have a brief glance over that particular industry to get an idea of how far we still need to go and thats just one example

This is a terrible example -

Professional sports people get paid basically for being entertainers. They get their pay from the money that is made off people paying to watch them play, whether it be spectators at a stadium, or advertising dollars made from broadcasting their sport on TV.

Womens sport has far, far, far less of an interest in watching it so obviously their is far less money to be made from it. Why do you think some pro sports people can earn million dollar salaries? Its the same as some actors getting 10's of millions of dollars for a movie while an unknown actor wont make anywhere near that.

 

[BREAKaBEAT]

I am suprised no one has brought this up, but the biggest inequality that we all see on a day to day basis is professional sports. Have a brief glance over that particular industry to get an idea of how far we still need to go and thats just one example

Mate, you gotta be kidding me. Everyone knows that men play better, more interesting sport than women because they are physically stronger. Women tennis players is a prime example of that. More people see men games because they hit harder and faster and it makes it a more interesting game. Therefore they get paid more, because there is more demand...

 

[Mary Poppins]

What are some examples of women being payed less than men doing the same job?
I cant think of any examples...

I used to get payed more than a lot of women with my same title at my old work, but because I was a fucking good employee. It wasnt because I was a bloke and they werent.

Dude, I have a similar stance to Breakabeat, in that I dislike uber-feminism which attempts to ignore the physiological differences between Men and Women and purport that we actually are all wired the same.

However in terms of equal rights (for all ) I would check out some figures from the EOWA. Studies across most industries indicate females still earn proportionately less than their male counterparts. I doubt all of their male counterparts work harder than them. (However I would posit that typically male personality traits such as rational based decisions would lead to a better ability to emotionally detach when negotiating salaries etc).

Things like women directorship positions at board level are also negligible - however this worries me less because I actually think to a large degree our psycho/physio makeup contributes to this. But maybe it still should be *more* equal.

I think one of the biggest worries in Australia is how we combat the issue that women, if they choose to have children, realistically need to put their career on hold. I TOTALLY admire women who go straight back to work, particularly single mums, but I think it is appalling that people have to.

In Norway (I think?) there is COMPULSORY 18 months PAID maternity leave. Paid maternity leave is not compulsory in Australia (it and the US are the only two OECD countries to not have it). To me that is ridiculous and this is where I actually start to passionately support 'equality for all'.

Women don't choose to be the sole gender capable of producing children - and I think it is commonly acknowledged many women also have an interest in pursuing a successful career. This presents a clear inequality with men, and needs to be adequately addressed through policy to ensure the scales are tilted back the other way.

The EOWA acknowledges that much of the imbalance in women in senior level executive positions is due to women leaving for childbirth (which especially in this day and age more often than not coincides with crucial times in her career) and consequently losing ground on their career.

I went to an interesting talk where a lady pointed out not only the direct affect of parenthood (ie. taking time off etc) to career but also things like, deals, job offers being made in the pub after work - a time where a single mum would be picking up a kid from childcare - disadvantaging her. When I first heard that I thought it was a bit bleeding heart femmo, but when I thought about how much it does actually happen - it could put people quite at a disadvantage when thought of cumulatively.

Anyway - I completely acknowledge as Samadhi has said that there are much more serious violations of women going on in other countries, which I do care about. They to me are human rights violations.

In terms of equality across the sexes in Australia - I think there's room for us to correct the balance more.

 

[lostpunk5545]

Dear Ms Poppins. Cook me Breakfast, I am hungry.

 

[Mary Poppins]

Dear Mr Punk,

Make me a bloody mary in bed. I desire to be a kept woman. Thank-you.

 

[Samadhi]

Dude, I have a similar stance to Breakabeat, in that I dislike uber-feminism which attempts to ignore the physiological differences between Men and Women and purport that we actually are all wired the same.

However in terms of equal rights (for all ) I would check out some figures from the EOWA. Studies across most industries indicate females still earn proportionately less than their male counterparts. I doubt all of their male counterparts work harder than them. (However I would posit that typically male personality traits such as rational based decisions would lead to a better ability to emotionally detach when negotiating salaries etc).

Things like women directorship positions at board level are also negligible - however this worries me less because I actually think to a large degree our psycho/physio makeup contributes to this. But maybe it still should be *more* equal.

I think one of the biggest worries in Australia is how we combat the issue that women, if they choose to have children, realistically need to put their career on hold. I TOTALLY admire women who go straight back to work, particularly single mums, but I think it is appalling that people have to.

In Norway (I think?) there is COMPULSORY 18 months PAID maternity leave. Paid maternity leave is not compulsory in Australia (it and the US are the only two OECD countries to not have it). To me that is ridiculous and this is where I actually start to passionately support 'equality for all'.

Women don't choose to be the sole gender capable of producing children - and I think it is commonly acknowledged many women also have an interest in pursuing a successful career. This presents a clear inequality with men, and needs to be adequately addressed through policy to ensure the scales are tilted back the other way.

The EOWA acknowledges that much of the imbalance in women in senior level executive positions is due to women leaving for childbirth (which especially in this day and age more often than not coincides with crucial times in her career) and consequently losing ground on their career.

I went to an interesting talk where a lady pointed out not only the direct affect of parenthood (ie. taking time off etc) to career but also things like, deals, job offers being made in the pub after work - a time where a single mum would be picking up a kid from childcare - disadvantaging her. When I first heard that I thought it was a bit bleeding heart femmo, but when I thought about how much it does actually happen - it could put people quite at a disadvantage when thought of cumulatively.

Anyway - I completely acknowledge as Samadhi has said that there are much more serious violations of women going on in other countries, which I do care about. They to me are human rights violations.

In terms of equality across the sexes in Australia - I think there's room for us to correct the balance more.

I completely agree with you - the figures you mention about Norway also relate to countries like Canada - I was speaking to a Canadian friend and she said that she can't believe how little maternity leave we get here in Australia - and i thought we (well, at least some of us) had it good! I am entitled to 14 weeks paid maternity leave, and that can be taken at 1/2 pay for double the time... Canadians have a similar amount of maternity leave given to them - about 12 months paid.

While I believe that we obviously have it so much easier than a lot of countries, in certain areas of employment, entitlements, etc, there is definitely more room for improvement.

Interestingly, it's things like adoptive leave (adoptive parents are only entitled to 2 x weeks leave) that need to be looked at, as well as paternity leave. I think of situations such as the one i heard about at work - the mother died during childbirth but the father was only given the standard 2 x weeks paternity leave (with 3 days bereavement leave 8)) - yet he was the primary (and only) carer for the baby.

To me, it's all about *equal* rights, neither gender should be disadvantaged.

As for the 'old boys' network, believe me, it is still alive and kicking. It's not only the men who are involved, it's the women who will join the men most afternoons for drinking sessions, will get rowdy with them, and become one of the boys. I've seen it first hand; a particular woman in my department was given first look in for all higher duties, and promotional opportunities - yet she was widely recognised as being utterly incompetent and bone-lazy... but she was out drinking with the site and regional manager 3 x nights per week. Heh, her marriage broke down, but she was getting promoted. Women in my department who had children to go home to, or women (and men) like me who didn't feel like drinking beer with the boys seemed to be disadvantaged because of it. It's one of the reasons why i transferred out of the area.

 

[wizekrak]

Women don't choose to be the sole gender capable of producing children - and I think it is commonly acknowledged many women also have an interest in pursuing a successful career. This presents a clear inequality with men, and needs to be adequately addressed through policy to ensure the scales are tilted back the other way.

But they make the choice to have a kid. Maternity leave can be split between mother and father. In my opinion anyone who takes a leave can't expect to come back to work and be on equal ground as someone who has worked day in and day out during their absence. Making the choice to have a kid comes with familial responsibilities, those familial responsibilities conflict with extra-employment opportunities (politicing, networking, etc...). Programs should not compensate for these extra-employment opportunities. Making deals in the bar after work isn't part of the job, it's a choice, just like picking the kid up after work is a choice. The world is cut-throat. In my opinion you can't expect to swim with the sharks and raise a kid at the same time, and to be competitive with some who eats/sleeps/breathes their job, this applies to both sexes.

 

[ByronStar]

As for the 'old boys' network, believe me, it is still alive and kicking. It's not only the men who are involved, it's the women who will join the men most afternoons for drinking sessions, will get rowdy with them, and become one of the boys. I've seen it first hand; a particular woman in my department was given first look in for all higher duties, and promotional opportunities - yet she was widely recognised as being utterly incompetent and bone-lazy... but she was out drinking with the site and regional manager 3 x nights per week. Heh, her marriage broke down, but she was getting promoted. Women in my department who had children to go home to, or women (and men) like me who didn't feel like drinking beer with the boys seemed to be disadvantaged because of it. It's one of the reasons why i transferred out of the area.

This has been my beef for the last couple of years in that I think I miss out because I don't 'network' enough (networking being going out and getting pissed) - to me networking is meeting people at courses and through secondments etc. I prefer to go to work, do my job, have a few laughs (as in a nice pleasant day) and go home to my life. I just don't consider work my life and I think that will prevent me from going up the ladder which doesn't bother me that much, but I guess the principle bothers me.

The women I referred to in my previous post (well mainly one woman) was all about going out and getting drunk with the men in her department. Mind you, they bagged her behind her back, talked about her like she was some little bimbo but she got a lot of opportunities that other women didn't, from those same men. So in that sense, women have a lot of power in the workplace, especially those where men are the upper level management.

In terms of maternity leave, I don't really see how we can change the fact that women who leave to have children will miss out on some opportunities in their career - I think that's a personal choice that a couple has to make, and an individual has to make. The fact is, we can't have it all, some things have to be sacrificed - that's a reality. There is really nothing stopping the dad (providing its a two parent family) from staying home for a while, it doesn't have to be the mum.

 

[Samadhi]

Wizekrak: At least in my place of employment - maternity leave cannot be split between the mother and the father - the woman gets 14 weeks leave and the father can take 2 weeks. I think it sucks, personally, that maternity leave should be made available to both parents, depending on who stays home.

Adoptive parents should be given more leave as well, IMO. Just because the woman didn't give birth to the child, doesn't mean that there should be less bonding time - IMO (again) they need *more* - a bonding process occurs naturally between biological mother and child, through the length of the pregnancy - the child inherently knows that's his/her mother. Having said that, i realise that maternity leave takes into account prep/healing time... i just think that 2 weeks to bond with a child that isn't yours simply isn't long enough.

Hell, we were being told, by Peter Costello to have "one child for mum, one for dad, one for the country" yet we're not given the proper support to do so? I don't agree with his sentiments, however it's a total hypocrisy.

I understand that having babies is a choice, but it's a choice that many, many people make, and there needs to be equitable policy in place to support that choice. I also understand that when someone goes on maternity leave, opportunities will be missed. Hell, people that choose to use long-term leave to travel could argue the same thing?

 

[m4dd0g]

I dont think anyone will ever be able to convince me that its equitable i should carry the tax burden for other people having kids. Last i checked the species isnt dying out, quite the opposite

I think there is discrimination on gender... and appearance, wealth, intelligence, beliefs, race, upbringing, etc... Im not saying that makes it ok but seeing a healthy white female in a western job get riled up over it despite being one of the most fortunate people on the planet makes me feel kind of ill. Bit like seeing a spoilt rich kid complaining that daddy wont buy him a new car

 

[Samadhi]

^ I totally agree with you, i certainly don't get riled up about it, people that do annoy me - I think we are hugely fortunate in this country, and I feel very lucky that we do get the entitlements that we do. What *does* rile me is the human rights violations, which transcend inequality, faced by my sisters in other countries.

Having said that, just because we have it 'better' than other people, doesn't mean that we should not have a say in how to make things more equitable for *everyone* (men & women)

Interestingly, it's not 1st world countries that are becoming horridly over-populated, it's 3rd world countries - so should we, as first world citizens, stop bearing kids because of that? I'm all for adoption as well, but it's very very hard to adopt a child from overseas, in a financial sense (think minimum $30,000). Don't even try to adopt a child in Australia - it's almost impossible nowadays...

 

[ValeTudo]

Women on maternity leave aren't earning any money for the organization, as such it is only reasonable to extend paid maternity leave to long-term staff (5 years+) who have contributed enough skills, time & resources to the company to be deserving.

 

[wizekrak]

Wizekrak: At least in my place of employment - maternity leave cannot be split between the mother and the father - the woman gets 14 weeks leave and the father can take 2 weeks. I think it sucks, personally, that maternity leave should be made available to both parents, depending on who stays home.

Adoptive parents should be given more leave as well, IMO. Just because the woman didn't give birth to the child, doesn't mean that there should be less bonding time - IMO (again) they need *more* - a bonding process occurs naturally between biological mother and child, through the length of the pregnancy - the child inherently knows that's his/her mother. Having said that, i realise that maternity leave takes into account prep/healing time... i just think that 2 weeks to bond with a child that isn't yours simply isn't long enough.

Hell, we were being told, by Peter Costello to have "one child for mum, one for dad, one for the country" yet we're not given the proper support to do so? I don't agree with his sentiments, however it's a total hypocrisy.

I understand that having babies is a choice, but it's a choice that many, many people make, and there needs to be equitable policy in place to support that choice. I also understand that when someone goes on maternity leave, opportunities will be missed. Hell, people that choose to use long-term leave to travel could argue the same thing?

Major oversight on my part, I should have prefaced my comment by saying that I'm Canadian. So I can only comment about Canadian law and I'm totally ignorant with regard to aussie law.

 

[BREAKaBEAT]

Im pretty torn on this issue of maternity leave. The only thing I can contribute to the conversation, is that imagine the amount of women that may take advantage, on purpose or not (taking the 18 months paid leave then not returning to work) of being paid for that period of time... I know that if I knew half way through I wouldnt be returning to work, I doubt I would "resign". But that is just one issue I can think of, and I dont necessarily disagree with the idea though of paid maternity leave.

 

[wizekrak]

Im pretty torn on this issue of maternity leave. The only thing I can contribute to the conversation, is that imagine the amount of women that may take advantage, on purpose or not (taking the 18 months paid leave then not returning to work) of being paid for that period of time... I know that if I knew half way through I wouldnt be returning to work, I doubt I would "resign". But that is just one issue I can think of, and I dont necessarily disagree with the idea though of paid maternity leave.

I think they have to work at least 6 months or a year after they return, or they have to pay back the benefits. I could be wrong, with regard to canadian mat leave.

 

[drugfukkdrockstar]

We are not equal. We never will be. Men are stronger, mentally and physically. Women have the powers of seduction which can be used to manipulate men away from power. Its in the history books. Women shouldnt get paid more than men, because they generally do a better job.

Hmm, yeah i don't think i really agree with this post. I don't believe all men are mentally stronger than all women. Physically, that goes without saying but mentally i really question your reasons of stating that. There are many many strong willed and hard working women in this world who certainly have more emotional strength than a lot of men. But at the end of the day i think mental strength depends on the person, rather than their sex.

I agree that women shouldn't get paid more than a man, but in my opinion if a woman is doing the same job as a man and doing it just as well, then she deserves to be paid as much as him.

 

[drugfukkdrockstar]

Mate, you gotta be kidding me. Everyone knows that men play better, more interesting sport than women because they are physically stronger. Women tennis players is a prime example of that. More people see men games because they hit harder and faster and it makes it a more interesting game. Therefore they get paid more, because there is more demand...

Have you watched some of the female tennis players of this day and age? Especially those Williams sisters? It has been recored that they actually hit the ball harder than some male players. Those chicks are fucking scary and i reckon would give some of those blokes a run for their money.

When it comes to tennis, the women are just as popular as the men. If not, maybe a little more at times.

Personally i find it far more interesting watching some chick out there slogging the ball super hard, like a bloke can. It's hilarious! And definitely draws a crowd. Blokes hitting really hard is expected and nothing out of the norm.

 

[Rated E]

Hmm, yeah i don't think i really agree with this post. I don't believe all men are mentally stronger than all women. Physically, that goes without saying but mentally i really question your reasons of stating that. There are many many strong willed and hard working women in this world who certainly have more emotional strength than a lot of men. But at the end of the day i think mental strength depends on the person, rather than their sex.

Emotional strength? What is that... Is being guided by emotions emotionally strong?

Or would the ability to detach from emotions in order that they don't cloud one's judgment be more emotionally strong?

Is it simply a strong understanding and command of emotions? In which case I might phrase that emotional intelligence I guess.

 

[Rated E]

Have you watched some of the female tennis players of this day and age? Especially those Williams sisters? It has been recored that they actually hit the ball harder than some male players. Those chicks are fucking scary and i reckon would give some of those blokes a run for their money.

Wait, so you mean there's exceptions to generalisations?

When it comes to tennis, the women are just as popular as the men. If not, maybe a little more at times.

I don't know enough about tennis to know if this is true or not. Is this just your opinion or is womens tennis objectively (ie. recorded as being) more popular?