tackling the big issues.... should men earn more money than women??

[muzby]

once again, this is not a personal pont of view, just wanted to stimulate some discussion...

so, i ask the question.. should men earn more money than women?

its a common problem in society, women can earn less than a man, for doing the same job...

now, firstly, i am going to put the point of view of an employer out to you all to consider...

lets say its a manual job, that involves a lot of lifting and carrying. if a man can carry 100 boxes per hour, but the woman only 50 boxes per hour, wouldnt this make the man twice as productive? afterall, to get the work of both the man and the woman done, he would theoretically have to hire three women...

secondly, the "maternity" factor can come into play... women of childbearing age are at risk of up and leaving a job to have a baby (which they quite rightly can do).. but that leaves a hole to fill, and recruitment costs money... not only that, but there are a number of companies who pay maternity leave.. so once again, if a man is going to stay in the role, shouldnt he be paid more as recognition for his dedication?? not only that, but women tend to be the ones who have to look after sick children when they are sick, which equals more time off work..

after that, lets look at the "divorce" factor.. many families are now splitting up, and it is quite often the male who is forced to pay child support, not the other way around, hence the man needing more money...


anyway, what are peoples thoughts on equal pay? obivously it may seem clear to say that if a man and a woman are doing the same job, they should be paid the same, but take the gender equation out of it, and if one worker is more productive than another, shouldnt the productive one be rewarded (and that may not necessarily be the male mind you..)


anyway, over to you.....

 

[CHiLD-0F-THE-BEAT]

Originally posted by muzby
...lets say its a manual job, that involves a lot of lifting and carrying. if a man can carry 100 boxes per hour, but the woman only 50 boxes per hour, wouldnt this make the man twice as productive? afterall, to get the work of both the man and the woman done, he would theoretically have to hire three women...

^I have no problem with a person being treated differently at work due to their productivity, and / or capabilities relating to their job.
Someone better at a certain position than another should get to perform that position. That makes sense to me.

What doesn't make sense is a person being discriminated against just due to their sex and what the employer assumes from that. 8(

I'm sure you've met women who are stronger than a particular man, Muzby - - - in a job requiring strength, that woman deserves to win the job over that man.

* * *

Why should women be descriminated against due to their physical capability to have children?
Seriously.
Just because you're able to doesn't mean you will - - - or even that if you do it will necessarilly impact on the way you do your job.

-=Quietly fumes=-

 

[keystroke]

I will pose this question then, can we send women to the frontlines of the war and into battlefields?

 

[CHiLD-0F-THE-BEAT]

^If the woman wants to go, I see no reason not to let her contribute to the front lines.

Originally written by ABC radio...'Currently women make-up about 15 per cent of the Defence Forces. They act as peacekeepers and fighter pilots, in submarines and on ships but they’re not permitted intimate contact with the enemy.'

* * *

Originally written by Lorraine Dowler Penn State University Department of Geography and Women’s Studies...'Feminists have long argued that the gendering of warfare has rendered a binary where men are considered the heroes of war and women its victims. However there has been very little discussion of how the gendering of identities in war is reproduced in societies at large.

It is critical to examine the other areas of society that could be affected by deeming violent and action oriented behavior as specific to men.
For example, it has been argued that if a society judges women incapable of violent response, which war requires, they are probably not capable of acting “under fire” in other areas of extreme pressure such as national politics, policing and firefighting. Thus a cyclical relationship is established whereby women are deemed incapable of certain tasks, thereby justifying their lack of representation in certain areas of civic participation.

This paper will focus on one area of civic participation, the fire service. Most specifically we will argue that women firefighters, as the most recent and perhaps the most dramatically different group of newcomers to the fire service represent difference and threaten the ways male firefighters perceive the job, their identities and women in general.

Women in the fire service find themselves using varied strategies to be successful in their non-traditional careers, as their very presence and success on the job are reshaping and challenging the identity of firefighters and civic heroes.
By interrogating the theories of female masculinity we will argue that women firefighters challenge gender and violent identities and find themselves negotiating the multiple frontlines of feminism.'

^Full paper here.

 

[kandyraverchick]

Employ whoever's best for the job based on qualifications, work experience, references and general attitude towards that area of work. Pay them accordingly - It's as easy as a.b.c!

 

[Duckboy]

Originally posted by keystroke
I will pose this question then, can we send women to the frontlines of the war and into battlefields?

I look at this - if a woman gets wounded on the battle field, i doubt the surrounding male soldiers would treat her just as they would treat a fellow male. It simply is instinct to protect the female - and no matter what amount of training is involved, i don't think that this behaviour can be removed from someone.

If a woman is taken prisoner, the consequences are possibly more dire for her in terms of the way she may be treated. this may in turn affect the planning and strategy and public opinion regarding said event.

let the flaming begin.....

 

[anna!]

If a person is better skilled at a job (so can lift twice as many boxes, as per your example) then they should be paid more. Regardless of their gender.

Women should never suffer salary cuts simply because they are of "child bearing age". A number of these women will never bear children. They may not be able to bear children. Their work will not be of a lesser standard because they mestruate. I'd like to find the company who pays maternity leave as well, because it's not often done in Australia. Women who have been in a position for 12 months are able to take 12 months unpaid leave and return to their position after that time - they have shown commitment to the company and a desire to return, so their salary shouldn't be affected.

Any father with a greater amount of custody of his child will be paid child support by the mother of the child. A man needs more money because he has to pay child support? The idea of child support is that the courts decide a fair amount that is required of BOTH parents to raise a child, and often as a percentage of their salary. So if the father happens to earn more, he will pay more in child support. Not the other way around.

If a worker hired for the same position is not as productive as another worker, the onus should be on the employer, not on the employee. Employees who are especially productive can be eligible for bonuses and incentives, but there shouldn't be a discrepancy in their base salary based on performance. Anyway, your last question is a completely different subject to the gender issue.

I know that, as the only woman on a particular company board, my mum earns about 75% of what the men on the board earn, for no reason other than her being a woman. That sort of thing should never be allowed to happen - especially if your rules apply: it's not manual labour, she's not of a child-bearing age and she's not divorced. She should absolutely be entitled to earn the same amount of money as everyone else in the same position as her.

If they were better qualified or spent more time in the job, regardless of their gender, they should be compensated.

 

[Pleonastic]

Their work will not be of a lesser standard because they mestruate.

I can think of an example or one girl at work who would prove that statement wrong.

 

[anna!]

^ Some women like to bitch and dramatise more than others

 

[CHiLD-0F-THE-BEAT]

Originally posted by Duckboy I look at this - if a woman gets wounded on the battle field, i doubt the surrounding male soldiers would treat her just as they would treat a fellow male. It simply is instinct to protect the female - and no matter what amount of training is involved, i don't think that this behaviour can be removed from someone.

^Isn't it equally as important to be examining the reasons behind this 'instinct' of all men to protect women?
Couldn't it be said that it's possibly just another form of indoctrination and weakening of the female gender?

Making women and girls feel weaker than their male counterparts, despite some being exactly the opposite - - - and making us feel somehow inadequate in serving our country in battle?

I see many weak looking men and boys serving in wars all over the world.
I also see many strong women, in both body and mind, who aren't allowed that right.

 

[Pleonastic]

^ Some women like to bitch and dramatise more than others

Ooooooo yeah...

To be fair, most are fine and you wouldn't be able to pick it. But this one I'm thinking of seems to think it's her god given right to spend those 5 days whinging and moaning and generally not doing anything other than yell at people.

I reckon she shouldn't be paid for those 5 days out of every month.

 

[Duckboy]

C0TB - yes, i do belive it is indoctrination . But i DON'T belive that it will change any time soon. It is ingrained into our culture. It may well be ingrained into our psyche by immovable genetics.

YES - it is a "caveman" attitude. But consider that evolution of the primitive mind (the most basic of reflexes and behaviours) is not moving as fast as evolution of our society and/or our technology.

.............................................................................................

in a corporate world, i belive there should be no difference between rates of pay, and ability, between men and women.

in many manual jobs, i also belive this to be true.

But i will still maintain that on the front lines, which keystroke was referring to, the altered behaviour of the surrounding males would affect the overall functionality of the unit. No, it's not fair, but at the end of the day the military unit is a performance-driven organistaion, as is any corporate enterprise.

Behind the lines - yes, by all means have women employed. They will be every bit as effective and efficient as the males, if not moreso. Technical skill, intellect etc should be equal, as should rates of pay..

 

[CHiLD-0F-THE-BEAT]

^You can't accept this point of view, and agree it's indoctrination but excuse it by saying it's not going to end!

The fact that it exists and is recognisable is in my mind at least, making it worthy enough to be addressed and for society to start taking ownership for its existance in the first place.

 

[Duckboy]

^I just did


And when you killme for that response - i'm not saying it WON'T end... I'm saying that if it is ingrained behaviour then it will be SLOW to change. While our ethicists and moralists may preach a certain behaviour, and logic may tell us that it is right ; does no mean that it will happen in reality so quickly, and certainly not in the heat of battle when people are surviving and reacting to situations purely on instinct and drilled-to-the-nth-degree training.

 

[doofqueen]

When it comes to productivity and that a man can lift more than a woman hence more work being done then yes a man should be paid more but men are naturally stronger then women so basically what i'm saying is people shouldbe paid depending on how much work they do and not anything to do with gender.

I think the child support issue that was raised is completly stupid. A man should get more money because he has to pay child support? The woman is the one raising the child so who the hell actually needs the extra money? The one looking after the child or the one that has chosen to have less responsibilty? pfffttt

 

[keystroke]

^ I think muzby had some credibility with that post though, how often do you hear about a woman paying child support?

 

[Pseudo G]

Can anyone give me a factual example of a job where a man and a woman do the same task that is not performance or comission based where their salaries are not the same?

 

[doofqueen]

how often do you hear about a man taking responsibility and raising their own children?

 

[keystroke]

how often do you hear about a man taking responsibility and raising their own children?

all the time, my mother and father have been happily together since they were 16. Same with the rest of my family, same with almost all of my friends and everyone I used to work with.

 

[doofqueen]

ahhh geez you knew what i meant! The fact that the mothers are not the ones paying child support is that they are usually the ones that actually take responsibility of the child while all the father is asked to do is pay some money each month to help them out financially while they are raising THEIR children! THAT'S why you don't hear of alot of mothers paying child support!