Will this feminist narrative become undone in the next world war?

dudara

I'm such a pedant, but the 18% figure above grieves me.

Let's say a woman is paid 18% less than a man, i.e. €82 for every €100 a man makes. This means that a man makes ~22% more than a woman. Hence, their sign should have a 22% premium for men.

Silver Lynel

dudara wrote: »

There are many forms which feminism can take. These range from the extremely serious issues of female discrimination in Middle Eastern cultures, or female genital mutilation in Africa, down to the somewhat lesser topic of "man spreading" or "mansplaining".

However, all these issues exist and happen in this world. And to dismiss one person's activism as not being worthy because they are not seeking world peace and world equality for all is highly dismissive and highly superior.

Do you sincerely believe that "manspreading" and "mansplaining" are valid areas upon which to focus activism?

Do you feel the same way about "womanagging" and "femotional manipulation"?

Silver Lynel

dudara wrote: »

I'm such a pedant, but the 18% figure above grieves me.

Let's say a woman is paid 18% less than a man, i.e. €82 for every €100 a man makes. This means that a man makes ~22% more than a woman. Hence, their sign should have a 22% premium for men.

If you are not a man then thank you for explaining this.

If you are a man then GTFO with your mansplaining.

Sweetemotion

dudara wrote: »

I'm such a pedant, but the 18% figure above grieves me.

Let's say a woman is paid 18% less than a man, i.e. €82 for every €100 a man makes. This means that a man makes ~22% more than a woman. Hence, their sign should have a 22% premium for men.

I'd say name and shame any company that pays a woman 18% less than a man. Doing the same work and same hours.

Do you know of any such company?

Sweetemotion

Womens march in Iran 1979

Womens march in America 2017

Ipso

Silver Lynel wrote: »

Do you sincerely believe that "manspreading" and "mansplaining" are valid areas upon which to focus activism?

Do you feel the same way about "womanagging" and "femotional manipulation"?

Isn't mansplaining just an answer that someone doesn't like?

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

The poster I was replying to said that western feminists never complain about womens treatment in arab countries. It's a blatant lie to state that western feminists don't care. It's also a false equivalency. Just because someone wants to raise awareness about local issues doesn't mean they don't care about international issues.

That's just silly.

EVERYONE knows you can only care about one thing at a time. Especially de wily ole feministers.

Silver Lynel

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I'd say name and shame any company that company that pays a woman 18% less than a man. Doing the same work and same hours.

Do you know of any such company?

You'd have a hard time finding a large corporation that does this. Most will have pay brackets and all employees will fit into one of these brackets regardless of age, race or gender.

If they are headhunting a specific individual for a specific role then they might break the rules of their pay structure and employees who get a commission will have the commission part of their pay determined by how well they do the job. The BBC, for example, might specifically want Gary Lineker to present their football show and so he can demand a higher salary.

This might not be true for local business and might not be true for people who have been with companies for 20+ years.

Most European nations, and the USA and Canada, have some kind of equal pay or anti-discrimination laws preventing them from paying men and women different salaries based on gender and this is why most companies will pay ALL employees on, for example, "level 1" the same salary and all employees on "level 2" the same salary etc.

A few years ago you would see a lot of big companies outsourcing work to India because they can pay the workforce less and save significant amounts of money.

They obviously didn't realize they could have cut their spending on employee salaries by 22% by simply employing only women. Strange, that.

eyerer

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Rule 3 respect goes both ways :pac:

Wow, what a toxic dump.
Incidentally it would be illegal to have a place that charges women more because they're women. Doesn't go both ways..
Priority seating? I bet Rosa Parks would be proud.

marcus001

Leif Loud Grit wrote: »

A subject for another day but no two people doing the same job to the same standqandnlevel should be paid based on 'negotiating skills'.

We all know there are still businesses where women are just paid less because they are women

There's that word. "Should". "Should" doesn't come into it. "Is" is all that matters.

You think it's better to demand to live in a world where negotiation is unnecessary than to actually learn to negotiate. Infantile attitude.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

marcus001 wrote: »

There's that word. "Should". "Should" doesn't come into it. "Is" is all that matters.

You think it's better to demand to live in a world where negotiation is unnecessary than to actually learn to negotiate. Infantile attitude.

I accept most of what you say (except the cheap 'infantile attitude' dig) but many many jobs do not depend on negotiation of salary and have fixed rates. Indeed most jobs do not have negotiated wages.

It's a moot point anyway, as I was simply replying to a serial re-reg who is since banned and the post I was referencing is now gone. So you can hold your piece and keep the insults for somebody else.

bear1

jeanjolie wrote: »

I know you guys hate gender threads on After Hours but this is a serious question that's more critical of the movement in a constructive way.

People say that feminists don't get that a lot of gender norms originate due to innate biological differences in the physical and mental aspects of males and females. To what extent is debatable, but it is there.

Some feminists in the West want women to join in combat alongside men, drafts to be abolished, men to reject masculinity but I hear people worry that while the West 'weakens' itself with trying to be to egalitarian at the expense of common sense, traditional societies are growing their populations and improving their young people will common sense approaches to a future progressive society that still preserve gender roles.

So, if god forbids, Trump joins with liberal Western Europe in a war against Saudi Arabia and the Muslim world with Russia joining in, will our molycoddled young soliders lose?

Your threads scare me.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

bear1 wrote: »

Your threads scare me.

Scare you? Me too. I suspect they scare him as well.

bear1

Leif Loud Grit wrote: »

Scare you? Me too. I suspect they scare him as well.

Pictures the op screaming when he/she hits the post button.

dudara

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I'd say name and shame any company that pays a woman 18% less than a man. Doing the same work and same hours.

Do you know of any such company?

Here's a sample of what I've read recently, aside from the BBC and RTE news

Just 7 companies have published gender pay gap data

Deloitte publishes pay gap data

Church of England reveals 41% gender pay gap at central office

jeanjolie

bear1 wrote: »

Your threads scare me.

What is so terriying about my postings on After Hours?

marcus001

Leif Loud Grit wrote: »

I accept most of what you say (except the cheap 'infantile attitude' dig) but many many jobs do not depend on negotiation of salary and have fixed rates. Indeed most jobs do not have negotiated wages.

It's a moot point anyway, as I was simply replying to a serial re-reg who is since banned and the post I was referencing is now gone. So you can hold your piece and keep the insults for somebody else.

So if the rates are fixed, how is there discrimination?

If the wage disparity is only happening in the negotiable jobs then doesn't that prove his point?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

marcus001 wrote: »

So if the rates are fixed, how is there discrimination?

If the wage disparity is only happening in the negotiable jobs then doesn't that prove his point?

What point? He was trolling and got a troll-deserving reply. Relax. I'm not disagreeing with you. I was just yanking his chain as I knew who he was.

Grayson

bear1 wrote: »

Pictures the op screaming when he/she hits the post button.

bear1

Fcukin lold at that Grayson

bear1

jeanjolie wrote: »

What is so terriying about my postings on After Hours?

Oh I don't know, but you seem to have a lot of threads that are either about gender or sex or your infamous Ireland sucks thread.

Sweetemotion

dudara wrote: »

Here's a sample of what I've read recently, aside from the BBC and RTE news

Just 7 companies have published gender pay gap data

Deloitte publishes pay gap data

Church of England reveals 41% gender pay gap at central office

None of them state hours worked. Just taking the average pay of each gender.

dudara

Sweetemotion wrote: »

None of them state hours worked. Just taking the average pay of each gender.

Most are probably salaried, where hours worked don't matter. Only guessing mind

Sweetemotion

dudara wrote: »

Most are probably salaried, where hours worked don't matter. Only guessing mind

You hit the nail on the head.

Same pay for less hours and commitment. Do you think that's fair?

Grayson

Sweetemotion wrote: »

You hit the nail on the head.

Same pay for less hours and commitment. Do you think that's fair?

So, without any evidence to suggest it, you're assuming that one gender is paid more for less hours.

Sweetemotion

Grayson wrote: »

So, without any evidence to suggest it, you're assuming that one gender is paid more for less hours.

Where did I say that?

Equal pay for equal work should be a fundamental tenet in any civilized country.

Equal work cannot be assumed however just because people work in the same company though.

What we need to ensure and prove is that equal opportunity exists and also to understand that this doesn't guarantee equality of outcome.

And finally, older generations can skew figures. We need to know what's happening now.

red ears

dudara wrote: »

Most are probably salaried, where hours worked don't matter. Only guessing mind

Hours worked always matter. Unless we want women getting a higher hourly rate than men to even out the gap in total earnings. I as a man certainly do not accept that.

Btw i know of three women recently who have decided not to go for promotions because it would involve extra hours. They just do not want to work a full 40 hrs or more. How would they appear in the so called gender pay gap stats? Feminists would say they are underpaid relative to men. But the reality is they are choosing that outcome.

marcus001

If you could get the same amount of work out of women for less money then every company would want to hire only women. Feminists still can't answer for this.

marcus001

dudara wrote: »

Most are probably salaried, where hours worked don't matter. Only guessing mind

You think that just because a job is salaried that hours worked don't matter?