Akward Situation...

FBaby

wow, you are joking right? There are more that just IT jobs, paying well in the world.

It is a given that there are more than IT jobs that pay well, I was giving this as an example, I could have quoted similar figures for girls taking triple science.

What do you think are "soft subjects"? You chose a subject because you enjoy it and you think you're good at it (which I'm sure your DD has done). You don't pick a subject on the basis that when you're middle-aged you'll be earning a big bucks!

Of course a subject shouldn't be picked just on the basis of future potential earning, but I do think it is something to consider. Most teenagers envision a life where they will have more income than just enough to pay the bills.

My OH knows EVERYTHING there is to know about me. I'm quite sure he would have run a mile by now if he was bothered by the way I run my personal finances!

I never implied that he didn't know, what I am saying is that it could be a reason why he is not yet ready to be married. Maybe he just wants some more reassurance that indeed, there are no issues there. It takes time living with someone and really getting to know them. Some people are much better at getting to know people quicker, others need more time, some are prepared to take a chance even when they don't feel they know everything about their partner because they are confident nothing they will find out afterwards would change how they feel about marriage, others are not prepared to take much chance at all.

It's not just about marriage but any significant decisions. I am overall more impulsive than my OH, not because I am more of a risk taker, but because I think quicker so will have considered all elements of the decision much before he will have.

CH27

BunnieJ wrote: »

Thanks!



Oh how I've tried! But when I can't find a clean plate to eat off of and the rubbish bin is stinking out the kitchen, I can't help myself!



When I picked my GCSEs/A-Levels part of my decision was based on the careers I might like to do when I left education, however, I didn't want to do those careers based on their salaries!

How many people do you know that can just "walk into" a well paid job after university nowadays?

It troubles me that students are no longer being educated, but just taught to pass exams, having no asperations to become artists/directors/writers or any other creative career paths.

You've made a rod for your own back. Get tough now or do it all yourself for ever.

FBaby

But irregardless, the point I think Fbaby was attempting to make was the career choice should be a factor on whether or not women earn enough to be on par with men.

I like the 'attempting to make', but as it was, not that's not what I was attempting to say

My comment was in relation to what PenguinJim was saying in relation to the traditional roles being allocated on the basis that most women are less paid when children come along and therefore the logic party to give up work and look after the children (with I guess the assumption that their chances of getting back to an equal par salary wise being then compromised for good).

My point was that if girls picked subjects more likely to lead to a decently paid career, then there is a higher chance that either they will become the main breadwinner (and the male can pick up more of the housework), or they can both work, and afford childcare AND a cleaner!

It has nothing to do with comparing salaries for the same position.

FBaby

Oh how I've tried! But when I can't find a clean plate to eat off of and the rubbish bin is stinking out the kitchen, I can't help myself!

Maybe you can tell him that you won't consider marrying him until he pulls his share

quidsy

Ok fair enough, I mis read your intent but I do still disagree that women ( or men for that matter) should be forced into choices they are unhappy with purely to enable a financial expectation. We would pretty much have no nurses, firemen, bus drivers, gardners etc if that were the way.

VestanPance

quidsy wrote: »

Ok fair enough, I mis read your intent but I do still disagree that women ( or men for that matter) should be forced into choices they are unhappy with purely to enable a financial expectation. We would pretty much have no nurses, firemen, bus drivers, gardners etc if that were the way.

There are some bad examples in that list. Firemen jobs are pretty much always way way over subscribed for applications. The pay in that role is well above the national average and the pension even after the kicking the government have been threatening them with is better that the majority of the UK would ever see.

Gardeners tend to do alright too. Most of them are self employed and one of the lads I know that does it does well enough to go travelling for three months every winter. He does work crazy hours through the good summer months though, but then that's fairly normal when you're self-employed.

I'd even argue nurses tend to make a fairly good living for the most part, particularly if they aren't based in London.

That said while I support the idea that people should select subjects that they are interested in, you also need to make that selection with the knowledge of what doors it will open for you. Graduate with an average arts degree and your employment options will be limited and sadly these days the chances are you're starting off with an incredible amount of debt for a young person.

quidsy

One of our bods is earning £450 a day. I don't think any of those industries are up there compared to IT spec money. But the example was used to explain why the idea that women are somehow to blame for not chosing industries with a higher salary expectation, is false.

It is not nor will ever be a solutuion to the inequality issue nor are many people lucky enough or capable enough to be able to go into that kind of specialised industry. Men or Women.

I know my way around a spreadhseet & can switch on & switch off again but i'd be bored to tears in IT or the sciences. I shouldn't be forced to train in it or be penalised for not, purely to show that "hey, girls can do computors too, alls well in the world"

VestanPance

quidsy wrote: »

One of our bods is earning £450 a day. I don't think any of those industries are up there compared to IT spec money. But the example was used to explain why the idea that women are somehow to blame for not chosing industries with a higher salary expectation, is false.

It is not nor will ever be a solutuion to the inequality issue nor are many people lucky enough or capable enough to be able to go into that kind of specialised industry. Men or Women.

I know my way around a spreadhseet & can switch on & switch off again but i'd be bored to tears in IT or the sciences. I shouldn't be forced to train in it or be penalised for not, purely to show that "hey, girls can do computors too, alls well in the world"

Well IT can be badly paid too. Just saying do IT is as dumb as the people in the early 00's telling folk to become a plumber to get rich.

Men or women picking courses with no obvious job path at the end, or limited options are going to suffer these days. In the 80's you could pick any subject that interested you as few people had degrees, thus they had greater options.

These days pick a course that interests you but has a limited career option and don't be surprised if you end up working some low level office job, or call centre. Simple demand and supply. If your empoyment options are limited with a huge number of people applying for those roles the wages will be poor, no matter your gender.

FBaby

quidsy wrote: »

Ok fair enough, I mis read your intent but I do still disagree that women ( or men for that matter) should be forced into choices they are unhappy with purely to enable a financial expectation. We would pretty much have no nurses, firemen, bus drivers, gardners etc if that were the way.

I certainly never implied that anyone should be forced to study subjects that don't make then happy but why is there such a different ratio of girls to boys interested in such fields of IT or science? But surely if mothers have issues with the whole discimination of roles, shouldn't they encourage their daughters to take on such subjects if they enjoy them? Or are we saying that males are born with a disposition to enjoying these subjects more than females?

Georgiegirl256

quidsy wrote: »

So blame the women again right? Have you actually read any of the posts here with real life examples of how normal, modern women still have to address these issues with their normal, modern, progressive partners or do you just dont' care? A case of, It's not happening to me so therefore it's not happening BUT if it is, it must be the womans fault.

Wake up .

Excuse me, but there is no need to be so rude.

In case you hadn't realised, I AM a woman. Whilst I realise the balance regarding household chores still swings in favour of the man, I'm also more willing to accept that the variant is not that great anymore, and men do muck in and do their fair share....something you seem unable to acknowledge. Have you actually read any of the examples listed by numerous posters on here?

I'm not saying that because my husband is very good and does his fair share that all men are like that, because we all know they are not, but equally there's a lot of women that are lazy cows (I know a few of them). I do get where you are coming from, in that there's still an imbalance and a lot of men think they should be waited on hand and foot, but that imbalance is getting smaller all the time without a doubt.

I know respect has got to be earned, but I feel you are doing a disservice to not only your own man, but men in general by not giving them the credit they deserve.