Equal Pay - Gender Discrimination

Tabbytabitha

Samsung_Note2 wrote: »

Maybe it holds no interest...why is it people now days are so desperate for everyone to be equal in every way.

Men and women and different and are simply by nature suited to different roles.

In what ways are you happy to be inequal to others?

Comms69

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

In what ways are you happy to be inequal to others?

He may be weaker than another person,
shorter than someone else,
earn less money than you,
have a bigger car than me


What's the problem?


What do you want equality to be?


Equality of opportunity or outcome? Because I'm only interested in opportunity.

Detroit

Comms69 wrote: »

He may be weaker than another person,
shorter than someone else,
earn less money than you,
have a bigger car than me


What's the problem?


What do you want equality to be?


Equality of opportunity or outcome? Because I'm only interested in opportunity.

I would agree it's about equality of opportunity.

In the OPs case it's possible that her opportunities are not equal to those of her male counterparts, for example, being required to take minutes rather than have the opportunity to present her own ideas or lead the discussion. Or to get stuck into the task when the meeting is over because she's typing and circulating the notes. Or to try her hand at other tasks her colleagues are doing because she's been pigeonholed at being more suited to a certain set of tasks.

When compared with her male colleagues, the OP feels that her opportunities are being curtailed. When seen alongside the pay disparity, she believes this is on the grounds of her gender. It would be up to her employer to prove otherwise.

tenchy

Comms69 wrote: »

He may be weaker than another person,
shorter than someone else,
earn less money than you,
have a bigger car than me


What's the problem?


What do you want equality to be?


Equality of opportunity or outcome? Because I'm only interested in opportunity.

That is exactly the point. Women have had equality of opportunity in just about everything for a long time now. That some, or many, women choose not to engage in certain activities or careers is entirely up to them. Nothing is stopping any woman doing anything she wants. The militant feminists have been grubbing around for years to try and come up with reasons for the disparity between men and women in certain occupations but seem blind to the obvious - that men and women are different! Men and women are not unequal, they are just different, and the difference often manifests itself in the types of occupation favoured by one or other of the sexes.


One thing that really gets my goat is this: we often hear some of the high profile women's lib brigade bleating on about the number of women on the board of FTSE 100 companies, almost as though women have a right to a parity representation. However, I've never yet heard those same opinionated gob****tes complaining about the gross under-representation of women working as refuse collectors. I'm guessing it must be less than 1% of refuse collectors are women, so where's the campaign to get better representation there? There isn't one. The loudmouth feminists are quite happy to discriminate against men to get women into jobs with obscene levels of pay where you don't need to do very much, but when it comes to hard, dirty, manual graft, no! Leave that to the men. That's their attitude, and like the refuse, it stinks.

Detroit

tenchy wrote: »

That is exactly the point. Women have had equality of opportunity in just about everything for a long time now. That some, or many, women choose not to engage in certain activities or careers is entirely up to them. Nothing is stopping any woman doing anything she wants. The militant feminists have been grubbing around for years to try and come up with reasons for the disparity between men and women in certain occupations but seem blind to the obvious - that men and women are different! Men and women are not unequal, they are just different, and the difference often manifests itself in the types of occupation favoured by one or other of the sexes.


One thing that really gets my goat is this: we often hear some of the high profile women's lib brigade bleating on about the number of women on the board of FTSE 100 companies, almost as though women have a right to a parity representation. However, I've never yet heard those same opinionated gob****tes complaining about the gross under-representation of women working as refuse collectors. I'm guessing it must be less than 1% of refuse collectors are women, so where's the campaign to get better representation there? There isn't one. The loudmouth feminists are quite happy to discriminate against men to get women into jobs with obscene levels of pay where you don't need to do very much, but when it comes to hard, dirty, manual graft, no! Leave that to the men. That's their attitude, and like the refuse, it stinks.

I think you're missing the point. People don't campaign to be represented in unattractive roles when the whole premise of the campaign is that they're over represented in them already. Maybe not as refuse collectors specifically, but in equally difficult and dirty roles.

Women also campaigned for the right to work in coal mines and to take roles in the armed forces, and will no doubt continue to campaign while attitudes such as yours exist.

stator

This thread has gone way off topic