The 'left' = dirty? (3 Viewers)

[paper cup]

Your location claims that it no longer exists.

QED

damnit, I hate you men
just you wait until I'm a law girl and have supreme arguing skills.

 

[withoutaface]

damnit, I hate you men
just you wait until I'm a law girl and have supreme arguing skills.

You know how you said you'd convince me to rethink my political views someday?

You have 20 hours to do so.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes, and due to your "surpreme arguing skills" end up one fired legal secretary.

 

[Sarah]

no I think you'll find that more men are in the lower paid professions than women.

statistics please, we use really dated material in class so you may be right.

Or not... look at graph 6.48 and 6.49 in the ABS link

I can't believe i actually bothered looking it up but here's some evidence (as opposed to opinions) regarding gender and pay equality

http://www.actu.asn.au/public/futurework/payequity.html

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/6C28AAF19A697C96CA256F7200832F4A?Open

I think perhaps this thread is no longer about why the left=dirty but instead seems more about inequalities between men and women that exist in the labour market. Maybe we should get back to the original question or broaden the scope in what the left advocates instead of focusing on just 1 specific aspect of the left

 

[Phanatical]

It can be summed up in a simple question. Have you ever heard of a garbage woman?

 

[NonExistant]

Or not... look at graph 6.48 and 6.49 in the ABS link

I can't believe i actually bothered looking it up but here's some evidence (as opposed to opinions) regarding gender and pay equality

http://www.actu.asn.au/public/futurework/payequity.html

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/6C28AAF19A697C96CA256F7200832F4A?Open

I think perhaps this thread is no longer about why the left=dirty but instead seems more about inequalities between men and women that exist in the labour market. Maybe we should get back to the original question or broaden the scope in what the left advocates instead of focusing on just 1 specific aspect of the left

Did you ever stop to think that women are lazier, or work less, hence why they do not receive as much money? equality is about equal oppurtunities, not equal money for unequal work.

I mean look at the article:

'Women earn on average 67% of male earnings, or $271 pw less than men do. This data is skewed by part time employment. When only full time jobs are compared, women earn $171.00 pw less than men, or 81% of male earnings.


When overtime is excluded, full time female ordinary time earnings are 84.6% of comparable male earnings.'

This shows that clearly women are working less hours, and likely less commited to their jobs, which would be the primary reason for their lower pay.

 

[Stray]

maybe because they have to look after the house as well!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

so? does that mean they should get higher pay?
They don't "have" to look after the house, they just do...

 

[Stray]

if I remember correctly there was this article I read before that males are more competitive and take more risks so are more likely to get better jobs as they are singular focused.

 

[NonExistant]

At our school they had a special boy-focused education program so that they would not fall behind due to their different ways of learning. I understand that this program is implemented across all state schools (at least in NSW).

No[comment]commmment[/comment]

 

[Not-That-Bright]

umm ok, I believe females are plenty "competitive" but whatever.
I think it comes down to a variety of factors that differ in the character of your average man and woman.

 

[NonExistant]

if I remember correctly there was this article I read before that males are more competitive and take more risks so are more likely to get better jobs

Somewhat Correct.

as they are singular focused.

Not as correct, more competitve and more risks has nothing to do with being singularly focussed.

In addition many studies have now shown that many domestic duties are becoming more and more the domain of the father. Specifically in eurpope, the fathers often do more of the housework than the females in many instances, and in australia it has moved much more towards 50/50. Gone are the days when all men were completely clueless about cooking, washing, shopping. With our move to a more independant individual society men, the new generation in particular, have had to learn and adapt to these changes.

Anyway, I fail to see any of the points you were rasing on why the higher average male payrate was not justified?

 

[Stray]

I just scanned through that link in your quote and I didn't like that you wrote down women are possibly lazier. my mum use to work in those sweatshop like clothing industries in someone's backyard and HAD to come home to do cooking and cleaning and after that MORE sewing. I think women just get paid less.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You're mum wasn't lazy, that doesn't mean the general population isn't lazier.

 

[NonExistant]

I just scanned through that link in your quote and I didn't like that you wrote down women are possibly lazier. my mum use to work in those sweatshop like clothing industries in someone's backyard and HAD to come home to do cooking and cleaning and after that MORE sewing. I think women just get paid less.

Exactly, your mother is obviously not indicative of the general population trend.

How can people claim that women get paid less, when ALL the award wages are IDENTICAL. If they are still getting paid less, they are either not working as much, or in general do not possess the negotiation skills compared to males to negotiate higher individual contract wages.

I mean honestly, is a company going to higher someone who will do an infearior job, causing them infearior profits, and hence infearior wages/bonuses, just because they're a male instead of female? Of course not, if we follow the capatalist view, everyone will do what's in their best interests, and clearly reducing the amount of money they will receive is not in their best interests.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Or are choosing to go into jobs they prefer over harder, less "exciting" jobs which pay much more.

 

[withoutaface]

if I remember correctly there was this article I read before that males are more competitive and take more risks so are more likely to get better jobs as they are singular focused.

This is exactly the point the feminists made for affirmative action. If one person wants to be more competitive, and another refuses to be, guess what?

The former deserves the promotion, because the latter is out of touch with reality.

 

[Generator]

I can see that you are all for proper workplace reform to ensure that gender equality (to an acceptable degree) exists.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I think Xayma posted some research into a lesser competitiveness in women, but is competitiveness the only factor involved in workplace equality? Presumably they still have just as much merit and desire to take higher jobs, despite not wanting to act in a manner that is as competitive as men.

 

[withoutaface]

I think Xayma posted some research into a lesser competitiveness in women, but is competitiveness the only factor involved in workplace equality? Presumably they still have just as much merit and desire to take higher jobs, despite not wanting to act in a manner that is as competitive as men.

The problem is that the cornerstone of capitalism, and therefore our economic system, is competitiveness. Companies must compete for customers, and so those within the companies must compete for positions.