Have your say: Women gain higher earnings boosts after studying at university

I think the italicized sections highlight the flaw in your argument. A job that is high paying due to capitalism is one that is socially critical i.e. what people will pay for.

If women are choosing to do lower paid or unpaid work but there is nothing stopping them from doing something else, it is perverse to call it unfair.

Either way women are being paid less for being women.

Women make choices.

Society has decided that female characteristics are deserving of less wealth.

Argubaly the most socially criticle jobs are low paying. Eg bin men and nurses. Depends what you mean by socially criticle.

Becuase they were born with a woman's brain they make choices which result in less pay.

Imagine you live in a society that rewards wealth according to physical strength. Women are going to have less than men on average aren't they? This is no different. Society has decided that female characteristics are deserving of less wealth.

No it hasn't Plenty of men don't earn much too.

As the link I gave you demonstrated, both women and men make choices and get paid according to those choices.

The woman that earns hundreds of millions has a woman's brain. Should I complain that my man's brain doesn't earn me that amount?

LOL. If you're going that far into determinism then there's no reason to complain about anything - it's just my molecules what made me do it guv'nor.

This is where you are wrong. Not being able to do something is different from being able but not choosing to do it.

So then why do you think less women choose to be a plumber?

Again. What is about men that means they enjoy being a plumber and women don't? Why do boys choose to play with toy guns and girls choose to play with dolls?

What if it is that deterministic? I thought beleiving that men and women are exactly the same and the only differences are due to socialisation is just crazy feminism.

Not a social scientist: but it's cultural not innate.

What seperates me from a conservative is that I don't think natural inequality should determin materail wealth.

As apposed to entering a market place at unequal starting points.

It does depend on what you mean by critical. We need bin "people" to collect rubbish but as it turns out it's a low skilled job which plenty of people can and will do. So it won't attract a high wage so it's not a critical job. You may want to pay them more but there is enough competition that you don't have to, so you may as well pay less and use the money for other aspects of the common good.

This may not coincide with what you subjectively think is critical. Personally I think marketing and advertising is socially terrible, but it helps profits otherwise companies wouldn't engage in it.

A supply and demand definition of critical is the only useful one because otherwise you're just mired in subjective opinion which can differ from person to person.

What am I getting at is that what our life path is like is largely shaped by forces we have no control over. If gender is one of those forces, and is hard coded into us from birth. This is going to result in inequalities between people. One of which is pay. But then as a conervative you should be celebrating and embracing the inequality. I find it odd that is is the leftists here who is accepted natural inequality we cannot escape from. As apposed to pretending we are all born equal. What seperates me from a conservative is that I don't think natural inequality should determin materail wealth.

You can't help being born female and you're likely to earn less than a male.
You can't help being born less intelligent, according to academic indicators, and you're less likely to work in high-paying professional jobs.

I don't see the second as a problem in our society which, by implication, means I am ready to accept some forms of natural inequality. Does that make me a conservative?

Does that make me a conservative?

To ChaoticButterfly, anyone to the right of Mao, Marx and Trotsky is a conservative.

You appear to think the current arrangement is largely fine with regards to gender.

I don't see the difference between being born with intelligence and gender. It is creul to base so much of how someone's life will turn out on factors they had no control over. For instance shelter should not be reliant on ones ability to get a job, just as it isn't on ones ability to get healthcare.

It's not so much that this inequality exists in nature (it still upsets me but we can;t do anything about it), it's that our society rewards those who already have an advantage.


Accepting the existance of natural inequality is not intrinsically conservative. "For each according to his need, for each according to his ability" implies poeple have different needs and ability, yet sums up the far left quite well.

Where this divide between left and right comes from is due to the right often using the argument of "human nature" as to why the ideas of the left can never work in practise.

It is significantly better than what you propose, most certainly. As has been amply demonstrated.