Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emily May)
    I am by no means informed about this scenario but I do want to say that you are only adding to the problem by saying "don't get your panties up in a bunch". If you were arguing against another guy would you say "don't get your boxers up in a bunch"? Even if you didn't mean for it to sound misogynistic you're basically just disregarding everything said and filing it under "stupid woman problem".
    Are you seriously that stupid? It's a bloody saying ffs. "Don't get your panties up in a twist/bunch" is a well known saying, said by either gender, to either gender.

    Seriously feminism has gotten absurd.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Then you are naive.
    Proof? Or just because it suits your beliefs?
    • #1
    #1

    (Original post by shawn_o1)
    Apparently I've read somewhere that in other industries (not just sport) the gender pay gap could be explained by how it's more acceptable for men to negotiate their pay with the boss.
    This could be true. There are other factors as well, such as the degrees that men and women get, the area of work they're more likely to try and get into, the hours men and women work etc.
    As far as I'm aware it is completely illegal to pay 2 people differently just because one is a man and one is a woman - this would just be blatant discrimination an I'm sure that it does not happen - as it's illegal and if you suspect it you can call whoever and they could do an investigation.
    I'm saying men and women should not be paid differently if they work the same hours, do the exact same job, are both as good as each other at their job. I don't know why any company would do this and I'm sure they don't.
    The figures are misleading to say the least.
    In summary the gender pay gap does not exist - or if it does exist it is not discrimination. (Although perhaps it may occasionally happen - but it must be very rare if it does)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neb789)
    So is it just supply and demand or is there far more too it?
    Far more, understandably so. When, whoever is in charge of salaries, decides what wages they wish to pay someone, they consider many variables. Such as qualifications, job, revenue they bring in, hours they work, what their value is to the company, maybe even experience. Therefore people get different salaries.

    It's ignorant to think people are paid less due to a genetic characteristic (which, might I add, is illegal)
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    Far more, understandably so. When, whoever is in charge of salaries, decides what wages they wish to pay someone, they consider many variables. Such as qualifications, job, revenue they bring in, hours they work, what their value is to the company, maybe even experience. Therefore people get different salaries.

    It's ignorant to think people are paid less due to a genetic characteristic (which, might I add, is illegal)
    Wouldn't it then be possible for someone who say, believes that people with different genetic characteristics should be paid less to do so?

    Looking at the roots of this that is.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    Proof? Or just because it suits your beliefs?
    There are cases up and down the country which women have won on the basis of pay discrimination.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ngham-34069437
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-fife-34652784
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...rk-ruling.html
    https://www.unison.org.uk/news/artic...s-for-members/

    The problem with private businesses is nobody knows each others salary, but when you get to higher levels and bonuses, then in a lot of organisation there is a distinct difference between what employees get, Wait till you get into the City.

    Btw I support the fact the case if the ootballers is ridiculous, becayse they arent doing the same job and are subject to market demands, its a spurious claim.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    Or, you could learn to either 1) Not completely fabricate statistics, 2) Not misrepresent statistics or 3) Explain what the statistics actually refer to.

    Women's football game's we're not viewed more than male football games in 2012. Maybe for specific countries, or tournament based, or because of factors such as bigger tournaments/ more games etc etc. But I highly doubt it's as rediculous as the agenda driven media likes to make it sound.

    And people like you, with your sarcastic and patronising tones, are the reason nobody listens. So childish.
    This is getting boring.

    Maybe the WSJ is well regarded enough for you?

    "The women’s national team is a three-time World Cup winner and defending Olympic champion. Its victory in the 2015 World Cup final against Japan last summer was the most-watched soccer game of all time in the U.S. with over 26 million viewers. The men’s team has never progressed past the World Cup quarterfinals since finishing third at the inaugural tournament in 1930."

    As we were discussing the US women's soccer team, it seemed unnecessary to state the obvious.

    .... It's really astonishing to note how some otherwise clever people would rather believe their own prejudices than the clear facts in this case.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    And for the sake of fairness, "As for the sale of television rights, U.S. Soccer bundles its men’s and women’s games together, making it impossible to tell which games are most attractive to broadcasters. That said, the cost of a 30-second ad during Fox’s broadcast of the 2015 Women’s World Cup final was $210,760, compared with $465,140 for a 30-second spot on ABC in 2014 during the men’s final, which didn’t feature Americans. The women’s 2015 final drew 8 million more viewers."

    Same article. Google.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neb789)
    Wouldn't it then be possible for someone who say, believes that people with different genetic characteristics should be paid less to do so?

    Looking at the roots of this that is.
    Despite the fact it's against the law, I cannot obviously deny that. There will always be some radical people. But to believe it's all men paying women (77% was it?) of what men get is just ridiculous.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Assan)
    I'd love to.

    1- The US Women's Football team has won 4 Olympic medals and 3 world titles. They are the current holders of the world title, meaning that they are the best in the world.
    2- The men's team have won nothing.
    3- The men's team lost a million dollars this past year. The women's team MADE 20 million. To be fair, it was a championship year fro the women, not the men. But all you need to know is that the woman's team is solvent...and winning.
    4 - Last year, the women's games were MORE watched than the men's in 2012.

    I'm not entirely convinced by the "equality means bringing in equal revenue" schtick. BUT if you want to go with that - the women's team is asking for too little.

    Source: I prefer th BBC, but sometimes I watch CNN, too.
    As a proportion of the total, hardly any revenue in football comes from the US and hardly any revenue from football comes from amateur teams (professionals, strictly defined, aren't allowed to compete in the Olympics).

    The most money in football, like most sports, is made by the top performers, which are European and Latin American mens' teams.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    There are cases up and down the country which women have won on the basis of pay discrimination.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ngham-34069437
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-fife-34652784
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...rk-ruling.html
    https://www.unison.org.uk/news/artic...s-for-members/

    The problem with private businesses is nobody knows each others salary, but when you get to higher levels and bonuses, then in a lot of organisation there is a distinct difference between what employees get, Wait till you get into the City.

    Btw I support the fact the case if the ootballers is ridiculous, becayse they arent doing the same job and are subject to market demands, its a spurious claim.
    Oh no I'm not denying some stupid people think it's okay to pay someone less based on gender. But it's not a national sexist thing, it's just a few knobs xD

    Companies that always put money first, are going to keep their best assets. Which requires paying them more. They're not going to put their own beliefs beyond how much money they make, very few people even have that power.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    Oh no I'm not denying some stupid people think it's okay to pay someone less based on gender. But it's not a national sexist thing, it's just a few knobs xD

    Companies that always put money first, are going to keep their best assets. Which requires paying them more. They're not going to put their own beliefs beyond how much money they make, very few people even have that power.
    It happens on a micro tribal level along with brownosing amd todayism. All offices have politics and thats just one of the way it manifests itself.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    Women footballers are claiming that because the total average wage of a female footballer is less than the total average wage of a male footballer, it must be due to their sex nothing else? Do people really not understand supply and demand.
    It is due to their sex. Women are worse at football because women are genetically inferior in traits necessary to be good at football, like muscle mass, bone density, endurance, and so forth. This can never be fixed because it isn't a social problem, it's a biological problem.

    Women are paid less than men in football for the same reason that I am paid less than Wayne Rooney: by comparison they're no damn good.

    In the words of the title of your thread, a woman playing football isn't "equal work" to a man playing football, just as me playing football isn't "equal work" to Wayne Rooney playing football. Just, indeed, as Wayne Rooney solving partial differential equations likely isn't "equal work" to me doing so.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Assan)
    This is getting boring.

    Maybe the WSJ is well regarded enough for you?

    "The women’s national team is a three-time World Cup winner and defending Olympic champion. Its victory in the 2015 World Cup final against Japan last summer was the most-watched soccer game of all time in the U.S. with over 26 million viewers. The men’s team has never progressed past the World Cup quarterfinals since finishing third at the inaugural tournament in 1930."

    As we were discussing the US women's soccer team, it seemed unnecessary to state the obvious.

    .... It's really astonishing to note how some otherwise clever people would rather believe their own prejudices than the clear facts in this case.
    The fact you compare the men's world cup with the women's world cup is astonishing, because it's pretty obvious if you compare two completely different levels of ability/ entertainment, you're going to find "unfair treatment" comparatively.

    Put the US women's "soccer" team in the men's world cup and see how they fare. You can't do that, and until we do people will always thing the women team are better because they're winning more.

    Let me try a different example, and correlate it to yours. So, you been through the education system? I'm sure you know it's much harder to get into top Universities for courses like Medicine and Law, than it is to get into courses like Architecture. Higher grades in the same subjects, are required. However, the best Architects earn less than many in these more competitive fields. Must be oppression right? -_-

    THe best applicants for Architecture for example may still not be as good as 10 medicine applicants. These 10 are still better, so why should the best medicine applicant achieve the same as the best architecture applicant? That makes no sense, considering one has achieved more overall, but the other has achieved more in their own context.

    You can't compare outside contexts, and then blame people as if they control some alternative dimension where both contexts are one.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    'supply and demand' is such a facile argument for anything ethics-related. How do you establish an entitlement to the fruits of one's own labour, even?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    'supply and demand' is such a facile argument for anything ethics-related. How do you establish an entitlement to the fruits of one's own labour, even?
    If you don't, you're advocating slavery.

    People who think everyone should earn the same despite obvious differences in the value of what they produce are advocating slavery of the more productive by the less productive.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    If you don't, you're advocating slavery.

    People who think everyone should earn the same despite obvious differences in the value of what they produce are advocating slavery of the more productive by the less productive.
    Don't be ridiculous. Slavery is forcing people to work for no remuneration whatsoever. Also, I see the point you're making, and there is no moral right to the fruits of one's own labour - it's the single most laughable part of libertarianism.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Don't be ridiculous. Slavery is forcing people to work for no remuneration whatsoever.
    It isn't; most slaves, even slaves being deliberately worked to death, have received at least some remuneration in kind: food, shelter, and so on.

    Also, I see the point you're making, and there is no moral right to the fruits of one's own labour - it's the single most laughable part of libertarianism.
    Morals are just matters of opinion. However, morals are selected over time in a Darwinian sense. Equalist morals tend to destroy the most capable people which eventually makes equalist societies uncompetitive with societies which let the most capable get ahead of others.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    It isn't; most slaves, even slaves being deliberately worked to death, have received at least some remuneration in kind: food, shelter, and so on.
    I disagree that this amounts to remuneration when it exists solely to further the purposes of the owner. However, you're right, I misdefined slavery: I suppose that the concept of ownership of a human being is quite essential to it (the whole 'modern slavery' thing is something of a misnomer.

    Morals are just matters of opinion. However, morals are selected over time in a Darwinian sense. Equalist morals tend to destroy the most capable people which eventually makes equalist societies uncompetitive with societies which let the most capable get ahead of others.
    Morals are not a matter of opinion. Ethics are opinion-based, but morality is an objective matter; the goal of moral reasoning and moral philosophy being to discover its content. Morality is also logically prior to economics: without deciding first which outcomes are to be considered valuable, economics is nothing but an empty framework.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I disagree that this amounts to remuneration when it exists solely to further the purposes of the owner.
    In that case I receive no remuneration because my employer is only paying me to further his own purposes.

    However, you're right, I misdefined slavery: I suppose that the concept of ownership of a human being is quite essential to it (the whole 'modern slavery' thing is something of a misnomer.
    Ownership is durable control. If some of your income is being taken from you each year, you are being durably controlled for that proportion of your labour time by another.

    Morals are not a matter of opinion. Ethics are opinion-based, but morality is an objective matter; the goal of moral reasoning and moral philosophy being to discover its content. Morality is also logically prior to economics: without deciding first which outcomes are to be considered valuable, economics is nothing but an empty framework.
    Morals are just preferences held by humans about what they and other humans should do.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.