Should women earn as much as men? Watch

Bornstubborn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#41
(Original post by Reblet)
*dances in the rays of sexism still beaming from centuries ago* Glad it's still alive and well!

OP nobody would say a female teacher should earn the same as a male doctor. BUT a male doctor and a female doctor doing the same job should get the same pay. It's not a difficult concept. I cannot see how anyone could argue against this being the way it should be done... All this "maternity leave" malarchy frustrates me as well, as though women should be paid less because of the theoretical children they might have.

When you consider that women have been shown to achieve higher grades from GCSE to degree level on average across the board it is shocking that they are still paid less for the same job. One of my friends is in an apprenticeship and is earning a full £5000 less a year than her fellow male apprentice. Absolutely ridiculous.

Although the Wimbledon thing is stupid IMO as the men are playing for longer on average so the winnings should reflect this.
I expect male and female doctors make the same. However, the male doctors are more likely to do a lot more on call work and over time (when i was last in A&E there were no on call female doctors). So the male doctors will possibly get paid more. However certain reports suggest this is somehow unfair and that women should get paid the same.
The report i read simply said women are getting paid less in full time and aprt time work irrespective of education, hours, risk, travel etc.

Women achieve higher grade's at GCSE because girls mature quicker than boys. If you look at degree level, women study in soft subjects like english literature, sociology, psychology etc whereas men are drawn to hard subjects like science, engineering, accounting etc
Men out perform women in higher education.

Does your apprentice friend have equal experience?
0
reply
WithFlyingColours
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#42
Report 10 years ago
#42
Hmmm, just thinking through... what if one football team (this is a completely random example btw) wins the FA cup (eg) after a 90 min match, but on another occasion, a different team wins after extra time, penalties etc etc everything possible; theyve played for longer... do they deserve more winnings?
Reply With Quote
That's not a valid comparison I'm afraid. Extra time and penalties are part of the game and it's a way to decide a winner. No distinction between sexes is made. The Wimbledon issue however, is completely different. Women play less as a rule - 3 sets v 5 sets. Your comparison is the same as a tie breaker being played and someone expecting to be apid more for playing that.
0
reply
affinity89
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#43
Report 10 years ago
#43
(Original post by Bornstubborn)
I find it odd that people believe one group should earn as much as another group just because its 'not fair'. I think it is clear to all logical minds that men pursue education that will lead to more profitable careers, they are willing to work in dangerous environments, they will work more hours, travel further and they will not be taking 9 months off everytime they feel broody.
Why is it clear to "all logical minds"? That statement implies that every man is the same as is every woman. That everyone's wishes and intentions are based on their gender alone. Surely, a logical mind would see that such an idea is stupid.

(Original post by Bornstubborn)
they are willing to work in dangerous environments
Again, not all men are willing to work in dangerous environments and some women do. The right to equal pay regardless of gender is focused on people doing the same job. Hence, the issue is Man A is getting paid more than Woman A when they both do the same job, for the same company, with the same amount of skills/experience, working the same number of hours etc. That transfers from dangerous environments to safe environments - the environment itself is irrelevant.

(Original post by Bornstubborn)
they will not be taking 9 months off everytime they feel broody.
A lot of women don't take 9 months off when they have a child - sometimes because their partners will look after the child, sometimes because they can't afford not to work and receive their full wage and sometimes because they are career focused. Secondly, you cannot assume that a woman will feel broody and hence will take 9 months off. Plenty of women cannot have children. Plenty more do not want children.

(Original post by Bornstubborn)
In my mind if men are more profitable to company's then they have every right to earn more money and we should abandon the ridiculous notion that women should earn as much as men just because its 'fair'.
Surely that could be solved with commission and bonuses - so that the most profitable workers, be they male or female, are rewarded. Why is it fair that a woman who works are 50 hour week for a telesales company, gaining the same number of hits as her male counter-part, is paid less?

(Original post by Bornstubborn)
I have never heard of people arguing in favour of certain ethnic groups getting paid more, even though there is a clear distinction between the salary's of certain ethnic groups.
A company that actively discriminates against ethnic groups regarding pay would not be allowed to get away with it, providing people take action. People who want equal pay for men and women, in equal positions with equal skills, are fighting for equal pay regardless of ethnic background. That is the point. They are arguing in favour of equal pay for all.

(Original post by Bornstubborn)
I think it is clear that when you address the issue of ineqaulity in the salary of men and women, you should be careful to note if infact men are earning more simply because they are doing more rather than a case of any form of discrimination against women.
Again, it seems that you misunderstand the point. It is not a case of Man B works 50 hours and has a sales record of 80% and is paid more than Woman B who works 40 hours and has a sales record of 16%. It is about equal pay for equal work.

(Original post by Bornstubborn)
If it is the case that men are doing more (Something i consider to be obvious) then surely it is discrimination to pay women the same for doing less.
Why it is obvious that men are doing more? Where is the proof? And, again, you've misunderstood the argument.

(Original post by Bornstubborn)
It reminds me of Wimbledon, there were many campaigners complaining that the women get paid less and so they increased the womens prize so it was equal to the men's prize. However the men play 5 sets, 2 more than the women and so women in Wimbledon are getting paid more than the men. Wimbledon is a good analogy for the workplace in this sense.
Wimbledon is Wimbledon. Personally I think women should pay to 5 sets - makes the tennis more interesting for one thing. However, as an analogy it doesn't really compare to the reality of the workplace where people doing the same amount of work are paid different amounts.

In response to you initial question, I believe that pay should be respective of the job you are doing and the skills you have to do it. Hence, whether you are female, male or, to quote Kinky Boots, 'yet to make up your mind' shouldn't matter in the slightest.
0
reply
GemmyMonster
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#44
Report 10 years ago
#44
(Original post by Bornstubborn)
Women achieve higher grade's at GCSE because girls mature quicker than boys. If you look at degree level, women study in soft subjects like english literature, sociology, psychology etc whereas men are drawn to hard subjects like science, engineering, accounting etc
Men out perform women in higher education.

Does your apprentice friend have equal experience?

Bit of a generalisation. Plenty of women study "hard" subjects. More might study "soft" ones, but plenty do go for sciences and such.
0
reply
shorty.loves.angels
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#45
Report 10 years ago
#45
(Original post by WithFlyingColours)
That's not a valid comparison I'm afraid. Extra time and penalties are part of the game and it's a way to decide a winner. No distinction between sexes is made. The Wimbledon issue however, is completely different. Women play less as a rule - 3 sets v 5 sets. Your comparison is the same as a tie breaker being played and someone expecting to be apid more for playing that.
I guess so... there's just something about the playing more sets that I think is irrelevant... I don't really care that women win less because I think men's wimbledon probably does make more money from viewing/broadcasting etc etc etc so all's fair.
0
reply
Reblet
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#46
Report 10 years ago
#46
What worries me about this thread is the number of men expressing the opinion women should stick to knocking out babies and that all women will join a company only to get "broody" (lovely poultry terminology) and end up taking maternity leave after maternity leave as they produce a family at the expense of said company. Now I can't help wondering if this is what is in the mind of all guys, all my friends, boyfriends, colleagues... They all expect women to be paid less because hey we got born with a uterus therefore what else would we want than to whack babies out every year?

If life worked on commission then in a lot of areas women would be the top earners. And can we straighten out Harriet H's idea is that comapnies should be able to chose a woman over a man or a ethnic minority over a white applicant with equal qualifications and not have backlash or be slapped with the "positive discrimination" badge. It's a theoretical thing more than anything else because where have you ever met two people with exactly the same qualifications?!
0
reply
Bornstubborn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#47
I think some people need to realise we are looking at averages and generalisations here. The amount of people trying to refute my arguments saying ''some men won't work in dangerous environments' is ridiculous. The vast majority of people employed in dangerous jobs are men. Equally if there is 2 girls in an engineering class with 30 men, sure some women are doing hard subjects but on average it is not the case.

Please use your brains before you post. I wont waste my time replying to inane rebuttals.
0
reply
WithFlyingColours
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#48
Report 10 years ago
#48
The title of the thread is "Should women earn as much as men?", and that's the question I'm trying to address. I'm not sure about you, but for me, the word "should" implies the question is one of morals. Morally, I think my point stands.
Morally, yes. Practically, no.

Maternity leave is not 9 months long, it's (a maximum of) 26 weeks. Any additional maternity leave is unpayed.
I refer you to the case of a female BA First Officer (that's a co-pilot for those of you who don't know), who signed a contract which states that you can apply for part time work after 7 years of service. The same contract is given to all pilot irregardless of sex. Said woman became pregnant after <7 years at the company. She takes maternity leave. Upon returning to work, she demands that she be allowed to work part time because of her child. BA say no, she signed the contract. Said woman takes BA to court and BA get fined and have to let her go on a part time contract. Unfair on the rest of the pilots below her on the seniority list who were wanting to go part time - you bet.

What I'm trying to say by bringing this to your attention is that it hurts the companies for a lot longer than you're trying to say, and as long as women are happy to go against their employers like this, they will be looked upon less favourably.
0
reply
Valkyrja
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#49
Report 10 years ago
#49
This thread is quite disturbing.

I'm not even going to post my opinion in detail because I believe it to be pointless. As many other people have said so far when you are working at the same level, doing the same amount of work with the same amount of skill then you should be paid exactly the same regardless of age/race/gender or disability.

I can't even type any more, the premise that women should earn less than men just because there is the possibility they may have children is ridiculous (I'm not sure exactly where I stand in terms of maternity leave), and any other argument is just pretty silly in terms of its fundamental foundations.
0
reply
GemmyMonster
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#50
Report 10 years ago
#50
(Original post by Bornstubborn)
Please use your brains before you post. I wont waste my time replying to inane rebuttals.
Pot.. kettle.. ringing any bells?


The point is, most people are agreeing that same job, hours etc = same pay.

You're saying that same job + hours = certain pay rate. Have a uterus? Lets reduce it!
0
reply
Bornstubborn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#51
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#51
I think the notion of maternity leave is often looked at from the point of the employee by most women. Consider the idea of maternity leave from the view of an employer....

As an employer you will be paying someone to essentially do nothing that benefits the company, for a small business this is impossible and even in a large business it makes the company less comeptitive to have many high paid female staff taking maternity leave.

If i were an employer i'd be vary wary of employing women of child rearing age.

I wonder if a woman could apply for a job, get the job and then straight away take maternity leave. That is essentially theft.
0
reply
Crystaltears
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#52
Report 10 years ago
#52
(Original post by Bornstubborn)
It is upto a couple to decide reponsibilities. Most women would prefer to look after the children and in some cases the men do.
Women don't prefer to, it's just they are expected to.
(Original post by Bornstubborn)
There are some extremely well paid dangerous jobs, you are just unfamiliar with them.
I am aware that there are some, that's why I said most.

(Original post by Bornstubborn)
Its not a matter of society and the role's of men and women, it is a matter of business's making money.
If women didn't have the role of carers, they would make just as much money as businesses.

(Original post by Bornstubborn)
Well the reality of the situation is that many girls are aware of being socialised in one way of another such as yourself. Although you are aware of this socialisation, you will be studyiong sociology, whereas i study engineering. Who should earn more money when we graduate?
Thats just how it is!
Even though we are aware of it, it doesn't change how we feel about our expectations.
I don't know what you are trying to prove by that. I'm probably going to be a teacher, so if you are engineer you are probably going to earn more than me, but the same would go for a male teacher.
0
reply
Reblet
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#53
Report 10 years ago
#53
(Original post by Bornstubborn)
I expect male and female doctors make the same. However, the male doctors are more likely to do a lot more on call work and over time (when i was last in A&E there were no on call female doctors). So the male doctors will possibly get paid more. However certain reports suggest this is somehow unfair and that women should get paid the same.
The report i read simply said women are getting paid less in full time and aprt time work irrespective of education, hours, risk, travel etc.

Women achieve higher grade's at GCSE because girls mature quicker than boys. If you look at degree level, women study in soft subjects like english literature, sociology, psychology etc whereas men are drawn to hard subjects like science, engineering, accounting etc
Men out perform women in higher education.

Does your apprentice friend have equal experience?
The more you type the more bigoted you sound therefore I refuse to believe that I as a "soft subject" student. could ever be "out-performed" by you a "hard subject" student.

So you're basing your evidence on female junior doctors on what you saw once in A&E? Wow, great evidence you have there... Any link to this "article" you keep banging on about?

Why would you calss English Literature as soft? Why is Psychology soft? Can your prove these are less valuable degrees? Psychology can lead to a highly profitable career and English isn't considered a "soft" option by anyone, it's just a degree that further proves your intellect without actually qualifying you for anything. Yes there are more men in Science subjects and more women in Arts subjects. The Science world is still very male dominated and many women feel intimidated applying for Engineering etc. knowing they will be in a tiny minority. Hardly surprising...
Anyway you seem to argue that the profitable vocational degrees like Engineering are full of men thus the men all deserve well-paid jobs whilst us soft-minded females should run off and be Social workers. If this is your argument then I think you seem to be missing the big guns like medicine and law... You know? The most profitable degrees? Go and look at the male/female stats for those (I'll give you a clue - they ruin your argument completely) then you can talk about men chosing the more profitable subjects. :rolleyes:

I cling to the hope that I will never meet anyone as chauvinist as you in my life. Though I suspect I may not be this lucky...
0
reply
DoMakeSayThink
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#54
Report 10 years ago
#54
(Original post by Bornstubborn)
I think some people need to realise we are looking at averages and generalisations here. The amount of people trying to refute my arguments saying ''some men won't work in dangerous environments' is ridiculous. The vast majority of people employed in dangerous jobs are men. Equally if there is 2 girls in an engineering class with 30 men, sure some women are doing hard subjects but on average it is not the case.

Please use your brains before you post. I wont waste my time replying to inane rebuttals.
Stop trying to act like the most logically founded of people when your arguments rely on undefined criteria and baseless premises.

The main point of your argument seems to be that the average pay of women should not be equal to that of men simply to make things fair. This is an obvious conclusion, and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. Nowhere is it suggested that women should, on average, be earning the same amount. Thanks to current social trends, more women take part-time jobs, and as such earn less money. In addition, women are on average not as qualified as men, and hence earn less money. You would never say all 19 year olds should be payed the same as 48 year olds to make things fair.

The problem with your posts lies, though, not in the point your trying to argue but the method that you employ. You've made a lot of sweeping statements that aren't backed up by evidence, and a lot of sexist/bigoted remarks.
0
reply
WithFlyingColours
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#55
Report 10 years ago
#55
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Do any of you people have any evidence that, for example, your male maths teacher who has been at the school for 2 years gets paid more than your female maths teacher who has been there 2 years aswell?

I'm afraid it simply doesn't work like that. Money can not tell whether it is being paid to a woman or a man. Money given to a man hurts a company just as much as money given to a woman. Companies do not pay someone more for nothing. Think about what a company is there to do before you dispute what I'm saying.
0
reply
Bornstubborn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#56
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#56
(Original post by Crystaltears)
Women don't prefer to, it's just they are expected to.

I am aware that there are some, that's why I said most.


If women didn't have the role of carers, they would make just as much money as businesses.


Even though we are aware of it, it doesn't change how we feel about our expectations.
I don't know what you are trying to prove by that. I'm probably going to be a teacher, so if you are engineer you are probably going to earn more than me, but the same would go for a male teacher.
Well women ahve the choice who they take as a partner and if they don't want to play a mothering role they can find a men who is accepting of that.

So even though you are aware, you are happy to plod off into comparitevly relatively low pay?
Perhaps its more nature than nurture.

I study engineering because it appeals to me but most importantly because i expect to make a good wage. If my potential earnings were reduced to appease some notion of equal pay, i wouldn't bother studying engineering i would study an easy subject. Perhaps i would become a teacher too.

Yes, engineers make a lot more than teachers.
0
reply
Reblet
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#57
Report 10 years ago
#57
(Original post by WithFlyingColours)
Morally, yes. Practically, no.



I refer you to the case of a female BA First Officer (that's a co-pilot for those of you who don't know), who signed a contract which states that you can apply for part time work after 7 years of service. The same contract is given to all pilot irregardless of sex. Said woman became pregnant after <7 years at the company. She takes maternity leave. Upon returning to work, she demands that she be allowed to work part time because of her child. BA say no, she signed the contract. Said woman takes BA to court and BA get fined and have to let her go on a part time contract. Unfair on the rest of the pilots below her on the seniority list who were wanting to go part time - you bet.

What I'm trying to say by bringing this to your attention is that it hurts the companies for a lot longer than you're trying to say, and as long as women are happy to go against their employers like this, they will be looked upon less favourably.
Yes because that one example can be extrapolated to apply to all women.... :rolleyes:

In fact we all have a section in our brain purely dedicated to screwing over our employers via our wombs... Men might know that if they did soft subjects like Psychology.
0
reply
shorty.loves.angels
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#58
Report 10 years ago
#58
(Original post by Reblet)
Yes because that one example can be extrapolated to apply to all women.... :rolleyes:

In fact we all have a section in our brain purely dedicated to screwing over our employers via our wombs... Men might know that if they did soft subjects like Psychology.
Oh how i chuckled!

I also think men are more likely to be driven to a career that is more likely to earn more than be particularly interesting etc, whereas women are more likely to study'work towards something they are interested in rather than something that is going to be a big earner. Admitted, could be completely wrong but I suspect a correlation...
0
reply
Crystaltears
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#59
Report 10 years ago
#59
(Original post by Bornstubborn)
post
I do get what you are saying, but the point is that women (in general) do no have the same opportunities as men because they are nearly always seen as the primary carer of the kids.

lol I think we should just agree to disagree because i'm guessing by your username that this will be a long night if we continue.
So good luck being an engineer and earning more money than me, whilst I work part-time looking after the kids
0
reply
Crystaltears
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#60
Report 10 years ago
#60
(Original post by Reblet)
Men might know that if they did soft subjects like Psychology.
LOL!!!! *high five*
I though that earlier about studying Sociology and feminism.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (273)
38.18%
No - but I will (51)
7.13%
No - I don't want to (51)
7.13%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (340)
47.55%

Watched Threads

View All