- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:5000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 421 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 59925
Do you know what I don't get about the gender pay gap?
If companies can get away with paying women less than men then why don't they only hire women and save themselves loadsa money?
|>>|| No. 59926
The gender pay gap doesn't really exist, women who demand more money get it. Most women don't ask for more. The glass ceiling is self imposed.
What boils my piss is when a women who gets paid less complains about the sum she agreed to, rather than just asking for a raise. If you're a professional there is always room to negotiate. If you don't get it and you're competent, then learn from your mistake and move on and remember to ask for more next time.
In jobs which aren't salaried, minimum wage jobs and service industry jobs, there is no pay gap.
|>>|| No. 59928
There's just no like-for-like pay gap. Funnily enough companies tend to avoid paying two people in the same role a different amount.
The who thing is perpetuated by the fact that women tend to work less hours, and that a lot of female dominated vocations are relatively low paying. Add into that women taking time off for kids etc, and you have a national average of women being payed less in their lifetime than men.
Whether those factors I've just mentioned are a product of a sexist society, or are just simply how these particular cards have fallen, is left as an exercise to the reader. Are women forced into 'girl jobs'? Are men given more/encouraged to work more hours or do they CHOOSE to work extra? I don't have the data to say either way.
|>>|| No. 59933
There is also the detail you left out that up to the age of 30 women are paid more than men, which quite heavily suggests that at 30 they start settling down to start a family and take jobs with fewer hours and more connivance to look after kids. And men double down on working to provide for the family.
|>>|| No. 59981
>THERE IS ALSO THE DETAIL YOU LEFT OUT THAT UP TO THE AGE OF 30 WOMEN ARE PAID MORE THAN MEN
That is quite a claim lad, show us your workings.
|>>|| No. 59982
This is fairly common knowledge.
>Women in their 20s have reversed the gender pay gap, but their earning power is still overtaken by men later in life. Figures compiled by the Press Association have shown that between the ages of 22 and 29, a woman will typically earn £1,111 more per annum than her male counterparts.
>Using data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), PA analysed the comparative earnings of men and women between 2006 and 2013. Statistics for 2014 have yet to be verified and were excluded. While younger women in their 20s came out top in the earning stakes, the story was vastly different for workers in their 30s. A man turning 30 in 2006 would have brought in on average £8,775 more than a woman of the same age.
ONS figures. Women in their twenties on average earn more than men and are less likely to be unemployed. Women only start earning less on average when they start having babies.
|>>|| No. 59985
It's the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's fault that they're the ones who look after them.
|>>|| No. 59988
>WOMEN ONLY START EARNING LESS ON AVERAGE WHEN THEY START HAVING BABIES.
No lad - the article says nothing like that, doesn't even mention childbearing, you are showing your own bias and faulty thinking. The article clearly postulates that men overtake women in their thirties because that is the point when men start getting all the promotions, which in the main, women are often excluded from.
This backs up my own observations at many of the places I have worked. I happen to work somewhere now where there is a pretty decent male/female ratio in the general work population, but none of them are in leadership positions.
|>>|| No. 59990
>women are often excluded from.
Is it exclusion if they choose not to seek promotion, as the evidence suggests is the case?
|>>|| No. 59991
>AS THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS
The evidence suggests they don't get the jobs - there is nothing to say about how many apply.
|>>|| No. 60010
Aw bless you, maybe if you at least worked as many hours as the men around you (like the data does say) might not be skipped over for promotion? you don't get rewarded for being lazy.
After all the data must be taken at face value and nothing else infered (apart from of course your dogma).
|>>|| No. 60026
Thing is statistics and averages and all that mean fuck all.
I'm male and I get paid dogshit for my job. So do the women. You just don't get paid very well in this field despite being relatively technical and demanding.
Yet again gender issues are being used as a divide and conquer strategy to keep people distracted from the real issue of overall wealth inequality between rich and poor. There's nothing we hate more in this country than poor people being made better off.
|>>|| No. 60027
>YET AGAIN GENDER ISSUES ARE BEING USED AS A DIVIDE AND CONQUER STRATEGY TO KEEP PEOPLE DISTRACTED FROM THE REAL ISSUE OF OVERALL WEALTH INEQUALITY BETWEEN RICH AND POOR. THERE'S NOTHING WE HATE MORE IN THIS COUNTRY THAN POOR PEOPLE BEING MADE BETTER OFF.
It's a good job that leftists aren't falling for this and doing silly things like, say, demanding we have ethnicity audits as well.
|>>|| No. 60028
I'd like to know what you do just so I know how wrong you've been
|>>|| No. 60035
Oh Honey, The fact that you think the height of measuring wealth is by what someone else pays you to do makes you adorable. You are like a little hairy armpitted Loadsamoney
|>>|| No. 60036
I'm not the person you were talking to, I'm just aware of what most people who post here earn.
>YOU THINK THE HEIGHT OF MEASURING WEALTH IS BY WHAT SOMEONE ELSE PAYS YOU
So you're a trust fund kid? Well done.
|>>|| No. 60037
>I'm not the person you were talking to
Hush then. Men Speaking.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 60040
I'M TOO FRIGHTENED TO LOOK AT MY BANK STATEMENTS AND HAVE NO INCOME!
|>>|| No. 60041
As we've learned in this thread, you don't measure wealth with money, so don't worry about it.
|>>|| No. 60042
Is this whole issue being deliberately simplified and reduced to us vs them for the sake of courting women voters?
|>>|| No. 60043
It's classic divide and conquer by the Tories to implement these gender audits.
The problem is that the so called progressives lap it up, particularly as they struggle to grasp how to interpret statistics and the concept that equality of opportunity does not equate to equality of outcome.
They're being played for the complete useful idiots that they are by the government. The Tories just need to light the touchpaper and then let these idiots run with it, blinded by their ever increasing desire to segment people into various groups of oppression and losing sight of the one that truly matters which is class.
|>>|| No. 60044
But then presumably the tories then have the lefties asking them to put money in to women?
|>>|| No. 60045
>It's classic divide and conquer by the Tories to implement these gender audits.
Why on earth would you think this is a perfectly constructed right wing conspiracy? when it is easier to assume it to be a grass roots half baked idea crafted by idiots for idiots.
|>>|| No. 60046
Nah, it's all the fault of the big bad corporations.
Dawn Butler has written in the Guardian today to say that Labour would fine companies who aren't tackling their gender pay gap, that is where the average man is paid more than the average woman and doesn't take into account things like length of service, hours worked, qualifications and what job they actually do.
|>>|| No. 60047
It's a sop. It's a complete sop.
Theresa May has made a lot of noise about tackling corporate excess and doing gimmicks like putting workers on the company boards, but she doesn't really want to do anything about it.
These gender audits are a massive distraction but a) it makes Theresa look like she's doing something b) it allows the professionally offended to go into overdrive.
|>>|| No. 60049
>simplified and reduced to us vs them for the sake of courting women voters?
Welcome to popularism.
That is all the average voter ever understands and cares about. When a person declares themselves a victim, or discriminated against, you don't get them to vote for you by telling them they are wrong, you need to indulge their fantasy.
The Obama administration ended up doing this, he announced they were going to conduct a huge investigation to right the wrongs of why women make only 77cents to the dollar, when the answer came back "they don't" they quietly buried the report and never spoke of it. Because no one wants to hear that kind of answer. People would probably protest him if he gave it.
|>>|| No. 60050
But it's not "us vs them", it's employers vs employees. No one's blaming you for paying woman less. You're putting that victimisation on yourselves.
|>>|| No. 60051
Nah, m8. It's a huge patriarchal conspiracy.
Haven't you been going to your local weekly meetings about how us menfolk can keep women firmly in their places?
|>>|| No. 60053
I don't think you understand. Are you actually pale, male and stale enough?
|>>|| No. 60055
You seem like the kind of lad to read a headline and get too teary to carry on.
|>>|| No. 60056
I think that's why the Beeb were made to issue theirs first.
A lot of their staff, male and female, are overpaid so it softens the mentality of "the women shouldn't be paid more; the men should be paid less."
|>>|| No. 60065
>Should men take a pay cut?
>Ban salary negotiations
No thanks. Look at what's happened in the public sector in recent years, where the employer (the government) can dictate pay. What's that? You've got reliable data showing your market value? Fuck you, here's £16k and a 1% rise next year.
|>>|| No. 60067
>Feminist[s] [are] unwitting stooges in an assault on the proletariat.
That's all any of this modern progressivism has ever been, lad.
The key difference between an "intersectional feminist" and a plain old Marxist is that the feminist pledges allegiance whole heartedly to the consumer capitalist economic system; and attempts to understand the injustice inflicted upon segments of society through the lens of that system's unquestioned moral neutrality.
Feminism has been, since its earliest days, co-opted by the industrialist bourgeois to exert downwards pressure on labour. Progressive politics as we know it exists to strangle the threat of any resurgence in genuine socialism, like a nest-invading parasite cuckoo.
|>>|| No. 60068
The older I get and the more time I spend with intersectional feminists the more this seems like it might be true. Follow the money, as they say.
|>>|| No. 60069
What does intersectional even mean? Is it just a new way to feel even more oppressed?
|>>|| No. 60071
Intersectionality in a nutshell: Black women get it harder than white women.
|>>|| No. 60073
I would love to hear the better definition - my understanding is a bit like yours, intersectionality is the idea that oppressed people should stick together, so black people, women etc, all have a similar bag of spuds. Bit like how the gays and the miners got together in the miners strike. But I know nothing.
|>>|| No. 60074
So it's the feminists coming up with their own terminology for the oppression Olympics whereby you're seeing who can claim to be the biggest victim?
|>>|| No. 60077
It is the idea is that there are a range of qualities that mean a person is favoured or discriminated against, that can work in tandem with each other and we should strive to overcome them. The problem is in practice this is combined with a load of post-modern and cultural Marxist dogma that turns it into bollocks.
The logic follows that being able to speak clearly or make a coherent point is the result of privilege so we must strive to ignore that, and that personal experience and feelings are a 'truth' and therefore are an important and valid form or argument (more so then hard data and logic, that lacks the emotional consideration) what this leads to is a) that you have to listen to all manner of drivel the more incoherent the speaker the more 'valid' it is that you hear it and support it, and therefore more valid then the so called experts who are blinded by their privilege, b)That you cannot invalidate someone’s personal truth particularly if it is from a perspective you don't personally have.
This is what leads to the 'oppression Olympics’ [sic] and the absurd articles about men keeping their legs open on the tube is sexist. And actual maritime issues/dolphin rape of ‘you would believe that being a man/white’.
It also has significant flaws in that the unprivileged groups are dictated by predefined special class rather than by the fluid current circumstance which means the dogma is entirely dictated by the egocentrism of the United States. The idea that a black person isn’t a victim of slavery or that white Europeans are capable of discriminating against other white Europeans, or even a white person could be in a culture that discriminates against them is beyond the dogma.
|>>|| No. 60078
It reminds me of when I was a teenlad and joined a vegetarian society. It was full of insufferable people engaged in a never-ending game of one-upmanship to prove who was the most pure, saying things like that lemons are waxed with shellac so if you've ever eaten something with lemon juice as an ingredient you're scum and need to go and die in a fire.
|>>|| No. 60080
>IT IS THE IDEA IS THAT THERE ARE A RANGE OF QUALITIES THAT MEAN A PERSON IS FAVOURED OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST
So we're a couple of steps from quantifying your discrimination levels. I wonder how much I score on the oppress-o-meter?
I feel a dystopian novel coming on.
|>>|| No. 60081
A lot of discussions in the social justice community descend into a game of oppression top trumps. There'll probably be an app out soon that scans your Facebook page and gives you an oppression score.
|>>|| No. 60084
Don't forget white parsing. The broad brushstroke dolphin rape isn't even well hidden.
|>>|| No. 60086
I'VE NEVER WORKED IN HR OR HIRED AT A COMPANY BIG ENOUGH TO HAVE AN APPLICATIONS SYSTEM, BUT SAY IF I WAS APPLYING FOR A JOB AT CORPORATION X AND AT THE BIT ON THEIR SITE THAT ASKS ME WHAT COLOUR AND SEX AND THAT I AM, IF I PUT THAT I'M A DISABLED BLACK LESBIAN AM I MORE LIKELY TO GET THE JOB? OBVIOUSLY WHEN I GET TO THE INTERVIEW AND THEY REALISE I'M A WHITE BLOKE THEY CAN'T SAY ANYTHING IN CASE THAT'S JUST HOW I IDENTIFY.
IS THIS THE PERFECT CRIME?
|>>|| No. 60087
Black lesbian might be a stretch, but if you tick the disabled box (for a guaranteed interview) it's not for them to decide otherwise. Though to be honest if you're as much of a mouth-breathing autist as your post suggests it wouldn't exactly be a lie.
|>>|| No. 60089
I wasn't lying, I identify as a black lesbian, here is my Tumblr to prove it, give me £15m in damages thanks.
|>>|| No. 60090
>If companies can get away with paying women less than men then why don't they only hire women and save themselves loadsa money?
Because women are crap.
|>>|| No. 60104
I've ticked the disabled box on several applications which apparently offer a guaranteed interview to mongs (of which I am diagnosed as one), only to be rejected before interview.
|>>|| No. 60106
Maybe you were out-disabled. Maybe you're intersectionality wasn't intersected enough.
|>>|| No. 60111
What happens if you tick the box that asks if you're a pedo?
|>>|| No. 60114
>T IF YOU'RE AS MUCH OF A MOUTH-BREATHING AUTIST AS YOUR POST SUGGESTS
I know this is IQ but what was it that made you feel this way?
|>>|| No. 60127
Women must act now, or male-designed robots will take over our lives
I think the next fight for us women is to ensure artificial intelligence does not become the ultimate expression of masculinity.
There are many reasons to fear this could happen. First, the algorithms that codify human choices about how decisions should be made. It is not possible for algorithms to remain immune from the human values of their creators. If a non-diverse workforce is creating them, they are more prone to be implanted with unexamined, undiscussed, often unconscious assumptions and biases about things such as race, gender and class. What if the workforce designing those algorithms is male-dominated? This is the first major problem: the lack of female scientists and, even worse, the lack of true intersectional thinking behind the creation of algorithms.
There's nothing worse than a lack of true intersectional thinking.
|>>|| No. 60128
From the comments:
AIs have no votes. They have no rights. they can be switched off with no appeals process. On an intersectional basis they probably come up top trumps. So we have to listen to what they say without judging. I think.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]