Katy seeks the best of the best of the best

sepi said :

I wish I could open the pdf…

PB with women only forming 7% of executive roles in Australian businesses, don’t you think there is a role for highlighting successful women to stand as role models for younger girls?

sepi, at least in the ICT industry, they do.

women in ICT have several executives in their membership. http://www.wic.org.au/
they also have the awards, here is the list of recipients: http://www.wic.org.au/wickedwoman/2005wickedwomanawardrecipients.html

check out WIT – http://www.wit.org.au/

and the Australian Industry group CEO is a woman. Heather Ridout.
http://www.aigroup.com.au/mediacentre/directors/

plenty of inspiration for young girls…

Good to see you back too, peterh!

: )

Well, I’m off to the pub now ….

I’m not seeing many nominations forthcoming from you lot – other than more nominations for Granny, of course.

Go on someone, put in a nomination for the Private Sector for their employment of high performing 15 year old black hunchback lesbian dwarves (or dwarfs)

sepi said :

I wish I could open the pdf…

PB with women only forming 7% of executive roles in Australian businesses, don’t you think there is a role for highlighting successful women to stand as role models for younger girls?

Very much so, I have no disagreement with that.

Bless you.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Ultimately, the private sector cares about one thing: results. They will give the job to a 15 year old black hunchback lesbian dwarf if it gets them the results they want.

only if they apply for the job.

I wish I could open the pdf…

PB with women only forming 7% of executive roles in Australian businesses, don’t you think there is a role for highlighting successful women to stand as role models for younger girls?

Burp…….

sepi said :

PB I’m not sure why you’ve highlighted that quote?

It just says that they have two graphs, one including male overtime, and one not.

It doesn’t actually say that men earn more because they do overtime.

I know.

What the whole PDF does show though is that women are not paid less than men, but that due to circumstance and personal needs they work less, and therefore earn less.

Therefore, Jim’s original quote (which I asked him to substantiate) ;

There’s a lot of information still out there that shows that women get paid less than men, have a significantly harder time reaching positions of power and responsibility, and are systemically excluded from a number of different employment areas.

remains unsubstantiated.

Granny said :

I just got myself on a Board, so I reckon, heck, anyone must be able to do it. I’m also on equal pay – $000,000.00 per annum.

*chuckle*

Skid, you are lucky to be out of reach of my frying pan!

; )

and there is someone i thought had left… good to see you are still there, granny!

I just got myself on a Board, so I reckon, heck, anyone must be able to do it. I’m also on equal pay – $000,000.00 per annum.

*chuckle*

Skid, you are lucky to be out of reach of my frying pan!

; )

Ultimately, the private sector cares about one thing: results. They will give the job to a 15 year old black hunchback lesbian dwarf if it gets them the results they want.

sepi said :

PB I’m not sure why you’ve highlighted that quote?

It just says that they have two graphs, one including male overtime, and one not.

It doesn’t actually say that men earn more because they do overtime.

I didn’t know you could get paid for overtime. must be the business i am in. I stay till the work is finished…

Don’t forget to nominate Granny!

as per vyberlina, to gain any position in an executive capacity takes time. Executives that are the CFO, CIO, CTO are usually in their 40’s or up, but they have worked very hard to get there. the only exception I have seen is the “Executive Account Manager”, but they are just salespeople with a great business card. Many of the top jobs are held by women, to say that they got there due to assistance or to meet quota is way off base. If a man and a woman interview for the top job at a company, and one has necessary skills, the other doesn’t, the one with the skills & experience will win. some of the time it is a man, or a woman.

PB I’m not sure why you’ve highlighted that quote?

It just says that they have two graphs, one including male overtime, and one not.

It doesn’t actually say that men earn more because they do overtime.

Given that it’s really only in the last 15 years or so that women have generally gained acceptance as workplace equals by males (and by younger males usually), it’s not that suprising that only now are the top female achievers getting into the higher positions. It takes time to get into the higher jobs. Look at the public service, for example, where women have been accepted for longer than many private sector organisations. Women in SES roles are now relatively common.

Despite being assisted and their interests promoted, people still need to earn the top spots. And that is neither quick nor easy to do.

Drop the first i.

My mum should win something. She beat lieukaemia.

Selective quotes From the PDF linked to in the last post ;

As outlined above, the difference in the wage gap when expressed in terms of
all employees total earnings and full-time adult total earnings can be attributed to
the high prevalence of part-time work among women (and therefore a relatively
higher number of women than men who have lower earnings as a result of working
part-time hours). The difference between the full-time adult total earnings series and
the full-time adult ordinary time earnings series reflects the fact that a higher
proportion of men work overtime hours than women, therefore limiting the analysis
to ordinary time earnings results in a lower gender wage gap than when analysing
total earnings.

In addition to differences in the extent of participation in the labour force,
there are also differences in the degree to which employed men and women
participate in employment. Graph 16 shows the proportion of employed men and
women who work part-time, and how this has changed over the past 20 years.
Around 45% of employed women now work part-time compared with around 15%
of employed men.

Women’s labour force participation rates and hours of employment vary over
the life course. For most women, childbirth is followed by some time out of the
labour force. In general, women work fewer hours when they first engage in paid
work after having children and increase their hours of work as children grow older.
In contrast, the labour force participation rate for men remains quite high until
retirement. In 2002, employment rates for women with children in Australia tended
to be lower than comparison countries. The OECD average employment rate of
women whose youngest child was under six years of age was 59%, nine percentage
points above Australia (50%). The lower employment rate for women whose
youngest child was under six years of age in Australia may, in part, be due to factors
such as higher levels of household income or other income sources that reduce the
imperative to return to the workforce soon after childbirth.

there is a committee established by the govt (fed) re the equity of wages between males and females. the link is here: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/ewr/payequity/subs.htm and a submission by abs is here: very long pdf, but there is valuable info in it… http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/ewr/payequity/subs/sub132.pdf

I miss Granny too!

Manda I just read the link above and it says that women are only 7% of execs in Aust companies. So I believe that is still rare enough to celebrate the successful ones.

And really if we had true equality, celebrating women’s day would just be another day – like all the other ‘day of the wombat/potato/deaf people etc’. When we have those days we just think of the topic being highlighted – we don’t instantly start going ‘oh but what about all the ones who have been left out’.

Obsessing about inequalities is really a sign that we are nowhere near equality.

Skidbladnir said :

Okay, so who wants to nominate Granny and vote for her on this one?
(And did she ever win CanberraGoss’ Hottest Girl?)

skid, is this true? has granny left?

bugger. I enjoyed her friendly banter and counted her as one of my friends.

Manda of course that would be true equality, but I don’t think we are there yet, so I believe there is still a place for these awards to celebrate successful women.

yea…so how come ya never see drunk sheilas being thrown out of clubs and gettin bashed by the door gorillas??

Manda72, what you wrote here is my exact thoughts. There should be no difference in the treatment of a person because they are male or female, be it better or worse treatment than what a person of the opposite gender would have received.

As a female, i will probably be crucified for what i am about to say, but i detest any “international women’s day” or anything like that.

As far as i am concerned, true equality is when there is no specific occasion to celebrate being a woman, man or whatever.

As a person, all i ask is to be treated on a equal basis as my peers, no matter what sex they are.

Check out http://www.dilbert.com, go to animations and view the animation from the 6th of October 2008. It is kinda very appropriate for this discussion

and again peterh; can you explain how you came to the conclusion i was suggesting otherwise?
as much as i hate dignifying strawman arguments like those you have put up; i think the problem here is that you dont quite understand the meaning of average,

yes some women dont have kids and earn a lot of money, but this is counterbalanced by women who do take time off for kids and the net effect is that the average pay goes down.

nowhere did i lump all women together, i just said that women are more likely to take time off work/study to have kids and that this causes the gender differential in average pay. next time read what i have written instead of just venting your spleen at random.

according to blau and kahn’s article Gender Differences in Pay published in the Journal of economic perspectives in 2000 the average australian women was paid 87% of what the average man earnt, a figure that was relatively high among surveyed countries (bettered only by france at 90% and significantly ahead of other comparable nations the US and UK at 76% and 75% respectively.

the US bureau of labour in 2003 found that women in high paying jobs (US$1200+ per week) earnt between 80 and 92% of their male counterparts while women in low paying jobs (less then US$350 per week) earnt between 93 and 101% of what their male counterparts did.

tom-tom said :

peterh;

peterh said :

tom-tom said :

oh, ok. really?

best tell the women i know who are in high executive jobs that they should quit and raise kids. someone else can do it, I am not game.

my jaw literally dropped when i read that as i can’t see any connection between what i said and your response. i realise your connection to reality might be a little further from the mainstream than anyone elses but even then i still can’t see the link.

can you please (with close reference to what i actually said) explain how you came to the conclusion that i was taking a shot at women who have succeful careers by suggesting they should quit and raise kids?

i wait with baited breath.

women get paid less on average because on average they tend to have lower levels of skills/expereince then men for the simple reason that women are far, far more likely to take time away from work/study to have (and care for) kids.

how many women have decided to have a career first, then have a family second? How many women earn more than their partners in their executive or other highly paid roles – the husband stays home with the kids. How many women have completed university prior to meeting their partner, in their early 20’s or 30’s, joined the workforce and worked until the home situation was such that they stopped working for kids? for a period of maternity leave, then back into it.

the population of women having kids is now far, far older than before. fewer people have children young, the median age is around the low to mid 30’s. plenty of time to achieve both academic and professional career goals.

as i mentioned, there are several women that i know who have no children yet, are extremely successful in what they do, and, by the way, aren’t yet in their mid to late 30’s. the choice to have kids has been put off, till they are ready, or not at all.

there is still a mindset that women will have kids, amongst some employers. many don’t, for personal reasons, or medical.

don’t lump all women under the banner of those women who go off to have kids. There are some women in my industry that could take away the client, and leave you wondering as to how they did it. They are as smart as their male counterparts.

These Females aren’t likely being underpaid, but they probably haven’t negotiated a wage that is on par with their male counterparts.

I did read a couple of articles that did go into it a little further, but none of these reports give specific examples – otherwise it could be cause for a defemation lawsuit.

PsydFX said :

PB – see the link for some semi-recent research about the pay gap between executive men and women: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/25/2146334.htm

Thanks Psyfx, but it’s yet another article claiming that this diferential exists, yet offers nothing in the way of proof.

Female execs earn 50% of what their male counterparts earn, yet are not sueing the arses off the companies which employ them?

How could these women get so far, yet then not claim the correct renumeration?

Sorry but I’d like to see how the payments were calculated.

peterh;

peterh said :

tom-tom said :

pommy bastard; women get paid less on average because on average they tend to have lower levels of skills/expereince then men for the simple reason that women are far, far more likely to take time away from work/study to have (and care for) kids.

women will get the same level of pay as men for a job, but they are just less likely to get the job in the first place, hence the difference in average pay packets.

on topic; who cares? someone recognises that success comes a little harder for women than men and seeks to encourage women by recognising those who have been successful and the govt recognises the same thing and has a minister for women who works towards towards allievating the problem in the first place. whoopity doo.

women tend to have lower levels of skills/experience then men for the simple reason that women are far, far more likely to take time away from work/study to have (and care for) kids.

oh, ok. really?

best tell the women i know who are in high executive jobs that they should quit and raise kids. someone else can do it, I am not game.

my jaw literally dropped when i read that as i can’t see any connection between what i said and your response. i realise your connection to reality might be a little further from the mainstream than anyone elses but even then i still can’t see the link.

can you please (with close reference to what i actually said) explain how you came to the conclusion that i was taking a shot at women who have succeful careers by suggesting they should quit and raise kids?

i wait with baited breath.

Gee’s, there is some interesting things in here… (And a lot of over stepping the mark) I personally believe that the female point of view is pushed maybe a little too hard as apposed to the male. Yes where is the minister for men? Females may push a female point of view as hard as they like and it’s considered been gender equality, if males try and push a male point of view, even if it’s a passing remark, it’s considered sexist.

I remember growing up that many opportunities existed for the females of the various schools I attended which where not open to the males. But there was never opportunities open exclusively for the males because that would be sexist. My personal thoughts are that any opportunities which are open for females should also be open for males and vice versa. Gender should stop playing a part in anything outside of personal relationships.

I also know of cases where women have been given positions or promotions for no other reason than they where female, as the company was more interested in keeping ratios than putting in the best person (male or female) for the job.

Back to the subject on hand, I have no problems with an award open specifically for successful women. I personally think that such things are a good thing, and there are some women doing really excellent things. I would like to know however when they are going to hold awards for successful men?

PB – see the link for some semi-recent research about the pay gap between executive men and women: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/25/2146334.htm

It’s very easy to call people sexist, but what does it really mean? I think we need to calm down a tad, and stop jumping to conclusions every time someone posts an opinion. And that includes the sheilas on here…

I know, I saw that post. Your comments could be seen as offensive, but they weren’t sexist, nor misogynist.

This sort of ‘sexist’ thing used to be something that would annoy me however to be perfectly frank, there are so many terrible things that the Government does that this is ranked pretty low on importance.

Let successful women be celebrated, good for them.
Let successful men be celebrated, even better if it is society that is celebrating them and not Government.

oh in another thread I made a comment about how women would be percieved if they dressed like trollops.

Jim has been lying about it ever since, saying I called women trollops…

Jim Jones – what has he said that is sexist?

Reformatted…grrrr…

Yes, because equal rights for women is all about ‘you winning’

Jim, my winning was me proving that once again, when it comes to debate, you have nothing to offer but lies.

I put up a quote; you quoted it them provided links which one can only assume you thought proved me wrong.

They didn’t.

You then threw a sulk as I pointed out that you were wrong.

That was how I won.

You now try to bluster that I claim to have won over “women’s rights”.

You’re a liar and a disgrace.

Would you like me to repost my quote and your wrong answer to it? Again. For everyone to see. Again.

Well done, I and all the women on this site salute you. Amazing how much people like Dexi and Sepi just love your forward-thinking cosmopolitan attitudes.

I care not what Dexi and Sepi, nor you, care to make up aboutt my “attitudes”

You’re a dinosaur.

And it bears repeating:

Granny left this site because of your unspeakably appalling sexism,

Granny left because she stared blurting out how her six year old had been raped, in a topic which had nothing to do with rape, her, or her six year old.

I have no intention of doing the same.

I’m glad your not leaving Jim. It’s nice to have someone here who make me look good.

Jim Jones: making sexists look good since 2008.

Okay, so who wants to nominate Granny and vote for her on this one?
(And did she ever win CanberraGoss’ Hottest Girl?)

But that also suggests that the issue isn’t necessarily gender discrimination, it’s just a lack of negotiation skills on the Female part.

Management isn’t just going to hand out pay increases if they aren’t asked for.

Jim Jones said :

Pommy bastard said :

Yes, because equal rights for women is all about ‘you winning’

Jim, my winning was me proving that once again, when it comes to debate, you have nothing to offer but lies.

I put up a quote; you quoted it them provided links which one can only assume you thought proved me wrong.

They didn’t.

You then threw a sulk as I pointed out that you were wrong.

That was how I won.

You now try to bluster that I claim to have won over “women’s rights”.

You’re a liar and a disgrace.

Well done, I and all the women on this site salute you. Amazing how much people like Dexi and Sepi just love your forward-thinking cosmopolitan attitudes.

I care not what Dexi and Sepi, nor you, care to make up aboutt my “attitudes”

You’re a dinosaur.

And it bears repeating:

Granny left this site because of your unspeakably appalling sexism,

Granny left because she stared blurting out how her six year old had been raped, in a topic which had nothing to do with rape, her, or her six year old.

I have no intention of doing the same.

I’m glad your not leaving Jim. It’s nice to have someone here who make me look good.

> Granny left this site because of your unspeakably appalling sexist attitudes, I have no intention of doing the same.

Granny left??? Pity, she was a great contributer here.

On topic: I should clarify (after thinking it through myself) that I actually don’t have an issue with things like womens awards, or that we have a Minister for Women…I can see the need for them. My issue is with the apparent neglect for mens issues, such as those I mentioned earlier & the ones Duke added.

A number of years ago I worked for a big private company that seemed to employ males and females in about equal numbers. At a given position, it seemed the males got paid slightly more. When discussing over a few beers, the females seemed horrified and outraged at the $$ asked for by the males when negotiating. From this is drew the conclusion that the females got paid less because they didn’t push as hard.

This is just one guy’s experience, but is given to add to the debate.

Pommy bastard said :

This round goes to me I think.

Yes, because equal rights for women is all about ‘you winning’.

Well done, I and all the women on this site salute you. Amazing how much people like Dexi and Sepi just love your forward-thinking cosmopolitan attitudes.

You’re a dinosaur.

And it bears repeating:

Granny left this site because of your unspeakably appalling sexism, I have no intention of doing the same.

Granny left this site because of your unspeakably appalling sexist attitudes, I have no intention of doing the same.

So you resort to lies once more, and have no answer to my points.

This round goes to me I think.

Chickening out is never pretty Jim.

I’m not interested in debating feminism with someone who refers to women as ‘cheap sluts’, ‘whores’ and ‘parading trollops’ and refers to ‘feminist claptrap’.

Granny left this site because of your unspeakably appalling sexist attitudes, I have no intention of doing the same.

Damn, I’ll do that again, but with correct formatting!

Jim Jones said :

Only one of the links had anything relevant to women in third world countries.

If you’re interested in disparities of pay between men and women, do some research. If (as I suspect) you’re more interested in denying that their is a problem, kindly f^ck off.

So once again, I’m right and you have nothing but insults to offer,.

Suits me.

I read your links posted in response to my quote, (which you quoted,)and not one of them addresses my point.

Here it is again Jim, try reading what I write, not your own prejudices…

I hear this quite a lot, but I’ve yet to work in a job, or indeed a company or organisation which pays women less than men.

Do you have an example?

Please pull out from your links the points which prove than in Australia (or the UK if you wish,) women can be paid a lesser rate for the same job as a man.

I won’t hold my breath waiting…

And as mentioned above, the companies who pay women less than men for the same job dont’ tend to advertise this fact. So I can’t just point to X company and say “there is your example”.

If it were that simple, the affected women could take them to court. (Which has happened once proof was obtained.)

Yet research into pay rates clearly shows women earning less. And as mentioned law firms and financial institutions are the main culprits.

But I said all this already.

Jim Jones said :

Pommy bastard said :

Jim,

If you’re interested in disparities of pay between men and women, do some research. If (as I suspect) you’re more interested in denying that their is a problem, kindly f^ck off.

So once again, I’m right and you have nothing but insults to offer,.

Suits me.

I read your links posted in response to my quote, (which you quoted,)and not one of them addresses my point.

Here it is again Jim, try reading what I write, not your own prejudices…

I hear this quite a lot, but I’ve yet to work in a job, or indeed a company or organisation which pays women less than men.

Do you have an example?

Please pull out from your links the points which prove than in Australia (or the UK if you wish,) women can be paid a lesser rate for the same job as a man.

I won’t hold my breath waiting…

And to make me a three post nutjob.

Honestly PB, I’m not interested in debating feminism with someone who refers to women as ‘cheap sluts’, ‘whores’ and ‘parading trollops’ and refers to ‘feminist claptrap’.

Granny left this site because of your unspeakably appalling attitudes, I have no intention of doing the same.

Jim Jones said :

It occurs here as well. Women are (in a lot of instances) less pushy about demanding proper remuneration and haggling properly for adequate pay than are their male counterparts. So they get stiffed.

But that doesn’t stem from any kind of gender bias, it comes down to a self confidence issue which affects both men and women.

chewy14 said :

So a statistical generalisation is not discrimination?
well then statistically speaking, a woman is far more likely to take time off work (babies, family) or leave work altogether than a male employee. Therefore an employer is within his rights to not hire a female employee because of this.
Makes as much sense as saying there should be allowances made because women are less agressive than men.

The reason women are paid less than men is because they are more likely to be in service industries such as childcare, teaching and nursing where the remuneration is not as high as male dominated industries such as mining or engineering.

PART of the reason women are paid less is because they are more likely to be in service industries. And their have been persuasive arguments made that pay levels in service industries and other female-associated employment avenues are undervalued because of the gender discrepancy.

The rest of your post was nonsensical. I honestly don’t know what the hell you’re going on with all that “statistical generalisation is discrimination” rubbish.

Honestly, if you’re interested in equal rights, why not stop being such an unlikeable turd and actually do something about it instead of attempting to weave silly sophistical tapestries.

Pommy bastard said :

Jim,

Thanks for the links, however not a single one of them adresses anything about

I hear this quite a lot, but I’ve yet to work in a job, or indeed a company or organisation which pays women less than men.

Do you have an example?

Unless you were talking about in third world countries that is.

Only one of the links had anything relevant to women in third world countries.

If you’re interested in disparities of pay between men and women, do some research. If (as I suspect) you’re more interested in denying that their is a problem, kindly f^ck off.

Jim,

Thanks for the links, however not a single one of them adresses anything about

I hear this quite a lot, but I’ve yet to work in a job, or indeed a company or organisation which pays women less than men.

Do you have an example?

Unless you were talking about in third world countries that is.

sigh

and for this reason we like to highlight successful women in other industries, to encourage future generations of women to consider all career options, not just those of the post war era like nursing and teaching.

So a statistical generalisation is not discrimination?
well then statistically speaking, a woman is far more likely to take time off work (babies, family) or leave work altogether than a male employee. Therefore an employer is within his rights to not hire a female employee because of this.
Makes as much sense as saying there should be allowances made because women are less agressive than men.

The reason women are paid less than men is because they are more likely to be in service industries such as childcare, teaching and nursing where the remuneration is not as high as male dominated industries such as mining or engineering.

peterh said :

best tell the women i know who are in high executive jobs that they should quit and raise kids. someone else can do it, I am not game.

I’m also wondering about all the women who choose not to have families or children and have still had to put up with less pay and worse conditions.

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones,
Are you generalising that women lack negotiation skills?
That would be discrimination now wouldn’t it.
I’ll have you know that i know many women who are good at negotiation.

It’s a statistical generalisation.

Women don’t lack negotiation skills, but they have a tendency to be less aggressive about certain issues than men.

How is that discrimination to recognise that?

Obviously it’s not, you’re just trying to be a smartarse (and doing a very poor job of it too).

“I’ll have you know that i know many women who are good at negotiation.”

And, once again for the dummies, anecdotes are not evidence. I know lots of dogs that are black, but it doesn’t mean that all dogs are black.

tom-tom said :

pommy bastard; women get paid less on average because on average they tend to have lower levels of skills/expereince then men for the simple reason that women are far, far more likely to take time away from work/study to have (and care for) kids.

women will get the same level of pay as men for a job, but they are just less likely to get the job in the first place, hence the difference in average pay packets.

on topic; who cares? someone recognises that success comes a little harder for women than men and seeks to encourage women by recognising those who have been successful and the govt recognises the same thing and has a minister for women who works towards towards allievating the problem in the first place. whoopity doo.

women tend to have lower levels of skills/experience then men for the simple reason that women are far, far more likely to take time away from work/study to have (and care for) kids.

oh, ok. really?

best tell the women i know who are in high executive jobs that they should quit and raise kids. someone else can do it, I am not game.

Jim Jones,
Are you generalising that women lack negotiation skills?
That would be discrimination now wouldn’t it.
I’ll have you know that i know many women who are good at negotiation.

There are numerous ways to redress the balance, and it is happening (albeit slowly in some areas).

Denying that the problem exists, however, isn’t going to help anyone, and is largely what the argument here is about.

Sorting out access to decent childcare would go a long way.

And actually the glacier has started to shift toward men staying home. I know a few stay at home dads, and I know a heap of families where Dad works 4 days a week and has one day at home.

And in reality, for one child, you might only take 6 months to a year off work – it shouldn’t be that much of a career killer. I think it is in the mindset of those hiring, who feel that men are a safer bet cos they won’t go on maternity leave that needs to change. And as more men take paternity leave, things will change.

Also as more women get higher up, and become the hirers themselves. Ergo the need for good role models. Ergo Katy’s successful women awards.

That being the case, how do we redress the balance?

Do we somehow hypercompensate women who take time away from work to have kids, so that their careers are effectively “uninterruped”? Wouldn’t that be unfair to the men who have worked at improving their skills and experience in the time said women were raising a family?

I see lots of complaints about inequality of the sexes, but I am yet to see any particularly effective suggestions.

The only way you’ll ever get around the “kid problem”, i.e. women taking time off work to have and raise kids is to make it a social norm for men to spend equal amounts of time away from work in child rearing. I can’t see that hapenning any time soon because:

1. Social norms shift glacially
2. A lot of women are not likely to want to share the status of primary care giver to kids.

There’s the element of men not being interested in being a primary care giver – but I think that’s a matter to sort out before the arrival of a kiddie.

The parents will still have to live with the knowledge that they’re going to have to take it in the neck career-wise if they have kids. Least this way there would be a more equitable spread of detriment.

sepi said :

Clearly they cant’ do it in APS type orgs where there is a specific pay level for specific jobs.

It occurs here as well. Women are (in a lot of instances) less pushy about demanding proper remuneration and haggling properly for adequate pay than are their male counterparts. So they get stiffed.

now your talking about positive discrimmination which is a whole different kettle of fish.

Pommy bastard said :

Jim Jones said :

“I don’t agree with that, it doesn’t fit with my experience.”

There’s a lot of information still out there that shows that women get paid less than men, have a significantly harder time reaching positions of power and responsibility, and are systemically excluded from a number of different employment areas.

I hear this quite alot, but I’ve yet to work in a job, or indeed a company or organisation which pays women less than men.

Do you have an example?

The information is so ubiquitous that it’s not funny. Just google it.

You might find stuff like:

http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/SP60.asp

http://jos.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/3/358

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

http://www.worldvision.com.au/wvconnect/content.asp?topicID=22

It’s not about women and men being paid different rates for doing the same job (although this reportedly is quite common), it’s slightly more complex than that.

tom-tom said :

pommy bastard; women get paid less on average because on average they tend to have lower levels of skills/expereince then men for the simple reason that women are far, far more likely to take time away from work/study to have (and care for) kids.

But in the work situation where women and men are equal in responsibility and experience, and are committed to the same level of attendance and workload, they would get the same remuneration would they not. Which is fair.

I think some would like an Orwellian “more equal that others” to apply, don’t you?

It is generally in law firms and private banks etc that female account managers will get less pay for doing the same job.

It is prevalent in industries where salaries are negotiated privately.

Clearly they cant’ do it in APS type orgs where there is a specific pay level for specific jobs.

pommy bastard; women get paid less on average because on average they tend to have lower levels of skills/expereince then men for the simple reason that women are far, far more likely to take time away from work/study to have (and care for) kids.

women will get the same level of pay as men for a job, but they are just less likely to get the job in the first place, hence the difference in average pay packets.

on topic; who cares? someone recognises that success comes a little harder for women than men and seeks to encourage women by recognising those who have been successful and the govt recognises the same thing and has a minister for women who works towards towards allievating the problem in the first place. whoopity doo.

peterh said :

“Best of the best of the best, sir!” “With honors.” “Yeah, he’s just really excited and he has no clue why we’re here.”

Will our discussion make an International men’s day appear? no chance. what about an International Person’s day??

Technically there is already an International Mens Days – 19th November, apparently it is celebrated here – first time I’ve heard of it though.

a woman in a powerful position who sticks out precisly she is a rarity doesn’t really help your case.

I thought it was because she was a ranga.

“Best of the best of the best, sir!” “With honors.” “Yeah, he’s just really excited and he has no clue why we’re here.”

Will our discussion make an International men’s day appear? no chance. what about an International Person’s day??

Oh dear “a lot”, not “alot”.

Jim Jones said :

“I don’t agree with that, it doesn’t fit with my experience.”

There’s a lot of information still out there that shows that women get paid less than men, have a significantly harder time reaching positions of power and responsibility, and are systemically excluded from a number of different employment areas.

I hear this quite alot, but I’ve yet to work in a job, or indeed a company or organisation which pays women less than men.

Do you have an example?

dexi said :

Ive heard that sepi has the following opinions that need to be heard. Are you listening Phs FX. Pay attention now.

Sepi says………(sorry sepi Im bad)

“Phys FX – you keep banging on about the one inequality against men that you have identified (a minister for women), even though you don’t actually want or need a minister for men. So I’m not sure what your point is.

And I’ll keep banging on about the many and varied inequalities against women that exist.”

That made about as much sense as sign language through a megaphone.

If you took the time to read, you may have noticed that my comments are in keeping with the posted topic regarding the Minister for Women, I am not suggesting that this is the only inequality Men face.

As for this needing a Minister crap, neither sex needs their own Minister, a non-gender biased Minister equally representing both sexes is a much better way of achieving equality.

These men have it right I think…

http://latinolaughter.com/2007/12/12/yikes-international-husband-of-the-year-awards/

Nah, I could never compete with Pandy! 🙂

Mr Evil: Are you going for the Pandy Award for Obsession With Andrew Barr’s Private Life?

Women have the right to remain silent…….

The day when a Minister for Women is an anachronism is approaching, but it hasn’t arrived yet.

Ive heard that sepi has the following opinions that need to be heard. Are you listening Phs FX. Pay attention now.

Sepi says………(sorry sepi Im bad)

“Phys FX – you keep banging on about the one inequality against men that you have identified (a minister for women), even though you don’t actually want or need a minister for men. So I’m not sure what your point is.

And I’ll keep banging on about the many and varied inequalities against women that exist.”

justbands said :

> Please send queries on the status of International Men’s Day and associated awards to the MLA of your choice

I’ll write to the ACT Minister for Men! 😉

Andrew Barr? I’ve heard he’s really into men…..

Good to see that the women of australia have a chance to excel and be recognised.

Personally, I really don’t care. the winners are almost always professional people, academics, etc.

The real women out there who just get on with their lives and don’t have the time to worry about the International women’s day – they have far too much on their plates with the kids if they are a stay at home mum, or work if they aren’t, that they are the same as most men: They want to make money, pay bills, feed the family, have a house and a form of transport, and get to enjoy life.

an International day for women who are mothers is already in the calendar. It is called Mother’s Day. And strangely, there is a Father’s Day as well. So why not an International Men’s Day?

what, chains from the kitchen sink that long??

If there were a Minister for Men, but not a Minister for Women, would you have objections?

yes, psydfx, i think sepi would still have problems for all the reasons articulated in the post. to what inequality against men are you referring? the equality of the sexes is acheived through engaging with the least powerful sectors of a society and promoting them until they are not required – which, for women [and indigenous australians, etc] is not yet.

dexi said :

That’s right Jim, and when are you going to mow the lawn.

My (pregnant) missus has already done it.

That’s right Jim, and when are you going to mow the lawn.

justbands – you missed a few: men are more likely to be homeless, victims of crime, in cases of divorce often lose custody of their kids in favour of the mother, suffer higher rates of depression and disease, incur higher rates of incarceration.

Now if they same gusto can be applied to solving men’s social issues as is being used to highlight the achievement of women in the workplace, we’d be off to a good start.

“why shouldn’t someone start banging on about an inequality against men”

What inequality against men?

“I don’t agree with that, it doesn’t fit with my experience.”

Anecdotes are not evidence.

There’s a lot of information still out there that shows that women get paid less than men, have a significantly harder time reaching positions of power and responsibility, and are systemically excluded from a number of different employment areas.

Julia Gillard might be in a position of power in this country, but how many female Australian Prime Ministers can you name? Being able to point to a woman in a powerful position who sticks out precisly she is a rarity doesn’t really help your case.

Presumably the people on this site who don’t think that ‘gender specific’ portfolios are necessary also feel that there shouldn’t be specific portfolios dealing with aboriginal or multicultural issues either.

sepi said :

I would lobby an MLA not spack on a website.

What would you like your minister for men to do?

You’re always “spacking” on this website with your pro-feminist views, why shouldn’t someone start banging on about an inequality against men?

I am not saying that we want or need a Minister for Men, what I do think – to promote equality, that we should have a Minister for People, that way we aren’t segregating the sexes.

Your experience of working for female bosses does not correlate with the reality that something like only 20% of management is women. I realise this is different in some APS departments, but it is not the case Australia wide, particularly in business and industry.

Julia Gillard is a fantastic example, however a pretty new one – and I don’t think one highly successful women is enough for us to shrug our shoulders and say equality is here.

“What would you like your minister for men to do?”

Shut up and do as his told.

He could also mow JB lawn.

> With the current lack of women in high places to act as role models for future generations

I don’t agree with that, it doesn’t fit with my experience. I’ve worked for more female bosses than male (in what is apparently a male dominated industry!). I reckon Julia Gillard for one would argue that she’s in a pretty high place….as would our current head of state.

Who’s showing young boys what they could achieve in the future? You know…boys who are now consistently falling behind girls in school, boys who are suiciding in record numbers, boys who are turning to crime, boys who have grown up without fathers, etc.

I would lobby an MLA not spack on a website.

What would you like your minister for men to do?

sepi said :

The road to equality is not a straight line. You have to start somewhere. With the current lack of women in high places to act as role models for future generations, it is still worth focusing on successful women, to show young girls what they too could achieve in the future.

It spins me out that any focus on women offends men so much. To me it would highlight how annoying gender based inequality is, and give men some sympathy for women’s cause.

If there were a Minister for Men, but not a Minister for Women, would you have objections?

The road to equality is not a straight line. You have to start somewhere. With the current lack of women in high places to act as role models for future generations, it is still worth focusing on successful women, to show young girls what they too could achieve in the future.

It spins me out that any focus on women offends men so much. To me it would highlight how annoying gender based inequality is, and give men some sympathy for women’s cause.

> who is?

Exactly!

who is?

> Please send queries on the status of International Men’s Day and associated awards to the MLA of your choice

I’ll write to the ACT Minister for Men! 😉

Yep, good to see men getting recognised for the work they do. As long as we continue to have gender specific focus like this, there will never be real equality.