Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

6538

Women Seem To Only Want "equality" As Long As They Don't Have To Pay Their Equal Share.

Recommended Posts

Perhaps, 6538 (was this your bonus? :) ), it's because on average women earn less?

The Fawcett Society campaigns on this issue and says:

Women working full-time earn, on average, 15.5% less an hour than men working full-time.

There are almost four times as many women in part-time work as men. Part-time workers are likely to receive lower hourly rates of pay than full-time workers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lady golfers unhappy about law to end sex discrimination

"But the drive by Labour’s leading feminist seems to have landed in the bunker. Many women golfers say that, following the changes, which have brought an end to men-only tee-off times at many clubs, they now have to pay more for membership."

I don't think women are going to be too happy with the new equality laws apparently coming in on life insurance and car insurance either....

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/insurance/car-insurance/11100/why-women-should-pay-more-car-insurance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, 6538 (was this your bonus? :) ), it's because on average women earn less?

The Fawcett Society campaigns on this issue and says:

This is a completely different can of worms which you have just opened!

The statistics say women get paid on average less than men. But what they dont show is if they justifiably get paid less or not. Many women take time out from their careers to look after children - this is their choice. It is understandable that when they rejoin the workplace they will have been left behind by men who didnt take that time out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a completely different can of worms which you have just opened!

The statistics say women get paid on average less than men. But what they dont show is if they justifiably get paid less or not. Many women take time out from their careers to look after children - this is their choice. It is understandable that when they rejoin the workplace they will have been left behind by men who didnt take that time out.

This isn't a can of worms but the heart of the issue.

Because pay deals are not published the large variations in pay and bonuses between men and women doing the same roles are not scrutinised. This is evident even in pay of young professionals i.e before women have children.

To address your comment about women taking "voluntary child care sabbaticals", few women today have sufficient financial resources to do this beyond the initial period when they are needed for biological reasons i.e. breast feeding. Therefore, it's not a choice but a necessity.

Reasons that their pay gets left behind are: 1) in expectation of women having children employers are less likely to offer them career developing opportunities, 2) the differential between women's and men's pay accelerates over time in excess of any time away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't a can of worms but the heart of the issue.

It is a can of worms - it is almost a barrel of snakes!

They are complaining because they are asked to pay more, and it would be the case with any group of people who are asked to pay more - some will complain and some will not.

Because pay deals are not published the large variations in pay and bonuses between men and women doing the same roles are not scrutinised. This is evident even in pay of young professionals i.e before women have children.

How do you know if the pay deals are not published? Pay of young professionals is pretty standardised. i.e. a newly qualified accountant can easily suss out the jobs market.

To address your comment about women taking "voluntary child care sabbaticals", few women today have sufficient financial resources to do this beyond the initial period when they are needed for biological reasons i.e. breast feeding. Therefore, it's not a choice but a necessity.

Wrong. Between age 25 and 49, 89% of men are working in UK compared to 73% of women.

Reasons that their pay gets left behind are: 1) in expectation of women having children employers are less likely to offer them career developing opportunities, 2) the differential between women's and men's pay accelerates over time in excess of any time away

1 is possible, but also, in expectation of children, women are less likely to volunteer for extended long term projects. 2 doesnt make any sense as you state an acceleration effect without giving reasons.

Things can work in both ways. I remember coming out of university and trying to get a job as an office temp to get some office experience. I was unsuccessful along with most young men, but watched the young women get hired in their droves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think women are going to be too happy with the new equality laws apparently coming in on life insurance and car insurance either....

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/insurance/car-insurance/11100/why-women-should-pay-more-car-insurance

The car insurance one is mad. That is how insurance works - you price according to risk. If women cost less in claims then they should pay less in premiums. Ditto any statistically significnt group, be it Catholics, dog owners, Somalis living here, whatever. Surely it's restraint of trade as it is stopping underwriters pricing correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The car insurance one is mad. That is how insurance works - you price according to risk. If women cost less in claims then they should pay less in premiums. Ditto any statistically significnt group, be it Catholics, dog owners, Somalis living here, whatever. Surely it's restraint of trade as it is stopping underwriters pricing correctly.

actually the car one one is about time, women should pay more than men, if you look at the hard stats there are numerically far more car accidents today than 60-100 years ago when women didnt drive

QED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually the car one one is about time, women should pay more than men, if you look at the hard stats there are numerically far more car accidents today than 60-100 years ago when women didnt drive

QED

Very good :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lady golfers unhappy about law to end sex discrimination

"But the drive by Labour’s leading feminist seems to have landed in the bunker. Many women golfers say that, following the changes, which have brought an end to men-only tee-off times at many clubs, they now have to pay more for membership."

How does this legislation affect Ladies Only Swimming sessions?

Wasn't CCC going to complain to his council and see what answer he got?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The car insurance one is mad. That is how insurance works - you price according to risk. If women cost less in claims then they should pay less in premiums. Ditto any statistically significnt group, be it Catholics, dog owners, Somalis living here, whatever. Surely it's restraint of trade as it is stopping underwriters pricing correctly.

I'm not sure about this line of reasoning. In other cases, 'tarring' everyone within a group (social, ethnic, etc. ad nauseum) would be quickly labelled as an '-ism', so isn't (advantageously from a woman's point of view) assuming that an individual woman is a safe driver because she's a woman, and (negatively from a man's point of view) assuming that an individual man is a reckless driver because he's a man also worthy of being an '-ism'?

Wouldn't it be better all round to start off treating people (male or female) as equals, then adjust premiums in the future based solely upon each individual's own record, i.e. simply use no-claims bonus (or similar measure) exclusively? This way, everyone would get pretty much what they (personally) deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, 6538 (was this your bonus? :) ), it's because on average women earn less?

The Fawcett Society campaigns on this issue and says:

And some men earn less than other men. Shouldn't they get cheap golf too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does this legislation affect Ladies Only Swimming sessions?

Wasn't CCC going to complain to his council and see what answer he got?

What about female only gyms?

More madness from the left...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, 6538 (was this your bonus? :) ), it's because on average women earn less?

The Fawcett Society campaigns on this issue and says:

Women don't earn less, other things being equal.

How can I say that? No, I'm not resorting to uncertain arguments about time out for sprogging and (other) life choices. Nor even to ambition and drive at the extremes: the drive that results in there being more males at both extremes of society.

We know that

  1. Men are generally taller than women.

  2. A man's earnings are strongly correlated with his height.

We can even quantify that pay gap, and see that adjusting for four inches height gives a greater difference than the pay gap between the sexes. So we might infer that the average working woman is paid more than the average man of her height.

What's the moral of this? Well, it looks like there is unfairness, but we're looking in the wrong place when we attribute it to sex.

[edit to add] But I'm all in favour of the status quo of insurance companies being able to fine-tune a driver's premium to population risk factors, thus insuring women cheaper than men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a completely different can of worms which you have just opened!

The statistics say women get paid on average less than men. But what they dont show is if they justifiably get paid less or not. Many women take time out from their careers to look after children - this is their choice. It is understandable that when they rejoin the workplace they will have been left behind by men who didnt take that time out.

This is where I think feminism got it wrong. The concept of women competing equally with men on every level completely denies biology and excuse the capitals but THE WELLBEING OF THE CHILD. A truly enlightened debate would not be caught up in childish men against women debates but a concerted effort to organise society in way that benefits the development and advancement of that society. To quote Whitney Houston, "The children are our future." Isn't it time we all grew up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where I think feminism got it wrong. The concept of women competing equally with men on every level completely denies biology and excuse the capitals but THE WELLBEING OF THE CHILD.

What child? ;)

Of course you're right: we're different, and all the better for it. Historical movements that do something worthwhile tend also to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Feminism is a prime example: they were right to challenge some of the 1950s norms, but not to trample all over all the values of that era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always found the joke by comedian Sean Locke very funny (so does the wife actually)

"Women say their work is never done..... Perhaps that's why they get paid less?"

(It's a joke, just in case you're offended!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't follow the innately dull game of golf, because of the unbearably unpleasant people it seems to attract but I assume that golf tournaments generally split into men's and women's events. I do follow tennis and can confirm that there is just such a split.

For true equality, why not do away with this gender separation? Imagine Wimbledon with only two competitions, singles and doubles, each open to entrants of either gender. The prize money, aggregated from the existing mens', womens' and mixed doubles events would be far higher than the sums currently on offer, while providing the most 'equal' competition possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usual blundering incompetent Labour legislation.

They are a party of air headed idealists with no comprehension of the law of unintended consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Women working full-time earn, on average, 15.5% less an hour than men working full-time.

I guess the real issue is are women 15.5% less productive than men, or whether they generate as much revenues.

Obviously the top paid female footballers earn a lot less than the top male footballers, with good reason. Might not be 'fair' but then life isnt.

Not to sound sexist (ok, I sound sexist) but when i used to work in a telesales environment almost always, without exception, the sales board was dominated by men at the top and women at the bottom. Not surprisingly the guys always took the bonuses.

Regardless of whether its a good social trait, men, when money is at stake, tend to be more competitive. I guess nature is sexist like that. Not that that would stop Harriet Harman et al from wanting to put extra estrogen in the water supply to feminize men and address natures repugnant chauvinism.

Then theres Margaret Thatcher, Hitlery Clinton, Cherie Bliar and other hypercompetitive anomalies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think women are going to be too happy with the new equality laws apparently coming in on life insurance and car insurance either....

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/insurance/car-insurance/11100/why-women-should-pay-more-car-insurance

Good.

Of course, in the real world (which we do not live in) the insurance differences based on gender make sense. Have more accidents? Then you pay more.

Unfortunately we live in PC world now, and frankly if that's what the do-gooders want then they're going to get it full in the face. You can't be selective with politically correct rules. How women can get away with paying less based purely on their gender (while we're part of Europe) is beyond me. Equality is not something you can switch on and off at will when it suits you.

Careful what you wish for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't be selective with politically correct rules. How women can get away with paying less based purely on their gender (while we're part of Europe) is beyond me. Equality is not something you can switch on and off at will when it suits you.

Not sure.. that guy who took John Lewis to court for sexual harassment had his case thrown out.

I'd like to think it was just because he was trying it on.. but..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For true equality, why not do away with this gender separation? Imagine Wimbledon with only two competitions, singles and doubles, each open to entrants of either gender.

If I remember correctly one of the best female golfers was allowed into a male competition some years ago because she complained about it being sexist, and ended up something like 119th out of 120.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good.

Of course, in the real world (which we do not live in) the insurance differences based on gender make sense. Have more accidents? Then you pay more.

Unfortunately we live in PC world now, and frankly if that's what the do-gooders want then they're going to get it full in the face. You can't be selective with politically correct rules. How women can get away with paying less based purely on their gender (while we're part of Europe) is beyond me. Equality is not something you can switch on and off at will when it suits you.

Careful what you wish for.

So (at the moment) with Car insurance, if you mention that you're a woman, do you instantly get a percentage off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.