• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Recommended Posts

Mostly, yes.  Where I work there is no gender imbalance in pay; not through any kind of profiling but by jobs genuinely bring open to every one on merit and paid accordingly.

There are though some companies where women are genuinely paid unfairly lower wages because they are women, so I wouldn't be entirely dropping it yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but thats illegal, has been for years....however, we dont have a workforce police force, so employers break contracts with little or no enforcement, the poor workers cant even afford a tribunal now and the payouts are paltry.   The law for unfair contract breach is basically leave if you dont like it and sue later, expecting a reference of course.

Edited by BLOOLOO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

I am sick of all this gender pay inequality nonsense on TV. What a tiresome waste of energy for women to have to bother themselves about fretting over whether they get paid the same as a man who doesn't do the same job as them. The women are as good as the men and should get paid the same.

One argument went down the sports route and said how terrible it was that women don't get the same rewards as men.

Let's have proper equality if these women want it.
Let's not have tennis for men and tennis for women. Let's de-gender it all and go purely on merit. Because that's what they've been bleating about isn't it. Merit, people need to be paid on merit and women are as good as men.

So let's de-gender all sport. Have women compete on the same terms as men in the same events. No more segregation of the sexes. That way it removes all the issues about which race a man with a dick wearing a skirt should be in. Everyone in the same race.

Fuck it. They want equality, they can have it.



 

Totally agree with all that. (So another female traitor here then?!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

I am sick of all this gender pay inequality nonsense on TV. What a tiresome waste of energy for women to have to bother themselves about fretting over whether they get paid the same as a man who doesn't do the same job as them. The women are as good as the men and should get paid the same.

One argument went down the sports route and said how terrible it was that women don't get the same rewards as men.

Let's have proper equality if these women want it.
Let's not have tennis for men and tennis for women. Let's de-gender it all and go purely on merit. Because that's what they've been bleating about isn't it. Merit, people need to be paid on merit and women are as good as men.

So let's de-gender all sport. Have women compete on the same terms as men in the same events. No more segregation of the sexes. That way it removes all the issues about which race a man with a dick wearing a skirt should be in. Everyone in the same race.

Fuck it. They want equality, they can have it.

It would be amusing but only for about 5 minutes to see the men's world no 400 beat Serena Williams 6_0 6_0 6_0, amateur male sprinters beating the female Olympians over 100m by about 5 metres or more and male 5000m runners lapping the female athletes. 

The unpleasant irony of super-lefty-feminism leading to the eventual destruction of female sport and the loss of everything their earlier "sisters" fought for.

If as I suspect you're referring to McEnroe/Navratilova pay row then how anyone can suggest they do the same job I don't know. He's amusing and insightful, she's bland and has a horrible voice.

13 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

There are though some companies where women are genuinely paid unfairly lower wages because they are women, so I wouldn't be entirely dropping it yet.

Are there? Where and who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, eight said:

You are a traitor to your sex. Or something.

I really do try. 
When there are women not angry about the state of women in other countries who are properly oppressed but instead chose to dance about on TV bleating about the glass ceiling in this country, I will probably always not align with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sarahbell said:

I really do try. 
When there are women not angry about the state of women in other countries who are properly oppressed but instead chose to dance about on TV bleating about the glass ceiling in this country, I will probably always not align with them.

Haven't you seen the adverts on TV? All it takes to stop a girl being sexually abused in shitholeistan is your £3/month. Pay that and your obligation to the global sisterhood is fulfilled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In employment, women should be treated the same as men. Quite so. However you cannot, as Prof. Peterson was at pains to point out, extrapolate that this is untrue purely by looking at the disparity "something must be done" and not the underlying reasons. One Jeremy Paxman is worth a dozen Cathy Newmans. And doesn't that annoy her..

This campaign isn't really about making "women the same as men". It's just about the pay. The expectation being a pay raise for women. What has actually happened, notably at the So-Called BBC, is a pay cut for men. That's one alternative way of "solving it". Why not make maternity leave for women the same as it is for men? They could always leave if they didn't like it.. Be careful what you wish for. Indeed, in that department, men have been on the receiving end of the discrimination for years.

Why would any family court naturally assume that a child is better with the mother and make gaining custody for the father almost impossible in most cases? That needs rectifying. The debate needs balance. Surely custody should be about 50%/50%? Another case of blatant discrimination against men. Except that one is "by design" and is scandalous. Watch the opposition to that one if anyone raises this issue.

The moment the argument goes along the lines Sarah suggested, which is to ignore even the physical differences, there will be a campaign to point out why that's unfair. When Sainsbury's sends someone's 16 year old slightly-built daughter out to the car park to bring back hundreds of trolleys, there will be angry parents.

Because women aren't actually the same as men.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, eight said:

Haven't you seen the adverts on TV? All it takes to stop a girl being sexually abused in shitholeistan is your £3/month. Pay that and your obligation to the global sisterhood is fulfilled.

  • “God has given us two hands, one to receive with and the other to give with.”  Billy Graham

    Charity begins at home, usually the luxury home of the CEO.

 

1 minute ago, DTMark said:

I

Why would any family court naturally assume that a child is better with the mother and make gaining custody for the father almost impossible in most cases?

 


well at least you can't say cos there is gender bias in the judges line up. How many are women in family court? Don't think I met one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DTMark said:

In employment, women should be treated the same as men. Quite so. However you cannot, as Prof. Peterson was at pains to point out, extrapolate that this is untrue purely by looking at the disparity "something must be done" and not the underlying reasons. One Jeremy Paxman is worth a dozen Cathy Newmans. And doesn't that annoy her..

This campaign isn't really about making "women the same as men". It's just about the pay. The expectation being a pay raise for women. What has actually happened, notably at the So-Called BBC, is a pay cut for men. That's one alternative way of "solving it". Why not make maternity leave for women the same as it is for men? They could always leave if they didn't like it.. Be careful what you wish for. Indeed, in that department, men have been on the receiving end of the discrimination for years.

Why would any family court naturally assume that a child is better with the mother and make gaining custody for the father almost impossible in most cases? That needs rectifying. The debate needs balance. Surely custody should be about 50%/50%? Another case of blatant discrimination against men. Except that one is "by design" and is scandalous. Watch the opposition to that one if anyone raises this issue.

The moment the argument goes along the lines Sarah suggested, which is to ignore even the physical differences, there will be a campaign to point out why that's unfair. When Sainsbury's sends someone's 16 year old slightly-built daughter out to the car park to bring back hundreds of trolleys, there will be angry parents.

Because women aren't actually the same as men.

 

And a similar thing happened with pensions. Government said in the name of equality, we need to bring the differing retirement ages together. Guess what, it was raided for women. 

Afaict, the establishment have stumbled on a nice little wheeze with this equality lark: they will bring it down to the common denominator, making everyone worse off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I brought this subject up recently during a discussion with a group of Americans. I suggested that a factor in the overall pay disparity might be because women had a preference for different occupations and that the specific occupations might be lower paid, rather than the gender difference being responsible. She countered my example of the teaching profession by claiming that it was only because the pay levels dropped that men stopped entering teaching.

I don't agree with her argument but there is some plausibility to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sleepwello'nights said:

I brought this subject up recently during a discussion with a group of Americans. I suggested that a factor in the overall pay disparity might be because women had a preference for different occupations and that the specific occupations might be lower paid, rather than the gender difference being responsible. She countered my example of the teaching profession by claiming that it was only because the pay levels dropped that men stopped entering teaching.

I don't agree with her argument but there is some plausibility to it.

Back then, and probably still now, most primary school teachers were/are female.

That must be because it's a closed shop run by women.

There can be no other possible explanation. Can there..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

men are scared to teach young children imo.

20 minutes ago, DTMark said:

Back then, and probably still now, most primary school teachers were/are female.

That must be because it's a closed shop run by women.

There can be no other possible explanation. Can there..?

yes men are scared to be alone with young children,how many males now run cubs or scouts has an example

Edited by stokiescum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stokiescum said:

men are scared to teach young children imo.

That isn't something I recognise.

Mind you, these days, looking at what goes on in schools, I'd have thought there are legitimate reasons for being scared of young children, especially in particular areas where certain types of crime are rampant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sleepwello'nights said:

I brought this subject up recently during a discussion with a group of Americans. I suggested that a factor in the overall pay disparity might be because women had a preference for different occupations and that the specific occupations might be lower paid, rather than the gender difference being responsible. She countered my example of the teaching profession by claiming that it was only because the pay levels dropped that men stopped entering teaching.

I don't agree with her argument but there is some plausibility to it.

Teachers are paid well in CH but still female dominated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, One percent said:

And a similar thing happened with pensions. Government said in the name of equality, we need to bring the differing retirement ages together. Guess what, it was raided for women. 

Afaict, the establishment have stumbled on a nice little wheeze with this equality lark: they will bring it down to the common denominator, making everyone worse off. 

Well ....... less about raiding.

Despite decades of mortality stts, the UK gov was allowing women to entire 5 years earlier despite living ~5 years longer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, DTMark said:

That isn't something I recognise.

Mind you, these days, looking at what goes on in schools, I'd have thought there are legitimate reasons for being scared of young children, especially in particular areas where certain types of crime are rampant.

well more men are becomeing nurses and less are teaching,sadly many kids have no male roll models

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tennis should try an open competition.

There's no real grunt advantage in tennis i..e raw strength.

Its pure endurance.

Forget equality, lets start lobbying for opening up tennis to everyone, a real equality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Tennis should try an open competition.

There's no real grunt advantage in tennis i..e raw strength.

Its pure endurance.

Forget equality, lets start lobbying for opening up tennis to everyone, a real equality.

over 5 sets,though i suspect 5 wont be needed id love too cross sex boxing has well.

Edited by stokiescum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, sleepwello'nights said:

I brought this subject up recently during a discussion with a group of Americans. I suggested that a factor in the overall pay disparity might be because women had a preference for different occupations and that the specific occupations might be lower paid, rather than the gender difference being responsible. She countered my example of the teaching profession by claiming that it was only because the pay levels dropped that men stopped entering teaching.

I don't agree with her argument but there is some plausibility to it.

Begs the question as to why men are rejecting teaching (due to low pay) but women are not? (Or not in so many numbers.) Maybe woman have fewer other options? Cos they want the hours to suit their family or social life/obligations? Again that's a choice. And one I might have taken myself when younger so not criticising it - just saying it's their choice to be underpaid if they feel the pay is not enough? (If they are saying men aren't teaching due to low pay.)

Peterson was saying women lack the balls sometimes - to ask for a pay rise or to change career. Lots of successful women in the world, but fewer than men. Might be all down to biology and strategy? Men are expected to take higher risks? While (most) women prefer not to? (Cos the state of course rushes in to protect women and their kids. So they either get a man or the state to back them up in a crisis?)

I am starting to see the state is having to cope with a lot of bad choices made by women ... and they seem to think their bad decisions are not in the least their fault. Illness and accidents are usually not due to fault but having kids with unsuitable men seems to be a (bad) choice. (Unless you can provide for these children without taking any state handouts.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Well ....... less about raiding.

Despite decades of mortality stts, the UK gov was allowing women to entire 5 years earlier despite living ~5 years longer.

 

Well there must have been a reason why this came about.  My guess is that as the couple got older (most would have been married), then one needed to be at home to offer slightly more care.  As women were traditionally the ones in the home so could cook etc. It was decided that it should be the woman at home supporting the wage earner as they moved towards retirement 

This could of course be all bollox. 

25 minutes ago, swissy_fit said:

Teachers are paid well in CH but still female dominated.

They would be better paid if it was male dominated. Just saying.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.