Should women deserve equal pay as men? (Part I)

[Answer]

Is it 'equal' for men to be paid the same rates as women for doing the same jobs?

 

Well. The answer is No!

 

It might be fair. And it might make people happy. But it does not follow that such a thing would be a mark of 'equality'.

 

Indeed, the more one drills down in search for 'equality', the more hopeless does the search become.

 

For example, if men and women are doing the same job for the same number of hours, then a superficial analysis would suggest that they should get paid the same amount.

 

But, should they?

 

For example, should a man who has been a lawyer or bricklaying for 20 years be paid the same as a woman who has been doing such jobs for only 10 years?

 

Should a man who can carry twenty bricks in his wheelbarrow earn the same pay as a woman who can only carry ten?

 

If you answer Yes to either of the above questions, then I would argue that your notion of 'equality' is very strange.

 

But let us look at a simple job, where skill and expertise are fairly irrelevant to the efficiency with which the job is done.

 

How about painting walls to a house?

 

Should men and women get paid the same for painting walls if they work for the same hours and if they both do the job equally well?

 

Almost everyone will agree that they should.

 

But so-called 'equality' fanatics, like the feminists, might well disagree, as they keep drilling down in search for 'inequality'..

 

They might discover, for example, the following:

 

1. They might discover that more men than women do this job. And from this they could conclude that 'equality' between men and women has not been achieved.

 

2. The statistics might show that the women tend to spend more of their money on clothes for the job than do men, and that, therefore, women should be paid more - often by sneaking the money back to them through the tax system.

 

3. The statistics might show that women have to take more days off work for childcare reasons or for hormonal problems and so they ought to be compensated in some way for this.

 

4. The statistics might show that women spend more time mopping up than do the men ...

 

And so on and on it can go.

 

 

My point is that the search for 'equality' is never-ending, and that in the process of searching for this impossible goal, the stirring up of male hatred is a major consequence - and, indeed, in the case of feminists, it is a purposeful aim.

 

Furthermore, given that 'equality' can never be achieved (even in simple matters to do with pay) the never-ending search for it by the feminists in all sorts of areas will forever involve the stirring up of hatred towards men in all sorts of areas.

 

And fot those who are not "politically correct" will know that whatever statistical differences are found between men and women, the feminists will always manage to stir up hatred towards men on the basis of them.

 

And so, for example, if more men are found painting walls than women, the feminists will argue that there is a 'glass ceiling' that prevents women from taking up this job, but if there are more women than men working in it, then they will argue that the pay is too low compared to other more male-dominated jobs!

 

Either way, they will stir up hatred towards men.

 

And let me tell you what would happen if women throughout the nation - as a whole - ever earned more than men in their jobs; i.e. the alleged gender wage gap was reversed. The feminists would argue that the women were paying more in taxes, and that this was unfair!

 

I can hear them now.

 

"Why should women have to contibute more in taxes than men?"

 

And if ever there came a time that men spent more hours at home looking after the children, the feminists would suddenly discover that children were not a burden but a pleasure!

 

"This is outrageous," they would say. "Those poor women are out at work while the men are at home in front of the TV and having a good time bonding with their children."

 

You have to understand the mindset of these revolting dysfunctional women. They are driven by a hatred of men. This hatred is the only thing that unites them and it is the only thing that explains what they say, think, and do.

 

For example, recall Hillary Clinton's speech to the First Ladies' Conference on Domestic Violence in San Salvador ...

 

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. ..."

 

But if more women than men were actually killed in wars, does anyone seriously think that Hillary Clinton would have then said that men were the primary victims of war?

 

Of course not.

 

She would have emphasised the greater number of deaths of women during wars and made a great song and dance about it.

 

These men-hating feminists will always attempt to stir up male hatred whatever the situation. It does not matter who gets paid more or who gets killed more, these nasty wimmin will use any differences to stir up hatred towards men.

 

Indeed, when a man kills his partner, he is deemed to be a violent thug. But when she kills him, it is still said that this is because he was a violent thug.

 

And even though women initiate most divorces, the message from the media and the politicians is that men are abandoning their families. But if men initiated most divorces it would again be said that men are abandoning their families.

 

If boys do better than girls educationally then it is argued that there is bias in the system. If girls do better than boys then it is argued that this is so because girls work harder and/or because they are more intelligent.

 

Feminists will always twist the evidence and the facts to demonise men.

 

Finally, it is worth emphasising that you can never have 'equality' between two things that are not equal by definition. And so, for example, you can have equality among 'people', but not between 'men' and 'women'.

 

 

Stay tuned for Part II of this argument.

[norajane]

You seem to be the one doing the twisting of logic.

 

Is it 'equal' for men to be paid the same rates as women for doing the same jobs?

 

Your examples regarding differences in experience and skill are fallacious - that is not what equal pay for equal work means. It means that two people with the same level of experience and skill would be offered the same pay...two lawyers graduating from similar level law schools with similar grades ought to get paid the same starting salary when hired by the same law firm...this was historically not the case.

 

What happens after that is also of concern. Again, with relatively same performance and experience, both the male and female lawyer should have the same opportunity to get similar raises and promotions.

 

And the glass ceiling you refer to is not about entry into male-dominated fields; it is about the abiity to rise to executive levels in an organization. Taking the law school example, there are far fewer female partners admitted to law firms than male. That is a glass ceiling - the women can't go any higher in their careers solely because of their gender and not because of their skills or experience.

 

 

1. They might discover that more men than women do this job. And from this they could conclude that 'equality' between men and women has not been achieved.

If there were an equal number of experienced male and female painters applying for the painting jobs, but the job site is dominated by male painters, yes, there would appear to be inequality in hiring. However, it may very well be likely that there are fewer female applicants, so if the hiring is proportional (again, all skills and experience being relatively equal), then there isn't a gender bias or discrimination.

 

Feminists aren't stupid, and there's been a lot of research over the years on this issue. Perhaps you ought to read it instead of spewing vitriol for no reason.

 

2. The statistics might show that the women tend to spend more of their money on clothes for the job than do men, and that, therefore, women should be paid more - often by sneaking the money back to them through the tax system.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, unless you're talking about a tax deduction for job-required uniforms...which applies equally to men and women. The IRS does not discriminate between workboots and waitress uniforms - both are tax deductible.

 

3. The statistics might show that women have to take more days off work for childcare reasons or for hormonal problems and so they ought to be compensated in some way for this.

What's your point? Employers all have paid-time off policies. Anyone who abuses those policies is at risk of getting fired, male or female, whether the reason is children, hormones, or other issues.

 

My point is that the search for 'equality' is never-ending, and that in the process of searching for this impossible goal, the stirring up of male hatred is a major consequence - and, indeed, in the case of feminists, it is a purposeful aim.

Male hatred is stirred up in men who are afraid of feminism because they believe that in order for women to have equality under the law, men must lose some of their 'rights'.

 

For example, recall Hillary Clinton's speech to the First Ladies' Conference on Domestic Violence in San Salvador ...

 

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. ..."

 

But if more women than men were actually killed in wars, does anyone seriously think that Hillary Clinton would have then said that men were the primary victims of war?

 

Of course not.

Women are victims because it is men who dominate politics and they are the ones who end up voting for war, or unilaterally declaring war. Thus, the fallout - death of those fighting in the war, the male dominated military - leaves women without husbands, fathers, and children.

 

In wars such as the one in Iraq, it is often the women and children who die - from starvation, from bombs on their homes, from polluted water, etc. They had no say in going to war, so they are the victims of it.

 

these nasty wimmin will use any differences to stir up hatred towards men.

Your bias is clear. This renders your arguments as rants rather than logic.

 

Indeed, when a man kills his partner, he is deemed to be a violent thug. But when she kills him, it is still said that this is because he was a violent thug.

Again, if you look at criminal statistics, you will see that women kill their partners most often because they were abused by them.

 

Finally, it is worth emphasising that you can never have 'equality' between two things that are not equal by definition. And so, for example, you can have equality among 'people', but not between 'men' and 'women'.

You can have equality under the law. That is what feminists strive for.

 

 

Stay tuned for Part II of this argument.

No thanks. I've already wasted far too much of my precious time on part 1.

[Tangerina]

I agree with norajane, this is a silly post full of kind of nonsensical and half logical arguments....

[IpAncA]

Here's my 2 cents

 

I use to work at JoAnn's and I was getting paid 5.50 an hour. I was in charge basically the store because everyone else who worked there just sat around and did nothing.

 

So as the months went on one of the workers sons started working there as a stock boy. Turns out he was getting paid over 7.00 to do nothing and I mean nothing. I never seen him except when I was leaving.

 

I busted my butt because I was in charge of cleaning up the store at night, putting the bolts away, answering the phones, and cutting the fabric. Basically I was being used.

 

One day I asked how much he was getting and his mom said how much and it was just one of those days and I told her that wasn't fair. So she tells me that she doesn't know what he gets paid and I would have to take it up with my boss.

 

So after that a couple of more things happend and I just got fed up and quit. It wasn't worth it.

 

So yes I felt that I should have had the same pay as he did or at least close to it.

[pricillia]

people should get paid for what they are worth and it should be taken on a person to person basis...

 

But if someone has more experience then the other and does a good job then they should be paid what they are worth.

 

Some do a better job then antother and they get paid less, it has to do with who is veiwed as a bigger asset to the company.

Office politics come into play as well

 

But also how can we decide who gets paid more with out any hard facts and statistics.

[Green]

first of all not many women even try to get a brick laying job and I gaurantee if they wanted such a horible job they probably would make less money unless they possesed the strength of a man. Second of all a woman who does the same job as a man should get paid the same amount, and third the law of suply and demand says that if a smart and able person is being screwed over by their employer they will go find a job at a place that does take care of them so its up to the employer to avoid being sued and avoid losing good employees just because they want to do strange things. Now personaly I think Id wrather work with men but thats just me, some girls at my job are actualy out performing me at the current time but I will surpass them in those areas, and the crapiest person I work with is a guy, and he probably does get paid more then the women, and so do I hahah

[Teddy and Jane]

So for Part II you need time to go over to americanwomanbashers.com and copy and paste over here?

Hello, feminism isn't really a movement anymore. It's not really a relevant issue as women are in the workplace. I don't know why this is pretty much the only place I hear about those "man-hating feminists," lol. Are you living back in the 70's?

 

dude....what are your thoughts on the fact that most serial killers, bombers, and mass shooters (Columbine, Oklahoma City, Virginia Tech, etc. etc. etc.) are almost ALWAYS men? Please explain that one? Also why are there many MANY more men who commit crimes and land in prison than women? Not a male basher but I'm curious on your point of view here.

[Pink Amulet]

hahaha, thanks for the laugh Answer

 

May I ask what it is you do for a living?

[justpassingthrough]

Is it 'equal' for men to be paid the same rates as women for doing the same jobs?

 

Well. The answer is No!

 

Sorry pal, but the answer to that is bound in law, and it happens to be YES.

 

For example, should a man who has been a lawyer or bricklaying for 20 years be paid the same as a woman who has been doing such jobs for only 10 years?

 

Oh! Oh! I have a math minor so, please, let me apply it here:

 

20 ≠ 10

 

Based on that complicated calculation, my answer would be no.

 

Should a man who can carry twenty bricks in his wheelbarrow earn the same pay as a woman who can only carry ten?

 

Again, 20 ≠ 10, so no.

 

If you answer Yes to either of the above questions, then I would argue that your notion of 'equality' is very strange.

 

Well, let's look at the definition of "equality" (I can't help myself - I have an English major as well), and its derivation (not to be confused with the mathematical term "derivative," and, even though I can do Calculus in my head, we won't go there):

 

Equality:

 

1 : the quality or state of being equal.

 

Equal:

 

1 a (1): of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2): identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : b: like in quality, nature, or status c: like for each member of a group, class, or society <provide equal employment opportunities>2: regarding or affecting all objects in the same way : 3: free from extremes: as a: tranquil in mind or mood b: not showing variation in appearance, structure, or proportion4 a: capable of meeting the requirements of a situation or a task b: <bored with work not equal to his abilities>

 

How about painting walls to a house?

 

Should men and women get paid the same for painting walls if they work for the same hours and if they both do the job equally well?

 

Almost everyone will agree that they should.

 

You've used the words "eqally well," so the answer would have to be yes.

 

But so-called 'equality' fanatics, like the feminists, might well disagree, as they keep drilling down in search for 'inequality'..

 

Aaaaaah, I see now. This is really about feminism, and your own feelings at your loss of privilege and entitlement. That's cool. They're your feelings and you own them.

 

1. They might discover that more men than women do this job. And from this they could conclude that 'equality' between men and women has not been achieved.

 

All this says is more men than women choose to do this job.

 

2. The statistics might show that the women tend to spend more of their money on clothes for the job than do men, and that, therefore, women should be paid more - often by sneaking the money back to them through the tax system.

 

I'm not interested in what statistics might show nearly as much as I'm interested in what statistics do show.

 

Show me some statistics and I might be interested in this.

 

3. The statistics might show that women have to take more days off work for childcare reasons or for hormonal problems and so they ought to be compensated in some way for this.

 

Again, we're back to that word "might," and it just isn't working for me. Show me some real statistics and your claims might have value.

 

Finally, it is worth emphasising that you can never have 'equality' between two things that are not equal by definition.

 

So why did you support your claim using what are clearly inequalities?

 

And so, for example, you can have equality among 'people', but not between 'men' and 'women'.

 

That would be true if women weren't people, but we are.

[Woggle]

Men and women should be paid the same for the same job but they should also have to meet the same standards. If a woman can meet the same standards in a male dominated profession then pay her what she is worth. I hate radical feminists as much as anybody here and you do have a point about some of the double standards but there can ceratinly be equality under the law and there should be. Many feminists are not about equality thouigh.

[alphamale]

women are much more transient in the workforce than men are. they take more time off for sickness than men do. they roll into work an hour late regularly. they split early to pick up their kids. they take off a couple years to raise kids. many work part-time. and when they haveing some emotional turmoil in their personal life they are useless at the office.

 

so, no, they shouldn't get equal pay until they do the exact same stuff that men do in the working world.

[Trialbyfire]

Who cares about genders in the work force.

 

Equal skill, experience and ability should equate to equal pay. More time off equals pay docking based on the factored hourly wage, salary or otherwise. It's that simple.

[norajane]

women are much more transient in the workforce than men are. they take more time off for sickness than men do. they roll into work an hour late regularly. they split early to pick up their kids. they take off a couple years to raise kids. many work part-time. and when they haveing some emotional turmoil in their personal life they are useless at the office.

 

so, no, they shouldn't get equal pay until they do the exact same stuff that men do in the working world.

 

Someone has to care for those kids...which, by the way, are the offspring that men helped to create. It always amazes me that society blames women for actually raising children. Where would society be if women didn't?

 

If men had to raise the kids, they'd be late because they were up all night with a sick kid, they'd be taking days off to care for the sick kid, and they'd be leaving early to pick the kids up from daycare while women worked steadily with unblemished work records. In fact, some men do this as it is. At my office, many men leave early to take their kids to soccer or to coach Little League.

 

And again - employers all have paid time off policies. Those hours late and those hours leaving early and those days off are deducted from paychecks and from the allowed paid time off leave.

[Woggle]

More men would take equal parenting time if society did not treat fathers as nothing more than sperm donors and walking wallets. If it were up to feminists all fathers would donate the sperm, send the check and have no relationship with their children.

[alphamale]

what it basically comes down to is that women get paid less cause they are willing to accept a lower salary. many women figure their man will pay most of the bills and she only has to make enough to pay for shoes and chocolate....oh yea and manicures.

[norajane]

what it basically comes down to is that women get paid less cause they are willing to accept a lower salary. many women figure their man will pay most of the bills and she only has to make enough to pay for shoes and chocolate....oh yea and manicures.

 

:rolleyes:

[Teddy and Jane]

More men would take equal parenting time if society did not treat fathers as nothing more than sperm donors and walking wallets. If it were up to feminists all fathers would donate the sperm, send the check and have no relationship with their children.

 

Where are you getting this crap? could you please name these evil "feminists" you keep bringing up?

A lot of men are just lazy and expect their wife to do everything, bring home the bacon, mother the kids, diapers, clean and cook...there 'ya go if you want to generalize.

[Woggle]

Where are you getting this crap? could you please name these evil "feminists" you keep bringing up?

A lot of men are just lazy and expect their wife to do everything, bring home the bacon, mother the kids, diapers, clean and cook...there 'ya go if you want to generalize.

 

My mother used to fume when she saw men in public taking care of children because in her mind men don't have that right and should not even be allowed near children. Just look at any feminist board and you will see their attitude towards fathers.

[a4a]

My mother used to fume when she saw men in public taking care of children because in her mind men don't have that right and should not even be allowed near children. Just look at any feminist board and you will see their attitude towards fathers.

 

Well this is not the feminist board is it?

 

Any person should be paid what they earn. Age, physical ability, blah blah blah.

[Teddy and Jane]

My mother used to fume when she saw men in public taking care of children because in her mind men don't have that right and should not even be allowed near children. Just look at any feminist board and you will see their attitude towards fathers.

 

Could you give me a link to these feminist boards? Because I did a google for "feminist boards" and really didn't get anything. I did a "woman hating boards" search and got a whole bunch of sites full of males who have been dumped. Help a girl out here? Thanks.

[Trialbyfire]

Please note that the OP of this thread also believes that women are partially responsible in a sexual assault. This is the third women-hating thread that he's posted.

[Teddy and Jane]

Oh. I need to just start ignoring these threads.

[Woggle]

Could you give me a link to these feminist boards? Because I did a google for "feminist boards" and really didn't get anything. I did a "woman hating boards" search and got a whole bunch of sites full of males who have been dumped. Help a girl out here? Thanks.

 

Do a google search that says fathers are useless.

[a4a]

Woggle you need help.

[lonelybird]

Do a google search that says fathers are useless.

Keep poizon your mind with hatred.......... soon you have followers

Oh, Picaso is classic women hater, who loves him, who suffer