I enjoy being a cunt.

What i don't enjoy is being a condescending prick when a poster who is quite clearly harmless expresses himself in a way that is offensive and then apologizes profusely for it. You love surfacing when topics like this are being discussed but you are flat out incapable of tolerating an alternative point of view but somehow think it's everyone else that's the narrow minded dickhead.

I enjoy acting like a bit of a c*nt here sometimes but that's because away from here I'm a much more friendly and easy going bloke, I just like to vent a few things here. You on the other hand really seem to lack an off switch and take yourself way too seriously, you genuinely seem like the sort of bloke everyone prays they don't get stuck chatting to one on one at a party.

Are white knights in trouble?

-PB

Sorry I missed that. Where did it say that you were wrong?

There should be a comprehension test before you're allowed to post on 442.

Read this next bit very carefully.

I have not offered an opinion on the OP's original story with regards to the woman who caused this innocent bloke all sorts of grief.

Not once did I offer an opinion one way or another.

I mildly poked fun at ol mate and said if he's goes to slag off sheilas he'll have to do better.

That was it.

Somehow he has managed to get the biggest bug up his arse and gone off like a frog in a sock.

I have merely called him out and asked him to explain himself.

Instead of explaining himself he has dug the hugest metaphorical hole you can imagine.

He's not harmless, he's offensive.

I like how you take offence to what I write but homophobic, transgender, blankets generalistaions and wild accusations by knob head are just fine and dandy.

Why don't you come in over the top and tell him to shut it? Maybe send him a PM if you fancy.

Quoted for posterity.

Filthy MRA scum.

and heres your answer.
you imply i slag off sheilas based on my original post.


Edited by Socawho: 13/5/2015 02:37:33 PM

I'm looking, I'm looking real hard but I still can't quite see where I said you were wrong. Is it the red text bit?

And stop editing your posts so quickly. It's impossible to keep up with the amount of wild errors you are constantly making.

:d

its not my fault you have an attention span of a gold fish=p~

No mate. Read the first post I made again.

Besides all that you edit your posts so frequently it's nigh on impossible to know what you wrote originally. Your first post just for starters was edited 3 (or more times). From memory it started out as far more of a rant.

take your medicine..and for future reference just avoid my threads .

Regardless of gender, if you do this, you're a piece of shit and should face the consequences.

Let's not turn this into a feminist vs MRA shit flinging contest.

Ya'll naggars need red pillz.

-PB

So much anger.

So little popcorn.

It's no conspiracy. The studies have shown that for the same work, women are not paid less than men. Men not only choose higher paying jobs, but also work longer hours and in more dangerous occupations and isolated regions. To put it in context, over 90% of workplace deaths happen to be male. Just imagine the outcry if the genders were reversed.

I don't think normal women would have a problem with men working in these occupations being well-paid either. These jobs are necessary for a well-functioning society. How many women would want to be loggers, farmers, firefighters, soldiers, miners, etc? Of course some women are well-equipped to handle these occupations, but these will always be male dominated fields. Most normal women would accept this.

Men are also more likely to work on weekends and evenings, hence higher earnings. Even female business owners earn significantly less than male business owners. Is that discrimination too?



Yes, but that doesn't automatically mean males and females are paid differently for identical roles. Men simply choose higher paying jobs in general. Speaking anecdotally, I recall most of my fellow male graduates taking more ambitious career routes out of uni than my female friends. Nothing wrong with that either, as most women I know have different priorities in life than being workaholic drones, and prefer a work-free weekend. And I agree with them - I've chosen a more similar path to my female friends. Money isn't everything.

I also know some girls who took the more ambitious route and are now killing it in their careers. I don't often talk about gender issues with my friends, but I've never detected any hints of victimhood or complaints about glass ceilings from my female friends , but maybe I only associate with normal women.

Again, if a male and female graduate both successfully applied for the same job at the same company and worked exactly the same hours, the pay must be identical if a company wants to avoid breaking the law. The legalities are set in stone.



Really? What's my world view?

its non sequitur, logical fallacy time I see

Scoll, what do you think of Waleed Aly?

The myth is that there can ever be 100% gender equality. Genetically, men and women are different, have different strengths and weaknesses and can aspire to different goals. That doesn't mean equal pay for equal work shouldn't exist, of course it should, but how many women want to be miners or truck drivers? How many guys want to be nurses or kindergarten teachers? It's jut natural that some fields would be dominated by gender or the other. It's economics that decides how much people in those industries get paid, not some glass ceiling instituted by dominant males to keep women in line. Men are much more likely to work longer hours in more difficult or dangerous roles.
As an aside, my misses was once told she wouldn't be considered for a management position, cause, you know, she might go off and have babies or something. Scandalous right? Only the boss who told her that was also a woman.

The idea that men aren't objectified by women is ridiculous, as has been pointed out already in the thread. Any of those daytime talk shows that parade the latest Hollywood heartthrob in front of a hooting and whistling all female audience will tell you that.

whole thing is a media sensation like most topics that are brought up in this forum section

Is that right?

A child care worker gets paid less than a Bunnings employee.

What's the more important role?

Who set those wage structures up?

Who doesn't value child care workers? Men or women?

If child care workers don't get paid more why is that? Are they not valued? Do people not want to pay those workers higher wages? If not, why not?

There's more to it than saying its just "supply and demand" or "economics".

Actually, it's exactly that. If it wasn't, then you wouldn't need to ask the questions you just have. I'm not advocating a Bunnings employee is more valuable to society than a child care worker, but how else do these circumstances appear?
If tomorrow the govt mandated all child care workers earned 100k per year, then fees would go through the roof and families would pull their kids from child care. Fees can only be as high as the market will bear, and the centres need to be able to pay their employees from that. The better question might be how much are parents really prepared to pay for someone to look after their kids. If child care ate up all your take home pay, their wouldn't be any point.
Are you suggesting there is some sore of mandate to ensure child care workers are paid less? Would a man working in child care earn more than a woman doing to same job?

Not at all.

I'm wondering why the work isn't valued more.

A teacher is paid heaps more in Singapore than Australia. Why? Because they're valued more.

Economically there doesn't seem to be a barrier to higher pay rates in Singapore. Yet suggest the same thing in Australia and we're told exactly that.

My question is more general than specific.

Are women paid less in female dominated positions because men think their work is not as worthy as work in a male dominated field?

After all it was only a few decades ago that women had to resign from their jobs once they were married.

Are low pay rates for women in woman dominated fields a hangover from the perception that women's work is not as important as men's?

"The circumstances" appear that the Bunnings employee is more valuable than a child care worker.

There are plenty of male dominated, blue collar jobs that aren't particularly well paid. Mechanics, warehouse staff, truck drivers etc. Would these roles then not be over valued since they are usually preformed by men?

No the circumstances are the building/DIY industry generates more income than the child care industry. Therefore they can pay their employees better. Are football players more valuable than teachers or police officers or doctors? How much they get paid isn't a reflection of the contribution to society, even if it probably should be.

Apparently, because I don't subscribe to your viewpoint, I am a 14 year old lesbian named Robin.

Run along fool and let the big people have a discussion.

Says the bloke who thinks basic supply and demand economics is sexist.

I hear you but I still believe there's an artificial, historical, ceiling for want of a better word based on the perception that "women's work" is not as valuable as a man's.

Just the way "women's work" is used disparagingly in normal conversations.

Things are much better now than they used to be that's for sure.

Progress is constantly being made.


Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 15/5/2015 04:30:34 PM