So the G-G from Hell, among others, thinks there should be quotas for women directors on boards.
What about democracy for shareholders? They want to tell us who we have to vote for now?
When a woman of calibre comes along, like Gail Kelly frinstance (despite her jaundiced view on the carbon tax), they'll get the gig.
But there have been quite a few duds.

What if there is no 'right' woman for the job? replace the 'right' man with an inferior woman, that's bizarre.

This is inequality at its greatest.

Best PERSON for the job regardless of sex.

Stand by for yet another round of useless seat-warmers
and place-fillers who get the job simply because they're (nominally?) female.

You only have to look at some of the 'female' oxygen thieves in Parliament.

I'm all for good looking birds.

The right PERSON for the job I say, regardless of gender.

this sums it up
"There should be a quota of red haired people and a quota of handicapped people and a quota of spectacle people and a quota of pimply faced overweight people.
Now that would be perfect wouldn't it, yet none have the credentials to do the job.
Every company puts the best person that they can get for any position, it is credentials not quotas that are required.
Women just don't get it do they!
And when a person doesn't get the job does it ever occur to them that someone else just maybe better than they are? Instead they cry about some myth that a company is going to jeopardise itself over a feminist myth."

We can make our own way without patronising social engineers portraying us in an inferior light!  The GG is an idiot!

mavisdavis wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 12:01pm:

We can make our own way without patronising social engineers portraying us in an inferior light!  The GG is an idiot!

well it is a woman!


bwaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaa

FIRMS with more than 100 workers will face spot checks and mandatory reporting on the numbers of women they employ and their position under tough new measures aimed at boosting gender equality in the workplace.

Minister for the Status of Women, Kate Ellis, said the government would strengthen equal opportunity laws to ensure they achieved "tangible" results in workplace equality.

An extra $11.2 million will be given to the newly-named Workplace Gender Equality Agency to collect more information on working conditions for women and provide assistance for firms lagging behind in their employment of women.

Government contracts would only be directed towards those organisations that complied with the new rules, Ms Ellis said.

Information provided to government by companies will have to be signed off on by employee representatives and chief executive officers.

Ms Ellis warned regular inspections would be conducted to ensure businesses were truthful in their reports.


"There will be regular spot checks to ensure that the information that organisations are providing to the government actually matches how they conduct their day-to-day business," she said.

Mobile support teams would also provide assistance to businesses performing poorly in terms of gender equality, including smaller businesses.

The new reporting regime will provide the government with a better insight into pay gaps and trends in female promotion.

"For the first time, businesses will be required to report on the indicators that matter, on the actual figures of gender composition of their organisations and their boards, on their employment conditions and whether they have flexible work practices for women and men," Ms Ellis said.

"No more good intentions - we want outcomes."

Ms Ellis said the government would use its spending power to assist in altering the workplace gender mix.

"Government trade with a non-compliant organisation will not just be discouraged, it will not be allowed by law," she said.

"The government is using our power as a consumer to say unless you are actively pursuing gender equality in your workplace we are not interested in doing business with you."

There will be no legislated gender targets imposed on companies under the plan.

However businesses will be deemed non-compliant with the new rules if they fall short of “industry benchmarks” and fail to improve over a two-year period.

They will also be in breach of the rules if they fail to lodge a report as required or fail to substantiate their report.

Non-compliant companies will miss out on industry assistance, grants and government contracts.

The Coalition's acting spokeswoman on the status of women, Bronwyn Bishop, said the new diversity regime was “the sort of thing you would expect from a totalitarian regime”.

The proposal would lead to tokenism and the promotion of women simply because they were women, Ms Bishop said.

“What it does is make women permanent second class citizens. It opens the minister up herself to being called a token female in the ministry.”

Ms Bishop described the announcement as “heavy handed, half-baked policy, wasting $11.2 million dollars”.

She said it was part of an agenda to strip away the right of employers to run their businesses efficiently and employ people on merit.

Ms Bishop questioned who would conduct the spot checks proposed by Ms Ellis.

“Trade unions dressed up as members of the agency?” she asked.

“The whole thing just smacks of the dead hand of government.”

The government's changes go further than current gender equality rules which apply to ASX-listed companies.

Under ASX corporate governance principles, listed companies must publish workplace gender diversity policies and disclose each year their objectives for achieving them.

They are also required to disclose the proportion of women in the organisation, in senior management positions and on the company's board.

The government remains committed to a 40 per cent representation of women on government boards by 2015.

I don't often agree with the Brontosaurus, but she's spot-on there.


As a politician, Kate Ellis would make good berley for sharks, but that's about all.

Quote:

The Coalition's acting spokeswoman on the status of women, Bronwyn Bishop, said the new diversity regime was “the sort of thing you would expect from a totalitarian regime”. The proposal would lead to tokenism and the promotion of women simply because they were women, Ms Bishop said. “What it does is make women permanent second class citizens. It opens the minister up herself to being called a token female in the ministry.” Ms Bishop described the announcement as “heavy handed, half-baked policy, wasting $11.2 million dollars”. She said it was part of an agenda to strip away the right of employers to run their businesses efficiently and employ people on merit.

Onya bronwyn...bang on the money.

Does this mean that firms will have to employ more women, and wont be able to get out of paying more maternity leave?.   :o  

wrote on Mar 9^th, 2011 at 5:43pm:

Does this mean that firms will have to employ more women, and wont be able to get out of paying more maternity leave?.   :o

Looks that way.

Oh no.  That means they might have to get rid of things like company cars, and big executive bonuses.  Oh dear.    :'(  

wrote on Mar 9^th, 2011 at 6:11pm:

Oh no.  That means they might have to get rid of things like company cars, and big executive bonuses.  Oh dear.    :'(

Yes, far better that people should get something for nothing, than people be rewarded in ways other than salary hey?

should have more tea ladies!

criteria under 50kilo, size under 3, height above 150 cm, and age under 25, minimum measurements 36D-23-34


oh and standard uniform is a micro mini skirt with a t-shirt 3 sizes too small!

bwaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaa

wrote on Mar 9^th, 2011 at 6:11pm:

Oh no.  That means they might have to get rid of things like company cars, and big executive bonuses.  Oh dear.    :'(

They won`t have to do that, but they will be forced by law, to engage sub standard people. This will hurt women more than anything!

wrote on Mar 9^th, 2011 at 5:43pm:

Does this mean that firms will have to employ more women, and wont be able to get out of paying more maternity leave?.   :o

You are seriously a wanker.

The Government is paying it, not the employer.

wrote on Mar 9^th, 2011 at 6:11pm:

Oh no.  That means they might have to get rid of things like company cars, and big executive bonuses.  Oh dear.    :'(

Why would that be? Less profitable because of "token" women?

I am probably more in favour of putting people in place based on merit but we hardly do that now so probably little impact, Instead of seats for mates other factors could come into play.

An industry I worked in which had a low female participation rate tried the same thing, women got promoted by the bucket full. They mostly would not have held the positions on merit and many were too junior.

I doubt it would have as much impact with boards - the company I am with at present you could substitute the board with a flock of ducks and the performance would not decrease.

Though I suspect that a flock of very wealthy ducks may be an issue, duck season could be a very different proposition.

I applied for a job in a university a couple years ago which had never actually appointed a man to any position other than the Director. Of course I was unsuccessful, being male. Since then they have continued their unstated policy of only appointing women in direct contravention of law and policy. The trouble is it is impossible to prove.

But I got the last laugh. Part of this group runs an undustry training program so I started up in competition and are now in the position to demolish their business anyhow.

Where's Kate Ellis when government actively and obviously discriminates against men - and universities are excellent at doing just that.

But it is good to see Labor coing up with yet another unworkable unethical and deeply unpopular policy to help drive their vote down even further.

dumb as...

I remember a few years back in England seeing an advert for Hackney Borough Council (well known for being looney left)

"We encourage applications from female and ethnic minorities"

and then

"Hackney Borough Council is an equal opportunities employer"

I am sure as a white male I would have had a real chance in that process.....

... wrote on Mar 9^th, 2011 at 5:42pm:

Quote: The Coalition's acting spokeswoman on the status of women, Bronwyn Bishop, said the new diversity regime was “the sort of thing you would expect from a totalitarian regime”. The proposal would lead to tokenism and the promotion of women simply because they were women, Ms Bishop said. “What it does is make women permanent second class citizens. It opens the minister up herself to being called a token female in the ministry.” Ms Bishop described the announcement as “heavy handed, half-baked policy, wasting $11.2 million dollars”. She said it was part of an agenda to strip away the right of employers to run their businesses efficiently and employ people on merit. Onya bronwyn...bang on the money.

I don’t often agree with Bronwyn Bishop, but she is right on the money here.

What are these dick hating android feminists playing at. I love it when these penis haters advocate rights for themselves, but forget the inequality that’s happening with disabled people in the workforce.

This kind of thing is only going to create tokenism and bad business for your business, because you will be forced to hire women who may not be as qualified or experience for the positions as males.

What eve happened to getting the job on merit?  

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 9:55am:

I remember a few years back in England seeing an advert for Hackney Borough Council (well known for being looney left) "We encourage applications from female and ethnic minorities" and then "Hackney Borough Council is an equal opportunities employer" I am sure as a white male I would have had a real chance in that process.....

It isn't so much the fact that you're a white male Andrei (that can't be helped). It's just that you seem to have time travelled from the Dark Ages where nothing about EEO and gender equity/equality ever existed .. which concerns me (and no doubt .. that would have concerned the Council too .. given these principles define their work ethic/culture).

ANYONE who has ever worked in the recruitment industry will tell you Andrei .. that technical competence/skill ISN'T the only determining factor when employing an individual.

There are a few other determining factors in order to ensure a suitable FIT.

rolls eyes/sighs ..

Maybe its time for men to form a group or council and show how they are discriminated against.

The problem we males face is once a female dick hater is appointed to a senior position within a company they are more likely to discriminate against males and just hire females for jobs.  

A general question if I may .. any intelligent males about this morning .. preferably those who know what they're talking about?

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 10:12am:

A general question if I may .. any intelligent males about this morning .. preferably those who know what they're talking about?

depends...will you address the topic rather than your only contribution being vague references to 'the dark ages'?

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 10:07am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 9:55am: I remember a few years back in England seeing an advert for Hackney Borough Council (well known for being looney left) "We encourage applications from female and ethnic minorities" and then "Hackney Borough Council is an equal opportunities employer" I am sure as a white male I would have had a real chance in that process..... It isn't so much the fact that you're a white male Andrei (that can't be helped). It's just that you seem to have time travelled from the Dark Ages where nothing about EEO and gender equity/equality ever existed .. which concerns me (and no doubt .. that would have concerned the Council too .. given these principles define their work ethic/culture). ANYONE who has ever worked in the recruitment industry will tell you Andrei .. that technical competence/skill ISN'T the only determining factor when employing an individual. There are a few other determining factors in order to ensure a suitable FIT. rolls eyes/sighs ..

Yes Lisa, the employer has already made up their mind which gender will better suit that specific role within their organisation, but they still hold fake interviews and ask recruitment agencies to send both genders.

The government should be addressing the 18% gender pay gap first. Many women are paid less than men for doing the exact same job.

Make that .. someone intelligent WITH COMMON SENSE .. and ideally .. someone with tertiary education?

It's just that I'm getting tired of teaching ignorant, non-sensical, moronic male time travellers from the Dark Ages every time I log on these days.

What jobs specifically are you referring too Annie?

The problem with these kinds of policies is that they are reverse discriminatory to the core. We are told to be equal opportunity employers, yet are dictated as to what terms to employ.
So the government is essentially saying- Don't discriminate, but show favour.
A company has the right to employ based on merit, not gender or any other distinguishing feature. What amuses me is that (insert minority here) want equal treatment, but when it doesn't go their way they scream foul play. Equal treatment means having the same as EVERYONE else. I have lost out on jobs to women, but at the end of the day they were better suited/qualified than me. Could I have screamed discrimination? Sure, but I think that's pretty hollow.
This is a huge step backwards, and should be met with open resistance.

The government should be addressing the 18% gender pay gap first. Many women are paid less than men for doing the exact same job.

- Annie

Agreed! In some cases .. women are more skilled and are being paid less within the same job.

HC wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 10:20am:

The problem with these kinds of policies is that they are reverse discriminatory to the core. We are told to be equal opportunity employers, yet are dictated as to what terms to employ. So the government is essentially saying- Don't discriminate, but show favour. A company has the right to employ based on merit, not gender or any other distinguishing feature. What amuses me is that (insert minority here) want equal treatment, but when it doesn't go their way they scream foul play. Equal treatment means having the same as EVERYONE else. I have lost out on jobs to women, but at the end of the day they were better suited/qualified than me. Could I have screamed discrimination? Sure, but I think that's pretty hollow. This is a huge step backwards, and should be met with open resistance.

Obviously you don't know the difference btwn equity and equality and how these co-function ... sighs.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 10:17am:

The government should be addressing the 18% gender pay gap first. Many women are paid less than men for doing the exact same job.

I get paid differently to others in my company who do the same job - it is upto the individual to negotiate their terms and conditions.  I suspect the general reluctance of women to negotiate hard is the reason for any pay difference, not discrimination.  
18% sounds bad, but that's not for the same job, it's overall, and to be expected when you consdier the different female or male dominated industries....you wouldn't expect a retail assiatant (traditionally female dominated) to be paid the same as a tradesman ( male dominated)

Lisa - yes. And according to the ACTU, industries that employ a predominately female workforce attract lower pay rates.


Quote:

Women in full-time paid work still earn 18% less than men or $1 million less over a lifetime Women are now more likely to have a tertiary qualification than men, but women graduates will earn $2000 less than male graduates and $7500 less by the fifth year after graduation Fewer than 2% of ASX 200 companies have a female CEO and only 1 in 12 board directors are women Women retire with less than half the amount of savings in their superannuation accounts compared with men Under the former Coalition Government’s WorkChoices laws, the pay gap widened for the first time in 25 years, as thousands of women lost penalty rates and other important job conditions and minimum wages were cut in real terms.

http://www.actu.org.au/Campaigns/EqualPay/default.aspx

... wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 10:23am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 10:17am: The government should be addressing the 18% gender pay gap first. Many women are paid less than men for doing the exact same job. I get paid differently to others in my company who do the same job - it is upto the individual to negotiate their terms and conditions.  I suspect the general reluctance of women to negotiate hard is the reason for any pay difference, not discrimination.   18% sounds bad, but that's not for the same job, it's overall, and to be expected when you consdier the different female or male dominated industries....you wouldn't expect a retail assiatant (traditionally female dominated) to be paid the same as a tradesman ( male dominated)

So which is it, Wesley? Are women soft and unable to negotiate in their own best interests, or do we just make up the majority of the workforce in inferior industries?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 10:23am:

Yes. And according to the ACTU, industries that employ a predominately female workforce attract lower pay rates. Quote: Women in full-time paid work still earn 18% less than men or $1 million less over a lifetime Women are now more likely to have a tertiary qualification than men, but women graduates will earn $2000 less than male graduates and $7500 less by the fifth year after graduation Fewer than 2% of ASX 200 companies have a female CEO and only 1 in 12 board directors are women Women retire with less than half the amount of savings in their superannuation accounts compared with men Under the former Coalition Government’s WorkChoices laws, the pay gap widened for the first time in 25 years, as thousands of women lost penalty rates and other important job conditions and minimum wages were cut in real terms. http://www.actu.org.au/Campaigns/EqualPay/default.aspx

What amazes me about all this? The males who whinge and advocate for NO CHANGE .. do so knowing full well their mothers, wives, sisters, nieces, daughters and grand daughters are going to end up suffering/losing out as a result.

In short .. they couldn't give a damn/fail to SEE how this affects the women in their own lives AND they don't/refuse to understand how ultimately this will affect THEM also.

I have a word for this short sighted attitude -- > DUMB!

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 10:27am:

... wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 10:23am: Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 10:17am: The government should be addressing the 18% gender pay gap first. Many women are paid less than men for doing the exact same job. I get paid differently to others in my company who do the same job - it is upto the individual to negotiate their terms and conditions.  I suspect the general reluctance of women to negotiate hard is the reason for any pay difference, not discrimination.   18% sounds bad, but that's not for the same job, it's overall, and to be expected when you consdier the different female or male dominated industries....you wouldn't expect a retail assiatant (traditionally female dominated) to be paid the same as a tradesman ( male dominated) So which is it, Wesley? Are women soft and unable to negotiate in their own best interests, or do we just make up the majority of the workforce in inferior industries?

a little from column A, a little from column B...

I might also add that many (most) women take several years off to have and raise children...surely this harms their rise up the ladder.  But what's more important?  raising a family or getting another $5K in your pay packet?

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 10:21am:

The government should be addressing the 18% gender pay gap first. Many women are paid less than men for doing the exact same job. - Annie Agreed! In some cases .. women are more skilled and are being paid less within the same job.

Where is the proof?   Where are these employers that are paying women less than men for doing the same work?

LINK PLEASE

Where is the proof?   Where are these employers that are paying women less than men for doing the same work?

LINK PLEASE!

- Culldav

For goodness sakes .. experiential knowledge in the recruitment industry over a period of 20 yrs now needs a frigging LINK for someone who doesn't have a clue about gender equity and equality in the workplace!

sighs ..

Culldav, I posted a link to information on the ACTU website. How about you find some information that says women are paid equally?


Quote:

I might also add that many (most) women take several years off to have and raise children...surely this harms their rise up the ladder.  But what's more important?  raising a family or getting another $5K in your pay packet?

Wesley, an increasing number of men stay home to raise their children these days while the mother pursues a career. Should we give the entire male workforce a pay cut because of that?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 10:37am:

Culldav, I posted a link to information on the ACTU website. How about you find some information that says women are paid equally? Quote: I might also add that many (most) women take several years off to have and raise children...surely this harms their rise up the ladder.  But what's more important?  raising a family or getting another $5K in your pay packet? Wesley, an increasing number of men stay home to raise their children these days while the mother pursues a career. Should we give the entire male workforce a pay cut because of that?

Nar, it's not that you get a pay CUT, but you tend to get pay rises as you spend more time with one company.  So if you take a few years off to raise the kids, you're obviously going to have to 'start afresh' with a new employer.  I have got rises of about 30% since I started in this job 4 years ago....but if I quit and went to a new company, I wouldn't get these 'loyalty' pay rises.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 10:36am:

Where is the proof?   Where are these employers that are paying women less than men for doing the same work? LINK PLEASE! - Culldav For goodness sakes .. experiential knowledge in the recruitment industry over a period of 20 yrs now needs a frigging LINK for someone who doesn't have a clue about gender equity and equality in the workplace! sighs ..

Lisa, the ACTU link had no factual evidence to support your claims, it was just goo goo gar gar.  I can pull facts and figures out of my bum too, but that doesn’t make it the truth.

If you cannot provide a LINK then its time to pull up you panties ladies and stop being whinging whining penis haters, because everyone regardless of gender gets discriminated against at one stage or another in this life whether you like it or not.  

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 10:18am:

Make that .. someone intelligent WITH COMMON SENSE .. and ideally .. someone with tertiary education? It's just that I'm getting tired of teaching ignorant, non-sensical, moronic male time travellers from the Dark Ages every time I log on these days.

If the posts from certain males in here are anything to go by .. then ignorance is definitely bliss.

Ho hum ..

I don't mean to be condescending at all.

It's just that I would love to hear from an enlightened/intelligent/experienced (preferably educated) male who knows wtf they're talking about. One who isn't forever sitting like some lazy and incompetent couch potato on the learning curve couch of every topic I enter.

That's all.

Quote:

its time to pull up you panties ladies

You first.

It's telling that we get called "penis haters" for pointing out discrimination. We must be big hairy lesbians if we think women should receive fair treatment in the workplace, right?

Moron.

What do you call men who fight for gender equality?

Quote:

What do you call men who fight for gender equality?

Homos?

Gay men are hardly penis haters, are they?

What do you call men who fight for gender equality???

Intelligent men who have the insight to see that it will benefit THEM in the long run (given it will positively affect their mothers, sisters, aunts, nieces, daughters and grand-daughters).

Those who fail to see this are plain DUMB!

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 10:57am:

What do you call men who fight for gender equality??? Intelligent men who have the insight to see that it will benefit THEM in the long run (given it will positively affect their mothers, sisters, aunts, nieces, daughters and grand-daughters). Those who fail to see this are plain DUMB!

yes Lisa, anyone who sees it differenytl to you is Dumb, and most likely from 'the dark ages'

Heard it before.  We get it.

Wesley, a quick question if I may .. you're ok with seeing YOUR mother, sisters, aunts, nieces, daughters and grand-daughters suffer on a/c of gender inequity/inequality in the workplace?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 11:01am:

Wesley, a quick question if I may .. you're ok with seeing YOUR mother, sisters, aunts, nieces, daughters and grand-daughters suffer on a/c of gender inequity/inequality in the workplace? A simple yes or no will suffice.

They won't suffer...they're all doing just fine.  The women in my life are strong enough to do just fine on their own merit.

That wasn't the question I asked you.

Read my question again .. slowly.

Maybe they just haven't had to bash their heads on that glass ceiling. Yet.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 11:04am:

That wasn't the question I asked you.

well your question was loaded, wasn't it?

... wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 11:05am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 11:04am: That wasn't the question I asked you. well your question was loaded, wasn't it?

No! My question challenged YOU. And it was meant to.

Now .. answer it. I dare you.

As I said above .. a simple YES OR NO will suffice!

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 11:05am:

Maybe they just haven't had to bash their heads on that glass ceiling. Yet.

How many men do you think make it to the top?  It's a tinypercentage.
So why do you act like every man has it great, and every women is some poor, helpless waif?  Have you no faith in womens abilities, without legislation to assist them?

Equity/equality .. seems some men have no idea what these concepts mean and how they differ .. sighs.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 11:01am:

Wesley, a quick question if I may .. you're ok with seeing YOUR mother, sisters, aunts, nieces, daughters and grand-daughters suffer on a/c of gender inequity/inequality in the workplace? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I WOULDN'T be happy to see it, IF I believed it was an issue.

Now, would YOU be happy to see your father, brothers, uncles, sons etc be discriminated against, to fulfil a quota of women, who may not be equally qualified?

... wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 11:12am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 11:01am: Wesley, a quick question if I may .. you're ok with seeing YOUR mother, sisters, aunts, nieces, daughters and grand-daughters suffer on a/c of gender inequity/inequality in the workplace? A simple yes or no will suffice. I WOULDN'T be happy to see it, IF I believed it was an issue.

What if it WAS an issue for them .. but only YOU couldn't see it or believed it was an issue?

What would you say/do then?

Quote:

Have you no faith in womens abilities, without legislation to assist them?

If equality was about ability, we wouldn't need legislation.

Women were capable of voting throughout the centuries, but were denied a say in their own lives until legislation gave them the opportunity.

Now, would YOU be happy to see your father, brothers, uncles, sons etc be discriminated against, to fulfil a quota of women, who may not be equally qualified?

- Wesley

Ohhhh FFS .. you know damn well .. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SEE BOTH MEN AND WOMEN (IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THEY WERE FAMILY MEMBERS OR NOT) HAVE AN EQUAL CHANCE IN SECURING 'THE JOB'.

For this to happen .. we need to address gender inequity FIRST!

That is why affirmative action and EEO policies EXIST!

Sighs ..

Now off you go  and think about that for a while.

I'm not prepared to continue educating ignorance all day (again). It gets tiresome after a few hours.

>> prepares for the loud thud of a PENNY DROPPING <<

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 11:19am:

Quote: Have you no faith in womens abilities, without legislation to assist them? If equality was about ability, we wouldn't need legislation. Women were capable of voting throughout the centuries, but were denied a say in their own lives until legislation gave them the opportunity.

Aye, but lets' not act like it's just women who are up against it.  The rich kids, male or female,  get parachuted into cushy jobs due to their connections, not ability.

It's not what you know, it's who you know, and it's not divided along gender lines.  Increasing grounds for discrimination will do nothing to change this.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 11:22am:

Now, would YOU be happy to see your father, brothers, uncles, sons etc be discriminated against, to fulfil a quota of women, who may not be equally qualified? - Wesley Ohhhh FFS .. you know damn well .. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SEE BOTH MEN AND WOMEN (IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THEY WERE FAMILY MEMBERS OR NOT) HAVE AN EQUAL CHANCE IN SECURING 'THE JOB'. For this to happen .. we need to address gender inequity FIRST! That is why affirmative action and EEO policies EXIST! Sighs .. Now off you go  and think about that for a while. I'm not prepared to continue educating ignorance all day (again). It gets tiresome after a few hours. >> prepares for the loud thud of a PENNY DROPPING <<

So why do you support discrimination on the basis of gender?  When forced quotas are in place, there is not equal chance.

Best person for the job on their own merit.  I wouldn't think many people could oppose this ideal, but here we are.

Oh sighs .. the penny STILL hasn't dropped.

I don't mean to be condescending at all with some of my previous posts in here.

It's just that I would love to hear from an enlightened/intelligent/experienced (preferably educated) male who knows wtf they're talking about. One who isn't forever sitting like some lazy/ignorant/ incompetent couch potato on the learning curve sofa of every topic I enter.

That's all.

Oh and one other thing .. it would be lovely (as well as refreshing) if such a male actually READ and UNDERSTOOD an ENTIRE post and did not conveniently deny/ignore those parts which they found challenging/difficult to accept.

Am I asking too much?

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 11:36am:

Oh sighs .. the penny STILL hasn't dropped. I don't mean to be condescending at all with some of my previous posts in here. It's just that I would love to hear from an enlightened/intelligent/experienced (preferably educated) male who knows wtf they're talking about. One who isn't forever sitting like some lazy/ignorant/ incompetent couch potato on the learning curve sofa of every topic I enter. That's all. Oh and one other thing .. it would be lovely (as well as refreshing) if such a male actually READ and UNDERSTOOD an ENTIRE post and did not conveniently deny/ignore those parts which they found challenging/difficult to accept. Am I asking too much?

yes you do, be honest.

Read my previous reply in its entirety (in particular the penultimate paragraph).

Then get back to me.

Yes, funny, because if I were a petty man, I could level the same accusations at you.

I'll just leave ya with a little pearl of wisdom - making references to 'the dark ages' and 'some peoples ignorance/stupidity' doesn't class as debate.  
Saying it repeatedly just makes it look like you've lost.


Truts me, this is good advice.  Please try to take it on board.

Goodbye Lisa.  

Nahh (if you bothered to read my previous posts in their entirety) .. you'd know that it just shows I'm a tad fed up with those who choose to nurture ignorance daily. At first it makes me smile (only because I find it curiously amusing) .. after that it gets annoying. I guess I expect more of some people and when they fail to deliver .. well .. it gives me the s.hits to be brutally honest.

So Lisa, answer me this.
If legislation is enacted which says companies must have say 30% of directors being of the female gender - I wonder how that would work BTW, do they just get appointed without having to be elected - If it happens and we shareholders prefer someone else, an experienced male company director, who is standing for election, don't we get a choice? And is that OK? We have to accept someone to be the custodian of our money that we don't want?

Nothing positive can come from the proposed legislation. Companies will be weakened by sub standard management, and all women will be ostracized for the incompetence of the token few

Real women don`t need to be patronised.

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 1:53pm:

So Lisa, answer me this. If legislation is enacted which says companies must have say 30% of directors being of the female gender - I wonder how that would work BTW, do they just get appointed without having to be elected - If it happens and we shareholders prefer someone else, an experienced male company director, who is standing for election, don't we get a choice? And is that OK? We have to accept someone to be the custodian of our money that we don't want?

Actually Bogarde .. how about you answer me this:

If EQUITY principled legislation is pushed through to FORCE CHANGE which will enable the breaking of a glass ceiling which hitherto has functioned to keep competent/qualified/appropriately skilled women out  .. tell me what do you think about that?

I'm asking for your personal opinion here .. nothing more (at this stage).

Bogarde .. I'm looking forward to hearing your response.

I think this is a cultural issue that is changing as the baby boomers disappear from the workforce. Legislation to enforce a certain number of females is just completely counter productive and will lead many to question whether competent female board members have earned their hard fought spots through merit or the law.

I think a more reliable snap shot could be taken by looking at middle management numbers (the up and comers) and see what the ratios are there.

Ah yes recruitment and HR.

Where would we be without these essential workers in a company....

mavisdavis wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 2:27pm:

Nothing positive can come from the proposed legislation. Companies will be weakened by sub standard management, and all women will be ostracized for the incompetence of the token few Real women don`t need to be patronised.

Yet REAL women are (and have been) patronized by long term patriarchal systemic barriers .. which have engendered intergenerational inequity.

For this reason .. EQUITY issues must be addressed first .. and as a priority.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

mavisdavis wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 2:27pm: Nothing positive can come from the proposed legislation. Companies will be weakened by sub standard management, and all women will be ostracized for the incompetence of the token few Real women don`t need to be patronised. Yet REAL women are (and have been) patronized by long term patriarchal systemic barriers .. which have engendered intergenerational inequity. For this reason .. EQUITY issues must be addressed first .. and as a priority.

Lovely stuff. Well said love.

Now go and make us a cup of tea please.
One sugar.

Templar wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 2:48pm:

I think this is a cultural issue that is changing as the baby boomers disappear from the workforce. Legislation to enforce a certain number of females is just completely counter productive and will lead many to question whether competent female board members have earned their hard fought spots through merit or the law. I think a more reliable snap shot could be taken by looking at middle management numbers (the up and comers) and see what the ratios are there.

You cannot be THAT ignorant! Middle management consists of Gen X these days (ie my generation).

Who cares about baby boomers?? They're all retiring/have retired. My parents (both baby boomers) retired a LONG time ago .. and they're in their early 60's now playing and taking care of grandchildren. Ya dig?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 2:50pm:

Lovely stuff. Well said love. Now go and make us a cup of tea please. One sugar.

;D  ;D  ;D

If they ever legislated quotas, the boards should just promote the tea ladies into the role.

Because quotas are quotas and it doesn't matter who gets the job so long as it is a woman, even an unqualified one.  >:(

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 10:23am:

Lisa - yes. And according to the ACTU, industries that employ a predominately female workforce attract lower pay rates. Quote: Women in full-time paid work still earn 18% less than men or $1 million less over a lifetime Women are now more likely to have a tertiary qualification than men, but women graduates will earn $2000 less than male graduates and $7500 less by the fifth year after graduation Fewer than 2% of ASX 200 companies have a female CEO and only 1 in 12 board directors are women Women retire with less than half the amount of savings in their superannuation accounts compared with men Under the former Coalition Government’s WorkChoices laws, the pay gap widened for the first time in 25 years, as thousands of women lost penalty rates and other important job conditions and minimum wages were cut in real terms. http://www.actu.org.au/Campaigns/EqualPay/default.aspx

does anyone have an actual real example of a woman being paid less for the exact same job? I know of no job that makes that distinction. What  this argument is about is soemthing completely different which is ACCESS to higher paid jobs. it is nowhere near the same thing. The ACTUs claim that women earn 18% less in a lifetime is as acurate as it is totally pointless. if a woman take s ayear off to have a kid or three that gets included in this 18%. if they retire earlier than a man (and they almost all do) that is also included.

So I repeat. does anyone hvae an actual example of pay discrimination based purely on gender? I dont.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

mavisdavis wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 2:27pm: Nothing positive can come from the proposed legislation. Companies will be weakened by sub standard management, and all women will be ostracized for the incompetence of the token few Real women don`t need to be patronised. Yet REAL women are (and have been) patronized by long term patriarchal systemic barriers .. which have engendered intergenerational inequity. For this reason .. EQUITY issues must be addressed first .. and as a priority.

I almost forgot to mention .. this push for much needed change in terms of EQUITY IS OCCURRING RIGHT NOW thanks to pressure from BOTH sides of politics. You hear that  .. BOTH sides!

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 10:36am:

Where is the proof?   Where are these employers that are paying women less than men for doing the same work? LINK PLEASE! - Culldav For goodness sakes .. experiential knowledge in the recruitment industry over a period of 20 yrs now needs a frigging LINK for someone who doesn't have a clue about gender equity and equality in the workplace! sighs ..

so this is you saying you cant support the claim, right?

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 1:53pm:

So Lisa, answer me this. If legislation is enacted which says companies must have say 30% of directors being of the female gender - I wonder how that would work BTW, do they just get appointed without having to be elected - If it happens and we shareholders prefer someone else, an experienced male company director, who is standing for election, don't we get a choice? And is that OK? We have to accept someone to be the custodian of our money that we don't want?

This is an excellent point,  and the penis haters will not be able to successfully explain why someone should elected to a board just because of their gender.

There is definitely many professional women still out there with penis envy, and its time they got a grip on reality.

These are the women that when employed in CEO positions then start discriminating against males.

Time for women to be sent back to the kitchen and the bedroom where they belong.  The woman’s role in society was always to be the nurtures of the family unit, not out in the workforce pretending they have a dick.

Maybe if women were back in the home taking care of the children and their husbands, then society wouldn’t have children roaming the streets at night or 12 years involved in rapes and murders.

Grandparents, aunts and day-care centres is no substitute for a mother love.  Maybe its time women started to use their so-called intelligence and realised they cannot have everything, and its either a career without children or children without a career.

Maybe its time women stopped bludging on everyone else to take care of their kids.

Even animals don’t abandon their offspring to other members of their species to raise.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 2:55pm:

does anyone have an actual real example of a woman being paid less for the exact same job? I know of no job that makes that distinction. .

There isn't an example, not in the workplace.

Last role I recruited in Australia was last year.
Finance Manager, Australia - paying $135k base + super.

I ended up hiring a guy who was best qualified for the role.

If it was a girl, guess how much she would have been paid?
$135k + super.

That's how it works in the normal world.

I dont know where some on here inhabit.

Lisa, I am unable to answer your question unless you answer mine, because the answer to yours is conditional upon knowing how your equity legislation would impact on the situation I asked you about.

Now if you didn't follow that, maybe we could discuss it further over that cup of tea you were making for andrei.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 10:37am:

Culldav, I posted a link to information on the ACTU website. How about you find some information that says women are paid equally? Quote: I might also add that many (most) women take several years off to have and raise children...surely this harms their rise up the ladder.  But what's more important?  raising a family or getting another $5K in your pay packet? Wesley, an increasing number of men stay home to raise their children these days while the mother pursues a career. Should we give the entire male workforce a pay cut because of that?

I know of no award no business or any company that has separate pay scales for women. and neither do you so stop the hysteria and provide a few facts.  or accept that women have children and take time off to do so and this inevitable (and equitably) changes their career trajectory. no one is being disctiminated against.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 2:50pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 2:49pm: mavisdavis wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 2:27pm: Nothing positive can come from the proposed legislation. Companies will be weakened by sub standard management, and all women will be ostracized for the incompetence of the token few Real women don`t need to be patronised. Yet REAL women are (and have been) patronized by long term patriarchal systemic barriers .. which have engendered intergenerational inequity. For this reason .. EQUITY issues must be addressed first .. and as a priority. Lovely stuff. Well said love. Now go and make us a cup of tea please. One sugar.

I think I had better do the right thing here and go make BOTH of us a cup of coffee Andrei... given that the last cup of coffee YOU made looked grey, tasted like cr@p and made us both feel sick!

Oh  .. have I ever mentioned that my 9 yr old niece makes a good cup of coffee Andrei? Perhaps I ought to bring her into the office one afternoon after school ..  so she can teach you.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 10:37am:

Wesley, an increasing number of men stay home to raise their children these days while the mother pursues a career.

For about 5 years now, I have heard a lot of talk about this.
Even amongst my friends when they are looking to have children.

I am yet to see an actual example of this from anyone I know, in the workplace, amongst my friends etc

I think it is one of those pipe-dreams that never actually happens.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 3:02pm:

I think I had better do the right thing here and go make BOTH of us a cup of coffee Andrei... given that the last cup of coffee YOU made looked grey, tasted like cr@p and made us both feel sick!

I get mine from Starbucks on the ground floor.

I am a consultant in a mid sized firm and generally we are paid on performance and experience level *shock, horror*.

There are women that do the same job as me but are more experienced and guess what, they get paid more than me. Should I be going to my member of parliment?

The free market is the ultimate arbiter, you are valued for what your worth, deal with it.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 2:58pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 10:36am: Where is the proof?   Where are these employers that are paying women less than men for doing the same work? LINK PLEASE! - Culldav For goodness sakes .. experiential knowledge in the recruitment industry over a period of 20 yrs now needs a frigging LINK for someone who doesn't have a clue about gender equity and equality in the workplace! sighs .. so this is you saying you cant support the claim, right?

Looks like we have another fart in the wind. When asked to provide a link to substantiate their claims all they can do is attack the player and not the ball.

Templar wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 3:07pm:

I am a consultant in a mid sized firm and generally we are paid on performance and experience level *shock, horror*. There are women that do the same job as me but are more experienced and guess what, they get paid more than me. Should I be going to my member of parliment? The free market is the ultimate arbiter, you are valued for what your worth, deal with it.

I don’t think it’s the “glass ceiling” some professional have to break through, but the penis envy.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 3:04pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 3:02pm: I think I had better do the right thing here and go make BOTH of us a cup of coffee Andrei... given that the last cup of coffee YOU made looked grey, tasted like cr@p and made us both feel sick! I get mine from Starbucks on the ground floor.

I actually stated this:

I think I had better do the right thing here and go make BOTH of us a cup of coffee Andrei ... given that the last cup of coffee YOU made looked grey, tasted like cr@p and made us both feel sick!

Oh  .. have I ever mentioned that my 9 yr old niece makes a good cup of coffee Andrei? Perhaps I ought to bring her into the office one afternoon after school ..  so she can teach you.


One last thing Andrei .. Starbucks??? I've heard McDonalds makes better coffee! In my office .. one of the lovely male co owners of the upmarket Italian cafe downstairs .. personally delivers my latte to me. He's kinda cute too .. smirks :P

I don’t think it’s the “glass ceiling” some professional have to break through, but the penis envy.

- Culldav

Ok I'm going to have to say something here which .. well quite frankly isn't all that topic relevant IMO.

However .. given this allegation of penis envy has been literally thrust in my direction a number of times this week .. I'm going to gently take the matter in hand.

Ok .. here goes ..

Why/how any woman in her right mind could ever be envious of a penis which is essentially this long poking piece of body matter and hangs along with 2 balls like excess herniated pieces of skin .. and must be ever so uncomfortable to carry around .. is totally beyond me.

Sheesh  .. what we women have is far neater and looks much nicer .. especially in undies/swimwear.

If anything .. I believe it's high time we turned this around and started using the term vagina envy.

Perhaps it may also explain why men chase us women so much.

Oh and this penis envy retort/approach (which some men think they can use from time to time in a debate) .. doesn't impress me much. Then again deflection tactics never have.

Quote:

Why/how any woman in her right mind could ever be envious of a penis which is essentially this long poking piece of body matter and hangs along with 2 balls like excess herniated pieces of skin .. and must be ever so uncomfortable to carry around .. is totally beyond me

That just may be the best senetence I've read on this forum.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 3:40pm:

I don’t think it’s the “glass ceiling” some professional have to break through, but the penis envy. - Culldav Ok I'm going to have to say something here which .. well quite frankly isn't all that topic relevant IMO. However .. given this allegation of penis envy has been literally thrust in my direction a number of times this week .. I'm going to gently take the matter in hand. Ok .. here goes .. Why/how any woman in her right mind could ever be envious of a penis which is essentially this long poking piece of body matter and hangs along with 2 balls like excess herniated pieces of skin .. and must be ever so uncomfortable to carry around .. is totally beyond me. Sheesh  .. what we women have is far neater and looks much nicer .. especially in undies/swimwear. If anything .. I believe it's high time we turned this around and started using the term vagina envy. Perhaps it may also explain why men chase us women so much. Oh and this penis envy retort/approach (which some men think they can use from time to time in a debate) .. doesn't impress me much. Then again deflection tactics never have.

Then maybe you could actually try answering the question and providing evidence to support you ridiculous claims.

And clearly you know as much about penis envy as you do about the topic at hand - nil.

Out of all this, I think the biggest disgrace is the dissing of Starbucks.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 4:17pm:

Quote: Why/how any woman in her right mind could ever be envious of a penis which is essentially this long poking piece of body matter and hangs along with 2 balls like excess herniated pieces of skin .. and must be ever so uncomfortable to carry around .. is totally beyond me That just may be the best sentence I've read on this forum.

Someone had to say it Annie.

I mean really .. penis envy?? What a load of bovine faecal matter!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 4:28pm:

Out of all this, I think the biggest disgrace is the dissing of Starbucks.

I think it's the fact that you haven't tasted REAL coffee yet.

STARBUCKS FFS???

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 4:31pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 4:17pm: Quote: Why/how any woman in her right mind could ever be envious of a penis which is essentially this long poking piece of body matter and hangs along with 2 balls like excess herniated pieces of skin .. and must be ever so uncomfortable to carry around .. is totally beyond me That just may be the best sentence I've read on this forum. Someone had to say it Annie. I mean really .. penis envy?? What a load of bovine faecal matter!

Just a pity you didnt put as much effort into supporting your point of view with facts.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 4:22pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 3:40pm: I don’t think it’s the “glass ceiling” some professional have to break through, but the penis envy. - Culldav Ok I'm going to have to say something here which .. well quite frankly isn't all that topic relevant IMO. However .. given this allegation of penis envy has been literally thrust in my direction a number of times this week .. I'm going to gently take the matter in hand. Ok .. here goes .. Why/how any woman in her right mind could ever be envious of a penis which is essentially this long poking piece of body matter and hangs along with 2 balls like excess herniated pieces of skin .. and must be ever so uncomfortable to carry around .. is totally beyond me. Sheesh  .. what we women have is far neater and looks much nicer .. especially in undies/swimwear. If anything .. I believe it's high time we turned this around and started using the term vagina envy. Perhaps it may also explain why men chase us women so much. Oh and this penis envy retort/approach (which some men think they can use from time to time in a debate) .. doesn't impress me much. Then again deflection tactics never have. Then maybe you could actually try answering the question and providing evidence to support you ridiculous claims. And clearly you know as much about penis envy as you do about the topic at hand - nil.

Ohhh lookie look:

Seems I DO KNOW WTF I am talking about after all:

http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch11_personality/karen_horneys_theory.html

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 4:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 4:22pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 3:40pm: I don’t think it’s the “glass ceiling” some professional have to break through, but the penis envy. - Culldav Ok I'm going to have to say something here which .. well quite frankly isn't all that topic relevant IMO. However .. given this allegation of penis envy has been literally thrust in my direction a number of times this week .. I'm going to gently take the matter in hand. Ok .. here goes .. Why/how any woman in her right mind could ever be envious of a penis which is essentially this long poking piece of body matter and hangs along with 2 balls like excess herniated pieces of skin .. and must be ever so uncomfortable to carry around .. is totally beyond me. Sheesh  .. what we women have is far neater and looks much nicer .. especially in undies/swimwear. If anything .. I believe it's high time we turned this around and started using the term vagina envy. Perhaps it may also explain why men chase us women so much. Oh and this penis envy retort/approach (which some men think they can use from time to time in a debate) .. doesn't impress me much. Then again deflection tactics never have. Then maybe you could actually try answering the question and providing evidence to support you ridiculous claims. And clearly you know as much about penis envy as you do about the topic at hand - nil. Ohhh lookie look: Seems I DO KNOW WTF I am talking about after all: http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch11_personality/karen_horneys_theory.html

I wouldn't go that far.  Finding a bitter old woman (named horny LOL) who disagrees with the theory doesn't 'prove' anything does it?

http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch11_personality/karen_horneys_theory.html

Karen Horney's Theory

One of the few prominent female personality theorists from the first half of the 20th Century was Karen Danielsen Horney (1885-1952). Horney (pronounced HORN-eye) added social factors to the basic ideas of Freud's theory. Horney's approach, called psychosocial analysis, put special emphasis on the emotional relations between parent and child early in the child's life.

Horney is famous for her response to the Freudian idea of penis envy in women. She said that, to the contrary, her work with male patients had revealed a sort of "womb envy" in some of them. They were jealous of the women's ability to be productive and creative by having babies. Some men compensated by developing a neurotic overemphasis on career success.


Ok .. I'll come back later IFF ( <-- that means IF and ONLY IF in mathematics for those who may not know ) ..  someone intelligent starts posting.

This is where we wait vainly for Lisa and Annie to prove their point about income inequality but of course she needs to talk about penis envy as if to basically prove the point.

Oh for goodness sakes! I merely successfully rebutted the silly accusations of penis envy which have been directed against me and a few other women by a few stupid and ignorant men Longweekend. That's all.

Deal with it and move on. It's not that hard. Just TRY!

Ok .. it's time to see what my gorgeous hubby is cooking for dinner.

And if/when I return .. I expect to see men who have significantly matured and who can prove that they are capable of posting something worth reading and commenting upon. If you insist on posting bovine faecal matter .. I will post around it. In short .. you will be ignored.  

Thus far .. I've been responding to cry babies who are pretending to be men ... and who need to pull their head in.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 4:53pm:

Oh for goodness sakes! I merely successfully rebutted the silly accusations of penis envy which have been directed against me and a few other women by a few stupid and ignorant men Longweekend. That's all. Deal with it and move on. It's not that hard. Just TRY! Ok .. it's time to see what my gorgeous hubby is cooking for dinner. Bye.

Oh you did?  I missed that post.  Must have been in the same post where you answered all the questions that have been levelled at you and conveniently ignored.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 4:53pm:

Oh for goodness sakes! I merely successfully rebutted the silly accusations of penis envy which have been directed against me and a few other women by a few stupid and ignorant men Longweekend. That's all. Deal with it and move on. It's not that hard. Just TRY! Ok .. it's time to see what my gorgeous hubby is cooking for dinner.

you were ranting and raving about income inequality and refused to support your positin with a single example.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 4:49pm:

This is where we wait vainly for Lisa and Annie to prove their point about income inequality but of course she needs to talk about penis envy as if to basically prove the point.

this is because they are frustrated femos there LW

they will make grandiose over the top riduculus claims and statements without any facts or substance to back up their ludicrous circular commentary, but they will do it to get your attention

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 2:52pm:

Templar wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 2:48pm: I think this is a cultural issue that is changing as the baby boomers disappear from the workforce. Legislation to enforce a certain number of females is just completely counter productive and will lead many to question whether competent female board members have earned their hard fought spots through merit or the law. I think a more reliable snap shot could be taken by looking at middle management numbers (the up and comers) and see what the ratios are there. You cannot be THAT ignorant! Middle management consists of Gen X these days (ie my generation). Who cares about baby boomers?? They're all retiring/have retired. My parents (both baby boomers) retired a LONG time ago .. and they're in their early 60's now playing and taking care of grandchildren. Ya dig?

I've noticed you're still thinking about this Templar. Good. I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 2:42pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 1:53pm: So Lisa, answer me this. If legislation is enacted which says companies must have say 30% of directors being of the female gender - I wonder how that would work BTW, do they just get appointed without having to be elected - If it happens and we shareholders prefer someone else, an experienced male company director, who is standing for election, don't we get a choice? And is that OK? We have to accept someone to be the custodian of our money that we don't want? Actually Bogarde .. how about you answer me this: If EQUITY principled legislation is pushed through to FORCE CHANGE which will enable the breaking of a glass ceiling which hitherto has functioned to keep competent/qualified/appropriately skilled women out  .. tell me what do you think about that? I'm asking for your personal opinion here .. nothing more (at this stage).

Bogarde .. I'm looking forward to hearing your response.

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 1:53pm:

So Lisa, answer me this. If legislation is enacted which says companies must have say 30% of directors being of the female gender - I wonder how that would work BTW, do they just get appointed without having to be elected - If it happens and we shareholders prefer someone else, an experienced male company director, who is standing for election, don't we get a choice? And is that OK? We have to accept someone to be the custodian of our money that we don't want?

geees buddy your hopeful

oh and try not to use logic as they will never understand you buddy

angry manhater alert. angry manhater alert!

HC wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 5:31pm:

angry manhater alert. angry manhater alert!

Huh?? But only a few moments ago I was a "penis envier"? Make up your mind will ya.

Then after you've done that .. come back and tell me your answer. Off you go .. you've got some deep thinking homework now.

I am astounded...no, FLABBERGASTED at Lisa of all people berating people for not answering her 'questions'.  

HC wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 5:31pm:

angry manhater alert. angry manhater alert!

touche buddy

bwaaaaahaaaaaaaaaa

so it is good to watch Lisa totally avoid the facts she was supposed to present. So it is safe to assuem that there is NO gender bias in pay in australia and everything she said was pure rubbish?  Seems fair to me!

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 5:54pm:

so it is good to watch Lisa totally avoid the facts she was supposed to present. So it is safe to assuem that there is NO gender bias in pay in australia and everything she said was pure rubbish?  Seems fair to me!

OMFG
you mean yet another femo mytth has been debunked


woooohooooooo

tickfen wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 6:01pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 5:54pm: so it is good to watch Lisa totally avoid the facts she was supposed to present. So it is safe to assuem that there is NO gender bias in pay in australia and everything she said was pure rubbish?  Seems fair to me! OMFG you mean yet another femo mytth has been debunked woooohooooooo

It has been a myth for a long time. some women want the same pay over their lifetimes but want to work less time for it. thats not what i call equality.

I've never understood the pay divide unless the income is annualised over a working career, when typically 5-10 years would be taken out rearing sprogs.

qikvtec wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 8:14pm:

I've never understood the pay divide unless the income is annualised over a working career, when typically 5-10 years would be taken out rearing sprogs.

I dont get why the 'pay divide' has to include time spent not working? It is the same as the average income figure which is the income of ALL people including thos not working or working part-time. These figures are useful but they are invariably mis used, abused and misinterpreted - usually by people trying oto make a point which itself is a lie.

statistics - the best way to lie.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 8:10pm:

tickfen wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 6:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 5:54pm: so it is good to watch Lisa totally avoid the facts she was supposed to present. So it is safe to assuem that there is NO gender bias in pay in australia and everything she said was pure rubbish?  Seems fair to me! OMFG you mean yet another femo mytth has been debunked woooohooooooo It has been a myth for a long time. some women want the same pay over their lifetimes but want to work less time for it. thats not what i call equality.

Maybe they want to treat their working life like a game of tennis; you know where men have to play the best of 5 sets whilst women the best of 3 sets for the same prize money.

All companies striving to make profits will employ the best person for the position that they can afford. They will not care what the person's gender is.
Rather they will go by credentials, experience and abilities. Other factors such as prospect and reliabilty come into play as well. All of these factors are deemed irrelevant by the Governor Genral and Prime Minister who want only one criteria - gender to be considered.
Just because the ALP use gender as the criteria, and very little else unless you're a somewhat celebrity or former musician, doesnt mean businesses should.

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 9:04pm:

All companies striving to make profits will employ the best person for the position that they can afford. They will not care what the person's gender is. Rather they will go by credentials, experience and abilities. Other factors such as prospect and reliabilty come into play as well. All of these factors are deemed irrelevant by the Governor Genral and Prime Minister who want only one criteria - gender to be considered. Just because the ALP use gender as the criteria, and very little else unless you're a somewhat celebrity or former musician, doesnt mean businesses should.

You know Frenchyjen70 .. your remarks really astound me .. given I know you and your family personally (ever since you began posting on the Yahoo message boards under the same name as Frenchyjen70 some years back).

How come you've changed so much? I can barely recognize you now. In fact .. you sound nothing like Jen at all. Why is that I wonder?

I should use the Shir2lou ID if people are that thick.

Maybe they want to treat their working life like a game of tennis; you know where men have to play the best of 5 sets whilst women the best of 3 sets for the same prize money.

- Frenchyjen70

There is NO WAY Jen would say that about women. NO FRIGGING WAY!

Who the frack are you??

Life_goes_on wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 9:20pm:

I should use the Shir2lou ID if people are that thick.

LOL I know Shirl2lou personally also. She's a lovely woman in real time.

Have you forgotten to take your medication today?

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 9:25pm:

Have you forgotten to take your medication today?

Huh?

Frenchyjen70 .. if that is really you .. when was the last time we spoke on the phone? Come on .. it shouldn't be that hard.

As a matter of fact  .. how about you call me now. You've got my number.

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 9:04pm:

All companies striving to make profits will employ the best person for the position that they can afford. They will not care what the person's gender is. Rather they will go by credentials, experience and abilities. Other factors such as prospect and reliabilty come into play as well. All of these factors are deemed irrelevant by the Governor Genral and Prime Minister who want only one criteria - gender to be considered. Just because the ALP use gender as the criteria, and very little else unless you're a somewhat celebrity or former musician, doesnt mean businesses should.

bump

Maybe they want to treat their working life like a game of tennis; you know where men have to play the best of 5 sets whilst women the best of 3 sets for the same prize money.

- Frenchyjen70

There is NO WAY Jen would say that about women. NO FRIGGING WAY!

Who the frack are you??

And how is it you're not answering me or even calling me .. given how close we are as real time friends Frenchyjen70???

Hang on a sec .. let me call you Frenchyjen70.

BRB everyone else ...

I've seen the way you interact and the comments you post are quite bizarre and absurd. There's no way that you're the person that I know.

How come you're not answering your mobile Frenchyjen70?

Answer me on Yahoo IM then .. go on. That shouldn't be all too hard given we have chatted heaps of times on there .. even recently.

Lisa, I mentioned to the real Jen a while back
that I'd seen her posts on here.

She stated that it was NOT her.

Maybe cause my mobile didn't ring!

Kat wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 9:35pm:

Lisa, I mentioned to the real Jen a while back that I'd seen her posts on here. She stated that it was NOT her.

This is getting more absurd
For starters, no you didn't
and secondly youre not the same person that I spoke with!

Ok I'LL ASK AGAIN .. How come you're not answering your mobile Frenchyjen70?

Answer me on Yahoo IM then .. go on. That shouldn't be all too hard given we have chatted heaps of times on there .. even recently.

Maybe they want to treat their working life like a game of tennis; you know where men have to play the best of 5 sets whilst women the best of 3 sets for the same prize money.

- Frenchyjen70

There is NO WAY Jen would say that about women. NO FRIGGING WAY!

Who the frack are you??

You're not my beautiful friend Frenchyjen70 that's for sure .. you've impersonated her id though.

Why would you try that silly stunt though I wonder? Did you think you'd never get caught eh?

Hmmm.

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 8:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 8:10pm: tickfen wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 6:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 5:54pm: so it is good to watch Lisa totally avoid the facts she was supposed to present. So it is safe to assuem that there is NO gender bias in pay in australia and everything she said was pure rubbish?  Seems fair to me! OMFG you mean yet another femo mytth has been debunked woooohooooooo It has been a myth for a long time. some women want the same pay over their lifetimes but want to work less time for it. thats not what i call equality. Maybe they want to treat their working life like a game of tennis; you know where men have to play the best of 5 sets whilst women the best of 3 sets for the same prize money.

Getting back on topic;
why aren't tennis players playing the same number of sets?

Why are men disadvantaged?
Will giLIARd also instigate an $11m enquiry to make men and womens tennis games the same number of sets?

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 9:37pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 9:35pm: Lisa, I mentioned to the real Jen a while back that I'd seen her posts on here. She stated that it was NOT her. This is getting more absurd For starters, no you didn't and secondly youre not the same person that I spoke with!

Now I'M confused......(walks off, bemusedly shaking head...)

And yes, I did say that - whoever you are.

What is quite perplexing is that when women or men have an advantage over the other gender when one gender complains they always refuse to want to be equal themselves or remove the advantage that they have.
Perfect example is the tennis situation and the primary school teachers.

It wasnt that long ago that there was a major concern over why girls weren't doing as good as boys in maths and other subjects. So many millions were spent to help boost girls education at all levels.
But now girls are outperforming boys and for some time, so where is the millions being spent on boys education?

Oh .. you've fled the scene ever so quickly after I posted that topic on those who impersonate others eh Frenchyjen70.

Funny that.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1299757678/0#1

For the benefit of others who haven't yet realized that the id on THIS message board who is posting as Frenchyjen70 is in fact an impersonator of the original Frenchyjen70 who has posted on Yahoo with us over many years.

Lisa,

You have advocated your self intelligence as a University educated individual,  but you have failed one of the guiding simplistic rules of using critical analysis when debating as issue.

The ACTU released these “off-the-cuff” statements that women are being paid less than men, but in their media statement, and on the link you provided no large or mum & dad business or company was named to substantiate their claims or your accusations.

The ALP has instructed the ACTC to use women’s wage equality as a distraction and ruse tactic for a Government under media and public siege for introducing carbon tax without a mandate.

This is the worst thing about some women who still have penis envy and that is, as soon as a feminist issue is raised that seems like they are being taken advantage off, they immediately jump on the bandwagon regardless of facts just so they can get one up on the men.  

No one is saying that in some point in time that some women were not paid the same as men for doing the same job, but you would be hard pressed today to find any reputable business or company that doesn’t pay equal wages to males and female.

The only example I could assume still exists would be in backyard sweatshops, but that has more to do with labour coats than gender.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 9:56pm:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1299757678/0#1 For the benefit of others who haven't yet realized that the id on THIS message board who is posting as Frenchyjen70 is in fact an impersonator of the original Frenchyjen70 who has posted on Yahoo with us over many years.

The matter has been reported .. the relevant Mods are now aware of what has happened here and the matter will be addressed by them.

For the record .. I condemn any troll like the id FRENCHYJEN70 from Oz Politic who impersonates and clones another online persona and then pretends to be that person.

Regards to all.

Lisa

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 9:56pm:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1299757678/0#1 For the benefit of others who haven't yet realized that the id on THIS message board who is posting as Frenchyjen70 is in fact an impersonator of the original Frenchyjen70 who has posted on Yahoo with us over many years.

care factor: zero.

culldav wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 9:25am:

Lisa, You have advocated your self intelligence as a University educated individual,  but you have failed one of the guiding simplistic rules of using critical analysis when debating as issue. The ACTU released these “off-the-cuff” statements that women are being paid less than men, but in their media statement, and on the link you provided no large or mum & dad business or company was named to substantiate their claims or your accusations. The ALP has instructed the ACTC to use women’s wage equality as a distraction and ruse tactic for a Government under media and public siege for introducing carbon tax without a mandate. This is the worst thing about some women who still have penis envy and that is, as soon as a feminist issue is raised that seems like they are being taken advantage off, they immediately jump on the bandwagon regardless of facts just so they can get one up on the men.   No one is saying that in some point in time that some women were not paid the same as men for doing the same job, but you would be hard pressed today to find any reputable business or company that doesn’t pay equal wages to males and female. The only example I could assume still exists would be in backyard sweatshops, but that has more to do with labour coats than gender.

>> groans <<

Where do I start here?

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 9:54am:

culldav wrote on Mar 11th, 2011 at 9:25am: Lisa, You have advocated your self intelligence as a University educated individual,  but you have failed one of the guiding simplistic rules of using critical analysis when debating as issue. The ACTU released these “off-the-cuff” statements that women are being paid less than men, but in their media statement, and on the link you provided no large or mum & dad business or company was named to substantiate their claims or your accusations. The ALP has instructed the ACTC to use women’s wage equality as a distraction and ruse tactic for a Government under media and public siege for introducing carbon tax without a mandate. This is the worst thing about some women who still have penis envy and that is, as soon as a feminist issue is raised that seems like they are being taken advantage off, they immediately jump on the bandwagon regardless of facts just so they can get one up on the men.   No one is saying that in some point in time that some women were not paid the same as men for doing the same job, but you would be hard pressed today to find any reputable business or company that doesn’t pay equal wages to males and female. The only example I could assume still exists would be in backyard sweatshops, but that has more to do with labour coats than gender. >> groans << Where do I start here?

I might not be as educated as you Lisa, but I think a good starting point would be for you and the ACTU to substantiate your claims that female workers are being paid less wages then males for doing the same job.  

Substantiated evidence would include a company or business that has recently been prosecuted for under paying women.  

I think we should also stick to the parameters of mainstream companies and businesses in Australia when debating this issues, and not rely on backyard sweatshops as a precedent.

Does that sound fair and reasonable?

I look forward to reading your link.

Quote:

I think we should also stick to the parameters of mainstream companies and businesses in Australia when debating this issues, and not rely on backyard sweatshops as a precedent.

Why? Do women who work in sweatshops not count?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 11:07am:

Quote: I think we should also stick to the parameters of mainstream companies and businesses in Australia when debating this issues, and not rely on backyard sweatshops as a precedent. Why? Do women who work in sweatshops not count?

About as much as men who work in sweatshops.
Besides, they're illegal to start with, so why would they regard any ruling about gender quotas etc, when they don't even abide by things like minimum wages or conditions.

Annie, sweatshops are really not the general rule of thumb. These businesses are generally illegal and renowned for exploiting women, men and child labour equally; that’s why you have to frame a parameter for a intellectual debate.

Apparently, textile and footwear companies in Australia outsource up to 75% of their work to women who work from home. For about $2.00 an hour. These women aren't necessarily illegals - they're mostly women who might find it difficult to find employment because they're lacking in basic skills, but are doing their best to support their families.

The current structure of our society enables exploitation of women in particular because they know that women will sacrifice more for their families when push comes to shove. There's a great article about that in the NYT if you want me to find you a link.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 11:28am:

Apparently, textile and footwear companies outsource up to 75% of their work to women who work from home. For about $2.00 an hour. These women aren't necessarily illegals - they're mostly women who might find it difficult to find employment because they're lacking in basic skills, but are doing their best to support their families. The current structure of our society enables exploitation of women in particular because they know that women will sacrifice more for their families when push comes to shove. There's a great article about that in the NYT if you want me to find you a link.

You're joking...right???  Please tell me you're joking.

Quote:

About as much as men who work in sweatshops.

It's different, Wesley. Don't get me wrong. I find the expolitation of anyone abhorrent - regardless of gender.

The fact remains that women who are exploited and voiceless are far more vulnerable than men.

I thought if you made tough decisions you have to have balls?

A woman might be too sentimental to get rid
of the dead wood in a company.
That costs the shareholders money.

I'm deadly serious.


Quote:

WHY DO MICROFINANCE organizations usually focus their assistance on women? And why does everyone benefit when women enter the work force and bring home regular pay checks? One reason involves the dirty little secret of global poverty: some of the most wretched suffering is caused not just by low incomes but also by unwise spending by the poor — especially by men. Surprisingly frequently, we’ve come across a mother mourning a child who has just died of malaria for want of a $5 mosquito bed net; the mother says that the family couldn’t afford a bed net and she means it, but then we find the father at a nearby bar. He goes three evenings a week to the bar, spending $5 each week. Our interviews and perusal of the data available suggest that the poorest families in the world spend approximately 10 times as much (20 percent of their incomes on average) on a combination of alcohol, prostitution, candy, sugary drinks and lavish feasts as they do on educating their children (2 percent). If poor families spent only as much on educating their children as they do on beer and prostitutes, there would be a breakthrough in the prospects of poor countries. Girls, since they are the ones kept home from school now, would be the biggest beneficiaries. Moreover, one way to reallocate family expenditures in this way is to put more money in the hands of women. A series of studies has found that when women hold assets or gain incomes, family money is more likely to be spent on nutrition, medicine and housing, and consequently children are healthier.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/magazine/23Women-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1#


Read it. It's good.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 11:37am:

I thought if you made tough decisions you have to have balls? A woman might be too sentimental to get rid of the dead wood in a company. That costs the shareholders money.

I doubt that type of woman, or man for that matter, would make it so far in business to be considered to be a board member.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 11:39am:

I'm deadly serious. Quote: WHY DO MICROFINANCE organizations usually focus their assistance on women? And why does everyone benefit when women enter the work force and bring home regular pay checks? One reason involves the dirty little secret of global poverty: some of the most wretched suffering is caused not just by low incomes but also by unwise spending by the poor — especially by men. Surprisingly frequently, we’ve come across a mother mourning a child who has just died of malaria for want of a $5 mosquito bed net; the mother says that the family couldn’t afford a bed net and she means it, but then we find the father at a nearby bar. He goes three evenings a week to the bar, spending $5 each week. Our interviews and perusal of the data available suggest that the poorest families in the world spend approximately 10 times as much (20 percent of their incomes on average) on a combination of alcohol, prostitution, candy, sugary drinks and lavish feasts as they do on educating their children (2 percent). If poor families spent only as much on educating their children as they do on beer and prostitutes, there would be a breakthrough in the prospects of poor countries. Girls, since they are the ones kept home from school now, would be the biggest beneficiaries. Moreover, one way to reallocate family expenditures in this way is to put more money in the hands of women. A series of studies has found that when women hold assets or gain incomes, family money is more likely to be spent on nutrition, medicine and housing, and consequently children are healthier. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/magazine/23Women-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1# Read it. It's good.

Hmm...s'not the way it works in my life, but for sure there's blokes who piss their life away, just as there are women who spend their whole day shopping for shoes and handbags while hubby works his arse off to pay for it.

I've sacrificed a helluva lot for mine, and don't regret it one bit.  I don't really think I'm the exception to the rule.

culldav wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 10:19am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 11th, 2011 at 9:54am: culldav wrote on Mar 11th, 2011 at 9:25am: Lisa, You have advocated your self intelligence as a University educated individual,  but you have failed one of the guiding simplistic rules of using critical analysis when debating as issue. The ACTU released these “off-the-cuff” statements that women are being paid less than men, but in their media statement, and on the link you provided no large or mum & dad business or company was named to substantiate their claims or your accusations. The ALP has instructed the ACTC to use women’s wage equality as a distraction and ruse tactic for a Government under media and public siege for introducing carbon tax without a mandate. This is the worst thing about some women who still have penis envy and that is, as soon as a feminist issue is raised that seems like they are being taken advantage off, they immediately jump on the bandwagon regardless of facts just so they can get one up on the men.   No one is saying that in some point in time that some women were not paid the same as men for doing the same job, but you would be hard pressed today to find any reputable business or company that doesn’t pay equal wages to males and female. The only example I could assume still exists would be in backyard sweatshops, but that has more to do with labour coats than gender. >> groans << Where do I start here? I might not be as educated as you Lisa, but I think a good starting point would be for you and the ACTU to substantiate your claims that female workers are being paid less wages then males for doing the same job.   Substantiated evidence would include a company or business that has recently been prosecuted for under paying women.   I think we should also stick to the parameters of mainstream companies and businesses in Australia when debating this issues, and not rely on backyard sweatshops as a precedent. Does that sound fair and reasonable? I look forward to reading your link.

Do you really think that you should be sticking to facts on this topic?
When hysteria seems to be quite the norm for some people.

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 11:54am:

culldav wrote on Mar 11th, 2011 at 10:19am: Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 11th, 2011 at 9:54am: culldav wrote on Mar 11th, 2011 at 9:25am: Lisa, You have advocated your self intelligence as a University educated individual,  but you have failed one of the guiding simplistic rules of using critical analysis when debating as issue. The ACTU released these “off-the-cuff” statements that women are being paid less than men, but in their media statement, and on the link you provided no large or mum & dad business or company was named to substantiate their claims or your accusations. The ALP has instructed the ACTC to use women’s wage equality as a distraction and ruse tactic for a Government under media and public siege for introducing carbon tax without a mandate. This is the worst thing about some women who still have penis envy and that is, as soon as a feminist issue is raised that seems like they are being taken advantage off, they immediately jump on the bandwagon regardless of facts just so they can get one up on the men.   No one is saying that in some point in time that some women were not paid the same as men for doing the same job, but you would be hard pressed today to find any reputable business or company that doesn’t pay equal wages to males and female. The only example I could assume still exists would be in backyard sweatshops, but that has more to do with labour coats than gender. >> groans << Where do I start here? I might not be as educated as you Lisa, but I think a good starting point would be for you and the ACTU to substantiate your claims that female workers are being paid less wages then males for doing the same job.   Substantiated evidence would include a company or business that has recently been prosecuted for under paying women.   I think we should also stick to the parameters of mainstream companies and businesses in Australia when debating this issues, and not rely on backyard sweatshops as a precedent. Does that sound fair and reasonable? I look forward to reading your link. Do you really think that you should be sticking to facts on this topic? When hysteria seems to be quite the norm for some people.

Good point, considering not one business or company has been named and shamed in paying women lower wages then men for doing the same job within the last 12 months or so.

All hysteria and assumptions.

As my wife says, this sort of issue soon separates the penis haters from the real women wanting equality for everyone not just themselves.

Surely it makes more sense to have a quota for left-handed people to be on boards. As afterall there maybe a link to which is your dominant side of your thought process.
"In general the left and right hemispheres of your brain process information in different ways. We tend to process information using our dominant side. However, the learning and thinking process is enhanced when both side of the brain participate in a balanced manner.

...The left side of the brain processes information in a linear manner. It processes from part to whole. It takes pieces, lines them up, and arranges them in a logical order; then it draws conclusions. The right brain however, processes from whole to parts, holistically. It starts with the answer. It sees the big picture first, not the details.  "

http://www.web-us.com/brain/lrbrain.html

COULD WE ALL IGNORE THE TROLL FRENCHYJEN70.

This id has cloned a Yahoo persona and has attempted to deceive in making us think it is the original person who has posted on Yahoo for many years with us.


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1299757678/34#34

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 11:28am:

Apparently, textile and footwear companies in Australia outsource up to 75% of their work to women who work from home. For about $2.00 an hour. These women aren't necessarily illegals - they're mostly women who might find it difficult to find employment because they're lacking in basic skills, but are doing their best to support their families. The current structure of our society enables exploitation of women in particular because they know that women will sacrifice more for their families when push comes to shove. There's a great article about that in the NYT if you want me to find you a link.

You're talking about obvious cases here Annie ie the types we often hear about (for lower class unqualified/unskilled people ). There is nothing wrong with that. It's just that I find it amazing that these examples often distract us from the fact that the same type of BS is happening in other areas too.

In which other areas? In other (more professional) industries gender inequality is just as REAL and is HIDDEN and PROTECTED by the old boys network.

Hence why we have proposed legislation to "force change".

a womans place is in the kitchen and if they do a good job there we take them into the bedroom to give them they raise they need

whats the problem, why they upset about that arrangement - its a win -win situation


bwaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

tickfen wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 10:29am:

a womans place is in the kitchen and if they do a good job there we take them into the bedroom to give them they raise they need whats the problem, why they upset about that arrangement - its a win -win situation bwaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

SOD OFF TROLL! You're trolling all over the place too .. NOT just in here!