>Further Reading: The Gender Pay Gap

>@PAMAnd what has this all what you write here about the 19th century to do with the (non-existing) salary gap of the year 2010?Identify and name a company which pays more for men than for women for exactly the SAME work.Go ahead!PAM: … the wage gap between "traditional" men's work and "traditional" women's work still persistsWhere does it persist? Prove it! Let us know those companies.

>PamSingle women out earn single men as a group. Women are on average paid more than men and really, do you think that sanitation and childcare are comparable, if both were paying the same wage, which one would you chose? Id chose child care, any and everyday of the week.

>This reminds me, does anyone remember what happened when cleaning work was equalized with laboring building work in Canada? Builders moved into cleaning for obvious reasons, safer, cleaner, easier and out of the weather. Cleaners didnt moved into building, the surplus of cleaners drove the wages back down and the shortage of builders laborers drove the wages up.

>"Sanitation workers actually earn surprisingly good wages, much better than domestic workers who also spend their time cleaning up other people's garbage."Bull fucking shit. I know women who get paid more than the top end of that scale for bagging groceries. In fact, garbage collectors make more than that."Gender neutrality maymandate that the occupations of sanitation worker and day care worker both be open tomen and women without bias, for example, but does nothing to rectify the largeimbalance in pay and benefits between the largely male occupation of sanitation workerand the largely female occupation of day care worker, despite the similar educational andtraining levels requirements for both positions, and the similarly low-skilled, somewhatphysical and dirty nature of the jobs performed by both.14" See, I asked you to show me an example of feminists pushing for more access for women to dirty, dangerous jobs and instead you show me feminists wanting women performing the objectively cleaner and safer job of day care work to get paid the same as men performing the objectively dirtier and more dangerous work of sanitation, not that sanitation workers even make that much more, contrary to your source which is outdated if not deliberately dishonest. So basically, in typical feminist fashion, they want to have their cake (working an objectively cleaner and safer job) and eat it too (get paid as if they were working the dirtier, more dangerous job).

>PamThe physical requirements are there for a reason, as are educational requirements for other jobs, and women chose not to go into these jobs that dont have the physical requirements in any great numbers anyway. When they do, they are very expensive and less efficient yet still get paid the same as those capable. Equal pay for less work.There is no such thing as unpaid house work, there is house work that inst taxed directly but there is no such thing as unpaid house work. A man with a house wife and a taxable income of 500k pays tax for them both and she generally controls most of that and the will tend to spend more of that on herself than her partner will and is legally entitled to half of everything her partner make. Once you factor in non taxable male to female cash transfers and and subtract them from the mens wage and add them to the female wage you will see just how much money women actually have than men.Also, if someone is choosing to do house work instead of a career in, its their choice.End of the day, like gendered abuse the sexist wage gap doesn't exist, its just another feminist scam.If you pay close attention to what you said you will your double standard, you point out the fact that the education system is letting men down, and suggest thats why women are making more than men, because these jobs have educational requirements, logical enough… but then you point to jobs that have physical requirements as if they are proof of discrimination when in fact, the discrimination is to be found in the education gap AA and quotas, not the physical strength gap.

>Cold said… The supply of people willing and able to do daycare work greatly outstrips demand, therefore the pay is low.Correct! Excellent argument!This can be said about any other job.For example to show up with an academic background looking for a job teaching history or Latin does not mean automatically that you will earn more than an experienced electrician or mechanic. There is no law, which says that a female with academic background MUST get a job and the employer MUST pay her an excellent salary under any circumstances. – Many women, after graduation, are pretty disappointed about available jobs and low salary offers.A good salary has nothing to do with your gender, but solely with supply and demand.This fact alone shows that the 'gender wage gap' is empty talk. If a company needs a few employees and many applicants show up, the salary will be low for sure – regardless if you are a man or a woman.

>Nice job of twisting what I said in order that it fit your agenda, and you accuse feminists of using bullshit tactics.I did not point out the fact that the education system is letting men down, that is your take on the fact that there are more women graduating from college than men. Perhaps it's because more women than men have been enrolling at college/university for whatever reason, including men's "traditional" unskilled work being more highly paid than women's "traditional" unskilled work, whether or not the difference in pay is or seems to be justified.I realize that the physical requirements are there for a reason, and that's not what I am disputing. What I am disputing is what you (and so many other MRAs) spout off as fact, that being that women choose not to be, for instance, sanitation workers, when the truth of the matter is that this is a choice that is not open to most women (and quite a few men, I might add) due to physical requirements for the job. And I am in no way, shape or form advocating for reality to be ignored and to have physical requirements lowered for those jobs in order that those who do not currently meet those requirements might obtain those jobs. What I said was, "If those requirements were lowered so that more women could meet them and obtain jobs in those fields, then that would cause quite a stir, wouldn't it", and obviously it would. So how are are you now going to twist that to say that I (and all feminists, as it seems that what I say is said to be speaking for all feminists) am championing something to which MRAs are opposed."As would I, but you have to admit that the vast majority of women would prefer looking after children; this is simply biological programming at work."It's not just simply biological programming at work, it's an expectation that's been conditioned into women and men for YEARS. Being a man (I am assuming), saying that you would choose sanitation (for example) over working in child care wouldn't raise an eyebrow, people wouldn't be surprised at all, regardless of whether the wages were comparable or not…but try saying the reverse and you'd probably raise quite a few eyebrows. Being a woman, I have been on the receiving end of that opposite reaction. And do you not think that those expectations, chalked up to being biological programming, are a major force behind child custody being awarded more often than not to women when a marriage breaks down?"The supply of people willing and able to do daycare work greatly outstrips demand, therefore the pay is low."Actually, the demand for day care outstrips the supply, so the lower pay, at least in this particular case, is not a simple case of supply and demand."The time use survey shows that coupled women have more leisure time than the men they are coupled with. – More pay for less work."And in a footnote to the published findings of that survey (offhand I cannot recall the name of the man who published those findings), which very few people tend to look at, what was counted as leisure time at home were activities such as:bathing/showeringgetting dresseddriving to and from medical appointments for self or children, and driving children to and from recreational activitiesrunning errandsgoing to the bathroometc.Yep, going to the bathroom while at home is considered leisure time. Housework was deemed (and not by me!) "unpaid work" due to the fact that it doesn't bring earnings gained outside the home into the household economy, not just because it's not directly taxed. And yes, women did and some still do choose housework versus work outside the home because the daily household and child care tasks still largely default to women to perform even when they do work outside the home.

>And lowering physical requirements means that those that are capable end up carrying those that aren't. More work for men carrying the weaker ones, same pay for the weaker ones who are doing less work. Read Animal Farm and see the Boxer the work horse who worked himself to death for the illusion of the equality regime.People that cant pass the accountancy exams should be allowed to work in accountancy – thats same logic that feminist magical thinking promotes.The reality is women get more out and put less in than men, the whining from feminist ideologues about alleged victim-hood will only swing that even more in the favour of women.

>"You need to stop looking at agenda driven feminist sources and thinking that they represent holy writ while dismissing genuine study to the contrary out of hand as a sort of heresy."LOL!!! You who so readily and so easily misunderstands or miscontrues (as I don't know whether it's intentional or not) many things that I have said are an authority on what is genuine?"And lowering physical requirements means that those that are capable end up carrying those that aren't. More work for men carrying the weaker ones, same pay for the weaker ones who are doing less work"Why do you continue on about this as if I was advocating lowering physical requirements for jobs that have that have them as one of the criteria? Talk about not comprehending what I've said!!I do hope you're not putting forth that quote as if it came from a feminist source.

>So far neither PAM, nor David or any other feminist can tell us any company, which pays less for work done by women than done by men.Just talking around the subject…If you can prove what you say, do it. Let us know, who is paying less according to gender.Otherwise you fail to verify your claim, that a gender wage gap exists.Eoghan: a female German politician has recently publicly dismissed the feminist position of wage gap in favour of what David calls "mra myths" Yes, this is true, the gender wage gap does not exist in Germany according to the Ministry of Family Affairs.The gender gap was carefully checked in Germany and the result of all complaints was 'nothing'. Any difference of salaries could be explained and had nothing to do with the gender.The findings were about as follows:1 – Women are working about 12 hours less per week than men, but they retire 5 years earlier than men.2 – Women are more frequently changing their jobs than men, and German companies often offer additional bonus-pay, if you work with them for many years.Many companies appreciate long-term employment.3 – Women are often overqualified, as they cannot find another job, in one case a female professor for Germanistik was complaining about her work in an elementary school, but there are no vacancies for such academics, regardless if they are men or women.4 – Yes, true, electricians (who are not academics) and stay with their company for over 20 years are paid better than a female academic, who just graduated in 'women studies' and is looking for a job in government social services.5 – There are also overtime payments, work on Sunday and banking holidays, nighttime work to consider. There are more men than women doing these jobs. Not every job is from Monday to Friday, from 9 AM to 5 PM.Result: The salary gap does not exist, and if you think, it does, let us know the companies, which create the salary gap. Different pay is about different choice, about what you are willing to work, about demand and supply, and not if you are a male or a female, at least this is the situation in Continental/Northern Europe.

>Thanks for that Yohan. Here in Ireland it was found that the best way to close the gap would be to give men the same flexibility and ability to take time off that women have. Anyway, I think that the average wage gap is an illusion created by the fact that the family wage is counted as a male wage, when in fact its both a male and female wage. Cold, I dont think child care and sanitation are comparable anyway. I've known a number of women that work with children that say that they love their jobs, sanitation is a lower order, unpleasant job that people generally only do to in order to survive.

>David, Farrell never said that dangerous jobs were the cause of wage gap, thats just something that you said he said so you could attack it.He said that its a contributing factor.He points out some very obvious truths -Ill use the corporate world as an example of what he is saying – that if women chose to work in the corporate world in the same numbers and for as long that men do that there would be no gap or ceiling, same goes for politics and so on. And he pointed to lots of jobs that women are not choosing to do that pay better than the ones they tend to chose as well as many jobs that pay women much better than men that women tend not to do.If a woman is enjoying working with children but is unhappy with her wage, she can chose a job that offers less personal reward and more dirt and drudgery but pays more.Of course in order for feminism to seem relevant, these truths are relegated to the status of heresy because feminism needs the existence of some unseen hand / top down conspiracy to fear monger, money raise and rabble rouse with.And you argued above that sanitation pays better than child care, so you are flip flopping between, there is no danger/dirt premium and there is depending on whichever position suits your agenda at the time.