@Strega - that is something my partner has said "I wish I could get into your head". Nah, don't bother, you still wouldn't understand :) Viva le difference.
Equal pay for equal work would be a good start - don't underestimate women, don't lump all women together, as we are very different from each other. A man has to find the woman that suits him - because he is different to all other men. To be respected, to be able to walk and work wherever they wish, without fear, without being abused, sexually harrased or raped, would be another good one.
If a woman has a problem at work, say, just listen, don't try and fix it, 'cause you can't, just listen.
I am a feminist, and I have two sons, and I have great respect for men and their work ethic, to support and feed their families - but, women need more men to step up, in situations like the following -
This is commonplace, especially in the armed forces.
It is sad to see an us and them situation. We both need each other.
I think that is why gays, especially women, get on so well, they understand the others thinking - no contest. I think the idea that women like muscle men is pushed by advertising, 'cause I don't know one female who likes brawn over brain. At least we have evolved that far.
The problem with equal pay for equal work is a difference in the definition of "equal work" as used by the two sexes. For men, it often means how well one does the job whereas for women it often comes down to the job title. So, if a female widget maker makes statistically 15% less than a male, they will jump on that as an unfair pay differential.
However, if you look more closely, you might find that the women take more time off, use more sick days, insist on taking whatever breaks the job allows them so they can smoke the cigarette they're addicted to (and yes, men do this, too, but probably in smaller numbers).
Additionally, they may be less likely to keep going after closing time in order to make sure the work gets done ASAP.
Yes, they may be taking off to pick up their children, but having a child is a personal choice and when one has a child, one accepts the consequences.
To compare the pay of men and women means comparing apples to apples. Find the woman who might as well be a man in terms all the above, and then you have a valid comparison.
Another factor is a womans inability to negotiate for a higher salary. I have a friend and she said there was a seminar in her business school that focused specifically on how females can negotiate a higher salary. She said it's a problem not always because females are paid less simply because they are females but they are paid less because females are not sharks like men are in this regard.
It's like any other choice. If one chooses not to fight for the raise, male or female, they will not end up being paid as well as the person who will fight for it.
BTW, I object to your use of the word "inability." Women aren't handicapped or "unable" to negotiate because they are women. Maybe women aren't as aggressive as men. I think that's the case on the whole and that may make men more valuable to their companies in some positions (management, sales) resulting in a differential in pay.
You're right, it isn't an inability. I used the wrong word. It's more of a lack of aggression or putting a value as to what they think they are worth or expect.
Maybe it's estrogen vs. testosterone, maybe it's sex roles they perhaps unconsciously subscribe to, maybe they're fearful that more responsibility will interfere with their other roles (e.g., parenting).
I really doubt that it necessarily comes down to institutional or personal prejudice against women.
Yeah and I hate to say it...If I was a CEO of a company and I could hire a woman who had the same credentials and pay her less, I would too.
It would be interesting to find studies on female CEO's and what they pay their female workers in comparison to males. Hmmm....
And why would you pay her less? Because you could get away with it and would pay *anyone* less if you could, or because you think her work is actually shoddier?
Because I would pay anyone less if I could. I think her work would be just the same as a mans.
Paying as little as possible for any material or service is standard operating procedure in just about any business.
When one speaks of the disadvantage or lower pay to the employee, male OR female, often overlooked is the fact that lower pay makes the candidate more attractive and hireable, other things being equal.
Why speak in generalizations? You really believe women overall are less aggressive? Let me introduce you to all the women in my life... and take you on a tour of every job I've held and the women I had to compete with.
The better question is: what is your initial response to a woman who *is* aggressive?
Well Cara, I could be totally wrong here. What factors would you say are the reasons why women get paid less?
But your next question, my response would most likely be neutral. Unless it's in certain contexts then It would be positive.