Serious PC thread

[Federberg]

It is not a matter of what I believe, it is what numbers say.

what numbers are those?

A single man and a single woman, same or similar experience, working the exact same job and working exact same hours , than women actually have a positive wage gap.

I would love to see those numbers. My understanding is that the single woman gets less. As a business owner I can certainly understand why that would be the case, particularly for a young single woman. I don't mind admitting that my concern would be that she could get pregnant and then I'm screwed

But far left use different parameters . They like to "average" stuff. That is part and parcel of collectivism of course. BUt of course that same way of looking at things show them that Asian Americans make more money than "whites" but since that is against the "patriarchy " argument, you will not hear it that much.

Hmmmm… Not heard that before. Maybe in Canada?

The fact is , the wage gap is really between married men and married woman and there are multiple very understandable reasons for it besides the fact that a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis. We can discuss all those reasons if you want, I am more than happy to. BUt before that, one has to answer a question: If you are a business owner, CEO, a typical capitalist type that values every cent and you are going to fill a very important position. You have two candidates with exactly the same qualifications, they will give you exactly the same thing, why would you NOT hire the one that you can get away with paying way less?

Aren't you assuming that there's some negotiation there? Typically there isn't. Most firms take a very firm line that discussions about salaries amongst employees are strongly discouraged, so how would women know they are being offered discounted salaries?

By the way, there is zero knock against women here. They have their priorities straight and that costs them money sometimes in the work place. One has to wonder about the guy who will work 90 hours a week and won't even know the name of his kids. Majority of the married women do not want that life style and no one has the right to blame them.

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. In my experience women don't complain about the hours they work in competitive environments, they'll stay as long as the men. I guess I'm not really contesting what you're saying, I'm questioning it because I have a different experience. I do believe that the wage gap is a real thing. It is becoming politically difficult for firms to get away with this now, and that's not a bad thing as far as I'm concerned

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

what numbers are those?



I would love to see those numbers. My understanding is that the single woman gets less. As a business owner I can certainly understand why that would be the case, particularly for a young single woman. I don't mind admitting that my concern would be that she could get pregnant and then I'm screwed



Hmmmm… Not heard that before. Maybe in Canada?



Aren't you assuming that there's some negotiation there? Typically there isn't. Most firms take a very firm line that discussions about salaries amongst employees are strongly discouraged, so how would women know they are being offered discounted salaries?


I'm not sure it's as simple as that. In my experience women don't complain about the hours they work in competitive environments, they'll stay as long as the men. I guess I'm not really contesting what you're saying, I'm questioning it because I have a different experience. I do believe that the wage gap is a real thing. It is becoming politically difficult for firms to get away with this now, and that's not a bad thing as far as I'm concerned

Here is one link:
http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

I have to start the BBQ now but will respond longer later . But here is something that just keeps happening over and over again and it is almost OK to generalize in a sense, even though I am not always a big fan: A girl is best at what she does in college. she excels at everything gets a great job that pays well and she rises fast in the firm. Makes as good or better than the males in the same position. Than the biological clock starts ticking...She decides to have a family. Takes a year off maybe after having a baby. And somehow , when she goes back, she is not THAT interested in rushing to the office when the client from Hong Kong calls at 4 am in the morning to prepare those merger papers. And of course there is a hyper competitive dude waiting around the corner to please the bosses. She pulls back. And if you ask me, rightfully so. She wants to have a balanced life. Rightfully so. Those hyper competitive guys that occupy the top tiers and any company...they do NOT have a life, marrried or not. Work never stops for them. So there it is , one HUGE reason for the wage gap for Mom. Hours worked. Another reason for this to become possible is that statistically speaking, women marry equal or up. So they CAN afford to give up some of that money in order to enjoy family life more.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

This is another way that you guys have basically all brought in an extreme example to talk about an otherwise more moderate conversation. Abortion, and you go straight to a normal, healthy pregnancy terminated in the 8th month? Do you know how often that happens? Basically, never. We're talking about trans rights and BB has hairy dudes in Speedos coming in to prey on women in the changing rooms. Murat has the one extremist activist who puts waxing parlors out of business because they won't wax his balls. Federberg finds the case of a sick-o self-proclaimed trans woman who's really just basically a rapist.

So I guess where we're all having problems understanding each other is that you guys either think these things are more emblematic, or that they bother you so much that they have a larger place in the conversations than I think they should. I find the general mission of feminism, including today, to be good and fine. Obviously, you and Murat don't, but I don't quite see why. Certainly feminism doesn't cause false claims of sexual assault, and so is not part of 21st feminism. Also, neither is abortion new to feminism, late-term or otherwise.

Moxie, you keep saying the examples we give are the extreme cases. I do not know about everywhere but here in Canada, these are every day occurences. How many examples do you need for something to be problematic. Name your number and I will dig them out!

 

[Moxie]

This is simply not true in poor and uneducated countries. The eight month was an intentional exaggeration, but believe me, things do get ugly. They get very ugly. And where is the cut-off then? Seven months? Five? You need to draw a line. One of the reasons why you wrote never is that basically not a single place in the world allows it in that extreme form. Open this door and see what happens... real politics is for the real world, Moxie. (actually I don't know the specifics of this discussion in the US, but here we have people pushing for the extreme pro-choice position, just in case you are wondering why I brought this).

And... I know you are probably traumatized by talking to people who watch one random internet video with some dark skinned man punching a snow white Swedish girl just to say "see what all those immigrants do?"... but please do not think people here are doing the same mistake. Everyone here understands the problem of generalization, everyone here understand what an example is, and the difference between the norm and the extremes. But you cannot shut down all discussions just like that. Sometimes the extreme cases happen just more than you think, sometimes they show a flaw in the legislation, sometimes they are the tip of the iceberg. And most times, yes, they are inconvenient to deal with.

Anyway, remember, in this particular point, we have probably quite close views. I just don't like the clear cut distinction between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" -- most of the times simplistic solutions to complex problems are actually terrible solutions. You educated me on who actually pushed the discussion to this low level on the US, fine. The problem is still there.

As for the rest, we will continue to go round in circles. I am trying to stress that we have more disagreement about the means than about the ends (but we do have about the ends as well, I know).

Mrzz, the bolded above really pissed me off. You deliberately exaggerated a point and pretended to ask me an earnest question. After I had Britbox asking me a meaningless, and it turns out deceptive multiple choice question about men in a changing room, which turned out to be that he was asking me what I thought defined a trans person, or my "threshold of tolerance," which he could have asked straight-forwardly, and also have answered himself all along, and btw, never did. So I wrongly basically accuse Federberg of trapping me, and here you are tricking me. That's cheap and beneath you. This is all fraught and complicated enough without folks resorting to subterfuge and bullshit tactics. Can't we just talk about it?

It is my opinion that, in debate, it's good form when asking a question about a controversial thing to actually give one's own opinion first. So, I'll ask you: what is your feeling about abortion, in general, and past the 3-month period?

Also, as to the bolded of a few posts back that I told you I thought was "lost in translation," and you explained it by a misuse of pronoun: I still don't understand what you meant by that statement, if you'd care to clarify.

 

[mrzz]

Mrzz, the bolded above really pissed me off. You deliberately exaggerated a point and pretended to ask me an earnest question. After I had Britbox asking me a meaningless, and it turns out deceptive multiple choice question about men in a changing room, which turned out to be that he was asking me what I thought defined a trans person, or my "threshold of tolerance," which he could have asked straight-forwardly, and also have answered himself all along, and btw, never did. So I wrongly basically accuse Federberg of trapping me, and here you are tricking me. That's cheap and beneath you. This is all fraught and complicated enough without folks resorting to subterfuge and bullshit tactics. Can't we just talk about it?

It is my opinion that, in debate, it's good form when asking a question about a controversial thing to actually give one's own opinion first. So, I'll ask you: what is your feeling about abortion, in general, and past the 3-month period?

Also, as to the bolded of a few posts back that I told you I thought was "lost in translation," and you explained it by a misuse of pronoun: I still don't understand what you meant by that statement, if you'd care to clarify.

Ugh, is hard to discuss in a language that is not your mother tongue. This was not a trick, I wasn't trying to fool you. It was an exaggeration in the sense that it is extreme, but there are cases like that in real life. It is obviously not the norm, but it is real. Remember that still, besides extreme poverty and savage-like lack of education (which are the main problems), there are also people who can be under the influence of drugs, medications or extreme psychiatric and/or psychological conditions. And don't think that I am putting this on the women's account alone. How far some unwilling father could go? I know that this is not the reality in the US, so I understand that this kind of thing may sound completely unreal to you. Believe me, I wish it was.

And, even if this was just an hypothetical case (it is not), as I said before, once it becomes permissible by law, the situation changes. Human beings can get as low as you want (or better, don't want). So, one way or another, the example is useful.

For your other question: The bolded part was: "I think women should have the freedom and the means to do whatever they want to do, without anyone freaking out because they found out that some category has more or less women then men, and without having the brilliant idea of enforcing an artificial (and meaningless) "equality"."

I left in bold the wrong pronoun I used. My point is that you need to guarantee real freedom of choice, and once you have done that, you must accept the results. It is not because you will find more men than women on engineering courses that women are being stopped from taking them. It could well mean that, on average, women prefer medicine, humanities or anything else. So, the "they" in my phrase refers to people who superficially analyze this kind of data and will see any result other than 50/50 as a result of inherent misogyny.

 

[Moxie]

Here is one link:
http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

I have to start the BBQ now but will respond longer later . But here is something that just keeps happening over and over again and it is almost OK to generalize in a sense, even though I am not always a big fan: A girl is best at what she does in college. she excels at everything gets a great job that pays well and she rises fast in the firm. Makes as good or better than the males in the same position. Than the biological clock starts ticking...She decides to have a family. Takes a year off maybe after having a baby. And somehow , when she goes back, she is not THAT interested in rushing to the office when the client from Hong Kong calls at 4 am in the morning to prepare those merger papers. And of course there is a hyper competitive dude waiting around the corner to please the bosses. She pulls back. And if you ask me, rightfully so. She wants to have a balanced life. Rightfully so. Those hyper competitive guys that occupy the top tiers and any company...they do NOT have a life, marrried or not. Work never stops for them. So there it is , one HUGE reason for the wage gap for Mom. Hours worked. Another reason for this to become possible is that statistically speaking, women marry equal or up. So they CAN afford to give up some of that money in order to enjoy family life more.

I'm about to grill a steak myself, Murat! Bon apetit! I just read the article above, and I want to just note a couple of things. Please try not to jump on my that I'm just poo-pooing it out of hand. Interesting to know that women are actually making some headway in terms of the wage gap. Good to note that it's not as across-the-board as we're led to believe. However, I notice that where women are doing well is when they are under 30, relative to their male peers. Well, that means at fairly entry-level positions. Which makes sense because, in the US, women have passed men at earning college degrees. However, at the higher levels, as they get older, the gap still exists, and tends to widen at the upper-echelons. (6.6% of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are women, for example.)

I'm also addressing Federberg here...whom I appreciate for asking about the wage-gap. You both mentioned the fact that women do get pregnant. Here is where biology is inescapable. I get that. However, maybe women take a year off in Canada, but that's not an option in the US. Most women I know work right up to their due dates, or when the water breaks, then take what time they can (a month to 3,) then go straight back to work. The CEO of Yahoo worked through her pregnancy and took minimal time off, but lest I be accused of using extreme examples, let me stick to the more mundane. In broad terms, I think it depends on how ambitious and motivated the woman is. It can also depend on her work situation and her partner's. Murat, you said that most women tend to "marry up" and therefore can sacrifice their careers to their husbands', but that is not always the case, anymore. Sometimes the woman has the more lucrative job, and the husband will take the larger amount of time for the kids. Also, the more a woman makes, the more she can afford the childcare that allows her to keep working.

This time last year I was working with an executive producer who was on her 1-month post-partum leave. And yet, there she was in the office. We were laughing that he was on his first conference call with me, and his first pre-production meeting with me. He was 3 weeks old. She kept trying to respect her maternity leave, but, when the demands were too great, she dragged the baby in and kept going. It is her company, so she's motivated, but this is another reason that those of us who care about women's rights are working for things like in-company daycare, family leave that includes the husband/partner, etc. Pregnancy isn't a medical emergency, and motherhood isn't a malignant disease.

Maybe we've been talking about the more first-world problem in this issue. There is a rather greater one which we can get to, and that's lower income women with no partner as second income. They have babies, too, and their urgent needs to work through pregnancy and to have accessible, reliable childcare are much greater. We could say that's for another day, but I also think this is one of the mundane things that the women's movement works on that gets too short shrift in this argument.

 

[Moxie]

Ugh, is hard to discuss in a language that is not your mother tongue. This was not a trick, I wasn't trying to fool you. It was an exaggeration in the sense that it is extreme, but there are cases like that in real life. It is obviously not the norm, but it is real. Remember that still, besides extreme poverty and savage-like lack of education (which are the main problems), there are also people who can be under the influence of drugs, medications or extreme psychiatric and/or psychological conditions. And don't think that I am putting this on the women's account alone. How far some unwilling father could go? I know that this is not the reality in the US, so I understand that this kind of thing may sound completely unreal to you. Believe me, I wish it was.

And, even if this was just an hypothetical case (it is not), as I said before, once it becomes permissible by law, the situation changes. Human beings can get as low as you want (or better, don't want). So, one way or another, the example is useful.

For your other question: The bolded part was: "I think women should have the freedom and the means to do whatever they want to do, without anyone freaking out because they found out that some category has more or less women then men, and without having the brilliant idea of enforcing an artificial (and meaningless) "equality"."

I left in bold the wrong pronoun I used. My point is that you need to guarantee real freedom of choice, and once you have done that, you must accept the results. It is not because you will find more men than women on engineering courses that women are being stopped from taking them. It could well mean that, on average, women prefer medicine, humanities or anything else. So, the "they" in my phrase refers to people who superficially analyze this kind of data and will see any result other than 50/50 as a result of inherent misogyny.

OK, I think I get your clarification, as to what areas women tend to work in, and not. However, the trick you tried to play on me had nothing to do with language skills. That was just cheap. As to abortion, would you like to weigh in? You brought it up. If you do, then I will.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I'm about to grill a steak myself, Murat! Bon apetit! I just read the article above, and I want to just note a couple of things. Please try not to jump on my that I'm just poo-pooing it out of hand. Interesting to know that women are actually making some headway in terms of the wage gap. Good to note that it's not as across-the-board as we're led to believe. However, I notice that where women are doing well is when they are under 30, relative to their male peers. Well, that means at fairly entry-level positions. Which makes sense because, in the US, women have passed men at earning college degrees. However, at the higher levels, as they get older, the gap still exists, and tends to widen at the upper-echelons. (6.6% of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are women, for example.)

I'm also addressing Federberg here...whom I appreciate for asking about the wage-gap. You both mentioned the fact that women do get pregnant. Here is where biology is inescapable. I get that. However, maybe women take a year off in Canada, but that's not an option in the US. Most women I know work right up to their due dates, or when the water breaks, then take what time they can (a month to 3,) then go straight back to work. The CEO of Yahoo worked through her pregnancy and took minimal time off, but lest I be accused of using extreme examples, let me stick to the more mundane. In broad terms, I think it depends on how ambitious and motivated the woman is. It can also depend on her work situation and her partner's. Murat, you said that most women tend to "marry up" and therefore can sacrifice their careers to their husbands', but that is not always the case, anymore. Sometimes the woman has the more lucrative job, and the husband will take the larger amount of time for the kids. Also, the more a woman makes, the more she can afford the childcare that allows her to keep working.

This time last year I was working with an executive producer who was on her 1-month post-partum leave. And yet, there she was in the office. We were laughing that he was on his first conference call with me, and his first pre-production meeting with me. He was 3 weeks old. She kept trying to respect her maternity leave, but, when the demands were too great, she dragged the baby in and kept going. It is her company, so she's motivated, but this is another reason that those of us who care about women's rights are working for things like in-company daycare, family leave that includes the husband/partner, etc. Pregnancy isn't a medical emergency, and motherhood isn't a malignant disease.

Maybe we've been talking about the more first-world problem in this issue. There is a rather greater one which we can get to, and that's lower income women with no partner as second income. They have babies, too, and their urgent needs to work through pregnancy and to have accessible, reliable childcare are much greater. We could say that's for another day, but I also think this is one of the mundane things that the women's movement works on that gets too short shrift in this argument.

Moxie, men (and some women) that occupy those positions are not normal people. Majority of the males cannot occupy those positions. Those are hyper masculine, hyper competitive outliers that only operate at the extremes. Normal men or women that value their lives and are seeking some sort of balance cannot even dream about those positions. Those guys Live their work. Majority of women, and in my opinion rightfully so, does not PREFER to have that kind of life. A few do and they get compensated equally but what is equally at that level? $500 mil a year versus $545?
The issue is multi tiered. Saying I am a woman and because of that I get paid less is extremely simplistic.Some examples ( And we have to generalize because I am going by stats. Individual situations vary. Just like you said, some women make more than hubbies. But statistically it does not change the fact that MOST women marry equal or up.
*Women , on average, are more agreeable . 60-40 % . So when negotiating salaries, they are not as aggressive as men. You may say well, 60-40 is not a huge difference. You are correct of course but the main difference is in the extremes. That is the reason the prison population is not 60-40 for men, but rather 90-10 . Men are way more violent when you go to the extremes.The egalitarian types do not understand that men and woman are different in temperament but I am sure they do not want equality of outcome when prison population is concerned, like hold to protests to make prison population 50-50 .
*Men work most of the outside and hard jobs.Over 80% of work related fatalities are men . An oil rig job in Alberta where you lose a couple of fingers sometimes to frost bite, pays extremely well. Guess how many women volunteer for that position? 99% of all bricklayers are men. . There is absolutely no law to exclude women from this profession and the 1% that choose to do it paid exactly the same as men (union rules) when they work the same hours. Women simply do not CHOOSE this line of work because , again, statistically speaking , men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people and that reflects in their career choices.
Here is an interesting stat and study that took years to complete,and surprised everyone: The more egalitarian a society is, the more the natural differences between men and women are pronounced in the choices they make. Example, in Scandinavian countries (some of the most equal societies in the world) over 85% of all nurses are females, over $85 of all engineers are men. Remember, these are societies where people can became anything they want to be and when you get rid of all the outside pressures, social engineering and everything aside and just leave it to nature, women tend to deal with people, guys tend to deal with their toys.
*Male doctors with or without children work 5 hours more on average than female doctors. That adds up when you are comparing compensation . (https://www.jwatch.org/fw113237/2017/08/22/female-not-male-physicians-work-fewer-hours-when-they )

....and yaddi yaddi yadda as Seinfeld used to say. When you really compare apples to apples, there is no wage gap. Here is a video that is somewhat uncomfortable to watch because you feel bad for the women in it but like I always say, facts do not care about feelings. This is a questioning period in Australian seneta. Please watch when you have a chance. Just 8 minutes or so.



I BBQed steak, wings, corn, lamb chops and various vegetables. My 20 month old (her name is Olive) ate everything !

 

[Moxie]

But weren't you the guy that said men were more willing to work 24/7 and forget their children's names, whereas women were not? Not you're just saying that those people are outliers. I'm not clear on that. The link you provided had no video. As to the rest, let's face it, you have a pretty biased notion of women's roles and men's. I don't even know what the point is that men work more physical and dangerous jobs. Does it not occur to you that women don't get hired for them, for any number of reasons? I worked on an oceanographic ship and got "hazard pay." And I got lashed in to do my bit in a storm. (They actually tried to tell me I didn't have to, because I was a "girl," I'm sure. But it was within my pay grade to go out and secure the equipment, so I did. At one point, the sea was 45 degrees to my left hand. We were tilting like crazy, and not a big boat.) I got that job because there was one female oceanographer on that ship, and an empty bunk that only a woman could occupy. If one more woman had applied to be on that ship, no can do, because where would she bunk? You'd have needed 4 more women to justify the cabin...see where I'm going? Now that was a good job. I got sea pay and hazard pay. Plus all the days at sea, and OT. Including days I didn't work. It was the most I ever made for unskilled work, by far. There were 36 men on that ship and 2 women. It's not ONLY that women don't want to work high-paying tough jobs, it's that the circumstances cause them not to get them. And prejudices, I would say.

 

[Moxie]

PS: I love that your daughter Olive has a voracious appetite. I hope she embraces the world in the same way. And I hope you don't curtail her options.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

But weren't you the guy that said men were more willing to work 24/7 and forget their children's names, whereas women were not? Not you're just saying that those people are outliers. I'm not clear on that. The link you provided had no video. As to the rest, let's face it, you have a pretty biased notion of women's roles and men's. I don't even know what the point is that men work more physical and dangerous jobs. Does it not occur to you that women don't get hired for them, for any number of reasons? I worked on an oceanographic ship and got "hazard pay." And I got lashed in to do my bit in a storm. But I got that job because there was one female oceanographer on that ship, and an empty bunk that only a woman could occupy. If one more woman had applied to be on that ship, no can do, because where would she bunk? Now that was a good job. I got sea pay and hazard pay. Plus all the days at sea, and OT. Including days I didn't work. It was the most I ever made for unskilled work, by far. There were 36 men on that ship and 2 women. It's not ONLY that women don't want to work high-paying tough jobs, it's that the circumstances cause them not to get them. And prejudices, I would say.

Here is another attempt at the video.


Highlighted part , I am very clear. Yes, the people that will be willing to work those hours are outliers and they are almost always men. On average men are OK with having no life, with or without family, versus a women who have kids. This is pretty clear, no?
I do not see why you would think I am biased. I am gong by numbers, stats and stating some facts . When a woman decides to value family over killing herself with 80 hour work week, I am on her side 100% ! When she decides to kill herself with 80 hour work weeks , with or without family , I am 100% behind her too ! Your example about yourself actually proves my point.
Your last sentence is very important."t's not ONLY that women don't want to work high-paying tough jobs, it's that the circumstances cause them not to get them. And prejudices, I would say." It leaves out a very important part: The natural biological differences between women and men that play a huge role in the decisions that they make when it comes to the careers they choose. I gave you the Scandinavian example.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

PS: I love that your daughter Olive has a voracious appetite. I hope she embraces the world in the same way. And I hope you don't curtail her options.

Only she can determine what she wants to be I will be behind her 100%. She wants to make senior partner in a law firm by the age 35, I will do my best to help. If she wants to be the best emergency nurse ever, I will help. If she wants to be the best stay at home mom, I will help. I will not force her to do anything she does not want.

 

[Moxie]

Here is another attempt at the video.


Highlighted part , I am very clear. Yes, the people that will be willing to work those hours are outliers and they are almost always men. On average men are OK with having no life, with or without family, versus a women who have kids. This is pretty clear, no?
I do not see why you would think I am biased. I am gong by numbers, stats and stating some facts . When a woman decides to value family over killing herself with 80 hour work week, I am on her side 100% ! When she decides to kill herself with 80 hour work weeks , with or without family , I am 100% behind her too ! Your example about yourself actually proves my point.
Your last sentence is very important."t's not ONLY that women don't want to work high-paying tough jobs, it's that the circumstances cause them not to get them. And prejudices, I would say." It leaves out a very important part: The natural biological differences between women and men that play a huge role in the decisions that they make when it comes to the careers they choose. I gave you the Scandinavian example.

Wow, that geezer in the video is a full on CU next Tuesday. He's on about hours etc. This makes no accommodation for actual work and value of what you do. Do you really want to make everything about price per moment of work, or the output and outcome? I think there is a difference. Plus, if I'm not wrong about the accent, this is about Australia, where neither of us lives.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Wow, that geezer in the video is a full on CU next Tuesday. He's on about hours etc. This makes no accommodation for actual work and value of what you do. Do you really want to make everything about price per moment of work, or the output and outcome? I think there is a difference. Plus, if I'm not wrong about the accent, this is about Australia, where neither of us lives.

I did mention this was Australia first time I posted it. But the true comparison about pay is what you make in an hour for the same job, no? You can discuss "actual work" and "value of what you do" for both men AND women, correct? There is no way of knowing or proving that. Are you claiming women are more productive than men, or the actual work women do in that hour is better work than man? You cannot believe that. I cannot claim that for men either. The only apples to apples comparison is what that guy is asking there: How much do men and women make in an hour for the same job? The panel has no answer to that. Well, they know the answer but it is not convenient to their narrative.It is Australia but it is measured the same way in Canada. When you ask about hourly wages, silence.

I mean, how else do you want to compare pay Moxie. Seriously? There are unions in this country. It is illegal to pay someone less for the same position. They bargain collectively, men and women ! What is YOUR gauge? You want to measure heart and soul that goes into work? I can tell you for every slacker guy, there is a slacker gal. For every hard worker dude, there is a hard working gal. You cannot measure certain things. In the things you can measure, like the hourly wage, there is equal pay for equal work .

 

[Moxie]

I did mention this was Australia first time I posted it. But the true comparison about pay is what you make in an hour for the same job, no? You can discuss "actual work" and "value of what you do" for both men AND women, correct? There is no way of knowing or proving that. Are you claiming women are more productive than men, or the actual work women do in that hour is better work than man? You cannot believe that. I cannot claim that for men either. The only apples to apples comparison is what that guy is asking there: How much do men and women make in an hour for the same job? The panel has no answer to that. Well, they know the answer but it is not convenient to their narrative.It is Australia but it is measured the same way in Canada. When you ask about hourly wages, silence.

I mean, how else do you want to compare pay Moxie. Seriously? There are unions in this country. It is illegal to pay someone less for the same position. They bargain collectively, men and women ! What is YOUR gauge? You want to measure heart and soul that goes into work? I can tell you for every slacker guy, there is a slacker gal. For every hard worker dude, there is a hard working gal. You cannot measure certain things. In the things you can measure, like the hourly wage, there is equal pay for equal work .

You can compare hourly work for those who work for an hourly wage. That's basically the easiest one to compare. I work with unions, and I hire the best workers compared to the slackers, and yes, some are men and some are women. It's harder to quantify, though, when we're talking about results, not hour-to-hour work, right? At certain upper echelons, people work on commissions, or on the basis of clients brought into the fold, etc. This is not a question of hour-by-hour work. Which is where we get back to the tennis argument. Tennis is an open-ended sport. Tennis players don't get paid by the hour. They get paid by results. And they also get paid by box office. Some of that is hard to quantify. So the Majors and some of the co-ed tournaments have decided to give equal pay. Some guys find that hard to swallow. Some men get really, really aggravated about that. But how to you decide? Well, the market decides, and has. So I guess we're back to discussing the middle ground jobs, and then up the upper-echelons in the real world. They aren't decided by hourly input, but by results, I'd say. If those things are judged fairly, and jobs are parsed out on a fair basis, I'm good.

 

[britbox]

After I had Britbox asking me a meaningless, and it turns out deceptive multiple choice question about men in a changing room, which turned out to be that he was asking me what I thought defined a trans person, or my "threshold of tolerance," which he could have asked straight-forwardly, and also have answered himself all along, and btw, never did.

Really? You never answered the question by the way. I stopped asking you to answer the question and quit the thread because you said you felt bullied. On your point though... if I'm asking you a question, why would I answer it? Surely, you can manage that yourself without a member of the white male patriarchy chiming in on your behalf?

Anyway, seeing as you brought my name up again... and dragged me back into it... "At what point is a man a woman?"... When he simply says he is? When he's had physical surgery? The implications are actually massive... I don't expect a straight answer.

 

[Moxie]

Really? You never answered the question by the way. I stopped asking you to answer the question and quit the thread because you said you felt bullied. On your point though... if I'm asking you a question, why would I answer it? Surely, you can manage that yourself without a member of the white male patriarchy chiming in on your behalf?

Anyway, seeing as you brought my name up again... and dragged me back into it... "At what point is a man a woman?"... When he simply says he is? When he's had physical surgery? The implications are actually massive... I don't expect a straight answer.

In my post I also said I consider it good form to answer such a question yourself first, so why don't you tell me what is your threshold for what actually constitutes a trans woman or a trans man, for that matter? Look, I'm not trying to be sneaky or tricky, even though I consider you were in that question, since it took you 2-3 pages to explain what the real motivation was behind that lame multiple choice exercise. I doubt that any of us is an expert on the subject, but I do not believe that, in the vast majority of cases, people set themselves up for huge public ridicule and put themselves in actual danger out of a desire to just fuck with other people. And, as I have also mentioned, there is often some psychiatric counseling required before people are given surgery or hormones.

 

[Federberg]

In my post I also said I consider it good form to answer such a question yourself first, so why don't you tell me what is your threshold for what actually constitutes a trans woman or a trans man, for that matter? Look, I'm not trying to be sneaky or tricky, even though I consider you were in that question, since it took you 2-3 pages to explain what the real motivation was behind that lame multiple choice exercise. I doubt that any of us is an expert on the subject, but I do not believe that, in the vast majority of cases, people set themselves up for huge public ridicule and put themselves in actual danger out of a desire to just fuck with other people. And, as I have also mentioned, there is often some psychiatric counseling required before people are given surgery or hormones.

I'm not sure he was trying to get a right or wrong answer from you. He... and frankly me as well... wanted to know where the line was for you. I still do... I think you know where we stand already

 

[Moxie]

I'm not sure he was trying to get a right or wrong answer from you. He... and frankly me as well... wanted to know where the line was for you. I still do... I think you know where we stand already

I guess I go with self-declared. If your answer is "full-op," I don't think it has to go that far. I don't have a fear of trans people, so I can live with accepting their own definition of self. I haven't found a single instance where their choices impact me.

 

[Federberg]

I guess I go with self-declared. If your answer is "full-op," I don't think it has to go that far. I don't have a fear of trans people, so I can live with accepting their own definition of self. I haven't found a single instance where their choices impact me.

I don't have a fear of trans people either. I don't recall ever even hinting anything of the sort. So it continues to confuse me why you sustain that characterisation. As I stated before it's one thing to be/ or do something that has no impact on anyone else. But trans people trying to assume another gender effectively require an alteration in how people interact with them. That impact is not only on themselves it affects others. I stand with my view...