Thousands protest Tunisia gender equality proposals

I already explained to you why a wage gap exists.

It is not because a man with the same education, experience and other relevant factors makes $50,000 while women with the same experience start at $40,000.

 

You are offering black & white choices. Life has lots of gray areas. Profit is always important to a business, but its not the only thing that's important. Masses of women in the work force is a comparatively new development economically--really getting its foothold after World War 2. Men have been in the workforce forever, so its a mental & emotional comfort for many business owners & managers to select male employees unconsciously--perhaps simply out of habit. Women have to work harder to get accepted as equal contenders. Some business owners &/or managers feel males project a better image of their company than women. Others don't want to deal with personal issues women might bring to the job--like child care, or menstruation cycles, etc. That can be a disqualifying factor, even when not discussed. There's a myriad of issues that come into play here. It's not simply black & white. But the fact remains, women in 2018 are earning about 20% less than men for the same work. That fact needs to be fixed.

 

Your posts emphasized you were talking about "earnings", not wages. I took that to mean over long periods of time, even a lifetime. Wages are shorter term--hourly, monthly, annually. My source said a short term income gap of about 20% currently exists between men & women--favoring men. This was based on comparisons for full time work. Other factors like children were not included in that study. Simply put, the 20% gap existed for full time workers working the same or equivalent jobs. After our discussion, I don't think it's a matter of law. I think it's a matter of enforcement.

 

Businesses have to fight for every penny and would jump at the chance of getting the same results while paying 20% less. Men would have trouble finding a job if this were true.

 

It's a matter of choices that women make.

 

No it doesn't. People should be free to work as much or as little as they like. What would you do? Have government force those stay at home moms back into the workforce?

 

Life always is. But I choose to recognize the fact that there's an uneven playing field out there, and that affects those choices in ways that are not always positive or helpful. I have compassion for the women who face these challenges they played no part in making. I care that they are forced to work harder to simply pull even with males around them. For me personally, this inequity is not right, and should be fixed.

 

It's not uneven. Not in the western world.

Women have the opportunities to make the same choices as men, it's just that they don't often make the same choices.

That's not inequality.

 

Like for instance the Doctor or Lawyer Profession USE to be. NOW there are more women than men entering the professions

 

No, of course not. I support every individual's right to decide for themselves, and follow their personal joy. I'm not suggesting government be a tool to force people to work. Indeed, the opposite. I want government to aid those in temporary need, till they can get on their own feet and be self-sustaining. Allowing people to become homeless, or unemployed with no income, or sick with no access to medical help, is not only cold-hearted, but dangerous to society, for it allows dark forces to gain a foothold in the mind and lives of those afflicted, and destabilizes both society and the nation over the long term. Having a gender base wage gap of 20% is likewise destructive to our society, for it imputes the belief that women are less valuable than men. History has a long tradition of leaving women out, as if they weren't around when history was being made. That's untrue. Women have been part of every conceivable event or action since history began. In America, from Jamestown to the space station, women have literally been there, right along with the men. But, until recently, men wrote the history books, and women--quite literally--got screwed. There's been a women's rights movement in America since 1848. It has been stubborn and consistent throughout that time, with an occasional victory. It's still viable & thriving. I wish they had accomplished all their goals already, but they haven't. Too much resistance, I suppose. But I support them. I see all people as equals in terms of their value as living beings. I recognize there are differences in values for what they can do or have done with their lives, but that shouldn't be a source of division or derisiveness.

 

The fact is that if the same results can be achieved with a 20% reduction in expenses, businesses would hire only women. How do you think these businesses lost their appetite for profits?

 

Depends on the individual situation. In some cases I'd agree with you. In others, I wouldn't. But an uneven playing field can create difficulties for anyone pursuing their personal dreams.

 

How is it uneven? The law requires equal pay for equal work with equal qualifications.

If women aren't making as much, it's because they don't work as many hours (they don't), don't work in high pay/high risk professions (they don't), and take more time off over their time in the work force.

Those are decisions they make, the same way that certain fields are dominated by women by their own choices.

 

I agree that is a good example of the recent changes for the better. The process is still going on. I don't feel most women in the U.S. are cognizant of how recent many of these changes are that opened so many new choices for them personally. There are unsung heroes involved.

 

I don't pretend any business loses its appetite for profits, but I also know that there are often many conflicting interests at play an any major decision. I suspect that society's emphasis on maternal care from female workers might be a consideration. As others who've posted their thoughts on this forum topic have pointed out, females are expected to cope with demands that are child care connected, that males seldom worry about. For example, taking a sick child to the doctor during work time; or, having to leave work to tend a sick child; or, having to fill in for an unexpectedly sick babysitter, etc. Males are relatively free from such work interruptions in general, and might be more attractive as an employee in spite of the higher wages.

 

But that conflicts with your claim that the employer gets the same amount of work. Now your argument is about them taking time off, which actually costs the employer more for lower results. If you were an employer, wouldn't you give raises and promotions to those who have demonstrated dependability and achieved results? Maybe the simple laws of supply and demand are in play.

 

wel to be fair
if i was a american i'd hire men even if it cost me 20% more just to avoid risking a sexual harrasment complaint from looking at a cute employe the wrong way or some other crap, you americans are known to be lawsuit crazy here in europe

 

You would be sued for discrimination. Its much easier to prevent sexual harassment suits.

 

I'm not actually arguing for or against these items. I was simply trying to put myself in the place of an employer and imagine a few of many possible thoughts or concerns that might be issues for them. I'm sure you're right that supply & demand are a part of those concerns, as are many other potential issues. Life is complex. Many decisions in life are complex. My stance is that according to Google, there's a 20% gender gap in wages in America right now. I would like to see that improved. All your points are good ones, and deserve--and need--resolutions. I'm not in a position to resolve it myself, but that doesn't prevent me from expressing my hope someone out there will.

 

There is nothing to resolve. Who is going to be willing show up and work hard only to be paid the same as those who don't. Since there are many successful women, it is not a gender gap; it is a reliability gap. A male who takes more unexpected days off than his female counterpart is not worthy of more responsibility. Making pay adjustments due to ones genitalia does not resemble equality.

I do appreciate the polite discussion

 

Well, that's because you guys keep screaming that the gap is due to discrimination and for the half that believe your BS, it imputes such belief.

 

Does this mean you don't support the sovereignty of a nation?

What is the difference between going in and trying to change a government, vs going in and trying to change a culture?

Isn't this the stuff that Leftists have been fighting against since Vietnam?

You Leftists do see that you guys are quickly becoming the authoritarian "bad guys" you have tried painting Republicans as for the last thirty years, don't you?

 

The Qur'an and Bible both get it all wrong - they both teach that women are inferior (Q4:34, etc.), and that gays should be killed. Too bad the followers of those books lack the moral courage, century after century, to improve said texts. Intellectual cowardice is a sad thing to see.

 

I say fix the woman who can't afford to have kids but does so anyway.

 

Old testament called for death for adulterers. In the new testament, Jesus wouldn't even verbally condemn an adulterer.

9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”
11 “No, Lord,” she said.
And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more......”"

Same argument could be applied to homosexuality.

"For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ...Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way."

Romans 10
4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Romans 7
6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

2 Corinthians 3
13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

Galatians 3 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law

and all of that.