Poll: Is the 'gender pay gap' a real thing?

Should a woman with the same skill/experience doing the same role/hours be paid at the same rate as

  • Yes

    Votes: 127 66.1%

  • No

    Votes: 37 19.3%

  • I'm not sure

    Votes: 21 10.9%

  • No, but only because that answer suits me and not because it's right

    Votes: 7 3.6%
  • Total voters
    192
lurkio said:
Women do not generally do the high risk work that men would do
Click to expand...

When you dig deeper it gets more complex. If you ask why this is the case, is it due to girls being pigeon holed at an early age about what roles are for girls? Is it due to them applying and not getting the job because "it's a blokes job"? Is it due to the culture in these roles that puts women off?
 
The thing is, with the recent big study, women between 21 and 30 now earn more than their equivalent males.

Its only when older that there is a gender gap in favour of men and the study shows a lot of this is down to taking time off their career to raise a family.

Therefore if you think this gender gap in later years shouldn't exist you have to agree that that two men with a different amount of experience and years doing the job both should get paid the same as well.
 
Results are clearly skewed. You can't look at mean data because of the large number of variables.

You need to do side-by-side comparisons, for example:
- An 18 year old male and female, both with zero work experience, assuming at least a B grade in maths, both working at Tesco, same shift hours.
- A male and female graduate, between the ages of 21 and 25, both with minimal work experience (part time jobs), assuming both achieved a 2.1, both are accepted into a graduate scheme for a leading technology company.

You can't really do comparisons for more senior roles, roles with several years of experience because those factors will dictate pay.

The large technology company i work for has a woman for a CEO, and her previous experience from leading other large reputable companies have played a part in her seven figure salary.
 
Last edited:
I think that for 'normal' jobs there isn't a pay gap between genders of the same skill/ experience etc. Maybe because I am young so have only been working in one form or another for 6 years or so, and have no experience of historic gender pay differences.

It would be harder to determine this for, say, two 45 year olds as you'll never have a male and female candidate with exactly the same levels of experience etc.

I think it is a stupendously terrible idea to set a quota for the number of women executives, it should be chosen soley on skill / experience, as you'll be selection a candidate based on gender rather than skill which is what the quota was supposed to avoid! This sort of level of stupidity winds me up so much!! Although I think it is something of a moot point when there may well be many cases of "who you know" or "what you'll believe and do" not "what you know" so both skill and gender could be less relevant.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Sexism doesn't have to be a conscious decision, it can also be motivated by culture and tradition.
Click to expand...

But as mentioned, there is no evidence of this occurring. When we adjust for other factors, women pretty much get paid the same as men. If there is a small difference, it will likely vanish naturally in the coming years as more and more women move up the career ladder.
 
almoststew1990 said:
I think it is a stupendously terrible idea to set a quota for the number of women executives, it should be chosen soley on skill / experience, as you'll be selection a candidate based on gender rather than skill which is what the quota was supposed to avoid! This sort of level of stupidity winds me up so much!! Although I think it is something of a moot point when there may well be many cases of "who you know" or "what you'll believe and do" not "what you know" so both skill and gender could be less relevant.
Click to expand...

Surely gender would be relevant due to the fact that more senior execs are male in which case it's likely that women will know less peers like this? There is research that suggests that people who make hiring decisions tend to promote people that are "in their image" and share many traits, so gender may play a factor subconsciously.
 
Feminism seems to be moving away from equal rights for women, favouring instead the idea that women should be given an unfair advantage when it comes to selection and pay in order to provide statistical balance.

Frankly, it's weird.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
But as mentioned, there is no evidence of this occurring.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence to suggest this is occurring just not (that I'm aware of) in this context of pay.

Job choices based on assumed gender roles is still very much a problem. Police, armed services, engineering and construction are not typical aspirational roles for girls. Whilst it is improving, it's still very much a problem.
 
satchef1 said:
Feminism seems to be moving away from equal rights for women, favouring instead the idea that women should be given an unfair advantage when it comes to selection and pay in order to provide statistical balance.

Frankly, it's weird.
Click to expand...

Like this?

So if you have 5 male board members and 2 female board members, to achieve your maximum bonus, you should hire 3 more females. (or Vice versa)

Equal opportunities and all that.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Job choices based on assumed gender roles is still very much a problem. Police, armed services, engineering and construction are not typical aspirational roles for girls. Whilst it is improving, it's still very much a problem.
Click to expand...

I don't see what your point is?

Beauticians, hairdressing, HR, PA/EA's, Air stewardesses, and not typical aspirational roles for males?

Hardly a problem is it?

Shock horror, males and females have different interests. Why does it NEED to be 50/50? Want to have that career, do it.
 
balky12 said:
Shock horror, males and females have different interests. Why does it NEED to be 50/50? Want to have that career, do it.
Click to expand...

BECAUSE MEN AND WOMEN ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AND JUST AS GOOD AT EVERYTHING AS EACH OTHER!
 
Hey! now the poll question has changed my answer is not what I would have picked for the new question. :(

fez said:
BECAUSE MEN AND WOMEN ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AND JUST AS GOOD AT EVERYTHING AS EACH OTHER!
Click to expand...

Except they are not really are they, Woman are better at some things than Men and Men are better at some things than Woman.

Now if you had said "Men and Woman are capable of performing the same tasks to the same standards in most job rolls" then I would agree, if they actually want to is an altogether different question. :)
 
Last edited:
I would say Parliament is a pretty good example of where there is a positive discrimination lobby. The main political parties are under a lot of pressure to ensure that there are equal numbers of male and female MPs, despite there being a smaller number of women being put forward for selection. Likewise, there is significant pressure to ensure equal numbers of men/women in cabinet positions, despite there being far fewer female MPs.

The result is a situation where women looking to get in to politics have a higher chance of success than their male counterparts.

Before someone misunderstands my point, I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be roughly equal numbers of male and female MPs. I'm suggesting that the proportion should be roughly equal to the proportion of potential candidates and their experience. To achieve equality, a greater number of sufficiently experienced women should be encouraged to stand for selection, rather than treating the few that do with preferential opportunities.

I was reading about the Oldham by-election the other day, and one candidate for selection tried to infer that, were she not selected, that would demonstrate a prejudice against disabled, female single-parents. Needless to say, she wasn't selected, and has thrown her toys out of the pram about how the Labour leadership are discriminating against her. It's bizarre.
 
Gilly said:
No, really, it has. I know, because I wrote it.

The only difference was the title of the thread and the question on the poll. Neither has changed.
Click to expand...

Except the Original question you fluffed up and it ended in "as" instead of "Men"...

Or have I slipped into an alternate dimension.....again! :(

Edit: ignore me, I cannot read!.. .and I am on drugs...or should be!.. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom