Every couple of months another one pops up. Just like clockwork!
I’m sure you can guess its content.
This comment puts the article in its place:
The politically correct truth is that women are paid less than men because of sexual discrimination whereas the factual truth, as hard as it is to accept, is that the pay gap is an inevitable consequence of different lifestyle choices and different legal entitlements to retirement and parental leave.
Men’s legal retirement age is five years older then women’s, encouraging them to work longer careers which lifts their average earnings. Women get far more extensive parental leave than men, encouraging career breaks and limiting their lifetime work experience, thus depressing their average wages.
On average, each week, men work nearly twice as many hours of paid employment as women, building up considerably more experience in their careers, which in a meritocracy would be reflected in greater pay. In addition, women tend to opt for more socially rewarding or emotionally fulfilling jobs, while men men put a higher priority on higher wages at any cost.
– Charles, UK
Well said Charles. In the article it even states it, right after this FemGem;
“It is 30 years since equal pay became the law of the land.
“Employers should not be allowed to get away with this type of unlawful discrimination.”
It then mentions this:
The figures – published in the ONS journal Economic and Labour Market Review – indicate the pay gap increases in line with the number of children a woman has.
Average pay for a mother of one working full-time is 12.3 per cent less that of a man working full-time. For women with four or more children, the gap grows to 35.5 per cent.
And that is discrimination how? Also note the language. ‘Increases in line with the number of children a woman has.’ It should actually read, ‘Increases in line with the number of children a women CHOOSES to have’.
It continues with the epic (completely unthinkable) statement;
One explanation may be that maternity leave slows a woman’s progress up the career ladder.
Or women with a larger number of children may choose less demanding jobs offering a lower salary.
So the truth starts to come out eh. A big part of this is experience. The longer you do a job, the more experience, the more valuable you are to a company.
Makes sense, no? If a woman had more experience than a man in a situation, I’m sure the company would end up paying her more. On the rare occasion that the woman is willing to make the personal life and time sacrifices for the job. Which most aren’t. Hence the discrepancy in experience. Duh…
The figures show earnings for men and women are similar when they join the job market between the ages of 18 and 21.
Which is to be expected. If there wasn’t any discrimination. Doesn’t stop some opportunist bitches trying to make a buck though;
Health and safety manager Bernadette Cadman, 46, was being paid £35,129 a year when she found men in the same job were earning up to £9,000 more because they had been doing it longer.
How dare they disciminate on experience!
Hang on, I’ve got a vision…
“Ma’am you are not qualified to pilot that aircraft, you don’t have the flight time”.
“Sexist pig!!! Discimination”.
Now imagine that pilot suing her company for that. And winning.
Mrs Cadman, from Manchester, won a claim for sex discrimination in 2001.
In the UK, the feminist courts seem to agree that paying someone based on experience is discimination (if it means a woman gets less).
The European Courts saw things a bit differently however;
But the decision was overturned in 2006 when the European Court of Justice rejected her argument that employers should not base pay structures on length of service.
What is society coming to when a woman can sue and win such a case? What next, a girl suing a salon owner because the girl refused to take her headscarf off?
Nah that’s just silly. I mean, it’s not like business owners should be entitled to employ whomever they wish, for whatever reason they wish. It’s only their fucking business.