SA Footy

Let's just run with gender neutral stick figures with no clothing and no secondary sexual characteristics showing.
No discrimination towards any gender (or gender variant) then - but hang on - I've never looked closely, but isn't that what with already have??

bennymacca wrote:wikipedia is more accurate than traditional encyclopedias

not saying you should trust everything on there, far from it, but on the whole it is an excellent resource and first port of call.

If you have studied or work in a technical area (such as engineering) you will use it almost daily

I rely on safooty.net
Much better than Wiki

HH3 wrote:

Booney wrote:I'm pretty sure I'm 100% correct that one of you is female.

I can be whatever you want for the right price

Bend over then b*tch!!
Oh it's probably not the right forum to say that is it.........

amber_fluid wrote:

HH3 wrote:

Booney wrote:I'm pretty sure I'm 100% correct that one of you is female.

I can be whatever you want for the right price

Bend over then b*tch!!
Oh it's probably not the right forum to say that is it......... [emoji38]

Nah your probably still in the right place.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

This is getting out of hand...enough is enough. Not everything in life is because men have it better than women.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/kate-ellis-shouldnt-have-had-to-resign/news-story/799410cd2cc826bc9c68064c32e1d767

MW wrote:This is getting out of hand...enough is enough. Not everything in life is because men have it better than women.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/kate-ellis-shouldnt-have-had-to-resign/news-story/799410cd2cc826bc9c68064c32e1d767

WTF?!
Kate Ellis resigns to focus on family..

The painful truth is that motherhood and politics don’t mix.
The parliament is still structured the way it was back in 1901 when the Australian states federated. That is, the parliament was designed for men and by men. Men who assumed parenting was the job of someone else. Modern public life remains utterly inconsistent with the realities of new motherhood and our country is the poorer for it.

I feel bad for Kate Ellis. It's another sign of how stacked in favour of men with wives the political system is.

In her brilliant book, The Wife Drought, Annabel Crabb revealed that in the 44th parliament, male politicians had an average of 2.1 children and females only 1.2. Crabb called it a “one-child penalty for women in federal politics”. Forty per cent of female members of the federal parliament were childless.

We cannot think that the stuff of gender equality is done simply because women now make up a significant proportion of the workforce. Equality requires that workplaces accept women and men as whole people, with lives, loves and responsibilities that exist outside the office.

Traffic light solution :

Magellan wrote:

Good value Viz magazine.

This hopefully should satisfy nearly everyone

Grenville wrote:

Magellan wrote:

Good value Viz magazine.

Never fails to disappoint.

Zartan wrote:

MW wrote:This is getting out of hand...enough is enough. Not everything in life is because men have it better than women.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/kate-ellis-shouldnt-have-had-to-resign/news-story/799410cd2cc826bc9c68064c32e1d767

WTF?!
Kate Ellis resigns to focus on family..

The painful truth is that motherhood and politics don’t mix.
The parliament is still structured the way it was back in 1901 when the Australian states federated. That is, the parliament was designed for men and by men. Men who assumed parenting was the job of someone else. Modern public life remains utterly inconsistent with the realities of new motherhood and our country is the poorer for it.

I feel bad for Kate Ellis. It's another sign of how stacked in favour of men with wives the political system is.

In her brilliant book, The Wife Drought, Annabel Crabb revealed that in the 44th parliament, male politicians had an average of 2.1 children and females only 1.2. Crabb called it a “one-child penalty for women in federal politics”. Forty per cent of female members of the federal parliament were childless.

We cannot think that the stuff of gender equality is done simply because women now make up a significant proportion of the workforce. Equality requires that workplaces accept women and men as whole people, with lives, loves and responsibilities that exist outside the office.

This guy hits the nail on the head (the top guy)

he makes a fair point. i dont think there will ever be exactly equal pay for that reason.

I wonder what barriers there were to her spending time with her family, maybe that can be looked at. I know my job has awesome flexibility, and is probably not possible for a lot of other professions.

bennymacca wrote:he makes a fair point. i dont think there will ever be exactly equal pay for that reason.

I wonder what barriers there were to her spending time with her family, maybe that can be looked at. I know my job has awesome flexibility, and is probably not possible for a lot of other professions.

id say one of the big barriers was her choice to take a job based in Canberra, when she lives in Adelaide. surely we dont need to change the whole way parliament works to better suit working mums? it isnt even that she is away from home full time ffs. 20 weeks, out of 52. personally i think they should be there more, but that is another argument (and yes i know that they work when "back home" but then, she can go home to the family at night) i know many fifo workers that are away from home for longer than that each year, lets change that so they can spend more time with their kids........

what a load of garbage that article is. "stacked in favour of men with wives"..... who says that the men in parliament all have wives that are live at home mums? who says that the men dont miss their kids? its assuming that somehow men are less in touch, or care less about their kids, which is further perpetuating the gender stereotypes that the author supposedly hates.

tipper wrote: what a load of garbage that article is. "stacked in favour of men with wives"..... who says that the men in parliament all have wives that are live at home mums? who says that the men dont miss their kids? its assuming that somehow men are less in touch, or care less about their kids, which is further perpetuating the gender stereotypes that the author supposedly hates.

Can't agree with this more. We need fair pay, we need women to have an equal say in our society, but...

We are now at a point where choice comes into play. I choose to work five days a week, so that my wife can spend time at home with the kids. But I have also chosen a career path that allows me to be part of my kids' day-to-day life. In my profession, I could choose the commute-to-city- earn-more-money-and-work-long-hours-because-it's-expected career path, but I have not. Women now, thanks to the advances in our society, have the same choice to make. I'm not going to say that all inequities against women have been absolved, but we have come to a point where, if equity, is to come into the equation, then we all have to consider our working choices.

Dogwatcher wrote:

tipper wrote: what a load of garbage that article is. "stacked in favour of men with wives"..... who says that the men in parliament all have wives that are live at home mums? who says that the men dont miss their kids? its assuming that somehow men are less in touch, or care less about their kids, which is further perpetuating the gender stereotypes that the author supposedly hates.

Can't agree with this more. We need fair pay, we need women to have an equal say in our society, but...

We are now at a point where choice comes into play. I choose to work five days a week, so that my wife can spend time at home with the kids. But I have also chosen a career path that allows me to be part of my kids' day-to-day life. In my profession, I could choose the commute-to-city- earn-more-money-and-work-long-hours-because-it's-expected career path, but I have not. Women now, thanks to the advances in our society, have the same choice to make. I'm not going to say that all inequities against women have been absolved, but we have come to a point where, if equity, is to come into the equation, then we all have to consider our working choices.

agree with both of you

it has certainly been a family decision for us that my wife stayed at home. If she was earning more than me I would have been pushing for her to have a short time off and me stay home.

bennymacca wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:

tipper wrote: what a load of garbage that article is. "stacked in favour of men with wives"..... who says that the men in parliament all have wives that are live at home mums? who says that the men dont miss their kids? its assuming that somehow men are less in touch, or care less about their kids, which is further perpetuating the gender stereotypes that the author supposedly hates.

Can't agree with this more. We need fair pay, we need women to have an equal say in our society, but...

We are now at a point where choice comes into play. I choose to work five days a week, so that my wife can spend time at home with the kids. But I have also chosen a career path that allows me to be part of my kids' day-to-day life. In my profession, I could choose the commute-to-city- earn-more-money-and-work-long-hours-because-it's-expected career path, but I have not. Women now, thanks to the advances in our society, have the same choice to make. I'm not going to say that all inequities against women have been absolved, but we have come to a point where, if equity, is to come into the equation, then we all have to consider our working choices.

agree with both of you

it has certainly been a family decision for us that my wife stayed at home. If she was earning more than me I would have been pushing for her to have a short time off and me stay home.

And now your household skews those "gender pay gap" figures we talked about.

There's a 100% gender pay gap at your house, you privileged pig

HH3 wrote:

bennymacca wrote:
And now your household skews those "gender pay gap" figures we talked about.

There's a 100% gender pay gap at your house, you privileged pig

I know you are probably saying this tongue in cheek, but you still are misunderstanding the point that even if you control for all of those factors, there is still a difference in wages.

Which wages? For two different jobs? At two different companies? Can wages be negotiated? Are their set tiers in which pay rises happen?

I'm sure there's a Bennymacca-HH3 pay gap too. There's no law against that. But there is a law protecting against discrimination for the same position at the same company, because that's all you can compare.

A male admin assistant at one company can earn a higher wage than a female office assistant at a different company, as long as it's above award. And it works the other way around too. Even at the same company they can earn different amounts, depending on experience and value to the company.

The two highest paid people at my company are women. At least one of them doesn't deserve it, but I'm not going to chuck a hissy fit, because she negotiated that wage when she got the job. Good for her.

bennymacca wrote:
I know you are probably saying this tongue in cheek, but you still are misunderstanding the point that even if you control for all of those factors, there is still a difference in wages.

but how though? is there a workplace that pays men and women differently?

if more women make a personal choice to work in a lower paying industry, how is that the fault of society?

i think the other day that child care, and welding were compared as an example as to a wage gap. both were supposedly a similar qualification (certificate 3??) but one is paid better than the other. i fail to see the issue. unless something or someone is preventing women from doing welding, or preventing men from doing child care, how is that an example of a wage gap? how can we compensate for people choosing lower paid employment?