Man this is a tough one…i have to write a 5 page paper for my philosophy class using logic to justify why women should or shouldn’t be paid the same as men. i know the politically correct thing to do is say yes…but after 3 hours of googling, i can’t find any logical reasons behind it…not enough for 5 pages or anything that’ll hold up in a debate. on the other hand i don’t wanna say no and go the sexist route. any help?
and please don’t say stuff like “because it’s the right thing to do”…playing god won’t go over very well in a philosophy class
I’m sorry but is this a serious post or a joke? You’re seriously asking us to help you come up with reasons why women should be paid as much as men when doing the same job? Why on earth would gender matter? It’s the job role & quality of work that should be rewarded, not the fact that you happen to be born with a f***ing penis!
And whilst I’m questioning whether you’re serious or not… Are you actually using Goole to find journal articles to back your argument with? Seriously? For a written assignment for a uni-level (?) class where I’m assuming you’d need to use references?
I’m sorry but is this a serious post or a joke? You’re seriously asking us to help you come up with reasons why women should be paid as much as men when doing the same job? Why on earth would gender matter? It’s the job role & quality of work that should be rewarded, not the fact that you happen to be born with a f***ing penis!
quote]
your feelings and personal opinions aside..can you give me a logical argument for it. i can’t make 5 pages out of shouldas and outas
yah, i agree i had the same idea…until i started reading the counter arguments…
"Well, in most industries, there is a period of training, which is at considerable expense to a company. With male employees, the expense will be amortised over the next four or so decades because men will work until they die or retire. The majority of women will choose to stop working after a decade or so …
Interesting you bring up efficient allocation of resources. It costs the NHS the same to train a man or a woman to be a doctor. But 48 per cent of women doctors are part-time while only 5 per cent of male doctors are part-time. Which is a better return on the taxpayers’ investment?"-Times
that’s the problem i kept running into…the pro side is opinion based..such as “equal work for equal pay”…or “men and women are the same”…or…“what’s the difference between discriminating against a women or someone in a wheelchair”
but the con arguments are economic/business based like time in the workforce or return on investment or even supply and demand.
so it’s basically opinion vs. economics. you see the shithole i ran into?
I think I know the article you’re reffering to…It’s not giving you an accurate picture though. The 48% isn’t female doctors, it’s 48% of female GP 's (ie primary care). In secondary care (hospital doctors) the number of female doctors working part time is nowhere near that! Before you hit consultant level (ie your childbearing years) whilst you’re a specialist trainee, very few get the opportunity to work part-time. At consultantlevel though, part-time work is quite common…many consultants work part-time in the NHS & part-time in private healthcare (which means NHS aren’t benefitting). Funnily enough though… of all consultants in the UK, only 28% are female, in surgery only 6% of consultants are women So who’s really costing the NHS money by only working part time?
Sinden NJ, Sherriff JM, Westmore SEL, Greenfield SM and Allan TF. Patterns of childbearing behaviour amongst female hospital doctors and GPs. Family Practice 2003; 20: 486–488
A questionnaire study of 105 female GPs and 98 female hospital doctors was carried out in Birmingham, UK, to determine doctors’ experiences and views of child-bearing whilst working as a doctor.
*Results. Of the GP responders, 81% had children compared with 49% of hospital doctors. GPs were shown to work fewer hours than hospital doctors. Problems were identified relating to the everyday difficulties faced whilst working and raising a family. *
“Despite a rising number of women in the workforce, official statistics show that for the past eight years the percentage of female medical professionals working part-time has remained static at about 8%.”
Ps; I’m a rep for WinS (Women in Surgery) in my area. I 'd be happy to forward you up some stats & journal articles for you (based on actual research & not just articles in the general media) if you like? Obviously only the healthcare sector but I’m sure you can find more from other industries too
lol. dude, if women started approaching men…hell i would advocate women getting paid more than men! fuck the pheromones, i’m just gonna sit on my ass and let hot chicks hit on me all nite long. ooooo yah.
exactly, payment based on work output. why have a baby when you can skip all the hard work and grow a 29yr old doctor on a tree? hell, just grow money and happiness on trees.
wuz up, thanks for the private messages guys. it’s sad that we can’t discuss this out in the open cause some members (ahem) feel the need to have bitch fests about it without realizing that their emotional and illogical outburts immediately turn their credibility to zero.
but here’s the biggest logical reasoning (con) i’ve gotten so far…basically it has to do with lifestyle. “…when all is said and done…your paycheck directly determines what kind of lifestyle you live. and we see that in the modern day, women are living more previlaged lives than men are. men are doing the shitter jobs (construction, plumbing, mechanics) and on top of that we are expected to do a shit load that women are not…like helping women haul their couches to their third floor apartments…or the biggest one of them all dating!! the roles are really fucked up on this one…all women are expected to do is get pretty and wait for the guys to do all the work…where as men we actually do all the work AND carry the burden of rejection at the same time…so after all this shit..don’t men deserve to have more money in the bank at the end of the month?”
You can’t really be generalising like that can you?
Maternity leave is the big player here. Because women get pregnant, there will be a lesser incentive to want to hire one. If it’s equal pay for equal work, the woman, if she chooses to have a baby then that is money that the company has to shell out while an employee is not there. It’s losing resources. It’s a fact of life, though, and we can’t avoid it.
So, a little more would be expected from women, I think. Women should be allowed equal pay if their maternity pay is cancelled.
If we remove all emotion from the situation. We have an employee coming in that says “I will be unable to work for a duration of a few months, a bit further down the line, I may come back to work after this break, I might not. I will, however, require monetary support during this time”. Though understandable, it does become a liability. If that employee becomes an asset to the company and then leaves for a while - there could be some damage done. It would be logical to invest in someone who won’t be taking this “break”.
Suggesting non-equal pay is basically penalising a person for being born a certain way.
With that being said, a single woman should be considered as an equal to a man when applying for a job. Being married should change things, and employers should have every right to not hire someone because they do not want to run into the issue of maternity leave/pay. I’m not sure how things are in the United States, but if there are factors that are definite liabilities to a company, and there is a reason for it, then it is not discrimination.
You do run into an issue here of “where do you draw the line?”. Women might be turned down for jobs if it is a current all-male environment just to ease dynamics. There’d be less chance of sexual harrassment, there wouldn’t need to be male/female toilets etc.
Think of that in ethnicity. The majority of people in your company speak normally in spanish. If you hire someone who is a non-spanish speaker, then that could create some awkward social dynamics that could be avoided if you hired a spanish speaker.
But it isn’t a far leap from that to “I’m not hiring this person because they are not hispanic”. So there needs to be a line, but it’s hard to distinguish.
However, this all covers whether or not a woman should be hired. Whereas, if a woman was hired - she should be allowed equal pay. Unless she had entered some form of agreement that made her maternity leave more flexible - then it would go up or down in reference to what was agreed.
I’m assuming the illogical bitch is me? Well thanks for that. I think I’ll take back that offer to help you find proper articles for your paper. I’ve got better things to do than help someone who calls me a bitch.
I find it rather troublesome that this is what is being discussed in Philosophy class. What level course is this? Did you already cover Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Thomas Aquinas, Wittgenstein and the boys? What has been discussed about epistemology and metaphysics?
It is equal work for equal pay. The work comes first and then the reward.
If employee Female works 40 hours a week and is always wanting a day off and employee Male works 44 hours a week and is looking for overtime – and they both get $X.25/hour, guess which one goes home with more money? And vice versa? The vice versa is rare because it is the natural wiring of the human male to be protector/provider for his mate and offspring putting forth more effort to be the man.
The men go out and get gored, cut, bashed and killed while the women and children are oppressed safe and sound at home? That doesn’t ring true?
I know men who work more than I and get paid less. I know women that work less than I and get paid more. No one can do anything about it. Maybe that is why humans are called a race and nearly everyone wants to play by their own rules.
Interference - personal foul number 49 - ten yards penalty.
Everyone is unique and has different performance levels. Each occupation requires different qualifications. Equality does not exist in this sphere and never will because each of us is different even without considering male and female differences - and there are glaring differences.
This ideological ‘equal’ argument is divisive outside the light of truth.
“Truth is the object of Philosophy, but not necessarily that of philosophers.” - Plato
thanks for bringing this stuff up leafstamp…gotta get down on this…
…but then it goes into the argument of women being forced to choose between career and work? maternity is pretty important for the human race wouldn’t u agree?
yah…from an investment vs. return point of view this makes sense..but the only problem with it is that how do you tell what someone is going to do? as humans we don’t even know what we will be having for breakfast the next morning much less what decisions we will be making in 5 years.
well that actually happens all the time. i’m 5’3, do you think i have a hells chance as a basketball player even tho i workout 6 days a week? my ex gf was a special ed teacher…how much would you say a person with downs syndrome makes compared to someone without?
well being married doesn’t have anything to do with having kids.
but i do agree with the societal dynamics of all this. typically…well at least here in the US anyways…men are expected to do a lot more than women are, yet they are not expected to be compensated for this.
men are also expected to be more than woman..i hear things like “be a man” or “man up” all the time..funny thing is there’s no female equivalent for this. and once again, men are not compensated for any of this. and ofcourse there’s the awesomeness of alimony and child support. maybe this stuff balances out with the motherhood stuff women do. but on closer examination it doesn’t…motherhood is a temporary thing and it is also a choice..being a man is permanent and not a choice.
what it really comes down to in my opinion anyways..is that it all depends on what you’re looking at…equal pay may or may not make sense. the thing about money is that it is universal…you get it at work then you use it to live. so if you’re only looking at work..then equal pay for equal work makes perfect sense. but if you’re looking at life and the unequalities that exist between men and women..then equal pay doesn’t make sense.
i think that’s why this debate still exists and why people are so emotional about it. if you’re looking at one side of the coin…of course you won’t see the other side..but both sides exist simultaneously and so far no one has given a solution that satisfies both sides.
This doesn’t make sense. Whether maternity is important or not isn’t the issue. We’re not discussing the bigger picture here. We’re only talking about if women deserve equal pay. Whether maternity is important or not is moot.
Well, I know that I’m paying more for my car insurance than a female or someone older, because I am more likely to crash my car. This isn’t based on my action, but it is based on statistics. It is risk assessment, which should be done by every employer before hiring an employee. It’s not right to do - I’ve never crashed my car, yet my grandma always crashes hers. She pays less for insurance than I do, because other people my age and gender do crash more often than people her age. It’s about the bell curves.
A person with Downs Syndrome would probably make less due to having a disability. You’ll get into the whole disabilities act if you carry on down this path which is too far. Downs Syndrome people probably have a higher unemployment rate than those without it. Therefore they will have lower income averages, as there are some making 0 - or even negative (if you count benefits). Downs Syndrome people are disabled. Meaning they cannot do everything as a person without Downs Syndrome can. It is a fact of life. Therefore they will be less likely to be hired in a higher paying job. If they don’t have the education and whatnot. I go to university, and I have not seen any Downs Syndrome people around. Could be an indicator as to why they have lower paying jobs?
You shouldn’t really be looking at being a female as a disability, though.
Oh yes it does! Being married creates a SIGNIFICANTLY higher chance of having children than some woman who has nothing that she’s working on except her career. It’s statistics again.
Well, women give birth. They take on the role of homemaker usually. But there are relationships which are the other way round when the man stays at home with the kids. It is down to every relationship, but generally, it is usually the man who is more dedicated to work, and the woman who is more dedicated to keeping the household together. It goes back to caveman times.
Motherhood is not AT ALL temporary. It is a very very long process that lasts a lifetime. Prepare to get flooded with responses, Mr! Men are told to “man up” because, traditionally, they are the protectors. The soldiers. The hunters. If they all ran around talking about feelings, it’d take away from the machoness that comes from it. This is traditional, though. And men are generally much more sensitive nowadays.
Are you really saying men should be compensated for being able to live their lives without biological factors interrupting it? Come on, dude.
Equal pay for equal work should always happen. But married women might be less likely to be hired into a position than a man due to the maternity stuff. That’s it. That’s the bottom line.
Women will always have a lesser income average. Until men start giving birth, this is a fact. We need to stop trying to skew statistics to be PC. Women, on average, get paid less. However, when looking at a certain job, they should be getting paid the same amount. Therefore, you can come to the conclusion that the average woman is in a lower paying job than the average man. Possibly due to motherhood.
You cannot assume future actions when hiring someone - Should I pay a black man less because statistics say that man is more likely to commit a crime (and therefore be unable to work) than a white man?
I would argue no.
Equal pay for equal work. If you have two employees who have the same experience and the same performance and have been working for you the same amount of time they should receive equal pay.
If one candidate was a women who then took off 9 months for mat leave, her pay should reflect that. Similarly if one candidate was male and took 9 months off for pat leave his pay should reflect that.
If one candidate is predisposed to asking for raises more frequently, and therefore receiving raises more frequently - that candidates pay should reflect that
Should men and women receive equal pay - if they acted identically, yes.
Should statistics reflect the average income of men and women to be the same - NO, because men and women don’t act the same way.
Women are more likely to take time off for raising children and more likely to work part-time. They are also more likely to work in service industries than in factory/industrial settings - This is fair because factory/industrial settings carry more risks than the service industry. (Don’t give me any bullshit about women not being hired for factory jobs - There are currently so many reverse-discriminatory incentives for industrial settings to hire women it’s insane, my employer would love to hire women but we just don’t get any applicants.)
I should also note that men tend towards riskier behaviour than women - Which means they tend to ask for raises more frequently, and take risks which get them noticed more frequently then women in similar positions (There is an article about male stock traders that shows the higher a man’s testoterone the more risks he takes - Testosterone levels are proportional to the willingness to take risks - men have more testosterone then their female counterparts)
This is why you see statistics still showing men having higher average pay for similar positions.
I may make more at IT work than woman, but women can make a hell of a lot more at Prostitution than I can… then if I could clear $3000 cash a week working 2-3 nights a week I would go for it.
When looking there is a person right for each job, now then if the job description includes carrying 100 lbs of equipment up a 300 foot tower some women can do it some men can too, while most of the mentioned may struggle, but then not every one is suited for every job.
However a job entering numbers in a computer that anyone can do, should be based on how much you put in, if I can do the work of 3 full time high school kids in 3 hours a week I deserve to make more,
Where as the CEO working 15-20 hours a week analyzing data and saying cut this team or spend 100k to upgrade this division, should probably not make $3million a year. unless their decisions result in that much profit for the company.
If the company is being run into the ground and loosing money left and right, the big ducks should probably be cut first. it’s their leadership that is cauing the problem.
So who’s really costing the NHS money by only working part time? 