It’s already happening. Look at the number of women vs men graduating in the blue chip courses at varsity. In the next generation their will be inequality again. To prevent the cycle, we need to fix the balance now.

“The pay gap, then, is not the problem. It is a reflection largely of family decisions that we may or may not wish to change. The law can still attend to discrimination, but not by starting with the assumption the pay gap means discrimination.”

The other links I found from r0b’s stuff, also backed up my hypothesis in my previous post. I also did an extra search and still only found statistics that supported my claim. I found plenty of other stuff about there being a pay inequality, but none were backed by actual information/statistics/facts. They were more hyperbole than anything.

However, my search is not exhaustive, someone may be able to get me to the correct place.

Until that time, I my perspective has still only been influenced to the point that in the next 20-30 years, Women will overtake men in their take home pay as per the cultural revolution in the yesteryear. There is a lot of change, however pay discrimination is not just comparing overall pay packets, but looking at the vocations, hours worked, sacrifices made, and life choices of both sexes gives the reasons why there is a perceived pay inequality. Once you account for these, women predominantly get paid more than men.

Catchpa: laws
2 on topic in a row!

edit: Not easy to find the NZ one, maybe Rocky could step in?

Catchpa: girl

On average women are paid less, but I think that also women are a greater proportion of part-time, casual, temporary workers.

And are still paid less than male workers in similar conditions.

Likewise comparing women that take maternity leave to men who take extended sickness leave results in the same conclusion- women are generally underpaid across the board, and not as a result of their employment situations.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=paid+less+than+their+male+counterparts+in+the+same+job

The reports now indicate the majority of students in the professional courses (accounting, law, doctors, dentists, etc) are female. This will indicate that in 30-50 years time the majority of those earning the high levels of pay will be female, most likely causing the opposite perception of females being paid less, as males will be paid less on average.

I have an issue about the perception of females being paid less. Overall, yes. However with the studies I’ve looked at, once you compare averages per industry, they’re very much even. I’m well aware that different industries pay different amounts. When comparing wages, I do not see it accurate to compare what men earn in the financial sector with what women earn in the education sector. It distorts in my eyes. Perhaps I’m looking at the wrong studies, so if someone can provide me with a link, I’ll re-educate myself.

Why? Because I want to. Because I have a very active desire to teach and help raise the next generation. Not everyone has this and the points I mentioned previously are enough to drive off most potential male teachers. To be a male teacher in this day and age, you either have to be very brave or very stupid… or maybe a little of both.

When I was in the primary schooling system 40 years ago, there were still a substantial number of male teachers, nowadays they are a small minority.

Over the last 30 or so years both relatively and absolutely fewer young men are achieving compared to their female peers at University level.

These two trends may or may not be causually related, but somehow I get the feeling no-one has done the basic research that could cast some real light on this question. In the meantime I suspect that it’s an open, and still valid question to ask.

No seriously – because:

(1) “Feminism” addresses social, political and economic equality for women, it isn’t an educational theory and it doesn’t have a secret plan to take over and run education.

(2) The dominance of women in teaching is not evidence of any feminist take over, it is evidence of longstanding gender based inequalities in the workforce and in pay.

(3) There is no evidence (of which I am aware, not an expert) that female teachers damage educational outcomes for boys. (There may be evidence that male teachers as role models have other beneficial effects separate from educational outcomes, that’s a different matter).

(4) There’s no evidence that the concepts of “feminine thinking” and “feminisation of education” are real enough to have any actual impact in the real world.

(5) It’s not obvious (again, need to see the stats, bet Laws hasn’t) that the gender balance in the teaching profession has changed significantly in the last few decades.

(6) Society has changed in many many ways in the last few decades that are much more significant than any slight change in teacher balance. (Perhaps video games make boys dumb.)

(7) Right wingers love to rabbit on about individual responsibility for the poor and minorities and so on. But when their sons aren’t achieving suddenly it’s women’s fault? Phuhleaze.

(8) Laws is a twerp.

Well if girls are smarter, how come we get paid less??

Because your qualifications are undervalued. Because even being able to see that someone is female creates a bias against a candidate- women became far better represented in orchestras after blind auditions were introduced as a hiring practice in the USA, even though the interviewers had all thought they were being fair to female musicians previously. Sadly not all sexism is obvious or conscious.