Oh Dale....
"Feminist" is not an elected 'office'.
Feminists don't represent *all* women, in the same way that you don't represent all trolls oops I mean Laboratory Analysts.
But they do advocate/research/discuss issues that pertain to women with a view to achieving equity and fairness.

Of course feminists don't represent men in the first instance - I think you are being disingenuous and childish there. There are plenty of 'man movements' trying to do that.
Gender discrimination isn't the best state of affairs for men either.
And here's a shock for you - Men can be feminists too. http://www.xyonline.net/about-us

"rarely...state what the majority of women actually want or prefer" - FFS.
Given this article is explicitly about gender wage differences/discrimination, please find a valid study that has shown women "want or prefer" to be paid *less* than men for the same work.

It seems to me that you have no idea what you are commenting about, yet insist on wading in and acting though you have some kind of expert knowledge on the subject.

Meanwhile.....

Good article, thanks Eva!!

elbatxeb
I doubt very much that feminists actually represent women, or feminists actually state what women want. Feminists seem to state what feminists want.

This survey may be semi-reliable for a social science survey, as it has 13,042 women in included in it from the Community and Public Sector Union.

http://www.cpsu.org.au/multiversions/27770/FileName/WWW2012.pdf

Typical of so many social science surveys, men weren’t included in the survey, but feminists don’t seem to mind that when it occurs, although everyone is told to believe feminists are concerned about equality .

The main 3 issues for those women were
-“Increasing workloads and increasing pressure”
- “Ensuring safe and respectful workplaces - customer aggression”
- “Flexibility is the key”

Also, ¾ of the women were concerned about environmental problems.

In regards to wages, “Over half (52.0%) of women were satisfied or very satisfi ed with the level of pay they received” and “Over two thirds (70.3%) of women indicated they were satisfi ed or very satisfi ed with the level of job security they had”

I would think those women were doing quite well, and what they want seems quite different to how women are portrayed by feminists.

I could also give other semi-reliable social science surveys (I don't think they ever get any better than semi-reliable) that show results quite different to what feminists want.

"Typical of so many social science surveys, men weren’t included in the survey, but feminists don’t seem to mind that when it occurs, although everyone is told to believe feminists are concerned about equality ."

When your goal is to survey the subjective concerns of women, I can perfectly understand why you mightn't include people who identify as male. Can you?

"I would think those women were doing quite well, and what they want seems quite different to how women are portrayed by feminists."

Subjective surveys are not objective observations. I think it's unfortunate that people attack the work of feminists without trying to recognise, let alone understand the real problems that are still present in Australia in 2012. If you are a heterosexual white male, you'll probably have to work a little to grasp the issues that are being discussed, these are not things that you will naturally be able to understand.

There is no excuse for a wage gap, at least this should be pretty clear.

Will Hardy
The 3 main issues in the survey of women in that union (and a considerable number of women are in that union) did not mention wages.

So who are people to believe?. Feminists who say they represent women, or over 13,000 actual women

I have yet to see a survey that says the majority of women want to be the main breadwinner, or want to work the same hours as men, but that is not mentioned by feminists either.

I am therefore wondering if feminists consider the wages gap from a narrow viewpoint only, but most women consider it from a wider perspective and don’t regard it as a priority.

Are you saying that women *want* to earn less for equivalent work?

Or, are you saying that if it isn't a priority, then women should continue to be underpaid?

Or, are you saying it doesn't matter, because The Feminists support it?

Please be careful when trolling widely read sites like this, someone has to take the time to respond in order to avoid doubt and confusion holding back an important issue such as this.

I regard being called a troll as abuse.

I don’t believe there is a wages gap, or if a wages gap does exist, it can be attributed to a range of factors.

In all I think feminism involves mindlessly repeating what some other feminist says. One feminist says there is a wages gap that oppresses women, and other feminists repeat it. Whether women see a wages gap as being factual, real or important is another matter.

Oh Elba,

Actually, the definition of feminism is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunity. It's no suprise that a lot of men hold this belief, though you imply that it's an incredible shock. In a modern society such as Australia it's strange that a gender biased term such as feminism is still used to describe something as important as equal opportunity. As for the wage gap, I don't see a problem as long as any person regardless of gender gets paid the same amount of money to do the same job. It's untrue to say that people don't have control over how much they get paid, it depends on what field of work they choose. Jobs that are more dangerous pay higher, but there is nothing stopping women working in those fields if they so choose. As for statistics, men are 9 times more likely than women to be killed in work related accidents because they generally work in the more dangerous jobs. Would you do that kind of work if the pay was no better than in one where the risk of death or injury was very low? Who will do them if there's no incentive for putting your health, and even your life, on the line?

It should be pretty clear that women, even today, are disadvantaged in many ways. Feminism identifies and addresses these problems. "Equal rights" was a good first step, "formal equality of opportunity" was also important, but we are a long way off from having substantive equality of opportunity. Until then, there will be feminists and they will only deal with women's issues.

You're right that equal opportunity is a worthy ultimate goal, nobody is saying that men aren't disadvantaged in certain ways, it's just not part of the feminist movement (unless it helps women eg paternal leave). They're just working on fixing the real, pervasive problem of disadvantaged women.

The wage gap is exactly what you fear: women are being paid substantially less for exactly the same job. Even once we fix that, we will still have another, more insidious gap caused by social roles, expectations and discrimination. Australia really has a long way to go.

I don't believe danger money accounts for any significant part of the pay gap, especially the gap in white collar jobs.

David,

-Not sure that I gave a definition of Feminism in my post?! Your definition only gives part of the position.
-I was implying that male feminists would be a shock to *Dale*.

The view of the wage gap you are taking is overly simplistic. Not everyone is able to make a truly free choice in relation to the work they do. For example, part time work due to caring and childcare responsibilities - these are the sorts of things men for some reason don't on a society level take as much responsibility for. So who looks after the kids when they are sick?
IMHO, men have got some stepping up to do in relation to parenting their children, caring for their elderly parents etc etc. Its not enough to say "I work full time, you do it." Workplaces and the culture generally needs to change so that men get flexibility to do more/do differently. Imagine a world were both parents worked part time and take equal responsibility for children/housework/etc and this was financially viable and socially accepted as the norm.

"nothing stopping women working in those fields" - Srsly you are either ignorant of, or ignoring the complexities of our world/culture.

Just because women can vote, and its now a crime for a husband to rape his wife (that only changed in 1976), doesn't mean that equality has been achieved.

Like racism, its just subtler and less socially acceptable, but still ongoing!!!

Apologies Dale.
But looking at your track record across TC comments.....

"The three main issues in a survey of women..." - was that due to the questions that were asked?! Presumably this was not a survey consisting of the question "What do you want" and then a blank page for your essay.

Maybe social science research is a bit more structured than you would think?

Elba,

Feminsim isn't about equality? That's news to me And as this is a public forum it's not just Dale who will be reading your post about how shocking it is that men believe in equal opportunity. And I'm afraid that it's you who is ignorant about how women are able to work in the more dangerous industries that I was talking about earlier, there are plenty of women working in those industies now. My own cousin drives a ore truck in a balksite mine in Western Australia. That's not to say that I think that doing that job would be possible for someone with young children so please don't put words in my mouth. And I say 'someone' because I don't think that children benefit from the care of both parents. You're so right in your comments about sexism, you personally seem to think it's ok to attempt to undermine the dignity of others eg. 'IMHO men have got some stepping up to do' Those kind of generalisations are totally innapropriate and I'm suprised that your postings are even allowed on this discussion board.

Arrg, that's supposed to say 'I think that children benefit from the care of both parents'.

David,

Please show where I said feminism isn't about equality.
My point is that its about *more* than equal opportunity....did you read this part of my post?:
"Workplaces and the culture generally needs to change so that men get flexibility to do more/do differently. Imagine a world were both parents worked part time and take equal responsibility for children/housework/etc and this was financially viable and socially accepted as the norm."

I'm across the fact that this is a public forum and that other people will read the comments. However, when you "reply" to someone, and use their name, generally you are directing your thoughts to them.

Please quantify "plenty"; Just because your "own cousin" works in a (Bauxite) mine, doesn't mean this is a level playing field; Are all mine workers childless then? No? Hmm, so what is the difference then?

"Arrg, that's supposed to say 'I think that children benefit from the care of both parents". AGREE x infinity. Which is why I would like to see a world were mothers and fathers take equal responsibility for all aspects of the care of their children (biologically impossible aspects excluded).

If you don't want to be considered a troll, 'Dale', kindly make an effort to allow others to identify you.

It remains curious to me that the most persistently negative and abusive commenters here are those who log in through anonymous, generic, email addresses.

Sorry, the academic world of all places operates through critique and review. There is no other reason to be a scholar than to be identified, criticised, challenged and where need be, rebuked. That's what we do.

You are not being abused, you are being rebuked, and rightly so.

Gil Hardwick
It is basically not possible to believe critical thinking or peer review has ever been applied to feminist theory.

Feminism mostly involves the propaganda technique of continuously repeating something over and over so people believe it is true, while carrying out highly subjective and biased survey techniques, while at the same time portraying feminists as being representative of women when no has ever elected them into that position, while continuously portraying men negatively.

Few in academia ever seem to oppose it in case they might be called “misogynist” or something similar.

Every person on award wages is paid the same, and the concept the women receive less money because they are “carers” is highly debateable, when data shows so many women only want to work 20 – 30 hours a week, and this includes women with NO dependant children

Very few people are going to get high wages while only working 20-30 hours a week.

I am a white anglo saxon male and I consider myself a feminist. I don't claim to speak on behalf of either men or women however IMHO Feminists seek respectfull and equal treatment for those of both genders. For two people doing the same work not to be paid the same rate due to their gender is WRONG.
My anecdotal experience is that in larger enterprises where employees work either under award conditions or an eba, wage discrimination will not exist.
The problem exists in small business and at managerial levels where there is no collective bargaining.
I am gobsmacked that this debate revolves around an average wage of $1437.40 per week.
I am employed in the retail sector and by industry standards receive a pretty good wage around $1700 per fortnight.
Generally when employer groups are quibbling about a more flexible workforce, it is the retail and hospitality sectors they wish to change. Always to the detriment of those involved in doing the work.
When business operators decided that their businesses should be open 7 days a week, and 15 hours a day, suddenly the lifestyle of those employed in the game changed drammatically. The latest push on behalf of business is to deprive those working in the trade of weekend penalty rates.
How about a bit of wage equality for ALL those carrying out the more menial tasks in our society.

http://narrowthegapp.com/gap/425

are you serious?

If the employees are paid award wages, then all employees are paid at the same rates, and the only difference to weekly earnings would be hours of work.

If employees are paid a negotiated wage, I have yet to know of a company that pays according to gender only, with every company I am aware of paying according to experience and qualifications, and paying possible bonuses.

It does appear that many women do not want to work long hours, even with NO dependent children, and a considerable number of women prefer to work no more than 30 hours a week.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:JYWRL3Jc0rMJ:melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2004n01.pdf+egalitarian+%2B+HILDA&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgwMOqukqAWh_lr52I-nfknbC-T2HctWT88ZX6o0icE4fIsbrhk9YUSqJ6Mu_V7rxav-uc03XTAT7110rPU1vd6GDa6fYuPdEaYM7JN6VOE2S_xzXrNpzKML_Gpqj3pS1dTTru1&sig=AHIEtbRNWeUSSCd3ZBqhLaAKeC7_l8v9eQ

The concept that women are paid less because of gender is a remote possibility. It has probably much more to do with hours of work and a desire to work.

One research study measured emotional quality of daily experience, and found the women in that research placed paid work as the SECOND LOWEST most enjoyable activity during their day, the lowest being commuting.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-12/uom-nmm120204.php

It would interesting if that research tool were applied to women in Australia to determine just how enjoyable they actually find paid work, and how much time they want to spend doing paid work.

At present the data shows the majority of women do not want to work much more than 30 hours per week, which is hardly anything at all for full time work in many industries.

Gil your argument seems to based on the way income is spent rather than how it is earned. I would therefore argue it's tangential to the issue at hand.

The labour-payment transaction is a self-contained negotiation and the way that payment will be spent should be an irrelevant factor in this. Do you really believe employers should pay their staff according to the number of dependents they have rather than the quality of their work?

Depends on what is meant by “care”. Most jobs now require a risk management approach, which was once called “duty of care”.

For teaching:-
“In Australia, teacher salaries are generally above the average weekly earnings and a beginning teacher's salary is above the average salary for new graduates.”

http://sydney.edu.au/education_social_work/future_students/careers/teacher_salaries.shtml

Not too bad considering the hours worked, the weekends off and the many holidays.

The day care industry is now fraught with regulation and financial problems, and seems to have a considerable number of unskilled or unqualified people involved. Once that is sorted out, it may become clearer what would be appropriate wages.

It is also questionable why there is a need for so many day care centers anyway.

I think the idea of teachers working short hours of is a bit of a myth. Because of increased administrative requirements, continuous assessment and parental demand for more detailed personal feedback for each pupil, it's not uncommon for teachers to work as many hours again outside the classroom as in it, frequently adding up to 60-70 hour weeks. A teacher friend worked over school holidays and EVERY weekend during term time, either on marking work or preparing lesson plans. Granted, it's going to be a bigger workload when you're just starting out and preparing lessons from scratch, but even so I don't think it's fair to imply that teachers get it easy.

If it is the case that teachers are taking work home, they should refuse to do it, and should do all their work in their office at school.

However I have frequently seen teachers drive out the school gate earlier than students can get on the school bus, and teachers who are in the surf before 4 pm.

There are also teachers who repeat the same lesson plan year after year, and this is easily noticed if a parent has 2 or more children being taught by the same teacher in different years.