• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Gender pay gap vs Gender "danger" gap at work - why no focus on the latter?


belvoboy

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
108
I posted the following in another thread.
====
The same could be said about how feminists respond to suggestions that situations are unfair.

Nobody necessarily has a monopoly on understanding society. Different views need to be expressed.

Different views are not being expressed in the 3-D world on gender issues.
In some cases, because people have been encouraged, through the educations system, to see society in one way (that there are no disadvantages that men face).

And also because discussion on gender issues tends to be stifled in the 3-D world.

To take an example of what problems there could be in how discussions are framed:
It is simplistic to say that for example on average pay rates on different between men and women and to assume that means there is discrimination. It might mean or it might not mean there is discrimination - one has to look at other factors to see whether they might explain the difference.

And some of these factors might be the "danger" gap - that men are more likely to take on dangerous work that can lead to death and serious injury. But that "danger" gap isn't highlighted in discussions, people are expected to have discuss pay in a vacuum.

And the "disadvantage" women have, that they are taking home less pay on average is highlighted regularly in society.
The "disadvantage" men have, that they are more likely to be killed and seriously injured at work, isn't highlighted regularly in society.

Also a more important issue than the pay gap might be to look at who gets to spend the money - and it seems women have more spending power than men. But this rarely seems to be discussed - we are supposed to look at the issue in a vacuum.

And I don't think feminists are the best people to bring balance to such a debate or many debates in society.
=====

It was suggested that because the thread was going off-topic and bringing in all sorts of issues, that other threads should probably be set up.
 


Prester Jim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
10,057
You are absolutely 100% right. dangerous jobs like the Gardai, A&E nurses etc should be paid more than traditionally well paid jobs like business analysts, stock analysts, executives etc.
Finally you see sense:D
 

belvoboy

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
108
You are absolutely 100% right. dangerous jobs like the Gardai, A&E nurses etc should be paid more than traditionally well paid jobs like business analysts, stock analysts, executives etc.
Finally you see sense:D
I'm not sure where I discussed the salaries of Gardai, A&E nurses, business analysts, stock analysts, executives etc.

I did question the teachers' 12 weeks in a row off in the summer on full pay and whether that is an efficient system. Given you got angry at me in at least one of those threads, I imagine that is why you posted that message.
 

uriah

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
3,618
I posted the following in another thread.
====
The same could be said about how feminists respond to suggestions that situations are unfair.

Nobody necessarily has a monopoly on understanding society. Different views need to be expressed.

Different views are not being expressed in the 3-D world on gender issues.
In some cases, because people have been encouraged, through the educations system, to see society in one way (that there are no disadvantages that men face).

And also because discussion on gender issues tends to be stifled in the 3-D world.

To take an example of what problems there could be in how discussions are framed:
It is simplistic to say that for example on average pay rates on different between men and women and to assume that means there is discrimination. It might mean or it might not mean there is discrimination - one has to look at other factors to see whether they might explain the difference.

And some of these factors might be the "danger" gap - that men are more likely to take on dangerous work that can lead to death and serious injury. But that "danger" gap isn't highlighted in discussions, people are expected to have discuss pay in a vacuum.

And the "disadvantage" women have, that they are taking home less pay on average is highlighted regularly in society.
The "disadvantage" men have, that they are more likely to be killed and seriously injured at work, isn't highlighted regularly in society.

Also a more important issue than the pay gap might be to look at who gets to spend the money - and it seems women have more spending power than men. But this rarely seems to be discussed - we are supposed to look at the issue in a vacuum.

And I don't think feminists are the best people to bring balance to such a debate or many debates in society.
=====

It was suggested that because the thread was going off-topic and bringing in all sorts of issues, that other threads should probably be set up.
Looking through the list of threads you have started might lead one to suspect that you have gender issues!
 

belvoboy

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
108
Looking through the list of threads you have started might lead one to suspect that you have gender issues!
Another teacher who was not happy with what I said when questioning teacher's pay and conditions - it's nice to have a fan base.
 

uriah

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
3,618
Another teacher who was not happy with what I said when questioning teacher's pay and conditions - it's nice to have a fan base.
What are you talking about?
 

Prester Jim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
10,057
I'm not sure where I discussed the salaries of Gardai, A&E nurses, business analysts, stock analysts, executives etc.

I did question the teachers' 12 weeks in a row off in the summer on full pay and whether that is an efficient system. Given you got angry at me in at least one of those threads, I imagine that is why you posted that message.
Uh yeah, we teachers are out to get you. look behind you a SNA :eek:
 

Prester Jim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
10,057
What are you talking about?
He has some issues with paranoia too.
Anyhoo, I assume Belvo that you would say that more dangerous jobs should be paid more? than A&E nurses and Gardai should be paid more as they are demonstrably the most dangerous professions in Ireland.
I agree with you. where is the issue? :)
 

Prester Jim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
10,057
Or is it that you are saying that whatever jobs you consider worthwhile (such as well whatever mysterious thing it is you do?) should be paid more regardless of danger or otherwise.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,171
This objection would not apply in cases where a pay gap exists between men and women employed to do more or less the same sort of work, correct?
 

belvoboy

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
108
Anyhoo, I assume Belvo that you would say that more dangerous jobs should be paid more? than A&E nurses and Gardai should be paid more as they are demonstrably the most dangerous professions in Ireland.
I believe that it is reasonable for a job that has an element of risk in it to have a premium for the risky bit.

To take one example: internal/external cleaners. If you are hanging on some sort of structure outside a building to clean it, or up a ladder, I think it is fair that they would get paid more than somebody doing the cleaning inside (on average).

And is my impression, that more of the cleaning jobs which have some risk of them of falling from a height are done by men, and the internal ones are done by women.

If the cleaning jobs up a height were paid at the same rate as the cleaning jobs not up a height, rational people would do the job not up a height. So paying a premium for doing a job up a height seems reasonable.

And, on average, men do risky jobs than women as far as I can see.
 
Last edited:

belvoboy

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
108
belvoboy said:
Another teacher who was not happy with what I said when questioning teacher's pay and conditions - it's nice to have a fan base.
What are you talking about?
I'm pointing out that your comments, like Prester Jim's comments, might be influenced by comments I made on threads about teachers' conditions such as this one:

http://www.politics.ie/education-science/94597-teachers-esp-post-primary-should-they-have-such-long-holidays.html which I started and this one:
http://www.politics.ie/economy/100820-teacher-holidays-endangering-long-term-economy.html

where you said:

uriah said:
belvoboy said:
Oh, you've convinced us now. Everything in the education system is absolutely perfect, there's no point even discussing it.
We get it. Teachers have it too good. They should have their pay reduced, their holidays changed (and reduced?), and be inspected regularly.
and where Prester Jim (in reply to me) said:
Prester Jim said:
come back to me when you have experienced something of the real world where failure bites and homelessness is not something you step over laughing.
what have you ever done for anyone?
honestly?
[I gave some examples from the education field (I had mentioned them in passing before in another thread) (they were: voluntary help on a one-to-one and class level for students from disadvantaged schools) but he never apologised. BTW, I had never mentioned anything to do with homelessness in the threads either].

I feel it's a way to try to stop possible bullying.
 
Last edited:

femmefatale

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
3,805
I believe that it is reasonable for a job that has an element of risk in it to have a premium for the risky bit.

To take one example: internal/external cleaners. If you are hanging on some sort of structure outside a building to clean it, or up a ladder, I think it is fair that they would get paid more than somebody doing the cleaning inside (on average).

And is my impression, that more of the cleaning jobs which have some risk of them of falling from a height are done by men, and the internal ones are done by women.

If the cleaning jobs up a height were paid at the same rate as the cleaning jobs not up a height, rational people would do the job not up a height. So paying a premium for doing a job up a height seems reasonable.

And, on average, men do risky jobs than women as far as I can see.
Why should degree of risk be the important factor? Internal cleaning jobs are likely to be more unpleasant. The cleaner is cleaning other peoples personal mess, as opposed to the non-personal dirt one finds on the exterior of a building. I know I'd rather clean an outside window than an indoor toilet.

You are basically just trying to demean female typical work/jobs and suggest that male work/activity is always more challenging, more difficult and worth more remuneration. We are dealing with barely concealed sexism here.
 

belvoboy

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
108
Why should degree of risk be the important factor?
Because, as I said, if jobs have equal pay, why would a rational person do the risky/riskier one.

Whether the example I gave is a good one, I don't know. I'm quite happy to stick to the abstract discussion of whether risk should be a factor. As I said, I believe it should.

I also believe that if two jobs are exactly the same, except one is "dirtier" than the other, the "dirtier" one should get more.
 

Rich OC

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,077
Website
www.twitter.com
I posted the following in another thread.
====
The same could be said about how feminists respond to suggestions that situations are unfair.

Nobody necessarily has a monopoly on understanding society. Different views need to be expressed.

Different views are not being expressed in the 3-D world on gender issues.
In some cases, because people have been encouraged, through the educations system, to see society in one way (that there are no disadvantages that men face).

And also because discussion on gender issues tends to be stifled in the 3-D world.

To take an example of what problems there could be in how discussions are framed:
It is simplistic to say that for example on average pay rates on different between men and women and to assume that means there is discrimination. It might mean or it might not mean there is discrimination - one has to look at other factors to see whether they might explain the difference.

And some of these factors might be the "danger" gap - that men are more likely to take on dangerous work that can lead to death and serious injury. But that "danger" gap isn't highlighted in discussions, people are expected to have discuss pay in a vacuum.

And the "disadvantage" women have, that they are taking home less pay on average is highlighted regularly in society.
The "disadvantage" men have, that they are more likely to be killed and seriously injured at work, isn't highlighted regularly in society.

Also a more important issue than the pay gap might be to look at who gets to spend the money - and it seems women have more spending power than men. But this rarely seems to be discussed - we are supposed to look at the issue in a vacuum.

And I don't think feminists are the best people to bring balance to such a debate or many debates in society.
=====

It was suggested that because the thread was going off-topic and bringing in all sorts of issues, that other threads should probably be set up.
E V I D E N C E

For the record I would rate nursing in an A & E Unit one of the most dangerous jobs in the country, and it is a largely female occupation.
 
Last edited:

belvoboy

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
108
Looking through the list of threads you have started might lead one to suspect that you have gender issues!
So that's how one measures gender issues? Would you say that to a woman poster who studies women's studies or gender studies? That would take up 100s or thousands of hours of their time. I post these threads in my free time now and again. I've been on p.ie for over 5 years and haven't started that many threads.

Part of the reason I post messages like this is that one on p.ie is, to some extent, one is not that free to discuss gender issues in the 3-D world (if one is challenging feminist dogma). Often the man is played rather than the ball. I prefer abstract discussions where the issues are stuck with rather than playing the man.
 

belvoboy

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
108
E V I D E N C E
One example would be the huge gender difference in death and serious injury rates at work. In Ireland, we don't have exact figures but one can tell by the sectors it's mostly men.
[Aside: It is rather odd how much information is analysed by gender in Ireland but when releasing the figures for deaths, they don't give a gender breakdown. I went to an annual report one year and it had quite detailed information about the sectors and perhaps even the individual deaths (it's a few years now) but for some reason didn't give the gender]

So given an hypothetically perfect situation where there are two jobs that are exactly the same, except one is riskier than the other, would you think it is fair than the riskier one got more pay? That is one of the points I'm making. Whether everyone agrees, I don't know.
 

belvoboy

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
108
nursing in an A & E Unit
Under the case I make, I think it would be reasonable to pay such a nurse more than somebody who was doing a comparable nursing job without the same element of risk.
 

Malboury

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
369
As I think someone already said, as long as people are getting paid the same amount for the same work, gender shouldn't come into it. If they aren't, then we should look into it. Furthermore, if it's found that women are being paid on average less than men, we should look into that too, and take either social or economic action to limit it. It should be noted that women have, throughout history, often worked in far more dangerous work than men. There's the old truism, of course, that most accidents occur in the home, the traditional workplace of married women. Not to mention, of course, the horrendous working conditions many women found themselves in during the industrial revolution; for example, the women's matchmaking strike of 1888.
London matchgirls strike of 1888 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Women were employed, as most men could find better paying, safer work. While making matches from white phosphorous, many women found the fumes caused their jaws to begin to abscess and swell, and eventually rot off. Affected bone tissue would glow in the dark, and brain damage was also a symptom. This is at least as dangerous as pretty much any job anyone could have these days.

Of course times have changed, I only mention this as a means of pointing out that I wouldn't just assume that men in general are more likely to suffer an accident at work than women. It might well be true, and may even have some relevance to gender related pay issues, as you say in the OP. But such a consideration would have to be backed up by stats.

Anyway, that's all. Goodnight all!

-Mal
 

Electro

Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
91
You are absolutely 100% right. dangerous jobs like the Gardai, A&E nurses etc should be paid more than traditionally well paid jobs like business analysts, stock analysts, executives etc.
Finally you see sense:D
Your logic is so bad it's hard to know where to start.

Then, you are a feminist.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top