DJKillaQueen

That also begs another question as to why some predominently male sectors and in turn some predominently female sectors reamin so.....and in some cases, in spite of employers, careers advisors etc trying to redress the balance.

Football Anti-depressants Clean underwear (!)

I tend to agree that maybe we are talking more about a mother's pay gap, and we are probably talking about mother's descrimination, more than female descrimination per se. In my friends case, her husband was a former Army officer, and now working in IT. She didn't choose to leave....she was slowly forced out from the moment she was pregnant. They took clients away from her. It was quite clear that she no longer was of any value to them. Try then get a job in that sector whilst pregnant.....or with a newly born child. Even with a stay at home dad, that prejudice doesn't disappear. I don't personally accept this idea that women on the whole somehow prevent dad's from taking more of a role in caring for children (except where there is a spearation in effect of course). There are many families where both parents work full time, because they have to and all the research shows it is still at least two thirds of women doing the childcare duties too. For me there has to be a fundanemtal shift in attitudes, with the onus more on men, than it is women. And LM is absolutely right - how do you prove you were descriminated against because you are a woamn of child bearing age? (even if you wire yourself up with covert mic for the interviews).

But differentials in pay are common and technically legal where contract based work is in place. And this definitely is the case in higher paid employment. Women are not as sucessful as men in negotiating pay and an employer will often get a skilled female worker for a cheaper price than a man. If you want evidence of this...just look at how many jobs don't advertise a salary.....it's always negotiable! Where I do agree with you though is that it's not clear cut. It's complex and some sectors do very well and others need a big kick up the ***. And it does seem to be the corporate sectors that are the worst offenders.

Higher male unemployment figures have more to do with other things as well. A lot of non working women are invisible to unemployment stats because as married women they are not counted as claimants. The unemployed husband being the family claimant. I don't know how many of those unemployed men are claiming for a family (I'll see if I can find a stat on that) but it will show the gap is not as wide as the fgiures suggest if we are literally talking about adults (male or female) not in employment.

We crossed posts then Loz...the point you make on the surface seems to explain everything, it doesn't quite. The kinds of jobs young people are doing are often menial. You are not finding graduates in this age group on anything but the first rung of a long ladder either. You won't find a lad working at McDonalds being paid more than a lassie doing the same job. The pay gap issue doesn't effect this group in many repspects because of the type of jobs they are doing. And this I think partly expalins why even in Sweden you still see a pay gap in older groups. Descrimination against women and pregnancy is a real issue. It is illegal to decriminate on those grounds but time and time again women are asked in interviews regarding family plans. No man would ever be asked this. And it is worse in high flying jobs. I have a friend. She qualified as a corporate lawyer...was taken on by a firm and continued studies whilst taking clients for the firm. At the of 29 she got married and fell pregnant. The firm stopped feeding clients to her and in the end she left. Took a couple of years out and then when trying to regain employment couldn't get anywhere. This women is bright, highly qualifed, but frozen out because she started a family. And until some meaningful legislation comes about to force the attitude of male driven institutions to change, you never will see the pay gap disappear, nor will you see the gender balance within the higher earning sector redressed either.

Loz the pay gap measurements are based on payscales for like for like jobs and they have nothing to do with those not in employment. There are lots of stats on this. It is being constantly measured and women on average, in high earning jobs, ask for 4k less in salary when negotiating contracts, than their male counterparts. Measurements of meridian or mean annual salaries do on the other hand have lot's of mitigating explanations. That does not however take away from the fact that women are still paid less in some jobs than men doing the same job (although that gap is slowly improving) nor does it take away the likely hood by 4-1 that a man will get the high earning job rather than a woman (and there is definite evidence that descriminatory employment attitudes to women - and children - play a part in this).

Men are three times more likely to earn six figure salaries than women Again from the National office of statistics (although these stats are a year old) Median earnings of full-time male employees were ?538 per week in April 2010; for women the median was ?439. The difference between the median level of full-time earnings in the public sector (?554 per week) and the private sector (?473 per week) widened over the year to April 2010, following annual increases of 3.0 per cent and 2.0 per cent respectively. I would argue that year on year guaranteeed pay rises have facilitated this along with the types of skilled jobs that were created within the public sector over the last decade.

Did someone ask for stats? It's easy to find stats on employment and gender. The stats for the Labour market are updated every three months. c/o office for national statistics as of may 2011.... The number of men claiming JSA increased by 11,100 to reach 1.01 million and the number of women claimants increased by 8,500 to reach 483,700 In the previous three month period, the number of people employed in the public sector fell by 24,000 over the quarter to reach 6.16 million but the number of people employed in the private sector increased by 104,000 over the quarter to reach 23.08 million. I don;t know if he those jobs lost gained are full or part time though. Four in ten of all working women work in the public sector...so most women who work, do so in the private sector. It was recently announced that public sector salries are now on average higher than private sector salaries - for the first time ever. With regards to the gender pay gap.....the most recent measurements say the following The full-time gender pay gap (as measured by the median hourly pay excluding overtime from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings) narrowed by two percentage points between 2009 and 2010. For full-time employees the pay gap is 10.2 per cent, down from 12.2 per cent in 2009. This is the biggest fall in the gender pay gap since the measure was first produced using the ASHE methodology in 1997. For part-time employees the gap has widened in favour of women, extending to minus 4.0 per cent, compared with minus 2.5 per cent in 2009. The gender pay gap for all employees has decreased to 19.8 per cent from 22.0 per cent in 2009. This is the largest movement since 1997. In April 2010 hourly rates for men were ?13.01 for full-timers, ?7.69 for part-timers and ?12.35 for all employees. For women, hourly rates were ?11.68 for full-timers, ?8.00 for part-timers and ?9.90 for all employees. Women?s full-time earnings increased more across the bottom 10 per cent of the distribution than men?s, with growth of 1.8 per cent compared with 0.8 per cent for their male counterparts. The hourly earnings of the top 10 per cent grew by 0.8 per cent and 2.1 per cent for men and women respectively. The scale and direction of the gender pay gap varies according to age. For instance in the 22?29 age group, full-time women earned 2.1 per cent more than full-time men and part-time women earned 1.7 per cent more than part-time men. The largest pay gaps in favour of men for full-time and part-time employees were in the 50?59 age group at 17.0 per cent and 17.4 per cent respectively. The largest pay gap for all employees, 27.4 per cent, was seen in both the 40?49 and 50?59 age groups. The gender pay gap in the public sector was 10.0 per cent for full-timers, 20.6 per cent for part-timers and 19.2 per cent for all employees. In the private sector, the pay gap was 19.8 per cent for full-timers, -2.0 per cent for part-timers and 27.5 per cent for all employees. The widest pay differences by major occupation groups for full-time and all employees are seen in the Skilled Trades, where the gap ranges from 31.4 per cent to 26.0 per cent. The narrowest pay differences for full-time and all employees are in Professional occupations where the gap ranges from 4.2 per cent to 1.6 per cent. Calculated using the mean rather than the median, women?s hourly pay was 15.5 per cent less than men's pay for full-time employees, 11.7 per cent less than men?s pay for part-time employees and 19.3 per cent less for all employees. These are all below the mean pay gaps for full-time, part-time and all employees in 2009, which were 16.4 per cent, 11.8 per cent and 20.1 per cent respectively. Although mean and median hourly rates provide useful comparisons between the earnings of men and women, they do not necessarily indicate differences in rates of pay for comparable jobs. Pay averages are affected by the different work patterns of men and women, such as the proportions in different occupations, their length of time in jobs, and whether they work full-time or part-time.

I totally accept that change was required...but you ignore my point that the people most affected were left out to dry...and that unfortunately was mostly the north. And there was and still is a pervading belief (even though it has been shown not to be the case time and time again) that the free market takes care of everytihng. There was no real effort to address that mass localised unemployment (and the only cabinet member at the time who seemed to give a damn was Michael Hesaltine). New Labour did a little better, but still...if you look at unemployment figures for JSA and Income Support claimants you'll see the highest levels of male unemployment to be in the NW and NE. There is absolutely no reason why these areas can't have vibrant economies.

wrecking hundreds of thousands of lives and condemning families and children to poverty for the rest of their lives. See this for me is the real issue. Economies evolve and the things that economies produce/ rely on, change. No country is an island in a global market. But governments do have a responsibility to at least try and generate some meaningful alternative. This idea that the free market takes care of everything is a myth. There was without quesion a lack of interest, and I would say from some quarters, complete disdain, for those left out of work by the policies of the Thatcher government (which predominently ravaged the North and the Midlands). It was a very sad thing to witness.

There's no doubting that coal mining had become unprofitable in the UK, nor that Scargill took the opportunity to vent all out war on the government for militant reasons, nor that the response from the government and Police was heavy handed. With those three things in the mix there was never any hope of downsizing and looking for ways of saving some pits and making them profitable, through meaningful negotiation. My father was a shop steward for the transport workers union at the time and he was scathing of Scargill's approach. He could see it was going to achieve nothing and make the outcome far worse. When his own sector come up for deregulation and privatisation, instead of supporting millitant all out defiance (that was doomed to fail, and for which he was beaten up by the thugs that seemed to dominate this area of union thinking) he instead focused on negotiating the best redundancy/ early retirement deals for those jobs that were inevitably going to be lost and negotiating the best safeguards he could for those employees that would be staying. Unions can be both good and bad for business. It really does depend on who runs them and what they see their role as a union to be.

There is research that shows in some people who experience trauma, the brain turns the traumatic experience into fantasy. I suspect that with Miss Chong this is exactly what happened. The rape would have been traumatic at the time but psychologically that trauma became relived as as some kind of pleasurable experience. It's not of course a healthy reconciliation but it does seem to be one way in which some people recover.

Decriminalising homosexuality and teaching children that homosexual relationships aren't real were obviously different things to Thatcher then. I don't know what's worse, someone that is completely homophobic (or racist or whatever) or someone that says, I'm not against gays per se BUT......(don't want any discussion of the subject in our schools). Clause 28 did happen. It was a bill brought by the Thatcher government. Just because Thatcher voted for the decriminalisation of homosexuality doesn't dilute how stupid, descrimantory and harmful to young gay people that bill was.

What has being able to turn on a computer got to do with parenting? And I referenced the fatherhood institute for a reason, because they are the most pro father research group out there and make a very good arguement as to why more fathers aren't as involved with their children as mothers. It's sensible well researched stuff. By the way they say that it has taken 30 years to get to one third from just 3% so in other words around two generations. They also make the point that most men still see themselves as the primary provider (by working) which also reflects little shift in that traditional stereotype even though in increasing numbers of families both parents work. They also make very good points, based on reasearch as to the importance of a fathers involvement in the early years of a childs life. Some of you may think that the leafy world of ED mirrors the rest of the country, but I'm afraid it doesn't. All the research concludes that men and women on the whole still have traditioanl (and I would agree outdated) views of the role each plays within family units. With regards to the courts, did I not start out by saying the system is not perfect? And that where all things are EQUAL (so that's not where father has been stay at home day and mum then gets custody) that the court is right to place preference with the mother for the reasons I stated above. Most women would get that. Most men don't of course. I do wish sometimes people would read posts properly instead of jumping on singular points and then taking them out of context. It's just my view at the end of the day and this is just a forum. MP I have no time for posts that have no substance but seem intent only on personal insult - and you are better than that. Anyway if you only want a forum where everyone agrees then you got it. I won't be posting anymore except in my footy thread. I've had enough of childish people and bullies from this forum over recent weeks.

Well unfortunately it's not a caricature. Even the fatherhood institute themselves admit that two thirds of fathers are not involved in the childcare of their own children on anything like an equal par of the mothers. Hmm so that's most fathers then is it not?

Atticus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How does any of that explain why 'is a bit late > now to start arguing the opposite'? Because I'm making the point that when it comes to who does the bulk of childcare within most families very little has changed. If men want the law to consider them on an equal par to women (all other things being equal) then they need to see the role of childcare within the family unit as one of equality too. Truth is that most men still struggle even to change a nappy let alone cook meals and take the kids to school and everything else.

Habits that I kept from my childhood......hmmm.......how long have you got?

The Pankhursts are a poor analogy.....suffrage was about democratic equality amongst other things. Nature has other ideas on some things though. Just as, on the whole, nature makes men physically stronger (a difference that affects the type of work some women can do) it also makes women childbearers, something men can not physically do. You may want to accuse me of betraying the cause of feminism but the reality is that in most families it is still the mother that washes, clothes, feeds, shops for and does just about everything else on a day to day level for their children. This is true accross all classes.

I did say where there was no reason to deny custody which means both parents being suitable. It's not sexual descrimination to say that the the person that gives birth has more right where all else is equal. Men can't get pregnant. That is a biological fact. And one that gives, in the view of most women, them ownership of their children in a way that men can never claim. Of course there are bad mothers and children do get placed with fathers where that is the case. The question of civil partnership is an interesting one, esp (if we are talking about women) where one partner is a surrogate for the other's egg. Don't know what view the law would take of that.

But the problem in all this is that when two people seperate...only one can have main custody. The mother gave birth to the children. Men will never be able to equal that fact. To me it's a no brainer that where two parents, and where there is no valid reason to deny custody to the mother, that the mother is given the main custody.

I won't pretend the system is perfect...it's clearly not but it is the mother that carries and gives birth to children. It's that bond that gives the mother more right under the law over the father. For centuries women have been subjegated to the role of mother - it's a bit late now to start arguing the opposite. What I would say though is that the courts need more power to enforce access rights where they are denied by infringement of a previously granted order. But what has to be remembered is that the people in the middle of all this are the children. The law is perfectly aware that they can not be tossed from pillar to post while parents act out their hatred for each other. That is why main custody is always granted to one parent, so that the children have a stable main home, they go to school etc. Access rights around that are always going to be limited, especially where it has required a court to impose them on an unwilling parent. And unless there are specific reasons that say otherwise that main custody will go to the mother....and rightly so imo. Edited to say that Cameron's statement was not only poorly timed but also poorly conceived.

Very good post James.

It depends on who the man in the street is though. Sometimes the man in the street is justified in his view because his position truly is at the mercy of other's greed or privilege (if you see what I mean). But in the current era, many of 'the man on the street' have benefited from cheap credit and yet fail to see how they are part of the circle that facilitated the recent banking crisis. So it becomes a deflection of responsibility, because as the man on the street they didn't make the millions of the few running the show from the top. So in that context I partly agree with H.

I'm going for the tragic inferiority complex explanation H :)