The so-called gender pay gap is not a thing and not taken seriously at all.
Choosing not to work does generally lead to "pay gaps" lol
Is chess anti feminist?
Sort:
Feb 18, 2023
0
#23
Problem5826 wrote:
The so-called gender pay gap is not a thing and not taken seriously at all.
Choosing not to work does generally lead to "pay gaps" lol
What world do you live in? Of course it does. Please note - the gender pay gap is not a woman being paid less for doing the same job as a man when she has the same qualifications and experience - that's sex discrimination and is illegal in both your country and mine - it's the difference in average pay across organisations, industries and the workforce as a whole. And has a lot to do with the fact that they are still largely responsible for child bearing and raising - the time away from paid employment has a material effect on their career progression and corresponding pay that they can earn. As well as the fact that the sectors where more women than men can be found - like nursing and teaching and cleaning - have lower average pay than other sectors. For example, seehttps://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/why-the-30-per-cent-pay-gap-between-men-and-women-needs-to-be-closed/news-story/92132d0024182880374b3f836af39a8c - and that's from a Rupert Murdoch owned media corporation, not a leftie liberal rag like the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/06/uk-gender-pay-gap-women-paid-90p-for-1-earned-by-men
David wrote:
Problem5826 wrote:
The so-called gender pay gap is not a thing and not taken seriously at all.
Choosing not to work does generally lead to "pay gaps" lol
What world do you live in? Of course it does. Please note - the gender pay gap is not a woman being paid less for doing the same job as a man when she has the same qualifications and experience - that's sex discrimination and is illegal in both your country and mine - it's the difference in average pay across organisations, industries and the workforce as a whole. And has a lot to do with the fact that they are still largely responsible for child bearing and raising - the time away from paid employment has a material effect on their career progression and corresponding pay that they can earn.
Again, choosing not to work does generally lead to so-called "pay gaps".
I'm guessing you want people who work to pay more for those who choose other things.
CaracticusPotts wrote:
Aren’t misogynists funny?🤣
Male feminist confirmed.
Feb 18, 2023
0
#26
Problem5826 wrote:
Again, choosing not to work does generally lead to so-called "pay gaps".
I'm guessing you want people who work to pay more for those who choose other things.
That you call caring for children "choosing not to work" says a lot about your attitude towards women and children.
I'm wanting ways of encouraging women back into the workforce - better funding and support for early education, for example - and for organisations to become more flexible in their working arrangements to better support anyone who is raising a family.
i wouldnt say it is anti feminist, because men are simply better than women. There would be no point to making WGM 2500 if only 5 people will have it.
Feb 18, 2023
0
#28
Problem5826 wrote:
How many women even want their men to be house husbands?
The ones I know look down on it.
That obviously because the women you know have bought into your premise that house and home are effeminate jobs and that a house husband is therefore an emasculated beta.
Or someone who can't get a job and actually still leaves the bulk of the housework to his missus to do after she's done her days' work.
David wrote:
Problem5826 wrote:
Again, choosing not to work does generally lead to so-called "pay gaps".
I'm guessing you want people who work to pay more for those who choose other things.
That you call caring for children "choosing not to work" says a lot about your attitude towards women and children.
I'm wanting ways of encouraging women back into the workforce - better funding and support for early education, for example - and for organisations to become more flexible in their working arrangements to better support anyone who is raising a family.
You think that other people should pay for your childcare.
David wrote:
Problem5826 wrote:
How many women even want their men to be house husbands?
The ones I know look down on it.
That obviously because the women you know have bought into your premise that house and home are effeminate jobs and that a house husband is therefore an emasculated beta.
Or someone who can't get a job and actually still leaves the bulk of the housework to his missus to do after she's done her days' work.
They find house husbands utterly repulsive on a guttural/visceral level.
CaracticusPotts wrote:
Oh look Jacob Rees-Mogg is alive and well on this thread.🤣
The male feminist is trying to call someone a nerd. Brilliant.
Problem5826 wrote:
They find house husbands utterly repulsive on a guttural/visceral level.
Ummm, you're a guy that apparently thinks smoking is still cool, so...not sure you really know what the majority of women think these days, but have fun down at the pub 
.
Again get rid of WGM vs GM cuz gender doesnt influence intelectual ability to the least. The very concept itself is sexist against both women and men
CanElvisKingMate wrote:
The points of my comments revolved around titles being the issue to reflect levels of play, not levels of pay. Bringing up house responsibilities is the job of BOTH men and women. That is for them to sort it out. In order to assess what women should be paid we have to look at qualifications. Most likely, it isn't that women should be paid more it's that men should be paid maybe less. If they had a monopoly on this for decades/centuries, other variables would be used to calculate pay. We should look at pay across the board. This shouldn't resolve to a matter of "catching up" with another group.
The misogyny comments refer to a real issue, and I see both men and women exploiting it. How can you blame only men when you see Youtube thumbnails like this one?
Yeah, the whole "men get sexually assaulted, too, it's both sides" argument doesn't really work. Systemic sexism and racism do exist. There is a need to "catch up". So, it's going to keep happening. Best get used to it.
No.
CanElvisKingMate wrote:
That statement was never made. You made it and then tried to win an imaginary strawman.
It's something called an analogy. You'll figure it out.
Saying that a problem exists equally on both sides when it's is heavily tilting in one direction is willfully misleading. You know, like you culling the parts of my post you could not contest. You shouldn't have bothered watching "The Red Pill" .
It's mostly because women are socially discouraged from things like chess from an early age, and so fewer of them who might be better at chess because of things like spatial awareness end up getting into chess, especially at high levels. When we fix the underlying social problems, terms like WGM will hopefully vanish, but until then we're stuck with this. Doesn't mean it's currently good, but it at least has some justification.
magipi wrote:
I don't understand why chess.com moderators don't close obvious troll topics (like this one). Come on, mods. Do what you need to do.
This is a bad idea
Yes.
Chess is a great game.
Unfortunately by nature of such a game you can't artificially elevate people who are not as capable by means of "equality". Chess if anything proves that people are not equal.
For that reason, if you are liberal you better not look at the race and gender of world chess champions. You won't be happy.
Instead, all that equality communists can do is say "close this thread", because the don't want to see the hard truth.
Chess is a great game.
No