Gender Pay gap Govt paying women up to 39% less than they pay men!

Forums › Off topic › Gender Pay gap Govt paying women up to 39% less than they pay men!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1478901 26-Jan-2016 11:40

gzt:
networkn:

gzt:
Geektastic:

The biggest downside is that we will eventually end up reducing the effectiveness of companies and their management because either officially or by 'Twitter pressure' companies will be expected to have "x" amount of women in various positions and will give them those jobs over better qualified men simply to be able to say that they have the right number of women.

OH has seen this in banks already, citing one example where the new female Director of HR had zero experience working in HR, no HR qualifications whatsoever but because they had managed a few branches and "it will look better" she got the job and was making a fairly poor fist of it as a result of not having much idea about what it should actually entail.

I will generously assume all the above is true. In this case, it is almost certain that a better-qualified woman with more experience missed out on the position.

On what base of facts are you making this claim?

The fact there are many many very experienced and very qualified women working in HR.

Except you have no evidence to support your claim? You weren't present at the interviews and didn't see the candidates.

Making comments like you did is just fueling emotion not doing anything to support the argument in either position.

TheMantis

142 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 90
Inactive user

#1478918 26-Jan-2016 12:04

Geektastic:

The biggest downside is that we will eventually end up reducing the effectiveness of companies and their management because either officially or by 'Twitter pressure' companies will be expected to have "x" amount of women in various positions and will give them those jobs over better qualified men simply to be able to say that they have the right number of women.

You mean like how the Defence Force and Police have had a recent surge in women being appointed to high positions. My experience has highlighted quite a few instances of this occurring. That's not to say that those appointed won't/don't do a good job but through political machinations they have leapfrogged males who were more suitable. These appointees then get paraded around as an example of how fair and integrated the organistation is. I don't care who does the job but they need to be the best person for the job.

Incidentally, in this organistation the majority of staff were not legally permitted to negotiate employment conditions. For the remainder they could negotiate within the identified salary band but it was well known that the organisation had an informal policy to stonewall reasonable negotiation. Regardless of gender.

bcourtney

652 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 27

Trusted

#1478927 26-Jan-2016 12:16

This is a train wreck of a thread. Some almost unbelievable opinions of people that haven't realised what is acceptable to say in a public moderated forum outside of the 1950's.

Sad is the fact that there are commenters whose opinions I've once held in high regard on this site that I will no longer. However more horrific is the fact that this thread hasn't been shut down by moderators to this point.

Gender inequality is rampant in all facets of our society and quite probably none more so than in IT. It's a damn shame and hopefully things will be a lot more balanced when my daughter grows up and is trying to forge a career for herself. Putting barriers, whether deliberate, perceived, inherent, or "because that's the way we've always done it", in front of anyone trying to make a good go at life should be widely recognised as antisocial in this day and age.

I'm all for hiring based on skill-set rather than meeting a gender quota, but in a time when we're trying to change attitudes I can also see the benefits in taking a punt on someone who hasn't been afforded the benefits of the next person in their life path simply because they weren't born with the "right" coloured skin, the "right" gender, the "right" sexual orientation, the "right" socio-economic group etc.

I'd love to see a lot more done at a schooling level to help drum in to all students, whether that male or female, that there are no "man" careers or "lady" careers. My daughter can be a lawyer or a mechanic or an IT consultant or a Fortune 500 CEO or a builder or a plumber and she needs to be in a society where nobody even thinks twice as to telling her that she can't do any of those things as they're "man" jobs. In the same breath, I'd love for my son to live in a society such that if he chooses to work in a field previously, and incorrectly, associated as being a female field of work, that he also comes up against no sources of protest.

Life is a finite group of heartbeats and having to waste some of those dealing with proving "The Old Boys Club" wrong is a sad reflection of the society we have built for ourselves.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1478953 26-Jan-2016 12:57

bcourtney:

This is a train wreck of a thread. Some almost unbelievable opinions of people that haven't realised what is acceptable to say in a public moderated forum outside of the 1950's.

Sad is the fact that there are commenters whose opinions I've once held in high regard on this site that I will no longer. However more horrific is the fact that this thread hasn't been shut down by moderators to this point.

Gender inequality is rampant in all facets of our society and quite probably none more so than in IT. It's a damn shame and hopefully things will be a lot more balanced when my daughter grows up and is trying to forge a career for herself. Putting barriers, whether deliberate, perceived, inherent, or "because that's the way we've always done it", in front of anyone trying to make a good go at life should be widely recognised as antisocial in this day and age.

I'm all for hiring based on skill-set rather than meeting a gender quota, but in a time when we're trying to change attitudes I can also see the benefits in taking a punt on someone who hasn't been afforded the benefits of the next person in their life path simply because they weren't born with the "right" coloured skin, the "right" gender, the "right" sexual orientation, the "right" socio-economic group etc.

I'd love to see a lot more done at a schooling level to help drum in to all students, whether that male or female, that there are no "man" careers or "lady" careers. My daughter can be a lawyer or a mechanic or an IT consultant or a Fortune 500 CEO or a builder or a plumber and she needs to be in a society where nobody even thinks twice as to telling her that she can't do any of those things as they're "man" jobs. In the same breath, I'd love for my son to live in a society such that if he chooses to work in a field previously, and incorrectly, associated as being a female field of work, that he also comes up against no sources of protest.

Life is a finite group of heartbeats and having to waste some of those dealing with proving "The Old Boys Club" wrong is a sad reflection of the society we have built for ourselves.

Sorry but we do not have "acceptable" ideas and "unacceptable ideas". You are free to disagree with any particular pov but you cannot simply shut down the ones you feel do not happen to coincide with some ethereal idea of 'acceptability'.

I find socialism unacceptable but people are allowed to be wrong.

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#1478967 26-Jan-2016 13:09

A slightly different perspective. We all earn what we (individually or collectively) accept to earn.

When I have ever started a job there has been a negotiation about my rate of pay. I have accepted (by accepting employment) the outcome of that negotiation. Each year my salary has been reviewed. Each year I have accepted (by staying) the outcome of that review. To be fair I'm in an OK negotiating position. If I wasn't I would join a union and pay them money every payday to negotiate a good pay rate for me.

Often where female dominated professions are low paid, there are collective employment agreements in place. Examples include primary teaching, nursing and working for spotless. I don't believe that any collective agreements provide for males to earn more than females.

So when a union says "our [largely] female members are under paid" they are to some extent actually critiquing their own negotiating performance as a union.

The other common factor for poor pay seems to be working in a large profession that is to a substantial extent government funded. If that happens, your sector is probably underfunded and probably underpaid. Consequently nurses, primary teachers, elder carers (mostly female) are all paid low. So are soldiers and fire fighters (mostly male).

It's a gender issue to the extent that many women choose to enter a profession that have been overpaid for twenty years, but it isn't discrimination.

A comparable (and arguably more serious) gender issue is dangerous work. Why are dangerous jobs (construction, farming, mining, forestry) male dominated? Surely there is some form of societal discrimination that considers men expendable? Or do more men just choose to enter dangerous professions.

Mike

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1478978 26-Jan-2016 13:19

MikeAqua:

A slightly different perspective. We all earn what we (individually or collectively) accept to earn.

When I have ever started a job there has been a negotiation about my rate of pay. I have accepted (by accepting employment) the outcome of that negotiation. Each year my salary has been reviewed. Each year I have accepted (by staying) the outcome of that review. To be fair I'm in an OK negotiating position. If I wasn't I would join a union and pay them money every payday to negotiate a good pay rate for me.

Often where female dominated professions are low paid, there are collective employment agreements in place. Examples include primary teaching, nursing and working for spotless. I don't believe that any collective agreements provide for males to earn more than females.

So when a union says "our [largely] female members are under paid" they are to some extent actually critiquing their own negotiating performance as a union.

The other common factor for poor pay seems to be working in a large profession that is to a substantial extent government funded. If that happens, your sector is probably underfunded and probably underpaid. Consequently nurses, primary teachers, elder carers (mostly female) are all paid low. So are soldiers and fire fighters (mostly male).

It's a gender issue to the extent that many women choose to enter a profession that have been overpaid for twenty years, but it isn't discrimination.

A comparable (and arguably more serious) gender issue is dangerous work. Why are dangerous jobs (construction, farming, mining, forestry) male dominated? Surely there is some form of societal discrimination that considers men expendable? Or do more men just choose to enter dangerous professions.

Absolutely. Well put.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1479010 26-Jan-2016 13:32

MikeAqua:

A slightly different perspective. We all earn what we (individually or collectively) accept to earn.

When I have ever started a job there has been a negotiation about my rate of pay. I have accepted (by accepting employment) the outcome of that negotiation. Each year my salary has been reviewed. Each year I have accepted (by staying) the outcome of that review. To be fair I'm in an OK negotiating position. If I wasn't I would join a union and pay them money every payday to negotiate a good pay rate for me.

Often where female dominated professions are low paid, there are collective employment agreements in place. Examples include primary teaching, nursing and working for spotless. I don't believe that any collective agreements provide for males to earn more than females.

So when a union says "our [largely] female members are under paid" they are to some extent actually critiquing their own negotiating performance as a union.

The other common factor for poor pay seems to be working in a large profession that is to a substantial extent government funded. If that happens, your sector is probably underfunded and probably underpaid. Consequently nurses, primary teachers, elder carers (mostly female) are all paid low. So are soldiers and fire fighters (mostly male).

It's a gender issue to the extent that many women choose to enter a profession that have been overpaid for twenty years, but it isn't discrimination.

A comparable (and arguably more serious) gender issue is dangerous work. Why are dangerous jobs (construction, farming, mining, forestry) male dominated? Surely there is some form of societal discrimination that considers men expendable? Or do more men just choose to enter dangerous professions.

I think this is a great post, well thought out, and communicated.

I don't think there is the same level of issue with sexism and gender equality in NZ as there used to be. I think it's still present, but I disagree that it's as widely problematic as it's made out to be. I think most situations with pay differences are multifactorial and whilst I'd consider myself an old fashioned person for my ideas and principals, I wouldn't deliberately pay a woman in the same role, less than the man in the same role.

Like it on or, in the majority of cases, men are stronger and physically abler than women. This is why they are in more dangerous roles more frequently.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1479020 26-Jan-2016 13:45

bcourtney:

This is a train wreck of a thread. Some almost unbelievable opinions of people that haven't realised what is acceptable to say in a public moderated forum outside of the 1950's.

Sad is the fact that there are commenters whose opinions I've once held in high regard on this site that I will no longer. However more horrific is the fact that this thread hasn't been shut down by moderators to this point.

Gender inequality is rampant in all facets of our society and quite probably none more so than in IT. It's a damn shame and hopefully things will be a lot more balanced when my daughter grows up and is trying to forge a career for herself. Putting barriers, whether deliberate, perceived, inherent, or "because that's the way we've always done it", in front of anyone trying to make a good go at life should be widely recognised as antisocial in this day and age.

I'm all for hiring based on skill-set rather than meeting a gender quota, but in a time when we're trying to change attitudes I can also see the benefits in taking a punt on someone who hasn't been afforded the benefits of the next person in their life path simply because they weren't born with the "right" coloured skin, the "right" gender, the "right" sexual orientation, the "right" socio-economic group etc.

I'd love to see a lot more done at a schooling level to help drum in to all students, whether that male or female, that there are no "man" careers or "lady" careers. My daughter can be a lawyer or a mechanic or an IT consultant or a Fortune 500 CEO or a builder or a plumber and she needs to be in a society where nobody even thinks twice as to telling her that she can't do any of those things as they're "man" jobs. In the same breath, I'd love for my son to live in a society such that if he chooses to work in a field previously, and incorrectly, associated as being a female field of work, that he also comes up against no sources of protest.

Life is a finite group of heartbeats and having to waste some of those dealing with proving "The Old Boys Club" wrong is a sad reflection of the society we have built for ourselves.

It hasn't been shut down because it breaches no part of the FUG. We are obviously reading different threads, as I don't see the issues you are stating (At least to the same degree). I think perhaps calm down and re-read the posts without all the emotion and see if you feel the same way. (I know that sounds a litle patronizing but I can genuinely assure you it's not intended to be this way).

Topics like this can be very emotive, it's why when I make threads like this, I remind people to be logical instead of emotional.

Obviously, this thread is distressing you, and that's fine, but maybe do what some of the others in the thread have done and unsubscribe from it.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41090

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1479054 26-Jan-2016 14:29

bcourtney: This is a train wreck of a thread. Some almost unbelievable opinions of people that haven't realised what is acceptable to say in a public moderated forum outside of the 1950's.

People have the right to say it even if it's exactly the opposite view of yours.

bcourtney: However more horrific is the fact that this thread hasn't been shut down by moderators to this point.

Why would we? We're not in the business of censoring ideas and providing comments don't break the FUG there isn't a reason to shutdown the thread.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

TwoSeven

1712 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 304

Subscriber

#1479194 26-Jan-2016 17:28

MikeAqua:

A slightly different perspective. We all earn what we (individually or collectively) accept to earn.

When I have ever started a job there has been a negotiation about my rate of pay. I have accepted (by accepting employment) the outcome of that negotiation. Each year my salary has been reviewed. Each year I have accepted (by staying) the outcome of that review. To be fair I'm in an OK negotiating position. If I wasn't I would join a union and pay them money every payday to negotiate a good pay rate for me.

Often where female dominated professions are low paid, there are collective employment agreements in place. Examples include primary teaching, nursing and working for spotless. I don't believe that any collective agreements provide for males to earn more than females.

So when a union says "our [largely] female members are under paid" they are to some extent actually critiquing their own negotiating performance as a union.

The other common factor for poor pay seems to be working in a large profession that is to a substantial extent government funded. If that happens, your sector is probably underfunded and probably underpaid. Consequently nurses, primary teachers, elder carers (mostly female) are all paid low. So are soldiers and fire fighters (mostly male).

It's a gender issue to the extent that many women choose to enter a profession that have been overpaid for twenty years, but it isn't discrimination.

A comparable (and arguably more serious) gender issue is dangerous work. Why are dangerous jobs (construction, farming, mining, forestry) male dominated? Surely there is some form of societal discrimination that considers men expendable? Or do more men just choose to enter dangerous professions.

There are a couple of points made here and in another post that I find interesting. The phrase "in female dominated professions" is one of them. To me it highlights an issue of over-representation based on gender. The first point - where a position is traditionally female or male dominated' is the point being made by gender equality. The stigma that a job or sport can only be. or is normally done by a specific gender (called gender bias) could be considered one of the factors that creates gender inequality. The second point, that the stigma is created because people often reinforce common beliefs, perceptions and stereotypes of how people should act based on their gender - only a bloke can be a fireman, only a woman can be a nurse etc. These stereotypes often start at an early age and the affect can be that the person might not consider being able to do anything else.

As pointed out in another post - a person should be able to participate in a way that is not based on their gender - what professions, hobbies or sports someone does should not depend on them being male or female - this is what is meant by equal rights, opportunities and responsibilities. One of the things that can occur with gender inequality is that people may lose out on opportunities because of perceptions about gender - for example, someone might not get asked to a meeting, or might miss out on a training course, or not be told about an opportunity to apply for a promotion or offered a particular job - over time, these missed opportunities and responsibilities add up and can lead to glass ceilings in some industries. Often people (both male or female) miss out on opportunities because the culture of inequality puts pressure on them not learn about a profession in the first place - an example could be women working in STEM subjects such as engineering compared to health sciences.

Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
A.I. (Automation rebranded)
Gender Neutral
(a person who believes in equality and who does not believe in/use stereotypes. Examples such as gender, binary, nonbinary, male/female etc.)

...they/their/them...

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#1479293 26-Jan-2016 19:13

bcourtney:

This is a train wreck of a thread. Some almost unbelievable opinions of people that haven't realised what is acceptable to say in a public moderated forum outside of the 1950's.

Sad is the fact that there are commenters whose opinions I've once held in high regard on this site that I will no longer. However more horrific is the fact that this thread hasn't been shut down by moderators to this point.

[....]

I have stayed out of this thread so far, and don't agree with many comments made - and I suspect these are pretty much they same ones that you don't agree with.

But your comment annoys me. You seem to think that no one has a right to express a comment or a point of view that you personally find unacceptable, and that any thread you find contradicts your view of acceptable views should be shut down forthwith. I reject that outright, the freedom to state and discuss ideas and points of view is fundamental to a free society. To use the quote often (and erroneously) attributed to Voltaire "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Back on topic, the gender gap quoted makes for a nice headline and "robust" discussion. But without a detailed understanding of how the measures have been computed and what adjustments have (or haven't) been made etc, it's difficult to have a view on it. Particularly given the lamentable state of reporting and lack of analysis that seems to drive news in NZ now. I would need to be confident that the gap quoted was actually real, not wholly or partially due to the way the data had been analysed, and that apples were indeed being compared with apples, before I could have a serious view on the result.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

bcourtney

652 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 27

Trusted

#1479313 26-Jan-2016 20:03

Hell I'm all for robust debate and freedom of speech and affording everyone the freedoms to express their own opinion regardless of whether it is the same as mine or not. Perhaps I should have been more specific in my earlier post.

The fact that it would appear to be perfectly acceptable to post and further justify the statement "Personally I preferred it when there were less women in the office but I appreciate that is a lost battle!" is all that is wrong here. And this isn't a direct attack on the user that posted this but perhaps a reflection on what has been an accepted opinion in generations past.

We live in a society where surely these views are generally not accepted and while I agree (having re-read them!) there is no breach of the FUG I am intrigued whether any substitution of the word "women" in the above sentence would be any less acceptable. If so, why? I'm not trying to rehash any past ethnic equality debates or those of gay rights, but I would hope we get to a point in the near future whereby someone doesn't think it is acceptable to state the above about women. Given the responses on page 2 of this thread I guess shows others back this up.

As I stated before, I'm all for hiring based on skill set and do so myself. The change in thinking, and subsequently the narrowing of the gender pay gap, surely has to start earlier in life again as I previously stated.

I can absolutely appreciate the opinions of those that see things differently to my own views in this thread and there's merit in many of them.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1479448 26-Jan-2016 22:45

TheMantis:

Geektastic:

The biggest downside is that we will eventually end up reducing the effectiveness of companies and their management because either officially or by 'Twitter pressure' companies will be expected to have "x" amount of women in various positions and will give them those jobs over better qualified men simply to be able to say that they have the right number of women.

You mean like how the Defence Force and Police have had a recent surge in women being appointed to high positions. My experience has highlighted quite a few instances of this occurring. That's not to say that those appointed won't/don't do a good job but through political machinations they have leapfrogged males who were more suitable. These appointees then get paraded around as an example of how fair and integrated the organistation is. I don't care who does the job but they need to be the best person for the job.

Incidentally, in this organistation the majority of staff were not legally permitted to negotiate employment conditions. For the remainder they could negotiate within the identified salary band but it was well known that the organisation had an informal policy to stonewall reasonable negotiation. Regardless of gender.

I mean exactly that kind of thing, yes.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1479451 26-Jan-2016 22:50

bcourtney: Hell I'm all for robust debate and freedom of speech and affording everyone the freedoms to express their own opinion regardless of whether it is the same as mine or not. Perhaps I should have been more specific in my earlier post.

The fact that it would appear to be perfectly acceptable to post and further justify the statement "Personally I preferred it when there were less women in the office but I appreciate that is a lost battle!" is all that is wrong here. And this isn't a direct attack on the user that posted this but perhaps a reflection on what has been an accepted opinion in generations past.

We live in a society where surely these views are generally not accepted and while I agree (having re-read them!) there is no breach of the FUG I am intrigued whether any substitution of the word "women" in the above sentence would be any less acceptable. If so, why? I'm not trying to rehash any past ethnic equality debates or those of gay rights, but I would hope we get to a point in the near future whereby someone doesn't think it is acceptable to state the above about women. Given the responses on page 2 of this thread I guess shows others back this up.

As I stated before, I'm all for hiring based on skill set and do so myself. The change in thinking, and subsequently the narrowing of the gender pay gap, surely has to start earlier in life again as I previously stated.

I can absolutely appreciate the opinions of those that see things differently to my own views in this thread and there's merit in many of them.

I expressed a personal view that my preferred work environment has more men than women. I do not think that to be any more outrageous than, say, opening a gym that caters only for women or something like that.

I can't imagine a future in which I would not find it 'acceptable' to state views I believed in merely because they might be contentious or differ from the zeitgeist. You could ask Copernicus whether he'd agree with that...

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1479456 26-Jan-2016 23:07

TwoSeven:

MikeAqua:

A slightly different perspective. We all earn what we (individually or collectively) accept to earn.

When I have ever started a job there has been a negotiation about my rate of pay. I have accepted (by accepting employment) the outcome of that negotiation. Each year my salary has been reviewed. Each year I have accepted (by staying) the outcome of that review. To be fair I'm in an OK negotiating position. If I wasn't I would join a union and pay them money every payday to negotiate a good pay rate for me.

Often where female dominated professions are low paid, there are collective employment agreements in place. Examples include primary teaching, nursing and working for spotless. I don't believe that any collective agreements provide for males to earn more than females.

So when a union says "our [largely] female members are under paid" they are to some extent actually critiquing their own negotiating performance as a union.

The other common factor for poor pay seems to be working in a large profession that is to a substantial extent government funded. If that happens, your sector is probably underfunded and probably underpaid. Consequently nurses, primary teachers, elder carers (mostly female) are all paid low. So are soldiers and fire fighters (mostly male).

It's a gender issue to the extent that many women choose to enter a profession that have been overpaid for twenty years, but it isn't discrimination.

A comparable (and arguably more serious) gender issue is dangerous work. Why are dangerous jobs (construction, farming, mining, forestry) male dominated? Surely there is some form of societal discrimination that considers men expendable? Or do more men just choose to enter dangerous professions.

There are a couple of points made here and in another post that I find interesting. The phrase "in female dominated professions" is one of them. To me it highlights an issue of over-representation based on gender. The first point - where a position is traditionally female or male dominated' is the point being made by gender equality. The stigma that a job or sport can only be. or is normally done by a specific gender (called gender bias) could be considered one of the factors that creates gender inequality. The second point, that the stigma is created because people often reinforce common beliefs, perceptions and stereotypes of how people should act based on their gender - only a bloke can be a fireman, only a woman can be a nurse etc. These stereotypes often start at an early age and the affect can be that the person might not consider being able to do anything else.

As pointed out in another post - a person should be able to participate in a way that is not based on their gender - what professions, hobbies or sports someone does should not depend on them being male or female - this is what is meant by equal rights, opportunities and responsibilities. One of the things that can occur with gender inequality is that people may lose out on opportunities because of perceptions about gender - for example, someone might not get asked to a meeting, or might miss out on a training course, or not be told about an opportunity to apply for a promotion or offered a particular job - over time, these missed opportunities and responsibilities add up and can lead to glass ceilings in some industries. Often people (both male or female) miss out on opportunities because the culture of inequality puts pressure on them not learn about a profession in the first place - an example could be women working in STEM subjects such as engineering compared to health sciences.

One area where this is common is in teaching.

As a child, I attended all boys boarding schools between the ages of 7 1/2 and 15. At 15 I went to a fully co-ed school.

Almost all my teachers were male. A good number of them served in WWII (Headmaster, Deputy Headmaster and about 4 or 5 others) and one was a retired tea planter from Ceylon who was the finest history teacher I ever had. Being a boarding school, of course we lived there 36 weeks a year. This meant showering etc. Which was done in 'dormitory groups' at bed time. We had a communal shower room with around half a dozen shower heads and queued for them. We stood naked, in front of the duty master for the evening who had the job of supervising us. Not one parent thought it odd that their child stood naked in front of a staff member for 15-20 minutes 4 times a week, 36 weeks a year. Not once in all my time at school did I ever hear so much as a whisper of impropriety, and the fine gentlemen who taught us would have been utterly horrified at the very thought, I am sure.

Now, at most schools in the UK and I think here too from what I have read, there are almost no male teachers in primary schools and a dwindling amount further up. I have read many articles expressing concerns that children from single parent families where the father is the absent parent may well have no male role model or authority figure in their lives until they are 6 or 7 years old or more.

All this change because what man of sane mind would want to cope with the suspicion or take the risk of false accusation (especially given most countries do not suppress the names of charged persons unlike NZ) of some sexual or other impropriety?

Logically, if they get the number of male teachers to zero, you could argue that women teachers are paid 100% more than male ones...!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8