Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Rotation Advertisements



We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.


If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we donít limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesnít take long and you can get posting right away.


Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk


If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Is the Gender Wage Gap a Myth?
Topic Started: Jan 8 2018, 06:44 PM (1,260 Views)
+ Ginyu
Member Avatar
Leve Feyenoord 1!

Do you believe in the gender wage gap or is it a myth?
If the claims about the wage gap are true why don't businesses exclusively hire women?
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Posted Image
Ask GinyuTokusentai
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Pelador
Member Avatar
Crazy Awesome Legend

Can't exclusively hire women. That's gender discrimination.

The pay gap is real. Several corporations were found out to be underpaying women including Virgin.


Posted Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Steve
Member Avatar
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.

It's a myth except in some circumstances.

Most of the time it's falsely understood(or misrepresented) statistics that miss out critical details.
Like yes on the whole women earn less...key word being earn, usually when you see these things they fail to mention women generally work less hours, so obviously they get paid less.
It would be stupid to give them the same for less work, damn s***ty deal for men.

And then with things involving negotiable pay women can earn less because they'll accept less, there's an issue there. Obviously some dickhead sexist business owners will do whatever they can to make a woman get less for they're "just skirts" and such.


Though to be fair, I can see why it would be more preferable to hire men in general really.
If you weren't required to not discriminate and your goal was profit, are you going to hire someone who'll probably only be off for the occasional illness or someone who's going to be off for months while they have a baby, who you still have to pay?
That's a huge loss of money and manpower, particularly in a small company or if it's a very important role.

Imagine you had a high up manager who went off to have a baby every year for three years, collectively working only like a year of that time. You still have to pay them for all of it and you probably have to pay someone to cover them too. And then maybe she decides that she can't do her job any more be it the toll of childbirth or because she wants to look after the kids.
A s*** deal for the greedy and for a struggling business.

Of course, men generally get maternity leave too but not all men are going to be a relationship whereas every woman who gets pregnant obviously requires maternity leave.
It's still a s***ty thing to do but aside from general disdain for women you can understand the reasoning.


In summary

ONLY HIRE GAY MEN

MAXIMISE PROFIT

UNLIMITED HOOKERS
Posted Image


Definitely not a succubus, fear not
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Mitas
Member Avatar
It truly was a Shawshank redemption

I think it's real, but not in the way it's often talked about. Women and men are generally paid the same for the same jobs (pretty sure to not do so is illegal); the gap exists because there are more men in higher paying roles, which is why women as a whole earn less. As an example, Easy Jet have been accused of paying men more than women, but that gap can be explained by the fact that pilots make the most money and most of the pilots are male. They employ more women than men, but in lower paying jobs like cabin crew. So the 'equal work, equal pay' argument is a misleading one. The real issue is that women need more opportunities at the higher paying jobs.

As an aside, I see a lot of people talking about 'equal work, equal pay' in things like sports or the movie business, which is stupid. Male footballers bring in more money to their clubs and sponsors than females do, so they should of course be paid more. Same for actors, where the name of the actor is a big draw. If it can be proven that the top male actors bring in more money than the top female actors, then they should be paid more. In the same way, someone like Nicole Kidman should command more money than, say, Topher Grace.
Posted Image
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time."
"Next time?"
"Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bad User
Member Avatar


No such thing happening here, but I won't deny it may still happen worldwide.

Quote:
 
The pay gap is real. Several corporations were found out to be underpaying women including Virgin.

Funny thing is that I'd see why such things are still happening in certain environments, but I didn't expect that from countries that are supposed to be in the '1st world'.
Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Pyrus
Member Avatar


I was led to believe that it's simply a myth due to the jobs men and women choose.
Quote:
 
the gap exists because there are more men in higher paying roles, which is why women as a whole earn less

Yeah, this.
Spoiler: click to toggle
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Toxin45
Default Avatar


It is a myth.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Ssj3vegito96
Member Avatar


It's a myth and idk why so many people still believe and try to spread awareness of it

It's not that complicated. There are more men than women who have high paying jobs. That's it
IT'S CHEESE
Posted Image
Spoiler: click to toggle
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Steve
Member Avatar
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.

It's funny how acting and actors themselves are the most talked about subject here, you'd think that they'd know why women get paid less.

Megan Fox isn't in Transformers because she's an Oscar winning actress, she's only there because she's hot.
Why should she get paid as much as Shia Lebeouf who's there for the quirky character he's great at portraying, that millions of people like?
(Old example but whatever)

It'd be dumb as s*** to pay actresses the same because most of the time they're put in extremely shallow roles where they only need to be the hot love interest and literally nothing else, 90% of their dialogue being about the main man or men in general.


In a good movie where they have an actual role besides being a pretty face, sure pay an appropriate amount.
But they still shouldn't get paid as much as say Liam Neeson or Hugh Jackman, who'll sell millions of tickets for being in a five second cameo.

It'd be like making pedigree dogs cost the same as mutts, defeats the whole point really...not to say men are pedigree and women are mutts but great actors in general are pedigree essentially, they're definitely worth more.
Posted Image


Definitely not a succubus, fear not
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bad User
Member Avatar


Steve
Jan 9 2018, 08:00 AM
It'd be dumb as s*** to pay actresses the same because most of the time they're put in extremely shallow roles where they only need to be the hot love interest and literally nothing else, 90% of their dialogue being about the main man or men in general.


In a good movie where they have an actual role besides being a pretty face, sure pay an appropriate amount.
But they still shouldn't get paid as much as say Liam Neeson or Hugh Jackman, who'll sell millions of tickets for being in a five second cameo.
The only extremely shallow thing I can think of is this post...
Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Know'm Sayin'
Member Avatar
ZERO HOOTS GANG

Bad User
Jan 9 2018, 11:54 AM
Steve
Jan 9 2018, 08:00 AM
It'd be dumb as s*** to pay actresses the same because most of the time they're put in extremely shallow roles where they only need to be the hot love interest and literally nothing else, 90% of their dialogue being about the main man or men in general.


In a good movie where they have an actual role besides being a pretty face, sure pay an appropriate amount.
But they still shouldn't get paid as much as say Liam Neeson or Hugh Jackman, who'll sell millions of tickets for being in a five second cameo.
The only extremely shallow thing I can think of is this post...
You may not like it, but It's the truth.
R.I.P. 3pac; ZERO HOOTS GANG
Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bad User
Member Avatar


I shouldn't really bother, so I'll be short.

What I understood from Steve's post is that:

'It'd be dumb as s*** to pay actresses the same because most of the time they're put in extremely shallow roles where they only need to be the hot love interest and literally nothing else, 90% of their dialogue being about the main man or men in general.'
1. From millions of movies/series, female actors play most of the time (meaning what? 80%? 90%) hot roles in which they talk about men. Quick question for you guys, have you been watching anything else besides soap operas? Ever?

'But they still shouldn't get paid as much as say Liam Neeson or Hugh Jackman, who'll sell millions of tickets for being in a five second cameo.'
A logical point would be 'Any male/female minor actors should not be paid as much as any big male/female figures, because the latter ones bring much more money to the industry'. But that's not the case here, since it'd make his post reluctant for deviating from the topic. So the next conclusions are that:
2. Minor female actors should not be paid as much as any big male actors, because blabla. But it's okay to pay minor male actors, because no one would bat an eye. Say, hypothetically, Daniel Radcliffe is the one main figure that brings money to the Harry Potter franchise. So it's fair not to pay Emma Watson (who portrays a very brilliant, smart and not-sexualized character) as much as Daniel. But it'd be ok to do that for Rupert Grint.
3. Since he mentioned Hugh Jackman and Liam Neeson, he implies that there are no female counterparts for those stars that bring money just for showing their faces somewhere. Otherwise he'd have given examples/analogies for that. So, there are no big, talented, money maker actresses that excel through other things than hot bodies/selling sex.

Does any of this make any sense to you?
Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Ssj3vegito96
Member Avatar


First of all, Emma Watson should not be paid as much Daniel. He's Harry Potter. None of the actors and actresses in the Harry Potter movies should be paid as much

And I remember reading Emma Watson was paid just as much as Rupert Grint was paid

Let's look at this example too. Emmy Rossum was complaining that she's not paid as much per episode for Shameless as William Macy is. William is a veteran actor and is way more known than Emmy Rossum and William is as much of a main character as she is. So why is she complaining? He should be paid more
Edited by Ssj3vegito96, Jan 9 2018, 04:54 PM.
IT'S CHEESE
Posted Image
Spoiler: click to toggle
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Steve
Member Avatar
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.

Bad User
Jan 9 2018, 03:22 PM
I shouldn't really bother, so I'll be short.

What I understood from Steve's post is that:

Then you didn't understand my post at all.

Quote:
 
1. From millions of movies/series, female actors play most of the time (meaning what? 80%? 90%) hot roles in which they talk about men. Quick question for you guys, have you been watching anything else besides soap operas? Ever?


Most of the time women are cast in shallow roles where their talent as an actress is irrelevant, they're replaceable because they're there to be good looking for the camera.
Megan Fox and Transformers is actually a good example, second there were issues with her they got a hot Australian(if I remember right) chick to play the exact same role, that is, to have the camera pointed at her a*** all the time and not be any more important than that.

Along with virtually every other female in Transformers besides Sam's mom.

Quote:
 
2. Minor female actors should not be paid as much as any big male actors, because blabla. But it's okay to pay minor male actors, because no one would bat an eye. Say, hypothetically, Daniel Radcliffe is the one main figure that brings money to the Harry Potter franchise. So it's fair not to pay Emma Watson (who portrays a very brilliant, smart and not-sexualized character) as much as Daniel. But it'd be ok to do that for Rupert Grint.


Of course he should be paid more...he is literally the titular character?
Emma should obviously be paid more than most of the cast but definitely not the same as Daniel, that would be ridiculous.

You wouldn't give whatever actor plays James Bond the same amount of money as whoever plays Moneypenny, that would be nonsense. People are there to see James Bond.

That said, Emma definitely deserves more than Rupert as her portrayal and her character were definitely more important. Not sure if that happened in reality, though clearly she's more successful.

Quote:
 
3. Since he mentioned Hugh Jackman and Liam Neeson, he implies that there are no female counterparts for those stars that bring money just for showing their faces somewhere. Otherwise he'd have given examples/analogies for that. So, there are no big, talented, money maker actresses that excel through other things than hot bodies/selling sex.


My overall point was that most female roles are cast for "She's a female" and not much more, men are cast in starring roles for their skill and popularity as actors.
Margot Robbie wasn't cast as Harley Quinn because she's an Oscar winning actress.
Will Smith however was cast as Deadshot for his popularity and talent, his acting sells a movie.

Basically, women are cast in s***ty replaceable roles most of the time. Not that they're less talented but their roles are shallow because largely the director will be hiring them for their looks.
Which is s***ty might I add, but the reality.
Posted Image


Definitely not a succubus, fear not
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Doggo Champion 2k17
Default Avatar


Quote:
 
Basically, women are cast in s***ty replaceable roles most of the time.

Prove it with statistics and evidence, otherwise it's merely anecdotal conjecture. None of us can change the fact that you may have s***ty taste in movies.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1

Theme Designed by McKee91