Fury over gender pay gap.More lazy bast cowdroppings!

knoxy wrote:

In article , says...
MCP wrote:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004330561,00.html

WOMEN who work part-time are paid 40 per cent less per hour than men in
full-time jobs, it was revealed yesterday.
The gap has stayed the same for 25 YEARS, the Equal Opportunities Commission
reported.

In the Netherlands it is just seven per cent.

The Commission blamed a reluctance to offer women flexible hours for top
jobs.

And they said it forced women who spend time with their children to take
lesser-paid positions.

Chief executive Caroline Slocock said: "There's no reason part-time work
should be lower paid."

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

It's time whining feminists starting taking responsibility for their
own ****ing choices.

Goes both ways. If women work less to stay home and take care of the

I was talking about Feminists. Not women as a whole.

kids, then men shouldn't whine when the women get custody.

Actually solo mothers are less capable of raising children than solo
fathers. The proof of this in the fact that the state must extort
monies from men to support the child and mother. Children also do
better raised by solo fathers.

It's not about the best interests of the child; it's about MONEY.
Obviously the lawyers and bureaucrats of the bureaucratic Child
Support (sic) system favor women getting custody: there's usually more
money to extort from the man than from the woman.

Sorry for not responding to original post... I could not find it.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:02:20 +1200, Hatefeminism
wrote:

knoxy wrote:

In article , says...
MCP wrote:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004330561,00.html

WOMEN who work part-time are paid 40 per cent less per hour than men in
full-time jobs, it was revealed yesterday.
The gap has stayed the same for 25 YEARS, the Equal Opportunities Commission
reported.

I don't think we can take this as it stands because not enough
information was given. First, I'd like to know the pay difference
between same-gendered part-timers and full-timers. It MAY be equally
fair to say that MEN who work part-time are paid significantly less
per hour than men who work full-time. What pay are they basing this
on... base pay or full pay? People who work full-time, at least here
in the USA, are generally entitled to benefits that the part-timers
are not. Hence, if both part-time and full-time pays $10 per hour,
the full-timer may have a compensation package that is equivalent to
$14 per hour... the $4.00 per hour being in the form of medical
benefits, etc... I know, at my company, full-timer's have benefits
that part-timer's do not get that, when taxes are taken into account,
increase the hourly rate by approximately $3.85. This article is
likely to be slanted to say what it wants you to hear.

That said, I do believe there is a "glass ceiling." That is not what
the aricle is about, however.


In the Netherlands it is just seven per cent.

The Commission blamed a reluctance to offer women flexible hours for top
jobs.

And they said it forced women who spend time with their children to take
lesser-paid positions.

Chief executive Caroline Slocock said: "There's no reason part-time work
should be lower paid."

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

It's time whining feminists starting taking responsibility for their
own ****ing choices.

Goes both ways. If women work less to stay home and take care of the

I was talking about Feminists. Not women as a whole.

kids, then men shouldn't whine when the women get custody.

Actually solo mothers are less capable of raising children than solo
fathers. The proof of this in the fact that the state must extort
monies from men to support the child and mother. Children also do
better raised by solo fathers.

It's not about the best interests of the child; it's about MONEY.
Obviously the lawyers and bureaucrats of the bureaucratic Child
Support (sic) system favor women getting custody: there's usually more
money to extort from the man than from the woman.

Sorry for not responding to original post... I could not find it.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:02:20 +1200, Hatefeminism
wrote:

knoxy wrote:

In article , says...
MCP wrote:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004330561,00.html

WOMEN who work part-time are paid 40 per cent less per hour than men in
full-time jobs, it was revealed yesterday.
The gap has stayed the same for 25 YEARS, the Equal Opportunities Commission
reported.

I don't think we can take this as it stands because not enough
information was given. First, I'd like to know the pay difference
between same-gendered part-timers and full-timers. It MAY be equally
fair to say that MEN who work part-time are paid significantly less
per hour than men who work full-time. What pay are they basing this
on... base pay or full pay? People who work full-time, at least here
in the USA, are generally entitled to benefits that the part-timers
are not. Hence, if both part-time and full-time pays $10 per hour,
the full-timer may have a compensation package that is equivalent to
$14 per hour... the $4.00 per hour being in the form of medical
benefits, etc... I know, at my company, full-timer's have benefits
that part-timer's do not get that, when taxes are taken into account,
increase the hourly rate by approximately $3.85. This article is
likely to be slanted to say what it wants you to hear.

That said, I do believe there is a "glass ceiling." That is not what
the aricle is about, however.


In the Netherlands it is just seven per cent.

The Commission blamed a reluctance to offer women flexible hours for top
jobs.

And they said it forced women who spend time with their children to take
lesser-paid positions.

Chief executive Caroline Slocock said: "There's no reason part-time work
should be lower paid."

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

It's time whining feminists starting taking responsibility for their
own ****ing choices.

Goes both ways. If women work less to stay home and take care of the

I was talking about Feminists. Not women as a whole.

kids, then men shouldn't whine when the women get custody.

Actually solo mothers are less capable of raising children than solo
fathers. The proof of this in the fact that the state must extort
monies from men to support the child and mother. Children also do
better raised by solo fathers.

It's not about the best interests of the child; it's about MONEY.
Obviously the lawyers and bureaucrats of the bureaucratic Child
Support (sic) system favor women getting custody: there's usually more
money to extort from the man than from the woman.

Sorry for not responding to original post... I could not find it.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:02:20 +1200, Hatefeminism
wrote:

knoxy wrote:

In article , says...
MCP wrote:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004330561,00.html

WOMEN who work part-time are paid 40 per cent less per hour than men in
full-time jobs, it was revealed yesterday.
The gap has stayed the same for 25 YEARS, the Equal Opportunities Commission
reported.

I don't think we can take this as it stands because not enough
information was given. First, I'd like to know the pay difference
between same-gendered part-timers and full-timers. It MAY be equally
fair to say that MEN who work part-time are paid significantly less
per hour than men who work full-time. What pay are they basing this
on... base pay or full pay? People who work full-time, at least here
in the USA, are generally entitled to benefits that the part-timers
are not. Hence, if both part-time and full-time pays $10 per hour,
the full-timer may have a compensation package that is equivalent to
$14 per hour... the $4.00 per hour being in the form of medical
benefits, etc... I know, at my company, full-timer's have benefits
that part-timer's do not get that, when taxes are taken into account,
increase the hourly rate by approximately $3.85. This article is
likely to be slanted to say what it wants you to hear.

That said, I do believe there is a "glass ceiling." That is not what
the aricle is about, however.


In the Netherlands it is just seven per cent.

The Commission blamed a reluctance to offer women flexible hours for top
jobs.

And they said it forced women who spend time with their children to take
lesser-paid positions.

Chief executive Caroline Slocock said: "There's no reason part-time work
should be lower paid."

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

It's time whining feminists starting taking responsibility for their
own ****ing choices.

Goes both ways. If women work less to stay home and take care of the

I was talking about Feminists. Not women as a whole.

kids, then men shouldn't whine when the women get custody.

Actually solo mothers are less capable of raising children than solo
fathers. The proof of this in the fact that the state must extort
monies from men to support the child and mother. Children also do
better raised by solo fathers.

It's not about the best interests of the child; it's about MONEY.
Obviously the lawyers and bureaucrats of the bureaucratic Child
Support (sic) system favor women getting custody: there's usually more
money to extort from the man than from the woman.

I am so tired of you men saying that child support is extortion. Men
generally make more money per year than a female. In a family where both
parents reside with the children the man usually provides the most $$ to
support the family since he makes more money than the wife. Of course you
men would not complain or call it extortion. You are proud that you can
support your family. However, when a divorce occurs and the man is made to
pay child support you men all the sudden loose that pride of being able to
support your family. You find every way you can to make it look as though
you make a lower amount than you actually do. Why is that??? So, when a
man supports his family that is together it is ok. But, when a man supports
his children when there is a divorce it is all the sudden called extortion??
"Beverly" wrote in message
...
Sorry for not responding to original post... I could not find it.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:02:20 +1200, Hatefeminism
wrote:

knoxy wrote:

In article , says...
MCP wrote:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004330561,00.html

WOMEN who work part-time are paid 40 per cent less per hour than
men in
full-time jobs, it was revealed yesterday.
The gap has stayed the same for 25 YEARS, the Equal Opportunities
Commission
reported.

I don't think we can take this as it stands because not enough
information was given. First, I'd like to know the pay difference
between same-gendered part-timers and full-timers. It MAY be equally
fair to say that MEN who work part-time are paid significantly less
per hour than men who work full-time. What pay are they basing this
on... base pay or full pay? People who work full-time, at least here
in the USA, are generally entitled to benefits that the part-timers
are not. Hence, if both part-time and full-time pays $10 per hour,
the full-timer may have a compensation package that is equivalent to
$14 per hour... the $4.00 per hour being in the form of medical
benefits, etc... I know, at my company, full-timer's have benefits
that part-timer's do not get that, when taxes are taken into account,
increase the hourly rate by approximately $3.85. This article is
likely to be slanted to say what it wants you to hear.

That said, I do believe there is a "glass ceiling." That is not what
the aricle is about, however.


In the Netherlands it is just seven per cent.

The Commission blamed a reluctance to offer women flexible hours
for top
jobs.

And they said it forced women who spend time with their children to
take
lesser-paid positions.

Chief executive Caroline Slocock said: "There's no reason part-time
work
should be lower paid."

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

It's time whining feminists starting taking responsibility for their
own ****ing choices.

Goes both ways. If women work less to stay home and take care of the

I was talking about Feminists. Not women as a whole.

kids, then men shouldn't whine when the women get custody.

Actually solo mothers are less capable of raising children than solo
fathers. The proof of this in the fact that the state must extort
monies from men to support the child and mother. Children also do
better raised by solo fathers.

It's not about the best interests of the child; it's about MONEY.
Obviously the lawyers and bureaucrats of the bureaucratic Child
Support (sic) system favor women getting custody: there's usually more
money to extort from the man than from the woman.

I am so tired of you men saying that child support is extortion. Men
generally make more money per year than a female. In a family where both
parents reside with the children the man usually provides the most $$ to
support the family since he makes more money than the wife. Of course you
men would not complain or call it extortion. You are proud that you can
support your family. However, when a divorce occurs and the man is made to
pay child support you men all the sudden loose that pride of being able to
support your family. You find every way you can to make it look as though
you make a lower amount than you actually do. Why is that??? So, when a
man supports his family that is together it is ok. But, when a man supports
his children when there is a divorce it is all the sudden called extortion??
"Beverly" wrote in message
...
Sorry for not responding to original post... I could not find it.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:02:20 +1200, Hatefeminism
wrote:

knoxy wrote:

In article , says...
MCP wrote:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004330561,00.html

WOMEN who work part-time are paid 40 per cent less per hour than
men in
full-time jobs, it was revealed yesterday.
The gap has stayed the same for 25 YEARS, the Equal Opportunities
Commission
reported.

I don't think we can take this as it stands because not enough
information was given. First, I'd like to know the pay difference
between same-gendered part-timers and full-timers. It MAY be equally
fair to say that MEN who work part-time are paid significantly less
per hour than men who work full-time. What pay are they basing this
on... base pay or full pay? People who work full-time, at least here
in the USA, are generally entitled to benefits that the part-timers
are not. Hence, if both part-time and full-time pays $10 per hour,
the full-timer may have a compensation package that is equivalent to
$14 per hour... the $4.00 per hour being in the form of medical
benefits, etc... I know, at my company, full-timer's have benefits
that part-timer's do not get that, when taxes are taken into account,
increase the hourly rate by approximately $3.85. This article is
likely to be slanted to say what it wants you to hear.

That said, I do believe there is a "glass ceiling." That is not what
the aricle is about, however.


In the Netherlands it is just seven per cent.

The Commission blamed a reluctance to offer women flexible hours
for top
jobs.

And they said it forced women who spend time with their children to
take
lesser-paid positions.

Chief executive Caroline Slocock said: "There's no reason part-time
work
should be lower paid."

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

It's time whining feminists starting taking responsibility for their
own ****ing choices.

Goes both ways. If women work less to stay home and take care of the

I was talking about Feminists. Not women as a whole.

kids, then men shouldn't whine when the women get custody.

Actually solo mothers are less capable of raising children than solo
fathers. The proof of this in the fact that the state must extort
monies from men to support the child and mother. Children also do
better raised by solo fathers.

It's not about the best interests of the child; it's about MONEY.
Obviously the lawyers and bureaucrats of the bureaucratic Child
Support (sic) system favor women getting custody: there's usually more
money to extort from the man than from the woman.

I am so tired of you men saying that child support is extortion. Men
generally make more money per year than a female. In a family where both
parents reside with the children the man usually provides the most $$ to
support the family since he makes more money than the wife. Of course you
men would not complain or call it extortion. You are proud that you can
support your family. However, when a divorce occurs and the man is made to
pay child support you men all the sudden loose that pride of being able to
support your family. You find every way you can to make it look as though
you make a lower amount than you actually do. Why is that??? So, when a
man supports his family that is together it is ok. But, when a man supports
his children when there is a divorce it is all the sudden called extortion??
"Beverly" wrote in message
...
Sorry for not responding to original post... I could not find it.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:02:20 +1200, Hatefeminism
wrote:

knoxy wrote:

In article , says...
MCP wrote:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004330561,00.html

WOMEN who work part-time are paid 40 per cent less per hour than
men in
full-time jobs, it was revealed yesterday.
The gap has stayed the same for 25 YEARS, the Equal Opportunities
Commission
reported.

I don't think we can take this as it stands because not enough
information was given. First, I'd like to know the pay difference
between same-gendered part-timers and full-timers. It MAY be equally
fair to say that MEN who work part-time are paid significantly less
per hour than men who work full-time. What pay are they basing this
on... base pay or full pay? People who work full-time, at least here
in the USA, are generally entitled to benefits that the part-timers
are not. Hence, if both part-time and full-time pays $10 per hour,
the full-timer may have a compensation package that is equivalent to
$14 per hour... the $4.00 per hour being in the form of medical
benefits, etc... I know, at my company, full-timer's have benefits
that part-timer's do not get that, when taxes are taken into account,
increase the hourly rate by approximately $3.85. This article is
likely to be slanted to say what it wants you to hear.

That said, I do believe there is a "glass ceiling." That is not what
the aricle is about, however.


In the Netherlands it is just seven per cent.

The Commission blamed a reluctance to offer women flexible hours
for top
jobs.

And they said it forced women who spend time with their children to
take
lesser-paid positions.

Chief executive Caroline Slocock said: "There's no reason part-time
work
should be lower paid."

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

It's time whining feminists starting taking responsibility for their
own ****ing choices.

Goes both ways. If women work less to stay home and take care of the

I was talking about Feminists. Not women as a whole.

kids, then men shouldn't whine when the women get custody.

Actually solo mothers are less capable of raising children than solo
fathers. The proof of this in the fact that the state must extort
monies from men to support the child and mother. Children also do
better raised by solo fathers.

It's not about the best interests of the child; it's about MONEY.
Obviously the lawyers and bureaucrats of the bureaucratic Child
Support (sic) system favor women getting custody: there's usually more
money to extort from the man than from the woman.

The message from men to women about "child support" is NOT just that
it's extortion. The message from men to women is that CS is GENDER
extortion.

The huge bulk of CS is money that fathers pay mothers (or in some cases,
money that men who used to be husbands pay to their ex-wives for children
born during the marriage that were the result of an adulterous relationship
that the mother had with another man). There is no legal requirement that
mothers use all--or any--of this money to support the children.

But what about the difference between men supporting their children
within marriage and men being forced to pay money to their ex-wives after
divorce (most likely initiated by their ex-wives, in the present day U.S.)?
In that context, a comment by Groucho Marx is relevant. Groucho Marx said
that paying alimony was like feeding hay to a dead horse. The same is true
for so-called "child support," which--because of the glass ceiling on
paternal custody--is gender extortion.

I trust you understand the point now, Ms. Floyd.

(Oh, and by the way, there's a difference between "loose," the
adjective, and "lose," the verb.)

"Rebecca Floyd" wrote in message
om...
I am so tired of you men saying that child support is extortion. Men
generally make more money per year than a female. In a family where both
parents reside with the children the man usually provides the most $$ to
support the family since he makes more money than the wife. Of course you
men would not complain or call it extortion. You are proud that you can
support your family. However, when a divorce occurs and the man is made to
pay child support you men all the sudden loose that pride of being able to
support your family. You find every way you can to make it look as though
you make a lower amount than you actually do. Why is that??? So, when a
man supports his family that is together it is ok. But, when a man
supports
his children when there is a divorce it is all the sudden called
extortion??
"Beverly" wrote in message
...
Sorry for not responding to original post... I could not find it.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:02:20 +1200, Hatefeminism
wrote:

knoxy wrote:

In article ,
says...
MCP wrote:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004330561,00.html

WOMEN who work part-time are paid 40 per cent less per hour than
men in
full-time jobs, it was revealed yesterday.
The gap has stayed the same for 25 YEARS, the Equal Opportunities
Commission
reported.

I don't think we can take this as it stands because not enough
information was given. First, I'd like to know the pay difference
between same-gendered part-timers and full-timers. It MAY be equally
fair to say that MEN who work part-time are paid significantly less
per hour than men who work full-time. What pay are they basing this
on... base pay or full pay? People who work full-time, at least here
in the USA, are generally entitled to benefits that the part-timers
are not. Hence, if both part-time and full-time pays $10 per hour,
the full-timer may have a compensation package that is equivalent to
$14 per hour... the $4.00 per hour being in the form of medical
benefits, etc... I know, at my company, full-timer's have benefits
that part-timer's do not get that, when taxes are taken into account,
increase the hourly rate by approximately $3.85. This article is
likely to be slanted to say what it wants you to hear.

That said, I do believe there is a "glass ceiling." That is not what
the aricle is about, however.


In the Netherlands it is just seven per cent.

The Commission blamed a reluctance to offer women flexible hours
for top
jobs.

And they said it forced women who spend time with their children
to
take
lesser-paid positions.

Chief executive Caroline Slocock said: "There's no reason
part-time
work
should be lower paid."

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

It's time whining feminists starting taking responsibility for
their
own ****ing choices.

Goes both ways. If women work less to stay home and take care of the

I was talking about Feminists. Not women as a whole.

kids, then men shouldn't whine when the women get custody.

Actually solo mothers are less capable of raising children than solo
fathers. The proof of this in the fact that the state must extort
monies from men to support the child and mother. Children also do
better raised by solo fathers.

It's not about the best interests of the child; it's about MONEY.
Obviously the lawyers and bureaucrats of the bureaucratic Child
Support (sic) system favor women getting custody: there's usually more
money to extort from the man than from the woman.

The message from men to women about "child support" is NOT just that
it's extortion. The message from men to women is that CS is GENDER
extortion.

The huge bulk of CS is money that fathers pay mothers (or in some cases,
money that men who used to be husbands pay to their ex-wives for children
born during the marriage that were the result of an adulterous relationship
that the mother had with another man). There is no legal requirement that
mothers use all--or any--of this money to support the children.

But what about the difference between men supporting their children
within marriage and men being forced to pay money to their ex-wives after
divorce (most likely initiated by their ex-wives, in the present day U.S.)?
In that context, a comment by Groucho Marx is relevant. Groucho Marx said
that paying alimony was like feeding hay to a dead horse. The same is true
for so-called "child support," which--because of the glass ceiling on
paternal custody--is gender extortion.

I trust you understand the point now, Ms. Floyd.

(Oh, and by the way, there's a difference between "loose," the
adjective, and "lose," the verb.)

"Rebecca Floyd" wrote in message
om...
I am so tired of you men saying that child support is extortion. Men
generally make more money per year than a female. In a family where both
parents reside with the children the man usually provides the most $$ to
support the family since he makes more money than the wife. Of course you
men would not complain or call it extortion. You are proud that you can
support your family. However, when a divorce occurs and the man is made to
pay child support you men all the sudden loose that pride of being able to
support your family. You find every way you can to make it look as though
you make a lower amount than you actually do. Why is that??? So, when a
man supports his family that is together it is ok. But, when a man
supports
his children when there is a divorce it is all the sudden called
extortion??
"Beverly" wrote in message
...
Sorry for not responding to original post... I could not find it.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:02:20 +1200, Hatefeminism
wrote:

knoxy wrote:

In article ,
says...
MCP wrote:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004330561,00.html

WOMEN who work part-time are paid 40 per cent less per hour than
men in
full-time jobs, it was revealed yesterday.
The gap has stayed the same for 25 YEARS, the Equal Opportunities
Commission
reported.

I don't think we can take this as it stands because not enough
information was given. First, I'd like to know the pay difference
between same-gendered part-timers and full-timers. It MAY be equally
fair to say that MEN who work part-time are paid significantly less
per hour than men who work full-time. What pay are they basing this
on... base pay or full pay? People who work full-time, at least here
in the USA, are generally entitled to benefits that the part-timers
are not. Hence, if both part-time and full-time pays $10 per hour,
the full-timer may have a compensation package that is equivalent to
$14 per hour... the $4.00 per hour being in the form of medical
benefits, etc... I know, at my company, full-timer's have benefits
that part-timer's do not get that, when taxes are taken into account,
increase the hourly rate by approximately $3.85. This article is
likely to be slanted to say what it wants you to hear.

That said, I do believe there is a "glass ceiling." That is not what
the aricle is about, however.


In the Netherlands it is just seven per cent.

The Commission blamed a reluctance to offer women flexible hours
for top
jobs.

And they said it forced women who spend time with their children
to
take
lesser-paid positions.

Chief executive Caroline Slocock said: "There's no reason
part-time
work
should be lower paid."

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

It's time whining feminists starting taking responsibility for
their
own ****ing choices.

Goes both ways. If women work less to stay home and take care of the

I was talking about Feminists. Not women as a whole.

kids, then men shouldn't whine when the women get custody.

Actually solo mothers are less capable of raising children than solo
fathers. The proof of this in the fact that the state must extort
monies from men to support the child and mother. Children also do
better raised by solo fathers.

It's not about the best interests of the child; it's about MONEY.
Obviously the lawyers and bureaucrats of the bureaucratic Child
Support (sic) system favor women getting custody: there's usually more
money to extort from the man than from the woman.

The message from men to women about "child support" is NOT just that
it's extortion. The message from men to women is that CS is GENDER
extortion.

The huge bulk of CS is money that fathers pay mothers (or in some cases,
money that men who used to be husbands pay to their ex-wives for children
born during the marriage that were the result of an adulterous relationship
that the mother had with another man). There is no legal requirement that
mothers use all--or any--of this money to support the children.

But what about the difference between men supporting their children
within marriage and men being forced to pay money to their ex-wives after
divorce (most likely initiated by their ex-wives, in the present day U.S.)?
In that context, a comment by Groucho Marx is relevant. Groucho Marx said
that paying alimony was like feeding hay to a dead horse. The same is true
for so-called "child support," which--because of the glass ceiling on
paternal custody--is gender extortion.

I trust you understand the point now, Ms. Floyd.

(Oh, and by the way, there's a difference between "loose," the
adjective, and "lose," the verb.)

"Rebecca Floyd" wrote in message
om...
I am so tired of you men saying that child support is extortion. Men
generally make more money per year than a female. In a family where both
parents reside with the children the man usually provides the most $$ to
support the family since he makes more money than the wife. Of course you
men would not complain or call it extortion. You are proud that you can
support your family. However, when a divorce occurs and the man is made to
pay child support you men all the sudden loose that pride of being able to
support your family. You find every way you can to make it look as though
you make a lower amount than you actually do. Why is that??? So, when a
man supports his family that is together it is ok. But, when a man
supports
his children when there is a divorce it is all the sudden called
extortion??
"Beverly" wrote in message
...
Sorry for not responding to original post... I could not find it.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:02:20 +1200, Hatefeminism
wrote:

knoxy wrote:

In article ,
says...
MCP wrote:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004330561,00.html

WOMEN who work part-time are paid 40 per cent less per hour than
men in
full-time jobs, it was revealed yesterday.
The gap has stayed the same for 25 YEARS, the Equal Opportunities
Commission
reported.

I don't think we can take this as it stands because not enough
information was given. First, I'd like to know the pay difference
between same-gendered part-timers and full-timers. It MAY be equally
fair to say that MEN who work part-time are paid significantly less
per hour than men who work full-time. What pay are they basing this
on... base pay or full pay? People who work full-time, at least here
in the USA, are generally entitled to benefits that the part-timers
are not. Hence, if both part-time and full-time pays $10 per hour,
the full-timer may have a compensation package that is equivalent to
$14 per hour... the $4.00 per hour being in the form of medical
benefits, etc... I know, at my company, full-timer's have benefits
that part-timer's do not get that, when taxes are taken into account,
increase the hourly rate by approximately $3.85. This article is
likely to be slanted to say what it wants you to hear.

That said, I do believe there is a "glass ceiling." That is not what
the aricle is about, however.


In the Netherlands it is just seven per cent.

The Commission blamed a reluctance to offer women flexible hours
for top
jobs.

And they said it forced women who spend time with their children
to
take
lesser-paid positions.

Chief executive Caroline Slocock said: "There's no reason
part-time
work
should be lower paid."

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

It's time whining feminists starting taking responsibility for
their
own ****ing choices.

Goes both ways. If women work less to stay home and take care of the

I was talking about Feminists. Not women as a whole.

kids, then men shouldn't whine when the women get custody.

Actually solo mothers are less capable of raising children than solo
fathers. The proof of this in the fact that the state must extort
monies from men to support the child and mother. Children also do
better raised by solo fathers.

It's not about the best interests of the child; it's about MONEY.
Obviously the lawyers and bureaucrats of the bureaucratic Child
Support (sic) system favor women getting custody: there's usually more
money to extort from the man than from the woman.