TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 8 °C Thursday 23 May, 2013

Column: Women are still blatantly discriminated against in the office

All the figures show that women are paid and promoted less than their male colleagues. It’s time we took action, writes Mary Mitchell O’Connor.

Mary Mitchell O'Connor

A RECENT EU Commission study found that women in Ireland are earning 17 per cent less than men, with twice as many men earning over €50,000 a year.

Even more surprising is the fact that women in their 20s now earn about 90 per cent of what their male colleagues do, with this gap widening the older women get.

This suggests two things. One, that the tide is slowly turning and that our young women, while not yet getting full recognition for the work they do, are now on the way to getting the credit they deserve. And two, that the older a woman gets, the less she is valued in the workplace.

If there is any truth in point one, it represents a real sea-change in our approach to equal work for equal pay. Sadly, it is likely that point two also holds weight, meaning that as a woman approaches child-bearing age, her worth in the workplace is significantly diminished.

The reasons for the age-old gender pay gap is manifold; women are still considered to be the primary care-givers in society, they are often paid less simply because they do not ask for more, and they are sometimes passed over for promotion in their 30s due to a cultural mindset that they will be taking extended periods of leave to have babies. This attitude is completely unacceptable and needs to be challenged.

Similar to our representation in politics, Irish female representation on corporate boards is dismal. In fact it is worse. Women make up only eight per cent of senior positions on Irish listed companies and hold less than a third of the membership of State boards. Last year it was reported that almost all of our 35 largest stock exchange listed firms were without women board members at all.

Where the civil service is concerned, women outnumber men at nearly two to one. But we are far out-weighted when it comes to filling the highest ranks. At the highest level of General Secretary, women account for only 17.6 per cent of posts in the civil service, while at the lowest rank we occupy 77.3 per cent of positions.

‘The workplace is no longer made up of men as the traditional breadwinners’

In Norway in 2003, progressive measures were adopted to address the imbalance, where women’s earning potential and pathway to the top was concerned. This was through the introduction of a 40 per cent gender quota for public limited, State-owned and inter-municipality companies which imposed tough sanctions for non-compliance. In one instance, the dissolution of the company was the price paid for attempting to keep women marginalised and side-lined.

In all cases a grace period was given to reach the target, which saw female board representation in Norway skyrocketing from 15.9 per cent in 2004 to 37 per cent in 2007. The targeted quota of 40 per cent was finally reached in 2008.

Legislated board quotas have since been introduced in Spain (2007), France and the Netherlands (2010) with quotas for public limited companies are also being discussed in Belgium, Canada and Italy, where laws are at different stages of the ratification process.

It was argued, in some circles, that the Norwegian initiative would force companies to appoint less qualified people to their boards. In fact, studies have since revealed that 36 per cent of female board members in Norway have a university education lasting six years or more, compared to just 22 per cent of their male counterparts. The gender quota initiative has since gained broad acceptance.

It is widely known that girls perform better at school than boys and that Ireland enjoys the highest percentage of women graduates in Europe, yet despite this, the sad truth is that Irish women are blatantly discriminated against when they enter the world of work. By challenging discrimination instead of blithely ignoring it, we can work towards changing the lot of the women to come.

In the next few weeks we will introduce a gender quota for women in politics through the Electoral Amendment Bill to ensure a more even spread is presented to the electorate, in terms of candidates at election time. However, we need to go further and carefully examine the ways in which we can improve opportunities for female advancement in the business.

We now live in a world that has changed beyond recognition. The onus is now on men, as much as women, to tend to the needs of their families where care-giving is concerned. The workplace is no longer made up of men as the traditional breadwinners who go to work to provide for their stay at home wives. Women now play as much of a role in the workforce as our male counterparts.

If we are to get to grips with this issue, we must challenge discrimination where there is evidence of its existence. Greater income transparency within companies could facilitate a fairer and more balanced apppproach. A woman’s work is equally as valuable as a man’s. It’s time that fact was reflected in the pay we receive each and every week.

Mary Mitchell O’Connor is a Fine Gael TD for Dun Laoghaire.

About the author:

Read next:

Comments (159 Comments)

  • paternity leave for men, that might balance it a bit

    Reply
  • Also while we’re on the point have you seen the unemployment statistics for the last 4 years… Clearly pointing out the decline in employment among men is more than twice that off women… Men take riskier positions to try an get ahead but are twice as likely to loose them all together if the economy sours

    A career is more than an annual salary figures

    Reply
  • This TD makes me so angry…

    Statements like her first; “Women in Ireland are earning 17 per cent less than men, with twice as many men earning over €50,000 a year.” do nothing to further her argument. What is the context to this? Salary’s across job markets vary; actuaries earn more than accountants who more than software developers who earn more than teachers. Is she comparing like with like? I’m not saying that if there is an issue it should be investigated, I just have no faith in Ms. Mitchell O’Connor to do any actual research. We already have legislation around hiring and discrimination in the workplace. If Ms. Mitchell O’Connor feels these are not being enforced she should talk to the Minister for Justice.

    As a former principal I would have though she would be worried that “..it is widely known that girls perform better at school than boys” however she seems only to care that she can use this as a women against the massively discriminatory male population. Surely as an educator it would be her job to ensure that all students performed equally? I’d hate to think that she encouraged neglecting the education of male students.

    Reply
    • Clearly she isn’t a reader of the site. Not one week ago there was an article about statistics and how random numbers just thrown out without any basis should be ignored. She provides no substantiation for anything in her article so her entire argument is invalid. It’s just more tripe so ignore it and it will eventually go away.

      A note to the author, try and actually substantiate your argument and then maybe somebody out there will believe you. Right now you’re doing more damage than good for whatever you’re trying to promote.

      Reply
    • I fear phrases such as “correlation does not imply causation” would just be ignored.

      Reply
  • Gender quota? When did that happen? I’m all for women getting paid as much as men but this affirmative action nonsense is blatantly unfair. Right now we can not have a situation on the average salary where one parent, whether man or woman, is the breadwinner. Costs are too high and pay is too low.

    Reply
  • Is it not up to each person to ensure they are paid fairly? Surely an employer could be sued for defending lower pay on gender grounds? I work in the legal area and there are plenty of female judges, barristers and solicitors. The best person should get the job, regardless of sex, with safeguards to ensure equal treatment.

    Reply
  • If women got paid less, then offices in Ireland would be dominated by women. Simply because Irish employers would be making a massive 10% saving in there wage bill.

    Reply
    • That is already the case in the bank sector, there’s a high proportion of women working in branches. There was an article on here not so long ago about the society wide effects of many of these jobs being surplus and being let go in the current financial situation. It may have knock on effects on creches etc.

      Reply
    • Chris 13/03/12 #

      This article is ridiculous? It jumps to the conclusion that there is discrimination out of nowhere??? I can accept the fact that women earn less but to jump to discrimination is a ridiculous assumption?

      I’m 100% for a fair society where women have the same opportunities as men and I think that we pretty much do live in that world…if faced with information that disproved this tho I would be 100% open to changing my mind.

      There are many other factors which could influence this pay gap other than discrimination namely career choice and values.

      While discrimination may exist, this article is clearly biased towards its existence and fails to even consider any other options…

      Terrible article…

      Reply
    • But it’s not as simple as that. Women getting paid less overall is generally an artifact of certain careers being inhospitable to women, or for general advancement in their careers being more difficult.

      Reply
    • Chris 14/03/12 #

      That may be the case but the statistics used in this article don’t back up that claim or the claims being made by the author

      Reply
  • So much research goes into this area and why not? Equality is very important. In fact it is of paramount importance. That’s why I have so much faith that the people behind these surveys, studies, campaigns, etc for female equality are no doubt putting in the exact same effort behind the scenes to work on ironing out legislative issues that will effect the 1000’s upon 1000’s of men displaced due to desired changes in a finite workforce. Issues such as men not receiving proper paternity leave so that they can stay at home and mind the child if their partner wants to return to work. Issues like men not receiving the same treatment nor allowances as single parents. I could go on but I’m sure the people behind the studies already know this and are working away on it right now. Equality is equality after all, not just equality on one side of the scales…

    Reply
  • As the only man in the office (except for the boss), I always had to go down the road and get their lunches, rain, hail or shine. So I think I deserve a bit more.

    Reply
  • Pat Ryan 13/03/12 #

    While I have no doubt that the article presents good arguments and that discrimination against women no doubt exists, I find it slightly hypocritical for such arguments to blithely ignore relevant points when it suits them on the mistaken idea that airbrushing something out will lend strength to the argument.

    The reverse is true, airbrushing something out allows those who disagree to use the relevant argument as a method of convincing themselves that as the original argument is flawed, so too must be position it argues for.

    For example: Women earning less than men on average: This sort of blanket statement is arguably meaningless as until very, very recently women were less likely to look for or obtain further education, despite being better at it, meaning there are less women who were looking for and qualified for higher positions in industry 20+ years ago, which has the knock on affect of there being a disproportionately small number of women earning high salaries today which causes an inflation of the ‘average male salary’. The author points out repeatedly that women make up more of the lower ranked workforce but is somehow constantly surprised that this correlates with a difference in average wages. Such a correlation is surely to be expected until the numbers of women translate to the higher numbers of women in higher paid jobs.

    While we are in a period of adjustment from this situation, I would expect this gap to remain until the numbers of women in higher positions improves, which may take another 10 or 20 years, and is currently hampered by the maternity leave legislation in Ireland being discriminatory against men, having the knock on effect that women who have families lose almost a years worth of experience per child compared to men in the same situation.

    What we need comparisons of are the actual wages being earned by men and women in the same roles at the same level of experience. Where this shows women earning less than men, we have an obvious problem which needs action. I’ve never, to my knowledge, been paid a different wage to a woman in the same role as myself, and if I was I would think it wrong. I can’t definitively state that however as women seem a lot more skittish about revealing the rough value of their salaries than men.

    This is why I disagree with things like gender quota’s, I don’t think they solve or remove the barriers so much as smooth over them. They remove the barriers for some women, in some circumstances, while leaving them in place for the vast majority of others. They are patches, hastily constructed and unreliable. Norways success does not indicate Ireland will have similar success by following their model because the system we operate under is different (To say nothing of our casual acceptance of epidemic levels of corruption). What we need is to find ways to encourage more women to seek advancement on merit and suitability and focus on actually fixing the issues long term.

    Reply
  • Scarr 13/03/12 #

    Ok so women earn 17 % less than men, that sounds bad; but tell us where this figure comes from. Girls are better than boys at school. We’re all aware of this but work is very different from school. Getting a promotion is not just about educational achievement. Remember, Ms O’Connor, positive discrimination is still discrimination.

    Reply
  • Scarr 13/03/12 #

    This has to be one of the poorest articles i have read on the journal. Honestly, so many words wasted and so little detail or analysis given, with some statistics, mentions of scandanavian countries and the fact that girls do better than boys in school.

    Reply
  • An awful piece by O Connor. Her generalised, sweeping statements totally detract from her argument.

    Reply
    • I agree Deirdre.
      What really annoys me is that an ex school principal would use the argument that girls do better than boys in school to support her cause for equality in the workplace. As an educationalist I wonder what she done to rectify this imbalance rather than now use it as an irrelevant and spurious plank in her arguments for gender equality.

      Reply
  • Darren 13/03/12 #

    Out of curiosity, if you factored in paid maternity leave to the wage comparison is there a real difference in pay, pro rata?

    Reply
    • I am delighted to see that men are beginning to stand up and defending themselves from all this feminist generated propaganda.
      When I say feminist I mean that there is a minority group attempting to lead the flock.

      Reply
    • Yes. When you factor in *all* the excuses the anti-feminists use, it’s still somewhere around 5%. And that’s assuming all the excuses are valid(like career choice, etc.)

      Reply
  • Fine Gael want to keep “a woman’s place is in the home” part in our constitution. Our upcoming children’s referendum won’t change Article 41.2 in any way.

    Reply
  • The ‘statistics’ used here are ill thought out, and tell us nothing about the issue:

    ”that women in their 20s now earn about 90 per cent of what their male colleagues do, with this gap widening the older women get.”
    Is this statistic based on time spent working, ie on a per hour basis, or is it yearly, does it include or discard part time workers, self employed, public workers, private workers, maternity leave, etc? I simply couldnt finish the article after reading several examples of these ‘stats’.

    Please Mrs O’ Connor use statistics intelligently and sparingly. Stats are supposed to show a trend by carefully extrating knowledge from statstical noise, I feel these were more like a pail of paint thrown at a canvas in a hope that some sticks!

    Reply
  • Raf ⚡ 13/03/12 #

    What happened to asking about other people’s salary being a sign of bad manners?

    People working in the same position in a company can earn differently, regardless of their sex. It’s their business though, not yours or mine.
    If you’re dissatisfied with your salary, negotiate up or change jobs. Don’t go asking colleagues what’s in their wallets.

    If you can’t get a better-paid job, work on both your employable and negotiation skills, how simpler can that be?

    Reply
  • It could equally be suggesting that women don’t contribute as much to the bottom line, more work part time, take more unpaid maternity and family leave and are more risk adverse to taking on new positions with increased workload/ higher value work…

    Reply
  • howzat 13/03/12 #

    Not understanding the difference of learning off by heart and intelligence testing sums up the argument

    Reply
  • 40% of statistics are made up on the spot. Sure, 97% of people know that!

    Reply
  • It’s women that take the p**s when it comes to sickies!! They’re like Alberto aquilani!!

    Reply
  • In fairness they do spend longer chatting and gossiping

    Reply
    • Here we go… Let no cliche remain un-blabbed

      Reply
    • yeah , and women sometimes start thinking about make up or the x factor and like, forget to work….bless ‘em..

      only joking just look at the headcount in the dail, we probably would be better off with more women to point out the incompetence of the lads, as long as they’re not hanafin, beverley flynn or that whale yolk who was in charge of the health service.

      Reply
  • howzat 13/03/12 #

    Ffs

    Reply
    • FFS indeed, same old BS from MMOC . The real discrimination in this country is people like MMOC (men & women) getting paid over 90 K for being a TD with no appropriate skillset (she is primary school teacher) So Marys wages will probably have doubled overnight and she probably belongs to a union that discriminates against all young new teachers so that her ilk can walk away with massive lump sums and pensions .So show some leadership and take a massive pay cut that would one reflect the fact that the country still borrows 15 billlion an year to pay cover the shortfall in taxes , part of this borrowed money is pay your inflated wages Mary .

      Reply
  • EM 13/03/12 #

    I’m not keen on the idea of gender quotas. Surely it should be best person for the job…not best person as long as they are the right sex. What if a company is simply unable to meet the quota for example?
    But maybe there is some merit in positive discrimination in some cases…

    Personally I think you need to go further back and look at why men/women take certain courses in college. There were no women in my graduating class in college while previous years only had 5-15% women (engineering); yet business studies and other similar courses were largely dominated by women. Why is this and how can it be changed?

    Reply
  • I don’t understand why women want to be equal when they could be better. That shows a lack of ambition to me. Which is why men are better.

    Reply
  • Yet another article that twists statistics their own way without looking at the bigger picture and reasons that may have an infulence

    Reply
  • beats the daily Apple plug

    Reply
    • 13/03/12 #

      How could you have not mentioned Ryanair. MOL has to have his weekly outing too, so the right wingers can wish wistfully on him becoming our next Taoiseach. :D

      Reply
  • The weekly journal.ie article about discrimination against women…

    At this stage it’s old news…

    Broaden your horizons

    Reply
  • This is exactly where the problem lies, the obsession of some women with victimhood exalts failure, and generates more excuses and yet more victims. Did Margart Thatcher complain about discrimination, or did she continue to kick ass by putting her head down and just getting on with it.

    Women’s work-life patterns and their occupational preferences are significant factors in determining wages. Rather than being “funneled” into low-wage, low-prestige and part-time positions, women often choose these occupations because of the flexibility they offer. After adjusting for these factors, the difference between men’s and women’s earnings is very narrow.

    Those who still hark on about the ‘wage gap’ as evidence of sexism fail to take into account the underlying role of personal choice. The “wage gap” is not so much about employers discriminating against women as about women making discriminating choices in the labour market.

    Mary Mitchell O’Conner states that “A woman’s work is equally as valuable as a man’s. It’s time that fact was reflected in the pay we receive each and every week”.

    I deplore this ‘Waaaah all women are victims’ mentality. I say that whoever delivers a handsome return on an investment gets to collar the dollar, regardless of orientation, sex, race etc.

    Don’t complain! Compete!!!!!

    Reply
  • Why are we repeatedly fed this information?
    Women never seem to be happy with anything.

    Reply
    • Why are we repeatedly fed information about discrimination against homosexuals?
      Why are we repeatedly fed information about racism?
      Why are we constantly hearing about justice for abuse victims?

      Can’t they just be happy with the way things are?? Moan moan moan!

      Reply
  • I think Mary is venting here! Just give her a pay rise! Bet some lad in the office got promoted to sports yesterday.

    Reply
  • I find the comments on this article are completely ridiculous. The article is about discrimination towards women – something which nearly every poster has proven is alive and well from throwing out ridiculous statements like howzat, who suggests that women can only learn off by heart and have no intelligence, joey implying women take more sick days than men (where are the statistics to back this up or is this just some more blatant discrimination against women?) But my favourite has to be Andrew Telford who states that the decline in employment among men is attributed to men taking riskier positions to try and get ahead unlike women – andrew maybe you should pop over to the cso website and have a look at the breakdown of male unemployment – it is widely known that this is actually attributed to the number of men who were employed in the over inflated construction industry. I think it more likely that women are not commenting on this post because of the lack of any kind of proper discussion on the issue at hand and indulging in the views held in the comments section would largely be a waste of time.

    Reply
    • howzat 13/03/12 #

      You don’t even understand what we are saying and no I didn’t say that but your lost in your own bigotry

      Reply
    • howzat maybe you could elaborate on your comment stating that not understanding the difference between learning off by heart and intelligence testing as summing up the arguement as to why women are paid less than men even though statistics show women perform better at school. It seems that you are implying that women perform well when learning off by heart but not in intelligence testing hence why they earn less than men. If you have an alternative and less offensive explanation as to how your statement sums up the argument please elaborate and perhaps you can relieve me of my supposed bigotry?

      Reply
    • Ignore the little boys Christina. I’ve noticed that the men or women rarely comment on gender issues anymore. Too many little kiddies about. ;)

      Reply
    • howzat, I think she hit the nail on the head and now you’re squirming. I’m happy to see this.

      Reply
  • It is very funny how no women have commented on this article. Maybe they have better things to do with their lives. Although I never liked this general 17/18% gender pay difference statistic as it masks a lot of other factors. I would not doubt that gender discrimination goes on in workplaces, particularly when employers start to speculate that a woman employee might be considering having children. Anecdotally, I have heard some awful stuff about employers’ attitudes to maternity leave.

    Overall, though, fair play to Ms. Mitchell O’Connor for starting these kinds of debates. It was not so long ago that a female TD would be electorally punished for being seen to represent women.

    Reply
  • Notice how there are no women coming on to try and defend the article because even they know it’s bs.

    Reply
    • I would say the reason no women have come on is because they have better things to do than argue with a bunch of sexist ‘men.’ As someone else said already gender bias is alive and well. I am going to stop reading the journal because of the drivel that is posted by people, there is no attempt to debate or address the argument. Angry white male syndrome springs to mind.

      Reply
    • I think its more because it gets a bit exhausting reading through all the outrage everytime anything to do with women is mentioned.

      Reply
    • Deirdre. They’d give ya a pain in the ass. Was just scrolling down to see had any woman commented. I’ll just pull up a chair and keep you company. I’m sure the smell of the male indignation is stifling. Do you like my perfume? ;)

      Reply
    • Ah! Now we have a debate going.
      I have to laugh at this ‘girls do better than boys in school’ theory that’s lazily trotted out when discrimination is discussed without any proper analysis of why this is. What’s the point here? That boy’s are thicker than girls? Hardly. Most technological inventions are thought up and patented by males, males are smarter with maths and spatial awareness, the male/female ratio in Mensa is 2:1. Ok, society might have something to answer for here but most studies show that the ratio of male female intelligence is pretty much equal other than differences at various ages and a higher instance of peaks and troughs in the male IQ.
      Does the old ‘girls do better than boys in school’t theory, rather than prove some deficiency in male IQ at a given age, not show how inadequate our education system is? Does it not show that perhaps the female brain function at school age is better at remembering, learning by rote and concentrating than the male? It just proves nothing more to me other than the educational system is failing 50% of it’s students and guilty of discrimination against males.

      Reply
    • Put yourself in our position – how much of the kind of BS comments you see here do you reckon a woman can take? All the slimey, smartass anti-feminist remarks, accusations of “Sexism” for combating sexism.

      Also, thejournal.ie comments section is primarily male and conservative anyway.

      Reply
    • Aw Liegh.
      You could challenge some of the points made, and the journal is accessible to all genders at the click of a mouse.

      Reply
    • John As I work in Trinity I will give you some of the statistical facts from my workplace..

      The State of Things: Women in Trinity College today
      Women account for 37% of all academic staff in College, but only 18% of academics in the Faculty of Engineering, Maths & Science (Annual Equality Monitoring Report 2008)

      At present, 3 out of the 24 Heads of School in College are women

      25% of Schools have NO women professors or associate professors (WiSER Database, August 2009)

      What discipline has the most equal balance of men and women academic staff?
      It’s a tie between the School of Linguistic, Speech & Communication Sciences, which has 52% women to 48% men, and the School of Medicine, which has 48% women to 52% men (AEM Report 2008)
      Does this balance continue into senior positions?
      Sadly not. At Professor and Associate Professor level, the School of Linguistic, Speech & Communication Sciences has 25% women, while the School of Medicine fares slightly better at 37%.
      However, 4 Schools achieve a 50/50 balance among these senior positions. They are the School of Education, School of Law, School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, and the School of Social Work and Social Policy.
      What’s changed? – Then vs. Now

      Here are some quick numbers on the situation for women academics in Trinity College today, and throughout the history of the College:

      6% – the overall increase in the proportion of women academics between 2000 and 2007

      27% – the percentage of women lecturers in 1985. Today it is 43%

      51 – the number of women Fellows of the College currently, COMPARED WITH 207 MALE FELLOWS!!
      (AEM Report 2008)

      1904 – the year women were first admitted as students to Trinity College

      0% – the number of women Heads of School in the Faculty of Engineering, Maths & Sciences

      1925 – the year the first woman professor was appointed (Dr. Frances E Moran, Law, who was also the first woman in England and Ireland to ‘take silk’ and become a senior counsel in 1941)

      2 – the number of women professors appointed since 2006, compared with 33 men

      5% – the percentage of women professors in the Faculty of Engineering, Maths & Sciences (Source: WiSER Database, August 2009)

      56% – the percentage of women undergraduate students in TCD today

      1 – the number of lecture theatres in Trinity College named after a woman (Professor Constantia Maxwell, who became a profesor of Economic History in 1939)

      1972 – the year the first woman graduated from engineering in Trinity College

      First woman President of Ireland – Mary Robinson in 1990. The second woman president, current President Mary McAleese, is also a Trinity graduate.
      Two TCD graduates became the first women barristers in Ireland in 1921
      First woman to be appointed a Supreme Court Judge was TCD graduate Susan Denham in 1993
      First woman leader of a political party and first woman Tánaiste: both Minister Mary Harney, a former TCD economics student (Please do not hold that against us).
      Woman Vice-Provost of the College: Prof. Jane Grimson became the first woman to occupy this role in 2001
      But still…
      … Trinity has never had a woman as Provost, Faculty Dean, or even currently as a Head of School within the Faculty of Engineering, Maths & Science

      Reply
    • Aw John. You must have missed the first comment. All the wimmin are too busy chatting and gossiping to have time to click their mouse. Lucky tho we have so many male commentators, or should I say boys. I wonder do their mammies know they’re not in school?

      Reply
    • Ahmed, if you were charzacterised as an angry, Koran-brandishing Asian how would that go down with you?

      Reply
    • I would think that amusing as I am Irish (according to my passport) and I am atheist.

      Reply
    • That’s kinda my point. Assumptions made based upon stereotypes.

      You should be in less of a hurry to ascribe someone’s opinion to a ‘syndrome’ caused by their colour and gender

      Reply
    • Amhed.
      Thanks for your reply. I have no doubt about the relevance of the figures and statistics you set out regarding Trinity, given it’s long-standing record and tradition of male oriented senior appointments. I would add that such an example of gender bias from such a long established fore runner in Irish education is abysmal.
      I do note from your figures however that the female/male ratio improves in the Faculty of Linguistic, Speech & Communication Sciences, Medicine, Law etc. and dis-improves in the Faculty of Engineering Maths & Science. This gender imbalance is common across most third level institutions in common with the student participants.
      My point above is not in dispute of any of the foregoing but to simply contend that the the point often being made about the academic performance of females above males is not in any way reflective of a lesser male IQ, rather a serious deficiency in the methods of education employed to the detriment of male self esteem and confidence while in school and in later life.

      Reply
    • John although this disparity exists in Primary education it mostly evens out in secondary, although in saying that there is a much higher proportion of males that are troublesome in secondary as compared with females. There is no definitive answer to this but a lot of the studies are concluding that it is to do with male maturity and hormones.
      This is probably because teenage girls are better behaved at school, and work more conscientiously, and their IQ scores are often higher. Around puberty boys are notoriously rowdy and disobedient, the girls being much more teachable. Nowadays the worst threat is that you can be either temporarily suspended or permanently expelled from school. There are said to be over 60,000 suspensions from State schools in Britain each year, nearly all of them boys. This is educationally unsatisfactory, and many of those involved are probably only too glad to get out of school anyway.

      There seems to be a real biological difference between the sexes during puberty. Puberty in boys is a year or two later than for girls, who are often sexually mature before sixteen, and more or less socially mature soon afterwards. Up to their early teens boys are much the same size as the girls, but they then start to grow bigger and stronger, and their characters change. They become less sure of themselves, and tend to show off to the others to boost their own self-confidence. This they may do in athletic sports, but often by aggressive defiance of authority.
      Possibly another factor could be school has one set of requirements for success: sit in your chair, be quiet, do what we tell you, and play nice. Business has another set which is compete and succeed. I am not suggesting that this is true across the board, just as an overview.

      Reply
    • Ahmed
      You have, in my opinion, pretty much pinned down the exact reason for poor male performance in school – psychological characteristics more appropriate to a maturing young male in a warlike jungle tribe than a disciplined school environment. Anthropologists might have a better explanation for this than you or I!
      I do disagree however, that the disparity is more evident in primary rather than secondary school. The first couple of years of secondary school is the educational period in which these hormonal changes take place giving rise to the rowdy, rumbustious behaviour you describe and it’s resulting ill effects on learning.
      I have often thought that for education to be more successful in terms of results that the emphasis on the type of subject thought and the method of teaching it could be more appropriate to the developmental stage of the male student. Like for instance more concentration on active PE type or practical subjects in the earlier years with a gradual approach to more academic subjects later on.
      Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.

      Reply
    • You’re right Ahmed. And Mary Mitchell O’Connor raises some valid points – women have made important progress in terms of social, legal and financial equality, but clearly there is still a way to go.

      Unfortunately, there exists a conservative minded minority who believe that any advances for women or traditionally marginalised groups are an unjustified attack on the status of heterosexual white men. In the US, this manifested itself as a white (and mainly male) backlash against civil rights reforms for blacks in the South, which the Republican Party cynically used to its advantage.

      Reply
  • If it’s so blatant that women are being paid less for the same work because they are women, shouldn’t Deputy O’Connor have been able to cite one example at least? I bet the male models of the the world would love to see it

    Reply
  • Doesn’t matter who earns the most money between men and women. Most of it gets spent in Penny’s and Awear regardless of who brings it in.

    Reply
  • Gender quota in politics?….Don’t agree…..Personally, I wouldn’t like my taxes to fund maternity leave if women decide to have babies/take a year off after being elected to serve the people!….Sorry :(

    Reply
  • I am not surprised at the stats considering some of the comments here….I thought inequality mainly occurred through unconscious bias….not the case it seems

    Reply
    • Raf ⚡ 13/03/12 #

      I tend to agree with this explanation of the supposed disparity and don’t think any sort of “affirmative action” would do any good:
      http://benparr.com/2011/11/women-salary-negotiations/

      “I regularly hire women for 65% to 75% of what males make,” the anonymous Redditor says. “I am sick of it.
      [...]
      Our process, despite the pay gap, is identical for men and women. We start with phone interviews, and move into a personal and technical interview. Once a candidate passes both of those, we start salary negotiations. This is where the women seem to come in last.

      The reason they don’t keep up, from where I sit, is simple. Often, a woman will enter the salary negotiation phase and I’ll tell them a number will be sent to them in a couple days. Usually we start around $45k for an entry level position. 50% to 60% of the women I interview simply take this offer. It’s insane, I already know I can get authorization for more if you simply refuse. Inversely, almost 90% of the men I interview immediately ask for more upon getting the offer.”

      Reply
    • So women earn less because they’re poorer negotiators? Yeah, I don’t buy it. Even if it was true, it’d be case of the kind of characteristics our society tries to impart on either gender. There is no neurological reason that I’m aware of why women would make significantly poorer negotiators.

      Reply
    • Raf ⚡ 13/03/12 #

      There are cultural and perhaps even evolutional reasons… maybe even “neurological” if these modes of behaviour are genetically hardcoded in our brains.

      Women traditionally aimed for stability, safety. Men were the risk-takers, stood to gain more with the risk of facing a failure. For women… failure was not an option, they had to play safe. They were the ones who were sure to be raising children, with or without men. Very different approaches, to nest or to conquest.

      I am curious if there was a proper research done on this, i.e. if there is a difference in willingness to negotiate salary among genders.

      Regardless, there is an easy way to fix the problem: people should invest in negotiation training, women and men. It pays off in the long run, most people don’t realize how many things in life are always subject to negotiation. In most cases they don’t realize they entered one.

      But that’s me, I’ve been known to haggle even in charity shops ;)

      Reply
    • @Raf. Very, very interesting! You make an excellent point!!

      Reply
  • Gender quota in politics?….Don’t agree….Personally, I wouldn’t want my taxes to fund women’s maternity leave if they decide to have babies/take a year off after being elected!…Sorry :(

    Reply
  • howzat 13/03/12 #

    Leigh
    How am I squirming
    The leaving cert is based on learning off multiple items other than a few subjects like for example maths
    A mensa like test dictates intelligence
    I thought that was obvious tbh
    I’m all for equality but this article is a lot of noise no substance
    Factors that affect salary levels
    Job type
    Public/private
    Type of industry
    Hours worked
    Qualifications
    Whether there is a break in service
    Children

    In fact you’ll find child upbringing has a huge factor on the averaging for good reasons

    My wife works part time so she can mind the kids

    This article is waffle end of and trying to throw your chip on your shoulder around is no better

    Reply
    • Why do you think that the leaving cert being based on learning of multiple items other than a few subjects like maths and a mensa test dictates intelligence “sums up the argument” on discrimination of women in work? You have no issue calling me bigoted for not being happy with this statement due to what it implies but you seem to have an inability to explain its relevance?

      Reply
  • The usual predictable responses

    Reply
  • Leigh do you ever get tired of being so self righteous

    More political pandering to feminists
    women = enslaved hard working geniuses
    men= exploitative, rapist over privileged scum of the earth

    I will never vote for some who pulls these amoral political stunts

    Reply
  • If the argument was that a woman doing the exact same job producing the same results was being paid less, then no one would disagree, and a case for discrimination would be justified.

    But it is deliberately obscured and misrepresented, no account is taken for what jobs are chosen by the genders, no account taken for there difficulty, look at engineering, look at knowledge economy, look at IT, etc etc etc. all dominated by men because they chose those areas. And they are higher paid.

    Women are welcome to join them and compete on an equal playing field, but time and again they chose the easy safe options, all in areas that don’t require competition.

    Simple analysis of the facts and statistics reveal the answers if the writer is interested, but alas she is not…..more interested seemingly in hyperbole and seeking blind feminist support, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the argument.

    Disgraceful.

    Reply
    • Well, get the qualification, apply for the job, do a good interview…..then do a good job and compete with your colleagues to gain promotions. Just like everyone else in the world.

      This is equal opportunities, which applies to men and women alike, I’m not suggesting it is perfect, the wrong people get promoted all the time, but not always. It is no walk in the park for men either.

      Ive never heard of a glass ceiling in IT, engineering, software development etc, have you?

      Reply
    • With respect, you linked to a survey of peoples opinions……….one persons glass ceiling can be a time for self reflection on performance for someone else. I would like to see some objective evidence to suggest the people getting promoted did not earn it.

      Also empirical measurements of performance showing greater productivity or results, matched with hours worked, attitude, dedication, teamwork and all measures being ignored when shown to be greater in a woman complaining of glass ceiling.

      Equal opportunities will not allows = 50 – 50 ratios.

      Reply
    • I shall give you an example. I watched a program about the tube in london, in a board meeting with twenty two men one was a woman-the secretary. Now are you suggesting that there aren’t women out there perfectly qualified for any one of those positions? The problem as outlined in the article is the various obstacles in the way of promotion for.women, not one of those obstacles are lack of education. Maybe try reading it properly this time. I actually couldn’t be bothered trying to point out the problems women face in getting promoted as ur opinions seem stuck in the 1950’s. As the article outlines, times are changing, more women are setting up their own businesses in reaction to the inflexibility of the current anti family approach (as inflexibility affects men with families too). Maybe one day you will be lucky enough to be employed by one of these women, that just might open ur narrow mind.

      Reply
    • Thanks Niamh,

      I don’t disagree with everything you say, and didn’t mean to gloss over the article.
      I just wanted to make to point it was a survey of subjective opinion.
      There of course exists conflicts of interests for women, especially around family. I would just question wanting everything, just how feasible is that? What sacrifices are required? Are women willing to make those sacrifices?

      I would welcome more women entrepreneurs, so far there have been few. However if they compromise too much they will not be able to compete with more efficient models.

      I wasn’t born in the 50′s and my points are valid, I don’t have the answers, but reorganizing work for the benefit of women will result in discrimination against men surely?

      Also I disagree with the point in the article about women not being risk adverse, the evidence of public sector employment suggests women seek security before earning potential. Which is understandable and easily explained.

      The genders seem to make different choices for different reasons, and these result in the pay and achievement differentials. Women could simply make different choices to rebalance if they thought it was worth it.

      Reply
    • How many women are tube drivers or fixing the rat infested tunnels
      Upper middle class feminist agenda .. don’t see them fighting for equality when it comes to be a plumber fixing the sewers

      Reply
    • I didn’t say you were born in the 50′s I said ur opinions area stuck in the fifties. One question and its a big one….why would you think that if

      Reply
    • skeolawn 14/03/12 #

      If they were perfectly qualified I think they would be in there. Remember, “qualifications” go beyond just your educational qualifications. A gender quota won’t help. I don’t agree with discrimination against women, but I don’t think I see much of it around these days.

      Reply
    • I didn’t say you were born in the 50′s I said ur opinions area stuck in the fifties. One question and its a big one….why would you think that ‘ reorganising work for the benefit of women would discriminate against men’ this is absolutely untrue. In fact if you did some research on this you would discover that when rights/equalities areaimproved for one section of employees this actually has the knock on effect of improving rights and equality across the board.

      As for you sean walsh…wow! There are in fact women in employment in all areas of the london underground, I was saying that at the top there is a disproportionate amount of men. Does that blow ur mind???

      Reply
    • Thanks Niamh,
      To explain that point what I mean is this:
      If you were to reorganize work schedules specifically to allow further time off for women (all the obstacles you highlighted) then presumably you would have to impose limits on men. Either on the time they could work, or if transfering from other employment discriminate against their experience or achievements to remove their extra experience being an advantage over the women with less. Thereby discriminating against their hard won experience, does that make sense?

      I understand what you say, you mean making work easier and more flexible will benefit men too, but you forget that men compete, and will be competing against other men working harder and therefore lose…..and soon go out of business.

      I know this sounds simple, but I am simplifying to make the point.

      On the 50′s point, my opinion is a 21st century opinion, based on the facts as I see them. It could not be further removed from the 50′s, I am completely for equal opportunity, I am pro equal rights, and I am completely against discrimination….in either direction (positive discrimination is an contradiction in terms)

      Reply
    • Agreed on many points but I think the first way this problem should be addressed is through paid paternity leave whereby both parents have a choice, the woman will obviously have to take leave to recover but after that the decision should be made between the couple. For example if both parents area in good jobs but the woman knows there is a promotion in the offing that she might miss out on while on leave (and this is a huge problem) then she has a better chance. I know of women who were completely and deliberately sidelined once they told their boss that they were expecting. Be under no illusions, that is discrimination. I also know women who were told to their face that although they area perfect for the job they would probably go off and have babies in a couple of years so they couldnt have the job. These are highly educated women, and this is common across the board, often women don’t even report it. there is more discrimination out there than you think as a white straight man. How exactly do men have hard won experience and woman have less?? Women have hard won experience too that is often passed over because of the reasons I have given, that doesn’t mean they have less experience and often they have more.

      Reply
    • What utter crap
      Get your facts right
      I worked doing shit and dangerous jobs never had a female colleague then but as soon as its a cushy number you demand equality
      I respect women who don’t have to make up bullshit excuses look at Angela Merkel or Margaret Thatcher

      Reply
    • Maybe the reason you never had a female colleague is because none of them wanted to work with you. now wot exactly was your point sean?

      Reply
    • 196 countries on the planet….18 of which currently have a woman leader.

      Reply
    • I think your reply sums up the disingenuous and self serving nature of this neo form of feminsim
      Pity there are so many like yourself
      Unfortunately this self righteous trendy liberal cause is going to do more harm to the voiceless in society than any other current ideology
      i.e. more stupid laws that will keep people in the societal class they were born into

      Reply
    • Sean it was you who brought world leaders into it….societal class. As I said I know of experiences from women who are educated so I can only imagine that this is true across the board. does the fact that these women have an education mean that they are not entitled to complain about discrimination? As I also said these women mostly leave this discrimination unreported. But when it is reported it does make all women more aware of how to deal with workplace discrimination….all
      women.
      Sean you are studying to be a cardiac technician….can you tell me how many women cardiac surgeons there are in comparison to men??

      Reply
    • thanks for stalking me Niamh
      correction I am a cardiac technician studying to be a doctor
      fortunately I have experince in cardiothoracic research as cardiac technicians work for cardiologists not surgeons
      the current number of registrar surgeons from experience in 3 centers would be 50:50
      More women are in medical school compared to men
      shall I continue or should we go back to my original point that working class people are treated worse than the upper class regardless of gender and feminism ignores this issue and as a result makes the problem worse

      Reply
    • I am not stalking you sean, I just like to know who I am talking to especially when that person calls into question my experiences.
      Medicine is one area where there is equal numbers of both genders when students but as you go through each speciality you will find that the gender imbalance becomes more evident. Gps are pretty much 50/50 but after that there is a huge swing.

      Reply
    • Niamh I am far from new to healthcare and my personal experience does not support your assertion
      But I think any wise person would choose the life style of a GP over a hospital consultant
      Very few will look back at there life (male or female) and wish they spent more time working and less time with their family

      Reply
    • Which brings me right back to my original point, that the number of men in higher level positions is disproportionate, the population is roughly 50/50 and this should be reflected in levels of employment, it is not. The reason women do not go for consultancy positions is not because as you say they are wiser but because there are more obstacles in the way than for their male counterparts. Read the article I posted, it is not an attack on men, it explains the obstacles. have a good day.

      Reply
    • Sorry Niamh we all face obstacles in life and how we live our lives is a personal decision, I have yet to see a situation where a person was discriminated against for being female actually it is often men who are discriminated against from my experience. Regardless the biggest obstacle for any one in life is to be born into a poor family

      Reply
    • No need to apologise sean, I never thought for one second that would see this from a womans perspective, that would be too much to expect. As I said part of the obstacles in the way of equality is the inability to see another point of view. I can see you like to have the last word so I shall let you have it. have a nice day.

      Reply
    • Hi again Niamh,

      I agree with you on the shared paternity (that might be a good idea, but would need to be thought out more), in fact it highlights a discrimination against men that currently exists (which is ironic considering the article) also it was fought for by women, so it is a little strange to then try and argue that it is also a disadvantage. I do not know of a way where you can take substantial amounts of time out of work and not expect to have your career suffer as a result. (this is the reason I stated that men would have more experience, it is the time they are working when the woman is not) It is one way or the other, the option always exists to have the children looked after and return to work after a week or two, if the career is the most important value, men do make this choice, and possibly still would if given the option.

      There is certainly truth in your points about child rearing aged women and job prospects, and discrimination / consideration of this factor in job offers.
      However it is also understandable, and has been discussed even by women employers, who argue that the costs and the break from employment + added cost of a temporary replacement all equate to realities in the workplace that mean that it has to be considered, and can even turn into a huge disadvantage in have key female staff in important roles.

      In an ideal world it wouldn’t be, but it is not unfair. Think about what you would do if you were an employer needing a new employee. You cannot afford the uncertainty of perhaps requiring a temporary replacement, both in loses to productivity and expense…..and are fighting for survival in a very competitive environment…..you have the option between 2 identical applicant, one male one female, and the woman very likely to have a child soon. What would you do?
      The decisions are based on what is best for a business, I can see why it would be annoying, but can also understand the reality and reasons.
      If the maternity allowances were not as generous it would in fact help women a lot (ironic but true, there are always trade offs, and compromises, people cannot have their cake and eat it)

      Reply
    • My last word is to point out the irony of this ”As I said part of the obstacles in the way of equality is the inability to see another point of view” considering my last comment

      Reply
    • My last word is to point out the irony of this ”As I said part of the obstacles in the way of equality is the inability to see another point of view” considering my last comment
      You are not a male and you don’t seem to appreciate the obstacles in our lives because your problems are so much more important but I can’t see way 50 male work place deaths a year in the UK is somehow not a problem for upper middle class feminists

      Reply
    • Hello, I hope you don’t mind me sticking my oar in here as i think I might be able to untie some of the knots of this argument.
      @Sean Walshe despite your aggressive attitude you have a point regarding poverty as a primary obstacle but as poverty affects more men than women this is then a double whammy of discrimination (and yes discrimination does exist, you don’t have to be a ‘middle class feminist’ to recognise it). Let me explain, Inequality between the sexes manifests itself in many different areas of life and takes on many different forms:
      70 percent of the two billion poor are women; two thirds of illiterate adults are women; employment rates for women are declining after increasing (yes, of course, the world wars are now over).

      The idea behind the concept of the feminization of poverty is that high poverty rates among women are caused by discriminatory policies, practices and opinions (such as labor market restrictions, wage gaps, lack of equal education opportunities, substandard healthcare for women etc.).

      Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (art. 23 of the Universal Declaration). However, even in industrialized countries there are large differences in salaries by gender even within the same occupation. On top of that, there are promotion obstacles for women and women tend to get “sorted” in low-paying professions ( sometimes even by the force of law although this does not apply in Ireland, the general principle still applies).

      In the U.S., the median annual income for women working full time is 23 percent lower than for their male counterparts. This is a shocking statistic and one that cannot be ignored. We are still working on the Ireland stats.

      Although it is wrong to blame the wage gap entirely on discrimination, there is likely some discrimination involved. The phenomenon is probably an indication of an even deeper kind of prejudice.

      The discrimination argument is often countered with the claim that much of the gap in wages today can be explained by occupational choice . And indeed it’s true that women seem much more likely than men to prefer jobs that involve nurturing and caring – teaching and nursing are the classic examples – and these jobs happen to pay less. However, even if women earn less because they tend to choose less paying jobs, there may still be discrimination: women may be socialized into choosing certain occupations and this socialization may be caused by prejudice. Furthermore, women’s prefered occupations may pay less precisely because they are prefered by women.

      Anyway, occupational choice doesn’t explain the whole wage gap. Even within one and the same profession there are wage differences.

      Another common reply to the discrimination argument is that wage gaps are due to the fact that many women decide to interrupt their carreer after child birth. But that’s also a red herring (again, we are still working on the data from Ireland):

      U.S. Department of Education data show that a year out of school, despite having earned higher college GPAs in every subject, young women will take home, on average across all professions, just 80 percent of what their male colleagues do. Even at the top end, female M.B.A.s make $4,600 less per year in their first job out of business school… Motherhood has long been the explanation for the persistent pay gap, yet a decade out of college, full-time working women who haven’t had children still make 77 cents on the male dollar. (source)

      Even though there is a wage gap within professions, it’s true that the total wage gap is also in part determined by professional choice. Coincidentally or not, “men’s jobs” are generally better paid than “women’s jobs.”

      Now, some call this “occupational sex segregation” but that may be too strong a term since there are no longer a lot of legal restrictions on the employment of women, at least not in the Ireland. Women aren’t segregated by law into very specific occupations. Cultural pressures may still exist, however. Women often feel obliged to choose occupations that mix well with family responsibilities, and those occupations tend to be less profitable. Such a sense of obligation is not a sign of gender equality.

      It’s also not clear to what extent women – voluntarily or not – choose jobs that are less well paid, and to what extent employers decide that jobs chosen by women merit less pay.

      And, finally, there’s the issue of promotion opportunities and the “glass ceiling“:

      The gender pay gap is therefore the result of a combination of different types of gender discrimination:

      .pushing or socializing women into jobs that are less well paid
      .paying less for the types of jobs that women tend to choose, with or without socialization
      .paying women less than men within the same types of jobs
      .giving women less opportunities to climb the professional ladder
      .failing to give women and girls the same opportunities to enter some types of jobs (e.g. because of unequal .education, child marriage, socialization into certain types of education etc.)

      Hence, gender discrimination at work isn’t just a matter of unequal pay. Sorting – or, if you insist, segregation – also plays a role. As does exclusion, both legal and informal.

      Even in the best democracy, men and women aren’t always treated equally. In a representative democracy, one can reasonably expect to have a parliament that is roughly representative of the population in general: poor people should have their representatives or delegates just like rich people, women just like men, minorities just like majorities. This representativeness isn’t an absolute requirement. One can have a democracy without it. The people, after all, may decide that their views are best represented by an all-male, all-white body of wealthy parliamentarians for example.

      It seems statistically unlikely that this would be their decision in each consecutive election in each democratic country. Imbalances in the demographics of parliament that persist over time and space are probably not the result of the choices of voters but of other factors, such as discrimination, prejudice, unequal opportunities etc. If that’s the case, we are dealing with an imperfect democracy because democracy means equal influence and an equal chance to get elected (art. 21 of the Universal Declaration and art. 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).

      And that is the case. Take the share of women in government for instance. In almost every major democracy of the world, election after election, women are a (tiny) minority in parliament. Around the world, 18.8 percent of national parliamentary positions are held by women. It’s very unlikely if not impossible that voters systematically decide that certain men are better parliamentarians. There must be other, more deeply embedded psychological motives for such a choice, related to the generally inferior position of women in patriarchal societies.

      So I hope I haven’t bored you all to sleep and I hope that this has opened a few eyes and expanded a few minds (Sean I am looking in your direction) :)

      Reply
    • I didn’t intend to be aggressive I was just mirroring the attitude of those when I challenge their lies

      Reply
    • by the way I disagree with you
      its not feminisation of poverty rather the converse
      manufacturing jobs are the first to go abroad
      working in construction is seen as demeaning work
      the working class are loosing all identity look at the North of England for example
      I’m sorry if I come across as aggressive but it annoys me when people miss the injustice in front of them and instead focus on self serving ideologies

      Reply
    • Sean I cannot let it go that you called me an upper middle class feminist with self serving ideologies who misses the injustices in front of me……now firstly I am not upper middle class, far from it, how did you come to that ridiculous conclusion? Was it based on fact or assumption? Assumption. Secondly self serving ideologies…I do not personally gain from the awareness of discrimination and improved equality, we all do as a society. Thirdly I miss the injustices in front of me…what injustices are these exactly? The ones that I have pointed out regarding gender imbalance? The same points that ahmed put so brilliantl? It appears to me that you are much more willing to hear ahmeds points than mine, which makes me wonder why? and lastly your argument that poverty is not more of a problem for women is based on opinion, ahmed gave you fact.
      I won’t be replying again as I have better things to do but try not to be rude about me, im sure you are a nice person.

      Reply
    • Thank you Niamh
      Totally ignore what I said and instead pit words in my mouth and make me look like a sexist and a racist and whatever else you wish to vilify me as
      Yet cause you are such an amazing person you still think I am a good person … it must be so difficult to be so self righteous

      If you wish to label me as a sexist racist bigot then have the decency to say that I am a bad person and you wish I got hit by a bus please

      I guess you are right, poverty only affects women. Those homeless men are all really living in mansions and all those construction workers on the dole are just welfare cheats. You are right and modest as always

      Reply
    • Dear oh dear. We all have our crosses to bear sean. However I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Now let it go and breathe out slowly. I never once called you racist, sexist or bigoted, genuinely don’t know where you got that from. I quoted you directly so I didn’t put words in ur mouth. Ahmed is right, you do come across a bit aggressive. Hope you have a nice wk end and manage to relax. Happy st patricks day to you.

      Reply
    • Ahmed,

      Firstly, that is a comprehensive analysis, based on various statistics for support and it does refer to a lot of the valid counter arguments. It can only help elucidate the issue.

      However I have to point out that nowhere do you refute the counter arguments, and your use of statistics are conclusion based; as oppose to drawing your conclusion from balance analysis of said statistics.

      Your base assumption seems to be if there is a difference then therefore it must be the result of discrimination.
      This assumes the same participation in seeking excellence and upward career progression, and equal application of said efforts. Are these assumptions justified?

      Remove these assumptions and your analysis in fact proves the counter arguments, for example you gloss over career choice as if it is irrelevant and jump next to your conclusions supporting announcing discrimination.

      Factor in the specifics of career choice and difficulty of field, seeking / avoidance of compitition behaviors of the different gender breakdowns, also the expected salary expectations of the said fields. Next remove these distorting factors from the statistics and see what the result is.

      This is simple assumption testing and removing of distorting effects, useful for seeking the reality, but ignored if arguing a specific conclusion you want to prove.

      Your point about parliamentary representation is another example, you quote the statistic, give cursery recognition to voters choices, and completely ignore the lack of women participating in politics from a ground level up. Surely they can participate if they chose to…..but they don’t. Therefore if they are not there to vote for, then obviously the voters decisions are not the problem right?

      Same for quoting income differentials without considering the career choice and salary expectations, these factors considered prove no discrimination, just indicate the gender differences in terms of career choice. Statistics are blind, balanced analysis has to incorporate that and remove the noise.

      A very good biased debating position but lacking the fair and balanced position the subject requires.

      @Sean
      No need to personalize it re:Niamh and vice versa, it is just a discussion, with different points of view.

      Reply
    • Ultimate kettle calling the pot black

      Reply
  • Stephen 14/03/12 #

    This story is just one big generalisation. Everyone knows that.

    Reply
  • Haven’t you boys any work to do?

    Reply
  • Niamh
    It’s behind the bike shed!

    Reply
  • Jonno 17/03/12 #

    Wahhhhh wahhhh wahhhhh Hey maybe those men that are earning more deserve it?

    Reply
  • Then why doesn’t your party legislate for more flexible transferable maternity leave between parents? For example why can’t a woman take 3 months maternity and then her partner take the other 3 months if that arrangement is suitable?

    Reply
  • louise 13/03/12 #

    Get over yourself women

    Reply
  • Mary Mitchel O’Connor is a brilliant woman. She has done a lot for women and they are important too.

    Reply
  • All in all fairness Mary I can see why you were in favor of quotas… They clearly work to your advantage. There were plenty of people at the polls last time throwing you sympathy votes in place of Mary Hanafin and ahead candidates they admitted were more qualified because we’ve always had a women in DLR and it’s ‘nice’ to be a progressive district…

    Reply
  • Haven’t you oys any work to do?

    Reply
  • Go away out of it, I’ve had many jobs and all were equal pay, It just dawned on me, I want back pay for being unfairly been paid the same for being a guy. This is outrageous!

    Reply
  • I think this is a well-informed, straightforward and intelligent article. It’s so refreshing to see an Irish politician who’s not squeamish about gender issues. All you have to do is look at the number of aggressively anti-equality comments on this piece to see the guts it takes to be a feminist voice in Irish politics. If we’re working towards an Ireland in which men and women have equal opportunities to participate in both domestic and professional spheres, we need more politicians who take the barriers such equality seriously. I hope we’ll see more productive discussion of ways to achieve gender equality in Ireland soon – paternity leave and gender quotas have worked well elsewhere and it’s time we stop ignoring our embarrassingly low female parliamentary representation and our failure to legislate so that new fathers can spend time with their children. I’d just like to express my admiration and gratitude to Mary for writing this.

    Reply
  • Scarr 13/03/12 #

    While studies have shown that girls are more adept at applying themselves in school, a recent study has shown that after puberty, the IQ of men exceeds women.

    Pay differential and lack of representation explained.

    Next.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201010/girls-are-more-intelligent-boys-men-are-more-intelligent-w

    Reply
    • This is by Satoshi Kanazawa who was fired last year by psychology today and banned by lse from writing anything under their name because of his article on why black women are less attractive, the same man who proposes criminals ‘look’ different. He courts controversy and is a master at ignoring relevant data.

      Reply
    • Careful Scarr
      These women are hiding out there waiting for us men to dig holes. If they find you in one deep enough they’ll appear outa nowhere to bury ya!

      Reply
    • He dug his own hole john. I have nothing to do with it. I just pointed out the his hole was full of crap ;)

      Reply
  • Rubbish article, not even attempting to be fair and balanced.

    Blatant misuse of statistics, lazy self serving explanations and no attempt at independent thought.

    Very irratating….just another self serving agenda article, there is a growing pattern on the journal.

    Is there any editorial control at all?

    Reply
  • I think this is a well-informed, straightforward and intelligent article. It’s so refreshing to see an Irish politician who’s not squeamish about gender issues. All you have to do is look at the number of aggressively anti-equality comments on this piece to see the guts it takes to be a feminist voice in Irish politics. If we’re working towards an Ireland in which men and women have equal opportunities to participate in both domestic and professional spheres, we need more politicians who take the barriers such equality seriously. I hope we’ll see more productive discussion of ways to achieve gender equality in Ireland soon – paternity leave and gender quotas have worked well elsewhere and it’s time we stop ignoring our embarrassingly low female parliamentary representation, the pay gap, and our failure to legislate so that new fathers can spend time with their children. I’d just like to express my admiration and gratitude to Mary for writing this.

    Reply

Add New Comment