Mother Nature's Monthly Gift Reason Women Earn Less Than Men, According To Cheapskate Male CEO

source

The head of a major New Zealand employers' group has been fired after implying that women were paid less than men because they took more sick leave due to menstruation.

As the BBC is reporting, Alasdair Thompson of the Employers' and Manufacturers' Association (EMA) made the controversial comments on June 23 radio program. "Who takes the most sick leave? Women do, in general," he said during a debate on recent figures that showed New Zealand women were paid about 12 percent less than men. "Why? Because once a month they have sick problems. Not all of them, but some do. They have children that they have to take time off to go home and take leave of. Therefore it's their productivity. It's not their fault."

Wow, how archaic. As a woman, I have never had to take a sick for my period. I do not know any women who have used their period as an excuse to call in sick, either. I have known men use our periods to justify misogyny. This is just another sad example of a man using his position to trample on women, for his own sick pleasure and greed.



And women have children WITH MEN, Mr. CEO, why is the problem of slacker working dads not being addressed as the true reason women may have to call in sick? Of course, he quantifies his hatred with, It's not their fault.

source

A recent British survey produced similar results. It found that the average adult takes three and a half days off work a year because of illness - or 141 during their working life - with men taking 140 and women, 189.
The report also revealed men will call-in sick for more minor 'illnesses' such as hayfever, sore throat and headache, while women typically call in sick when they are bedridden with symptoms such as vomiting, flu and high temperature.

A new report from the Institute of Labour Market Policy Evaluation in Sweden pushes the question even further. It finds that before they have children, men and women are approximately equally often absent from work due to illness. But after the birth of their first child, the mother has about twice as many days of absence due to illness as the father. This difference remains up until 15 years after the birth of the first child.

So the studies bear out the slacker dad theory over the period theory, Mr. CEO.

I sincerely hope his next boss is a female.

Say what you want, but the man is pretty near the truth. I'm not so sure about the sick leave, but the comments about productivity are spot on.

Feminists will try and make out that the reason women get paid less, or passed over for jobs, is because of some inherent patriarchal oppression by men, when, in actual fact, it just makes sound business sense to favour a male of equal ability over a female.

While not all women are affected by PMS, those who are tend to be unproductive, moody, less consistent in their work and are a frequent cause of workplace disharmony by upsetting and unsettling their colleagues.

It's just common sense to hire a man who will not act up once a month, as opposed to a woman who may create unnecessary workplace drama every 4 weeks.

I don't think employers should be allowed to legally discriminate against women on these grounds, as I don't approve of any kind of discrimination which is based on anything beyond someone's conscious control ( such as a woman's menstrual cycle ), but there are obvious and logically explainable reasons why less scrupulous managers and companies would choose to do so.

Having a child, on the other hand, is a conscious choice, and there should be no legal onus on employers to accommodate a woman who opts to make this personal choice, other than giving her paid time-off when it becomes a physical necessity before and after child-birth. Maternity leave should be kept to an absolute minimum, and there should be absolutely no such thing as ''paternity leave'' !

However, once again, I don't think that an employer should be legally allowed to discriminate against a woman because she might have a child; it's just that mothers ( and fathers ) shouldn't expect everyone else to bend-over backwards to accommodate them and their personal, conscious choices.

The market place dictates human values to an extent now that our very existence is qualified and quantified by our productivity to employers. It's truly insane. Children are liabilities unless profit can be made from their existence. Grotesque. Look at the big picture, family interaction has the sanction of the corporations when your spending the $$ taking Jr to Disney world or buying them the next gadget, but don't mess with the bottom line by actually taking the time to care for them, leave that to the public school system, the nanny, the TV...

I just don't get people sometimes.

That pesky visitor women receive on a monthly schedule make human life possible. Damn, how it affects profits though!!

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

I disagree. Not all woman "act up" once a month and not all men are as passive as you make them out to be. This might not be classed as straight up discrimination but this is negitive association with employing woman - If employers actually believed this crap it could make it harder for women to get jobs and then we would have to have ANOTHER wave of feminism - Do you really want that!?

Look guys, woman start their periods during the teen years, but the time we hit the workforce the majority have learned how to cope with it - Just like we learn to cope with everything else.


I cant wait until humans evolve beyond gender stereotyping.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
I do not know any women who have used their period as an excuse to call in sick, either.

That's because when they take these sick leaves they don't say it's because they are on their monthlys
They call it "Migraines"

But not all women take days off because of "migraines"
That's why I keep hearing that the woman's bathroom is disgusting because there's bloody rags and toilet papers all over the floors

So women get paid less because of facility costs

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
While not all women are affected by PMS, those who are tend to be unproductive, moody, less consistent in their work and are a frequent cause of workplace disharmony by upsetting and unsettling their colleagues.

Do men think like your above post.... maybe some do
But way more women do

From whom do you hear around the workplace that women are "bitc&s"...... from other women!

It's women who always say that women are the worst, not men

I worked under a woman once, she was nice........sometimes
But damn there were ALOT of erratic fits and mood swings

Who later suggested I change departments where a man was in charge?
Women!

Surely we need equal wages due to all the chocolate we have to inhale once a month?.
It's not cheap.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
I disagree. Not all woman "act up" once a month and not all men are as passive as you make them out to be.

That's why I said a woman ''may'' act up. Obviously an employer isn't going to ask a prospective female employee whether she gets badly affected by PMS !

But, considering the fact that, statistically speaking, a reasonable number of women do regularly exhibit erratic, inconsistent and, at times, hostile behaviour due to ''that time of the month'', then it makes logical business sense for an employer to favour a man over an equally skilled woman, because the man doesn't come with the risk of having monthly bouts of bad PMS.

I never said that men are necessarily passive. Both men and women may bring emotional problems and ''issues'' with them into the workplace. The point is, that in addition to regular day-to-day personal worries and troubles which may equally affect the work of men and women, it's only women who have the additional problem of potentially being unproductive and disruptive due to their menstrual cycle.

With this added factor that women of a certain age may have problems with their work because of their monthly cycle, then it is just more mathematically probable that a man, on average, will be more consistently productive over time.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
This might not be classed as straight up discrimination but this is negitive association with employing woman - If employers actually believed this crap it could make it harder for women to get jobs and then we would have to have ANOTHER wave of feminism - Do you really want that!?

No, I think it is straight up discrimination to not employ a woman on the off-chance that she might be badly affected by a natural bodily change which she has no control over.

I'm not arguing that it is ethically justifiable to overlook women for this reason. I'm pointing out that what this CEO says is largely correct, and that, from a purely amoral business perspective, it makes far more sense to employ a man rather than an equally qualified woman.

No, we certainly don't want any more feminism !

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Look guys, woman start their periods during the teen years, but the time we hit the workforce the majority have learned how to cope with it - Just like we learn to cope with everything else.

It largely comes down to how severely - if at all - a woman is affected by PMS.

Some women learn to control their behaviour during their period, while others cannot or will not.

I've worked in companies with a large workforce, and - trust me - when there's about 3-4 women who are ''on'' at the same time, it's like being at a zoo.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Do men think like your above post.... maybe some do
But way more women do

From whom do you hear around the workplace that women are "bitc&s"...... from other women!

It's women who always say that women are the worst, not men

I worked under a woman once, she was nice........sometimes
But damn there were ALOT of erratic fits and mood swings

Who later suggested I change departments where a man was in charge?
Women!

At the best of times, many women will be sharpening their claws, and bitching and sniping about their female colleagues.

This problem is multiplied tenfold when these women are on their period, which is what I was referring to when I mentioned about the workplace disharmony and the unsettling and upsetting of colleagues that can become troublesome to an employer during this time.

Couple this with erratic behaviour and mood swings, and you can see why most managers, from a logical point of view, would rather hire a man than a woman of the same calibre.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


"The purely amoral business perspective."

I like that. It is something we ought to capitulate to because it is the driving force of society, and no rebellion is effective. Once freedom to be ourselves is finally bred out of us in favor of a more smoothly running machine, it's game over. Men are dehumanized by this paradigm just like women and children, and it is confusing to me why they get so huffy about human rights issues in the workplace, if women complain it's because of hormonal issues? Only? Not injustice or discrimination. Polarization is the key to their control.

Originally posted by Pilot
It is something we ought to capitulate to because it is the driving force of society, and no rebellion is effective.

Where did I suggest that we ought to capitulate to it ?

I am explaining one of the reasons why men are generally more employable, and, consequently, why they tend to get paid more.

Making a truthful observation about the realities of business practice is hardly tantamount to suggesting that we all have to agree to it and ''fall in line'' with this process.

Originally posted by Pilot
Men are dehumanized by this paradigm just like women and children, and it is confusing to me why they get so huffy about human rights issues in the workplace, if women complain it's because of hormonal issues? Only? Not injustice or discrimination.

Who said that women complain ''because'' of hormonal issues ?

I'm pointing out one of the reasons why women are discriminated against, and it's because of practicality, rather than because of some deeply ingrained sexist thought process in men.

Hey I know from personal experience that if I bitch 1 time every 3-4 months, my husband turns to me and says I bitch ALL THE TIME. Its like their brains are so paranoid it'll happen again they think it happens all the time.

That being said, I heard from an employer that he chose a male over a female cause 'she asked for too much wages'. Maybe there are a lot of other factors that play into male paranoia. Like how they think women 'cost' too much as opposed to what they 'produce'.

...males think about sex at least once per minute - hardly makes them chore-focused employees... in addition to that mental defect (which isnt their fault), there are other incessant and uncontrollable thought diversions such as sports, guns, their car/motorcycle/truck or the one they wish they had, etc., which eat into that already unproductive minute due to their sexual thoughts...

...even so, i prefer to hire males but only good looking ones and i always cut them slack on their inability to be completely chore-focused cuz i know which part of the anatomy REALLY controls their brain and, again, its not their fault that they're hormonally driven creatures...

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


The value placed on profits over human rights that lead to injustice and discrimination is the problem, not the whiff of sexism, which is only a symptom. That was my point. Perhaps you agree, if so, I wonder why the discrimination discussed in the OP that you deem reasonable and true, given your experience with women in the workplace, doesn't give you pause.

Let's just get this straight: Menstruation is a natural and necessary process. It is not a handicap or liability, you would not exist with out it, and neither would I. In the corporate hierarchy it is apparently considered a handicap/liability. This is absurd. Take away the emotion and look at the situation logically and you see that we are systematically encouraged to disdain natural processes in favor of productivity defined by what is essentially a psychopathic mind-set. I'm not cool with that. Are you?

Thats why women should be at home looking after the kids and taking care of the house. Its been like that since the beginning of our time on earth and 1 world war shouldn't of changed that.

maybe the women wouldn't be such witches if they weren't trying to basically do two full time jobs while the men come home from work and think they don't have a care in the world till the next day comes and they got to go back!!!

which, by the way, explains why mom is always having to take off work to cater to the little darlings.....
since the men are so much more highly valued, well, it doesn't make sense for them to take off work and lose more money than the women would if she took off....

as far as all the griping about the women's monthly, that's just stereotyping....
most women don't seem to have much problems with it, and well, hate to tell ya's this but women do get migraines, as well as men....
or...maybe the men are calling in with migraines, but in reality are having their monthly????

reply to post by dawnstar

So having a kid is a full time job? yes correct it is. But in a full time job at the office you don't get to go for a walk to the park or get to sit down and watch your favorite soaps or take a nice long break while your boss is taking a nap. The list goes on...

Originally posted by Pilot
The value placed on profits over human rights that lead to injustice and discrimination is the problem, not the whiff of sexism, which is only a symptom. That was my point. Perhaps you agree, if so, I wonder why the discrimination discussed in the OP that you deem reasonable and true, given your experience with women in the workplace, doesn't give you pause.

As I have stated, from a business perspective it makes sense to discriminate against women on these grounds. In most cases, businesses are seeking to be as productive and as profitable as possible, which means that they want to get the best workers for their company, regardless of any other considerations.

Businesses aren't charities, and most of them will only act ethically when they have their hand forced by legislation which establishes protections for workers. You seem to be surprised by this, even so this is the way things have worked for as long as businesses have existed.

I have already stated that I think it should be illegal to discriminate against a woman on the grounds of her monthly cycle. I am, however, explaining why, in many cases, it is practical for businesses to do so.

Making neutral and objective observations surrounding the facts of the issue is not an indication of tacit support, on my part, for people who act unethically upon these facts.

Originally posted by Pilot
Let's just get this straight: Menstruation is a natural and necessary process. It is not a handicap or liability, you would not exist with out it, and neither would I. In the corporate hierarchy it is apparently considered a handicap/liability. This is absurd. Take away the emotion and look at the situation logically and you see that we are systematically encouraged to disdain natural processes in favor of productivity defined by what is essentially a psychopathic mind-set. I'm not cool with that. Are you?

Then again, if human greed and reward-seeking didn't exist, you or I wouldn't be here either.

The problem is, the evolution of human nature is not Politically Correct. I consider it perfectly natural for people to seek power, resources and control, even if that impacts negatively on other people.

No, I'm not cool with it, but without the help of genetically modifying the human genome, or implementing a totalitarian body of control to monitor every aspect of our behaviour, then we just have to accept the imperfect reality of human nature for what it is - not what we'd like it to be.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


From my experience as a supervisor, and as a husband, women earn less because they don't like to leapfrog from job to job, they don't like to make demands and/or ultimatums, they are less assertive, and they are more concerned with maintaining a high quality of work and stability.

Of course there are exceptions to that generalization, but men seem to take more risks, demand raises, and apply for new positions long before they have perfected the one they are in. Men also don't mind confrontations with their boss, or taking credit for their work and tooting their own horn.

Perhaps this is disparity is a manifestation of the "peacocking" that men are used to doing? We are used to showing off, drawing attention to ourselves, and we are also used to repeated rejection and we just take it and ask again. Women are not used to constant rejection, and they tend to shrink back from it, or even from the thought of it.

Those are just my perceptions. My ex-wife was far more qualified than the men around her, and she worked for less money for years. After our divorce, and her subsequent man-hating days, she learned to toughen up and take them on head to head, and now she is the vice-president of her bank!

reply to post by hotbakedtater


i put in a long time at the work place and i saw the CEOs statement to be true. children /sick children is one of the holy grails of excuses for working moms. many work environments require a team effort and when there is a weak spoke in the wheel it runs wobbly.

i've also seen single & married women denied time off when they tried to schedule it. meanwhile they are stuck at work carrying the extra load when a parent leaves work or is absent with childrens sickness as the reason. this is not fair to those who show up and bust their butts.

and i can't tell you how many times i've seen sick co-workers refuse to stay home or leave work, and this is from there own mouths: " I can't take the time off. I'm saving my sick days to take the kids to _______ for vacation". great! within a week two other workers are sick, and it goes around the department and takes a toll on several employees. what a bunch of BS.

another truth some women should be told: their 'time of the month' isn't a license to rip the heads off their co-workers. men & women both understand this may be an unpleasant time for them but guess what. the other women in the office don't need to hear it. and the guys in the office already hear it from every female that lives in the house where they live. everyone has bad days or times when your head aches, your stomach is messed up, your behind is making you miserable etcetera. but you buck up and do your job. you don't take it out on your co-workers.

prior to WWII it was rare to see a female in the USA office. that must have been heaven. scream all you want, i've had more than one job where there was a lady working there Because she was the only lady working there. mature adults work to pay their bills, not to gossip, spread rumors and throw bitch fits about every little thing.