Maybe you could better argue when there are facts on the table?

These 3 articles in a Swiss consumer magazine mention up to a 39% difference in pay.

Sorry, you'll have to learn German or use Google translate, just too much text.

http://www.beobachter.ch/arbeit-bild...-frauen-nicht/

Wage differences: women earn up to 39% less

In Zurich, the wage gap between the sexes in 2010 was measured by the median wage of men was compared with the median wage of women.

The median wage is an average of the wage distribution. His definition: The half of the wage recipients earned more respectively less than that wage.

Depending on which criterion is considered to be wages differ sometimes low, sometimes very strong. The differences can be explained only partly by the fact that women are paid less for comparable work than men. Ins weight also reveals that women work more often in sectors with low wages, rarely move up to senior managers, and do more part-time work.

Interpretation example: A woman aged 20 to 29 years earned 11.4% less than their male colleagues of the same age



* Level of standards: 4 = simple, repetitive tasks; 3 = Professions- / expertise required; 2 = independent / skilled work necessary; 1 = highly challenging / difficult work

The salaries varied according to:-

Age

Level of skill in employment

Level of part time employment

Level of intellectual employment (see above)

Professional qualification

Company work experience

And statistically men will pay out more too. It's all very well to point out how old stereotypes persist, but they cut both ways; it's not women who typically end up on the short end of the financial stick in divorces, nor need to make a case how they are a better parent, for the slim chance they will get custody of children over their former partner or spouse.
What is the 'spirit of feminism' though? To say it is equality would be to ignore that from second wave feminism on, the emphasis went from 'equality' to one of 'choice'.

Sir, this alternative is the voice of privilege.

In personal relationships this works; society sadly doesn't function like a devoted lover. Women generally end up holding the baby... and the Dyson... and the duff income ...and the butterfly effect this invokes on their lives.

I don't have the solution but I welcome the discussion. It's a step up from denying there's a problem.

Interesting, as most studies tell the opposite:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...ge-study-finds

And it is only when entering their childbearing years that women begin to fall behind, further underlined by their outperforming men if they don't have children:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin.../#31f94df96bb0

LOL. The privilege of a liberal humanities education, more like.

Exactly. The problem is that especially the trade unions who prepare those sort of statistics love to leave out the relevant facts. Simply put:
- you cant just say there is a pay gap if two people who have university degrees don't earn the same. The model is simplistic and I'd claim they designed it this way on purpose
- Comparing median wages makes absolutely zero sense.


What you can deduct from this number is:
- women earn less


But you cannot establish any causal correlation that women earn less for being women. It could be that
- they choose their career paths for other factors than salary. There are simply jobs that pay well and some less so. Some of the ones that do less so offer other benefits.
- they choose educational paths that lead to careers that pay less. Less than a third of the students at ETH are female while at UniZH the majority is... please don't tell me that women are oppressed to study humanities instead of say engineering. It's not a secret which one pays better, but your statistic coincidentally puts them into one band. I'd be really interested to see an apples with apples comparison: how much more do men with the same education make compared to their female classmates...
- Even given those points is the gap in your statistic rather small with young women and gets bigger the older they get. Say what you want, but I just don't believe this is due to sexism and ageism, but simply because of family needs. The older the people surveyed the more do career choices accumulate.

Also the data presented is dated, www.bfs.admin.ch has numerous sets of data since, with the gap decreasing and identifying some of the factors in play.

Personally I trust that more than a beobachter article from over 5 years ago.

If all you want to do is make money then it's not so difficult.

An inclusive society - which Switzerland aims to be and for the most part does a good job, considering the rest of the world - works towards breaking down barriers of opportunity. Those barriers can only lower once those benefiting most - men - decide to share the duties and responsibilities.

I propose a search for new cheese.

Trev, I normally agree with most of your sentiments but I have to disagree here.

There is no doubt, in my professional career, that I have been able to take advantage of certain opportunities by virtue of being female and "exotic". But the irony is that those advantages were only present because I was different, i.e. the vast majority were white men. And I am also not sure that the setbacks that I have experienced due to being the same, outweigh those certain specific benefits.

Furthermore, many of my female contemporaties, starting from primary schools through to university, with the same or similar opportunities, have taken very different routes. Why? Am I really that unusual amongst the genetically XX, was I very lucky or is something else at play here?

Agreed, but why is this the case? I have my ideas. Does it matter, to my mind, in any case? Yes, though nowhere near as much as the "full equality" brigade would suggest.

You know me. It shocks people I know when I say that there are rarely weeks that go past in which I don't wish I were born to the same kind of family but white and male. I don't really want to parade my views on an open forum, but if you're interested, let's go for a drink.

The table above bears out the well known fact that older women will accept a lower salary, rather than be pushed out by a younger person.

Switzerland is very poorly unionised, which explains why women here have lower pay. They have nobody to fight their corner, and are natural peacemakers, accepting lower wages because they cannot risk losing the job offer. Human Resources know this of course, and know what they can get away with.

I don't think the Guardian and Forbes offer relevant data for Swiss pay scales, have you any contra arguments with Swiss figures please? www.bfs.admin.ch

If you use the government salary calculator, at the end it publishes figures based on sex = Geschlecht, nationality, and type of permit
example, Fr 900 difference, (slow loading the result)

https://www.gate.bfs.admin.ch/salari...urSalaryCode=0

Monatlicher Bruttolohn nach Geschlecht, Nationalität und Aufenthaltsstatus

Oh yes, we all have equal pay here...

Another well known fact is men will do the same. You're confusing your 'isms'.
Are Swiss social dynamics so different then? If so, you'll need to explain why they are when compared to other nations. Otherwise, I'd consider the sources perfectly relevant and applicable.

No, you produced the links, YOU show us the facts!

Sorry, we're supposed to believe your claims of 'well known facts' without question, but you can challenge anyone who does likewise. Well, we know where you can stick that kind of BS. Demand the same level of proof as you're willing to supply.

Ageism is alive and well in the workplace and affects both genders. Are you now telling us it only affects women?
I did show the reported facts in the links in question. Why are you questioning those, I thought you were questioning whether they are applicable?

but ask the relevant question 'WHY'- why are those choices made. Nature or nurture? And not just in Switzerland.

In London top companies, female managers, with the same level of education and experience:

"This means women are earning only three-quarters (77%) of what men in full-time comparable jobs earn," the CMI said. "Yet the gap is far worse for women aged 40-plus, where the problem is twofold. Not only does the salary gap increase with age and seniority, but there is also a persistent "bonus pay gap". The average bonus for a female director stands at £41,956, while for male directors the average payout is £53,010."

Female managers aged over 40 earn 35% less.- as well as being %ly very few. My daughter is one of 2 female partners out of 37- and her company is much more forward looking, thinking and acting than most.

If nature, then the whole thing becomes pretty problematic as one would have to conclude that some sexual stereotypes are merited.

... or acquired, expected and even 'enforced' one way or another.


Can't stand raving anti-men feminists- but deniers are beyond the pail. And so are the men who say 'oh you stay at home and deal with all this and the kids, you know because, darling, you are sooooo much better at it than me, aren't you' (+ flowers and perfume, etc).

Probably might not have gone back to full time studying and my own career, had it not bee for the exemple of my mother. And my daughters would probably say the same about me - attitudes and expectations are 'nurtured'. It can go both ways- my grand-mother was a rich socialite, she played bridge, drank tea, did a bit of sewing for the poor, and her job was to look the part. She didn't allow my mother to read more than 1 hour a day, lest it gave her the 'wrong' attitude and ideas. It worked too, but I wouldn't adivise it as a method. Stepford wives btw were not born and made in Switzerland - so this is not a typically Swiss thing, really, and not a new concept either. Did you go and see 'The Suffragettes' btw?

What about women who confuse things not going their way with being oppressed? (been there, done that).

Totally, they do exist indeed. Always easier to blame the tools rather than one's skills. Like the men hating so-called feminists, they don't help the situation either. Agreed.

because women are perceived to be worth only worth 77% of a man.

or maybe women are really paid unfairly and are in every way as good as an equivalent man and companies could make a killing by having exactly the same quality of workforce at 77% of the price.

Then you're talking about nurture, not nature.
Who's denying anything? That women overall statistically earn less than men isn't being denied by anyone.

However, what is being questioned is why this is the case, whether it is the case all the time and the overall myth that this is all down to some conspiracy by the penis-wielding oppressors here, who live charmed and privileged lives where everything works our way.
An ancestor of mine fought for the Borgias at Forlì in 1500. I suspect that is as relevant to our lives today as many historical anecdotes that are regularly trotted out on this subject.