CEO Says Women Get Low Wages Because They Have Babies: Sexist?

Get a grip. If you're really worth 25 cents more an hour, you would be making 25 cents more an hour. People don't seem to get the concept of competition. If you're valuable, they pay to keep you there. If you aren't, you get paid less or you just get fired and they replace you with someone else that can do the job. Communists and socialists don't get this, which is why their systems always fail.

How can you run a business when a large percentage of your staff take off 12 weeks off at a clip. Who fills in and then loses the job. I am a womean and I agree you do not deserve equal pay.

Does he have children? Does his wife feel OK with his views? If it wasn't for his wife, he wouldn't be a father. He needs to get to grips with that.

lol i meant yes..... let me smack that mofo.... They should be payed more for putting up with his azz.....

It's much more complex than that. A large portion of women do quit when they have a child. Loyalty is something companies love.



Warren Farrel, the author of this book, was once the strongest male advocate of feminism. He has since changed his mind in many ways after the prolonged exposure of their nonsense. He is still a feminist, but has drifted away from what he finally realized were inequities applied to men via women's groups.

um YES well without the babies dude you wouldn't be here and its true that women have to work harder for there money. i wish people with just stop thinking that there sex type is the most important because we are all the same pretty much so people just need to get over it

He'd fit right in with those of a conservative mindset. Hell, even the two idiot women in that group, Bachmann and Palin would agree with him!

Aladair Thompson's mother never should have had him.

Many work places still have one foot in Mississippi, and that equality thing has not registered yet. In giving the man more credence than a female is nothing more than being biased.

Believe it or not, there is a such thing as women who don't have kids. With them taken into account, this argument is invalid.

Sexist to say but is it true???

this is where when you speak the straight up truth that people who look for something to be "outraged" scream "sexist" at.....women do take more time off work for medical leave after giving birth...men work consistently throughout their lives and are rewarded with earlier deaths....that's the way life is......

Lol. *cough*

*sighs* The man from down under. Can New Zealanders got something better to do? How would he feel when he gets kicked in the balls then? This comment from Alasdair is just plain stupid straight from a planet dominated by men. Male dominance, my balls.

Yeah but to say we take sick days every month lots is an idiot thing to say. I haven't taken a sick day in idk how long. At places I've worked guys were gone a lot it depends on the person and their work ethic not gender. To think that is ignorant. He needs to choose his words more carefully because he made a lot of people mad for a reason. So women who don't ever have babies still get paid a low wage to him why?

I see what you're saying and you make good points lol men would have a heart attack having to carry a kid 9 months then give birth

So, according to this guy, women make less money for biological reasons that they have no control over? *facepalm*

Does he not realize that us women can still function in society during our monthly "sick problems?"

Let's not castrate the men who are intelligent, mature and responsible. We do need to keep the species going, after all.

Okie dokie.

Women make lower wages because MEN pay them lower wages. If we do the same job we should get the same pay. We might have to lose some during sick days if they are not covered, but it should be equal. Most women don't call in sick because they're on their period. Really. Some have a really bad time of it but not the majority. At some of my jobs I've even worked harder than the men. So there. :P

Actually, maybe. If a woman does the same job as a man then they should start at equal pay - after that they should recieve raises, bonuses etc based on work perfomance not title or job description - performance is the key. If the man or woman are out of the workplace for inordinate amounts of time, fact is they are not performing the tasks. I am a female and I have held numerous management postion - women are much more difficult to deal with than men. Sorry ladies, it is my experience. In my opinion it is not sexist to state a fact, he is stating the facts he has. Now is he descriminating - I dunno, would have to see his records. He may be but this statement seems to be based on his experience.

I will agree that women can often be "more difficult" in the workplace than men, but in my experience these "difficulties" aren't tied to sick leave, but rather other behaviors.

That's pretty much a blanket stereotype there. Granted some are like that, but let's not assume all. Then again, I know I've typically preferred to work for men over women because in my experience the women I've had to deal with are more into game playing (and, dare I say, backstabbing) than the men I've worked with. Still, none of these issues really relate to any kind of support for what that sexist New Zealander stated...i.e. that women should be paid less than a man.

You raise an interesting point. There are some people who would rather not work for a female manager. Ironically, most of them are females as well. There are some very good female managers out there, but there are enough of the other kind to keep the stereotype fresh in people's minds.

If you hire men, don't expect them to care much about anything that isn't directly connected to their paycheck. This can be a good thing, because most bosses prefer a worker who is truly focused on getting the job done. Performance-based compensation exists for a reason. This is also the most desirable characteristic in a manager. However, it can become a problem when another employer offers a bigger paycheck.

If you hire women, they are going to care about many things that are NOT related to the bottom line. This can also be a good thing, because there are some things that are important yet difficult to attach to performance measurements. It can also be a bad thing when the intangibles take precedence over the bottom line.

I agree that there needs to be some sort of balance on some issues - I think that some simply forget that companies are benevolent dictatorships - they are not High School or College and they are not a social club and they are one hellofva way from a democracy. On my career climb, I worked for several companies - I found that they were fair, relatively open and , while understanding on 'soft' issues, were driven to the bottom line for the most part. Promotions only come from performance - yes, character, integrity were always part of the evaluation but without performance there are no promotions. Conversely, I have seen many great perfomers lose their jobs for being, well, rats.

I found male and female employees to be about the same in the loyalty department, they, like all of us, consider our needs first and there is nothing wrong with that. I much preferred stars with the knowledge they would move on when I could no longer satisfy their needs or their goals. Preferred temporary brilliance to permanent mediocrity

Unfortunately, I have worked in companies that rewarded self-promoting (and sometimes sleazy) behavior. If you aren't getting your goals accomplished, find someone who is and pretend to be their boss. Add in some brown nosing 2 levels up the food chain, and you don't need performance OR character to move up.

I found that whenever male employees quit, there was a better than 50% chance the real issue was money. When female employees quit, it was almost always something else. The retention rate was about the same, the only difference being why people quit. Women are more willing to patiently wait to be noticed by their current employer. Fact of the matter is, the current employer will never promote people as fast as another employer will. For whatever reason, external candidates always look smarter. Go figure.

As you say, it's better to hire stars (or at least potential stars) and then struggle to find a way to pay them when they produce. No need to worry about paying the mediocre performers -- they won't quit anyway. And even if they do, and even if the replacement is mediocre too, nothing is lost.

Every company has a person or two like that - they tend to end in a public burn out and, yes, one may make it to the top - I never ever bothered to rent them 5 min in my head. It is true that karma does catch up with them even if you are not there to see it.

You know the old saying - the best job you ever had is the one you are going to or the one you had before and never the one you have. LOL

Hey, enjoyed the discussion - have a good one!