Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Urban v's the Commentariat

It wasn't being patronising, it was an exclamation! I wouldn't leave it at that personally - Birmingham City Council springs to mind - because being on the same grade but not being paid the same as female comparators is worth pursuing. That's a matter for you though (even if it does make me !)
My bad if you weren't being patronising...apologies
Birmingham was based on bonuses and overtime payments...mens work being deemed as necessary to have these and womens work not...that's my memory from when I was a steward
 
My bad if you weren't being patronising...apologies
Birmingham was based on bonuses and overtime payments...mens work being deemed as necessary to have these and womens work not...that's my memory from when I was a steward
Yes, in the case of Birmingham. But it works on basic pay too. If your council have done something that disproportionately disadvantages male pay for that job, even if the effect was achieved indirectly, it should be looked in to and resolved.
 
I worked in the council as aa Admin/Finance Officer in Welfare Rights Section...I was at the top of my grade...cos I chose to take a pay cut to go back to working with kids I am considered to have chosen this situation (legally speaking) according to my union's advice.
Thanks for taking the time to give me advice though ... is very kind of you
 
I worked in the council as aa Admin/Finance Officer in Welfare Rights Section...I was at the top of my grade...cos I chose to take a pay cut to go back to working with kids I am considered to have chosen this situation (legally speaking) according to my union's advice.
Thanks for taking the time to give me advice though ... is very kind of you
I disagree with your union. Just because you chose to take that position doesn't mean that you chose to be discriminated against - firstly it's potentially an unlawful situation whether you chose to go into it or not; secondly other male TAs are also potentially being adversely affected.

Cheers anyway
 
does the equal pay thing apply if you get less because you started after they stopped incremental pay rises whereas others didn't? I thought it just applied if the people getting less were from a specific gender, ethnic etc group? (genuine question, I know you know your stuff on this, I only know what I've seen in the papers and on here)
 
does the equal pay thing apply if you get less because you started after they stopped incremental pay rises whereas others didn't? I thought it just applied if the people getting less were from a specific gender, ethnic etc group? (genuine question, I know you know your stuff on this, I only know what I've seen in the papers and on here)

can't answer this as well as others as I only know what my union has advised me...
but... read you're We're All Wednesday Aren't We? post last week on another thread...told my partner who is a massive owls fan and she knows of WAWAW? but didn't know it's origins...she pissed herself (as did our teen daughter...my baby gone and got all grown up)... it was the day she had heart tests (all clear thankfully) but it really cheered her up :thumbs:
 
does the equal pay thing apply if you get less because you started after they stopped incremental pay rises whereas others didn't? I thought it just applied if the people getting less were from a specific gender, ethnic etc group? (genuine question, I know you know your stuff on this, I only know what I've seen in the papers and on here)
Being directly discriminated against "we're going to pay you less because you're <eg male> is more clearly straightforward, and rarer because of that.

"We're going to impose a provision, criteria or practice across the board irrespective of characteristics <which on examination disproportionately adversely affects a group eg men>" is a lot harder to prove, but still discriminatory.

Councils are public sector and therefore under an additional "Equality Duty" which replaced the gender equality duty.

Equal pay audits are intended to analyse (for example) the effects of policy changes so that no unintended discriminatory effects flow from those changes. An unintended consequence might be that because there are fewer male TAs and generally they have less service than female TAs, stopping increments may result in perpetuating a pay gap.

More info here:
http://m.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1811
 
Well getting back to the point of why should LP's article on this fit here. OK fair enough, I'll go with men in general benefit from inherent sexism, the patriarchy. I speak as an unemployed disabled bloke but you know it's not all about me. Or you. The Notallmen thing is a meme for those who don't know... But I'm and I think most posting in this here thread are not about to take lessons in privilege from the likes of LP quite frankly.
 
it's been very clearly demonstrated but

(a) all men do actually benefit

(b) you are banging on about about how they don't using a really tired irrelevant trope

But there were several people posting who disagreed with statement (a) so I don't know why you're picking at the arguments of only one poster, apart from that he talked about his own experience of pay inequality, which renders him vulnerable to the not all men meme, which incidentally, I also had to look up.

People who oppose sexism and the oppression of women don't necessarily think that all men benefit from it. This has been a debate on the left for decades, it's not conclusive at all. As you can see from the several people who posted alternative arguments.
 
I think all of us chaps do benefit from the patriarchy, although we do not do so equally - some men benefit enormously, others hardly at all.
But I still think it's a poor article. Internally inconsistent, and as ever with L.P, it's all about individual attitudes, not systems. And the writing! Check this out:

"Without invoking dull gender stereotypes about multitasking, we should all agree that it’s relatively easy to hold more than one idea at a time in the human brain. It’s a large, complex organ, the brain, about the size and weight of a horrible, rotting cauliflower, and it has room for many series’ worth of trashy TV plot lines and the phone number of the ex-lover you really shouldn’t be calling after six shots of vodka. If it couldn’t handle big structural ideas at the same time as smaller personal ones, we would never have made it down from the trees and built things such as cities and cineplexes."

...Paging Dr Freud...
 
Last edited:
I disagree as I do not think it is a fact that all men benefit from sexism.

It's a generalisation, obviously, but on the whole men as a sex do benefit from sexism. I can't think of anywhere significant where this isn't the majority case socially, economically and culturally. We benefit by/from pay differentials, social attitudes, cultural assumptions and a host of other "facts on the ground".
 
But there were several people posting who disagreed with statement (a) so I don't know why you're picking at the arguments of only one poster, apart from that he talked about his own experience of pay inequality, which renders him vulnerable to the not all men meme, which incidentally, I also had to look up.
Probably not very constructive of me really, no, sorry.
 
The problem I have with the argument that all men benefit from sexism isn't that it's not true - at a basic level it clearly is, in that all other things being equal men do better out of society as it is than women (badly phrased I know but you know what I mean). It's more that if you just leave it at that it kind of sounds like all men would be worse off if we were to do away with patriarchy/sexism (or whatever you want to call it). Which makes it sound like all men have a material interest in maintaining sexism.

Fortunately I don't actually think that's true, because it's one of the props holding capitalism up and keeping it functioning (unpaid labour contributing to the social surplus bla bla bla). So on another level most men (in particular working class ones) lose out as a result of sexism, since without it the system that exploits us couldn't be maintained and conversely some women - female capitalists for example - derive material benefits from it while still being affected negatively as compared to men in a similar position.

I think if you actually want to do away with sexism, as opposed to impotent moralising, it's useful to make that qualification simply because people are less likely to support political goals that they believe will make them worse off and more likely to support ones that will make them better off.

(Warning: this post may contain stuff that reads like Marxism by numbers)

Yep. While the generalisation holds true, any finer-grained analysis turns up all sorts of factors (class, race etc) that confound things if you try to focus the generalisation.
 
Finally I am always surprised that lots of people who agree with the idea that all men benefit from sexism seem to strongly disagree that all white people benefit from racism which seems contradictory to me

That is often because people take claims like "all white people benefit from racism" personally (because even tangential accusations of racism get taken personally by most people!), rather than seeing the claim not as a slur on individuals or community, but as an ongoing historical truth insofar as institutionalised practices (in, for example, the British criminal justice system) mean that in general whites were, and will be privileged over non-whites.
 
I have no legal case...the council banned all increment rises for everyone in the council and as TA's are on council terms and conditions in all the local council controlled schools I am not being discriminated against.

I find it fascinating that when a person gives an opinion like I did people respond in a manner that seems irritated/angry etc...

The women in work ain't benefiting from me not getting increments...I was simply suggesting that imo not all men benefit...it's fine to say you disagree with me, or to think I'm wrong but please don't patronise me... I ain't stupid ... I simply disagreed.

You're projecting your personal situation onto the canvas of general male benefit derived from sexism, and using it to say "not all men benefit", while missing the point insofar as the established differentials that are already in existence. Yes, you're one male suffering from a pay differential, but your differential didn't come about due to a deliberate devaluing of female labour. The pay differentials that still exist between male and female salaries did come about because of that sort of institutionalised sexism.

BTW, writing "ain't" doesn't prove membership of the proletariat, comrade! :p
 
You're projecting your personal situation onto the canvas of general male benefit derived from sexism, and using it to say "not all men benefit", while missing the point insofar as the established differentials that are already in existence. Yes, you're one male suffering from a pay differential, but your differential didn't come about due to a deliberate devaluing of female labour. The pay differentials that still exist between male and female salaries did come about because of that sort of institutionalised sexism.

BTW, writing "ain't" doesn't prove membership of the proletariat, comrade! :p

I do agree with the bit in bold and actually said in the bit you quoted in this post that the women I work with are not benefiting.

I also agree with the bit underlined.

I was not trying to use my situation to generalise in any way I was simply trying to show that things are no always so simplistic...to be honest I understand I poorly explained myself but I think that stating ;

"Men benefit from sexism in the sense that it means they end up privileged over women in equivalent situations. They get paid more for doing the same jobs than women, they are allowed to do more things than women are etc etc. That is surely not controversial?"


is over simplified and my post was in response to that. It don't make me right it means I disagree.
I also wrote that I don't understand how my partner not being paid the same amount as men benefits me....not to score cheap points but because I genuinely don't ... this effects all men with a female partner in work...if pay was equal then they'd have a higher household income.

I think my life is easier in some ways because I ain't judged on how I looked in the same way women are, I don't have unwanted attention put upon me in the same way women, I don't get judged on my age in the same way etc.
I am considered to be a "good partner" cos I do the majority of the housework and child care yet women are simply expected to do these things and get little (if any) respect for it.

I do not fear sexual attack nor am I expected to shave my legs and arm pits, pluck my eye brows etc.

I think that in a majority of careers it is easier to progress if you are male and that many men are higher paid than men for equivalent work.

But I think that over simplifying things does not necessarily lead to the correct answers.

In my view men do not benefit from women being paid less ... it effects household incomes of millions of men who have female partners. If their female partners were equally paid, given equal chances of promotion, bonuses etc. then the men would benefit.

I could well be wrong...I may have explained myself poorly but I fail to see why me having and opinion leads people like Fridge Magnet start being so rude...it was like listening to some swp hack bending the stick.

As for me not needing to use the word "ain't"...that totally contradicts everythings ones mockney coach has taught me over the years in my private tuition sessions.
 
Last edited:
it is well documented historical fact that slaves did not build the pyramids, they were public works project initiated by the Pharaoh in order to provide employment in times of hardship, they were well housed and well compensated for their services. Egyptians under these programs built not only monuments like Pyramids, obelisks, or other such constructions - but irrigation canals and large scale agricultural ventures to increase yearly yield

:hmm:
 
Back
Top Bottom