Today I'm angry about.....

[Bruce Rioja]

Hamleys have a floor of 'boys toys' and a floor of 'girls toys'? Well that would wind me up too.

Helps me enormously. Prevents me from making a mess of it and buying a doll for my nephew and a train set for my niece..... oh!

[malcd1]

Does seem a bit unfair though, its not generally seen as weird for a girl to wear blue and play with trains, as it is for a boy to wear pink and play with dolls. Whys that then?

because the world is biased against boys! simple.

I'm surprised the feminists haven't insisted on 2 floors of girls toys and one floor of boys toys as that would even up some of the other injustices.

[thebish]

I think Hamley's error was in the specific labelling of the floors as for Boys or for Girls...

those days are long gone for me - but I can well remember hours spent trawling round Toys Я Us with the kids - and there was always a pink aisle - but it was never labelled as "for girls" - it's up to the parents and the children then...

it makes sense to put toys of a similar type together.

[Prufrock]

break the taboos and find out salaries of women doing the same jobs as men. It's a lot better than it was, but it is still far from fair.

Not much evidence of a difference in genuinely like for like jobs and like for like experience these days.

It's very difficult to find any evidence at all given the culture of secrecy in this country over pay. There just isn't the data. Anecdotally I know of several women who haved worked professional jobs who found out after leaving they were on considerably less than the men doing the same job, including one of my teachers who was at a law firm! It is difficult to examine how that works in the top jobs however, given the paucity of women there! Somebody on my course used to work in recruitment where he was explicitly told not to hire any women between the ages of 25-35!

[Prufrock]

separate floors, boys and girls, colour coordinated etc etc

Why do boys and girls have to have separate, colour-coordinated floors? (I'm not expecting you to answer that, TD, you're not a toy shop owner.) I haven't got any sprogs, but if I had, I wouldn't expect/encourage any daughter of mine to think that all things pink and fluffy were the sole objects of desire.

Oh, and I'm not a lezzer. Not last time I looked, anyway.

Havent heard anything about this but if what I am grasping is the case, Hamleys have a floor of 'boys toys' and a floor of 'girls toys'? Well that would wind me up too.

Why should girls and boys be directed to what they 'should' play with? Having boy/girl twins means I will no doubt have a wide variety of toys in the house over the years and that's how it should be whether you have different sex children or the same. I have no problem with my son playing with dolls or my daughter with a train set. Will be interesting to see over the years whether they gravitate to the stereotypes of what girls and boys are 'supposed' to play with or not. I certainly won't push that way and they will have the choice of both.

When I want any clothes from Next at the Reebok, I have to walk into the women's section and then, then, up a WHOLE FLIGHT of stairs to get to the clearly labelled 'mens' section. This is surely scandalous. What if I want a new skirt to go with my suit? Do I have to traipse all through the men's section, then downstairs to the segregated women's?

It's a shop labelling their stuff in a way that people know what it is! No-one is 'dictating' what girls and boys 'should' play with. There is nothing stopping girls buying train sets, or boys arts and crafts, the labels are just there as a guide for shoppers. No-one has been discriminated against, no-one has died, and yet there folk complaining who have completely lost their sense of perspective. Of all the problems in the world and that mental bint off the internet has started a campaign about shop floor labels. Does my head in, it's the easy shot against liberalism, find an example of somebody who has gone mental!

They're doing a refurb, have presumably asked a group of people that extends beyond one lunatic on the internet what they think, have found the boys and girls labels aren't particularly helpful and therefore made a business decision to change the layout. No news here, other than to agree with at least Bruce's original sentiment that she is a mental bitch.

[CrazyHorse]

It's very difficult to find any evidence at all given the culture of secrecy in this country over pay. There just isn't the data.

In that case you probably shouldn't have made the sweeping statement about pay inequality in the first place.

Anecdotally I know of several women who haved worked professional jobs who found out after leaving they were on considerably less than the men doing the same job, including one of my teachers who was at a law firm! It is difficult to examine how that works in the top jobs however, given the paucity of women there!

Are they exactly the same job? Exactly?
And how come no one ever complains about women having more rights and perks to men "in the same job"?
In fact if these women are earning less surely as an employer you'd have as many women on payroll as you could rather than give the jobs to men because it would cost you less? Ten men working for you at £50k each a year or ten women doing the same job for at £40k a year and you've saved 100 grand. No brainer.

Somebody on my course used to work in recruitment where he was explicitly told not to hire any women between the ages of 25-35!

That's another issue; nothing to do with pay differences.

[thebish]

When I want a new dressing gown from Next at the Reebok, I have to walk into the women's section and then, then, up a WHOLE FLIGHT of stairs to get to the clearly labelled 'mens' section. This is surely scandalous. What if I want a pink dressing gown to go with my slippers? Do I have to traipse all through the men's section, then downstairs to the segregated women's?

[BWFC_Insane]

When I want a new dressing gown from Next at the Reebok, I have to go through the whole charade of walking into the women's section and then, then, up a WHOLE FLIGHT of stairs to get to the clearly labelled 'mens' section, rifling through said gowns pretending they have none in "my colour" then back down into the womens section to buy the pink satin dressing gown I knew I was buying when I walked into the shop. This is surely scandalous.

Further corrected.

[Prufrock]

I should rather have said it is difficult to find conclusive evidence, it's not the case that there isn't any. Try here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... ay-pay-gap" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I disagree with your last sentence, it isn't a different issue, or if it is they are so intertwined as to warrant discussion together. Even if women are being paid the same for the same job, which I don't believe they are, then they aren't getting the same opportunities at the top level.

As for exactly the same job? In the case of my teacher, she was an associate and the guy whose salary she found out wasn't, and he was on more than her, so no, not exactly the same job, hers was 'more valuable'. Her fellow male associates were on way more than her.

And women don't get more perks than men, and if they do, it is (generally speaking) illegal.

The repression of the white male. We have it so hard!

[Prufrock]

When I want a new dressing gown from Next at the Reebok, I have to go through the whole charade of walking into the women's section and then, then, up a WHOLE FLIGHT of stairs to get to the clearly labelled 'mens' section, rifling through said gowns pretending they have none in "my colour" then back down into the womens section to buy the pink satin dressing gown I knew I was buying when I walked into the shop. This is surely scandalous.

Further corrected.

I don't like satin. Feels like spiders crawling all over you. S'all about towelling dressing gowns. Which I have to buy from a different section from my normal clothes! It is exactly like Soth Africa in the latter half of the 20th century! It's worse than Hitler!

[thebish]

And women don't get more perks than men, and if they do, it is (generally speaking) illegal.

remind me how long statutory maternity leave is - and how long statutory paternity leave is?

[Prufrock]

Hence my generally speaking. That, and lets not forget they actually have to push out a baby through a hole the size of a smarties tube, that probably takes time to recover, and there is at least now paternity leave, is about the only one a can think of. There are also plans to give paternity leave for the second six months of the baby's life, so both mother and father get time off.

[thebish]

Hence my generally speaking. That, and lets not forget they actually have to push out a baby through a hole the size of a smarties tube, that probably takes time to recover, and there is at least now paternity leave, is about the only one a can think of. There are also plans to give paternity leave for the second six months of the baby's life, so both mother and father get time off.

ahhh - so by "And women don't get more perks than men" you meant "Women do get more perks than men."

[CrazyHorse]

I should rather have said it is difficult to find conclusive evidence, it's not the case that there isn't any. Try here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... ay-pay-gap" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I disagree with your last sentence, it isn't a different issue, or if it is they are so intertwined as to warrant discussion together. Even if women are being paid the same for the same job, which I don't believe they are, then they aren't getting the same opportunities at the top level.

As for exactly the same job? In the case of my teacher, she was an associate and the guy whose salary she found out wasn't, and he was on more than her, so no, not exactly the same job, hers was 'more valuable'. Her fellow male associates were on way more than her.

And women don't get more perks than men, and if they do, it is (generally speaking) illegal.

The repression of the white male. We have it so hard!

Didn't say we had it hard. Or that I was repressed, but feel free to pop words in my mouth if you think it'll help prove your unwinnable point. Nor did I mention the race card but I might have known you'd desperately drag that into it. Shame you didn't mention the Daily Mail or else I'd have got a fullhouse on my Pru Bingo Card.
That blog you linked. If there is any truth in any of that then I wonder why the women haven't used the full force of the discrimination laws in this country to get their inequality overturned?
You also glossed over my point that if there were any truth in this then jobs would be given to women rather than men as a cost saving exercise. I'm also wondering why you did that too.

You're going to have to explain how not giving a job to a 25-35 y/o woman is the same as paying all women less than men cos I can't see the connection.

[Prufrock]

Hence my generally speaking. That, and lets not forget they actually have to push out a baby through a hole the size of a smarties tube, that probably takes time to recover, and there is at least now paternity leave, is about the only one a can think of. There are also plans to give paternity leave for the second six months of the baby's life, so both mother and father get time off.

ahhh - so by "And women don't get more perks than men" you meant "Women do get more perks than men."

No I meant, 'women don't get more perks than men, and if they do, it is (generally speaking (you could add, say, maternity leave here)) illegal.'

Which is, spelling it out aside, exactly what I wrote .

Hoss seemed to be talking of perks which go a long way beyond maternity pay, which is being looked at being extended equally to men, and this is, to my knowledge, the only perk a woman might get that a man wouldn't which isn't illegal.

[thebish]

Which is, spelling it out aside, exactly what I wrote .

Hoss seemed to be talking of perks which go a long way beyond maternity pay, which is being looked at being extended equally to men, and this is, to my knowledge, the only perk a woman might get that a man wouldn't which isn't illegal.

ahh - I see - you are saying

"women don't get any more perks than men except for the very large legal perk that they get and men don't."

[Prufrock]

I should rather have said it is difficult to find conclusive evidence, it's not the case that there isn't any. Try here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... ay-pay-gap" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I disagree with your last sentence, it isn't a different issue, or if it is they are so intertwined as to warrant discussion together. Even if women are being paid the same for the same job, which I don't believe they are, then they aren't getting the same opportunities at the top level.

As for exactly the same job? In the case of my teacher, she was an associate and the guy whose salary she found out wasn't, and he was on more than her, so no, not exactly the same job, hers was 'more valuable'. Her fellow male associates were on way more than her.

And women don't get more perks than men, and if they do, it is (generally speaking) illegal.

The repression of the white male. We have it so hard!

Didn't say we had it hard. Or that I was repressed, but feel free to pop words in my mouth if you think it'll help prove your unwinnable point. Nor did I mention the race card but I might have known you'd desperately drag that into it. Shame you didn't mention the Daily Mail or else I'd have got a fullhouse on my Pru Bingo Card.
That blog you linked. If there is any truth in any of that then I wonder why the women haven't used the full force of the discrimination laws in this country to get their inequality overturned?
You also glossed over my point that if there were any truth in this then jobs would be given to women rather than men as a cost saving exercise. I'm also wondering why you did that too.

You're going to have to explain how not giving a job to a 25-35 y/o woman is the same as paying all women less than men cos I can't see the connection.

I deliberately re-wrote that last sentence to make it try to seem less like I meant you directly. I know nowt about you Hoss, you could be an underpaid black woman for all I know! It is however the usual rationale behind the argument that 'women have never had it so good' which comes when people start complaining about all the perks that women get that men don't.

Women do sometimes use it to get their inequality overturned, but it involves kicking up a stink, forcing the company to complete an equality survey and knowing full-well, despite any law to the contrary, that it will be used against you.

The point I 'glossed over' seems fairly easy to counter. They aren't paid less for a laugh, the mentality is often that women genuinely aren't as good as men, won't be working as hard, often even the well-meaning a working man is more likely to be the only bread winner so they deserve more, so despite in reality doing the same job, they aren't paid as much. That they aren't viewed to have the seniority, the gravitas, the ability, is why folk don't employ nought but women.

I'm not sure how the uncontroversial point that women get paid less than men, which is indisputable, often for the same work, difficult to find conclusive evidence but what there is points to there being an, admittedly smaller than it used to be, gap, and not being given the same opportunity at the top level, again indisputable fact, is somehow an 'unwinnable position'?

And what are these perks, maternity leave aside, that women get that men don't?

[Prufrock]

Which is, spelling it out aside, exactly what I wrote .

Hoss seemed to be talking of perks which go a long way beyond maternity pay, which is being looked at being extended equally to men, and this is, to my knowledge, the only perk a woman might get that a man wouldn't which isn't illegal.

ahh - I see - you are saying

"women don't get any more perks than men except for the very large legal perk that they get and men don't."

I think there's plenty women who would object to you describing it as a perk, but essentially yes, I'm saying what I was saying at the start. Women get maternity leave. Men get, at the moment, paternity leave which is a lot less. This is due to a biological difference between men and women which doesn't make women worse at the job, it just means they can't do it for a certain period of time. It would be pretty difficult to give men maternity pay, but steps are being taken to address the unfairness that only women were viewed as needing time to recover, to bond, and to start their family properly. This, IMO, is a good thing. This one exception aside I am struggling to think of any other 'rights' or 'perks' women legally enjoy that men don't.

[thebish]

And what are these perks, maternity leave aside, that women get that men don't?

until very recently they got to be in the army - but not go anywhere they might get killed...

[boltonboris]

Women get to fvck the boss if they like... They get shit loads of perks here, for doing that!