zlacker

[parent] [thread] 23 comments
1. jankot+(OP)[view] [source] 2018-02-15 09:48:52
Not really. If woman gets high paying job, she makes less money for the same work.

Also women have more expenses than men (ping tax, daycare...). Big cities are unaffordable even at the same salary.

replies(3): >>gambit+l >>romano+91 >>tom_me+l1
2. gambit+l[view] [source] 2018-02-15 09:57:21
>>jankot+(OP)
>>Also women have more expenses than men (ping tax, daycare...).

What's ping tax?

How is daycare more expensive for women? Surely, a man raising a child on their own will pay exactly the same amount of money for daycare? In a normal case, where partners raise children together, they surely pay for daycare from a shared budget, not just from the woman's salary(that would be just bizarre).

>> If woman gets high paying job, she makes less money for the same work.

The counter argument to this is that if this was true, companies would only hire women, since apparently they do the same work for less money!

replies(2): >>jankot+S >>psyc+n1
◧◩
3. jankot+S[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-15 10:05:46
>>gambit+l
> What's ping tax?

Google that...

> How is daycare more expensive for women? Surely, a man raising a child on their own will pay exactly the same amount

Most primary care givers are women. Women are hurt by that more.

> In a normal case

Single mother is normal case. Look at stats and trends.

replies(2): >>shard9+h1 >>gambit+w1
4. romano+91[view] [source] 2018-02-15 10:08:55
>>jankot+(OP)
If one doesn't want to do daycare he/she should not have children. This applies for both men and women.
◧◩◪
5. shard9+h1[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-15 10:10:35
>>jankot+S
I hate to be rude but I googled for a ping tax and maybe it's because I live in Australia, but all I can find is the ato answering questions about ping-pong tables and otherwise random economics subjects from china that use the word ping (eg: "Ping insurance", Gui Ping Wu).

I can't find anything specific to women.

replies(1): >>benmmu+V4
6. tom_me+l1[view] [source] 2018-02-15 10:10:58
>>jankot+(OP)
> If woman gets high paying job, she makes less money for the same work.

In other words, we have a sexism problem.

◧◩
7. psyc+n1[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-15 10:12:00
>>gambit+l
"Pink tax": the idea that goods marketed to women are priced higher than equivalents marketed to men.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pink+tax

replies(3): >>gambit+L1 >>yoz-y+92 >>megama+6b
◧◩◪
8. gambit+w1[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-15 10:15:14
>>jankot+S
>>Single mother is normal case. Look at stats and trends.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-192...

"The Majority of Children Live With Two Parents, Census Bureau Reports"

Maybe I should have said "usual" not "normal" - being a single mother is a normal thing. But so is being a single dad. Claiming that women are somehow worse off because they spend more on childcare is completely bizarre.

>>Google that...

Or you could just tell me - I googled it and there's absolutely nothing that relates to women, several pages of results on google are just taking about filing my taxes with HMRC when I search for ping tax.

>>Most primary care givers are women. Women are hurt by that more.

And? What's the argument here? You were saying that women are paid less for the same work(something which you completely ignored in my reply) and that they have more expenses than men(I would say a subset of people who are raising children on their own have more expenses than people who don't. They don't have more expenses because they are women, they have more expenses because of the choices they made).

replies(1): >>jankot+f2
◧◩◪
9. gambit+L1[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-15 10:20:50
>>psyc+n1
Same thing works the other way around but I don't know if it has a name. I frequently see things like yoghurt/juice or shampoo/antiperspirant/shaving accessories to be priced higher if they are branded "for men". You can literally buy the same thing in pink colour and it's cheaper.

The only case where I agree is that stupidly, UK government applies extra tax to sanitary items for women, while cosmetics for men do not have such tax. That is stupid, but that's a literal tax chosen by the government.

replies(1): >>mantas+zc
◧◩◪
10. yoz-y+92[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-15 10:27:21
>>psyc+n1
I do not like the typical example of this which is razors. If pink razors are 50% more expensive then you can just buy the blue ones no? They are literally same except for the color.
replies(1): >>UncleM+ri
◧◩◪◨
11. jankot+f2[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-15 10:28:30
>>gambit+w1
I thing we can agree that raising kids in SF is very expensive, and that there are more single moms than single fathers.

> women are paid less for the same work

Gender pay gap is generally accepted fact.

> more expenses because they are women, they have more expenses because of the choices they made)

Not sure I understand. Family is not really a choice. And choice/not choice is irrelevant in argument. Goal is to get more women into STEM, one can not forbid people to have a children.

replies(2): >>gambit+e4 >>anon12+F5
◧◩◪◨⬒
12. gambit+e4[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-15 11:00:01
>>jankot+f2
>>Gender pay gap is generally accepted fact.

Is it? I'm pretty sure it was debunked time after time after time, with studies basically finding that women work fewer hours(by choice) and even when presented with an opportunity to advance to a higher, more stressful position, they decline more often than men do. Women tend not to take the well paying, but risky jobs that men take, skewing the proportions further. On the other hand, men account for nearly all workplace deaths in the civilized world - but it looks like they are rewarded for taking those risks.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy...

>> Family is not really a choice.

Having a choice whether to have or not have children is a generally accepted fact, at least in 1st world countries.

◧◩◪◨
13. benmmu+V4[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-15 11:14:45
>>shard9+h1
I'm guessing they meant pink tax. They might not be a native English speaker so didn't pick up on the mistake.
replies(1): >>shard9+XV6
◧◩◪◨⬒
14. anon12+F5[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-15 11:23:53
>>jankot+f2
It's definitely not fact. Men and women in the same exact position are paid the same with differences really coming down to negotiation for the salary rather than some scale based on gender.
◧◩◪
15. megama+6b[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-15 12:41:37
>>psyc+n1
I'm not entirely sure that the same goods marketed at women as men are meaningfully more expensive for one group or the other. But it is undeniable that there are entire classes of products marketed and produced for female audiences and considered essential that males can disregard completely. One easy example is health and beauty products, and another fashion and accessories.

For example, my shower routine involves a bar of Ivory soap and basic shampoo. For my sister, my mother, my female friends and romantic interests, add conditioners, body washes, face scrubs, and all the associated paraphernalia, which easily triples the cost in dollars, not to mention time and hot water.

◧◩◪◨
16. mantas+zc[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-15 13:05:11
>>gambit+L1
Mind to give a link for that UK extra tax? I wonder how it's worded :)
replies(1): >>gambit+bf
◧◩◪◨⬒
17. gambit+bf[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-15 13:28:41
>>mantas+zc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampon_tax

It's just normal VAT, the issue is that many "necessary" products don't have VAT on them, but tampons or pads do, even though they are a biological necessity.

replies(1): >>xeeeee+Qk
◧◩◪◨
18. UncleM+ri[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-15 14:03:05
>>yoz-y+92
They can, but there is marketing force that fights against this. How many women have only ever looked in the women's aisle for razors and not seen the price differences? These things can appear in aggregate even if individuals could behave a different way.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
19. xeeeee+Qk[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-15 14:24:57
>>gambit+bf
Toilet paper is often taxed too, but of course it doesn't fit the narrative.
replies(1): >>gambit+xn
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
20. gambit+xn[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-15 14:43:18
>>xeeeee+Qk
You can use a bidet instead and never buy any toilet paper. If you are a woman you need to buy some sanitary products at least once a month.
replies(3): >>xeeeee+Vr >>mantas+uA1 >>SuoDua+zh2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
21. xeeeee+Vr[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-15 15:12:47
>>gambit+xn
Even when you're using a bidet, you still need toilet paper.

Also, if we're talking about less common alternatives, women can use menstrual cups instead of tampons and pads.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
22. mantas+uA1[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-16 00:25:58
>>gambit+xn
It's more like men bodies have more robust design, thus they get away with less items.

It's like women-day-off when they're on their period. On one hand, it'd be nice and makes sense. On the other hand, that sex-based discrimination.

Meanwhile over there we got flat VAT for everything. No tampon tax issues! :) Paying extra 21% for basic food sucks though.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
23. SuoDua+zh2[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-16 11:41:31
>>gambit+xn
Not necessarily. Diva cups are a thing. http://divacup.com/#
◧◩◪◨⬒
24. shard9+XV6[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-02-18 23:25:03
>>benmmu+V4
Ah that does it. Yea i think the issue is that google knows im australian so it doesn't correct the mistake where the americans it's a big talking point.

And since we are more closely related to asian happenings, it decided to not correct it due to the misspelling being an asian name :P

[go to top]