Join 3,558 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


January 26, 2001
4:43 PM   Subscribe

Global women are planning a general strike on March 8, 2001, in protest of pay inequity.
posted by tamim (17 comments total)

 
Alright! This should open up some positions for me, being a male and about to jump into the job market. :)

Okay, so I have at least two more years to go, but I thought it was funny.
posted by howa2396 at 4:50 PM on January 26, 2001


If they take a day off to protest, will they get paid for that day or does this put them further behind?
posted by Postroad at 4:56 PM on January 26, 2001


Yeah, whatever girls.

Just make sure dinner is on the table when your man gets home...


posted by bondcliff at 4:57 PM on January 26, 2001


And what will all the cylindrical women be doing that day?
posted by xiffix at 5:56 PM on January 26, 2001


mmm...000001 hits
posted by starduck at 6:02 PM on January 26, 2001


If it doesn't work, they might have to resort to more drastic measures.
posted by harmful at 6:43 PM on January 26, 2001


I get so tired of these gross overstatements. 'equal pay for work of equal value' indeed. If they were of equal value, wouldn't they be getting the same money? Or am I just using a different definition of value than everyone else?

posted by Jart at 7:46 PM on January 26, 2001


yes, and saying women give birth to and feed the world doesn't create a deeper chasm of sexist sentiment....i am a single mother of two by choice not divorce. get up, go to work, make the food wipe the butts get up do it again. if women feel so repressed by this station in life don't f**k. problem solved. i have a career, i have kids. no one ever has enough money, someone is always unhappy with it all. fortunately, my kids won't feel like that. mary mother of god.

posted by jyoung at 8:07 PM on January 26, 2001


not me, specifically. mary mother of god was a blasphemous comment, to clarify that.
posted by jyoung at 8:08 PM on January 26, 2001


Jart, it's much more complicated than that. People are generally not paid based on how much their labor is worth. For example, why would you pay someone any more than the least possible amount that will keep them working?
posted by whatnotever at 8:38 PM on January 26, 2001


the least possible amount that will keep you working is your worth -- financially.
posted by dagnyscott at 8:55 PM on January 26, 2001


Dude - I cannot believe this conversation.

a) It is a fact that women are paid less than men for doing the same jobs -- all across the board, if we're talking janitors, programmers, or ad execs. Even in the U.S. (Obviously this isn't true in every case, but in a surprising number of cases).

b) This is unequivocally unfair. No hocus-pocus about 'the market' or the subjectivity of 'value' -- it is discrimination, not economics.

I don't know if a strike is the solution -- or what the solution is -- but it's not a problem to be dismissed or laughed about, IMO.
posted by josh at 10:01 PM on January 26, 2001


One of the reasons women are paid less is that they have this tendency to get pregnant and drop out of the workforce on occasion. Simply put, men don't take maternity leave and they rarely quit entirely to raise a family. Companies are not inclined to invest a lot of money on someone who might not be planning to stay. It's still not fair even taking that into account, but that is one nagging factor that keeps the gap open.
posted by kindall at 10:25 PM on January 26, 2001


One of the demands of the global women is to be compensated for their domestic duties. Economists have long debated the merits of adding these "services rendered" to formulas for GNP. Many third world countries have women who stay home (either voluntarily, or forced due to "culture") to raise children and perform house hold chores. These women never gets paid for any of these services. Part of this strike-movement is to draw attention to this as well.

The strike will be held on World Woman's Day. It is more symbolic than anything else.
posted by tamim at 11:46 PM on January 26, 2001


Does that mean that if my wife doesn't clean up the place, she owes me money?
posted by Jart at 6:19 AM on January 27, 2001


One of the demands of the global women is to be compensated for their domestic duties.

So who pays for this?

But my bigger question is, should I be compensated for every action I take which may be beneficial to society? If I carry around my trash with me until I find a trash can rather than just dropping on the ground, should the city pay me for saving them some cleanup time? That would be a great way to stop litter...
posted by daveadams at 10:42 AM on January 29, 2001


Hm. Perhaps automated trash cans that dispensed, say, public transportation vouchers good for bus or subway fare based on the weight of the deposit.

A human head weighs eight pounds.
posted by kindall at 11:44 AM on January 29, 2001


« Older $425 for an empty box....  |  U.S. sending Patriot missles t... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments