That’s only true because prostitution is illegal. “Pimps” only exist because 1) women fear turning to the police for help 2) There’s no centralized management for prostitution. It is the illegality of prostitution which is to blame for all the things you mentioned.

I don???t know of any women who have built a mansion off the proceeds of prostitution who are not the ???madam”.

I don’t know of anyone who built a mension off the proceeds of an Application Support Specialist…yet I’m one myself.

I call it as I see it.

You keep going on me pushing a political agenda, or a raft of legislative measures, when in fact I have suggested only three things, two of which apply equally to men, and only one of which might be controversial.

1) increases in minimum wage to tackle government subsidised low pay, which happens to affect mostly women.
2) pension accruments for those taking on the responsibility of childcaring.
3) time-served accruments (being phased out of public sector pay in Finland anyhow) for women on maternity leave.

That’s it. I don’t think that justifies your constant carping and paranoia about interventionism.

Men in offices smoking cigars conspiring against women. Not very far from the truth. I like that one.

Being ‘undecided’ about prostitution means that the issue is complex and that I might yet change my mind. I offered my opinions as they stand today.

Not all feminists are out to criminalise prostitutes or pornography. Many feminists feel just as strongly that governments have no business applying moral censorship in the name of political or social reform.

No way. In fact, I would accuse you and people who share your beliefs of exploiting women by using them as a pawn to further your political agenda. We both know that stricter regulations will only widen the gender gap and further the problem.

The freedom of companies to hire who they want is governed by laws that state you cannot hire a woman and pay her less simply because she is a woman.

Yeah yeah yeah, heard that one too many times. You neo-fems (my new nickname for neo-feminists ) believe that companies are full of men sitting in a dark office, smoking cigars, sipping cognac, and purposefully paying women less than men. It’s a big conspiracy, isn’t it?

You???re rather cynical comment about leftist academics in no way addresses the lack of equality even in academia. Leftist it might be, but it still remains a largely MALE leftist community.

Yes, and those male leftists who are all supposed to be feminists are actually just hypocrites. No surprise there. They want ALL OTHER industries to have more females except for their own! Typical leftists hypocrisy and elitism.

Personally, I???m undecided on the issue of prostitution and pornography.

Paid sex between consenting adults is okay in my view.

Huh? So you’re undecided on prostitution but you think paid sex is okay? Those sentences seem to contradict.

Prostitution is one of the few avenues where women can (though not necessarily) make good money.

True, and that will never happen if the feminist movement continues to lobby to keep it illegal and underground.

What about yourself? What are your views?

You own your body. Government has no right to forbid you from having consented sex or taking naked pictures/movies. Simple as that.

Public sector pay is better in terms of equality between the sexes, and that is partly because the pay bargaining is stronger and because the government have international commitments to reducing the pay gap. That is not to say that the private sector doesn’t pay more, but that higher wages in the private sector tend to favour men more than women.

I’m aware that there is huge differences in the perception of social values and the needs of competitiveness between the US and Europe. The fact that men (and women) work longer hours in the US to maintain competitive advantage is not itself a justification for the rest of the world to follow suit. At some point, we have to say that quality of life is important. But that debate will surely run and run.

Companies fleeing Finland: well, there is a very good climate of loyalty to Finland among Finnish companies, not that I necessarily expect that to continue. Changes and increases to the minimum wage have not impacted badly on the UK’s competitiveness, so many of the scaremongering on that score are unfounded. Likewise, there is very little to be done when children or workers are paid a pittance in the sweat shops of China and Bangladesh. Do we reintroduce sweatshops back into Europe (not counting those that exist underground) in order to stay competitive? At some point you have to say, this is the standard of living we wish to maintain as a minimum. There are other economic factors that impact the economy far more significantly than a minimum wage, especially to the Nordic countries, such as high unemployment against the backdrop of a fully developed welfarestate.

You are concerned that changes to legislation will simply give employers reason to choose against employing women. The fact is that in many jobs women are more productive (factory work), and getting men to do the same work will still cost more after paying a decent minimum wage. Also, transparent disclosure of wage levels among the workforce will not in itself stop employers from employing women, as they would be required to do this regardless.

What you describe as ‘freedom’ appears to me to be freedom to exploit women, and that goes against my own set of values. Freedom to take whatever job you want: well, unskilleed or semi-skilled labour is in plentiful supply, so you don’t have much room to demand a high price for your commodity, so there isn’t much payback for that particular freedom. The freedom of companies to hire who they want is governed by laws that state you cannot hire a woman and pay her less simply because she is a woman. The problem is that this is exactly what continues to happen. But getting redress remains costly and beyond the means, motivation and resources of many who suffer as a result. Freedom seems to be a byword for just about any kind of practice that increases the profiteering of the few at the expense of the many. If that is your American Dream, you can shove it!

You’re rather cynical comment about leftist academics in no way addresses the lack of equality even in academia. Leftist it might be, but it still remains a largely MALE leftist community.

There is much more to the equality debate than simply redressing the pay gap. The larger issues centre on male power as much as women’s lack of power. Men promote other men to positions of power. That kind of ‘closed shop’ is another huge barrier. Solutions are difficult, I grant you, but that is still no reason to turn a blind eye to the matter.

Personally, I’m undecided on the issue of prostitution and pornography. I have been trying to find a definitive position for years, but I remain unconvinced by either side of the debate. The question of censorship is big one for me, I think that much of what passed for attacks on pornography or prostitution has been a kind of moral conservatism. Sexual repression is a legacy we are very much stuck with, but as much as I think there should be a freedom for eroticism, what passes for it now seems to mostly serve man’s need to dominate women sexually than a shared experience or celebration of sexual feelings.

Paid sex between consenting adults is okay in my view. Just because sex outside marriage is considered a sin, anything to do with sexual pleasure outside marriage has been sent underground, which is where it is certainly easier to exploit women out of the eye of authorities. As much as I accept it in principle, the industry needs cleaning up. Prostitution is one of the few avenues where women can (though not necessarily) make good money. Whether they ‘choose’ prostitition, or are pushed into it through circumstances of poverty or after a history of sexual abuse is a question that cannot be ignored. Whether or not women do it because they feel that offering sexual services in no way degrades them as women is also another important question for me. Ironically, many male gay prostitutes begin by wanting to service women, but because there are so few female clients, they switch to gay prostitution. I think that speaks volumes.

What about yourself? What are your views?

Really, I”d think just the opposite. Private sector always pays more.

The only way I see is to slowly increase the minimum wage. This of course brings in the whole argument of global competitiveness, but that is itself not a reason to deny a decent wage for part-time or low-paid full-time workers.

Attitudes like that will destroy this country. More and more companies flee Finland each year, laws like that will make them escape quicker. How you gonna stop that from happening?

The second proposal would be for companies to provide public figures on all wages earned by men and women.

What about what I asked earlier, do you think companies will just stop hiring females in the first place?

. However, with the option of an additional experienced member of staff, the option of expanding on that basis is also open, so it???s not necessarily a business negative.

How many skilled workers are willing to work their asses off for 3 years, then get laid off? Not many.

Check this out. In Finland, over 50% of doctoral theses are now awarded to women, but they still only hold 20% of the professorships, and that statistic hasn???t changed in 20 years. It???s that kind of obvious discrimination that needs to end.

Yeah, and all those professors are you left-wing feminist types, and yet there’s still a problem. Go figure.

How does freedom fit into all your plans? Shouldn’t companies have the freedom to hire whom they want and pay what they want? I mean, no one is forcing you to take a particular job, you have the freedom to choose any job you wish. Are you concerned at all about freedom?

Equality under the law was not the inconsistency I mentioned, though I don’t think that ‘equality under the law’ is itself an easy and objective matter.

As for petty law proposals, I haven’t made any proposals yet, except to say that pension rights should be protected and work-based increments if a woman is on maternity leave (same for dads if they are doing the major share of child care).

By the way, the statistics mentioned recently in one of the Finnish tabloids is not itself an accurate statistic. I haven’t found out exactly why yet, but another article came out in response a few days later in one of the other newspapers and sets it at about 82% or 84% (I haven’t read that piece), but this certainly more in line with figures reported to the EU.

Public sector pay is better than private sector pay, particularly in the care services, which is what you’d expect, what with competitive advantage being the prime concern in the private sector. The only way I see is to slowly increase the minimum wage. This of course brings in the whole argument of global competitiveness, but that is itself not a reason to deny a decent wage for part-time or low-paid full-time workers. The reality anyhow is that governments end up subsidising low wages through top ups in family credit or housing benefits, so it’s a subsidy in effect paid directly to employers for low wages. That for me would be a good starting point.

The second proposal would be for companies to provide public figures on all wages earned by men and women. That’s a tough nut to crack, but that kind of transparancy is necessary if the spirit of Article 141 on Equal Pay is to be followed through.

This article details just how difficult the current process is, and how obtaining the wage details of co-workers or comparators is:

http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/l1010001.htm

The law as it stands already protects women in certain conditions, but the crux centers around appropriate comparisons, i.e., can school cooks be compared with restaurant cooks?

If by ‘strengthen the economy’ you mean maintain competitive advantage at the expense of low wages paid to women who are the majority doing particular kinds of work (factory, childcare, care of the elderly, school and hospital catering, shop assistants, etc..), then I am dead against it, it’s subsidised by the state and is not an incentive to get women back into the workforce after having a baby.

They issue of paying for replacement staff is a problem, but the biggest problem is simply getting a suitably qualified replacement. As pregnancies are long-term, the practice of training your own replacement takes away a lot of the extra cost, with advertising and interview being the main overhead. However, with the option of an additional experienced member of staff, the option of expanding on that basis is also open, so it’s not necessarily a business negative.

On the issue of women only interview lists. They are usually a disaster. I know that only a few weeks ago in the UK election, a male politician in the Welsh valleys won his safe labour seat as an independent in opposition to the party’s candidate who was selected off a ‘women only’ shortlist. He was the previous MP and people obviously felt he shouldn’t be discriminated against. However, the labour party are the only party in UK politics who have made inroads into getting more women MP’s. Personally, I would have stipulated that only those seats that were vacant (the previous MP was not standing) were open to women only shortlists. If the men they put out are really talented, they will always find a way to contribute in politics.

Check this out. In Finland, over 50% of doctoral theses are now awarded to women, but they still only hold 20% of the professorships, and that statistic hasn’t changed in 20 years. It’s that kind of obvious discrimination that needs to end.

I want equality under the law, I want all people to be treated equally. There’s no inconsistency there.

Do you think pregnancy is the only reason for the wage gap? Women get paid 3.7% less in Finland for the same work according to VATT. What else do you think contributes to that?

From what I’ve seen in the workplace, men are much more likely to storm into the bosses office and demand a raise, they’re more likely to work longer hours in the day and they’re more eager to get ahead. These are my observations. What are your thoughts on them?

To a large extent, women are discriminated because they are the ones having the babies.

So I guess you’re one of the ones who support conscription? Do you figure that men being force into the army for a year balances out women having a baby? I disagree with people who say that.

Why should women have to choose between the two, as men don???t?

You’re fooling yourself if you think your petty law proposals will make much difference. When a woman leaves her job for three years and forces them to find a temp, that hurts the company, it doesn’t matter of the government pays for the temp and her time off. This is especially true with small companies, or companies with financial difficulties.

Because of the less-than-spectacular economic situation in Finland, where only 70% (?) of the citizens are in employment, companies are just barely getting by. They can’t afford these pregnancy breaks and do whatever they can to prevent them, regardless of what the law dictates. Strengthen the economy and you’ll find women’s positions in the workplace strengthened as well.

What are your proposals to “level the playing field” for women? Would your proposals make it more likely for an employer to not hire women in the first place? Will your proposals only widen the gender gap and increase sexism because people will say, “Oh that woman only got her job because she’s female!”

That is not really the issue here, though. To a large extent, women are discriminated because they are the ones having the babies. You might think this is a matter of perception, with full-time work no picnic for men either, especially when you are waking up for twice-nightly feeds when babies are very young. As a result of having to do this, women lost out in being able to develop careers, so part-time work beckons. Plus, baby-breaks are difficult on the CV. It’s not simply a case of career or family choice. Why should women have to choose between the two, as men don’t? We can’t change who is having the babies, but how often do men give up their career progression to stay at home? The percentages are very low. The system is skewed towards men, and whatever redresses the balance, it has to change the basic premise that the labour market predominantly favours men. The question of lost pension rights is another issue.

I’m not here going to get into all the intricacies of gender politics, but many of the issues are more complex than people will give them credit for. At the same time, I recognise that people will have all sorts of sympathies for feminism but that doesn’t mean they understand all the arguments, not that anyone has the ‘truth’ as such; there are many, many positions within the debate. Then again, certain opinions seem to be more obviously informed by a lack of facts or understanding of the subtleties of the debate.

Where have I been inconsistent?

I???m pointing out that anti-feminists argue women have equality already, which ignores a great many issues and statistics

The use of the prefix “anti-” is quite misleading, like people who don’t abide to the feminist agenda are therefore “against women” or even against the feminist agenda. To even things out, I think I’ll start placing “neo-” in front of “feminist” to describe your points of view.

Whether the neofems would dub a feminist or not, I just want to see men and women treated completely and totally equally under the law – is there anything wrong with that?

I’m pointing out that anti-feminists argue women have equality already, which ignores a great many issues and statistics. That idea has got into the mainstream now and it should be challenged. I’m glad you accept there is not equality in Finland.

The issues I’ve tried to point out are not that controversial in that most papers discussing the wage-gap deal are pointing these ideas out. It’s too simple so say women choose low-paid jobs and its therefore somehow their fault. Not that blaming is necessarily useful either.

On another note, a trip to the toy store will quickly show what roles men and women are ‘steered’ into. The pink section has all the domestic appliances in minature and nursing aprons etc, whilst the blue section has the guns, superheroes, and various bits of machinery/automobiles.

I don’t think that dealing with the very real issue of inequality through positive changes to legislation is ‘patronising’ women. Let’s leave the women to tell us when they think they are being patronised.

My guess is you are not really a profeminist, as you seem to think women have equality already.

I’m pro-equality. But I think we can both agree that the current situation in Finland is NOT equality.

That is actually the position of the anti-feminists.

You sound like Bush, “You’re either with us, or against us!!” No thank you.