New proposal to reduce accidents - make men wait until they're 21

SlavOz on 09/09/2022 - 15:43

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/09/contr…

A new proposal seeks to discriminate against men by making them wait longer for their license, raising the driving age to 21 or 22.

My first thought was, that's like solving the gender pay gap by taking women out of the workforce. No pay for women = no pay gap¡!

In all seriousness, the driving age probably should be raised. Young male drivers are a huge risk factor but men are already systemically oppressed when it comes to homelessness etc, so taking away their driving privileges through sexist policies isnt the solution.

Crazy how every time the government discusses ways to improve road safety, they always put the onus on other people. Never have they considered that their "expert" road rules training, and licensing system is completely broken and needs a rehaul.

Automotive

Comments

  • thrillho on 09/09/2022 - 15:49
    +91

    Thought this was about sex when I read the title.

    • CodeXD on 09/09/2022 - 15:51
      +7

      looks like you fell for the clickbait title too

      • Scrooge McDuck on 10/09/2022 - 16:32
        +2

        Interestingly, fewer adolescent pregnancies may elevate overall responsibility across society and also reduce road fatalities.

    • legendary-noob on 12/09/2022 - 10:30

      only reason i clicked on the link
      otherwise im way past 21 so doesnt bother me XD

  • scrimshaw on 09/09/2022 - 15:52
    +31

    saw it being discussed on Reddit /r/sydney last night https://www.reddit.com/r/sydney/comments/x9chgl/controversia…

    but the TLDR is the article is mostly just clickbait and you shouldn't take it seriously.

    • randomusername2017 on 09/09/2022 - 15:55
      +3

      just clickbait and you shouldn't take it seriously.

      Universal application apparently…

    • spackbace on 09/09/2022 - 16:11
      +8

      you shouldn't take it seriously.

      But OP will take anything in the media seriously

  • Euphemistic on 09/09/2022 - 15:56
    +20

    I was still doing stupid stuff well into my 20s. Raising the age will likely just increase unlicensed driver numbers.

    Its all well and good to say they can just get public transport to work etc, but that only works in the city.

    • Ade99 on 10/09/2022 - 07:46
      +4

      At least driving has a modicum of checks and balances…..You don't need any training to have kids !

      • Scrooge McDuck on 10/09/2022 - 16:37
        +1

        It's high time we considered how government policies influence different people to reproduce.

    • Benno007 on 10/09/2022 - 19:48

      Surely making them start later would just shift the age group of most accidents from 18-21 to 21-24? It’s not just a cockiness thing, it’s an experience thing.

      It’s like when the electric scooters came on the market and the news started saying electric scooter injuries are on the climb!… well of course, they basically didn’t exist before. Anything for clicks…

  • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2022 - 15:58
    +54

    one of the fathers of the teens who died in the accident that's been in the news recently made a similar claim, that you shouldn't have a license before you're 20, that you shouldn't be able to have any passengers on red or green P's.

    people just need to stop with the hysteria every time someone dies. in a nation of our size, with a population of 25 million people, accidents are inevitable. sympathise with the deceased if you wish, grieve, but stop it with the constant, ridiculous calls for introducing even more restrictions, it's not going to work, driving is inherently dangerous and you can't fix that with more arbitrary regulations.

    • afoveht on 09/09/2022 - 16:03
      +32

      But you might be able to fix it with better driver training and education, a regulation of sorts, so that should be considered.

      • brendanm on 09/09/2022 - 16:50
        +8

        Anything is better than the garbage we have, may as well give out licences in cereal boxes.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2022 - 17:02
          +13

          i'm not entirely sure more regulations are the answer, as instructors / examiners focus too much on making visible headchecks, and other things like that, than actually being a good driver. the problem is the test, it isn't a very good example of real life driving, and instructors have to teach you to pass the test, with a lesser focus on teaching you how to be a good driver.

          another problem is people who have their licences when it was as easy as getting it in a cereal box, with tests like this being common in the not too distant past. it may seem like a joke, but it isn't. i know people, obviously on the older side, who had tests almost exactly like that, just a short trip up and down the road with the policeman.

          • brendanm on 09/09/2022 - 17:09
            +3

            @[Deactivated]: I mean that the test should be harder to start with, and things like defensive driver training should be mandatory. So many people have no idea how to drive defensively, judge driver behaviours from "body language", anticipate dangers etc. Simply taught to "follow the rules".

            • Scrooge McDuck on 10/09/2022 - 16:44
              +4

              @brendanm: A driver can fail the practical test an indefinite number of times, pass once and then drive for decades without another practical checkup. I think practical assessments should be more intensive and periodic.

              We already have far too many drivers on the roads in metropolitan areas. Not everyone should be entitled to drive. Let's elevate the standards.

            • SF3 on 10/09/2022 - 17:03
              -2

              @brendanm:

              defensive driver training should be mandatory

              But this could also mean they gain the skills to drive more stupid. To show off how good they are…

              Most of these type of accidents, it seems to be when the driver is “over excited” rather than in a calm state of mind… perhaps people should be taught to monitor their emotions and stop what they are doing to calm down… this is complex and difficult to implement. I.e. how does a person manage their amygdala when it’s “out of control”, but they feel fully in control.

              This is like when people gather in groups, they can do crazy things, when they won’t even consider doing when they are alone.

              TLTR, Dr Jekyll can be rational and calm (OP saying, “still dangerous and stupid on their part.”) , but not when he becomes Mr Hyde. Problem is there is a Mr Hyde in us all.

              • brendanm on 10/09/2022 - 17:25
                +6

                @SF3:

                Most of these type of accidents, it seems to be when the driver is “over excited” rather than in a calm state of mind… perhaps people should be taught to monitor their emotions and stop what they are doing to calm down…

                This is the sort of thing defensive driving courses teach. They don't teach skills to "show off with", just how to actually stay away from getting into an accident.

                My son is learning to drive at the moment. I've had him do emergency stops so that he can see what happens when abs activates, so that if/when it happens in real life, there is no panic from the noise and action.

                • SlavOz on 10/09/2022 - 19:30

                  @brendanm: That's a very good idea.

                • moar bargains on 10/09/2022 - 19:59
                  +1

                  @brendanm: I remember doing emergency braking at a defensive driving course in my 04 corolla with no ABS brakes. That was wild (in an eye-opening, scary way)!

                  • johndoh89 on 12/09/2022 - 20:45
                    +2

                    @moar bargains: I learned to drive in an 86 Pajero hitop.

                    My father had me do reverse figure eights between trees, both wet and dry weather with a trailer.

                    Braking and control he used to put money on the ground and if I could stop with the tyre he asked me to on the money, I could keep it.

                    I practised emergency stops and the like, on road, gravel and in some very wet paddocks to see what the difference was.

                    He wanted to be sure I knew exactly where my car was at all times and what it would do in different situations before I got on the road properly. That was nearly 20 years ago.

                    I backed out of my garage the other day and cracked the blinker cover on my side mirror. I was tired and doing it on autopilot like I do every day, except my wife had parked my car and it was over slightly further than normal.

                    I had to stop and take 3 attempts at backing a camper onto a site and I still ended up slightly off target.

                    I'm more experienced now, but have arguably worse skills in certain areas, because I don't practise them. Training probably should be mandatory over a period of time. Otherwise you let your standards drop and don't practice less used skills.

                • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2022 - 14:45
                  +2

                  @brendanm:

                  This is the sort of thing defensive driving courses teach. They don't teach skills to "show off with", just how to actually stay away from getting into an accident.

                  i know someone who told me his father took one of those defensive driving courses, as a result he is now overconfident in his own driving abilities and often tailgates / drives without regard for other road users skill levels. this doesn't mean that the courses are a bad idea, but some people will inevitably become overconfident.

              • banana365 on 10/09/2022 - 19:38
                +1

                @SF3:

                But this could also mean they gain the skills to drive more stupid. To show off how good they are…

                Sounds like you're not aware of what a defensive driving course actually teaches. It's not an emergency driving course or the type that's taught to those in high risk situations where they may need to evade others. A successful defensive driving course will turn out drivers who will have uneventful and safe journeys all the time. They show how good they are by being safe and predictable.

    • SlavOz on 09/09/2022 - 16:31
      +15

      Every single one of those teens who died knowingly put themselves in a dangerous situation by overfilling the car beyond capacity.

      Maybe that's not what caused the accident but it's still dangerous and stupid on their part.

      • Euphemistic on 09/09/2022 - 20:01
        +8

        It wasn’t the overfilling that caused the problem. It was the driver showing off. That can happen with no one in the car.

        • SlavOz on 09/09/2022 - 20:11
          +16

          Having too many passengers could definitely contribute to the outcome. It affects how the car handles, especially at high speeds when controlling is teetering.

          That can happen with no one in the car.

          Not really, because show offs need an audience. Most of these young driver tragedies occur with multiple people.

          • Euphemistic on 09/09/2022 - 20:25
            -2

            @SlavOz: Audience on the side of the road, YouTube, Tik tok etc.

      • FlyingMiffy on 10/09/2022 - 16:12
        -3

        Wow. Victim blaming much? Sure they got into the car, but to say that they are equally culpable to the driver with a history of dangerous driving is dumb.

        • WhyAmICommenting on 10/09/2022 - 16:27
          +1

          Pretty easy to count seats and seatbelts

          • FlyingMiffy on 10/09/2022 - 16:29

            @WhyAmICommenting: Yeap. Some counted the wrong number of seats, one drove dangerously and lost control of the car. Pretty easy to see where culpability lies…

            • WhyAmICommenting on 10/09/2022 - 16:39
              +1

              @FlyingMiffy: Obviously it wouldn’t have happened if he didn’t crash. But these weren’t 12 year olds. They took a risk not having a proper seat and belt (and paid the ultimate price).

        • SlavOz on 10/09/2022 - 19:40
          +1

          Mate, there's no such thing as culpability on the road. You either survive a car accident or you don't. Who's at fault is irrelevant.

          The point is everyone is in charge of their own lives, and these teens knowingly endangered theirs. They'd still be alive if they made the sensible decision to not overfill a car and go out for a joyride. The passengers likely knew it wasn't going to be a slow and safe trip to Maccas. They were getting in the car for a thrill, and they got one indeed.

      • Pussqunt on 12/09/2022 - 20:02
        -2

        It was Picton at night in winter. It was black ice. Nothing to do with how full the car was or showing off. Young and old have been dying around there since I was a kid.

        I've spun a car on a straight due to black ice. We don't use winter tyres in Australia, and even if we did, do you really think most kids could afford them?

        Kids will be kids. There are five family's that are likely destroyed. Be better than the media and use this as an opportunity to raise awareness for black ice instead of talking down on the dead.

        After all, how would you feel if a loved one jaywalked and was killed by a meteor, but then random internet hero's implied they deserved it because jaywalking is stupid?

        • Euphemistic on 12/09/2022 - 22:02

          Nope. It was a car full of teenagers and a driver showing off. Don’t you think if there was evidence of black ice they would have mentioned it?

          • Pussqunt on 13/09/2022 - 00:46

            @Euphemistic: Nope?

            Have you ever driven around Picton, at night, in winter? I hit several patches of black ice in North Queensland this year, and your telling me there was no black ice, at night, around Picton this winter?

            You're telling me 2022 is the year all kids magically stopped doing dumb stuff. That the 100,000 odd other young drivers on the coast this year did nothing kid like at all this year? You haven't been tailgated by a P plater, seen one speed, or seen one overtake some where stupid this year?

            You're telling me physics changed since uni, and putting a sixth person in a non articulated vehicle magically makes it unstable?

            Or that Picton is bucking the trend of the Sydney swell and has become hoon city, where police aren't called for the most minor of 'hooning' activities? When I was a kid we'd get the cops called for parking in the 'wrong' spot. You're telling me I can drive like a moron in the towns around Picton these days and no one will call the cops on me?

            Or the Australian media, who couldn't manage to keep those Canadian idiots names out of their mouths and pages a week earlier, suddenly changed their reporting style from tabloids to ethical media?

            Some kids were kids. They crashed in an area notorious for killing people with black ice. Why make this something else?

            Please show some humility and remember when an accident like this happens there are often several other life's lost after the crash and this is a public forum. Publically calling out innocent dead kids is a great way to increase those numbers.

            • Miss B on 13/09/2022 - 07:48
              +1

              @Pussqunt: How common is black ice when it's about 10°c? It was 8pm, only got down to about 5°c that night and it would have been well into the morning before it even got that low.

              • Pussqunt on 13/09/2022 - 18:07

                @Miss B: Was it not a clear night?

                And it's not common, that's why it's so deadly. People drive like normal, hit a small patch, and if their car doesn't have good working stability control, they loose control.

                But that region is notorious for black ice. There are several major dams, so the air is often humid. On a clear night you'll find random pockets of black ice.

                People dying on Picton Road regularly is why the government has invested hundreds of millions upgrading the more common route.

                I'm not saying the kids weren't being kids. But with cars from the last few decades you'd attract the police long before you'd have the chance to make such a horrific crash with out an incoming car or black ice.

                • Miss B on 13/09/2022 - 19:37

                  @Pussqunt: It's deadly because it's very difficult to see, because it's a very thin layer of ice. It still needs to freeze somehow, which means the ground needs to be 0°c or less. That's why it happens on cold winter nights.

                  The chance of black ice on that night is approaching 0%, a few weeks earlier and 4am would have been more likely. There is video footage of him driving like an idiot on the very night of the crash, while holding his phone. It's pretty easy to figure which of these is more likely to have contributed to what happened. There doesn't have to be anything special for him to have messed up, people mess up driving regularly, it's just the risk is greater, there is less margin for error and the consequences are more severe when people are driving stupidly. As he definitely was earlier in the evening and likely was at the time of the crash.

                  He's also claiming a steering and brake fault occurred, which the evidence doesn't seem to support, which doesn't look good for him. It likely means there wasn't a reasonable explanation. Not that I blame him for that, scared 18 year old who knows he's in a lot of trouble. I don't actually think prison will do anything for him that killing 5 people wouldn't have already done. A better idea is to have him go to schools and talk about what happened and the dangers of driving like an idiot, if he's able to. He'll probably need a lot of therapy before he's ready for that.

                  I don't think they deserved to be in that crash and it is definitely a sad situation with all of those lives destroyed, including the driver's. Then there's all of the other people impacted. There are plenty of people who do stupid things who don't suffer consequences like this and these people were all still so young. Maybe if they'd had someone like him come to their school and talk about their experience they would have thought twice or asked him to drive safely.

                  • Pussqunt on 15/09/2022 - 08:39
                    -1

                    @Miss B: You don't seem to understand th concept of black ice.

                    Reported steering and brake failure is constant with hitting black ice.

                    Black ice in the non alpine regions is a localised phenomenon in Australia. What Americans call black ice, we call ice and usually close or limit access to the road (as we don't do winter tyres)

                    I've hit a single patch and flew off the road, under similar conditions, 20km from the crash before 8:45pm (I memorised the time the next car went off only as they went off bad), after driving ~40km though the region. There was no black ice on the other side of the road half an hour earlier.

                    My mate said nothing before that, but he wanted me to do 40km/h in a 100km/h zone once we got the car back on the road.

                    My experience from hitting black ice and loosing control is, if it's under five degrees on the cars thermometer, go stupidly slow around bends, and if it's under three, go stupidly slow on straights.

                    But yeah, antedotal so feel free to keep inciting hate against the kid if it makes you feel better.

                    As for your new arguments, if you're not arguing for the premier and transport minister in power when the kid was licenced to be imprisoned for gross negligence due to a lack of driver training, then I find it hard to think a kid that just lost five of their mates, at their own hands, due to unknown incompetence, deserves anything more than hugs and lots of therapy. We failed that dude.

                    I've felt that way since the driver that killed a school mate who rode out in front of him decided he needed to be burried too, months after my school mate.

                    I don't want more people to die because of this accident.

                    I don't think I will reply again.

    • Euphemistic on 09/09/2022 - 18:49
      +12

      One simple thing we can do is start referring them to crashes not accidents. This most certainly wasn’t an accident, the driver did something stupid and crashed.

      • whatwasherproblem on 09/09/2022 - 19:32
        +18

        Danny: Why do we need to call them "traffic collisions" and not "accidents"?
        Nicholas: Because "accident" implies there's nobody to blame.

        ~ Hot Fuzz, 2007

      • [Deactivated] on 10/09/2022 - 03:37
        -7

        That's just pedantic, it's not even correct.

        While they are behaving like idiots, they certainly don't intend to crash, they are accidents. Yes, they should have known better, they shouldn't have been behaving so carelessly, but that isn't the point. No one wants to crash their car and kill their mates, it was an accident, caused by their own stupidity.

        • Euphemistic on 10/09/2022 - 05:50
          +2

          Yes it’s pedantic, but saying accident implies no blame. It’s true no one wants to crash but at the end of the day a driver did something to cause the vast majority of crashes. They don’t just happen magically.

          You just said “caused by their own stupidity”. Stupidity that could have been avoided.

          It’s as an important distinction as the difference between ‘right of way’ (doesnt exist) and ‘responsibility to give way’

          • [Deactivated] on 10/09/2022 - 06:40
            -5

            @Euphemistic: You don't seem to understand the definition of an accident. It's either intentional, or it isn't, anything else is mental gymnastics.

            • Euphemistic on 10/09/2022 - 09:22

              @[Deactivated]: Mental gymnastics are good things to do. Changing our perception of traffic incidents to crashes might only be subtle but it changes thinking to something that has a cause - typically driver error. Where there is a cause, there is a potential prevention.

              Accidents are seen as random events that could not be prevented.

              • [Deactivated] on 10/09/2022 - 09:44
                -2

                @Euphemistic: The fact that an accident can be prevented is irrelevant to its definition, accidents are events that are unintentional. Trying to change the definition of what "accident" means is going to do as much good as tits on a bull, all you're doing is muddying the waters.

                Something people never seem to realise when they attempt to raise awareness of, or effect change upon issues like this, whether it be driver safety, responsible drinking, drug safety, is that your target audience is not listening. You're preaching, but only the choir is listening.

                Any accident can be prevented, but they are not, that's why they're accidents.

              • OzBarAnon on 11/09/2022 - 22:38

                @Euphemistic: "I accidentally put my jacket in the washing machine while my headphones were still in the pocket." I doubt anyone would honestly argue against that being an accident, yet the person is to blame because they did it. It wasn't random or unavoidable, merely unintentional.

          • trapper on 10/09/2022 - 16:19
            +3

            @Euphemistic:

            but saying accident implies no blame

            No. Accident means no intent, there is still blame obviously.

            • Euphemistic on 12/09/2022 - 06:02

              @trapper: So let’s save the word accident for minor incidents of no serious consequence. Most car crashes are serious and while there is rarely intent, there are usually poor decisions made leading up to a crash

              • trapper on 12/09/2022 - 11:12

                @Euphemistic:

                let’s save the word accident for minor incidents of no serious consequence.

                No, lets save the word 'accident'… for accidents.

                • Euphemistic on 12/09/2022 - 12:09

                  @trapper: Cool. So we can call car crashes car crashes then and leave accident for knocking over a glass of water.

                  • trapper on 12/09/2022 - 12:59

                    @Euphemistic: Well if you knocked over that glass of water on purpose, well then it wouldn't be an accident would it.

                    It can be useful to distinguish intentional acts from accidental acts, that's why these words exist.

                    • Euphemistic on 12/09/2022 - 13:36

                      @trapper: And what I’m saying is that we should avoid words that imply unintentional or ‘oopsie’ for car crashes regardless of intent. It’s a subtle change in thinking for an incident that can have significant life implications for everyone involved.

                      Workplaces now call ‘accidents’ incidents. Again, subtle change in language moving everyone towards a notion that an injury or property damage is not something random.

                      • trapper on 12/09/2022 - 15:09

                        @Euphemistic:

                        we should avoid words that imply unintentional … regardless of intent

                        lol, nope

                        • Euphemistic on 12/09/2022 - 18:30

                          @trapper: Why not? Car crashes are serious and should be taken seriously.

                          It’s too easy to get a licence, we don’t physically retest drivers until they are quite old and don’t even require a rules refresher to renew a licence. Some hours as a learner then off you go for life, in charge of a couple of tonnes of high speed metal.

                          What’s wrong with reconditioning drivers a little to consider that crashes are serious?

                          • trapper on 12/09/2022 - 19:08

                            @Euphemistic: Nothing will change by confusing the meaning of words.

                            • Euphemistic on 12/09/2022 - 19:11
                              -1

                              @trapper: Language is not set in stone. Not that long ago gay only meant happy.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/09/2022 - 17:31

        Did he? I didn’t even realise it went to court already and he had been convicted?

        Dumbest comment on here. Yeah we know what probably happened, but until it’s been proven in court you shouldn’t be carrying on like a pork chop.

    • bad hombre on 11/09/2022 - 10:30

      Elon to the rescue with full self driving - cannot be turned off, govt mandated purchase = everyone is safer.

    • morebunnings on 11/09/2022 - 14:40
      +2

      Agree. This is the same as the guy saying all cars should require alcohol breath testing to start after that horrific accident a while back with a drunk driver.

      Accidents happen. When they happen because people are breaking the law, making more laws won't help because the perpetrators are already breaking the law and don't care.

      It's just punishing the 99.99% of people who do the right thing, and the 0.001% will just keep breaking the law.

    • Matt P on 13/09/2022 - 00:19

      A bigger issue in that case of the 5 deaths is boredom. I grew up in the same area as those kids, i went to the same high school, the driver lives in the same suburb as my dad.

      Other than getting pissed or doing drugs, there's absolutely nothing to do without driving 30+kms at night or on weekends. I chose the "drive for ages to find stuff to do" route when i was their age but also a little bit of risky automotive behavior. I kept all my silliness to doughnuts in grassy paddocks and laps of the dirt road around my mates chicken farm though. Not all my friends did though and unfortunately i lost one to a car crash.

      One of the girls apparently said she was going out for icecream. From where the crash happened, that would have been a circa 30 kilometer round trip. Or more if they had to go to the servos at phesants nest.. i'm not sure how late at night it happened.

      • [Deactivated] on 13/09/2022 - 03:42

        true, but there was a new piece of information that came to light: none of the ones that died were wearing seat belts, the driver was the only one wearing a seat belt, which is why he survived.

        it's a tragic accident, but everyone is taught to wear their seat belt from a young age, they would probably still be alive had they worn theirs.

  • EightImmortals on 09/09/2022 - 16:00
    +13

    "professor Ann Williamson" said “Young males, perhaps they should be 21 or 22, before they get their licence."

    "Prof Rebecca Ivers" agrees.

    Another knee-jerk reaction to another horrible accident.

    • bobbified on 09/09/2022 - 16:04
      +3

      Another knee-jerk reaction to another horrible accident.

      Exactly what I wanted to say.

      Bloody government here needs to stop relying on "banning" things!

      • EightImmortals on 09/09/2022 - 16:06
        +4

        For them everything seems to be reducing all of us to the lowest common denominator, against our will across a number of metrics.

      • 900dollaridoos on 12/09/2022 - 09:56
        +1

        My relative was killed by a drunk driver, BAN ALCOHOL!
        My fat friend had a heart attack, BAN MCDONALDS!

        Alcohol and fast food kill more than 20yr/o male drivers so why not?
        Won't happen though as these will actually affect lawmaker's lives. None of them are 21 yr/o drivers though so that's fair game for them.

        • tonka on 12/09/2022 - 14:56

          Drunk drivers are banned and junk food is self harming, not endangering others. Isn't the bigger concern the minors that were killed in the recent instance. And there's plenty of examples of third parties being killed or maimed by hoons.

          • 900dollaridoos on 12/09/2022 - 16:14

            @tonka:

            Drunk drivers are banned

            See the equivalent of that in the 21 yr/o scenario would be that hooning is already banned too.
            If you're going to go back to the root and ban young male drivers then it would be the same as banning alcohol.

            junk food is self harming, not endangering others

            Seatbelts are banned for the sole purpose of self harming, being unbelted doesn't hurt others.

  • spackbace on 09/09/2022 - 16:09
    +15

    How am I not surprised you're browsing the Guardian again

    Why complain about media like that, then form discussion topics based on articles they write?

    It's almost like you like reading it..

    • SlavOz on 09/09/2022 - 16:25
      +2

      It's cheaper than Netflix and way more original than the old re-runs.

      Everyone needs a laugh.

      • spackbace on 09/09/2022 - 16:33
        +8

        Except most people can find better things to do than browse news sites they supposedly hate…

        But it's ok, we know you actually love those articles and just can't wait to share them

        • afoveht on 09/09/2022 - 19:52
          +5

          Just Slav's way of diminishing actual issues like the gender pay gap.

          • SlavOz on 09/09/2022 - 20:12
            -4

            @afoveht: The gender pay gap isn't even real bruv. It's been comprehensively debunked by every economist or institution with any shred of credibility.

            Time to let go of this narrative or go back to Americaland where they make up stupid shit for political persuasion.

            • ozhunter on 09/09/2022 - 22:05
              -3

              @SlavOz: Lol at how triggered some people are because of the example you gave. They must really hate this proposal 😄

            • Eeples on 15/09/2022 - 18:41
              +2

              @SlavOz: No. The gender pay gap is real. The stats do not lie.

              However, on examination, the gender pay gap is mainly the result of; women leaving full-time employment to have children, women choosing more lower-paid professions, women choosing professions that fit in with rearing children, women working fewer hours, and men working more hours by choice.

              These are hard things to remedy; better/more expensive parental leave for example.

              • SlavOz on 15/09/2022 - 19:03
                -4

                @Eeples:

                However, on examination, the gender pay gap is mainly the result of

                [reasons which prove it's not a pay gap at all].

                What you described is an earnings gap or career ambitions gap. Men simply dedicate more time, effort, and strategy towards their remuneration than women do.

              • tonka on 15/09/2022 - 23:56

                @Eeples: I suspect that female dominated professions are lower paid because they are female dominated. Maybe because, they have always been female dominated and became traditionally lower paid as a result of it being very acceptable in the past eras.
                My mother still tells me men need to be paid more so they can support a family, despite the fact that none of the younger generations male or female has built a family.
                The other reason is, I don't think women bargain as hard as men for wages. I worked in an environment once, medium size listed company in Australia. Each year 100% of the males got a pay rise, nil % of the females got a payrise. And on top of that the women were actually forbidden from requesting a pay review. Plus regardless of job the males got a working space on the top floor and women had to work on the ground floor.

          • Scantu on 11/09/2022 - 16:26

            @afoveht: actual issues that don't exist, empirically, like the gender pay gap right?

  • GG57 on 09/09/2022 - 16:24
    +1

    I skimmed through the article and couldn't identify who or what was making the recommendation. Anyone know?

    • SlavOz on 09/09/2022 - 16:25
      -6

      It's the Guardian.

      • GG57 on 09/09/2022 - 16:30
        +2

        Ok. Unless you can show who or what is making such a recommendation, I'm out. Waste of time.

          • GG57 on 09/09/2022 - 16:36
            +8

            @SlavOz: What a stupid comment.

          • lolz112 on 09/09/2022 - 17:24
            +21

            @SlavOz: Complains about sexism. Goes on to make completely sexist comment. What a great example of a human are.

              • StingyBritches on 10/09/2022 - 09:48
                +7

                @SlavOz: Clueless. Troll.

                • tonka on 10/09/2022 - 12:58
                  +6

                  @StingyBritches: Let him go, he's so cringey it will make other sexist people reform. Like some over the top parody of a misogynist, feels almost like something from Little Briton to me it's so out of touch.

                  • SlavOz on 10/09/2022 - 13:53
                    +1

                    @tonka: Would you agree that the term incel is sexist too then?

                    Guess that makes the majority of online SJWs sexist. They love that word.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join