Differences in pay between the sexes can be explained by willingness to travel further for greater pay, males tend to be more prepared to negotiate a higher starting salary and the undoubted reduction in pay following career breaks and a greater willingness for females to work part-time which tends to be lower grade and lower paid work.

The whole point of raising low rape conviction rates was that you dismissed my perceived discrimination against men who appear more likely to be found guilty of murdering their partner compared to women who are more likely to be found guilty of manslaughter for the same offence.

Married women were allowed to pay an extra stamp to build up their pension rights in the past. Complaints are coming from those women who were not far-sighted enough to buy them!
I agree with your other points that marriage should be rewarded by the state.

1. Ah you qualify your point with “if they merit it” and that’s so vague I cannot argue with it, all I can say is that two people, equally qualified/experienced, doing the same job should get the same pay regardless of gender, race etc. eg. two research engineers. However, I don’t stretch that point to where the sexes obviously differ – I would generally prefer to be carried out of a burning building by a 200lb fireman than a 200lb firewoman, even though it’s quite possible for the woman to be fitter. Generally men are stronger than women and laws have to cope with generalities not exceptions.

2. I AM troubled by the low conviction for rape but that does not mean I am niave enough to think it impossible for a woman to lie out of spite. The whole business of rape is dreadful and many women cope with the ordeal by keeping quiet. It lets a rapist free to strike again but that’s just how some women cope.

3. Because they do work in the home and that should be recognised. The role of ‘housewife’ has diminished such that one women wrote “I want to be with my children, though these days that’s almost embarassing to admit”. What I’m saying here Snafu, is that marriage and family life isn’t supported enough by the State. Couples, perhaps only married couples (thoughts?) should be allowed to buy extra stamp to build up a wifes pension rights but that would have to be offset by looking at the whole picture of taxes for married vs co-habiting couples. As I understand it the co-habiting couples are better off and that seems… wrong to me.

4. No not at all, just speak as I find; that has been my experience.

It’s good to know that you are not troubled by the low conviction rate for rape as “courts do take into account all the circumstances”!

If it’s right that women get lower car insurance than men as they are lower risk drivers, why shouldn’t women get lower pensions if they have paid less income tax over the years!?!

Are you gender profiling when you talk about dangerous young male drivers!?!

“What about the single, childless women who earn more than their male counterparts on average!?” – that’s against the law and I would disagree with it, just as I would the other way around.

“Do divorce laws in the UK discriminate against men or women?” – neither.

“The educational point was that boys prefer practical lessons, chemical, physical and biological dissections to merely reading about them in books… ” – but so do girls Snafu, so do girls; you are gender profiling and getting it wrong. Girls respond just as much to such stimulation as boys but perhpas when they can’t do what they want they are more accepting and don’t get aggresive? On the whole, probably, but I’ve known some pretty stroppy madams!

Snafu, I wouldn’t like to comment further on the insurance thing as I don’t know much about why the companies make the decisions they do, all I know is that, in my experience, males tend to drive faster and more dangerously than females. Young males also generally tend towards faster cars. I can’t bring to mind one female who has put my life in danger on the road but when it comes to males, there’s a list – that’s why I said ‘go figure’. Sadly I don’t think higher insurance premiums would change the behaviour of such males, I wish it would. Sadly if premiums are too high the lads might just buy a motorbike and increase risk of death. I suppose the upside is that they are mostly risking their own life (and any passengers) – you can kill fewer innocents with a motorbike. As grim a study as it may be, in the end these facts count.

So many points..where to start?

but you are so very insulting I don’t think i’ll waste my time.

Interesting to see how many of them have direct support and funding from central and local government.

More social conditioning. Probably be a notifiable offence not to be a member soon.

So many points..where to start?

Your simplistic take on education: Its not about reading and learning, the problem is most school learning is coursework focused with the goal to parrot an accepted narrative back to the examiner. More male traits (though NOT in any way exclusively male) such as goal seeking, understanding and proposition of theory are excluded – to the detriment of all. Teaching methodology is targeted at girls rather than boys.

You are right that car insurance is a business. Given an opportunity to charge far higher premiums to men (young mainly) and make a higher profit margin AND have it as socially acceptable practice, why would they not?

Yes the male accident rate is higher – but the premium deviation is greater than the risk profile. The margin of difference between increased risk and the cost charged is biggest in the UK. The Association of British Insurers always refuses to explain or discuss specific figures – or comment on the many items of research.

Lets avoid your very tired cliché about housework and focus again on mens health: Men with prostate cancer or risk of prostate issues WILL DIE because of a lack of screening or priority NHS treatment in far greater numbers than women with breast or cervical cancer. Perhaps if you had relatives (you actually cared about) who had been through this you would not be so flippant.