To report my colleague for hitting me

[QueenyLaverne]

Colleague (quite substantial guy) who's job is to bring supplies up to our floor, brought some stuff up. He came to find me, I was on break, to tell me and did so in a very sarcastic way. Not unusual, he is a sarky bastard and we don't like him much, but hey ho we tolerate him and are nice to him. I jokingly pulled him up on it and said something like, 'oh, who do you think your talking to!' 'Laugh laugh' he said something else and I was holding a newspaper which I pretended to hit him with, it tapped him with as we were having banter.
He then comes at me and walloped me on my arm, it really hurt, my arm was still hurting at the end of my shift and I felt really quite tearful, not from the pain, (although it did really hurt) but more because I felt really violated.
Can you tell me if I'm being overly sensitive or if this is unacceptable behaviour and should be reported?
AIBU?

"women choose jobs that pay less and take more time off to raise children"

Women don't choose jobs that pay less, employers choose to pay women less for those jobs. Jobs which are done primarily by women, are lower paid, not because the labour is worth less, but because the people doing the labour are worth less.

In Russia, doctors are very low paid. Guess why? You think medicine is different in Russia? No, the people who are practising it, have different genitals to the people who dominate it in most of the rest of the world, where it is generally extremely high paid and high status.

Also what about men's choices? Women don't make choices in some kind of air bubble where their choices are not influenced by the choices of others. One of the reasons many women reluctantly conclude that they can't maintain a high paying, high status career, is a) because their male employers downgrade them when they get pregnant and give them less career-enhancing work and b) because the men they live with, refuse to support them in their career as they have sub-consciously absorbed the idea that that's not their job and in fact, they are entitled to have the women they live with, support their career, not the other way round.

These men then actively and passively refuse to do their fair share of childcare and domestic labour, meaning that at a certain stage, women realise that they can't do it all. Having a filthy disorganised, uncomfortable home and neglected children isn't really an option, so it's the career that takes the hit. That is not a real choice. That is doing something because you feel you don't really have a choice.

Exactly, Basil.

QueenyLavern How are you today?

Women don't choose jobs that pay less, employers choose to pay women less for those jobs. Jobs which are done primarily by women, are lower paid, not because the labour is worth less, but because the people doing the labour are worth less.

Women do choose lower paid jobs - unless you're talking about slavery or forced labour but I don't think you are. The labour market is a free one and you are free to apply for any position you want to.

I hate to sound mean but it's simply a fact that their labour is worth less and in terms of economics, the people are worth less. It's the most basic model of supply and demand. Most people could be dinnerladies or bin men. Because of this, they are paid less than most. Few people can be Drs or surgeons: they're paid much more than average. Very few can be top class athletes. They're paid the most.

Err. What about the fact that men earn more for the same job?

sofato5miles

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (Christopher Hitchens).

But why are women being dinner ladies? Because they are the default carer 9/10. If they weren't, perhaps many more would choose a career. I know I would

But why are women being dinner ladies? Because they are the default carer 9/10

Perhaps. I can imagine it suits their lifestyle wonderfully.

Why are the default carer? Is it because they can grow children in their wombs and then feed them from their breasts?

If we do that for 18 months at a time * 3 then thats 4 1/2 years out of work by the age of 35(ish). Approximately a third less experience than someone who hasn't and that's ignoring the time it takes to get back up to speed in whichever field you're returning to.

We live in a society where we need to work to get money and those with most experience (among other things) tend to get more money. Women need to take time off work to give birth etc. If it makes financial sense for them to remain as the caregivers then that's a decision many marriages / partners choose to make.

I think my career was held back around a decade by 2 children. When I'd been promoted back to the position I was before I gave birth, my husband took a year's sabbatical leave to enable me to concentrate on and speed up my career's progress again.

Women who don't take time off to have children do as well as their male counterparts, all other things being equal. If they choose to have children then they are aware of the choice they and their partners are making together.

Yes but their choice still affects them differently. I've yet to meet a man trying to factor in the logistics of how it's going to work with the children when choosing a job. He'll, I even have to time my dental and doctor appointments. My Dh doesn't. He just tells his boss when he's going and he lets him go.

I work but am doing a crap job because all of the children's stuff falls on me. I had a good education but it's wasted

Yes, their choice affects them differently to the way your choice affects you. That's basically because of anatomy.

I've yet to meet a man trying to factor in the logistics of how it's going to work with the children when choosing a job.

I know many who do. Last November I invited a member to staff to apply for a promotion. He declined and among his reasons was "DW doesn't get home until 6:30. If I don't finish at my current time then the child care arrangements won't work." By 'childcare', he meant 'him'.

I don't think this is unusual although I would agree that men usually need to think more about their career and the way it can provide for their family. Again, biological.

So, if tomorrow, you returned to 'proper' work, making the most of your education, and your husband got the crap job that allowed him to do the children's stuff, what impact would that have on your family? I assume a negative one, financially at least.

Until women stop being the ones carrying and (breast) feeding children, I don't see how this can be altered.

MNHQ please can we have a "banging my head against a brick wall" emoticon?

www.forbes.com/sites/jwebb/2016/03/31/women-are-still-paid-less-than-men-even-in-the-same-job/#542fa2a16ee7

www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/#7ad56bbb4766

fortune.com/2016/04/12/myth-gender-wage-gap/

time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/

www.washingtonexaminer.com/harvard-prof.-takes-down-gender-wage-gap-myth/article/2580405

That was easy!

fortune.com/2016/04/12/equal-pay-day-facts/

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.ae/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/10/ten-things-you-should-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap&ved=0ahUKEwifm9vblf7RAhVB94MKHYOHAe0QFggpMAY&usg=AFQjCNHyKsjhLah6LbDt436K0Uancy6TDg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.ae/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/10/ten-things-you-should-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap&ved=0ahUKEwifm9vblf7RAhVB94MKHYOHAe0QFggpMAY&usg=AFQjCNHyKsjhLah6LbDt436K0Uancy6TDg

time.com/money/4009768/wage-gap-men-women-equal-pay/

So was that.

By the way, you behave like an arrogant arse with little perception or empathy. Personal opinion, but so be it.

I think it's terrible that he hit you but at the same time it sounds like you were belittling him. Tapping someone like you did is a really dominating thing to do - it's putting someone in their place by giving them a message you have the power and can just touch their body when you want to and they can't do anything to you back. Although unfortunately it sounds like he did.
If you like someone, tapping them gently is no big deal - but if you don't like someone and you have made it clear this chap is not popular - then it becomes something where you are invading his personal space and you are being condescending.
Banter is where both of you enjoy a playful conversation. I don't think it's banter if you are having a go at him disguised as light hearted fun. Maybe you were enjoying it but doesn't sound like he was so sorry I then can't think of it as banter.
I'm sorry this guy might be a right tosser. But when you said 'we' don't like him- sounds a bit like playground gossip to me. Maybe he acts like a tosser because he feels hurt that no one likes him or hasn't bothered to get to know him.
If you have it in you, why don't you sit down with him and say he really hurt you and where did that come from? You can point out his mood swings to him and how they are affecting people. You might feel better as you might get an apology and it might also be a chance for him to open up and maybe you'll be more understanding of each other in future. You never know - maybe he's moody as he has a terrible home life or one of his family members is gravely ill.
Good luck with whatever you choose to do.

So, OP, did you have a bruise from the slap on your arm? Did you report in the end? I'd be interested in how you proceeded after this thread.

Why does every OP with an issue disappear? So predictable.

Women are paid less for the same job, don't fall for ignorant, misogynistic propaganda.

There was a peer reviewed study showing that gender plays a role in perception of jobs, and salary. When women start doing a job that has always been done primarily by men, that job loses prestige and average wage drops. When men start doing a traditionally (perceived as) female job, the opposite happens. In countries were jobs like nursing or primary school teaching are considered stereotypically male jobs, those jobs are considered prestigious and are more highly paid than in countries like the U.K.

Just another example of the patriarchy trying to keep women down.

“ it's simply a fact that their labour is worth less and in terms of economics, the people are worth less. It's the most basic model of supply and demand. Most people could be dinnerladies or bin men. Because of this, they are paid less than most. Few people can be Drs or surgeons: they're paid much more than average”

So you didn’t read the post where I pointed out that doctors are paid very low wages in Russia and that most doctors in Russia are women? Why do you think medicine is worth less in Russia, than anywhere else? Do you think it’s just a coincidence that the majority of doctors in Russia are women?

Or take another example, computer programming. In the forties and fifties, when that job was first invented, it was a woman’s job – related to boring secretarial work, not seen as creative. It was extremely low paid and pretty low status.

Then men moved into it and it suddenly became a very high paid, high status career. Why do you think that when men do a job, the labour is worth more than when women do a job, even when it is the same job?

Teaching's another one. Secretary is another one. Cooking is a classic - women were cooks (low status), men were chefs (high status). Mostly, they were cooking the same fucking thing! This isn't about the status of the labour, it's about valuing the labour according to the status of the people doing the labour.

“We live in a society where we need to work to get money and those with most experience (among other things) tend to get more money. Women need to take time off work to give birth etc.”

You talk about it as if society can’t be changed. We live in a society, where the workplace and how it was structured, was designed for men who had no caring responsibilities and weren’t expected to do any domestic labour at all. We still live and work within those structures.

We’ve tweaked them a bit, but the structure has not been dismantled. If women had not been excluded from public life by men, the workplace would have been designed with both women and men in mind and the fact that we have babies, would not have been a disadvantage. Children might even have been integrated into the workplace, who knows, maybe educational establishments would have been part and parcel of workplaces etc. Try and imagine how very different all our structures would have been, if 6000 years of male supremacy, were not the legacy we try and function in now.

“Women who don't take time off to have children do as well as their male counterparts, all other things being equal.”

That’s just not true. Women are paid less than men, even when they don’t have children. It’s true that non-mothers are paid more than other women, but they are not paid as well as men.

And another thing: when women take time off to have children, they might have three or four years at most. Many women don't even have that much. And yet their career falls behind by 20 years. Whereas when men take time out (for sabbaticals, to go travelling, to start a business, to be an actor etc.) they catch up within five years.

This is not about the time you take out of the workplace. Men can take more time out than women, and not take a fraction of the hit women take.

That is not the result of biology. It is the result of structural sexism.