To begin with, l wouldn't call it "Sexuality at work"

I am always intrigued when women rant and rave about inequality in the work place. I think they set themselves up to fail.

I think @2012 initiated this discussion under a less ambiguous 'header'?

Anyway, I'm aware of the debate about gender parity when it comes to pricing labor.

But it's become very difficult for me to say whether pricing women and men equally is necessarily a good thing. While a capitalist may wish to do that, I wonder whether a socialistic-communalist system would accept such valuation.

Firstly, prices are incentives for action. This has much to do with gender roles and values in society. If women play different roles in a society, how then can they be contained in a singular and narrowly defined concept?

So far, women have been doing plenty of unvalued and perhaps undervalued work like supporting a household even through chores. What happens if these undervalued tasks are neglected for a world of, 'what a man can do a woman can do better'?

I think both the calls for gender parity and maintaining an unappreciative status quo are misguided. And maybe, the clamor in the feminist camp is a reaction to patriarchical injustice and probably envy for the aggressor that needs a more serious conversation.

I have a female friend, single, high achiever in an audit firm. Works hard, travels alot, long hours. All her job related travells are with other single ladies or men. All her peers who are married or with kids simply cannot keep up with the pressure. They fall naturally by the wayside when its time for promotions. She personally says she does not like to partner with married women on jobs because reasons to skip the long hours and weekend jobs will be kibao, mara child is sick, mara I need to be home by x, mara its maternity leave etc etc. She finally understood why the top is male dominated.

No beef with ladies by the way, just different roles, all important but not necessarily with similar value to an employer.

Sexism?