BBC Womens pay gap
Discussion
garyhun said:
Agreed. The "bias filter' can make the listener totally unable to hear what's actually being said - prejudice really makes people deaf and blind to the facts.
I've just watched the interview - geeze what a car crash. He handled himself impeccably in the face of what was a blatant attempt to back him into a trap.At one point - she even brought the argument down to 'women pay more for the same goods, because pink bicycle helmets are more expensive than blue ones'
It didn't seem to occur to her that there could be genuine (non 'gender inequality') reason behind a price disparity like that - like perhaps more boys/men ride bikes more often under more challenging circumstances (e.g. mountain biking) - and thus buy more blue helmets more often. Economies of scale could easily explain the disparity between the price of blue helmets vs pink.
A similar argument was had a few months ago over pink razors - and it was touted as a victory for gender equality when Tesco equalised the price. What a load of b
ks.https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/01/t...
the more I watch it the more I think it's actually a fking disgrace.
She had no interest in engaging in discussion or analysis of differing points of view, only in advancing her own personal hardline feminist agenda and world view.
It's so blatant, and all that at the expense of the tax payer. She really should be called to account over it, despite being made to look an utter fool.
king disgrace.She had no interest in engaging in discussion or analysis of differing points of view, only in advancing her own personal hardline feminist agenda and world view.
It's so blatant, and all that at the expense of the tax payer. She really should be called to account over it, despite being made to look an utter fool.
Lotobear said:
the more I watch it the more I think it's actually a fking disgrace.
She had no interest in engaging in discussion or analysis of differing points of view, only in advancing her own personal hardline feminist agenda and world view.
It's so blatant, and all that at the expense of the tax payer. She really should be called to account over it, despite being made to look an utter fool.
It was particularly amusing was watching her reaction to his "equality of outcome" position.king disgrace.She had no interest in engaging in discussion or analysis of differing points of view, only in advancing her own personal hardline feminist agenda and world view.
It's so blatant, and all that at the expense of the tax payer. She really should be called to account over it, despite being made to look an utter fool.
She seem to take issue with it immediately without thinking it through to it's logical conclusion. She clearly thinks of 'equality of outcome' as having 50 men and 50 women running FTSE 100 companies. What she fails to realise is the flip side consequences of forcing equality of outcome.
Would she be happy seeing a 50:50 split in dangerous, dirty industries where men dominate like mining, refuse collection, construction, heavy manufacturing, front line combat roles etc? Would she be happy to see a 50:50 split in workplace fatalities (currently 93% of all workplace deaths are men)
Would she be happy to see women pushed out of roles where they dominate to accommodate a 50% split of men - like primary school teaching, nursing, medicine, social work etc. Would she be happy to see university places for women limited so that intake is 50:50 (currently women going to uni outnumber men by quite a margin).
That's the problem - these discussions always seem to focus on the very few highly desirable roles, but fail to look at the big picture. The reality is - these radical feminists only want equality of outcome if it in some way benefits them. Just look at the furore when 'equality of outcome' was applied to women state pension age.
Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 19th January 07:35
Moonhawk said:
Lotobear said:
the more I watch it the more I think it's actually a fking disgrace.
She had no interest in engaging in discussion or analysis of differing points of view, only in advancing her own personal hardline feminist agenda and world view.
It's so blatant, and all that at the expense of the tax payer. She really should be called to account over it, despite being made to look an utter fool.
It was particularly amusing was watching her reaction to his "equality of outcome" position.king disgrace.She had no interest in engaging in discussion or analysis of differing points of view, only in advancing her own personal hardline feminist agenda and world view.
It's so blatant, and all that at the expense of the tax payer. She really should be called to account over it, despite being made to look an utter fool.
She seem to take issue with it immediately without thinking it through to it's logical conclusion. She clearly thinks of 'equality of outcome' as having 50 men and 50 women running FTSE 100 companies. What she fails to realise is the flip side consequences of forcing equality of outcome.
Would she be happy seeing a 50:50 split in dangerous, dirty industries where men dominate like mining, refuse collection, construction, heavy manufacturing, front line combat roles etc? Would she be happy to see a 50:50 split in workplace fatalities (currently 93% of all workplace deaths are men)
Would she be happy to see women pushed out of roles where they dominate to accommodate a 50% split of men - like primary school teaching, nursing, medicine, social work etc. Would she be happy to see university places for women limited so that intake is 50:50 (currently women going to uni outnumber men by quite a margin).
That's the problem - these discussions always seem to focus on the very few highly desirable roles, but fail to look at the big picture. The reality is - these radical feminists only want equality of outcome if it in some way benefits them. Just look at the furore when 'equality of outcome' was applied to women state pension age.
Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 19th January 07:35
Mike_Mac said:
Moonhawk said:
Lotobear said:
the more I watch it the more I think it's actually a fking disgrace.
She had no interest in engaging in discussion or analysis of differing points of view, only in advancing her own personal hardline feminist agenda and world view.
It's so blatant, and all that at the expense of the tax payer. She really should be called to account over it, despite being made to look an utter fool.
It was particularly amusing was watching her reaction to his "equality of outcome" position.king disgrace.She had no interest in engaging in discussion or analysis of differing points of view, only in advancing her own personal hardline feminist agenda and world view.
It's so blatant, and all that at the expense of the tax payer. She really should be called to account over it, despite being made to look an utter fool.
She seem to take issue with it immediately without thinking it through to it's logical conclusion. She clearly thinks of 'equality of outcome' as having 50 men and 50 women running FTSE 100 companies. What she fails to realise is the flip side consequences of forcing equality of outcome.
Would she be happy seeing a 50:50 split in dangerous, dirty industries where men dominate like mining, refuse collection, construction, heavy manufacturing, front line combat roles etc? Would she be happy to see a 50:50 split in workplace fatalities (currently 93% of all workplace deaths are men)
Would she be happy to see women pushed out of roles where they dominate to accommodate a 50% split of men - like primary school teaching, nursing, medicine, social work etc. Would she be happy to see university places for women limited so that intake is 50:50 (currently women going to uni outnumber men by quite a margin).
That's the problem - these discussions always seem to focus on the very few highly desirable roles, but fail to look at the big picture. The reality is - these radical feminists only want equality of outcome if it in some way benefits them. Just look at the furore when 'equality of outcome' was applied to women state pension age.
Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 19th January 07:35
The other week I dropped Mrs ZS off at the hairdressers. All the staff in there were women - where can I complain?
Zetec-S said:
The other week I dropped Mrs ZS off at the hairdressers. All the staff in there were women - where can I complain?
You see - even if women choose a career becuase its something they are good at and enjoy - it’s still your fault they arent the CEO of a blue chip company.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
I quite enjoyed Ms Newman getting her comeuppance, an amateurish display by her. She needs to rein in the flaunting of her quite radical feminist bias, something she revelled in of late. This display is not what I would expect of a senior prime time news journalist.
Jordan Peterson is certainly an interesting character, i might give some of his work a look. I suppose in that respect, I should thank Ms Newman.
I would strongly recommend that you do.Jordan Peterson is certainly an interesting character, i might give some of his work a look. I suppose in that respect, I should thank Ms Newman.
His 1 to 1 discussions with the likes of Camille Paglia, Jonathan Haidt and even Bret Weinstein are a real treat for anyone that appreciates classical liberalism. Or as he describe himself, 'a classic British liberal'
His university lectures on youtube can be fascinating and incredibly educational.
Well over a year ago when I first came across Peterson, I have to admit, I was waiting for him to screw up. To have some crazy idea, or to be somehow affected by the rise in his popularity.
So far, I haven't seen him put a foot (or a word) wrong.
As for the Newman interview, she was simply not in the same league, and incredibly frustrated that she could neither rattle him, nor put words into his mouth. Hence the need to keep jumping to new subjects before allowing him to complete his arguments.
The attempt to draw him into the Bill C-16 / gender pronoun debate was pure desperation, and again she was completely uninformed as to the truth.
The final shot being to try and blame him for how 'his supporters' treated other people on line was truly the cheapest and most desperate act of the interview.
She would do well to research her subject better before hand.
Zetec-S said:
Mike_Mac said:
Moonhawk said:
Lotobear said:
the more I watch it the more I think it's actually a fking disgrace.
She had no interest in engaging in discussion or analysis of differing points of view, only in advancing her own personal hardline feminist agenda and world view.
It's so blatant, and all that at the expense of the tax payer. She really should be called to account over it, despite being made to look an utter fool.
It was particularly amusing was watching her reaction to his "equality of outcome" position.king disgrace.She had no interest in engaging in discussion or analysis of differing points of view, only in advancing her own personal hardline feminist agenda and world view.
It's so blatant, and all that at the expense of the tax payer. She really should be called to account over it, despite being made to look an utter fool.
She seem to take issue with it immediately without thinking it through to it's logical conclusion. She clearly thinks of 'equality of outcome' as having 50 men and 50 women running FTSE 100 companies. What she fails to realise is the flip side consequences of forcing equality of outcome.
Would she be happy seeing a 50:50 split in dangerous, dirty industries where men dominate like mining, refuse collection, construction, heavy manufacturing, front line combat roles etc? Would she be happy to see a 50:50 split in workplace fatalities (currently 93% of all workplace deaths are men)
Would she be happy to see women pushed out of roles where they dominate to accommodate a 50% split of men - like primary school teaching, nursing, medicine, social work etc. Would she be happy to see university places for women limited so that intake is 50:50 (currently women going to uni outnumber men by quite a margin).
That's the problem - these discussions always seem to focus on the very few highly desirable roles, but fail to look at the big picture. The reality is - these radical feminists only want equality of outcome if it in some way benefits them. Just look at the furore when 'equality of outcome' was applied to women state pension age.
Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 19th January 07:35
The other week I dropped Mrs ZS off at the hairdressers. All the staff in there were women - where can I complain?
zygalski said:
Do you think you'd have cause to complain if you found out you were on 25% less than other staff who are all women doing exactly the same job?
Perhaps it may depend somewhat on qualifications, experience, proven productivity levels, popularity with customers (as in repeat business).In an abundance of jobs, none of these factors can or should be ignored.
In jobs based strictly on position and/or grade it may well be a different matter. But in those cases, one often finds that grade increases are based on one or all of those factors.
zygalski said:
Do you think you'd have cause to complain if you found out you were on 25% less than other staff who are all women doing exactly the same job?
Depends why I was on less? Was I less experienced, do I have a lower level of qualification, had I been working for the company for longer (or shorter), had my performance appraisals been as good, had I negotiated as aggressively during my interview?
There are loads of reasons a discrepancy in pay might exist between two people doing nominally the same job.
Also - very few jobs are ‘exactly the same’. Even when I worked as a shelf stacker, one of the most basic jobs there is on the face of it - I undertook functions and had responsibilities that some of my peers with the same job title did not. How do you measure whether a job is ‘exactly the same’.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
In jobs based strictly on position and/or grade it may well be a different matter.
Even in those cases - in many companies, the job grades often have salary bands, rather than a single defined figure. People at the same grade could well be in different positions on the band.
Moonhawk said:
Even in those cases - in many companies, the job grades often have salary bands, rather than a single defined figure.
People at the same grade could well be in different positions on the band.
Absolutely.People at the same grade could well be in different positions on the band.
Payroll systems can be highly complex in their configurations and I was being simplistic.
Like all of potential inequalities in the world, there will be examples.
Racism, sexism, all the 'isms' and so called 'phobias' will also likely be represented.
But declaring them to be wide spread or systemic is, in our heavily regulated society, unlikely to be true and demands more than a anecdotal evidence to be provable.
Individual cases need to be dealt with on their own merits.
BlackLabel said:
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
Jesus Christ what an embarrassment Cathy Newman is.
she really needs to watch that back to see just how ridiculous she looked. she may even learn something. though given her attitude in the interview i doubt it.“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
Jesus Christ what an embarrassment Cathy Newman is.
Moonhawk said:
Lotobear said:
the more I watch it the more I think it's actually a fking disgrace.
She had no interest in engaging in discussion or analysis of differing points of view, only in advancing her own personal hardline feminist agenda and world view.
It's so blatant, and all that at the expense of the tax payer. She really should be called to account over it, despite being made to look an utter fool.
It was particularly amusing was watching her reaction to his "equality of outcome" position.king disgrace.She had no interest in engaging in discussion or analysis of differing points of view, only in advancing her own personal hardline feminist agenda and world view.
It's so blatant, and all that at the expense of the tax payer. She really should be called to account over it, despite being made to look an utter fool.
She seem to take issue with it immediately without thinking it through to it's logical conclusion. She clearly thinks of 'equality of outcome' as having 50 men and 50 women running FTSE 100 companies. What she fails to realise is the flip side consequences of forcing equality of outcome.
Would she be happy seeing a 50:50 split in dangerous, dirty industries where men dominate like mining, refuse collection, construction, heavy manufacturing, front line combat roles etc? Would she be happy to see a 50:50 split in workplace fatalities (currently 93% of all workplace deaths are men)
Would she be happy to see women pushed out of roles where they dominate to accommodate a 50% split of men - like primary school teaching, nursing, medicine, social work etc. Would she be happy to see university places for women limited so that intake is 50:50 (currently women going to uni outnumber men by quite a margin).
That's the problem - these discussions always seem to focus on the very few highly desirable roles, but fail to look at the big picture. The reality is - these radical feminists only want equality of outcome if it in some way benefits them. Just look at the furore when 'equality of outcome' was applied to women state pension age.
Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 19th January 07:35
The BBC pay gap though is massively subjective and depends on the value an individual represents, the amount of jobs they have and the amount of work done. I think the Carrie Gracie situation is particularly amusing as it may seem on the face of it 'foreign corespondent' is the role but if say the US role requires more work that the Chinese one shouldn't they be paid more? I think so. It think that's subject to the responsibilities of the exact role and not the sex of the person performing it.
wc98 said:
BlackLabel said:
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
Jesus Christ what an embarrassment Cathy Newman is.
she really needs to watch that back to see just how ridiculous she looked. she may even learn something. though given her attitude in the interview i doubt it.“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
“So you’re saying......”
Jesus Christ what an embarrassment Cathy Newman is.
Buzz word said:
Its the level of social control you would need to exercise to achieve equality of outcome that's the biggest problem for me. I don't think that Peterson hammers it home quite enough but if you assume men and women go into roles that interest them then fixing the balance is a real issue. You will have to force men and women to do roles that are decided for them not what they want to, tyranny from the state at the expense of freedom in the name of equality. It's not something I'd want to see. Their metric is wrong which Peterson hints at. Its all about equality of oppertunity and i think we are pretty much there.
<snip>
Peterson adequately hammers that point home any time he is given the opportunity.<snip>
It was, to my mind, more that she wanted to get off that topic onto her next point of attack, before he could bolster his argument further. I doubt she has the education or historical knowledge in the subject of totalitarianism to fully appreciate his arguments and, in any case, she strikes me as the sort of individual that would ignore them [his arguments] in favour of her chosen belief system.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff