BBC Womens pay gap
Discussion
wsurfa said:
So either she is an incompetent interviewer or a highly paid troll (I think Milo Y already has this job though). The former would be especially odd, as from her background she's clearly intelligent.
I have no doubt she is very intelligent - but she let her bias cloud her objectivity.She quoted the 9% gender pay gap - but you cant just take median earnings like this and draw any conclusion about gender discrimination.
He gave very valid and reasoned responses as to why a 9% pay gap might exist when you average across all men and women - but she just closed her mind to those reasons because she has a pre-conceived notion of what the 'right answer' is.
Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 21st January 18:35
Moonhawk said:
I have no doubt she is very intelligent - but she let her bias cloud her objectivity.
She quoted the 9% gender pay gap - but you cant just take median earnings like this and draw any conclusion about gender discrimination.
He gave very valid and reasoned responses as to why a 9% pay gap might exist when you average across all men and women - but she just closed her mind to those reasons because she has a pre-conceived notion of what the 'right answer' is.
Well, yes... The like for like gap in the UK is less than 1%, basically it doesn't exist when you compare same job same level same industry. Which means that it is not a direct "let's pay women less" issue, so you have to clearly describe it first, then think about solutions (desirable or not) then what you want to implement.She quoted the 9% gender pay gap - but you cant just take median earnings like this and draw any conclusion about gender discrimination.
He gave very valid and reasoned responses as to why a 9% pay gap might exist when you average across all men and women - but she just closed her mind to those reasons because she has a pre-conceived notion of what the 'right answer' is.
Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 21st January 18:35
The big problem is that the above approach removes a lot of the ability to create heat (but not light) around the darkness of ignorance, and shouty noise sells much better than quiet competence.
The statement from C4 about bringing in security and/or the police is concerning, for multiple reasons.
Firstly, she did a s
ty interview, so what see above, talk about why she did a stty interview. Secondly, find the sources of this 'loads of abuse' and deal with them, so far though on the youtube thread I could find 1 comment that used the "should rape her", and that was from a someone defending her/attacking Peterson by using the "so you're saying someone should rape her" line. Twitter may have more of this but it's not a 1 click scrape search like youtube
There is a lot of dumb "she just got killed", "I thought snuff vids were banned" etc however.
Dr Jekyll said:
Women tend to be promoted faster than men. The point is that a lot of women waste time (sometimes years) on maternity leave so their career slows down.
They do, but what most analysis of this topic doesn't discuss is the very long legacy issue.The largest pay gap is over 50s, so this represents the career choices of people who entered the workforce 30+ years ago.....
Any schemes by companies to tackle this issue, through their graduate recruitment schemes, mentoring and promotion policies will leave the group that actually creates the "pay gap" entirely unaffected.
Those age groups where the above schemes do affect now have no pay gap, or a slight bias in favour of females.
Edited by JagLover on Monday 22 January 07:51
JagLover said:
You do have to wonder how much of the criticism she has received has been genuine - and how much has been engineered to help make her look like the victim.Much like online reviews - the anonymity of social media means it would be relatively easy to create a few dummy accounts, make some extreme comments - then cite these as evidence of mysogyny and victimisation.
The media are nothing if not good at manipulating the narrative to suit their own agenda.
Moonhawk said:
You do have to wonder how much of the criticism she has received has been genuine - and how much has been engineered to help make her look like the victim.
Her editor Ben De Pear, who made the claims of involving "security experts" (n.b. the police don't seem interested), has been repeatedly asked on twitter to give examples (he doesn't have to give names/usernames away) or explain a little further about the sort of thing that's been said, as nobody really believes him. Haven't seen him step up with any actual evidence yet.Ms Newman herself, also tweeted something along the lines of "laughing at the tweets about this", which she later deleted once he'd put his claims about needing to involve "security experts" out there,
From that Spectator article, a better interview with Peterson on Radio 5 Live:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=forJzdPI7QM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=forJzdPI7QM
hyphen said:
Off topic slightly but I have seen a number of thoughtful articles in the Guardian lately whereas any Independent link is likely to be pure drivel.Is the Guardian the only centre-left publication worth reading?
JagLover said:
Off topic slightly but I have seen a number of thoughtful articles in the Guardian lately whereas any Independent link is likely to be pure drivel.
Is the Guardian the only centre-left publication worth reading?
I avoid the Independent, seems to be click bait trying to generate enough views to finally attract a buyer, owner has been trying to sell for ages.Is the Guardian the only centre-left publication worth reading?
Guardian is like the Daily Mail, ignore the deliberate stories pandering to the hard left and it can be ok, often the comments for Brexit type articles are against the view in the article which indicates a broad readership.
hyphen said:
One in the weekends Guardian too
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/jan/21/jor...
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/jan/21/jor...
hyphen said:
JagLover said:
Off topic slightly but I have seen a number of thoughtful articles in the Guardian lately whereas any Independent link is likely to be pure drivel.
Is the Guardian the only centre-left publication worth reading?
I avoid the Independent, seems to be click bait trying to generate enough views to finally attract a buyer, owner has been trying to sell for ages.Is the Guardian the only centre-left publication worth reading?
Guardian is like the Daily Mail, ignore the deliberate stories pandering to the hard left and it can be ok, often the comments for Brexit type articles are against the view in the article which indicates a broad readership.
It's all happening in the comments section of that one.
I agree regarding the Independent. What in God's name happened to them?
They seem to be doing anything and everything apart from independent thinking these days.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42827333
Sounds like a lot of virtue signaling to me.
The BBC's media editor, Amol Rajan, said whilst competition in the entertainment industry has intensified, the opposite has happened in news.
"Many of those now taking pay cuts secured generous deals years ago," he said.
"That world has disappeared - and these presenters now accept that a chunk of their salaries will have to disappear with it."
Ah, so not strictly about the 'pay gap' but about a tougher market.
Sounds like a lot of virtue signaling to me.
The BBC's media editor, Amol Rajan, said whilst competition in the entertainment industry has intensified, the opposite has happened in news.
"Many of those now taking pay cuts secured generous deals years ago," he said.
"That world has disappeared - and these presenters now accept that a chunk of their salaries will have to disappear with it."
Ah, so not strictly about the 'pay gap' but about a tougher market.
Bullett said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42827333
Sounds like a lot of virtue signaling to me.
The BBC's media editor, Amol Rajan, said whilst competition in the entertainment industry has intensified, the opposite has happened in news.
"Many of those now taking pay cuts secured generous deals years ago," he said.
"That world has disappeared - and these presenters now accept that a chunk of their salaries will have to disappear with it."
Ah, so not strictly about the 'pay gap' but about a tougher market.
It's also classic leftism - make everyone equal.Sounds like a lot of virtue signaling to me.
The BBC's media editor, Amol Rajan, said whilst competition in the entertainment industry has intensified, the opposite has happened in news.
"Many of those now taking pay cuts secured generous deals years ago," he said.
"That world has disappeared - and these presenters now accept that a chunk of their salaries will have to disappear with it."
Ah, so not strictly about the 'pay gap' but about a tougher market.
Equally poor.
That's tongue-in-cheek as I appreciate newsreaders earning £250-750k aren't exactly 'slumming it'.
Bullett said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42827333
Ah, so not strictly about the 'pay gap' but about a tougher market.
That is exactly what I noticed. Ah, so not strictly about the 'pay gap' but about a tougher market.
Also, the BBC seems to fail to mention that there is a pay gap within the sexes. Nobody seems to care about that?
Bullett said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42827333
Sounds like a lot of virtue signaling to me.
The BBC's media editor, Amol Rajan, said whilst competition in the entertainment industry has intensified, the opposite has happened in news.
"Many of those now taking pay cuts secured generous deals years ago," he said.
"That world has disappeared - and these presenters now accept that a chunk of their salaries will have to disappear with it."
Ah, so not strictly about the 'pay gap' but about a tougher market.
Have BBC women shot themselves in the foot with this one.Sounds like a lot of virtue signaling to me.
The BBC's media editor, Amol Rajan, said whilst competition in the entertainment industry has intensified, the opposite has happened in news.
"Many of those now taking pay cuts secured generous deals years ago," he said.
"That world has disappeared - and these presenters now accept that a chunk of their salaries will have to disappear with it."
Ah, so not strictly about the 'pay gap' but about a tougher market.
Rather than their pay being brought up in line with the men they are complaining about (which is i'm sure what they hoped for) - the men voluntarily taking a pay cut to equalise things could mean that the women may actually gain nothing over their current position.
In fact - by reducing the average remuneration for those type of jobs - future presenters (both men and women) may end up worse off relatively speaking.
Fawcett society calculations for the Gender pay gap is based on mean earnings.
Therefore one effect of this announcement is that, calculated on a mean basis, the gap has ever so slightly reduced.
I for one am happy about this victory for gender pay equality, and am sure the benefit will be felt by women everywhere.
Therefore one effect of this announcement is that, calculated on a mean basis, the gap has ever so slightly reduced.
I for one am happy about this victory for gender pay equality, and am sure the benefit will be felt by women everywhere.
Moonhawk said:
Have BBC women shot themselves in the foot with this one.
Rather than their pay being brought up in line with the men they are complaining about (which is i'm sure what they hoped for) - the men voluntarily taking a pay cut to equalise things could mean that the women may actually gain nothing over their current position.
In fact - by reducing the average remuneration for those type of jobs - future presenters (both men and women) may end up worse off relatively speaking.
Don't worry, it won't take them long to find something offensive about it.Rather than their pay being brought up in line with the men they are complaining about (which is i'm sure what they hoped for) - the men voluntarily taking a pay cut to equalise things could mean that the women may actually gain nothing over their current position.
In fact - by reducing the average remuneration for those type of jobs - future presenters (both men and women) may end up worse off relatively speaking.
Interesting interview with a young lady on BBC news this morning about why Phil Nevile was chosen as the head coach of womens Football team.
She said that some women were short listed for the role - but they all pulled out of the running as they didnt want the pressure or scrutiny on their personal lives and family.
So it looks like we have a ‘top job’ up for grabs which went to a man simply because none of the short listed women wanted it - yet ‘equality’ is still being questioned in this case.
She said that some women were short listed for the role - but they all pulled out of the running as they didnt want the pressure or scrutiny on their personal lives and family.
So it looks like we have a ‘top job’ up for grabs which went to a man simply because none of the short listed women wanted it - yet ‘equality’ is still being questioned in this case.
Moonhawk said:
Interesting interview with a young lady on BBC news this morning about why Phil Nevile was chosen as the head coach of womens Football team.
She said that some women were short listed for the role - but they all pulled out of the running as they didnt want the pressure or scrutiny on their personal lives and family.
So it looks like we have a ‘top job’ up for grabs which went to a man simply because none of the short listed women wanted it - yet ‘equality’ is still being questioned in this case.
Do you honestly believe the scrutiny on a male coach's family and private life will be the same as that on a woman?She said that some women were short listed for the role - but they all pulled out of the running as they didnt want the pressure or scrutiny on their personal lives and family.
So it looks like we have a ‘top job’ up for grabs which went to a man simply because none of the short listed women wanted it - yet ‘equality’ is still being questioned in this case.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Moonhawk said:
Have BBC women shot themselves in the foot with this one.
Rather than their pay being brought up in line with the men they are complaining about (which is i'm sure what they hoped for) - the men voluntarily taking a pay cut to equalise things could mean that the women may actually gain nothing over their current position.
In fact - by reducing the average remuneration for those type of jobs - future presenters (both men and women) may end up worse off relatively speaking.
Don't worry, it won't take them long to find something offensive about it.Rather than their pay being brought up in line with the men they are complaining about (which is i'm sure what they hoped for) - the men voluntarily taking a pay cut to equalise things could mean that the women may actually gain nothing over their current position.
In fact - by reducing the average remuneration for those type of jobs - future presenters (both men and women) may end up worse off relatively speaking.
We all (that is, all men) got the memo.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff