BBC Womens pay gap

[Moonhawk]

roachcoach said:

Now don't get me wrong, there are a lack of women in certain roles (STEM etc), but that's NOT a hiring issue, that's a fundamental societal issue which starts around primary 1-2. We would do well to address that rather than "fix" the fact different jobs earn differently.

There are a similar lack of men in roles like veterinary science, teaching etc, yet the focus always seems to be on promoting subjects where women are under-represented.

Data cited in this article suggests that out of 19 university subjects areas - women outnumber men in 14 of them (including Medicine, Veterinary Science, Biological Science, Law etc). Where is the big push to get more men into these subjects?

https://www.theguardian.com/education/datablog/201...

Also - nobody seems to address the elephant in the room. If women move into the subjects dominated by men en-mass, what happens to all the subjects where women are over-represented.

If loads of women suddenly decide to become engineers, architects or IT bods - what happens in medicine, education, veterinary science? Given a finite candidate pool, a gain of women in some subjects, surely means a loss in others.

If men don't step in to these to make up the shortfall in these subjects, especially considering they are becoming massively under-represented in higher education, attracting women to STEM subjects could leave other subjects lacking (the law of unintended consequences).

[Dr Jekyll]

JagLover said:

What they will also likely do (and in fact I suspect are already doing) is promoting women at an earlier stage than men to try and make sure middle management ranks are equally represented.

But it tends to be the most experienced and best paid juniors who are promoted to be the least experienced and lowest paid middle managers. Promote a woman and the average pay for women in each grade drops. So either the feminists jump up and down even more or women end up passed over, nobody wins.

[roachcoach]

Moonhawk said:

roachcoach said:

Now don't get me wrong, there are a lack of women in certain roles (STEM etc), but that's NOT a hiring issue, that's a fundamental societal issue which starts around primary 1-2. We would do well to address that rather than "fix" the fact different jobs earn differently.

There are a similar lack of men in roles like veterinary science, teaching etc, yet the focus always seems to be on promoting subjects where women are under-represented.

Data cited in this article suggests that out of 19 university subjects areas - women outnumber men in 14 of them (including Medicine, Veterinary Science, Biological Science, Law etc). Where is the big push to get more men into these subjects?

https://www.theguardian.com/education/datablog/201...

Also - nobody seems to address the elephant in the room. If women move into the subjects dominated by men en-mass, what happens to all the subjects where women are over-represented.

If loads of women suddenly decide to become engineers, architects or IT bods - what happens in medicine, education, veterinary science? Given a finite candidate pool, a gain of women in some subjects, surely means a loss in others.

If men don't step in to these to make up the shortfall in these subjects, especially considering they are becoming massively under-represented in higher education, attracting women to STEM subjects could leave other subjects lacking (the law of unintended consequences).

Yep.

Personally I think kids should just be told then can be anything without sterotype. Best way, let them make their own way. If folks are happy and the pay is equal, who am I to take that from them?

[Moonhawk]

JagLover said:

Leaving aside the world of show biz and news presenters, which isn't relevant to virtually all people, the question is what will happen in the real world.

The question that nobody is asking is - why shouldn't there be a pay gap?

Men (on average) take on more dangerous roles, more stressful roles, more physical roles, work longer hours, work in poor conditions, commute further, take fewer career breaks, retire later, have less work life balance.

Women (on average) tend to favour roles with more flexible working arrangements, don't commute as far, work in more comfortable working environments, have better work life balance, retire earlier etc

Surely we would fully expect there to be a gender pay gap of some description when averaged over the entire workforce. Should average pay not reflect these realities - if not - why?

[Mothersruin]

roachcoach said:

Moonhawk said:

roachcoach said:

Now don't get me wrong, there are a lack of women in certain roles (STEM etc), but that's NOT a hiring issue, that's a fundamental societal issue which starts around primary 1-2. We would do well to address that rather than "fix" the fact different jobs earn differently.

There are a similar lack of men in roles like veterinary science, teaching etc, yet the focus always seems to be on promoting subjects where women are under-represented.

Data cited in this article suggests that out of 19 university subjects areas - women outnumber men in 14 of them (including Medicine, Veterinary Science, Biological Science, Law etc). Where is the big push to get more men into these subjects?

https://www.theguardian.com/education/datablog/201...

Also - nobody seems to address the elephant in the room. If women move into the subjects dominated by men en-mass, what happens to all the subjects where women are over-represented.

If loads of women suddenly decide to become engineers, architects or IT bods - what happens in medicine, education, veterinary science? Given a finite candidate pool, a gain of women in some subjects, surely means a loss in others.

If men don't step in to these to make up the shortfall in these subjects, especially considering they are becoming massively under-represented in higher education, attracting women to STEM subjects could leave other subjects lacking (the law of unintended consequences).

Yep.

Personally I think kids should just be told then can be anything without sterotype. Best way, let them make their own way. If folks are happy and the pay is equal, who am I to take that from them?

Agreed, but each job must have minimum specifications and requirements and if these can't be reached academically or physically, then allowances can't be made.

The people must be suitable for the roles, not the roles made suitable for the people. It only diminishes the quality of output otherwise.

I'm obviously pointing towards the Armed Forces & Emergency Services, but applies everywhere.

[JagLover]

Moonhawk said:

Surely we would fully expect there to be a gender pay gap of some description when averaged over the entire workforce. Should average pay not reflect these realities - if not - why?

Because a certain type of middle class woman sees an opportunity to be paid the same for less work?

What is right or wrong is mostly irrelevant. What matters is the media agenda and how companies choose to react to it.

[roachcoach]

Mothersruin said:

roachcoach said:

Moonhawk said:

roachcoach said:

Now don't get me wrong, there are a lack of women in certain roles (STEM etc), but that's NOT a hiring issue, that's a fundamental societal issue which starts around primary 1-2. We would do well to address that rather than "fix" the fact different jobs earn differently.

There are a similar lack of men in roles like veterinary science, teaching etc, yet the focus always seems to be on promoting subjects where women are under-represented.

Data cited in this article suggests that out of 19 university subjects areas - women outnumber men in 14 of them (including Medicine, Veterinary Science, Biological Science, Law etc). Where is the big push to get more men into these subjects?

https://www.theguardian.com/education/datablog/201...

Also - nobody seems to address the elephant in the room. If women move into the subjects dominated by men en-mass, what happens to all the subjects where women are over-represented.

If loads of women suddenly decide to become engineers, architects or IT bods - what happens in medicine, education, veterinary science? Given a finite candidate pool, a gain of women in some subjects, surely means a loss in others.

If men don't step in to these to make up the shortfall in these subjects, especially considering they are becoming massively under-represented in higher education, attracting women to STEM subjects could leave other subjects lacking (the law of unintended consequences).

Yep.

Personally I think kids should just be told then can be anything without sterotype. Best way, let them make their own way. If folks are happy and the pay is equal, who am I to take that from them?

Agreed, but each job must have minimum specifications and requirements and if these can't be reached academically or physically, then allowances can't be made.

The people must be suitable for the roles, not the roles made suitable for the people. It only diminishes the quality of output otherwise.

Well yes. I want a trained doctor not an enthusiastic amateur

[98elise]

Moonhawk said:

JagLover said:

Leaving aside the world of show biz and news presenters, which isn't relevant to virtually all people, the question is what will happen in the real world.

The question that nobody is asking is - why shouldn't there be a pay gap?

Men (on average) take on more dangerous roles, more stressful roles, more physical roles, work longer hours, work in poor conditions, commute further, take fewer career breaks, retire later, have less work life balance.

Women (on average) tend to favour roles with more flexible working arrangements, don't commute as far, work in more comfortable working environments, have better work life balance, retire earlier etc

Surely we would fully expect there to be a gender pay gap of some description when averaged over the entire workforce. Should average pay not reflect these realities - if not - why?

This why you should have equality of opportunity rather then equality of outcome. As long as the jobs are open to women, and have a fair selection process, then there is no point moaning about the outcome, otherwise you are taking away peoples choices.

i was thinking the other day about the NHS. Doctors are reasonably well split gender wise, but nurses are not. If you look at medical staff and wages you can show gender pay gap because of the higher numbers of women nurses. You could also argue those nurses work just a hard as doctors, and probably do dirtier and more physically demanding work

you could address this gap by...

Paying nurses the same as doctors.
Paying male doctors less than female doctors.
Recruiting more male nurses until the you have an even split.

... or you could do the sensible thing and pay according to role, experience, and seniority. As long as male and female medical staff in similar positions are paid about the same then there is no issue to resolve.

[Type R Tom]

Interestingly, on the BBC site around four London Boroughs all pay women between 4% and 15% more than men. I wonder if this is the case generally across the Public Sector.

[Moonhawk]

Type R Tom said:

Interestingly, on the BBC site around four London Boroughs all pay women between 4% and 15% more than men. I wonder if this is the case generally across the Public Sector.

According to the BBC website - a company I worked for fairly recently has also reported that it pays it's women around 20% more (on average) than it does it's men.

Blatant discrimination?

[Cotty]

From 2011 through 2015, men accounted for 92.5% of all workplace deaths. This makes me think there are not many women doing dangerous jobs.

[Mothersruin]

'They' know all of this, but it doesn't fit the agenda so is ignored.

[anonymous-user]

gizlaroc said:

The McEnroe vs Navratilova difference is pretty obvious why when you look at their contracts.

Last year she was contracted for 3 matches, he was contracted for 12 of the 13 days of commentating.
She was allowed to cover elsewhere for different channels when she wanted, he was contracted to BBC and had to be available at all times.
She covered womens matches which are three sets, he was covering mens which are five sets.
He did more than 10x the hours she did.

But let's not let those facts get in the way of a bit of 'woe is me'.

He also hosts a 5Live phone-in and usually does coverage at Queens as well

[Moonhawk]

wsurfa said:

He also hosts a 5Live phone-in and usually does coverage at Queens as well

So as with doctors pay a few pages back - he gets paid more because he works more.

I wonder if you broke their pay down to an hourly rate, would his deal look so good?

[anonymous-user]

Recently been looking up the so called "The Crown" pay controversy.

For those who don't know its starred Claire Foy as the Queen and Matt Smith as Prince Phillip
The "controversy" is that Matt Smith was paid more than his co star who played the Queen
Twitter was/is outraged and someone launched a petition on the Care2 petition website launched a petition

The Care2 petition reads: 'You know gender pay gaps are a problem when even the Queen isn't paid fairly. Women in all industries are facing a struggle for pay equality, women in the US typically earn 80 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts for full time work.
'While it may be easy for some to dismiss gender pay disparity for already high-paid actors like Claire Foy, I believe that publicly addressing high-profile cases of sexism will also help create greater opportunities for all women — in all careers.
'This is critical moment for Netflix and Crown co-star Matt Smith to show that they stand with women and do the right thing.'

I watched The Crown if I am honest I watched it for a few reasons
1. How good would it be
2. How historically accurate will it be
3. I know the actor Matt Smith and quite like him.

I didn't know who Claire Foy was. I imagined that Netflix paid Matt Smith more as he was more bankable - particular in the US market where he was well known for Doctor Who

Personally I think this kind of semi blackmail is pretty crap and doesn't do their cause any favours

[Russian Troll Bot]

If we want equality then presumably the background extras should be paid the same as the leads?

[Moonhawk]

techiedave said:

I didn't know who Claire Foy was. I imagined that Netflix paid Matt Smith more as he was more bankable - particular in the US market where he was well known for Doctor Who

This is the main driver for actors pay. Unknowns or unproven actors get paid less than ones who are guarateed to draw audiences.

That’s why Robert Downy Jr and Scarlett Johanson both got paid significantly more than Chris Evans for ‘Captain America - Civil War’ despite Chris playing the title character.

It's also why Jennifer Lawrence got paid almost double what Chris Pratt did for the movie "Passengers", despite Chris Pratt arguably being the lead and having far more screen time.

Edited by Moonhawk on Monday 26th March 13:55

[Goaty Bill 2]

Russian Troll Bot said:

If we want equality then presumably the background extras should be paid the same as the leads?

Obviously you are a person who understands true egalitarian goals.
Hard work and accomplishment should count for nothing (oddly that's not how Marx put it), and all should be rewarded equally (especially the least deserving).

Equality of outcome is pre-eminent!
Anyone or any system that denies this is the corrupt patriarchy.
Logic, reasoning and (God forbid) facts, that prove otherwise are an invention of the patriarchy to maintain its dominance structure.

I feel that even Marx would have been distressed by this, Engels, not so much, Derrida on the other hand would be ecstatic.

Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Monday 26th March 13:01

[anonymous-user]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Engels, not so much, Derrida on the other hand would be ecstatic.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 26th March 13:01

I haven't watched all the episodes. Maybe those foreign guys pop up when she hosts more receptions and stuff

[Funk]

Cathy just doesn't learn: https://twitter.com/cathynewman/status/97713948660...

Interestingly this time it's an ad-hominem attack. That's to add to all the other logical fallacies she peppered the interview with.