We may be in a new year, but unfortunately the myths that much of the mainstream media have been promulgating for several years are still with us. I predict that in 2018 Islamic terrorism will continue to have nothing to do with Islam, no matter how many Islamic extremists plot to maim and murder us. Those of us who hold the offensive but biologically accurate view that having a penis means you shouldn’t be eligible for a Woman of the Year award will still be viewed as ‘hate criminals’ by many. Then there’s the gender pay gap. A non-existent problem that never goes away, but is viewed with utmost urgency by politicians, feminists and much of the media. We were barely a few days into January when the Irish government announced they were convening a conference to deal with the issue.

If there were more dissenting voices in the media we would hear more about the fact that most Western countries don’t have a gender pay gap. What we have is an earnings gap. Yes, women on average earn less than men over their working lives, but it is rarely reported that this is due to the choices that a majority of women make about their lives. As a considerable percentage of mothers either leave work entirely for several years once they have children, or work only part-time, it is simply due to mathematics and not some patriarchal bogeyman that they will earn less over a lifetime than someone who doesn’t spend several years out of the workforce. The minority of fathers who are stay-at-home dads or work part-time also earn less on average over a lifetime than men and women who work full time over their lives. When you work less, you earn less. It’s a simple equation which feminists fail to grasp.

A 2016 report by Eurostat, the EU’s official statistics body, showed that 58 per cent of UK mothers and 40 per cent of Irish mothers worked part-time. Of course, the Left-leaning Irish Times reported this as an example of male inflexibility as there were considerably fewer fathers working part-time. The conclusion that is drawn from this information by most of the media and political class is that women are having their earning potential diminished by an oppressive patriarchy that reinforces socially constructed gender roles which assert that women should assume the role of primary care-giver to their children. However, when anyone bothers to speak to mothers and ask them for their views, the vast majority don’t subscribe to the feminist dogma that for there to be true gender equality women and men should be spending equal amounts of time working outside the home. In the United States, Pew Research shows that a vast majority of mothers want either to work part-time or not at all. Across the British Isles, various reports have shown (see here and here) that many mothers working full-time would also like to quit working all together or only work part-time.

In that the earnings gap results from the choice of a majority of women across the Western world to reduce the amount of paid work they do, the question is raised of why most of the media present the issue as if women are being discriminated against. The reason is that much of the media subscribe to feminist ideology which asserts that true gender equality can occur only when women earn on average the same amount and both genders are doing the same share of housework and child-rearing. Gender equality, for these feminists, is about making men and women identical, and they are either oblivious or in complete denial that this isn’t what a majority of women want. The truth is that the feminist media clique are not concerned with the hopes and desires of most women, and even less so with working-class women. This is why you will only ever read articles or see reports on why we need to get more women on to the boards of companies, or get more women working in science or engineering. You will never read, or see a report, about ensuring that 50 per cent of bus drivers are female. No, instead the media bombard us with what concerns and affects middle and upper middle class career-obsessed feminists, many of whom work in senior positions in the media. The so-called pay scandals at the BBC are nothing more than narcissism masquerading as news. The variation in salaries for people doing similar or the same jobs at the BBC is a disparity between individuals. It has nothing to do with gender. This is why the TV presenters Tess Daly and Alex Jones are paid considerably more than several male TV presenters, as is Lauren Laverne on the radio. If this is sexism in action it isn’t very consistent. However, you won’t hear much about that because it doesn’t fit the narrative that some of the best-paid and most successful women in the country are victims of an all-pervasive patriarchy.

85 COMMENTS

  1. All the result of having gender studies departments in universities. Stuff an organisation/department/section full of feminist bints and they spend their time finding things to whine about.
    Didn’t our ancestors invent the scold’s bridle to alleviate the problem? We invented a supposed scientific school of thought and gave them academic status.

      • Has anyone ever told you that you’re very funny? No? Well, apply to the BBC to appear as a feminist ‘comedian’ then. It worked for Kate Smurfwit, Sandi Toxic, and all those hatchet-faced token women on their panel shows.

      • “The 1920s called, they want you back” – Joseph Stalin to Leon Trotsky, 1939;

        “The 1910s called, they want you back” – Adolf Hitler to leaders of the Weimar Republic, 1933.

        “The 1950s just called, they want you back” – Pol Pot to Norodom Sihanouk, 1978

      • Heaven’s no! We men don’t want to go back to those dark days where women were placed on pedestals and treated like queens, while the men were literally dying in the hundreds of thousands around the western world in jobs they should have never been doing.

        Those were very dark days and no men want to go back there. You women believe it was bad for you, but you have no idea. And you young women who weren’t even born then, you have no clue as to what you are talking about. You only know feminist lies!

    • What do you know about Gender Studies?

      Have you ever studied the subject formally?

      What books and articles have you read?

      Or are you just claiming to be knowledgeable when you are in fact totally ignorant, as many men are prone to doing?

  2. “…women are having their earning potential diminished by an oppressive patriarchy that reinforces socially constructed gender roles which assert that women should assume the role of primary care-giver to their children.”

    It seems to me to be just as plausible, and possibly more accurate, to conclude that men are having their freedom of choice diminished by an oppressive matriarchy that reinforces gender roles which assert that men should assume the role of primary bread-winner, because the great majority of women with children refuse to assume that role themselves.

    And why do these surveys only ever ask women what they want out of life? Is nobody interested in what men think about what they are required to do? Or is compliance with female demands all that they should be concerned about?

    • It was always my ambition growing up to earn more than my future husband/ partner.

      I currently earn more than my boyfriend – and I intend to keep it that way 😉

      • I see.

        You are presumably an entrepreneur who has devised a product that you think the public might want and have risked capital and spent endless hours setting up a company to produce and market it.

        On the other hand…

        You could be a public sector or “charity” manager who has managed to convince other public sector or charity managers that you deserve a steady stream of taxpayers’ cash, in return for something that the vast majority of people would be unable to recognise as a useful service. The passport to this enviable position would probably be a degree in sociology or gender studies.

      • Is that your Feminist definition of equality? Why do you always feel the need to use bold type? Is it insecurity?
        .

    • Indeed men are remarkably rarely asked. In fact women too are rarely asked if one means women generally. When they are their un PC response are usually taken by the Fawcwett Society etc. as evidence that there needs to be education or training of women so they realise that what they say they want is not what they want!

  3. Feminism is the greatest fraud. It demands access to all masculine roles on its own terms whilst insisting on retaining all female privilege. Instead of attacking the obvious contradictions the politicians pander to them. Years of this nonsense have resulted in the fatal feminisation of British society where the “shut up” word misogynist obscures the misandry that lies behind so much of it.

  4. The Telegraph has a headline “Women lose out on nearly £140bn a year due to gender pay gap”

    Does anyone seriously still believe that that rag is anything other than a Guardian wannabe.

    • The Telegraph is still more right-wing than the Guardian, but it has become more progressive in the last 10 years. The “Wonder Women” section is groundbreaking and has kick-started many women’s careers including Emma Barnett.

      • Emma Barnett’s interview of Cassie Jaye, producer of The Red Pill, proved Barnett to be a feminist and a blithering idiot (but I repeat myself):

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4csMxQJxGIQ

        While over on Channel 4 News yesterday, Cathy Newman’s 30-minute interview of Professor Jordan Peterson proved HER to be a blithering idiot, and him a genius:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

        Almost 100,000 views in well under a day. Upvotes outnumber downvotes almost 50:1.

        Happy days are here again,
        Lefties are such a bloody pain…

        • Is TCW still doing hero of the week? Because Jordan Peterson just got hero of the year for making Cathy Newman look like the shrill, ill informed feminist harpy that she is. Come on Laura and Kathy, interview Dr Peterson whilst he’s in the country.

        • Many thanks for that YouTube video of Jordan Peterson where he runs rings around Cathy Newman – I’ve been waiting for something like this for years.

        • I can’t wait to watch it Cathy Newman is the smuggest, most disagreeable and over rated female newsreader. I correct myself she isn’t a ‘ newsreader’ but a news ‘presenter’, who ‘presents’ the news through the lens of her own totally irrelevant opinion.

        • Thanks for that link to Jordan Peterson’s interview on C4, Mike. I’d missed it as I tend to avoid TV these days. I really hope Cathy Newman isn’t after a pay rise herself – she made herself look ridiculous.

          Btw, now at over 215k views with 20k upvotes and 300 thumbs downs!

      • To the extent that there are still some writers and some articles at The Telegraph who are more right wing and conservative than any perhaps at The Guardian then I can’t disagree with your first point. And of course, the below the line comments add to the right wing nature of the website.

        However, very many of the articles could be put word for word into the Guardian without offending any of its readership, and many of the journalists could switch tomorrow and still keep writing the same rubbish.

        So, yes. I think my description of it being a a Guardian wannabe is a good one, its trying to be the same but hasn’t quite (yet?) got there.

    • It’s no coincidence the DT started to go down the pan when it became a mainly subscription service.

    • That wannabe would be The Independent, the young pretender about to become of age as The Grau goes through its late life kicker and into its imminent death throws. Question is..Where will all its RadFem writers and “journalists” migrate to?

  5. Hypergamy and mens egos will ensure this will always be the case unless the state starts interfering in family life. Or just destroying it which seems to be their preferred option.

      • On average, in Western society, the thought of being kept by a woman would have a detrimental effect on a males ego just as keeping a man has a detrimental effect on the respect the woman has for that man. I don’t think 60 years of cultural marxism and feminism will fundamentally change 100’s of thousands of years of biological and behavioural evolution. #notall!

  6. I am very fortunate in that I am self employed and can pick my daughter up from school a couple of days a week. When I do so, out of her class of 25 I am usually the only father and on rare occasions there may be one or two others. There are the odd grandparents but the rest are the children’s mothers. No doubt this ratio is reflected in most primary schools across the country.

    So thus is it remotely possible that the ‘wage gap’ is down to these kind of choices that women have when children are young. Does our feminist friend think that these men who are unlikely to have such a choice are asserting their ‘patriarchal control’ by working longer hours to support their families so their wives are able to be with their school age children? Do you even consider men’s sacrifice to look after their families? Meeting your children from school, or working excessive hours in a job you barely tolerate? Who really has the better deal here?

    • Yes indeed. I am grateful that my husband made it possible for me to take our children to school for their primary years, by taking over the role of main breadwinner. We earned a similar wage prior to parenthood. In the intervening years his salary has quadrupled as he took on more and more responsibility. I returned to work three years ago when my children went to high school and earn considerably less than him, in a position that is not even close to having the amount of responsibility and stress he has. This was all through our own personal choice. Am I hard done by because I earn less? Of course not, my contribution to the workforce and my employer is minor compared to his. His sacrifice enabled our children to have their mother at home, for which I and they are grateful and he is justifiably proud.

    • No, they don’t consider men’s sacrifices and they ignore the fact that, to all intents and purposes, men’s income is often family pay and not his alone to use. Regardless of a family’s circumstances and how they decide to arrange things, they view pay as the being in the sole ownership of the earner.

      This attitude allows them to view being a homemaker, unearning or part-time, as being a position of abject poverty and oppression (“she cleans HIS house and is deprived of an income” etc.), as if that woman isn’t also housed, clothed, fed etc..

  7. As I have often observed commenting here. If the objective way of measuring feminist success is that men and women do the same things then one of the failures is in fact “feminist” Sweden. Which has an average “pay gap” very low proportion of women in higher management and one of the most “gender segregated” workforce with women particularly crowded into the state sector. Being fair they’ve researched this and their conclusions are that the very provisions that give flexible working, parental leave and part time work mean women do have choice and choose to work less! Their response has been to try to get the private sector (in Sweden far more Male than in the UK) to force men to have time off! Not much success there.

  8. My elder daughter, who is definitely no feminist, was put in charge of an office of about 75 clerical staff for a period of six months or so. She was studying for her doctorate in sociology at the time and for her own amusement kept some figures of staff timekeeping. The were approximately the same numbers of men and women and had equal pay, but her statistics seemed to indicate that the women took far more casual time off than the men. Late arrivals and early departures were quite common and most managed a couple of days off each month for the “usual feminine reasons”, along with odd days to take a child to the doctors/dentist etc. Obviously there were some, mainly older, women did equal work but her view was that, on average, women worked about 10% less than men. This was in the government service, and nobody was interested in her findings!

    • I observed exactly the same phenomenon, in the private sector, 35+ years ago. We know from Dr Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory (2000) that while four in seven British men are work-centred, only one in seven British women is. Regardless of childcare responsibilities, women are more likely than men to not work, or to work only p/t, from the point of leaving f/t education, to retirement.

      • And in Sweden and other “Nordic model” countries the introduction of policies that allow flexible work/time off has resulted in:
        a. Public services being even more female than the UK as women know that these policies are easiest to access in public services.
        b. Women being rarer in industries that are in private hands or need “unsocial working” ,much more so than the UK
        c. A low (lower than the UK) proportion of women in senior management positions. With only the “quotas” in politics meaning Political representation is more even.
        d. A pretty mid range Gender Gap, 10 percentage points higher than Italy for instance.
        If one compares the UK, Dutch and German “Model” with much more part time work in the economy one finds high percentages of mothers working part time and very similar gender pay gaps in each economy.
        If one wanted to have a low gender pay gap and high proportions of women in senior positions and “non traditional” jobs you’d have actually to look at Italy or Poland. Countries noted for their lack of flexible (part time) or parental leave, similarly so for the US and of course many developing nations who can’t afford to be generous to their workforces.
        The evidence id pretty clear that if one allows time off/out on a wide scale it has an impact. It may be that the “Nordic” or “North European” models are desired for other reasons but it is clear that there are compromises to be made in doing less work.

      • Been that way forever. My dad who retired in the sixties would almost never hire a woman under forty, his comment was, “I’m hiring for a job that requires a full time person, if I hire a woman who is likely to have a child, or has kids, likely I’ll end up with a part time person trying to do a full time job. They may try, and hard, but its still more than they can do.

        Reality is real, and always has been.

        • The impact on the UK NHS of this perfectly predictable pattern: On Nurses; “More than half of those who walked away in the last year were under the age of 40” and “The number of leavers would be enough to staff more than 20 average-sized hospital trusts”

          • What other employer would expect its staff to work odd hours and charge them to park in the company car park even though they had to use a car as there were no buses available at the times required?

          • Hospital car parks, in my experience, which is not extensive, in the US, are free, and secure, even in some quite undesirable locations. Odd hours, well they should have known that before they hired in, nor can it really be helped.

  9. The great fallacy was the feminisation of the NHS.
    The wonder is how does it do as much as it does, with so many on sabbaticals, Common purpose training, other courses & conferences, part time & maternity leave

    • So many of the problems of the NHS can be laid squarely at the initiative to feminise the medical profession, which dates back to the 1970s (Dr Vernon Coleman was warning of the dangers back then). 70% of medical students today are female. The state has to train two women at great public expense (mainly men’s expense, since they pay almost 75% of income tax in the UK) to get the same career output as when it trains one man. The women won’t work the same hours – regardless of whether they have children, or not – including unsocial hours, and are disinclined to work in the toughest areas e.g. A&E.

      The smartest move the state could make is to have a ban on training female doctors for the next 30 years. Failing that, require those who undertake medical degrees to refund the costs over their careers (whether in medicine or elsewhere). And don’t write off unpaid debts after x years. The debt defaulters will mainly be women who went to medical school knowing it to be the ultimate dating agency.

      • THE NHS answer to mitigate . .
        Lets steal medical staff from third world countries.
        The daftest, short term resourcing model, you will come across

      • http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42653542

        So in a news item on the numbers of nursing: “More than half of those who walked away in the last year were under the age of 40” and “The number of leavers would be enough to staff more than 20 average-sized hospital trusts”
        So on a purely practical point it might be better to target training to women over 40 who want to return to work and men perhaps. Either way the price of an overwhelmingly female workforce may be that you lose younger workers for a period time if not for ever when they leave. It was a hugely retrograde step introducing degree only Nurses as the old entry points allowed more mature women to join nursing after the child bearing and “nursing” years.

        • Women can bear and bring up children then get jobs, letting their husbands get easier work if they want to. That should get them to about age 40.

    • Worse yet is the near total feminisation of schools. I have been taught by some exceptional teachers, both men and women – but in my time there was a balance between both (OK, most were men).

      Now, in broken Britain, a child from a fatherless family attends a male-free school (dominated by lefty ideas just incidentally) and has no suitable role-models to follow unless it is footballers or street hoodlums where he lives.

      In my son’s school the only male figure is in charge of sports – and that’s not a daily activity.

        • That’s a good question I don’t have an answer to. Just a hypothesis: I think generally teaching has been downgraded as a profession – and we could futher debate why that is. Men are naturally more status conscious so that could explain why they stay away. Pay doesn’t explain everything. When we see how the UK continues to slide in international rankings, while grade inflation still holds at home, no one buys the illusion that, as a collective, teachers are worthy of respect. In private schools, where the paying customer values the product he is purchasing, you will find many more male teachers.
          Just my guess – but I expect there are many other factors at work. If you had to brave that toxic-lefty workplace environment every day would you sign up? This is why we need a voucher system – crap schools would naturally die as parents vote with their child’s education and respectability would be restored to schools producing results fit for tomorrows work force.

          • Once I would have loved to play a part in helping children reach their potential but as you say the atmosphere is now toxic. Now I focus on our many grandchildren.

            My observation with state primary schools is they have a possibility to do children harm and are not interested in them reaching their potential.
            They are just big buildings dedicated to crowd control and indoctrination, with unneeded and unasked for stuff. The really useful subjects like maths, reading & writing is given a back seat.
            Its so bad they invented a new class of staff called ‘teaching assistants’ to carry out the crowd control.

        • Usually it is because of the all-too-common likelihood of being falsely accused of being a pedophile (because of the feminist-driven attitude that men who like to be teachers of young children are likely to be a pedophile), or being a ‘harasser’, since being a teacher requires being around a lot of women.
          All some feminist on the staff (who possibly doesn’t like how you look, or didn’t like what you said in the past) has to do is point her finger at you and lie about how you “harassed” her, and your life is ruined, without any possibility of you being able to prove your innocence. Why? Because you’re a man…

    • I am never not upvoting this video.

      This interview is going to be played in 30 years time on compilation shows with titles like “Great TV Interviewing disasters”. Talking heads will interject comments like “Poor Cathy, she just doesn’t get it!”, and “Did she really not see what a fool she was making of herself?”

      Lets not forget Newman’s hypocrisy in helping to destroy Tim Hunt’s career over a single risque joke, while ignoring the strident misandry of a thousand feminist academics.

  10. Can we all please stop using the term “gender” when we refer to people. We should be, as we all were up until a couple of years ago , using the term “sex”

  11. Thanks for this piece, a very timely put down to all those six figure female journalists at the BBC holding a public spat about their office politics, courtesy of the UK tax payer.

Comments are closed.