So our old friend the ‘gender pay gap’ is back. Popping up around Halloween every year like some dark, baleful phantom: unreal yet haunting, and refusing to be killed off by reason, logic or justice. Even Jordan Peterson, a modern-day Van Helsing if ever there was one, can’t seem to consign it to its intellectual grave.
After remaining fairly static for the past few years, last year it decreased significantly for both full- and part-time workers, down from 9.1 per cent to 8.6 per cent in the case of full-time work. Gloria Del Piero’s divisive and unfair method of pay gap reporting – brought in, lest we forget, under a Tory government – seems to be having the effect of shaming employers into loading the dice ever more in favour of women. Somehow, campaigners claimed that the picture was ‘more or less static’, and that at this rate it would take another 55 years to close the gap completely. How a reduction of 0.5 per cent a year in a gap 8.6 per cent wide equates to 55 years is beyond me, but then neither maths nor logic have ever been feminist strong points.
The campaign against the gap is, of course, only one front in the war to remove masculinity from society completely. The fronts are too many, and the battles too frequent, to go into them here, but regular TCW readers will be well aware of them.
Meanwhile, in entirely unrelated news:
— George Eaton (@georgeeaton) October 29, 2018
Extreme risk aversion is one of the biggest risks facing the West https://t.co/cNzARd1zVa
— Tim Montgomerie (@montie) October 29, 2018
Of course, they are not unrelated at all. Doubtless there are many reasons for the slowdown to stagnation across the Western World: the banking crisis, waning demography, and so on. However, it would seem reasonable that a society so heavily biased towards femininity would also inherit feminine weaknesses: poorer innovation and drive, a preference for safety over risk, nannying regulation, words judged as potentially hurtful as actions, and emotion trumping logic. Fracking technology is an excellent example: in reality a technology with a very good safety record and a cheap, viable energy source with a considerably lower carbon footprint than coal. Nonetheless it is very effectively demonised, not least on the ridiculous grounds that its name sounds violent. Emotionally, it simply doesn’t feel as nice and cuddly as renewable energy resources even though the latter require heavy subsidy.
The individual inequities created by feminism’s refusal to acknowledge the laws of cause and effect are bad enough in the short term but are likely to prove catastrophic at a long-term societal level. There is no reason to suggest current trends will be reversed: in the short term politicians have every reason to follow the feminist agenda rather than fight the intellectual battles that one day will have to be won. By that time, in a world where the gender pay gap widens the other way and middle-class professional females have the whole cake shop and eat it too, male alienation may be complete. Moreover, it may take decades to reverse. Brexit was a great opportunity for our society to escape the West’s intellectual straitjacket and collective cultural suicide, but feminisation and stagnation suit the elites too well in the short term.
One day, of course, the malign effects of uber-feminisation will become too big to ignore – probably when its effects on corporate profits start to effect elite incomes. There will then doubtless be a chattering class moral panic about the male ‘sexodus’ from society and what can be done to reverse it. Cue lots of media narratives and government campaigns extolling the wonders of masculinity. However, who says that men will want to return to societies that have consistently vilified them for decades?
Thirty years after it was first fashionably suggested that ‘the future is female’, it still is, but it also looks like a greyer, more stagnant and unhappier one too.