The Rights Of Man

ABUSE OF GENDER PAY GAP STATISTICS CHALLENGED AGAIN

A week ago this site highlighted the fact that despite previous guidance from Sir Michael Scholar from the UK Statistical Authority to the Government that using the gender pay gap figure of 23% was wrong, the Women and Work Commission went ahead anyway.

Even though the media cover the story when Sir Michael originally queried it, the media, who do not fact check or connect things up, they still unquestioningly used the 23% figure again.

Now the row has blown up again with another letter(see 7th August) sent by Sir Michael, this time to Baroness Prosser.

The whole episode is covered by Mark Easton at the BBC.

One question remains though, does Sir Michael read this blog, so picking up on the issue that was previously raised on this site about the Women and Work Commission!

WOMENS' COMMISSION GENDER PAY GAP MYTHS - SLAVISHLY LAPPED UP BY MEDIA

A 56 page report called Shaping a Fairer Future by the Women and Work Commission (no Men and Work Commission exists, of course) run by the UK Government's 'Equalities' Office.

The report essentially state that the gender pay gap is down to gender stereotyping in career choices promoted by schools.

Yet, as pointed out so many times on this site, there is a gender pay gap overall but:-

• Lifestyle choice (ie taking years out to bring up a family) is the biggest explanation of the gender pay gap as explained by the Office of National Statistics report in 2008
• Women and men earn the same wage until they reach their 30's (see above for reason) so it is not down to school career stereotyping
• Single women earn more than single men
• In landmark research by the Daily Telegraph, they showed that far more women are entering the professions than men.
• There is no evidence that women get paid less than men due to discrimination.

 An additional point worth looking at is the fact that in June, the Government were slammed by the UK Statistical Authority for using the figure of 23% for describing the gender pay gap instead of the more accurate 12%, yet the report still uses 23%. They ignore the truth.

The deliberate and sexist lack of intellectual rigour in reports like this just keep coming and one of the problems is that th British media, which as each year goes by, lacks serious depth, never challenges them. They just spew out the copy verbatim without looking at the above points, the evidence or points by academics.

In the myriad of articles, there is not one challenge to it in the news reporting or an alternative voice. The only article is by Jill Kirby of the Centre for Policy Studies in the Telegraph

NEW ATTACK ON MEN IN THE CITY

The UK Parliament's Treasury Select Committee announced yesterday that it is calling for evidence about sexism in the City. Just like the recent report by the Equalities Commission on the supposed Gender Pay Gap which was used as a public flogging exercise against men, this is just the same.

Again, supine men in the City will stand back and take (only Sir Stuart Rose has complained about it) he fall because they scared of the equalities industry.

Media Coverage

CRUCIAL EQUALITY BILL CLAUSE 153 WIDE OPEN TO ANTI-MALE JOB RECRUITMENT

As previously commented upon, the Equality Bill will allow companies and public authorities to discriminate against candidates of equal merit when considering offering people a job base on whether they are 'under-represented'. We all know what that means in the real world - discrimination against men.

A crucial part of the debate took place on 30th June 2009 when there was a debate in the House of Commons' Committee Stage on the crucial clauses - 152 and 153 (clauses near the bottom).

Mark Harper MP (Cons) put down an amendment on clause 153 because it was too vague and too open to 'interpretation'.

The crucial point is that the clause says  

(a) A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted.

What Harper said was that the wording should be ‘equally qualified to’ because the current clause in the Bill meant it narrow the remit where positive action could take place. Leading businesses and also the Law Society said it would this would provide a narrower meaning.

He also wanted clause 191 amended which will stop a Minister from making provisions and amendments based on what he/she thinks but on a basis where they can demonstrate.

The crucial part of the debate centred on an example (column 605) where Harper gives an example between people being 'as equally qualified' to do a job which is different to their ability to be 'qualified to' do a job (hard to follow I know). The difference is that two candidates could have an equal degree but there could be a difference in their aptitude.

His amendment would have narrowed the remit in law. He has particular experience in this as a number of his constituents were involved in one of the UK's most scandalous examples of anti-male discrimination ever perpetrated in the UK (Gloucestershire Police 2006).

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the amendment did not gain support from either the Labour Government or the Liberal Democrats. Harper withdrew the amendment.

What it means though now is that even though organisation have raised their concern about the interpretation of 'as qualified as', it leaves it wide open for abuse and wide open for the systematic discrimination of men in employment. Just at a time when more and more men are losing their jobs.

 

Note 1

Look at the attendance list for evidence gathering at this meeting - any group missing?

Note 2

Look at the debate (column 604) where it is mentioned that Equalities and Human Rights Commission use the fact that primary schools could take positive action to recruit a male teacher because they have so few. The thinnest of fig-leafs and blatantly used as a smokescreen for the Bill's real intention. 

Note 3

Not sure why the text layout changed but it still readable (I hope)

WHY THE GENDER PAY GAP IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS WOMEN BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST

By Adrian Ashby 

 

The row over the misuse of the Office of  National Statistics information highlights the dishonesty in the whole policy with regard to the “Gender Pay Gap”. Constantly presented as about women paid less than men for the same work it generates a feeling that women are treated unfairly in terms of pay.

 

Yet the Equal Opportunities Commission Reports produced in the early part of this decade identified little difference in pay rates for the same sorts of job. In fact the key factors were identified as time out of work and the popularity of part time work in a comparatively narrow range of occupations.

This drove the EOC to support “flexible working” and encouragement for young women to consider other occupational choices.  

 

Of course at that point the debate becomes about the issues for mothers (and fathers) rather than all women. As there was found to be little “gap” for childless women partnered or not.

The other issue is then what drives the choices of occupation made by men and women?

 

The Office of National Statistics has published regional figures. There are some interesting patterns.

For instance the pay “gap”is very small in regions that have suffered the collapse of  “men’s” occupations (mining, heavy manufacturing etc.). In those same areas, such as Wales or Northern Ireland the more prominent role for public sector employment (mainly female) means that as the recession hits private industry the “gap” is getting  very small indeed.

A feature rarely commented on is that men are also more concentrated in low earning occupations working full time hours. This matches with the figures that part time men are paid less than part time women.

 

The men are much more likely to be in low skilled P/T work while the figure for women includes the many professional women who choose to work part time, for instance the new GP contract precipitated a dramatic increase in female doctors working part time.

 

In general women are concentrated in the public sector and have a narrower distribution of pay rates. There are of course men at the heady heights of the now discredited banking industry but many more in “dirty” jobs that pay little. In other words there is a much wider distribution. Portering, cleansing, labouring, delivering and so on tend to be both low paid and invisible but also men’s work.

 

Though the fact that full time male workers statistically work ten more hours per week than women is often taken to indicate preferences of men in management or professions. However a more accurate analysis of statistics  would note that this is more often a reflection of low paid workers keen to earn more through overtime.

 

Of course the reality for most people is that choices and trade offs have to be made. Often these are made by couples and families. The patterns frequently change over the life courses of both men and women. Occupational segregation is an issue though the statistics show that the “female” occupations have been becoming more female over the same time many “male” occupations have become less male, so here again it isn’t a simple issue. 

HARMAN IS CAUGHT AGAIN DELIBERATELY DISTORTING THE TRUTH - GENDER PAY GAP

In Orwellian/New Labour/PC industry double-speak the mantra is 'if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.' Never more so, when it comes to perpetuating untruths by the Marxist anti-male feminists who continue to tell untruths about how discriminated against women are vis a vis men.

This site has already highlighted on three occasions this year, where such myths have been destroyed by the media, professors or statisticians (Recession and Depression, Recession and Jobs, Domestic Violence), now this time it is the deliberate misuse of the statistics on the Gender Pay Gap.

Sir Michael Scholar who heads up the UK's independent Statistical Authority gave Harriet Harman an official warning last week after he had previously protested about the her misuse of the gender pay gap statistics.

He said her office had been warned that including part-time workers in her calculations could be misleading but pressed ahead. They claimed that women were paid 23 per cent less, but Sir Michael says 12.8 per cent would be a more accurate figure.

Her and her acolytes in the Government, the laughably named Equalities Commission and the Fawcett Society do not care about the misuse of this or any other statistics so long as it positions women in a unfavourable light with regard to men.

The reason is that it acts as the lever to get more support for women at the cost of men and this can be seen by the Equalities Bill. That is the reality of the lies they use, they are not casual lies, they are lies used to justify more discrimination against men and more special treatment for women. Their lies trun into public policy.

What is so terrible about this propaganda war is that often the media just accepts what they say (though they are now being questioned more) but also that they won't accept the truth.

Harman and her acolytes continued to use this statistic in full knowledge that they should not. In addition, even when this latest issue was uncovered, the anti-male Equalities Commission (taxpayer funded and of course, they are public officials) said the statistical watchdog was wrong. They said "women representing over three-quarters of the part-time workforce, we believe this figure gives the fullest picture of the country's gender pay gap."

It proves that they are willing to peddle untruths so long as they can claim more victories in their war on men.

Coverage is here:- Daily Mail with readers comments, BBC, Mark Easton BBC, Independent, Daily Telegraph

COMPARE THE HYSTERIA OF THE GENDER PAY GAP WITH THE SILENCE ON THE GENDER EDUCATION GAP

Figures and analysis published by the Higher Education Policy Institute  shows that whilst 49% of girls are going onto university only 38% of men are.

The Gender Education Gap has been much commented upon on this site as all indicators show that at least two generations of boys have performed worse than girls, so much so, that GCSE/A-level results are seven years behind those of girls.

In addition, the site has long stated that a big part of the problem has been the feminisation of education which stemmed from the scrapping of exam based O-levels in 1998 with course-based GCSEs, more suited to female learning.

This point was made by the Institute's Bahram Bekhradnia in an article in The Guardian who said the exams are the "most likely cause" of an achievement gap between the sexes that starts at school but carries on into adulthood. The result is that men are less likely to go to university and less likely to do well when they get there.

However, the silence is deafening from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission who run to the cameras or the press to profess their anger about any statistic which may suggest that women are behind men on some issues. Also where is the Government who Gordon Brown said was if it was not about fairness, then it stood for nothing.

The Government, the Equalities Commission, The Minister for Equalities (Harriett Harman) and the Fawcett Society have dominated the airwaves for years on the gender pay gap and the new equalities bill. They cannot shout loud enough but there is nothing on the fact that boys are languishing behind girls at education. It only matters if it is the other way round.

Their silence is deafening and shows how sexist against boys/men these organisations truly are. If girls were underperforming boys in the same way, you would never hear the end of it.

Other coverage - The Guardian, BBC, The Times 1, Times 2, Daily Telegraph

SIR STUART ROSE CHALLENGES HARMAN ET AL OVER THE MYTH OF THE 'GLASS CEILING'

At long long last, a senior business person has has the balls to openly challenge Harman, The Fawcett Society, The Equalities Commission and anyone else who continually uses the the gender pay gap or the career 'glass ceiling' as a way to attack men (see number of posts in the employment section) For far too long men have lied back and taken it without a whisper of dissent, it has been female commentators who have been left to pick up the cudgels.

This week, Sir Stuart Rose, the Chairman and Chief Executive of Marks and Spencers said women had never had it so good and were able to bring up children and enjoy a successful career, if they wanted to. This not only challenges the glass ceiling but also the gender pay gap which studies, time after time, show that it is not down to discrimination but lifestyle choice.

The Equalities Commission who are currently carrying out a witch-hunt in the City will be particularly exercised by this.

What is also credible about Sir Stuart Rose is that not only is he a captain of industry but also that his record of promoting women (based on tehrio merit) is very good so what brickbats can be thrown at him? None.

Media Coverage including the obvious (yawn) backlash from the usual suspects can be found at:- Daily Mail, The Guardian, BBC, Daily Telegraph

THE WAR ON THE CITY'S GENDER PAY GAP IGNITES THE DISCRIMINATION CHARGE

In February, the site commented that the review led by the Equalities Commission into the City of London's pay gap was nothing more than showtrial designed as a ruse to attack men (link). The way the initial findings have been skewed by the Commission and others show that prediction to be prescient.

The initials findings (link) show that pay gaps in the City reach up to 60% and the quotes from Trevor Phillips scream " The figures we’re releasing today are shocking and indicate just how serious the pay gap has become in the financial sector, with women concentrated in lower paid, lower skilled roles and few able to make it to the top. The truth is that however you look at the numbers, women do not have equal status or equal rewards."

Never one to miss out on a bit of male bashing, Harriet Harman, minister for women and equality, said in the Guardian (link) that the inquiry "proves that the finance sector is a breeding ground for discrimination and unfairness" and promised "tough new measures" in the equality bill.

Except it doesn't...

What the research from the National Institute of Social and Economic Research (link) shows is that

• Twice as many men have degrees than women (39% to 20%)
• There are more women than men in admin/secretarial jobs
• Men undertake more unpaid overtime than women
• Working conditions are less family friendly than on in other professions

Whilst it shows that for many women, the attractiveness of the City is not as high as that for for men, but that does not mean there is sexual or gender discrimination. There is no proof that a women with the same skills, experience, working the same hours, in the same job with the same company earns less than a man.

In addition, many women choose to work in the relatively lower paid public sector than men and the Commission does not prove that there are any barriers to entry for any women wanting to work in the same way as men. In addition, of course, many women want to take time off to look after children.

The City may not be family friendly which means for some it is not women-friendly but that does not mean there is active discrimination. It also does not mean as Trevor Phillips contends that women do not have equal status.

The headlines and comments from politicians and the Commission has to recognise that and also have they asked women if they would like to work in the City?

The showtrial is gathering pace and the outcome is just another stick to beat the City with. And as Harman says, there will be tough measures in the forthcoming Equalities Bill, which means more positive discrimination (no such thing as positive discrimination means negative discrimination for someone else), which therefore means that some men will be denied a chance to work in the City, soley because of their gender.