THE CHARTERED WOMANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

Sorry for lack of posts this week - been away working - and that matters because according to the anti-male Chartered Management Institute I will have been ensuring that male executives get paid more than female executives.

The big story from the CMI this week was that it would take up to 98 years before female executives in Britain get paid the same as male executives. This is despite the fact that female junior executives get paid more than junior male executives.

The CMI claim older female executives get paid less than male executives for doing the same job. They offer no proof that it is the same job with the same hours and that all managers who are compared are doing it with the same talent. They claim they have produced a report on this but it is not published on their website so cannot be corroborated. So they cannot say it is for the same job without actually offering public proof.

Secondly, they applaud the fact that junior female executuives are getting paid more than male exectuives - so if the CMI were being fair and equal they would be now campaigning to stop the gender pay gap against junior male exuectives. Of course, they say nothing because they are only interested in facts that play out a pro-women, anti-male narrative.

Thirdly, it is clear that the research does not add up because you cannot on the one hand say it will take women up to 98 years to close the gap when junior female executives are getting paid more than their male equivalent. How can that be the case - its mickey mouse research. Melanie McDonagh in the Standardscoffs and points out the CMI said last year it would take 57 years, so suddenly it grew by 41 years, in one year!

This is what happens in the world of anti-male spin:

The CMI's spin monkeys want to get the CMI in the newspapers. So they commission this annual research with the brief to paint as bleak a picture as possible for women. They know the anti-male parts of the media will lap it up. The research gives a broad range of years so they use the one that is the most extreme - 98 years. The larger the figure, the larger the headline.

The media of course, being stretched for resources simply go along with the story and do not challenge the research or ask them to prove the 'same job' issue. They also do not challenge the issues that cause the gender pay gap (largely choosing motherhood). While the press release talks about both and leads on the gap between junior executives the spinners would have briefed the media on the 98 year figure as that guarantees more coverage.

You do wonder why any man would want to be a member of this group when it has been hijacked into making anti-male statements and research. Even to the point where their head of policy states "yet again, that businesses are contributing to the persistent gender pay gap and alienating top female employees by continuing to pay men and women unequally. This kind of bad management is damaging UK businesses and must be addressed."

Surely this organisation should be called the Chartered Womanagement Institute - it seems much more appropriate.

Posted by Skimmington   

Media coverage - BBC Today, BBC (read the comments), Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph (on the paygap between junors) and the Guardian.

Comments

[Groan]

The EHRC did a similar report earlier in August http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/2011/august/sex-and-power-5-400-women-missing-from-top-jobs/ The cynic in me thinks these reports reflect the interest of many Quango crats who must be worried that they will lose their Publcly funded executive jobs on spending cuts. With out quotas they may prove unemployable. However the truth is probably that the lack of public support for ppositive discrimination means the idealogues know they have to keep up the litany of mis information. In a recent Scottish survey the 79 percent were against positive discrimination. The survey actually showed the Scots as a pretty fair lot, able to spot unfairness when they see it. Needless to say the report chose to charactise this as a mistaken understanding of equality and call for more effort to pursuade people how wrong they were. It would be funny if it wasn't that this stuff is taken seriously by those in power.
Howev

[John Kimble]

"they applaud the fact that junior female executuives are getting paid more than male exectuives - so if the CMI were being fair and equal they would be now campaigning to stop the gender pay gap against junior male exuectives."

This attitude is hugely revealing. Producing stupid reports falsely alleging or wildly exaggerating sexism against women is bad enough. However, applauding and celebrating lower wages for young men, presumably as a result of the failures of our education system is quite frankly despicable not to mention hugely hypocritical.

[Bob]

I remember the Equal opportunities Commission (or EOC) came out with a report that it would take 200 years to get so-called equality.

It just goes to show that the feminists and their misandry are still at large in these quangos and still just making it up as they go along - I mean they must be if they have such wildly varying estimates and offer no proof or openness about their 'research' methods.