Getting what you wished for

Stella Creasy, MP (#PayMeToo)

The pseudo-progressive-feminists are making propaganda hay while the sun shines on their gender pay gap narrative. Companies with more than 250 staff are now obliged to make a gender-based pay return, a exercise in public confession which the feminist lobby within government (i.e., all of it) forced through.

I’m getting a little irked. And not only by the great unwashed who believe the pay gap nonsense. There are too many who recognise that the pay gap narrative is nonsense but fail to progress further in their analysis of the politics. Let me spell it out.

There are broadly three groups of people,

  1. Those who know the pay gap narrative is propaganda;
  2. Those who promulgate the pay gap narrative;
  3. Those who are being conned by the pay gap narrative.

Group 1 comprises both men and women, but mostly men.

Group 2 comprises both men and women. It includes feminists of both sexes. But it also includes interested parties who may be motivated by other than feminist ideology, notably the government and various ‘elite’ institutions.

Group 3 is exclusively women. It is women who are the ‘mark’ of the con.

Men, whether in Group 1 or 2, are the pantomime villains. Some men become vociferous members of Group 2 in an attempt to be recast as heroes rather than villains. They never notice that it doesn’t work. You are not permitted to escape your Identity Group. As a man, your Identity is Oppressor, and this cannot be modified by ‘good’ behaviour.

The objectives of the pay gap propaganda are,

  • To con/coerce more women into paid work rather than domestic duties, especially childcare;
  • To further reinforce the victimhood narrative for women, the purpose of which is to continually reconfirm the status of “women” as a deserving Identity Group;
  • To further reinforce the misandry narrative for men, the purpose of which is to continually reconfirm the status of “men” as an undeserving Identity Group.

Group 1 will be reasonably well informed about pay statistics. Group 3 will be completely ignorant about pay statistics.

But you merely display your ignorance of the nature of the enemy if you ask of Group 2 “are they lying, or do they really not know the true pay statistics?” Admittedly, this is hard for most of us to grasp, but these people have a different concept of “truth”. If they have the influence to impose their narrative upon enough people – and they do – then it becomes the truth. They do not recognise the existence of an independent, objective, unique Truth. Such an naïve idea is only for the unsophisticated. For the cognoscenti the issue is the Greater Good. The unenlightened might mistake those pursuing the Greater Good for lying toerags, but that is only because they are so very unsophisticated.

So don’t even ask if Group 2 actually believe what they say. All discourse is an exercise in power, and power confers truth. I may have had occasion to observe previously that feminism is about power. Usefully, MP Stella Creasy has recently made it absolutely clear – towards the end of this video.

A brief word about those women who object to the victimhood narrative because it presents women as weak and needy rather than strong, independent and capable. (They often call themselves “equity feminists”). Well, quite right. But these equity feminists didn’t get the memo. It’s not about equality, silly. It’s about power. And a carefully nurtured victimhood narrative – whilst it projects an image of individual women as weak – serves the interests of the Greater Power – the power of the Identity Group. This is why they get so very cross with you if you refuse to be assimilated into the Borg. To enhance the Power of the Collective you must appear to be feeble.

All three Objectives of the pay gap propaganda serve the interests of feminism.

But government, and institutions like the Global Economic Forum, also have an interest in Objective 1 – getting more women into work. They have an eye on increasing GDP and increasing income tax revenue. Nicky Morgan made that motivation clear here, although her actual numbers were bonkers: “increasing women’s productivity and employment to the same level as men’s could add almost £600 billion to our economy, clearing a third of our national debt”. That’s why the government is feminist – that and the fact that male MPs and Cabinet Ministers are shit scared of the wimmins.

The statistics of the gender pay gap in the UK are easily summarised (see also here).

  • For part time workers the gender pay gap is in favour of women by about 5%;
  • For full time workers, the median hourly pay rates, excluding overtime, for men and women under 40 are the same to within a couple of percent;
  • For full time workers, the gender gap in gross median hourly pay rates, excluding overtime, taking all ages into account, was 9.1% in favour of men in 2017;
  • The gender pay gap is never quoted net of income tax. But a simple estimate reveals that, for full time workers, the gender gap in median hourly pay rates net of income tax, excluding overtime and taking all ages into account, was about zero (actually slightly in favour of women) in 2015 and 2017.

The last point – never normally mentioned  – means that the much vaunted pay gap does not represent extra money which men get in their pockets. (Which means their wives and families don’t get it either). Instead, it’s extra money which goes to the Treasury where it finances public spending – the majority recipients of which are…..women!

What is to be done about the dreadful gender pay gap data being ‘fessed up to by all these companies? The Boards are not going to enjoy this annual shame-fest. That, of course, is the point. So what will these companies actually do?

Well, wholesale promotions of women can’t be the answer. Women don’t want the jobs. If they did want them, they’d take them. There are no barriers. You can’t say “it’s women’s own choice” around feminists (wear ear defenders if you do). But it is. Read Catherine Hakim, read Susan Pinker, read Geoff Dench.

Women don’t want the jobs and they won’t be coerced en masse to take them.

I’m tempted to say that men should be convinced to stop working so damned hard. After all, the reason why men pay 75% of all income tax is mainly because they work 55% more hours than women.

Imagine what would happen if we ‘solved’ the pay gap by convincing men to adopt the same work patterns as women now enjoy – with no increase in women’s working. The income into the Exchequer would halve. Total economic meltdown would ensue, followed by total social breakdown. It’s completely unthinkable.

That won’t happen either. It would be as hard to stop men taking higher status, higher paid jobs as to convince women to take them. (I’m talking about typical behaviours here – both sexes will have a certain percentage of gender non-typicals). Or maybe it might be possible? Having recently come to the end of 37 straight years of working 55+ hour weeks, if I had my time again, would I do the same thing? I think not.

But what can companies realistically do if they want to avoid the public shaming? Getting a 50/50 gender split at every wage level in the organisation just isn’t going to happen.

Take airlines, as an example. All but a tiny percent of pilots are men, but most cabin crew are women. Hence, a huge pay gap. Are they going to get 50% female pilots? Nope. And even if they did, with most cabin crew female, there would still be a large pay gap. No doubt they will instigate a vigorous programme to train more women pilots, perhaps with generous incentives. Lets say – and this is wildly generous – that they achieve 20% female pilots. The effect on their gender pay gap will be minor. The solution, though, is simple. To get a zero pay gap you don’t need equal numbers of male and female employees: you just need the same percentage at all salary levels. Ergo, start aggressive recruiting male cabin crew – and letting the female cabin crew go. Stop when the percentage of female cabin crew equals the percentage of female pilots – say 20%. Net effect: a small number of women in higher paid jobs, but a large number of women unemployed, and a net increase in male employment. The point is that getting male cabin crew is achievable; getting loads of female pilots just isn’t.

Another example. A typical office with mostly female receptionists and clerks. The professional staff will largely be on equitable salary scales, and women will probably be proportionately represented at all levels except the highest levels, e.g., Board level. The same logic applies as before. The number of women employed is irrelevant. The trick is to get the same percentage of women at each salary level. So, a few more women in the most senior positions, and loads more men taking the place of women in junior positions like receptionists and clerks.

This is my best guess of what will happen.

Feminism trashes women, yet again.

Be careful what you wish for – you might just get it.

9 thoughts on “Getting what you wished for

  1. paul parmenter

    Here is my prediction: after the faux media storm, everything will settle down and return to normal, i.e. men occupying most of the stressful, higher paid jobs and women clustering in huge numbers in easier, lower paid jobs. This will continue for the simple reason that it is the natural and normal work ethic of both sexes, and has been for quite a few thousand years. Feminists will continue to caterwaul that is a disgrace and a horror etc, but they cannot change human nature. They can only do what they have been doing for decades: complain, complain, complain. William’s analysis of the three groups will remain true because people will cling to their beliefs.

    Reply
    1. Labour_is_bunk

      As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, a lot of it is due to managerial-level feminists wanting a bigger cut of the cake, to the accompaniment of a few crocodile tears for their lower-paid sisters

      Reply
  2. Alain Borgrave

    Hello William,
    good analysis but there is a problem with your final argument. Feminists not just have the wage gap argument, they also have the “proportion of women” argument. Look at what happened to Google, Youtube, and other US tech companies. Here, the feminist narrative was “lower proportion of women means discrimination and that there is a ‘hostile environment’ to women”. Companies were shamed and now are all “diversity hiring” aggressively.
    So that’s what will happen in Britain. Companies will be barred from the approach you describe by the argument that a lower proportion of women means an injustice and hiring discriminations (which will be true, by the way, if your scenario happens).

    Reply
    1. William Collins Post author

      You might well be right. On closer inspection I note one of the reporting criteria is “proportion of males and females in each pay quartile”, which will expose going down the route I suggested.

      Reply
      1. Alain Borgrave

        I’ve thought about it and came to the conclusion companies will likely try to hire more men in low wage positions were women are currently over-represented (which is your first line of argument). This could be an easy way to narrow the gap. But even this will entail particular risks for organizations. E. g. if schools hire more male teachers they risk more child abuse accusations. If air companies hire more male cabin crew, they risk having more sexual harassment cases (the more you mix men and women, the more yourisk sexual harassment accusations). Feminists would also be tempted to encourage women to sue for discrimination if there’s an hiring bias in favor of men. So we are entering very interesting (and frightening) times.
        This could also create a mass-redpilling and the collapse of feminism, who knows ? Lol.

        Reply
  3. AJ

    I think you are on the right lines but what will actually happen is that many more low skilled functions will be outsourced. Companies will seek to reduce the perceived negativity from the pay gap but at the same time have to be competitive and operate in a job market which sets the minimum pay rates for different roles and the relative proportion of male and female candidates for such roles.
    Increasing pay for lower pay roles predominantly performed by women affects competitiveness. Reducing pay for men would cause an exodus of key staff. Recruting men into the low pay womens roles won’t work because the men willing to work in thes eroles is limitted which is why they are predominantly women in the first place and is in anycase illegal discrimination.

    The solution – outsource the low paid roles. The outsource company does not have the pay gap issue because it does not have the high pay roles predominantly performed by men and can supply services at a competitive rate. The ‘original’ company has solved the problem maintaining competiveness and complying with economic reality. The net result less job security and probably worse terms and conditions for lower paid women workers. The number of women on poor contract terms working for outsourced service providers will probably be highlighted as discrimination in a few years.

    Maybe I should set myself up as a business consultant pushing this ‘solution’.

    Reply
    1. William Collins Post author

      Yes, that sounds likely too. But are the Agencies to which such staff will be outsourced covered by the legislation for reporting? I’m not sure. Re your last comment – every threat is an opportunity!

      Reply
  4. Myke Porter

    Quote from this item:-
    “….“increasing women’s productivity and employment to the same level as men’s could add almost £600 billion to our economy, clearing a third of our national debt”.

    They must surely know as well as we do that’s just not gonna happen though…..

    Reply
  5. CitymanMichael

    It is probably true that within not so many years, when the 60% female university graduates are in employment, this “gap” will narrow. Young men will be working on low paid jobs.

    How society and the economy cope with all this has yet to be seen, but like a train down the track – it is on its way.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *