Copyright: Public Domain / Used With Permission

There is a gender earnings gap in British – as with all others – society. The interesting question is what is causing it, the important one what we do about it. The answers being, in turn, children and nothing.

This is not, you will note, the general direction of the political conversation. It does have the merit of being true on both counts.

Take this finding that there are lots more highly paid men out there:

There are almost four times more men than women in Britain’s highest-paid posts, according to “scandalous” figures that show the extent of the glass ceiling blocking women from top jobs.

Government data reveals the huge disparity in the number of men and women with a six-figure income, fuelling concerns over the gender pay gap in the City and other professions.

There were 681,000 men earning £100,000 or more in 2015-16, according to new HMRC data. It compares with only 179,000 women. The latest figures show that 17,000 men earned £1m in 2015-16, while only 2,000 women did so.

Those numbers are true. There are more men earning higher incomes than there are women. This is the entire and whole driver of that gender pay gap – or what it actually is, a gender earnings gap. And what is the cause of this? As the TUC has pointed out:

There is an overall gender pay gap of 34 per cent for this cohort of full-time
workers who were born in 1970. This gap is largely due to the impact of
parenthood on earnings – the women earning less and the men earning more
after having children.

That really is just about all there is to it. It’s illegal, and has been for decades, to pay people differently based solely upon their gender. People doing the same job get the same pay by gender – there’re fortunes to be made dobbing in employers where this isn’t the case and we don’t see such dobbing in happening.

Our truth being that, on average and across the population this is not about the actions of any individual, men and women tend to react differently to the arrival of the darlin’ snotdribblers. We’re a sexually dimorphic species which has discovered that division of labour secret. As it happens we tend to divide the labour a little differently over the results of sex.

Ho hum.

Men tend – tend note, tend – to go out and do a little more hunting in the marketplace to provide for their children when they arrive, women to do a bit more of that gathering closer to home. And?

Well, and this:

Following the release of the figures, Greening said: “These stark figures show how far our country still has to go on closing our gender pay gap. It represents not only a loss of career earnings for women, it also represents a loss of talent for employers.

“What counts now is companies taking action to close this gap. That means making flexible working laws actually work on the ground, enabling women to get on with their careers after, as well as before, starting a family, and it means more girls aiming for the high-paying careers in areas like engineering that have been male-dominated.”

No, that’s wibble, but then it’s also Greening so who expected anything else?

Sophie Walker, leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “These figures show inequality runs through every level of the economy. It is scandalous that women still make up barely a fifth of top earners, and this discrepancy is not confined to those in well-paid jobs.

“Gender inequality is a feature, not a coincidence or side-effect, of our economic, political and social system. The foundation of that model is the unpaid childcare and social care work that is predominately done by women – and which is not recognised in official economic data or factored into political calculations. That has obvious knock-on effects on women’s earnings and their chances of climbing to the top of the career ladder.”

That has the merit of being entirely correct and true. Women do more of the caring for the brats, men less. And until and unless that changes then there will be an inequality in the part of life which is not about wiping bottoms. At which point again, our important question, and?

For this is just how humans turn out and why would we want to change that? What could we do to change that more importantly? Well, we could offer lots of choice and lots of choice is a good thing in and of itself, it’s an increase in freedom and liberty. But when we, for example, offer paternity leave we find not many men desiring to take it. Men can – and some do of course – become primary child carer. The point being that not many do.

The answer therefore becomes what it always should be anyway. Sure, let’s set up society so that all have that maximal freedom and liberty the universe allows. Something that this capitalist free marketry has done rather well with over the centuries. Then we simply stand back and che sera, che sera. For the aim and purpose here is not to make all people equal in outcome, it’s to offer equality of opportunity and see how much of whatever it is that humans, living their lives, actually want. And if it’s not all that much, or doesn’t accord with current theory then so be it.

We can also point out that the true answer here is entirely in womens’ hands. Granny knew how to manage G-Pops, Lysistrata shows the Ancient Greeks got the point. If the only way men got nookie and or children was by being house husbands then there wouldn’t be a gender earnings gap, or it would run the other way. That women don’t strike for this – perhaps that not enough do – shows that this might well not be what women actually want.

OK, maybe not in womens’ hands but certainly in their control….

Subscribe to The CT Mailer!

15
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
11 Comment threads
4 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
14 Comment authors
BenSSpikeMr EcksDaveSurreptitious Evil Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Twatting onTim
Guest

What they do in Spain about womens issues is get 8 million women to turn out and demonstrate, like they did on wednesday this week Anyway a good contribution to Womens issues is: The Tax Justice Network is supporting global partners in highlighting the impact of regressive tax policies and financial secrecy on women’s fundamental human rights, something we campaign on and write about. Here’s some information about the #TaxJustice for Women’s Rights Global Days of Action. The dates for your diary are 8-24 March 2017.Women You and your organisation are invited to join the Global Alliance for Tax Justice,… Read more »

So Much For Subtlety
Guest
So Much For Subtlety

There were 681,000 men earning £100,000 or more in 2015-16, according to new HMRC data. It compares with only 179,000 women. The latest figures show that 17,000 men earned £1m in 2015-16, while only 2,000 women did so. Yeah? How many of those women work for the government? How many of them are in jobs where they ignore people like Baby P? How many of the men? Looking at how makes the money is irrelevant. What matters is who spends the money. And something like 80% of all spending decisions are made by women in British households. Just go into… Read more »

Fred
Member
Fred

I think Scott Adams made a similar point.
Go to any shop and you see huge women’s section. Tiny men’s section.
The only suggestion that women are less powerful would be heeled shoes which he suggests they wear to attract men

jgh
Member
jgh

Nah, heeled shoes are a patriarchal imposition to hobble ’em to stop ’em running away from their rapists, and skirts are similarly imposed to facilitate ease of access, innit. Can’t be any other reason for wearing such cripplingly innappropriate attair.

Gamecock
Guest
Gamecock

‘There is a gender earnings gap in British – as with all others – society.’ The “problem” is that the government isn’t socialist enough. The CM pricks stir up the people over anything they can. Even something as mundane as differences in the sexes. Note the use of ‘gender,’ as well. A CM contrivance. ‘So We Do Nothing About It’ I think it important to do more, to call out the scum debasing public discourse with their inciting rhetoric. As an example, concern for the environment has been completely pushed aside by the Scary Climate Change™ schtick. Real damage is… Read more »

Bernie G.
Member
Bernie G.

The only input I have on this subject is from the younger echelon. In their 20s and 30s, (at least compared to my time) all appeared to earn very attractive salaries from the outset – arguably the women more than men. Starting salaries straight out of university were eye-watering (but then Mrs G’s father said the same about his daughter back in ’73). While I could never have made a living as a professional sportsman, it didn’t mean an absence of competitive instinct, and I suspect that for many women there comes a point when they realise there is more… Read more »

Bloke in North Dorset
Member

We’ve solved the problem and the reason is clearly females who are free to choose don’t choose STEM at the same rate as men: According to a new paper published in Psychological Science by the psychologists Gijsbert Stoet, at Leeds Beckett University, and David Geary, at the University of Missouri, it could have to do with the fact that women in countries with higher gender inequality are simply seeking the clearest possible path to financial freedom. And often, that path leads through stem professions. … According to a new paper published in Psychological Science by the psychologists Gijsbert Stoet, at… Read more »

moqifen
Member
moqifen

@twat – boring. Please don’t regurgitate capt potato’s drivel. If you are capt potato then fuck off back to your own blog.

Christian Moon
Member
Christian Moon

Your best bet for a million pound income if you’re a woman is to marry the right man. It’s only rational for the brightest and best of women to aim for this, rather than trying to make their own fortunes.

Not much discussed, but maybe it should be.

Men don’t get the same option of course.

Spike
Member

John Kerry did. Twice. “America’s Gigolo.”

jgh
Member
jgh

“That means making flexible working laws actually work on the ground, enabling women to get on with their careers after, as well as before, starting a family” But that will still result in, say, a 40-year-old with ten years experience ‘cos they’ve taken ten years off in the last twenty to look after kids, competing with 40-year-olds with 20 years’ experience because they *haven’t* taken any time off in the last 20 years. Which is what we already have. ANYBODY can take ANY time off for ANYTHING and come back to work, but the iron rule of mathematcis means that… Read more »

Surreptitious Evil
Member
Surreptitious Evil

If you are capt potato then fuck off back to your own blog.
Nah. It’s the moronic Rickie thing.

Dave
Guest
Dave

I don’t know why we can’t just acknowledge that there is a widespread unfair bias towards tall, light-skinned men who don’t go bald, and that _everyone_ else is getting screwed by that to a greater or lesser extent.

“There were 681,000 men earning £100,000 or more in 2015-16, according to new HMRC data. It compares with only 179,000 women. The latest figures show that 17,000 men earned £1m in 2015-16, while only 2,000 women did so.”

I would love to know the height distribution of those groups. I’d be willing to bet it’s substantially different to the general population.

Mr Ecks
Member
Mr Ecks

Space Aliens is it now Dave? They were all 9 feet tall . Except for short-arsed John Major who was the only Grey.

BenS
Guest
BenS

I’m with Jordan Peterson on this one: the question isn’t why there are so few women in high powered jobs, it’s why any man would want to have one.