On not getting it about the gender pay gap

Nigel Farage explained it all in a really quite simple to understand manner. We don’t in fact have a gender pay gap, we have a motherhood one. Then along comes the Guardian:

Even if women do not let “biology” get in the way and are willing to sacrifice their right to a family life, Farage is still wrong when he insists that there is “no discrimination” in having to make this decision in the first place.

There is no discrimination in this at all. Any man wanting to work 35 hours a week and take a few years career break is also going to find that they don’t gain employment nor promotion in The City.

18 comments on “On not getting it about the gender pay gap

  1. Hmmm. As a long time city worker, I have heard enough tales of employer/female employee shenanigans and chicanery to think that there might still be some sexism at work too.

    Tim adds: Don’t doubt it. But the putting out for the boss tends to lead to pay rises, not falls, so we’re clearly talking about something different here.

  2. H – “Tim adds: Don’t doubt it. But the putting out for the boss tends to lead to pay rises, not falls, so we’re clearly talking about something different here.”

    I would think that the reality is very complicated for anyone who blows the boss. He may promote her. But that would lead to an end of the free nookie once she is promoted out of the office. Surely even the dumbest boss can see that. The sensible thing is to *pretend* to promote (every time one comes up in the normal course of events, he should claim credit) while rewarding with non-monetary perks. Send her off every time there is a jolly for instance. She can only get those from you and they are not bankable. So she has to remain bonkable if she wants to continue in the style she has become accustom.

    Now if I can think of that in the first two minutes, I am sure it will occur to bosses – and much worse.

  3. SMFS-

    I’m not so sure about that. It makes a couple of assumptions, one of which is that the boss wants long term BJs from the same person, rather than move on to a fresher model who comes into the office when the previous one “moves upstairs”; secondly that there isn’t a considerable period when she is under him (ahem) being gradually promoted. Thirdly that the boss really is thinking long term or on an immediate basis, time preference and all that. A blow job is worth much more today than in a year’s time.

    This is one of those Feminist assumptions that goes back to the Radical theory (e.g. Mackinnon) that sex is the surplus value in gender Marxism; so the assumption is that it is a woman’s value and stolen by a man when she is invaded by his penis. In reality of course, it is a trade, and both benefit (or they would not trade), but in practise it seems the woman generally gets a lot more out of it than the man; the man gets a few minutes of nervous system stimulation; the woman may get an enormous economic benefit at very little opportunity cost. Marilyn Monroe became fabulously wealthy and famous in return for a cumulative few hours on casting couches. Not a bad trade at all for her, and largely down to the very high time preference of male sexuality.

  4. Any man wanting to work 35 hours a week and take a few years career break is also going to find that they don’t gain employment nor promotion in The City.

    Yes, but you see women must be allowed to because…no, hang on, I’ve lost the pamphlet.

    I notice that the feminists are happy enough to take the quotation marks off “biology” when, say, I suggest that the answer to the ‘sexism’ of sport is for there to be just one league for each, open to both sexes.

  5. the woman may get an enormous economic benefit at very little opportunity cost.

    Which is presumably why the biggest critics of this sort of behaviour are women.

    Usually ones who lack the resources to capitalise on this sort of trade.

  6. Which is presumably why the biggest critics of this sort of behaviour are women.

    Oh, absolutely. Which is why the traditional perception (among women) was negative; that a tart was getting an unfair advantage. Which is not an unreasonable criticism, which is why the Feminists had to build a victimhood narrative instead. Much of the Feminist ideology on sexuality is largely about sexual competition between women.

  7. “But the putting out for the boss tends to lead to pay rises, not falls, so we’re clearly talking about something different here”

    Hum, not always. I can think of a few examples where someone who was sleeping with the boss (and by that I mean CEO) was undervalued because of the assumption that she’d only got where she was by sleeping with him.

    Many organisations are run by the CEO’s PA – quite often she’s effectively doing a COO job in an organisation that doesn’t have one. If she’s sleeping with the CEO (quite often) then she’s much less likely to get given the pay and status of the job she’s actually doing.

  8. I have heard that there is a problem in that it is impossible to tell, when considering a female applicant, whether they will at some point take a career break to have children (and it is illegal to ask).

    The prospective employer, therefore, is forced to price this risk into their decision of (a) whether to hire the applicant at all and (b) what to pay them.

    And as (b) is illegal, that means they end up letting the risk influence their decision to hire, and therefore even women who would be committed to the job and not have children are disadvantaged because the employers have to assume that they might.

    I have no idea what to do about this, but is it not a real problem?

  9. G-

    Indeed, that’s why the Feminists are working to impose paternity leave on men, to make them as much of a hiring risk as women. Level everybody down, and all that; classic leftist reasoning.

  10. to impose paternity leave on men, to make them as much of a hiring risk as women.

    And remember, an individual bloke choosing not to take his full allowance of paternity leave is just as much the oppression of the hideous white Christian patriarchy as paternity leave not existing …

  11. G –

    friend of mine who is a mother of two built a small company up from nowt; told me once she always thinks twice before hiring a childless woman in her late 20s / early 30s (especially if recently engaged or married) as “there’s no way I can afford to pay her to have a baby and pay her replacement to do her job at the same time.”

  12. sam – Yes indeed. That’s why in sensible countries it’s the government who coughs up for the cost of maternity pay, not the employer.

    Apart from anything else, it makes the cost of maternity leave explicit, instead of hiding it in companies’ operating costs.

  13. I should have carried on with economics, I didn’t realise I could have done my final paper on the Economics of the Casting Couch!

  14. Well, sniggering aside, an economic analysis is useful, as in many other areas, as it paints a quite different picture to a pseudo-Marxian one and is often genuinely illuminating. The deliberate replacement of a classical Marxist (economic) analysis with one which analogises Marxism by replacing economic currency with sex-as-currency was probably deliberately chosen to obfuscate reality.

  15. Ian B – “It makes a couple of assumptions, one of which is that the boss wants long term BJs from the same person, rather than move on to a fresher model who comes into the office when the previous one “moves upstairs”;”

    Well call me naive but I would think that women willing to blow their boss for promotion are somewhat rare. I could be wrong, but as the cliche goes, men are like monkeys, they don’t let go on branch until they have a firm grasp on another. So moving her on before a new one turns up is not very likely I think.

    “secondly that there isn’t a considerable period when she is under him (ahem) being gradually promoted.”

    But he faces a constant problem of her deciding that the benefits gained now out weigh the costs of continuing. He won’t want to promote her too fast if he can avoid it.

    “Thirdly that the boss really is thinking long term or on an immediate basis, time preference and all that. A blow job is worth much more today than in a year’s time.”

    Which is why you *promise* a promotion and offer her a trip to Blackpool.

    “This is one of those Feminist assumptions that goes back to the Radical theory (e.g. Mackinnon) that sex is the surplus value in gender Marxism; so the assumption is that it is a woman’s value and stolen by a man when she is invaded by his penis.”

    I would think there is a core truth to that – the more different penises (penii?) a woman have been invaded by the more unpleasant she is likely to be in my experience. Just try to date a 22 year old as opposed to a 42 year old. Her youth and naivete is a value that is soon exhausted.

    Of course I draw radically different conclusions to the Gender Feminists.

    “In reality of course, it is a trade, and both benefit (or they would not trade), but in practise it seems the woman generally gets a lot more out of it than the man; the man gets a few minutes of nervous system stimulation; the woman may get an enormous economic benefit at very little opportunity cost.”

    He is valuing his pleasure highly. You should too. Admittedly the people who are really paying are the long suffering shareholders. It is their money that the manager is giving. So the whole transaction is distorted by that fact. Although these days the boss does run real risks. Look at Colin McGinn.

    “Marilyn Monroe became fabulously wealthy and famous in return for a cumulative few hours on casting couches. Not a bad trade at all for her, and largely down to the very high time preference of male sexuality.”

    That is true. But was it a bad trade for the casting directors? Rumour has it at least one mortuary attendant had a go after she was dead. Which suggests either some sick people work there or a very high preference for her body type.

  16. Part i)
    The casting directors made a mint out of the success of Marilyn’s films.
    If she had felt sufficiently self-confident she could have told the casting directors to go **** themselves and an intelligent casting director would still have hired her.
    But “gender pay gap” and Hollywood – not in Marilyn’s time!

  17. Part ii)
    Of course men who choose to work “normal” hours or take time out don’t get City jobs where you have to work whatever hours are needed to get the job done. Which is why we get a lot of ex-servicemen who think that is the norm. Who on earth thinks that 35 hours is a normal working week in the City? Thirty-nine years ago my boss told me to record overtime in January because one-third of my team was seconded to valuation department: he was visibly shocked that I had run up over 60 hours in a month, (even though it probably did not occur to him my that my actual hours were understated because the time-clocks switched off at 7.30pm) – he had completely failed to notice the hours he himself worked.
    My wife think that it is unreasonable that I sometimes work after midnight but the CEO of m,y principal client replies to the emails I send before I wake up.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

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