I was wondering about this

It’s an asinine law, sure, but I have wondered whether we might not find more women than men convicted under it:

A university graduate is believed to be the first woman convicted under new domestic abuse laws after scalding her boyfriend with boiling water, stabbing him and keeping food from him.

Jordan Worth, 22, banned her partner from their bed, decided what clothes he could wear, isolated him from friends and family and even took over his Facebook account.

She was jailed for seven-and-a-half years after pleading guilty to the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship, introduced in 2015, as well as wounding with intent and causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

Anyone offering an over and under on the ratio convicted once the law is bedded in?

Have they really done something this stupid?

Yes, they have.

The gender pay gap reporting requirements. All those companies reporting. They must include all employees, part and full time. But the statistics ombudsman insisted that we shouldn’t do it this way, because more women part timers and part timers get paid less per hour.

So, the law insists upon reporting in he manner in which the stats buys say it shouldn’t be. Seriously?

Interesting from Google

Google has revealed a 17pc gender pay gap in the UK, although the technology giant says it pays men and women equally for the same work.

The internet search company revealed that the mean average for women’s salaries in the UK is 17pc below that for men, and bonuses are 43pc less generous.

The mean pay gap more generally in the economy is around that 17%. Which does surprise me. A tech firm has such a small one?

BTW, handy test for reporters’ ignorance. Anyone who compares this to the 9.6% average gap is spouting nonsense, that’s the median.

Rhiannon Lucy is all growed up now

There is not a day that goes by where I don’t feel grateful for the fact that I am no longer embedded tit-deep in the feminist movement. Though I remain a feminist – my commitment to the cause is unaltered – it is a relief, not to mention immeasurably better for my mental health, to find myself no longer overly concerned with putting a step wrong somewhere and facing the wrath of, well, everyone. “Did you see the fallout from so-and-so’s column?” a friend who is very much still involved in the feminist media circus asked me the other day. “Nope, don’t care,” I replied. She looked at me with wonder in her eyes.

Women are so frequently pitted against each other that it feels somewhat disloyal to admit that some of the worst tearing downs to which we can be subject are often from other women – so much for sisterhood.

All of which makes one wonder why we pay so much attention to those not yet growed up?

Peeps still aren’t understanding Iceland’s equal pay law

On the face of it, Iceland is a good place to be a woman. For nearly a decade, it has been rated the world’s most gender-equal country. It was the first to directly elect a female president, nearly half its MPs and company directors are women, and first-class daycare and parental leave help ensure almost four in five women have jobs.

So it came as a shock for Fríða Rós Valdimarsdóttir to learn, when she was managing a key team of 10 home carers at Reykjavik council a few years ago, that male colleagues in other departments, with far fewer responsibilities than her, were being paid a great deal more.

“It has been illegal for decades, for jobs that are worth the same, to pay people differently because of gender, but still it happens – it’s simply been allowed,” says Valdimarsdóttir, who is now the chair of the Icelandic Women’s Rights Association, in her bright offices in the country’s capital.

Despite an equal pay act that dates back to 1961, Icelandic women still earn, on average, between 14% and 20% less than men. So Valdimarsdóttir and her association were one of many campaign groups to back a plan that finally resulted, last month, in the island becoming the first country in the world to legally enforce equal pay.

They’re not enforcing equal pay. They’re enforcing equal pay for the same – or very similar, to be fair – job.

It is still true that different life choices, different commitments to career, different deployments of talent, will lead to different pay outcomes.

Within four years from January 2018, any public or private body in Iceland employing more than 25 people that has not been independently certified as paying equal wages for work of equal value will face daily fines.

Be fun to see the lawyers arguing as follows.

“My client pays different amounts because they regard the work as being of different value. The proof that the work is of different value is that it is paid differently. QED.”

At which point, my prediction. The country will still have a gender pay gap even after this is all bedded in. And people will still complain.


Most UK employers believe a woman should have to disclose if she is pregnant during a recruitment process, according to “depressing” statistics from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

The EHRC warned that many businesses were “decades behind the law” after a YouGov survey of 1,106 senior decision-makers revealed that a third of those working for private companies thought it was reasonable to ask a woman about her plans to have children in the future during the recruitment process, 59% said she should have to disclose if she is pregnant and almost half (46%) said it was also reasonable to ask a woman if she had small children.

Rebecca Hilsenrath, the chief executive of the EHRC, said the findings were “depressing” and accused many British companies of “living in the dark ages”.

“We should all know very well that it is against the law not to appoint a woman because she is pregnant or might become pregnant. Yet we also know women routinely get asked questions around family planning in interviews,” she said. “It’s clear that many employers need more support to better understand the basics of discrimination law and the rights of pregnant women and new mothers.”

EHRC is talking about what the law is. The companies are talking about what they think the law should be. These are not the same thing.

As the Senior Lecturer keeps telling us about tax…..

No, they’re getting this wrong again

Fathers now take more time off work to care for sick children than mothers, a new survey of parents reveals.

Traditionally it was mothers that stepped in to look after their youngsters when they were ill but a change in social and working attitudes has been attributed to a rise in fathers taking on the role.

A study by health app firm Evergreen Life revealed that a higher percentage of men are now taking time off work to care for their children.

This will be used to show there should be no gender pay gap because fathers more than mothers etc. Missing that mothers tend (as always, tend, this is about averages) to organise life so that time off isn’t needed for the little germ factories that is a nest of young ‘uns.

Expect less pretty actresses to get film roles

More than 190 of Britain’s leading female actresses are demanding an end to sexual harassment ahead of the Bafta Awards.

For today’s definition of sexual harassment crosses over the line into comely young females using their being comely and young to gain work.

No, I do not mean that it’s just fine and dandy that every young woman who wants to strut their stuff on screen has to watch the producer toss off into a palm plant – and certainly not that rape is just dandy nor fine. But comely youth is something valuable and it’s absolutely certain that one or two have sold it over the years. It might even have been the marginal wannabes doing the selling but still…..any bird who has been to the screen test interview with an extra button undone on the blouse has been doing exactly that.


The practice is called wigging: stuntmen don wigs and women’s clothing to resemble female actors while filming risky action scenes.

Camera angles, special effects and editing preserve the illusion that it is a pulchritudinous star leaping off a building or driving through a window rather than a man in drag.

Audiences may not know or care but stuntwomen do because it means less work for them.

One is now mounting what is believed to be the first legal challenge to wigging. Deven MacNair, a Los Angeles-based stunt performer, is planning to sue a production company and Hollywood’s acting union over a male colleague performing a stunt in drag instead of giving the job to a stuntwoman.

“The practice is so common,” she told the Guardian on Wednesday. “It’s historical sexism – this is how it’s been done since the beginning of time.”

The answer is to insist that the act of donning a wig makes one a woman. For in this modern age there is no other definition is there, just the claim?

Doesn’t this just kill an argument

But to hear Linda Bellos, the veteran feminist campaigner, arguing on the radio this week against allowing trans candidates to join Labour’s all-women shortlists because she didn’t feel a trans woman could “represent me” was as depressing as reading Bergdorf’s tweet. There are men in parliament now, never mind trans politicians, who represent my feelings about stamping out sexual harassment at Westminster better than older women insisting that a hand on the knee doesn’t matter.

Thus dies the line that it matters more who represents rather than what they represent. The race, gender, orientation, of our representatives doesn’t matter, only their policies.

Well, OK, I’m fine with that myself. But it does rather kill about 90% of today’s left wing politics, doesn’t it?

No Zoe, that’s actually the important question

That is the hot-button pay-gap question of the day – do women choose low-paid sectors because they are more naturally suited to them? Or is this all a gender construct, with the patriarchy putting centuries of graft into persuading one sex that they are hardwired to do the stuff the other sex doesn’t like the look of? Always happy to wade into a fight about gender essentialism, I sometimes forget to reject the premise. It doesn’t matter why women go into female-dominated sectors. The only question that matters is why women’s work is less well-paid.

Elsewhere on the Uber gender earnings gap

None of that is external discrimination by customers or the employer in any manner. Yet there’s still that 7 percent gap in earnings, which gives us two important points in that ongoing conversation about gender equity.

If in the entire absence of any form of discrimination we’re seeing a gender earnings gap, then we cannot go around shouting that the existence of a gender earnings gap is due to discrimination. Which rather explodes the rhetoric of that 77-cent gap.

But much more importantly, we’ve got to decide what we’d like to do about this.

Or, as we might put it, men are paid exactly the same as women, men earn more than women.


Wibble, wibble, wibble

Love Island finalist Olivia Attwood has shed light on the alleged Love Island gender pay gap, revealing that female stars were reportedly offered less than their male counterparts for the same work after leaving the show.

The women and men who participated in the reality television show, in which single contestants are sent to an island and instructed to couple up and find love, were given a variety of employment opportunities with outside companies after the programme ended.

Although ITV offers an equal prize for winning the show, regardless of gender, stars have allegedly found that other companies they have worked with offered women less money.

The jobs on offer included nightclub appearances, paid sponsorships on social media, media appearances and partnerships with brands.

Ms Attwood claimed that women were offered less money for these roles than the men who participated in the reality television show.

Different slebs are worth different amounts for sleb appearances.

Shock, Horror.

Kerry Katona will turn up to the opening of an envelope, Daniel Craig will not, their prices are different. Ho hum.

This is most odd about feminism

Margaret Atwood: Equalising wealth is a key piece of the puzzle

It would appear that Ms. Atwood doesn’t know that wealth is unequally spread – women have more of it*. All those widows…..

* So I recall, at least.

Lola Okolosie: Free childcare is essential for equality

Why? Takes two to tango, why shouldn’t both who tangoed cover the costs of having done so?

Polly Toynbee: Gender equality will take generations
How long will it take to de-objectify women?

About when humans aren’t humans then.

No, this does not mean that women are only objects. But to demand that they never are is to deny the basics of human sexuality – for both men and women.

Athene Donald: Automation may disrupt gender roles

I think automation will cause quite a disruption in terms of work and gender roles, but this is a real unknown. People can speculate all they like but we are humans and don’t necessarily behave as the rational actors that economists describe.

Idiocy. We can look at what automation has done to gender roles. It will be as it was isn’t a bad rule of thumb really – and this past couple of hundred years has changed gender roles rather considerably, hasn’t it?

Julie Bindel: Working-class feminists will rise

There will be an uprising of those the labour movement has forgotten. Hair-splitting, divisive “identity politics” based on individual “rights” will be replaced with a revolutionary movement based on a recognition of structural inequalities and new ways to end oppression.

Ah, yes, the revolution.

Don’t believe these numbers at all

A survey into the effects of period poverty in Scotland has revealed the desperate lengths women go to, including resorting to using old clothes or newspapers, when they cannot afford sanitary protection.

Research by the grassroots group Women for Independence, which will be released in full next month, reveals nearly one in five women have experienced period poverty – when females struggle to pay for basic sanitary products on a monthly basis, which has a significant impact on their hygiene, health and wellbeing.

20%? Can’t find a couple of quid a month? Not a number I believe.

She said: “It takes me right back to my own experiences as a teenage girl. My parents were addicts, so they were in and out of mental institutions and prison. As the eldest of five, I was carer for my siblings. There was never any money, so I used what we had at home: socks, toilet roll. You do what you can, washing more regularly.

Not really a money problem, eh?

Pretty women no longer allowed near penis extensions

Former grid girls have had their say on the controversial decision to ban them from Formula One

One of the interesting responses being:

However, famous former grid girl Melinda Messenger, 46, said that while she ‘personally had a great time’ and ‘made good money’, she did back the ban and saw it as a sign that the sport was ‘heading in a positive direction’.

To translate: I was able to trade my youth and seeming fertility into cash. Now that both have faded my competition should not be allowed to do so.

Jail might be merited here, don’t you think?

A woman who accused BT engineer of raping her claimed she sent text messages threatening to ‘ruin his life’ out of ‘anger’.

Other messages the women sent to 19-year-old Connor Fitzgerald read: ‘If I can’t have you, no-one can.’

The allegations meant the teenager spent three months on remand at HMP High Down in Banstead, Surrey.

Mr Fitzgerald, who lost his job as a BT engineer in south London, was only exonerated after the family handed prosecutors vital texts that helped to clear him.

Now, his accuser has admitted sending the texts to ‘ruin’ him.

‘I said I wanted to ‘ruin his life’ in anger because I couldn’t believe after being with me that he’d move on so quickly with someone else,’ she told the Sun Online.

False allegations should carry at least the punishment that he suffered, no?

And a legal question. If she’s charged – say with perversion of the course – then she loses that anonymity, doesn’t she? Or does she? My point being that men she might meet in the future have an interest in knowing that treating her in a less than gentlemanly manner might lead to three months in chokey. But we’re not going to get that anonymity as a basic rule dropped.

But, if charging with perversion causes the anonymity to fail already, then simply charging all false claims with perversion leads us to a useful end point – the abolition of anonymity for those who make such false claims. Well, to the extent that a claim of a false claim is true…..

So, here’s a good reporter then

Sarah Montague, the BBC Radio 4 Today presenter, has attacked the corporation’s gender pay report and said its findings are “very hard to believe”.

Montague said she was “gobsmacked” by the claim that the gender pay gap for presenters and journalists is only 6.8 per cent, well below the national average.

Montague, who has remained largely silent on the issue since the pay disclosures in July, said: “There is a problem. I was gobsmacked when I saw the suggestion from PwC that in the on-air presenting group [the pay gap] was only 6.8 per cent.

“I find that very hard to believe. I’d love to know who was in the group, who they were looking at, who was excluded and how they did the metrics of it. I’d just love to know that.”

Why not try reading the report?