Government Watchdog Criticises Harman on Bogus "Pay Gap" Stats

Started by SIAM, Nov 06, 2009, 12:56 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

SIAM

Nov 06, 2009, 12:56 AM Last Edit: Nov 06, 2009, 12:59 AM by SIAM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1225360/Humiliation-Harriet-Harman-statisticians-dismiss-claims-equal-pay.html

Quote
The Women and Equality Minister was told she must no longer use a single figure to describe the complex differences in the earnings of men and women.

Instead she will have to give three measures - among them one which shows that far from earning less than men, women in part-time jobs are actually paid more on average than their male counterparts.

The ruling from the Office for National Statistics is the culmination of a running row between Labour's deputy leader and Whitehall watchdogs, who called her use of figures on the gender pay gap 'misleading'.


Actually they should go further and simply compare like-for-like jobs.  A female doctor gets paid more than a male nurse for example, is that discrimination?  :icon_cyclops_ani:

Anyway good to see more and more backlash against feminism.  Must be lonely being a feminist these days.

Oh, and notice her title : The Women and Equality Minister.    You have to laugh - imagine a White Man and Equality Minister.  That would be seen as sexist and racist.  But Women and Equality Minister is fine.   Actually isn't it racist that she's got white skin and in such a position to deem what is equal? We should dig out that blind, disabled black lesbian again, but I hear she's busy with engagements.

Galt


Oh, and notice her title : The Women and Equality Minister.    You have to laugh - imagine a White Man and Equality Minister.  That would be seen as sexist and racist.  But Women and Equality Minister is fine.  


I've noticed things like that too: The college I went to has something on the bottom of the letterhead like: "We are an affirmative action / equal opportunity institution".

I thought that if they practice affirmative action for certain groups, they aren't practicing equal opportunity. These buzz words are so common that no one notices things like that. You are "good" if you say them, so they don't have to really mean anything.

Galt

I also think that certain figures are ALWAYS going to be tilted a bit towards men simply based on women's actions.

If women themselves choose to stay home and get supported by a man for 25 years, they are not going to be making as much as men their age if they go back to work. That is not oppression or discrimination, it is solely due to the woman's choice. The exact same thing would happen to a man if he let Sugar Momma pay for him for 25 years, but men usually aren't in a position to choose that.

Figures like that are spun as oppression and discrimination against women, so they put more burdens on men to make up for it.

.

If women themselves choose to stay home and get supported by a man for 25 years,


The fact that more women than men even have such an option, and that they're not OFFERING such an option to men, indicates that on the whole women are privileged relative to men.  Whenever you hear the insinuation that women are disadvantaged because they work in the home, turn it around and point out that choices equal power.  It's about privilege -- female privilege.

Tigerman

Splitting it into three figures from one and making a fuss about the difference is a token gesture towards placating the increasing outcry over misrepresenting the true picture on how men and women are paid. The three categories are almost as equally misleading and therefore teh PROPAGANDA remains largely intact. This is nothing whatsoever to celebrate in fact quite the reverse - this is an even deeper entrenchment under a disingenuous guise of 'fairness'!  :angryfire:

dr e


Splitting it into three figures from one and making a fuss about the difference is a token gesture towards placating the increasing outcry over misrepresenting the true picture on how men and women are paid. The three categories are almost as equally misleading and therefore teh PROPAGANDA remains largely intact. This is nothing whatsoever to celebrate in fact quite the reverse - this is an even deeper entrenchment under a disingenuous guise of 'fairness'!  :angryfire:


While I agree that they are missing the mark when it comes to their three stats I think the larger picture for us is the headline.  Most people don't read the article or less often actually think about the three stats.  Most people skim the headline and make their judgment based on that.  To have a headline that confronts a feminist woman with her lies is a huge step forward.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Tigerman



Splitting it into three figures from one and making a fuss about the difference is a token gesture towards placating the increasing outcry over misrepresenting the true picture on how men and women are paid. The three categories are almost as equally misleading and therefore teh PROPAGANDA remains largely intact. This is nothing whatsoever to celebrate in fact quite the reverse - this is an even deeper entrenchment under a disingenuous guise of 'fairness'!  :angryfire:


While I agree that they are missing the mark when it comes to their three stats I think the larger picture for us is the headline.  Most people don't read the article or less often actually think about the three stats.  Most people skim the headline and make their judgment based on that.  To have a headline that confronts a feminist woman with her lies is a huge step forward.

----------
I see what you are getting at but the ones who don't read further than the headlines are also most likely amongst those who don't even bother to go out and vote. The other factor is that even with Harman getting blasted like this - the fact is she is not likely to survive the next election anyway as the Conservative Party are almost certain to win. The only problem there is that the Conservatives have a female shadow minister called Theresa May who has also been campaigning for female privilege using the SAME gender pay gap myths as promoted by Harman. It is therefore in my opinion - at least as important to kill the myths as it is to decry those championing the myths. If we don't do this we are merely locked into an endless cycle of the whack a mole game.

Go Up