The Gender pay gap is a myth that needs to end.



There is nothing left to discuss about the gender pay gap other than why it is still being discussed

The absence of critical thinking within the gender pay gap discussion could not have been more poetically summarised by Cathy Newman through her interview with clinical psychologist Dr Jordan B. Peterson on Channel 4, in portraying the dogmatic insanity possessing certain progressive factions. To offer a slight insight to the layman, all that could be deciphered from Newman's side was a narrative ardently set on depicting women as victims of a patriarchal society despite this being compellingly refuted by the Canadian professor, who has built a considerable proportion of his career in applying and expanding his knowledge of the psychological variations of gender and the varying outcomes that these differences give rise to. This is also without giving mention to the cross-partied systematic attempt to gloss over what a car crash this was for the leftist cause: from The Guardian's smear of guilt by passive association with the 'alt-right' and Channel 4 itself resorting themselves to claiming they 'had to call in security' due to the level of 'misogynistic' abuse aimed in Newman's direction, despite much of the negativity actually deriving from accusations of her attempting to unfairly frame Dr Peterson as a bigoted reactionary to purport her feminist ideology. One may have hoped this would serve as a watershed moment and put an end to the matter, but this was wishful thinking.

Whilst the fall out of the infamous interview may be old news, the mounting pressure with the alleged continuation of institutionalised sexism that the gender pay gap exemplifies is not; as evidenced in the fact that the government, through the Equality and Human Rights Commission, is now looking into allegations with rapidly growing interest. Granted, it is currently unclear as to whether Theresa May, who cites the situation as being a 'burning injustice', gave the green light to commence the investigation merely to transmit a virtue signal for her career interests or whether it is in fact a strategy to pass-the-buck for someone else to outline the irrationality of the argument. In any case, the action could be perceived to have been precipitated by a series recent cases; arguably inaugurated through the row brought about by Carrie Gracie from within the BBC, in renewing the view women are continuing to find themselves exempt from equal pay; with Chris Evans earning £2.2m in his role as a presenter contrary to Claudia Winkelman's £500,000 being particularly outlined by media outlets as a prevailing example of the injustice. The momentum behind this has also given rise to the manifestation of a high-profile case being brought forward by Leigh Day, representing 20,000 female employees looking to take action against Tesco over the aggregate figure showing their male colleagues to be earning 12% more on average per hour more than their female colleagues within the company as a whole. The case is of such magnitude that as much as £4.4b would have to be paid out as compensation. But there is something somewhat extraordinary about the claim being made here, with Leigh Day admitting themselves that the wage gap is created by unequal gender distribution across occupations rather than gender per se; instead claiming that the motives behind the different wages are ones of 'inherent bias' against women rather than being a result of the corporation's financial calculations that reveal certain occupations to be of greater importance and value independently of the gender ratio of the workforce itself. Paula Lee, who is representing the women of Tesco at Leigh Day, claims that there can be 'no argument that workers in stores, compared to those working in distribution centres, contribute at least equal value to the vast profits made' which highlights precisely where this debate begins and ends for the progressives: that no meritocratic system can be without prejudice unless the outcome fits their desired narrative.

It is almost as if 'The Equal Pay Act" of 1970 has been forgotten; that which criminalises any employer asserting any form of discrimination over pay to which gender is a part. The only roles which transgress this rule are those with negotiable salaries, which is most applicable to executive positions which in themselves are occupied mostly by men for the simple reason that they put themselves forward in far superior numbers to women, with an extreme example being that only 7% of those sat at the highest desk of FTSE 100 companies are women. It is worth bearing in mind however, that this is more a reflection of the past rather than the present considering that it often requires as much as twenty years of graft to climb to such a position for any individual. A legitimate question therefore could be raised as to why this ratio is so unbalanced, but here empirical research offers an answer. 

Connellan et al. (2000) at Cambridge University, for example, carried out a study of young infants that produce results showing that 'sexual dimorphism in sociability' is documented in humans from the earliest stages in cognitive development; revealing more specifically that new born males are naturally far more drawn to objects than they are to human faces, with the complete reverse being the case for females. This therefore supports the international cultural phenomenon which sees men opting for lines of work closer towards manual labour and women committing to roles centred on social interaction which could apply to anything from education to caring. This particular study may not directly address the element of competition which is often aligned with masculinity and constitutes their desire to pursue competitive white-collar based roles, but it does along with many other studies published in the last century offer feasibility with regards to how these outcomes are more the result of differences in intrinsic disposition rather than of the assertion of privilege or oppression of one gender over the other as is being claimed. Furthermore, what is continually being affirmed by accredited economists and psychologists such as Dr Peterson that the market simply attaches more value to the practical occupations that men, through their freedom of choice, decide to fill in greater numbers. This is not to say that no questions should be raised as to why it would seem that humanity finds itself bound to an economic substructure which rewards more aggressive and compulsive personality traits contrary to compassion, creative flair and pragmatism, but the answer to this lies in the simple fact that the skills to which society most frequently demands, such as engineering, finance, construction and other technical occupations are amongst the most essential to the survival of the collective whole. There is absolutely nothing systematically oppressive in this. The only oppressor, in fact, is nature itself which, albeit abstractly, could be said to penalise women with intentions to work in more laborious occupations such as security or construction for having a 50% reduction of upper body strength compared to the average male. Privilege in this sense however, also operates in the reverse particularly in fields such as academia and education where girls, according to a Eurydice study2, are continuing to outperform their male classmates which offers some insight into why they ultimately receive the majority of degrees in the UK. One could conclude from this that girls simply have greater aptitude to learning and this would not be an unjust claim to make through these observations, however it is difficult to deny that the narrative would probably be somewhat different had a Men's Rights Activist made the claim that educational institutions were conspiring against men because the outcome does not paint them in an equal light. It is indeed the case that there is not the same degree of noise in the underbelly about this issue; i.e. that the government are continuing to fail young working-class males above all else, nor that the majority of suicides for those aged 20- 64,
According to the Office for National Statistics from 2011- 2015, have overwhelmingly occurred amongst men in exactly the sorts of low-skilled and laborious occupations that Leigh Day indicate as the source of their client's injustice. 

Few would be callous enough to contest the notion that society has a moral role to play in offering a helping hand to the downtrodden; nature, after all grants this through the Kantian categorical imperative and a conscience strong enough to ensure that opportunities and welfare for the most burdened individuals do not go amiss. But rather than this being what the current progressive struggle is set on achieving, instead they appear to seek the decimation of the entire value system to achieve equality of outcome at the cost of competence. It should go without saying that the repercussions of this are potentially so dangerous for civilisation and polarised against almost every element of enlightenment thinking that it remains beggar's belief as to how one can deem this to be a forward looking vision. But what is worrying is that this vision is shared by a considerably large coalition of powerful individuals and groups who appear intent on vehemently eradicating the work of one of the greatest progressives of all in the form of Martin Luther King, a man whose vision should be where equality begins and ends in looking 'to a day when people will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character' to which the same would apply for gender.

The situation has got so desperate however that the authenticity of his position is now being upheld almost exclusively by activists considered to be right-wing on the political spectrum. The evidence of this eradication can be witnessed through the existence of all-female lists for council and parliamentary seats and cabinet positions which according to Justin Trudeau, can now be justified entirely by the year that they are assembled. These are just two examples of how it is becoming increasingly customary and within the grand narrative of fixing society's ills to persecute men through the back door which even members of the Conservative Party seem to support for as long as it allows them to fast-track their way to importance. What is more regrettable than this is that this is far stronger on those supposed to be representatives of the once noble labour movement, as evidenced in Emily Thornberry, who despite being rightly corrected by a Question Time audience member in Darlington over Leigh Day's disingenuous case against Tesco, could only respond by making a cheap and snarling remark about the lack men taking on roles in child care. Perhaps worse still, was the car-crash from Stella Creasey who when faced with Kate Andrews of the Institute of Economic Affairs in a Sky News interview, could refer to nothing but the anecdote of being in 'the real world' to gloss over her refusal to admit to the misleading aggregate figures and the distasteful hijacking of the 'me too' campaign as a catalyst for the cause. Similar tricks of course, as exposed by Mark Easton of the BBC in 2009, have consistently been used by the profound Harriet Harman who remains intent on claiming it to be discriminatory for women to subject to the same standards as their fellow male MP's over cabinet selection. These are just a handful of examples showing the desperate measures to which these narcissists are reducing themselves to in attempting to annex the conception of equality for their own interests. The fact that the collaborative struggle is intensifying serves as no greater clue of the ideologues' awareness that reason alone will not provide them with their desired outcome; it is therefore imperative for logicians to continue calling this practice out for what it truly is. 

It would therefore be nothing short of scandalous if the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Theresa May were to grant another victory to the insanity mob.