Is there really a gender pay gap in the UK? Well, of course there is. In the UK men pay 72% of the income tax and women only 28%. So obviously there's a pay gap. You could equally call it a work gap, mind you. It doesn't seem so great for men then. The real question is whether there is an unfair pay gap. Do men get paid more for doing the same work? The answer to that is an emphatic "no". Even the feminists now agree with that (some of them). But that does not stop leading politicians, like Barrack Obama, crawling to the feminist lobby by making big speech points on the gender pay gap. No, Mr Obama, women do not get paid 77 cents in the dollar for the same work as men. No one believes that silliness any more. Saying things like that is just politics. How far have we sunk that politicians feel obliged to pander to the feminists by repeating nonsense that even the feminists themselves do not believe? Feminists are now so ultra confident of their position that they can force world leaders to dance on the end of a string.
In the essay linked below I collect data and other evidence that elucidates the true position, both on pay and on job choices. This does not only cover pay but also the issues raised by professions in which one sex is greatly under-represented, such as engineering (mostly men) or school teaching (mostly women). Whilst these gender-skews in the professions arise due to free choices, not discrimination, the efforts that are made to reduce such skews are extremely biased. Enormous efforts and funds are expended to encourage women into technical jobs whereas very little is done to ancourage men into the likes of school teaching, especially at primary level, or nursing - or, indeed, all those gender policy roles in public bodies which tend to be occupied almost exclusively by women. That this is so is largely because, whilst men go out of their way to assist women in scientific, engineering and technology occupations, there is no reciprocation. Women appear to be, at best, unconcerned about the under-representation of men in, say, teaching or nursing. Worse, there is evidence of actual hostility to the idea.
In summary my essay makes the following conclusions,
- For part time workers, women on average have an hourly pay rate 5.7% greater than that of men (2013 data).
- For full time workers, there is no significant gender pay gap in the median hourly pay rate for men and women in the age range 18 to 40 (Figure 5 of my essay below).
- Women without children working full time in the age range 18 to 40 earn more than men per hour worked.
- The larger annual number of new women graduates compared to male graduates suggests that the gender pay gap in favour of younger women will increase in future.
- Women over 40 on average have lower hourly pay rates than men. This can be attributed to career breaks for child rearing as well as life style choices, including preferred professions, which do not place the emphasis on earnings to the same degree as men.
- There is no gender based discrimination evident in the data for full time working. Figure 5 is compelling in this respect, as are the arguments presented in my essay linked below.
- The gender pay gap disfavouring older women may diminish in future as women with degrees age and move into the older population (but this is speculative).
- On average, male employees work longer hours than female employees, and men who are self-employed work far longer hours than self employed women.
- All UK income is split 65%:35% between men and women, men's larger share being partly due to greater average hourly pay rates and partly due to longer hours worked.
- Men pay 72% of income tax, and women just 28%.
- On average men pay 19.4% of their income in income tax, whereas women pay 14.2%.
- The greater earnings of men is not an indication of male privilege but an indication of male obligation to work for women's benefit.
- The more overtime a husband does, the healthier his wife becomes. The more overtime a wife does, the less healthy her husband becomes.
- Whilst the phrase "pay gap" is familiar, the phrase "spend gap" is not. But who is privileged, he who earns more or she who spends more? Data is sparse but women are believed to spend the majority of household income, estimated as between 67% and 85%.
- The number of organisations and campaigns encouraging more women into STEM professions is so great that it is not a practical possibility to list them all.
- These initiatives receive support from the highest government levels and are extremely well funded, to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds in the last 12 months alone.
- In particular these initiatives in favour of encouraging women into STEM professions are strongly and actively supported by trade unions and professional institutes such as the IOP and the IMechE, etc. In these instances, the majority (men) are assisting the minority (women) to reverse their minority status.
- In contrast, whilst some bodies do attempt to encourage more men into teaching, especially primary teaching, e.g., the Training and Development Agency for Schools, there are very few organisations or campaigns doing this and they appear to receive little influential support and virtually no funding.
- In, say, engineering, the minority sex is encouraged with such awards as the Young Women Engineer Award. There is no equivalent in teaching, e.g., there is no Male Primary Teacher Award. Men help women, but women will not help men.
- If a National Women in Engineering Day is justified, and an International Girls in ICT Day, why is there no National Men in Primary Teaching Day?
- There has been a UK Commons Select Committee report on "Women in Scientific Careers" but no similar concern about men in teaching or nursing.
- If we can have a charter for women in STEM supported by the TUC and the Royal Society and launched via a campaign at the House of Commons involving MPs signing pledges to take action in support of this initiative, then why can we not have the same for men in primary school teaching?
- Of greatest concern is that the teachers unions are at best lukewarm on the issue of encouraging more men into the profession, and at worst actually hostile to the idea. In this case, the majority (women) appear content that the minority (men) should remain as such.
- Graham Holley, chief executive of the Training and Development Agency for Schools, has said "Whenever I talk about the need to get more men into primary teaching, the unions say I'm being anti-women", see Ref. of my essay linked below.
- In comparing the issue of women in STEM and men in teaching, bear this in mind: only the women in question benefit from the former whereas the entire rising generation would benefit from the latter. So isn't the biased concern the wrong way around?
- Teachers' unions exhibit clear feminist ideology, including familiar feminist assertions which are factually incorrect. When coupled with the evidence for anti-male bias by teachers as derived here together with the major and increasing under-performance of boys in education, this is extremely worrying.
- The NUT has the audacity to complain that women are approximately four times less likely to become heads in primary schools than their male colleagues. But actually there are twice as many women heads in primary schools than men. When they say "four times less likely" this is against a female:male teacher ratio of nearly 8:1. This is how cunning, and staggeringly dishonest, is feminist propaganda. They make a massive disadvantage against men (11% of primary teachers) seem like unfairness to women. They are complaining that there are only twice as many female heads - and they want far more. Got it?
- On the Association of Teachers and Lectures web site you can find a document "Do we need more men?" addressing the issue of men in primary teaching, Ref.. Here are some extracts. "It is a well-known phenomenon that primary teachers are predominantly women. But is this really such a problem? To contend that we need more male primary staff because they bring unique attributes and skills that women do not have reinforces discrimination and is at odds with research that shows a teacher's gender has no impact on educational attainment. To suggest that male teachers are better at getting pupils, in particular boys, to behave and work harder, is not only contradicted by evidence, but it is also systematically devaluing excellent female education staff up and down the country". Now let me re-write how that would appear in the context of engineering with the genders reversed, we get this gem..."It is a well-known phenomenon that engineers are predominantly men. But is this really such a problem? To contend that we need more female engineers because they bring unique attributes and skills that men do not have reinforces discrimination and is at odds with research that shows an engineer's gender has no impact on the product. To suggest that female engineers will improve a company is not only contradicted by evidence, but it is also systematically devaluing excellent male engineering staff up and down the country". Do you get it now?
Read my review of the mythical pay gap and the discriminatory concern regarding jobs with under-representation by one sex.
Warren Farrell explaining how men prioritise work more than do women...