BBC in trouble for "huge gender pay chasm"

>BBC director general

youtube.com/watch?v=xIKOYy0N7kw

>We're hiring more women!
>We're hiring more women, guys!
>I JUST MADE DOCTOR WHO A WOMAN!
>Please validate me, please!
>Pleeeeeaaaaaseee

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348&t=3s
youtu.be/ddJgpXnI06M
express.co.uk/news/uk/714247/BBC-accused-of-box-ticking-over-ethnic-minority-presenter-quota
downloads.bbc.co.uk/diversity/pdf/diversity-and-inclusion-strategy-2016.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=zbEmTg69eho
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Chris Evans works 5 days week on the radio along with running his production company under BBC
>Winkleman works on Strictly Come Dancing 12 weeks out of the year and the Film program every week
I dont know how their duties can be compared, so how can their salaries?
Typical Independent. I have more respect for The Guardian

So they hired a female to play the Doctor just for cheap labor...

>_>

To be fair, Chris Evans is utterly shit and doesn't deserve half of what he's paid. He killed Top Gear too

Seems a bit of a stupid area to talk about Gender Pay Gap when the figures released are unclear. Why should a Woman get paid more just because she's a Woman when the top esrneea see arguably the most popular on the BBC and have quite a big work load?

Maybe the point is giving women bigger loads and then paying them more?

this /thread

>a literally who woman with ten years experience should be paid the same as a household name man with 40 years experience

I paid your mum then gave her a big load.

>I dont know how their duties can be compared, so how can their salaries?
That never mattered.

In Tennis the man played more matches and got more money which was seen as disparity and now that the women get more per match and the same overall it is seen as equal.

Same applies here.

When men get paid shitloads of money, every woman in the world wants to suck their dick. When women get paid shitloads of money, no man finds them any more fuckable. What if the reason men get paid more is because they actually have more motivation to get rich?

what else can Winkleman do? She tookover the film programme from Jonathan Ross, and is better. No one gives a shit about that though. If she replaced more popular programmes like Question of Sport or Match of the Day, she'd be replacing women already hosting those shows.
Just silly social politics again, in my opinion

>no man finds them any more fuckable

Financial independence will be pretty attractive when you're no longer a teenager.

What financial independence? If you marry a rich woman for the money and they slap a prenup on you, you have no financial independence.

Women have a natural urge to fuck men who can provide for them. Men have a natural urge to fuck women who are young and fertile.

Are there exceptions? Sure. Does that invalidate the basic patterns of behavior that define masculinity and femininity? Not a chance.

She has her own job and so do you. What's hard to understand? The relationship is more collaborative and less one sided.

Men have a desire to fuck women who will make good mothers. That's why big breasts and a curvy figure are sexy. A mother who can earn her own money is a natural extension of that.

>Letting them swerve it to a gender thing rather than the issue of why they're spending public money on such high wages

fpbp

>A mother who can earn her own money is a natural extension of that.
Not really. The fact that women have spent the past several decades becoming more and more miserable as feminism has made more and more progress suggests that clearly the priorities it has for women aren't what makes their lives better. Besides which, later in life the vast majority of women will prioritize their family over their job, anyways, which is one of the major reasons why the wage gap is a thing.

men have a natural urge not to fuck babies who refuse to work

This, y'all niggas getting pushed away from the real issue

Everybody has spent the past few decades becoming more miserable. It's a fact of life for countries that technologically develop, regardless of how ingrained feminism is to their societies. That's why Japan, by and large still very conservative, has a terrible birthrate and depressed population.

Literally no man would list "steady income" as an attractive feature in women

If you're always working late chasing dollar and never at home bonding with the kids, that doesn't make you a good mother

It doesn't make you a good father either. If you think parents should spend more time with their kids, then it shouldn't exclusively fall on the mother.

youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348&t=3s

It's almost like men and women are different and fulfil different roles or something.

A father figure is still critically important for young males growing up though. Not having that kind of influence is one (of many) proposed reasons as to why children from single-mother families do poorly in life.

It's almost like we inherit features from both our parents or something.

So either feminism isn't the reason people are becoming miserable, or it is but it shares blame with other factors including overpopulation.

And its also almost like an ancestors werent fucking idiots who created a system of patriarchy just because.

watch the video, overpopulation is a myth

>So either feminism isn't the reason people are becoming miserable
Of course it isn't. Only miserable women become militant feminist in the first place. So you need misery before you can have feminism

They just spread it. They are not the source.

As well as the death of religion

This "gender pay gap" meme is irrelevant. The real problem is that these fucks are getting paid too much money.

A father figure shouldn't fulfil the same roles as a mother figure though, otherwise you wouldn't need a father figure. A good mother is a woman who loves and nurtures whereas a good father is a man who provides and is someone who can be respected.

Our ancestors did what they had to do, to survive. There's no value in returning to primitive civilization.

There's also no value in completely ignoring basic biology and sexual dimorphism just because they're getting in the way of your ideology that advocates equity at any cost.

I'm not saying they should fulfill the same purpose. But complaining about women having careers and 'not spending enough time with the children', should be mirrored for men as well under the same circumstances.

Both parents are incredibly important for children developmentally. Taking one and leaving the other because that's how they did it in the 1950s is detrimental.

Which is what we are doing as well, or are you going to imply that the ancient Romans weren't a well developed society with a complex economy largely bereft of hunger.

>Taking one and leaving the other because that's how they did it in the 1950s is detrimental.

But thats not how they did it in the 50s. The 8 hour work day and standard work week had been around for decades at that point.

>ignoring basic biology

There are plenty of highly intelligent and very creative women in the world. They have the capacity to advance society more so than many men could. Repressing them because of some notion about a woman's place is a greater disregard of biology.

Having an 8 hour work day (with more time spent in transit) is how they did it in the 50s. It relegates the father to a distant position in the family with little time for his children.

>is a greater disregard of biology.

How?

>Which is what we are doing as well

Which is why we now have women in all industries, because they're more valuable as engineers and doctors than as housewives.

>. It relegates the father to a distant position in the family with little time for his children.

With less time, not little. And when kids are going to school for 8 hours a day, does it make that much of a difference?

The 50s were a time when the family sitting down at a dinner table was the norm, as well as other culturally reinforced family activities.

No one's saying women shouldn't be free to pursue what they want. But trying to hammer equity into everything is greater denial of biology than anything the most chauvinistic of patriarchs could dream up, because at least they're working with the predominant behaviors of genders instead of against them.

The most productive and the most intelligent people in the world are, and have been, and will continue to be a small group of men who do more to advance society that almost everyone else. Will there be women who fit that mold? Absolutely. You won't have to force companies to hire them.

Marie Curie predates feminism and didn't fucking need it to do what she did.

Crashing the beeb with no survivors

This

Yeah, when you have a husband and wife working two jobs so they can afford shit like a nanny and boarding school. Then those kids grow up to have a whole host of issues.

Releasing these pay figures is a non-story anyway. Most of them get their BBC money paid to their production companies which isn't reflected in these figures, so it's not a true account of the total amount they're recieving from the BBC anyway.

This. Women who don't know how to work are not worth the effort. If you guys thought manchildren were bad, wait until you see a womanchild. Biggest fucking princess mentalities around.

If the gender pay gap were real, why would any company hire men?

Each performer is unique so to suggest there is a gender pay gap is at best misguided. It is not like someone doing the same exact job is getting more or less money.

But that is easier to understand.

YAAAAAASSSS QUEENSSSSSS

SLAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY

They will raise the pay of women instead of lowering the pay of men, I'm glad I don't pay the TV license.

Once again what ought to fundamentally be a class issue is successfully spun into a gender issue. I hate this fucking country so goddamn much.

>people on different programs are paid different amounts
lmao can the muslims finally just take over Britain

Do Brits even like Evans? Most here seem to hate him.

i really really like that pic
mind if i save it?

They are literally pushing this themselves to destract from the scandal that REALLY got everyone mad - The fact that fucking nobody radio presenters who don't even generate ad revenue are on multi-hundred thousand POUND salaries.

It's not working either - Normies are like;

>NONE OF YOU deserve these pay cheques from the fucking tax payer

Me too! Save it, it's all yours my friend :)

How the actual FUCK are news organisations allowed to pull shit like this??? This should be fucking illegal

It's basically a way for them to keep ripping the public off.

Commrade Corbyn claims """"when"""" he's in office he will issue 300 hundred thousand pound salary caps.

Like earning half a million dollars a fucking year to dick around on panel shows is a great sacrifice to make for the good of the working class.

>successfully

Nah - The reaction has been;

>I don't care about the gender gap - How much are they ALL getting fucking paid?

They're trying their best, but people are more pissed at the fundamentally ridiculous fleecing that is going on.

youtu.be/ddJgpXnI06M

Because stating the truth will make the plebs riot.

At least everyone is distracted from Brexit negotiations right now. I was so tired of that shit

haha they are targeting BBC its over for the BBC who supported them for so long.

Basically this

Corbyn will "remove" The pay cap and have every fucked at the BBC earning 100k regardless of workload. Funded by higher taxes and creating a big old propagander machine. Throwing more money at metropolitan London while fucking over private business everywhere else.

Fuck London centric Labour

Yeah this is basically neoliberal feminism in action. Instead of tackling the real story, which is a publically funded boradcaster paying ludicrous salaries to people, they are going to "solve" it by giving some token marginalised people a seat at the table.

Actual feminists are talking about how the cleaners at the BBC (a profession dominated by women) are being paid a pittance.

BBC you mean the company that literally won't hire you if you're male, white and straight?

Well imajun my shock.

It's so weird. They get bashed nonstop for being diversity pushing super sjws and yet those people also consider them old establishment oxbridge boys club.

BBC just can't win, they are considered bias by everyone. Even me, I think they are bias as fuck towards the tories.

>the company that literally won't hire you if you're male, white and straight

But they will....and if you want to make more than £150,000 of taxpayer money all of the above are a bonus...

express.co.uk/news/uk/714247/BBC-accused-of-box-ticking-over-ethnic-minority-presenter-quota

>express

Oh the rag that has more anti-bbc stories than the mail. k.

downloads.bbc.co.uk/diversity/pdf/diversity-and-inclusion-strategy-2016.pdf

>New 2020 WORKFORCE TARGETS to ensure our employees and LEADERSHIP TEAMS reflect and represent modern UK.
>Women 50%; Ethnic minorities 15%; Disability 8% and for the first time LGBT 8%

I thought it was understood that liberal virtue was just empty signaling. People actually expect lefties to practice what they preach? I mean, you know why hardcore lefty cities are either elite hubs or in complete poverty, right?

>women are raised to nuture and provide for a family
lol in Iran maybe

Is the country not Women 50%; Ethnic minorities 15%; Disability 8% and LGBT 8%? What's wrong with that?

Legitimate news source.

>actually defending the BBC

Tokeb paki news presenter detected

>faggots are 8%

DISHONEST FUCKING STATISTICS

it's such a small amount of people released and they're trying to make it into a percentage matter and
people like GARY LINEKAR has no equal comparison there is no woman like him with his football experience, personality and familiarity with other football stars, audience pull.
He is the man for the job(MOTD) why the fuck would a no name presenter on a nonce show be paid the same as him?

They don't look at 1:1 comparisons because there is none and also they fail to compare it to their competitors. The market value of certain presenters is just higher than others, the value not the cost of their salary mind you.

Yeah, that's about right, at least according to census data.

>being straight white and male is a bonus

Doctor Who already gets paid less than half the guy on fucking Casualty.

This new female Doctor Who is probably on minimum wage

Is it not? What would you rather be?

Because men are worth it, compare John Mcenroe's salary to that other no name they tried comparing him with to illustrate muh pay gap. Even though the female presenter is cheaper, John is worth it for the price because of his value.
Women get paid less because they're less valuable but who would want to hire more of these?

Nobody really likes him, it's one of those cases where he's pushed so much they try to make you think you like them. For example Davina McCall or Stacey Dooley.

Bonus for getting hired

It only makes sense if these groups of people are as competent in every category and apply for jobs as frequently.

Typical Piers Morgan, no nuance
youtube.com/watch?v=zbEmTg69eho

Doesn't the BBC literally have quotas for women?

Of course you aren't going to get paid as much if you are there to fill a quota lmao

Does no one understand that you get paid in relation to how many viewers/listeners you attract, and how much you've managed to negotiate?

BRITBONG TV LICENSE FEES PAY FOR THIS

>It's so weird. They get bashed nonstop for being diversity pushing super sjws and yet those people also consider them old establishment oxbridge boys club.
That's because it is, when these old fucks have nothing to fix they have to answer all the non-complaints in the backlog from crazies which are the diversity complaints and now they're finally addressing them because they have nothing else to do, also the white guilt is insane. It's mainly the white british who throw their own under the bus to be overly welcoming to the "other"(foreigners,immigrans,women)

The main people pushing the diversity meme are in fact white british, not the minorities. Most of the minorities especially the older ones couldn't care less.

>why would any company hire men
in STEM fields women are twice as likely to get hired as equally qualified male counterparts. why? because women are high in trait-agreeableness and have a hard time arguing a case for higher salaries. despite this, most people in STEM fields are filled with mostly men, because they require high IQs, and men are overrepresented in the extreme highs of IQ (but also the extreme lows of IQ. women predominantly occupy the average IQ space. there might be a causal link here between IQ and the chaotic changes to the body and mind by the Y-chromosome/shot of testosterone it gets in the womb, being that we all start with a female morphology), and this doesn't even take into account child rearing and family raising. so, on average, men are more capable of the jobs and have less obligations outside of the fields they are in than women. if they could get all female staff, they would, because they could pay them less and they won't argue with them about it (they might write an op-ed piece about how sexist their boss is for not giving them a raise, but they won't confront them 1on1 with a real case for why they should get a raise, and if they do they won't stand their ground to keep arguing for the raise)

So the makeup of GSK, Phizer and SV companies and the like are mostly women or they have parity with men? Even on boards?

Checked

they are mostly men, because most women aren't qualified for STEM field jobs.

>people are actually jailed to pay for pic related