Sexism and the City?

The femprop never stops. Every couple of months, another article has to come out moaning about how hard done by women are.

In April 2008 the Fawcett Society launches a campaign for equal pay for women, in an effort to close the gender pay gap.

This still exists more than 10 years after Labour came to power pledging to address the issue.

The situation is particularly acute in London.


Unequal pay for women has been illegal for 30 years, and yet in London men earn 24% more than women – the highest discrepancy in the country.

The gap becomes even more marked at the higher end of the scale with men earning 32% more than their female counterparts.

Only 11% of FTSE 100 directors are female and no company in the city has more than 30% female staff.

So what. When was the last time you heard of a business giving a woman a job, but actually paying her less money than they advertised? I mean, if the job states £20,000 a year, that comes with some conditions. Like actually being there full time. For a whole year.

The issue is, that women, through their own personal choices, take more time off than men and seek jobs that are part time or offer gratuitous flexi-time options. Women do not particularly want to work their butts off 24/7. As long as they have enough money to spend on themselves they’re happy. Good for them.

Harriet Harman became Deputy Leader of the Labour party and Minister for Women in 2007.

She backed two conference motions calling for tougher measures to close the endemic pay gap which exists 30 years after the Equal pay act was introduced.

Ms Harman proclaimed that the government should “finish what it started” on tackling pay inequality.

She argued that gender pay inequality was a “social justice issue, as well as a feminist issue”.

Yeah yeah. We already know that women earn less because they do less, and because of feminism, employers are no longer allowed to ask questions to women regarding children, pregnancy etc.

So the business couldn’t possibly know what they are getting into. Who wants to pay a woman a high salary (or any wage) and then have her suddenly proclaim she’s pregnant and leave, or come in and disrupt the workplace with gossip, bitching and attention seeking? Of course, the business still has to pay her if it is a full time position. It would probably be better to only hire women freelance. That way when they decide they want a career break, you don’t have to pay them.

Ms Harman also defended her government’s position as a major employer of women.

“But we know that women are still not paid fairly and I simply refuse to believe that a part -time working woman is worth less than a full-time man. Damn right it’s unfair!”

Over 100 000 women work in the City of London’s financial services.

I hate this bitch. Minister for Women? Sounds like discrimination to me. But you should already know who she hates. A part time person earns less than a full time person. Sex has nothing to do with it. Of course this all just smacks of communism. Government controlling businesses, employment, pay etc. Hardly a free economy is it? A central bank is one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto and all of these corrupt liberal scum in parliament are socialists/ communists anyway.

But I digress.

This article actually highlights a deeper issue with women in the workplace. Women’s propensity for certain types of behaviour present a problem for employers. Will she cause endless problems in your workplace? File for sexual discrimination if you do not give her that promotion (more money, not more work)? Will she sign a contract then get pregnant? Disrupt the office with stories of her arguing with her boyfriend, etc?

Are you willing to take the risk? Now this isn’t PC, but PC has nothing to do with logic or facts. I remember a fair time ago, reading an article regarding women in medicine. I am sure you are aware of the endless schemes and projects (with taxpayers money) tailored to women. Women in Medicine/ Engineering/ Physics etc. These schemes obviously constitute discrimination against men but when you are dealing with socialist employment programs enforced with political correctness, I guess it doesn’t count.

Anyway, in medicine there was a ‘problem’ because there was not a 50/50 split in the sexes training to be doctors. Women are discriminated, headlines read. Feminists moaned (again) of patriarchal oppression. Some MRA’s wrote about the stupidity of paying hundreds of thousands of taxpayer pounds to train women who are only going to work part time and/ or leave the profession anyway.

They were branded ‘sexist pigs’. Politically incorrect misogynist scum!

However, they were right.

The rising number of female doctors is “bad for medicine”, and universities should recruit more men, a GP warns.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, Dr Brian McKinstry said female doctors were more likely to work part-time, leading to staffing problems.

What a waste of money.

Women, who now outnumber men in medical schools, were also less likely to take part in training or research, he said.

But opponents said the best candidates should be chosen regardless of gender and flexible working policies improved.

Yes they should. But it’s a bit late for that isn’t it? That process used to be the one used. There was also a quota limiting the number of females able to train.

Professor Jane Dacre, vice dean of biomedical sciences at University College London, said rather than worrying about having too many female doctors, there should be more focus on ensuring equal opportunities for medics throughout their careers.

“When I was at medical school, there was a quota and they were only allowed 30% women.

I wonder why…

Women now outnumber men in most UK medical schools by three to two.

This has reversed many years of male dominance in medicine and unfair discrimination against women, said Dr McKinstry, who is also a researcher at the University of Edinburgh.

But the recent large rise in female medical graduates was worrying, particularly in more “family friendly” areas of medicine such as general practice, he added.

Many older full-time male GPs are shortly due to retire leaving behind a workforce of younger women, many of whom work part-time.

Men naturally dominate all fields. In fact, men created them all in the first place so it shouldn’t come as a surprise. The only way to ‘even up’ the figures is to skewer the cirriculum/ funding/ advertising in favour of women, who then leave anyway to do their own thing. What about people who need medical care?

The poll of 435 doctors suggests one in five female doctors anticipate working part-time for most of their career. The figure for men was one in 25.

What an efficient use of taxpayers money. Maybe they should bring back that quota, or better yet remove any sex-specific funding and marketing.

Don’t hold your breath.

5 thoughts on “Sexism and the City?

  1. Pingback: Families in meltdown, judge says « End of Men

  2. Did you read the report in the BBC online education section which actually said “only 60% of primary school teachers are women” in the context of some advocacy of more women in 2y teaching? Can’t find the article now.

    Harman is truly wicked; I can only pray God will judge her.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s