back to article Men suffer most in recession

Research from the Equality and Human Rights Commission found men are suffering more than women from the recession. Young people are getting it worse than older people - the over-50s seem to dealing with the downturn better, maybe because they're prepared to be more flexible. But if you're a disabled man with few …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Frank Fisher
    Thumb Down

    Women are NOT paid less

    Mothers may be - if you compare non-parents of either sex, there is no pay gap. The "women's pay gap" is a total myth, or rather, because it's intentionally spread, it's a lie. I'm surprised to see the Reg falling for this crap. Stick up for the truth won't you guys? The average pay differentials across the economy are down to skills and experience, and a little luck and brown-nosing, as we all know. Women, *on average* are paid less, but because they are women? No. Because *on average* they are less skilled, less qualified, less experienced - they spend *on average* 20% ish less in the workplace, because they'r eoff having kids - their choice. A choice me and my missus made, btw. She earns buttons. SO gosh, they *on average* earn less.

    Put the story straight Reg. Let the rest of the media pump out this socialist propaganda.

  2. Anonymous Coward

    Or in other words

    To summarise:

    The recession is affecting different people in different ways.

    Well I never.

  3. Anonymous Coward

    You what???

    "Women workers aged 40 are paid on average 27 per cent less than 40-year old men."

    For doing the same job and the same hours? If so someone should be up in front of a tribunal.

    If however we are comparing average male wages with average female wages then that is nonsense. Might as well say that the average hospital consultant is paid more than the average porter. Blithly comparing avearges with no regards for actual differences in the workforce is meaningless. This is just more "Harman-isation" methinks....

    1. Juillen 1


      We wouldn't want objective analysis to get in the way of a political crusade now, would we?

      Actually doing research to find out why differences occur is so Politically Incorrect.. We can't have that now.. Whatever next.. People thinking for themselves?

    2. davescafe

      Not that difficult

      If women are truly paid less for the same work, businesses would only hire women.

      1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: Not that difficult

        Oh yes, because that's how it works.

    3. Martin

      How thoroughly depressing seeing that post so upvoted.

      Exclusively men, I imagine.

      Women with the same skills and experience nevertheless end up getting rather less pay for the same job - especially in places where the salaries are not transparent. Because their bosses are the sorts of dinosaurs (like the poster above) who reckon they aren't worth paying so much because they are going to go off and have children.

      And while those attitudes continue to exist, women will be paid less.

  4. dave 46

    stupid statistic is stupid

    Women have babies, then work part time. This is compounded by the fact you don't get many high flying banking or executive jobs that fit around the school run so they are more likely to be going back to lower paid roles.

    If that's discrimination it's also discriminating against men who want a 3 day week so they can get more fishing in - there just aren't many well paid part time jobs out there for either sex unless you start your own company.

    1. Wild Bill

      Men have something to do with these babies too you know.

      The problem as I see it is that there is no legislation allowing men to take significant time off to look after newborns. Due to financial pressures on a couple the female is then forced to be the one to go part time, which can negatively affect an individual career and overal earnings.

      I would love to see a system such as in Sweden, where a couples with a newborn are entitled to a certain period of paid time off work between them (a year I think?). They can then decide themselves who should make the career sacrifice or even, #GASP#, do equal amounts. If couples did equal amounts of childcare then I would expect overal pay to level out.

  5. JaitcH

    Sorry, you'll have to go because you are single

    The worst I heard of was a young, single guy being laid off because the only alternative was to lay off a married co-worker but the effect of that would make a family suffer.

    Guess they figured single people have independent sources of income, or have no financial obligations.

  6. Ned Leprosy

    Paid less? In what way?

    Is this allegation of lower pay for someone with the same experience and qualifications doing the same number of hours in the same job, or is it just an overall average amongst all men and all women of working age? Because, y'know, one's an honest comparison and one isn't. I'd be disappointed if El Reg is doing the latter: its tendency to not fall for such politically expedient opportunism is something that usually sets it apart from other "news" outlets.

    1. David Evans

      I smell a rat

      I would very much doubt an employer would make a decision like that explicit to the young single guy, because frankly he could take them to the cleaners for unfair dismissal (it would be discrimination, pure and simple). Does that kind of discrimination happen though? Probably, although I doubt its a significant trend (if anything, the more ruthless employers would bin the family guy who needs to do annoying things like take their kids to the doctors or watch the school play now and then).

      1. Anonymous Coward

        Positive discrimination

        A previous manager would "normalise" salary and bonus reviews so that staff with families didn't lose out because they chose not to put in unpaid overtime. It was impossible to prove because the normalisation process was such a sausage machine, but it demotivated the staff who had put in the extra work.

        Staff with school-age children were also given priority when requesting time off during the scholl holidays. Apparently Christmas was just another day if you didn't have kids.

        1. The Other Steve


          "Staff with school-age children were also given priority when requesting time off during the scholl holidays."

          Of course they were, you idiot.

  7. The Other Steve

    Yeah but ...

    I know the ONS numbers, but I haven't read the EHRC's report, so I don't know if they made the error of just comparing averages - which doesn't take into account a lot of factors that make the apparent gap smaller, smaller mind you, not non existent - or not.

    But I suspect that the above commentards haven't either. Maybe before shouting about "harmanisation" and "women are just less skillful", it would be a good idea ?

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not sure...

    Are these figures adjusted for taking large amounts of time off work? (ie: Maternity leave/bringing up children)

    I would think that we would get a much more accurate figure if it were more socially acceptable for Men to bring up children and if the Maternity/Paternity leave entitlement was the same. If we end up with 50/50 men/women bringing up children then we can see more accurately if there is a pay gap.

    1. Goat Jam

      Not really

      It is more about women tending (by a factor of 27% it would seem) to choose cushier jobs in clean, air-conditioned environments with lower entry qualifications. Funnily enough these jobs also tend to pay less than those who do more difficult jobs that require more technical education or are just plain dirty and/or dangerous.

      The whole "women are paid less than men for doing the exact same work" complaint is a demonstrable lie that is regularly trotted out by groups with feminist leanings just to ensure that it remains front and central in the thinking of the sheeple who form policy and vote in elections.

      If it were true that it is possible to pay women significantly less than men for doing the exact same work then somebody would have created a "super business" staffed 100% by women that could easily out compete all those patriarchial businesses and undercut them because they have a 27% cost advantage in their labour costs.

      Labour costs being the single biggest cost centre for the vast majority of businesses.

      The fact that this does not happen would tend to indicate that either;

      1) Women on average do not perform at the same level as men

      2) Women on average do not get paid less than men for "exactly the same work"

      It's up to the reader to decide which one is correct, but I assure you it is not possible that both be true.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    I still am waiting to see...

    ...women asking for a raise in force as do my male colleagues and myself.

    Many women don't have what it takes to ask for a raise saying "otherwise I will look for another job"

    Actually, I've switched jobs quite a few times myself to make more money/ get a better career, while old female colleagues dared not do it. Whenever I've met a lady with the valour to do it she is making as much I do or even more.

    Paris, because she definitely knows how to make money

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    And the drawbacks of being a guy in the workforce

    means you can't play the "totty" card to sway managerial opinion, and can't play the "watery eyes & bottom lip tremble" whenever you aren't winning an argument with a co-worker.

    Paris, because at least she realises she's vacuous!

    1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: And the drawbacks of being a guy in the workforce

      Well, who could argue with that astute assessment?

      Christ. It's gonna be a long day. Perhaps if I claim I've got my period and am all hormonal and weepy, I can get the afternoon off, yeah? That's how we roll, after all.

      1. James Hughes 1

        Nice try Sarah,

        But we all know that you are really a 25stone bearded lorry driver from Staines..

      2. Diane Miller

        @Sarah Bee

        Thank you, Sarah.

        If the methodology of the report is as you all SURMISE it to be, then you're absolutely right and the conclusions are worthless. I note, however, that you're all jumping on the "obviously it's the effects of childbirth" bandwagon without bothering to check the report itself. Theorizing in advance of the facts is a capital offense.

        1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

          Re: @Sarah Bee

          Didn't surmise. Merely expressed weariness.

      3. Martin

        Sarah, I'd like to apologise for the majority of my sex....

        Judging by most of the posts here, I'm embarrassed to be associated with them

    2. The Other Steve

      Your knuckles are scuffing my nice wood floor

      "can't play the "watery eyes & bottom lip tremble" whenever you aren't winning an argument with a co-worker."

      If that's not working for you, you're doing it wrong. Or perhaps no one at work likes you ?

      1. Anonymous Coward

        ...scuffing my nice wood...

        When I unbutton my shirt so it plunges effectively, showing my cleavage of my manly chest, my coworkers are uniformly sleazy enough that they're going to think with their crotches time and time again, and leap to do my work for me.

        That's the kind of power I have.

        Not at all any kind of comment on the kind of fictional person this would ever work on, outside of the movies.

        [Beer, because the difference between a straight guy and a bi guy is a six-pack]

  11. Anonymous Coward

    A womans work is never done....

    Perhaps that is why they are paid less...

  12. Anonymous Coward

    Shocked to read

    "if you're a disabled man with few qualifications, you're half as likely to be working now as in the 1970s".

    In this century, are we really that bad at supporting the disabled?

    Though conversely, if you're an able bodied man with few qualifications, you're also less likely to be working now as in the 1970's too. So perhaps the stats aren't quite all they seem.

  13. Pat68
    Thumb Down


    Poor article, that just takes the poorly put together stats of the feminist lobby.. I'm all for women earning as much as men and many do.. But they don't take time off for having children of course.. Like many here I'm disappointed the Registry has taken this hogwash for gratis..

  14. The Other Steve

    I didn't like the article because it failed to reinforce my personal prejudices

    I mean, bloody hell, all you've done there is just report some facts, really you should have put something snarky in about birds getting preggers, or just not being as good as us blokes at techy stuff and having to all work as cleaners, because that's my opinion, and I if I don't have it reflected back at me every five minutes I feel all lost and vulnerable and my geekWang begins to shrivel.

    I'm off to the bog to read "Nuts" for a bit, then put that new Shakira wallpaper on my dekstop, and then I'm going to go have a leer at those fit birds in accounts.*

    Never seem to get any decent fanny in IT, for some completely unfathomable reason.

    *As the saying goes, there's always one, and if you can't think who it is, it's you.

    <--JA, because I know I've had at least one sense of humour failure today.

  15. dogged

    citations required

    "even though women now outperform men at every level of education"

    Source. Now.

    1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: citations required

      I don't have a source to hand (wait a few minutes and I'm sure others will chuck some in your direction - I'd look but I've got 400 of you little sods to moderate at this point), but it's pretty common knowledge that girls outperform boys throughout school, at least. Isn't it? It has been for years. It's always cited around exam time. It's not exactly controversial, as you apparently think it is - although they haven't figured out why this is the case.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        So you are a moderator for the Reg then Sarah?

        I once worked for a company where they employed an Exchange Administrator

        When it turned out that the person they gave the job to was not technical but simply a typist, rather than get rid of the BS artist they kept them on, to maintain their "ratios". This person was still paid as a Server Admin but never had to do the job, instead they set this person to writing technical documentation. You can no doubt imagine the quality of this persons work not being technical and having to ask me how I did it however the managers who also weren't technical did like the screen prints with a click here arrow it made them think they knew what we were doing.

        School work in the UK is the basic skills that employers want, if you can do more then there is higher education. What are the sex ratiosfor sucess in Engineering higher education, the reason I ask is that to complete even a Bsc or Beng you have to be interested enough to do the work. To do a Masters the interest normally need to be more than simply for the money. In my working life I have met some very competent female engineers but they were in the minority not because of some conspiracy but simply because most women are not that interested in how things work.

        In IT at least not being interested in how it works makes you a user not an Engineer and for the most part the pay reflects this.

        As to working rights for men if you have a child you can have 6 months off, unpaid of course.


      2. dogged


        "outperform" is pretty open though, and seems to be referring to Life Beyond School in this context.

        I did not downvote your comment, incidentally. Still await cites, despite the Other Steve's misdirection attempt.

        1. The Other Steve


          Gosh I sure do hate to repeat myself, but go away and read it.

    2. The Other Steve

      Citations required ? RTFR

      Read The Fucking Report.

      It's linked from the bottom of the article, you muppet.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    EHRC. That makes it gospel then.

    Aside from the woeful lack of data presented with the conclusion, as is typical of liberal minded people publishing political dogma (they want women to work, not be mothers,) and the overwhelming lack of any published criteria that decimate the actual gap, they also fail to mention that ..

    1. child benefit goes to the mother, as does most medical spend, social services, etc. (I agree it should. Some men are b*stards.)

    2. most of the money a married man makes goes to the mother anyway, even in divorce. (50% of the cause of divorces is the woman, but this doesn't matter to the judge or the EHRC. Unlucky to the men, but life's not fair.)

    3. most of these statistics are just designed to anger women into the workplace, instead of sitting at homes, like 80% of them with kids want to, but are never asked (just ask mumsnet,) let alone be allowed. (I think they should be allowed if they want to and I think they should be allowed to work if they want to, the government disagrees with me. It wants all women to have the choice, so long as they chose work.)

    4. when the server room goes down at three in the morning, is it a man or a woman you ring?

    5. out of your team of twenty techies that built your system, the three that did 80% of the work. Were they male or female?

    6. men buy the beers even if they earn less (I've no problem with this, I couldn't have got married without it)

    7. Men work ten years more on average, for a 45% of the retirement.

    8. The single men know the women won't marry them if they don't earn a lot. It therefore follows that single men will work harder than women, just like single women try harder to look nice. It's Science!

    Men and women have different choices, and different talents. I'd find it extra-ordinary that a woman with a (or a man) business IT degree, and a guy (or gal) with a Physics degree, even in the same job were remotely as talented as each other, not withstanding the great lengths the Psychologists of the world have gone to, to conjure IQ tests that men and women do the same at on average. When they were just problem solving tests, before 1928, women were 5 points behind on the Terman index. This doesn't mean women, thick men, or old people are any less valuable to humanity, it just means they evolved for different purposes. Women are good at writing. I can't string a sentence together. Women are comparatively bad at logic, whereas I'm good. But it just so happens, business wants people to make things work, not talk about it.

    I love my wife, and she earns more than me, (and deserves to,) but on average men deserve more money, especially as the good ones pay into a common pot for their womenfolk anyway.

    In short. I don't believe anything the EHRC says.

    1. The Other Steve

      Oh, oh, citation neeeded

      "publishing political dogma (they want women to work, not be mothers,)"

      Says who ?

    2. Martin

      Talk about a load of nonsensical generalizations.....

      Look, just read "The Myth of Mars and Venus", by Deborah Cameron.

      On second thoughts, don't bother. It was written by a woman, and I imagine you believe that all women have a political agenda to show that they are better than they really are.

  17. alcopops

    @Shocked to Read

    "if you're a disabled man with few qualifications, you're half as likely to be working now as in the 1970s".

    Yes, because they're all better off on benefits!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019