Is this about equality or supremacy?
Back in the day, the days of true feminism, the whole morale was women who demanded equality. Being allowed to participate in and/or compete with the same things men did. Quite frankly a goal which most people wholeheartedly agreed with. Let's be honest here: in the general sense of the word women were being oppressed to a certain degree. I mean... not being allowed to vote in the US around the 60's? How does that add up?
But haven't we long passed this stage already? Women are here, women are accepted and we do get a diverse working environment. Women aren't only secretaries these days but also work in tech, as managers, and even as officially recognized athletes.
This is when we get to what I perceive as "modern feminism". Women who suddenly feel entitled to certain things because... well, they're a woman so because. Take this poor excuse of an article for example:
"The gender pay gap does not compare the same job roles because it would be illegal to pay women with the same jobs less, which can make it a contentious measure in some industries."
This line alone sets the whole tone of the article for me, and it's also why I call this a dimwitted article. First the most obvious: just because it would be illegal doesn't mean that it can't happen. That would be an honestly interesting subject, one which I being a massive critic of "modern feminism" would even fully support. But we're not going to do that because... I suppose no one breaks the law?
Yet this also means that we're now basically comparing different genders and different jobs. We now have 2 unknown variables and every mathematician can tell you that this makes it impossible to draw solid conclusions from that.
But in true modern feminist fashion the lack of consistency and logic doesn't seem to stop the writer at all from drawing their far fetched conclusions and pushing this as some kind of twisted truth. Even worse: it also showcases a massive double agenda here. I mean....
"BT was the only company to pay women more than men, paying them 2.3 per cent above their male counterparts' hourly median rate."
So, translation: when men get paid less than women it's perfectly fine because "reasons". But when the suspicion arises that women get paid less than men then there's a massive problem to address. Whatever happened to that sense of equality all of a sudden? Does the author even understand what equality actually stands for? Because I have my doubts about that to be honest.
"Ryanair topped the charts as one of the worst-performing companies, paying women 71.8 per cent less than men."
Based on what exactly? See, I see the author spout of a bunch of statistical conclusions while not even trying to back those up with any actual facts. I say that because of the line I quoted earlier: the article highlights the paycheck of different genders performing different jobs.
Wake up call: if you perform a different job you often get paid a different salary. That isn't something which only happens to women in comparison to men, it also happens if you compare 2 men doing different jobs or 2 women doing different jobs. But that would obviously not make for a compelling article so we'll simply ignore that fact and focus on the conclusion which we want to push forward: Women get paid less than men! (for doing different jobs and something you also see amongst men but we're not telling you this).
C'mon El Reg... I expect much higher standards from you than this bullshit half-truth sharing article.