BBC in trouble for "huge gender pay chasm"

>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?

>>85203250
Maybe the point is giving women bigger loads and then paying them more?

>>85203116
this /thread

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

>>85203272

I paid your mum then gave her a big load.

>>85203116
>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.

>>85203075
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?

>>85203272
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

>>85203324
>no man finds them any more fuckable

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

>>85203363
What financial independence? If you marry a rich woman for the money and they slap a prenup on you, you have no financial independence.

>>85203363
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.

>>85203402
She has her own job and so do you. What's hard to understand? The relationship is more collaborative and less one sided.

>>85203430
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.

>>85203075
>Letting them swerve it to a gender thing rather than the issue of why they're spending public money on such high wages

>>85203116
fpbp

>>85203480
>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.

>>85203430
men have a natural urge not to fuck babies who refuse to work

>>85203500
This, y'all niggas getting pushed away from the real issue

>>85203524
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.

>>85203363
Literally no man would list "steady income" as an attractive feature in women

>>85203480
If you're always working late chasing dollar and never at home bonding with the kids, that doesn't make you a good mother

>>85203635
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.

>>85203566
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348&t=3s

>>85203692
It's almost like men and women are different and fulfil different roles or something.

>>85203795
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.

>>85203693
So either feminism isn't the reason people are becoming miserable, or it is but it shares blame with other factors including overpopulation.

>>85203852

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

>>85203884
watch the video, overpopulation is a myth

>>85203884
>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.

File: Nietzsche187a.jpg (404KB, 1200x1628px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 1200x1628px

>>85203884

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.

>>85203852
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.

>>85203890
Our ancestors did what they had to do, to survive. There's no value in returning to primitive civilization.

>>85203953
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.

>>85203950
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.

>>85203953

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.

>>85204002
>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.

>>85203972
>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.

>>85204052
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.

>>85204058
>is a greater disregard of biology.

How?

>>85204033
>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.

>>85204094
>. 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.

>>85204058
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.

File: Theresa-May-strange-stance.jpg (25KB, 615x416px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 615x416px

Crashing the beeb with no survivors

>>85203584
This

>>85204125

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.

>>85203530
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.

>>85206889
But that is easier to understand.

YAAAAAASSSS QUEENSSSSSS

SLAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY

>>85203075

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

File: 1215.jpg (66KB, 500x344px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 500x344px

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.

>>85207232
i really really like that pic
mind if i save it?

>>85203075

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

>>85207336
Me too! Save it, it's all yours my friend :)

File: 1498526391834.png (302KB, 501x599px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 501x599px

>>85203075
How the actual FUCK are news organisations allowed to pull shit like this??? This should be fucking illegal

>>85207082

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.

>>85207232

>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.

https://youtu.be/ddJgpXnI06M

>>85207357

Because stating the truth will make the plebs riot.

>>85207360
At least everyone is distracted from Brexit negotiations right now. I was so tired of that shit

>>85203075
haha they are targeting BBC its over for the BBC who supported them for so long.

>>85207360
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

>>85207082
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.

>>85203075
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.

>>85209647
>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...

>>85209790
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/714247/BBC-accused-of-box-ticking-over-ethnic-minority-presenter-quota

>>85209880
>express

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

>>85210004
http://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%

>>85203075
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?

>>85203363
>women are raised to nuture and provide for a family
lol in Iran maybe

>>85210295
Is the country not Women 50%; Ethnic minorities 15%; Disability 8% and LGBT 8%? What's wrong with that?

>>85210004
Legitimate news source.

>actually defending the BBC

Tokeb paki news presenter detected

>>85210836
>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.

>>85210879
Yeah, that's about right, at least according to census data.

>>85210836
>being straight white and male is a bonus

>>85203211
Doctor Who already gets paid less than half the guy on fucking Casualty.

This new female Doctor Who is probably on minimum wage

>>85210982
Is it not? What would you rather be?

>>85206463
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?

>>85207325
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.

>>85211023
Bonus for getting hired
>>85209790

>>85210836
It only makes sense if these groups of people are as competent in every category and apply for jobs as frequently.

>>85207413
Typical Piers Morgan, no nuance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbEmTg69eho

File: 1497772654797.jpg (8KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x250px

>>85203075
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

>>85203075
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?

File: 1439411914100.jpg (96KB, 792x558px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 792x558px

BRITBONG TV LICENSE FEES PAY FOR THIS

>>85209753
>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.

>>85206463
>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)

>>85211434
So the makeup of GSK, Phizer and SV companies and the like are mostly women or they have parity with men? Even on boards?

>>85211111
Checked

>>85211497
they are mostly men, because most women aren't qualified for STEM field jobs.

File: de.jpg (198KB, 634x1158px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 634x1158px

>people are actually jailed to pay for pic related

This """""outrage"""" about the BBC "wage gap" is 100% manufactured by newspapers and media outlets owned by, guess who, Rupert Murdoch, proprietor of Fox News who hates BBC with a passion and will seize on any opportunity to kick them down.

BBC is gay and the license fee is a shit joke, but I'd take the BBC over a Murdoch channel any day. FUCK that wrinkled foreskin faced reptoid overlord.

>>85211622
Except the BBC were the ones trying to make it about the gap as opposed to the individual salaries like Chris Evans getting 2.2 million, hence they briefed the issue a day before

>>85203075
This makes no sense at all, these people are paid based on their ability to attract an audience. Chris evans was paid far more than most of the men on that list.

There simply are not any women who have that pull.

Are they supposed to pay women well above their earning potential because they have a vagina?

We are getting to the point now where amateur womans football "stars" will get the same pay as football players in the leading teams. Purely because they have a cunt.

>>85211622
Sky News, majority stake owned by Murdoch, is a million times better than the beeb though

>>85211609
I just don't understand how Lacey Turner is on less than Danny Dyer.

Also, how the hell is Mel Giedroyc on £150k and Sue Perkins isn't even listed?

I swear Evans must have some major dirt on the higher ups to get paid that much when nobody likes him.

>>85211682
>Chris evans
>Attract an audience

Chris Evans must know who all the pigfuckers are and that's the only reason he's on so much.

>>85211682
>Are they supposed to pay women well above their earning potential because they have a vagina?
by their logic, yes. they claim "being a woman is more expensive! have you seen the costs of our clothing? have you seen the price of makeup? all these cosmetics are 100% necessary to our functioning in the world because without them nobody will like us!" they have a point about feminine hygiene products like tampons being expensive and necessary, and i think those should be subsidized by the gubment, but all the other shit is ridiculous. especially when they will still try and do things like make the guy pay for dinner.

>>85211682
Actually the BBC are thought to be using this to make the men take pay cuts.

>>85211023
An attractive white teenage girl, of course. How is this even a question???

>>85211716

Makes sense, Danny dyer was famous before EastEnders so his agent was probably able to get him more.

>>85211812
>and i think those should be subsidized by the gubment

No.

>>85211716
>Also, how the hell is Mel Giedroyc on £150k and Sue Perkins isn't even listed?

Things like Bake Off are independent productions which are then sold to the BBC

>>85212006
So Mel is a BBC employee but Sue is not?

>>85212063
I think Perkins does other BBC work like the occasional presenting but clearly doesn't get paid enough in those instances for her name to be published (under £150,000)

But no she's not an employee of the BBC for the purposes of her work on Bake Off, the BBC just purchase Bake Off from a production company which pays Perkins

This is also why Cumberbatch is absent from any list

>>85203075
>Letting them distract from the issue of paying a huge amount of taxpayer money on inflated wages

Y'all niggas getting played

>>85211854
That ginger guy got so much last year because he was on top gear as well as the radio show and various other things, he has since left.

Top gear is sold to other nations, it's one of their biggest earners.

It amazes me British cucks pay this, are you stupid? The only reason it's acceptable is because you have never known anything else.

The rest of the world laughs at you and gets all the shows you pay for free.

>>85212275
Most of europe has some form of state media except they just take it out of general taxation so you can't even opt-out like you can in the UK (even if it is difficult in the UK)

Even the US has PBS and NPR, the latter of which is cucked way, way more than the BBC although granted has far less influence

>>85203075
>implying Chris Evans isnt a cunt

suuuuure. ladies top that list bro.

File: 1497064727876.jpg (238KB, 1337x1289px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1337x1289px

>>85203075
Oh no she only got 1 billion dollars instead of 4 billion dollars I am so sorry for her we have to end this inequality.

>>85212337
PBS Space Time is awesome though

>>85203075
BBC management has to be retarded if they don't use this as an opportunity to reduce wage costs.

Simply cut male salaries, no matter how much more valuable they are than females, then say you had to do it for the sake of equality.

>>85204125
>population declines in the West, men are abandoning marriage as it has become complete bullshit, so they work half as hard as if they had their families, women ride the cock carousel well into their thirties then whine about where have all the good men gone and stay childless, all of this eventually leading us to economic collapse
sure, buddy

>>85204125
>women don't make babies, those are just bunches of cells
>babies come from the border
how enlightened

>>85204125
>two engineers is better than one engineer and one person who can produce 8 more engineers
Sure buddy

>>85204125
>we need to make the future better for children we won't have
lol

>>85203322
So women should be payed more for doing less work? I wish the world works like you think it does I could get payed the most by doing nothing at all.

>>85203500
They have to be paid a fair amount or once they had built up their reputation in the BBC they would get poached by another channel if they were offered a lot more. As it is most of the well known personalities are paid enough that the prestigious bbc job makes up for lower pay.

>>85213632
Yes because women are pathetic and inferior to men in every way. Also genders are equal. Pay!

>>85203945
No the problem is your jealous you will never get payed as much, grow up and get a job.

>>85212240
I wonder what Matt Le Blanc is on because I really doubt it's less than 1 million.

>>85211161
It's not lack of nuance, he is just trying to score points.

>>85211682
The BBC is a public broadcaster and should not be concerned with "pull". They are there to provide programming that is in the public interest that commercial stations do not, therefore they should not be competing for audience share.

>>85203075
These articles are retarded. Everyone knows who Chris Evans is. I had to google the bitch's name and I still have no idea who she is. So of course, the much more famous actor is going to get paid more.

>>85215246
actually it looks like you have no idea who Chris Evans is

>>85215154
>They are there to provide programming that is in the public interest that commercial stations do not, therefore they should not be competing for audience share.
>that commercial stations do not

I don't really think anybody sees it that way. They a public broadcaster yes, but not a state run one. They have it in their interest to provide quality content that the public does want to see, after all we pay for it and why should we fund something that nobody is interested in or cares about?

And the only gauge they have of that is audience share. If everything they made had a 2% audience share, what they are making is not in the interest of the public and needs to change. They should absolutely be concerned with pull at least to some extent.

>>85215246
> famous actor
>Chris Evans

shit like this is going to slide us into communismm.

>ah comrade. I see you are a TV actor. so you will get two turnips today. same as all other tv actors.

the mere idea that some men get paid more because they merit it, is not acceptable to the far left. they would see that the government enforce a strict pay scale/rank system on all wages.

>>85215246
>Chris Evans
>famous
>actor

kek

>>85212675
This. I wouldn't be surprised if they did this all intentionally just to cut wages. Don't forget it's the "stars" that demand higher wages. The company doesn't just go "Ok, here's 300k starting then we'll just give you 500k next year just because lol"

>>85215364
Surely the distinguishing feature of a public broadcaster is that it does not have to rely on ad revenue and therefore is free from having to produce content that is commercially successful?

>They have it in their interest to provide quality content that the public does want to see

I did not say anything to the contrary, although this depends to an extent on what you mean by what "the public does want to see"?

>after all we pay for it and why should we fund something that nobody is interested in or cares about?

No one said no one cares about it. You just seem to be suggesting that it needs to compete for ratings and hire big "stars" who draw an audience.

The commercial stations should chase ratings, the BBC should provide a place for quality programming that otherwise couldn't compete with that. Typically this means content with more cultural and educational value than things like Agents of SHIELD.

>>85213736
Oh no, imagine the fallout if the BBC lost legendary presenter Chris Evans. A dozen people would tune into a different network, the horror.

>>85217223
For some reason you sound like a woman. It looks like you're unable to grasp the base of the argument.