The Google saga was interesting because plenty of semi-educated (I count myself as barely educated by the way) pundits seized on James Damore's defenestration to argue that he was either dead right or absolutely wrong to posit that men and women have some fundamental differences which reveal themselves at the extremes of the distributions. In Damore's case he argued that there were more male software engineers because, basically, men are geekier, there are more of them at the bright end of the autism spectrum and these folk prefer working solo with machines rather than with other people. He thought it unfair that Google is trying to redress the gender imbalance by selectively recruiting more women into those roles, a cross that men competing for a job have to bear these days in many occupations. Dominic Lawson* noted that the journal Stanford Medicine reported on an experiment with babies which showed that "males strongly preferred toys with wheels over plush toys, whereas females found plush toys likeable". Now some well reported tests on human babies showing preferences for machinery or people have been shown to be flawed, for loads of reasons. Even babies can pick up things in their environment, especially when the tests weren't properly "blind" because the researcher knew the sex of some of the babies. Except that the Stanford Journal was reporting on experiments on rhesus monkey babies and it seems doubtful that their parents conditioned them to human male-female conventions. There is a fundamental argument that testosterone conditions males and females differently, on an overlapping spectrum. But there are also strong arguments that we must do more to ensure both sexes have a fair crack at whatever whip they fancy. I bend to no one in my view that most women can do anything that most men can and a lot more things besides, though, paraphrasing my hero Roy Harper, I'm all for equality but when it comes to breast feeding I'm afraid I just can't cut it. (A 1970s quote it must be said).
So Damore had to go, probably because Google is sensitive about the well established presence of sexism in Silicon Valley and had to be seen to act. Meanwhile the BBC sexism row was over that most fundamental grievance, different pay for the same work. But is it the same work?
The row has died down now, though it did throw up some uncomfortable comparisons. The top seven earners were all men (Evans, Lineker, Norton, Vine, Humphreys, Edwards and Wright). Some reporters got their knickers in a twist that the top man (Chris Evans) earned about 5 times more than the top woman (Claudia Winkleman). They both do multiple jobs but, without an analysis of broadcast hours and "job weight" (e.g. prime time proportion), that comparison strikes me as meaningless. Evans is also more established. Vanessa Felz, saying that she wouldn't have signed the letter of protest signed by many female BBC staffers, made some very similar points, arguing that hardly any of these folk do exactly the same job. As for John Humphreys being near the top of the list, he is one of the "names" who people specifically watch or listen for. There are other presenter-interviewers on Radio 4 Today's programme, but Humphreys is one of the BBC's stars, people turn on just to listen to him. It's not a surprise in any field of activity if such people get paid more than their peers, whatever their gender.
There were oddities within the male pay list - why is Steve Wright (£500k+) paid twice as much as Ken Bruce (£250k+)? I guess he does a few more hours each week and Wright is credited with pioneering the "zoo format" on radio (well he is on Wikipedia anyway though I'm a bit surprised if no-one had done it previously anywhere else in the world). But over two grand for each of his Radio 2 shows? Kerching!
Part of the pay gap is experience and audience familiarity. Emma Barnett may well get there (though I couldn't see her on the current pay list) and she is, deservedly, getting the big gigs, like the Theresa May one year in office interview, which will make her name, in time. Mind she'll have to train on a bit: I heard her interviewing Alan Sugar recently and it was good stuff until Sugar had a pop at politicians who tell lies. He instanced Nick Clegg and then Jeremy Corbyn. Barnett flew all too readily to Corbyn's defence, making a political point, that Labour's manifesto had been fully costed, unlike the Tories' (she said). The only problems with this are that Labour's promises clearly weren't fully costed as Corbyn and others have admitted since that they didn't know how much writing off student debt would cost. And, even if fully costed, the promises weren't deliverable. This was actually Sugar's point - that when Nick Clegg made his promise about tuition fees, he didn't expect to be in a position to have to deliver on it. Like Corbyn he was writing cheques he thought would never get cashed. The reason I mention all this is that I felt it was a serious flaw in an otherwise entertaining interview. Must do better Emma, if you want to be the John Humphreys of the next decade, or the one after that. After all, I don't think you are pro-Corbyn, not given the way you kebabbed him on air for playing for time while trying to look up the cost of Labour's childcare proposals on his iPad during the General Election campaign. And Barnett is multi-talented, being a proper journalist: digital media and then Women's editor for the Daily Telegraph and now occasional columns for the Sunday Times. And, more prosaically, she is that paper's agony aunt. Seriously!
Anyway, I can reconcile the pay of Humphreys against Barnett, or Mishal Hussein for example. But maybe I'm just sexist and won't admit it. But as Barnett says she doesn't remember ever not being a feminist and is a member of the Women's Equality Party, I'm not sure she would agree. So will she stay with the sexist BBC? Though there were some comparisons which looked right from a gender point of view - politics correspondents Andrew Neil and Laura Kuenssberg being in the same pay band, for example.
But there were more uncomfortable comparisons, such as BBC2 Newsnight's Evan Davies (£250k+) and Emily Maitlis (not on the list so less than £150k). Davies might get more hours as front man, though whether he should I would suggest is debatable. And then there's Huw Edwards (£550k+) and Sophie Raworth (£150k+). Again Edwards probably fronts the main BBC1 evening news more often than Raworth. They both do some other programmes. Personally I think Sophie Raworth is a far better newsreader than Huw Edwards and I would put her on more often and pay her more. Mind, this may also be sexism on my part, as Raworth is not unattractive. But I think it's more because I find Edwards supercilious, with a notable inability to avoid the raised eyebrow and other facial twitches that go with the sneering tone he adopts when he clearly disapproves of something that has been put in front of him to read.
And we don't know some pay levels as many presenter/celebrities were employed by intermediate companies. So we don't know if Mary Berry earned more, less or the same as Paul Hollywood for Bake Off, for example.
The shame of this media frenzy was that the point about equal pay for equal jobs actually got rather lost in the outrage over the amount of pay some of them get. For what it's worth, I'd bet a few bob that disparities in pay are greater in the public sector than private. Yes there are stories about how sexist it can be in jobs like City traders. And yes the men ask more readily for more pay: nothing new in that but good managements have made sure that this behaviour doesn't disadvantage women for a long time now. I don't personally get too het up about the overall average stats as we all know, even if some won't accept, that more women work part-time and take career breaks. Not that they should be disadvantaged for this, but of course as a result they will have less experience than people of either gender who haven't done so. So I think the overall averages, which naturally still show a discrepancy between average pay for men and women, are a bit misleading. Women have been making better progress to the top jobs for a long time now but proper statistical analysis would allow for the fact that they aren't there yet. Making sure they get the chance to do so should bring the numbers into line over time. Forcing them into line when women aren't yet doing those jobs in equal numbers would be contrary. And actually illegal I would argue. Nevertheless, I have seen statistics showing that there are serious gender differences in many public sector roles, which seems not only entirely wrong but remarkable until you remember how inefficient the public sector can be at doing anything, including getting its own house in order. Oh, there is at least one category of private sector organisation which has shown to be as bad: the trade unions. D'Oh!
Meanwhile inequality in general in the UK is at its lowest level since the 1980s says the Institute of Fiscal Studies**. Income at the 10th percentile (i.e. those at the top of the poorest 10% of the population) are up 7.7% since 2007-8, while the 50th percentile is up 3.7% and the 90th percentile (i.e. people better off than 90% of the population) has fallen 0.6%. So inequality between the top 10% and the bottom 10% has fallen significantly due, I would guess, to benefits for the least well off being protected by George Osborne (I know this isn't the script people think they've read) and increases in the minimum wage. You definitely wouldn't think it on planet Corbyn-McDonnell, but David Smith tells us why it doesn't feel that way. Firstly, reports from the likes of the IFS don't convince many about things like inequality "to the extent that they think about or understand these things at all". (Smith's condescending, but probably accurate words, not mine). Also the preposterously rich, the top 1% or so, frame the debate by their spending behaviour covered by the media, even though this has little relevance to most of us, provided they pay their taxes. Which they do on spending and the likes of Premiership footballers also do on their income, unlike the BBC presenters discussed above, many of whom get paid through service companies to pay tax at the corporation tax rate rather than income tax rates. However unpalatable their salaries, remember that a player on £200k a week will pay around half that in income taxes alone, paying for the wages of something like 200 nurses. In normal times, when the rising tide floats all boats as they say, everyone feels better off and most folk, like Peter Mandelson back in the day, are intensely relaxed about the people getting filthy rich, as long as they pay their taxes. But when real incomes are falling, which they have for the majority (even if not, as we've seen, for the people at the bottom) then falling inequality doesn't interest people. They feel worse off because they are and so they resent people who are much better off than themselves, even if those people are also worse off than they were.
Which brings me to some other human rights and gender equality issues. I remember saying, after the end of apartheid and the fall of communism, that the biggest human rights issue remaining in the world was the treatment of women in Arabic and Muslim countries. OK, I overlooked China which has a lot of people and isn't great on human rights, though I would argue is not as systematically sexist or racist as the places I have problems with. As Roy Harper sang, And women in veils walking paces behind/Doesn't sit easy in my kind of mind.
All of this was brought to mind when eating in a local Indian restaurant recently. It suddenly struck me that many Indian restaurants, including our favourite near our last house, have exclusively male waiting staff. On the rare occasions when there have been female waiters they have always been white. In the many Asian themed restaurants I have eaten in I cannot ever remember being served by a female waiter of Asian appearance. To be fair, another local Asian restaurant has a female maitre, who I think is the owner. But that is the only Asian female I can recall. And she wasn't serving. Maybe readers have seen what I haven't and can correct me, but I suspect this illustrates an underlying cultural point - that there are still big cultural differences that affect gender equality even in our own country.
It may seem strange for me to labour this point when there are much more serious issues such as the grooming of young white women by predominantly Asian men in so many places in our country over so many years. I know this is a touchy subject - and risibly it got a Labour spokesperson sacked, revealing just how out of touch they are from everyday people who seem to care more for the wellbeing of young females than they do - but this has become a touch point for me which will show whether attitudes to women are changing in our Asian communities. I can't really monitor the bigger issues for myself but I'll keep watching for that Asian waitress, though I'm not holding my breath.
Oh I'm sure many of you don't need telling, but The Power of Equality is on the Red Hot Chili Peppers seminal album Blood Sugar Sex Magik, which broke them into the big time. Not the album of theirs I have listened to the most over the years (that would be By The Way or Stadium Arcadium) despite it being their most critically acclaimed effort. But I was listening to it the other day and it's belatedly become my favourite. Some of their very best tracks are on it (Under The Bridge, Breaking The Girl and I Could Have Lied in particular), all masterclasses by guitarist John Frusciante. Thanks to Mike for introducing an old dude to them a long time ago - a bit late to the party but fortunately not too late for me to catch Frusciante playing with them live a couple of times. The post title is part of the chorus of the song which, topically, is a polemic against the extreme right and Ku Klux Klan. "People in pain, I do not dig it, change of brain for Mr Bigot" could have been written with Trump in mind, except the song was released in 1991.
*Dominic Lawson's column Let's man up: males make likelier geeks was in the Sunday Times on 13 August.
** The IFS report is called Living Standards, Poverty and Inequality in the UK: 2017
***David Smith's column Inequality is down - but people don't notice when wages are falling was in the Sunday Times on 23 July 2017
'Humphreys is one of the BBC's stars, people turn on just to listen to him'. Do they? I turn off when he starts one of his so called interviews when he will not let whomever he is interviewing get a word in edgeways. To me his interviews are all about him showing off.
ReplyDeleteI'd argue that Sarah Champion could've picked a better way of making the point - surely that's the kind of article you send out to a small group of peers for review first? Picking on a group from one specific country was unwise - at least back up with some stats as recent convictions have involved people from various backgrounds. There is an interesting wider point around how we engage with things that contain potentially offensive and divisive content - Damore made some valid points (among mostly idiotic ones) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't engage with the issues raised. There's echoes of the no-platforming of various speakers at universities - the best way to challenge things is to debate not censor.
ReplyDeleteI think BSSM is the strongest RHCP album. Californication was my fave as it was the first I got but over the years BSSM has grown and grown on me and still sounds great.