The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Dodgypirate
Stop being so obtuse.


The BBC female employees in question earn less than the men. So whoever runs the BBC is not engaging in the gender communism you are complaining about.

I'm not being obtuse. You are undermining your own argument. Your thread makes no sense. The BBC is taking flack for women earning less than men and you for some reason think this is evidence that the BBC is ran by liberal social justice warriors when, rather than it being ran in the way you think organisations should be ran, ie ignoring all this commie *******s. The BBC is doing what you want, women are not being made to earn the same as men.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Bow Tie
This does sound like a communist attitude.


No, it doesn't. A communist attitude would be "Abolish the wage system and a money economy completely", or in the more short term, "pay all employees the same per hour wage".

"Make it so the average salary of female employees and male employees are roughly the same" doesn't even come close. And of course, there's the point ChaoticButterfly has already made that this is precisely what the figures show the BBC is not doing.
Original post by Dodgypirate
Correction.

Women EARN less than men at the BBC.


This is a bit of a question-begging argument - taking the fact that they get more as proof that they deserve more.

For the record, I think they all - men and women - get far more than they deserve. And that's before we get into the question of whether some of the top earners like Evans and Lineker are wealthy enough to have reached the point at which in some sense what they do is more "hobby" than "work".
Lol a Sargon of Akkad video. It would surprise me if he ever came out with anything that wasn't utter tripe :laugh:

You right-wingers are too much; anything to the left of Ukip is "communism".
Original post by Eunomia
Lol a Sargon of Akkad video. It would surprise me if he ever came out with anything that wasn't utter tripe :laugh:

You right-wingers are too much; anything to the left of Ukip is "communism".


1) Sargon isn't right wing.
2) I'm not right wing.
3) It's "tripe" to your ears, and that's about it.
4) Are you denying that wanting to take money from men and handing it to women is n't somewhat Communist?
Is there a summary of what Sargon says? Can never watch a video by him for more than a minute or so, I hate his delivery.

With regards to the gap generally, the current state of affairs makes some form of sense as it is. Jezza vine and Chris Evans are on the radio every weekday, and Graham Norton's on every Saturday. Plus Evans is on top gear, Graham Norton commentates on Eurovision and Vine was on the election coverage with his big ol' CGI maps. By comparison Claudia Winkleman shows up for strictly once a year and that's...it?

Spoiler

If the women weren't being paid enough, they'd take a job at ITV. The women earn less because they aren't as experienced, not as popular, not as valuable or haven't cemented their position in the BBC yet
Ignoring the tedious title and replying anyway...

The problem isn't simply that people are paid by ratings, and male presenters are on shows with higher ratings. There is a pay disparity between co-hosts on the same show. That's just undeniably wrong. See here and here (just from a quick google for references). Even the ridiculous Piers Morgan agrees that it's bizzare (Warning: Daily Hate link. HuffPost version here)
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by anarchism101


"Make it so the average salary of female employees and male employees are roughly the same" doesn't even come close. And of course, there's the point ChaoticButterfly has already made that this is precisely what the figures show the BBC is not doing.


I think I may have broken his brain with my immense logical prowess.

I think this really does show that people can make anything fit with their view of reality. Even if it reality is showing the opposite. It even took me a few takes to spot it. We are all doomed.


Original post by anarchism101
No, it doesn't. A communist attitude would be "Abolish the wage system and a money economy completely", or in the more short term, "pay all employees the same per hour wage".



If I was trying hard you could very loosely say it was a communist attitude in the sense paying men and women the same, regardless of market mechanisms, fits with the principle of each according to his need and each according to his ability. Also big communists regimes like the Soviet Union never abolished the wage system or money, or even made all employees earn the same, as far as I am aware. In the same way you can distinguish between capitalism in theory and real existing capitalism, you can distinguish between communism in theory and practise. Since real existing communism was very dominant in the last century it is probably fair to do so. Paying women and men the same is something a real existing communist might do (although the communist regimes in the 20th century were not exactly beacons of feminism, again something the plonkers who make these threads ignore)
(edited 6 years ago)
I feel lie we're missing the biggest issue here... £2m a year for a ginger turd and paying a wage to Graham Norton is scandalous!
Original post by anarchism101
No, it doesn't. A communist attitude would be "Abolish the wage system and a money economy completely", or in the more short term, "pay all employees the same per hour wage".

"Make it so the average salary of female employees and male employees are roughly the same" doesn't even come close. And of course, there's the point ChaoticButterfly has already made that this is precisely what the figures show the BBC is not doing.


Making the average salary of female and male employees the same regardless of anything (i.e. talent for example is a strong variable I feel) but gender is a communist attitude.

The end-point is paying everyone the same regarding no variables. My example of talent is a difficult one to raise because I don't feel the men are any more talented than the women on the list but it's a frank possibility to consider (as talent is opinionated in the end and the most 'talented' person is just the orthodox opinion of 'talent').

Also, what I've bolded in your quote; in making average salaries of men and women the same (again, regardless of anything but their gender) you are "paying all employees the same per hour wage" - exactly what you stated is a communist attitude?

Edit: when it comes to male and female co-hosts being paid so differently, that I believe is a wholly different proverbial can of worms and wrong - they should pay those people the same wage as long as they've been on the air for equally as long and have an equal contribution to the programme.

I only believe it wrong the BBC pay every gender the same regardless of their role on their entertainment platform (i.e. 'a man presenting the morning show on radio 4' and 'a woman presenting art-attack' getting paid the same - this is an extreme example but just to illustrate a point).

Edit: also yes the BBC isn't run by communists haha. That much should be blindingly obvious but sometimes you gotta state this stuff so you don't get ludicrous replies...
(edited 6 years ago)
Its more or less riddled with Trotskyist Marxist Jews. People like John Sopel, Robert Peston, Louis Theroux, Dave Baddiel. Many of them attended places like Habersashers Askes/Oxbridge. Then you've got a lot of MI5 infiltration from people like Frank Gardner, Gordon Carrera and Daniel Sanford who all all daily lie through their teeth about ISIS when the truth media has known for years that Israel/Saudi/US control 'ISIS'. As an organisation they are responsible for imposing all the usual dreadful degenerate behaviours like homosexuality, transgenderism and black lives matter when they should be if not particularly neutral, then at least favour a bias towards white pagan christianity.
Original post by Bow Tie
Making the average salary of female and male employees the same regardless of anything (i.e. talent for example is a strong variable I feel) but gender is a communist attitude.


No, it's more of a feminist attitude. It could only really be "communist" if it were explicitly intended as a first step to paying everyone the same. I'm yet to hear anyone in media who's complained about the BBC pay grades say such a thing.

The end-point is paying everyone the same regarding no variables. My example of talent is a difficult one to raise because I don't feel the men are any more talented than the women on the list but it's a frank possibility to consider (as talent is opinionated in the end and the most 'talented' person is just the orthodox opinion of 'talent':wink:.


This is a bit of a complex one, since whether people in this kind of job are being paid for their work done, their skill/talent or their popularity are all argued at different times, despite not being exactly the same thing. Though as I've said, I think all of them, men and women, earn vastly more than their "talents" (while some do have substantial talents, I think some have very few) warrant, and that arguing over pay gaps at this level is just a display of how depressingly recuperated some strains of third-wave feminism have become.

Also, what I've bolded in your quote; in making average salaries of men and women the same (again, regardless of anything but their gender) you are "paying all employees the same per hour wage"


No, it isn't. You would still be paying some men more than others, and some women more than others.
Original post by anarchism101
No, it's more of a feminist attitude. It could only really be "communist" if it were explicitly intended as a first step to paying everyone the same. I'm yet to hear anyone in media who's complained about the BBC pay grades say such a thing.


But all people are one of the two genders... And you say it's more of a feminist attitude and I agree but it still whiffs a bit of communism.

Original post by anarchism101

This is a bit of a complex one, since whether people in this kind of job are being paid for their work done, their skill/talent or their popularity are all argued at different times, despite not being exactly the same thing. Though as I've said, I think all of them, men and women, earn vastly more than their "talents" (while some do have substantial talents, I think some have very few) warrant, and that arguing over pay gaps at this level is just a display of how depressingly recuperated some strains of third-wave feminism have become.


Well, unfortunately this is not for us to decide. If they are in demand as a celebrity, they can charge however much is competitive between entertainment stations (obviously the BBC is not the only entertainment platform). When there is less supply for the celebrities, there is more demand (i.e. money). This is a fact of life and one that is foolish to argue over.


Original post by anarchism101

No, it isn't. You would still be paying some men more than others, and some women more than others.


Ok (a bit pernickety) so I should've said "paying all employees the same average wage per hour" based only on gender and not ability. This again loops into the same initial point that yes this is mainly a feminist attitude and not entirely communist.

Edit: Also, like I've said, if there is a man and woman co-host, both contributing equally to a programme and have been there for the same length of time, then they should by all means be paid the same.

Such a difficult area to argue though because there are so many variables affecting wage in this industry such as competition for the jobs, competition for the unique celebrity, availability, etc. This isn't a discrete argument only around the gender affecting wage disparity which is how a lot of people are interpreting this debate.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly

If I was trying hard you could very loosely say it was a communist attitude in the sense paying men and women the same, regardless of market mechanisms, fits with the principle of each according to his need and each according to his ability. Also big communists regimes like the Soviet Union never abolished the wage system or money, or even made all employees earn the same, as far as I am aware. In the same way you can distinguish between capitalism in theory and real existing capitalism, you can distinguish between communism in theory and practise. Since real existing communism was very dominant in the last century it is probably fair to do so. Paying women and men the same is something a real existing communist might do (although the communist regimes in the 20th century were not exactly beacons of feminism, again something the plonkers who make these threads ignore)


True, but no-one arguing that the BBC needs to pay its female presenters more has related that to a demand for a Stalinist-style command economy, as far as I know.
Original post by Dodgypirate
Sargon of Akkad's video on the BBC "gender pay disparity": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e3pWnG5ay4A

I'm sick and tired of the BBC, other media outlets, and indeed everyone that pushes the "Gender Pay Gap" narrative.

It doesn't exist. The more accurate expression would be a Gender Earning Gap.

Chris Evans, who has been revealed to be paid the most, runs the BBC Radio 2 Breakfast Show, which had almost 10 million views a week back in 2015. Although I can't seem to find how many the show has now, one can assume it's more.

He also gets paid by companies independent from BBC.

There was an interview on the BBC, which is in the video I posted. The female hosts asks that we should take some of the male earnings and just hand it to women in the name of equal pay. This is completely illegal.

Imagine us license fee payers paying for this sort of ****...

This is a ridiculous thread. Not only would the BBC be just as capitalist as the insufferable Fox News for example. The idea of using communism as a way to attack is simply oblivious. The pay gap between the genders is inexcusable in today's world. They're right to push for action.
Reply 36
The BBC have certainly become far leftists, whether they are communist, anarchists or some form of socialists. One characteristic about the far left is that they are the biggest weasels in the world, they seek to advance their agenda in a very sly, disingenuous and conniving way.
Original post by Bow Tie

Well, unfortunately this is not for us to decide. If they are in demand as a celebrity, they can charge however much is competitive between entertainment stations (obviously the BBC is not the only entertainment platform). When there is less supply for the celebrities, there is more demand (i.e. money). This is a fact of life and one that is foolish to argue over.


Well, I certainly don't agree that capitalism or market economies are something which must be accepted, but even setting that to the side for a moment, we're talking about a "supply and demand" that in this industry is in not insignificant part determined and skewed by various intellectual property and licensing laws.
Original post by anarchism101
True, but no-one arguing that the BBC needs to pay its female presenters more has related that to a demand for a Stalinist-style command economy, as far as I know.


Communism is a Stalinist command economy to these people though. It is what they mean when they make these daft threads. There is some essence of coherency, as is usual when working out what people mean in politics, you just have to dig thorough load of ideological warping to get there.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Communism is a Stalinist command economy to these people though. It is what they mean when they make these daft threads.


Well it isn't to me, and it isn't to most people like me, either.

Let me ask you one thing, are you in favour of a meritocracy where people are paid based on their skill and what they work for?

Latest