The 'gender pay gap' is a myth

Jordan Peterson is a good public speaker, and that is why he can get away with talking such pseudo-intellectual rubbish that every other clinical and academic psychologist would curl their toes over.

Honey, putting some dishes into the dishwasher or vacuuming the carpet is patently not equivalent to slaving and competing at an actual job to bring food on the table and therefore cannot be classified as work. I don't particularly care if that so-called study makes this false equivalency.

Believe me, I'm an egalitarian, I take both sides.
But according to this article: https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/Viewing/employer-details?view=hourly-rate&id=cnJaFJc43bsWAEE_n9Pb-Q%21%21
Tesco Stores Ltd is one of many where women are paid less hour for hour.
If that isn't enough, take a look at Greggs: https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/Viewing/employer-details?view=hourly-rate&id=cnJaFJc43bsWAEE_n9Pb-Q%21%21
There is still problems with women getting paid less.

You are a guy who just claimed and asserted, without any evidence or facts presented, that the gender pay gap explanation given by those dealing in facts in this thread stems from the effect of gender stereotypes perpetuated in society that cause women to choose roles based on acting on those stereotypes, in other words. So it's still due to patriarchal oppression via the false stereotypes they push.

Could you provide one scientific study of that please. (Assertion by some far-left feminist Gender Studies professors doesn't count).


And also any examples of Jordan's toe-curling pseudo-intellectual rubbish that is complete debunked by the clinical and academic psychologist profession.

First and foremost I’m not a guy.

I can’t wait to provide you with academic evidence for this. It’s not as if there’s a research discipline which has hundreds of studies and articles published in peer reviewed journals for this is there? I’ll give you a clue, the very guy in question is *supposedly* well versed in it. Hold on tight.

FYI you did a pretty good job in summarising the effects of the social environment on human behaviour and outcomes, which is even more surprising that you don’t see any logic behind it.

Moved to society.

gee, thanks.

They don't get paid less, they worked out that people in the warehouse were paid more than those in the shop and more men would work in the warehouse whereas more women chose to work in the shop. Nothing to do with gender everything to do with choice

You're falling into the typical anti-feminist fallacy where you're arguing against a feminist argument (that women are getting paid less for working identical jobs) that doesn't actually exist. The Tesco's equal pay issue is about a job that's mostly done by women being paid less than a job that's mostly done by men, which the women believe is of equal value and requires and equal amount of skill. The Equal Pay Act is designed to deal with these situations, where an employee working a different job to a higher-paid employee can claim equal pay if they can prove that their job is 'of equal value' to the higher-paid employee's. I honestly don't know how to explain to anybody that people who work jobs of equal value for the same employer should get paid the same.
As for 'it's their choice!', many feminists have pointed out the fact that certain professions tend to be more poorly-paid in countries where they are female dominated than in countries where they are female-dominated (with Russian doctors being the commonly-cited example). There are many perfectly reasonable arguments one could make as to why this isn't because of sexism (it is possible that, in countries where men are expected to be the main breadwinners, they are just more reluctant to take poorly-paid jobs), but IF it is true, then it would mean that women, as a group, cannot 'choose' their way out of the gender pay gap as any profession that women try to enter en-masse will then become underpaid, and they will still earn less as a group than men as a group.

How is working on the shop floor and working in the distribution center the same job?

In the same way that social care worker and gardener was judged to be worth equal pay in the Birmingham Council case.

The jobs weren't 'judged' to be equivalent in the sense that the court ruled that they were.
It was the council who rated these jobs as equivalent in their 'blue book'.

Also, it wasn't an issue of base pay, it was about some workers not being paid bonuses.

By the way, there were a few men in that lawsuit as well.

How is working on the shop floor and working in the distribution center the same job?

So you do understand how

is a silly question to ask in regards to the supermarket cases and showing that you didn't actually read the post that you were quoting (which explained very clearly that the case isn't based on a claim that the two jobs are the same but that they're "of equal value and requires and equal amount of skill." )

I wasn't asking literally. I was lamenting the fact that 'equivalence' is even being considered.

I'd argue that they do not amount to an "equal amount of skill" and there are also greater saftey issues for the people in the back.
If the women on the shop floor want to be paid more then they should move to the distro centres.

One could attempt to use your [il]logic to argue that nurses and doctors should be paid the same.

it may be a myth in UK bur definitely not a myth in middle eastern countries

Yes, where are the feminists on that? Especially in Muslim countries where in Sharia Law in certain circumstances a womans testimony is worth half that of a mans.

Yes, where are the feminists on that? Especially in Muslim countries where in Sharia Law in certain circumstances a womans testimony is worth half that of a mans.

It's not my logic - it's the literal wording of the law
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/65

"by reference to factors such as effort, skill and decision-making." would rule out a case for arguing doctors and nurses should be paid the same.