Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - The Feminist Heist at the BBC

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 2, 2018 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

17:02

The Feminist Heist at the BBC

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The British Broadcasting Corporation has produced a vast number of articles promoting feminist talking points.
	Everyone needs to know about the awful barriers women face in the workplace, such as men asking, but what if you get pregnant?
	And how women face a glass ceiling because they get pregnant.
	Over the years, this morphed into the BBC's own feminist crusade that involved investigating the pay gap of public sector organisations, 17 to 23%, which just goes to show how the gender pay gap was alivened well in 2009.
	It turned out at the time that this was mostly the consequence of women taking time off to have children and then structuring their lives around their families.
	This is combined with an expectations gap on the part of men and women.
	Men expect more, women expect less, and so men demand more.
	Although the gender pay gap is actually a logical consequence of equal pay for equal work, it was not good enough for the BBC, who decided the fight should be equal pay for unequal work, instead of listening to the BBC's then home editor Mark Easton,
	who was forced to explain in pedantic detail twice how the feminist deputy leader of the Labour Party Harriet Harmon and her Equalities Office had misused statistics about the gender pay gap after being publicly rebuked by the head of the UK Statistics Authority for their misleading quantification of the gender pay gap.
	The problem of the gender pay gap at the BBC is one of mischaracterisation, such as describing the problem as nearly 40 years after the Equal Pay Act was meant to close the gender pay gap, the government is seeking to bring in a new law aimed at tackling inequality at the workplace.
	This is not correct.
	The Equal Pay Act was never designed to make men and women receive the same wages despite making different life choices.
	It was to prevent gender discrimination between men or women, as it says in the preface.
	It is not a guarantee of the same wages, it is a guarantee of the same opportunity to earn wages without being penalised because of gender.
	It does not say that women are entitled to work less and then still earn the same amount of money as men, because that would actually be gender discrimination against men, which is incidentally how things have ended up.
	Because of this persistent mischaracterisation, the BBC's reporting on the subject has been tinged with hysteria.
	The reduction in the pay gap is halted.
	The pay gap is at risk of worsening.
	The pay gap will take over a hundred years to close.
	Should the same pay simply be enforced by law, regardless of the work involved?
	By 2014, the pay gap was at record lows, but not because women had decided to change their lifestyles, but instead because men's wages were dropping faster in real terms than women's, and younger women were now out-earning younger men, probably due to them doing better in school and being 35% more likely to go to university, so that in 2017, there were 30,000 more women than men in higher education.
	That is, of course, before their careers begin to suffer as they decide in their 30s that they want families.
	This, of course, had absolutely no effect on feminist activists in the UK government, who flatly ignored this and demanded that evaluations of the gender pay gap included bonuses too.
	Since the year 2000, the BBC has been at odds with its own most radical elements over the feminist cause that is the gender wage gap.
	The more extreme activists within it have written endless articles about how women in the UK are suffering tremendously because of a gender pay gap that they themselves are responsible for creating, as repeatedly pointed out to them by the Office of National Statistics, the UK Statistics Authority, and some of their own more rational columnists.
	In December 2006, a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that female news correspondents at the BBC were earning £6,500 less on average than male correspondents.
	The BBC explained that, which naturally ignited the sexism row all over again because lo and behold,
	it turns out men were earning more than women.
	Across all levels, women are paid an average of £5,000 less than men, earning £37,000 a year compared to the man's £41,000.
	In July 2017, the issue of the BBC's gender pay gap once again exploded as it was revealed that the most successful entertainers at the BBC were mostly men and were being paid high salaries because of their success.
	The BBC was forced once again to demonstrate that the numbers do not tell the whole story and that there are distinctions in the averages that are not accounted for.
	Despite the facts, Tony Hall, the director general for the BBC, persistently undermined the truth of the matter by repeatedly stating, I have said that by 2020, we will have equality between men and women on air and we will have the pay gap sorted out.
	Hall had put the noose around his own neck by conceding the feminist premise that there was a problem in the first place, which there isn't, and that he can fix this problem, which he can't.
	It also encouraged 40 female BBC entertainers to unionize around their gender and sign an open letter to Hall to encourage him to tackle the gender pay gap urgently, despite admitting that they are very well compensated and fortunate.
	The women involved offered to meet with Hall so that future generations of women do not face this kind of discrimination, which one can only presume actually means discrimination on the basis of merit.
	The BBC commissioned an internal investigation by consultancy firm Price Warthouse Coopers and legal firm Eversheds that was published in October 2017, which found there was no evidence of any systemic gender discrimination in the way the BBC pays its staff.
	They said, In 91% of comparisons, there appears to be a non-gender reason for the pay differential.
	Whilst the quality of the evidence varies, in some cases being particularly strong and in others less so, it is sufficient for ES to draw the conclusion that it is unlikely that the difference in pay is by reason of gender.
	Tony Hall's spinelessness had landed him in an unwinnable position.
	The evidence demonstrated that there was no systemic gender discrimination at the BBC, but Hall had already accepted the feminist assertion that any difference in pay between men and women must be because of gender discrimination.
	Hall was stuck between accepting reality and accepting feminist dogma, and he chose dogma.
	On the 8th of January 2018, BBC's China editor Carrie Gracie resigned from her post, although remained employed by the BBC, over what she called a secretive and illegal pay culture, because she discovered that male foreign correspondents were being paid 50% more than her and another female foreign correspondent.
	In response to this, the BBC offered her a substantial pay rise, but Gracie refused, stating, I believe I am very well paid already, especially as someone working for a publicly funded organisation.
	I simply want the BBC to abide by the law and value men and women equally.
	Needless to say, this is not what the law prescribes.
	Gracie perceived this offer as an insult, and Tony Hall once more gave credence to the false assumption of Gracie's position by admitting that the BBC had got some things wrong and that he admired her courage.
	It's hard to say what he was admiring because once again, there is no problem to correct.
	As the BBC explains, when Gracie was appointed as China editor, her salary was actually higher than that of the Middle East and North American editors.
	At the time that we set Carrie's pay in that role, there was no issue around gender at all.
	However, after Gracie's appointment, John Sopol was hired to be the new North American editor.
	Sopol came with a different pay history.
	He had been a BBC One presenter, he had been a presenter on World News, he was a former political editor of the news channel.
	He was a former Paris correspondent.
	He had accumulated a much higher salary than Carrie was on at the time as the presenter of the news channel, and we did not cut his pay in asking him to go to North America.
	The North America editor was on air twice as much in peak time, and that is at a busy time in the China story.
	It's a different job, the China job.
	It's a more features-based agenda.
	It's not on the relentless treadmill that is something like the North American editor's job.
	Put simply, Gracie's job was part time, with a six-figure salary, and she is comparing it to the full-time position by a male correspondent, and claiming that because she is a woman and he is a man, this is an example of gender discrimination at work.
	Carrie Gracie worked a different job with less experience for half the time as the male correspondent to whom she is comparing herself, and she is surprised to find she earns half his salary.
	This is not an injustice.
	This is, in fact, justice.
	She should earn half his salary.
	And despite this, the BBC still offered her a huge pay increase, presumably out of fear of the massive public backlash that happened, and Gracie rejected it, and instead demanded that men and women be paid the same, regardless of the experience gained or work done.
	The only thing that this can mean is that Carrie Gracie wants the BBC to reduce the salaries of the male correspondents.
	Rejecting the undeserved increase to her own salary and still demanding that men and women at the BBC are paid the same means that Carrie Grace must want to reduce the salaries of the male correspondents because they are male, in spite of the fact that they work twice as much as her.
	This is a demand for unlawful gender discrimination by a feminist activist and not the other way around.
	But because of the nature of the feminist misrepresentation of events and statistics, they would have you believe that they are the victims of injustice, when in reality, they are the perpetrators.
	This is precisely what Gracie and her union of BBC women have said in explicit terms after rejecting the pay rise.
	I don't want more money.
	I wanted equality, and this was not equality.
	There was still a big gap between myself and my male peers.
	134 other female employees of the BBC wholeheartedly support Gracie's attempt to victimise her hard-working male colleagues.
	She accused the BBC of using divide and rule tactics to pick off individual women.
	Gracie said the gender gap could be closed by levelling down the remuneration of male colleagues as well as by improving women's pay.
	The BBC must admit the problem, apologise and set in place an equal, fair and transparent pay structure.
	Her stated goal is to reduce the rightfully earned pay of her male colleagues, which is what the BBC is now begging the top earning male presenters to do of their own volition because they cannot legally simply cut their salaries because they're men.
	John Humphreys is on his third pay cut despite doing nothing wrong, which is something which he has darkly joked about in a leaked recording in which he said, oh dear God, she's actually suggested you lose money.
	You know that, don't you?
	You've read the thing properly, haven't you?
	The left-wing press is portraying this as a principled stand and describing Gracie as a fearless leader when nothing could be further from the truth.
	Gracie is not being honest about the gender pay gap, her own wages or why her male counterparts should be discriminated against because of their gender.
	This is not a principled stand.
	This is a vindictive witch hunt.
	Despite this, Carrie Gracie proceeded to sit before the parliament and unironically pontificate about the truth in one of the most hideously Orwellian outcomes of modern feminism so far.
	You know, we're not in the business of producing toothpaste or tires at the BBC.
	Our business is truth.
	We're not prepared to look at ourselves honestly.
	How can we be trusted to look at anything else in our reporting honestly?
	The BBC once again decided that they would contract a third party to perform another pay audit and determine if there was any systemic gender bias at the BBC.
	But the BBC Women's Union preemptively dismissed it because they knew what the findings would be and that reality would run counter to their claims, saying that they had no choice but to repudiate its findings in advance of what the findings actually were.
	On the 30th of January 2018, the BBC published the results of the new audit.
	Once again, the external firms could find no evidence of gender bias regarding pay decisions at the BBC.
	Despite this, the BBC responded by declaring that there would be substantial pay cuts for some men because of unfairness in individuals' pay.
	Despite the fact the report that Tony Hall is citing demonstrates that there is no unfairness of pay, this means that the pay gap is just.
	There should be a pay gap, and that pay gap is not because of gender discrimination.
	It is, as economists have been explaining to feminists for the last 20 years, the product of women's own life choices.
	Women choose to earn less money than men.
	Why are you hitting yourself?
	Why are you hitting yourself?
	Well, are you still hitting yourself?
	Why?
	No one's holding your hand anymore yet.
	How often do you hold yourself back from success?
	How often do you hurt your own chances at happiness?
	It's sad, but it's true, but you may be the biggest bully you know.
	Regardless of the economic reality, the BBC Women Campaign Group have simply refused to accept these new and now repeatedly demonstrated findings and instead have decided to demand back pay, to which they are not entitled, and an apology from the BBC, even though the BBC has nothing to apologise for.
	If you heard someone saying that to someone you loved, what would you do?
	You'd march over there and tell them to shut the f*** up.
	If you were in Britain, you are probably a TV licence payer, and you might be wondering, what is this going to cost me?
	And the answer is tens of millions of pounds because a group of selfish Haridans who wish to tear down their harder working male colleagues for their own personal enrichment over the oft-repeated lie that they are being discriminated against, a claim that has been categorically disproven three times.
	No.
	I'm not saying that a positive attitude guarantees that you're going to win every battle that you're in.
	You're not.
	You could still lose.
	You might even die.
	Despite proving their case against the accusations, the publicly funded BBC is probably going to be sued for millions in license payer money.
	There is no evidence of gender pay discrimination at the BBC.
	The reasons that the male employees are, on average, being paid more than the female employees has been accounted for several times over.
	There has been no wrongdoing, no injustice, and there are no victims.
	The problem is not that there has been any gender discrimination at the BBC.
	Here's what you gotta do.
	I want you to make a promise to stop hitting yourself.
	The problem is that the feminist activists pushing the issue are unable to properly formulate the question and are therefore unable to correctly interpret the answers they receive.
	The gender wage gap is a feminist lie and it is being used by these women to pursue their own selfish interests at the expense of their colleagues who have done nothing wrong.

▲