[Jamie89]

Carrie Gracie has said she resigned as the BBC's China editor because she could not "collude" in a policy of "unlawful pay discrimination".

In an open letter issued on Sunday, Ms Gracie - who has been at the BBC for more than 30 years - accused the corporation of having a "secretive and illegal pay culture".

In the letter, posted on her blog, Ms Gracie - a China specialist who is fluent in Mandarin - said licence fee payers had "a right to know" the organisation was "breaking equality law and resisting pressure for a fair and transparent pay structure".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42598775

Quite a brave thing to do imo considering the effect it could have on her career, she's getting a LOT of support though from prominent women in the industry and politicians

[LeatherTrumpet]

still 30 years at the BBC and a nice little pension

im sure she wont starve

[arista]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

still 30 years at the BBC and a nice little pension

im sure she wont starve

She is Still working for them


Gracie - who revealed live on air in 2009 that she was paid Ł92,000 - says she intends to return
to her former job in the BBC's TV newsroom "where I expect to be paid equally".


https://news.sky.com/story/bbc-china...money-11200154

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42598775

Quite a brave thing to do imo considering the effect it could have on her career, she's getting a LOT of support though from prominent women in the industry and politicians

Well done her. This needs looking into once and for all and, if proven, the BBC should be in serious trouble. It is not acceptable.

[Oliver_W]

I'd be interested to see the difference in experience, hours worked/content created, and traffic/views given to the content between those being paid differently.

That said, Carrie is probably too clever to fall for the "all women are paid less for equal work" thing thrown around, and the media is probably one of the few places it actually happens.

But you just know that some will be like "SEE! The pay gap is real!!111"

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I'd be interested to see the difference in experience, hours worked/content created, and traffic/views given to the content between those being paid differently.

That said, Carrie is probably too clever to fall for the "all women are paid less for equal work" thing thrown around, and the media is probably one of the few places it actually happens.

But you just know that some will be like "SEE! The pay gap is real!!111"

In terms of hours worked, there's this from the article...

"Last year, a report published by the BBC found there was a 10.7% gender pay gap in favour of men when the mean average hourly pay rates were compared."

There could be a lot of factors though tbf and I haven't read that actual report. But this does sort of suggest the BBC acknowledges a pay gap?...

Director general Lord Hall pledged to close the gap by 2020, saying the corporation should be "an exemplar of what can be achieved when it comes to pay, fairness, gender and representation".


I don't think she's suggesting that all women are paid less than men for the same work or taking it to the extreme, but from her letter she does seem to think a pay gap exists.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

There could be a lot of factors though tbf and I haven't read that actual report. But this does sort of suggest the BBC acknowledges a pay gap?...

When it comes to news media, the biggest decider for pay (not counting big name writers) is views or clicks. I can't see BBC China being as well-viewed as BBC USA, for example.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

When it comes to news media, the biggest decider for pay is views or clicks. I can't see BBC China being as well-viewed as BBC USA, for example.

Would the BBC make a lot (or any) money from those sorts of things though? Might be a stupid question lol, but they don't make money from advertising right? They're public funded

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Would the BBC make a lot (or any) money from those sorts of things though? Might be a stupid question lol, but they don't make money from advertising right? They're public funded

As it wouldn't be a source of income, the way it'd work would be "this part of the website isn't getting as many clicks as that part of the website, so we're going to dedicate fewer resources to this." Public money is being spent, so the money is spent on what the public uses more often.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Would the BBC make a lot (or any) money from those sorts of things though? Might be a stupid question lol, but they don't make money from advertising right? They're public funded

BBC world service is monetised for sure. Its only the UK bit that's funded by the UK public

[bitontheslide]

quite a few firms have started to publish data, but what i am seeing are headlines that are quite misleading. There may be an overall pay gap, but as far as I can see women are rewarded the same as men when they are doing the same job. If there are more male board members than women for example, that will skew results, but its a different type of gap than headlines are implying.

[smudgie]

Weirdly, I have only noticed her of late.
Perhaps she has been in the background for years.
It would be interesting to see exactly who she compares her wage to.

[Northern Monkey]

The only way to prove anything is if a man has had the same role and been paid more.Otherwise I don’t think she’ll stand a chance against a high paid BBC lawyer

[arista]

Carrie Gracie
is still working for the BBC
she was working this morning on Radio 4.

Its a BBC Publicity stunt.


If the men are earning more
its Illegal under current laws
why did she not take it to court?


BBC breakfast
made sure everyone viewed her WORKING
Live on radio 4.

If you work in China after so many years
you have to leave.

[smudgie]

She reports from China.
One of the two men work at the same job in the Middle East, I know who should earn more.
The other one is John Sopell who is the American correspondent, again, he has worked his way up and gone through much more than report from China.
I think her present wage plus a Ł45K rise makes her far too overpaid as it is.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by smudgie

She reports from China.
One of the two men work at the same job in the Middle East, I know who should earn more.
The other one is John Sopell who is the American correspondent, again, he has worked his way up and gone through much more than report from China.
I think her present wage plus a Ł45K rise makes her far too overpaid as it is.

Who'd have thought it was that simple.

[Oliver_W]

Most of the big blockbusters are in the mold of scifi/action/superhero, and until recently most of the leading roles in this type of film were men. But maybe the Reys and Mystiques and Katnisses (Katni?) will help tip that a little!

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Most of the big blockbusters are in the mold of scifi/action/superhero, and until recently most of the leading roles in this type of film were men. But maybe the Reys and Mystiques and Katnisses (Katni?) will help tip that a little!

Ellen Ripley. That's all I've got to say to you, Oliver!

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Livia

Ellen Ripley. That's all I've got to say to you, Oliver!

That standout example from a few decades ago didn't change as much as current protagonists are!

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

Ellen Ripley. That's all I've got to say to you, Oliver!

Ripley also makes a good example because the original script was written with Ripley as a man... Which IMO would have made Alien a fairly big standard 80's action film. They changed it specifically to make things more interesting but it WAS considered "risky", which is the same as now... It's not that female lead films never work or that people don't want to make them, but the big studios with their hands on the purse strings consider them to be more of a "gamble" than casting a "currently popular" male star.

That's changing in general these days though, I don't think "star power" sells films as well as it used to. People like a "breakout performance" from an unknown.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Most of the big blockbusters are in the mold of scifi/action/superhero, and until recently most of the leading roles in this type of film were men. But maybe the Reys and Mystiques and Katnisses (Katni?) will help tip that a little!

The Black Widow movie has been on the shelf for about a decade or more because she's a woman.

[Vicky.]

but to try to pretend that it's a new thing and one that mainly affects the discussions of women's issues is simply false and deeply ironic.

Her idea that this is a new thing that men have come up with to shoot down women's issues and her "clever" buzzwording is utterly useless, meaningless and misguided.

Its not really an idea men have to shoot down womens issues I don't think. Like, its not something thats done intentionally. But it IS true (from my experience and probably a lot of other peoples too) that discussing anything to do with women brings out a lot of 'what about men' where (again in my experience, not suggesting it does not ever happen) talking about something to support men does not bring out a bunch of 'what about women'. Also (yet again from experience) it doesn't tend to be men saying 'what about the men' it seems to be women much more often!

if we have to use the term, plagues the discussion of men's mental health, rights and other issues FAR more than the other way around

Completely disagree there.

Edit. Look at one of the replies to her ffs, and the following thread https://twitter.com/jamesmglen76/sta...75181322854400

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Its not really an idea men have to shoot down womens issues I don't think. Like, its not something thats done intentionally. But it IS true (from my experience and probably a lot of other peoples too) that discussing anything to do with women brings out a lot of 'what about men' where (again in my experience, not suggesting it does not ever happen) talking about something to support men does not bring out a bunch of 'what about women'. Also (yet again from experience) it doesn't tend to be men saying 'what about the men' it seems to be women much more often!

The reason it brings out a lot of "what about men" is a backlash against the fact that it is very difficult to discuss men's mental health or the fact that there are many men who feel powerless or oppressed without it being shot down as some sort of massive joke. Have you genuinely not heard the term "male tears"? Or seen people keen to ignore any and all current issues facing men because men "had it better" for a long time?

What about the term "toxic masculinity" and the gender-biased blame game? That is to say, that women's issues are blamed on misandry and patriarchy, while men's issues are blamed on toxic masculinity, or in other words, the cause of women's problems is men and the cause of men's problems is... also men. It's bull****.

But this is entirely my point; ALL of these phrases and all of this rhetoric is designed to promote division and tribalism and to compartmentalise issues that can only be addressed in tandem, because otherwise, it's just endless backlash back and forth and "hilarious" battleground comment threads that do nothing for anyone other than erode compassion and generate yet more backlash.

Which is why - as I say every time these things come up - modern feminism needs to dissolve and give way to a full, proper, genuine campaign for equality based on inclusion.

Currently, it might be good for a rant and a but of brief false empowerment, but in the long run it is going to be nothing but harmful for actual equality, and anyone who actually seeks equality.

[Vicky.]

Yes I have heard male tears and phrases like that are entirely unhelpful to anything. About toxic masculinity though...I do agree that toxic masculinity hurts men in a huge way. There is the expectation that men will be 'manly' and not cry, not be sensitive and so on. I think this in turn does lead a lot of men to not seek help when they do need it.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yes I have heard male tears and phrases like that are entirely unhelpful to anything. About toxic masculinity though...I do agree that toxic masculinity hurts men in a huge way. There is the expectation that men will be 'manly' and not cry, not be sensitive and so on. I think this in turn does lead a lot of men to not seek help when they do need it.

The toxic expectation of masculinity does exist but it's a society-wide expectation... with (in my experience) women being as likely to "expect men to be manly" or - at the very least - express an increased level of appreciation for "manly men" to the extent that being "unmanly" becomes undesirable. Men also do it to each other, obviously, but if you think about it, the only reason a man would be saying those things to another man is if they felt that expectation on themselves, too. I'm not "blaming women" for it or anything like that... I'm just saying that it's an attitude that seems to apply across the board. MOST of the problematic issues do, and that's another thing that has to be recognised before any real progress can be made. Another example on the flipside would be "slut shaming"... with women being just as likely to do it to other women as men are and, similarly to the "man up" stuff, I'd say in general women are MORE harsh on other women than men are BUT as with the above - you have to ask why that would be.

But really though all I ever come back to in thinking about it is that everyone needs to stop assigning blame and tackle the whole issue as one; with a view to establishing REAL, not forced, respect and equality between men and women. I do take issue with the bulk of feminism, and that's because I get the strong impression that the movement is more about retribution than it is establishing true equality, and any quest for retribution is going to include an element of vindictiveness that in turn is only EVER going to develop into further resentment, division, and inequality.