Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10906235)

Evidence from nations that offer it suggest that it does help, somewhat, but not entirely. Women are still more likely to go part time (or stop work entirely) than men, outwith official parental leave. It's still seen as "higher risk" because they might decide not to come back at all or take a career break of several years.

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 10906257)

Because they're getting paid more, basically.

If you think a woman presenter isn't being paid enough, see if her average figures and airtime matches with a male counterpart who gets paid more.

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 10906264)

How do you know this is happening, you appear to be stating a fact where is the evidence?

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10906231)

Only in instances where it isn't actually the "same" job, these are unique positions with negotiated contracts, not salaried positions. If you're talking about a salaried position where there is more than one person in the same position, the salary will be exactly the same. That's where it becomes a matter of social inequality rather than legal... because...



...this is correct, but the answer isn't just "so that's just how it be" - you have to at some point start asking the question... WHY are male anchors a bigger draw, WHY do they command larger salaries, WHY do they draw more viewers. The wider questions that have less to do with the people doing the hiring, and more to do with the mindset of the viewing public. Same as in a sales role. The male salesperson often performs better on paper and gets the promotion - but why? It's usually not down to ability or how much work they're putting in, but simply down to the fact that people in general (both male and female) find males more authorotative and take them more seriously in their sales pitch. But again the question is why, and how do we start to address that going forward, because in the interests of fairness we DO need to. And that's where it IS about the past, and why the past has to be acknowledged as still affecting the present. Western capitalism is partiarchal at its core... putting legal equality in place and saying "so now it's an even playing field :) " really misses the mark by a mile. It's an even playing field in terms of legal rights, but the whole stadium was built by men and plays to what are classically male strengths.

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 10906267)

The proof is in the pudding - they're getting paid more, which means they must be "performing" better.

Something which would need evidence is the contrary view - why do you think women aren't being paid as much if they're "performing" as well or better?

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 10906270)

Not necessarily. ..the evidence is in the challenge from the female presenters...as I said proportionally to figures and popularity the salaries are miles apart.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 10906274)

there wont be proper equality until people think of others as being equal and that's just not fundamental to human nature, we all have our basic preferences, whatever they may be, we will always prefer one person over another and it will never change. You can put legal safeguards in place, but that basic premise will never change

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 10906282)

So you don't think there is any rhyme or reason for positions of seniority going to males other than someone liked them more?

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 10906292)

i think there will perhaps always be that element. I think back to the time of Angela Rippon and Anna Ford where they took newsreading by storm and were enormously successful, and I'm sure their salaries matched their status as they were wildly popular with the public

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 10906297)

Their salaries don't match their male counterparts.. That's my point.
Look at similar presenters, Gary Lineker and Gabby Logan or Jeremy Vine and Jo Whiley they are miles apart.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc...-arts-48839428

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 10906267)

The proof is in the pudding - they're getting paid more, which means they must be "performing" better.

Something which would need evidence is the contrary view - why do you think women aren't being paid as much if they're "performing" as well or better?

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10906634)

You must be naive to assume that just because 'a' is happening that it is because it's all fair and 'b' is happening.

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 10906636)

Then there must be something to show I'm wrong, there must be some women being paid less than men despite having the same amount of experience, screen or radio time, "fame level", and viewing/listening figures?

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10906661)

No dear. You made the statement, the onus is on you to back it up, not on me to prove you wrong.

The fact you think it a mere coincidence that women earn less and must therefore be "less experienced or qualified" is naive in the extreme.

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 10906677)

I need to back up the idea that a media figure's pay is based on their fame, viewers, and airtime?

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10906679)

The claim that this is a criteria applied equally to all is something requiring evidence, yes.

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 10906681)

There's no evidence to assume discrimination is happening

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10906682)

The pay disparity itself is proof.

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 10906683)

Where is the disparity among males and females with equal air time, viewers or listeners, and profile?

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10906682)

"The men have earned their worth, the women need to work harder" is not... not anything really.

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 10906685)

I'm not saying that, I'm saying there's no evidence that women are being paid less for the same work, basically.

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10906684)

So... you're saying the men have earned their worth and the women haven't?