I agree with your final point. I believe these are as relevant (in most cases) as gender. There are exceptions of course - certain professions (examples off the top my head - law, medicine, structural engineering) MAY see a benefit from higher qualifications.

<<Sorry but no. The qualifications mean that those people *should* be better at their job (especially if the qualification is achieved through practical rather than academic routes) but can’t in and of themselves mean that somebody *is* better at their job (and therefore worthy of greater pay).>>

The first example you quote is one company, and the example was quoted to see how easily the statistics can be skewed. In that particular company they also state another interesting statistic: "However, of Care’s highest paid quartile, 70% are female, suggesting that women are able to progress their careers to our most senior roles." So, most of the higher earners are women - does that hint at men having a lack of opportunities? No. It's purely the way the dice has rolled for that company.

<<In one company yes it is possible for stats to be skewed but the pay gap stats are aggregated and show an average. I’d believe that to be a more accurate picture. I have used the FTSE100 as an example but in reality it is too small a sample size. Last I heard however there were more people called Dave who were CEO of a FTSE business than there were women.>>

You mention that "there are still roles which are stereotypically biased towards certain demographics". I recommend you listen to Jordan Peterson's comments in relation to Sweden. It's said to be the world's most advanced country in terms of equality and they really push freedom of choice. The outcome is that women and men do opt towards what might be considered typical male and female careers. That's without peer pressure or any kind of social conditioning.

<<Sorry but there is no such thing as “no social conditioning”. Unless they are banning most Disney films from before Toy Story for starters.>>

But let's face it, as much as SJWs call for more female CEOs' you will never hear them calling for more female coal miners or sewage workers. It seems their version of "equality" is only for the nicer things.

<<Not at all. There is a push for women to be allowed on the front line - hardly a “nice” job.

On the subject of BAME players in rugby, why do you think there are hardly any players in the Premiership from Asian/Indian backgrounds? I grew up in an area of extremely high Asian population, and very few of my schoolfriends from that demographic wanted to play rugby. They absolutely (in the main) loved hockey and cricket, and were the mainstay of the school teams. When offered the chance, they simply didn't want to play rugby. Personally I never tried hockey and was useless at cricket, so I chose rugby. I could easily have said that it was harder for me to play cricket as it was primarily Asian boys playing it, but that wouldn't be true. It's all about choice.

<<Likewise I grew up in a very heavily S Asian area (as in all the council signage was in English, Urdu and Gujarati) and I agree I don’t think I’ve ever played with an S Asian teammate. There was also a large Jewish population at my school and I don’t remember those boys playing rugby either.

But that supports my point. With no role models to emulate, it was a bigger step to be the unusual member of that demographic who bucked the trend. Easier just to do what everybody else in your community does.

You call that choice. I say that choice is shaped by the world around you.


Which is why I never became the primo ballerino I was clearly born to be 🤣>>