No.

Only a tiny, tiny percentage of people are FTSE CEOs. Gender doesn't qualify anyone for the job. I don't have statistics, but I believe that more men than women have long, uninterrupted careers, which is certainly helpful when climbing the corporate ladder. Perhaps less women than men actually want the top jobs, who knows? It really isn't everyone's dream.

You're doing an interesting job of adding snippets and filling in gaps to try and summarise a position... and getting it wrong.

Let's make this easier - what is it that you think you want me to say? Then you can attack that position and feel like you've won a victory. I'll then see what point you're trying to make and see if I can agree with it, in whole or in part, or totally debunk it.

My view is that the data used to substantiate a gender pay gap is overly simplified. In essence, gender and pay. It fails to factor in such variables as age, experience, qualification, track record, aptitude etc. In some cases cited elsewhere on this board, there is also mention of marketability (celebrities, sports stars, media personalities). In essence, it's very difficult to find two people who match exactly but have different genders.

It's easy to say that a woman doing X job earns less than a man doing X job. That fails to take into account any of the variables above. It also fails to take into account that - perish the thought - one person might be better than the other, regardless of gender. What happens if two women do the same job and are paid differently? Would a man be able to demand the same pay as a woman if he really wasn't very good at a job, and the woman was excellent?

And here's another element to look at: people rush to highlight cases where men are believed to be earning more than women, but the silence when you see the reverse is astonishing. Surveys show that there are companies where statistics show men being paid less than women, but there is no criticism levelled there.

In fact, quick Google search shows just how misrepresentative some data is: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/04/gender-pay-gap-figures-show-eight-in-10-uk-firms-pay-men-more-than-women

This doesn't even take into account the jobs that people are doing, just the gender and the hourly rate of pay! As one company states, "81% of male employees were directors, doctors or in IT, most of whom fell into the upper salary quartile".

To summarise, I agree that there is a pay gap between different people, and I believe there should be. I don't believe gender is a factor in this.

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 🤣>>

Some interesting points, not least that you "could" have been the next Billy Elliott!

Iwon't go into the whole qualifications issue - that's another topic that can go on!

I think it's over-analysed whether women are CEOs of FTSE100 companies. There may well be a whole load of women who are capable but don't get the top jobs; there are also men who are capable that also don't get the top jobs.

<<I guess using the CEOs of FTSE companies is an easy shorthand for the wider picture; not least as the fact there are 100 makes calculating percentages very easy!

As things stand however, there are more Daves who are CEOs of FTSE100 companies than there are women. What is about the name Dave that makes you a better CEO than c.50% of the population?!?>>

At present there are more men than women, but the landscape changes and evolves - the likelihood is that most CEOs will have worked their way to the top (as they should) and women now have the same opportunities as men to do so - that's enshrined in law.

<<By and large, people have a tendency to hire (and promote) clones of themselves so a vicious circle is created where the same types of people consistently make it to the top. Hence the rise of blind profiling for job applicants and training in unconscious bias.>>

What should be noted is that simply being a woman doesn't make a person more or less capable of being a CEO, so the gender factor is irrelevant.

Unless there is proof that a woman has been turned down for a CEO position BECAUSE she's a woman, it's just supposition and conspiracy theory at best, and a weak excuse at worst. It smacks of an Ali G type approach. Or worse, and Ali Desai approach (worth Googling).

<<Freakonomics ran a series of podcasts last year about CEOs and one episode looked at the lack of females in the role. What I took from that was that women are more likely to be offered a CEO role when a company is in trouble – basically a last roll of the dice when all other options fail.>>

Being on the front line clearly does appeal to some people.But again, I'm yet to see or hear of a feminist pushing for more females in coal mines, or cleaning sewers. Or scaffolding - when did you last see a female scaffolder, let alone a team of scaffolders with 50% females.

<<I would say that the lack of female scaffolders merely proves my point – you can’t be what you can’t see. Exactly the same for the lack of male nannies or primary school teachers (my kids’ school has no male teachers – except the Head…)>>

I think you make an interesting point about role models, but I think you give it too much weight. I doubt whether Asian kids turn there nose up at football because Beckham or Ronaldo or whoever is not Asian; in the same way I don't believe that many Korean kids suddenly took up football when there emerged a few well-known Korean footballers. More likely the attraction with football is the perceived fame, stardom, wealth etc.

The community influence is more of an issue. I remember some Asian friends inviting me to the local hockey club (they did a great curry) and nearly everyone there was Asian. But I think the community influence is more to push kids towards a specific sport, rather than away from a specific sport. That's my take on it.

<<“Role models” is perhaps the wrong phrase as that has connotations of behaviour. “Examples” would be more accurate. If football is attractive because of the possibility of fame, wealth, etc, I would guess that would appeal to all demographics – certainly I can’t think of a group that actively avoids those possibilities.

Despite this, I can’t think of a British-Asian player making to a Premier League team. I would however guess that Tiger Woods made golf more engaging for the black community. Likewise, Lewis Hamilton for motor racing.

Put it this way. Think of two blokes, both went to public school. One is 196cm, 110kg. The other is 195cm, 115kg.

Which one plays rugby to an international level and which one rows in the Olympics? From that information, most would struggle to know.

The first guy is white, the second black.

Now, most people would (I would suggest) guess that the white guy rows. Who’s ever heard of a black rower?

They’re Pinsent and Itoje, by the way. I reckon with his size and athleticism, Maro would have been a decent oarsman.>>

My point remains - anyone can play rugby, they just have to want to.

<<They also have to have rugby (rowing, nannying, scaffolding, being CEO, whatever) presented as a possible option.>>

Good luck with the pas de deux and the pliets