An interesting piece in today’s Times by Mark Littlewood, the director-general of the Institute of Economic Affairs. A third of the way through the piece, he hits the nail on the head:
A comprehensive look at the numbers shows that overall differences in pay cannot be explained by presuming any measurable sexual prejudice on the part of employers.
Later, he wobbles in the face of feminist narratives:
One might take the view that there are undue and unfair social pressures on women to take on most of the burden of parenting, but, if true, that would require a very different policy solution.
‘One might take the view that…’ if one were a feminist i.e. a gormless, whiny, toxic liar with the IQ of a house plant. The notion that parenting is a ‘burden’ for women is one of countless feminist myths, usually peddled by feminists who are lesbians, childless, or both. All the studies of which I’m aware which have looked at gender differences in working people’s work/life preferences show that women would reduce their hours of paid employment more than men, given the opportunity, which is precisely what we’d expect from Dr Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory (2000).
The end of the article:
Groucho Marx famously described politics as the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies. Nowhere is this truer than the current approach to gender and work. [my emphasis]
Sadly, though, the government seems determined to use a sledgehammer to fail to crack a nut.
We would add that the ‘nut’ exists only in the minds of deranged feminists such as Maria Miller MP, the chairwoman of the Wimmin and Eckwallities Committee.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.