Two more blithering idiots: Mark Carney (governor, Bank of England) and Rebecca Hilsenrath (chief executive, Equality and Human Rights Commission)

In 2014 we publicly challenged Mark Carney, the Canadian governor of the Bank of England, over a truly preposterous – frankly, laughable – claim he’d made in a speech to the TUC:

Hiring more women in senior roles makes us much more effective.

Our blog piece on the matter is here.

The Sunday Times today published a piece, Pay for women lags by 11% in public sector. The start of the piece:

Despite years of demands for workplace equality, the gender pay gap is still widespread in the public sector, a Sunday Times investigation has found.

Even the Bank of England, which is to replace the image of Charles Darwin with Jane Austen on the £10 note, has some way to go on pay equality, according to figures released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Women at the Bank typically earn 26% less than men, making it sixth among public sector employers with the largest gender pay gaps. The median salary for female staff was £41,082, compared with £55,828 for men.

The Bank blamed the gap mainly on the lower proportion of senior jobs held by women, rather than different pay for similar jobs. [my emphasis]

Mark Carney, the governor, said in a speech last week that he intended to triple the proportion of women in senior roles to 35% by 2020. [my emphasis]

Let me get this straight. Today, three years after Carney made his ridiculous statement at the TUC, women account for around 12% of ‘senior roles’ (35% x 1/3). Why has the Bank of England, over those three years, not been hiring more women in senior roles, to make the Bank, ‘much more effective’? (It’s a rhetorical question, of course.)

Yet he now aims to triple the proportion of women in such roles in the next three years. The Bank of England has long had a stated policy to increase the proportion of women in senior roles, and we must assume the low proportion today is a reflection of a shortage of supply of suitable candidates for promotion, not of a lack of organizational will. In 2012 the Anti-Feminism League (our pre-J4MB blog site) reported on positive discrimination for women at the bank – here. Catherine Brown, 46, the executive director of human resources (i.e. the personnel manager, to those of us of a certain vintage) was earning a salary of £200,000 p.a. The blog post cites this from an interview:

Brown, 46, says: ‘…while the governors and directors are very largely white and male, that is a snapshot in time and in five years it may look very different.’ … this year the intake of women has shot up to 45 per cent…

Tripling the proportion of women in senior roles will inevitably involve promoting women who have up to now not been deemed qualified for such roles, on the grounds of merit. It will almost certainly require the firing (or, more probably, early retirement) of better-qualified men currently in senior positions, or at least demoting them.

Yet again we have a man in a leadership position in a major organization damaging his organization at the behest of feminist harridans. It’s difficult to think of any high-profile men in key institutions – other than Philip Davies MP – willing to point to the elephants in the room, feminists. Virtually to a man, they’re deeply gynocentric and, therefore, utterly spineless.

Why has Carney set 2020 as the year for his absurd target to be reached, I hear you ask? Good question. As we know from a BBC piece, he’s going to leave the bank in June 2019. So he’s done the PC thing – announcing his intention to advance women, regardless of their merit, or otherwise – whilst saddling his unfortunate successor with the negative consequences for the bank, and for all of us who rely on it to make sound decisions.

The end of the Sunday Times piece, with the second blithering idiot:

Rebecca Hilsenrath, chief executive of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: “It is depressing to see pay gaps that women still experience across the public sector. [No individual women are experiencing pay gaps, you daft trout. Give me strength…]

“Transparency is key to ensuring change. Women are a vital part of all workforces and it is shameful that women continue to face barriers.” [One assumes she’s referring to glass barriers. Maybe they hold up the glass ceilings.]

The organization Ms Hilsenrath leads has 11 Commissioners, including herself. Commissioners are appointed by the Minister for Women and Equalities. We should not be surprised, then, that nine of the 11 are of the female persuasion – here.

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.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Vasubandhu

    It just goes on and on. Neither Brexit nor the election of Donald Trump seems to give them any pause at all. I will just say that the IQ evidence (men are 2.5 times more likely to have an IQ of 130-150, and above 150 (admittedly a very small percentate of the population) the male advantage becomes stratospheric) is very suggestive. Maybe we just have to wait until economic collapse, or maybe mass automation will get there first?

    • Have you read Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand? In it, in a dystopian America brought low by leftists who take the graft of clever men and redistribute it, her character John Galt leads a strike of all the wealth creators and brings the entire edifice crashing down. The novel ends with the powers that be pleading with Galt to come back and fix it. It was first published in the late 1950s and outsold the Bible for years (which is saying something in America). In a strange way Donald Trump is a sort of Galtian character. Thank God America had the sense to elect him. (Incidentally, I explain more about ‘Going Galt’ in my book Their Angry Creed just published in June last year.

      • Mike Buchanan

        I’m unclear what invoking a work of fiction brings to the discussion, and for the like of me I can’t see how Trump is a Galtian character.

        There won’t be a strike of all the wealth creators or even a tiny proportion of them. Wealthy men are among the most gynocentric people, one consequence being that securing substantial funding for men’s rights organizations will always be a challenge.

  • I don’t think these people are blithering idiots. They know what they’re doing. Carney comes from the la la land of ultra feminism – Canada, do remember that nation? Used to be all Mounties and trappers who caught beaver and ravening wolves, and now its full of soft men and ravening beavers!

    That once proud nation is now the Mecca of progressive cultural Marxism where equality means far more than what ordinary people take it to mean, and Carney is truly a mangina. He wouldn’t last 10 minutes amongst real men. He, and Hilsenrath have got a vagenda, and they’re going to push it through, using all the lies and guile that has become the hallmark of the élitist progressives they are.

    But they’ve all been exposed with Brexit and Trump. And when Marine Le Pen becomes President of France in May, Geert Wilders becomes Prime Minister of the Netherlands in March, and that uber progressive Merkel gets kicked out of power in Germany in September, it will be game over for the lot of them. Then we might get our country back, and its honest, fair-minded values where people get jobs and promotion because of what they can do, not whether they are signed-up members of the sisterhood and have ‘a lady garden’ as Jeremy Clarkson so perfectly puts it.

    • Mike Buchanan

      Thanks Herbert. I’ll believe Trump’s election and Brexit will mean anything positive for men’s and boys’ human rights when I see the evidence. In the meantime I see them as being potentially utterly inconsequential on that front – as has been the case with the transition from Labour to a coalition and then Conservative government. After all, feminists didn’t gain their current influence through elections or referenda, and they won’t lose it through elections or referenda.

      • William Gruff

        I’ll believe Trump’s election and Brexit will mean anything positive for men’s and boys’ human rights when I see the evidence.

        Same here. I don’t see any sign of anyone in any position of influence suggesting any of the various measures necessary to stop the collapse and begin the reconstruction of Western culture. An increasing number of activists and commentators is increasingly vocal and drawing ever increasing support but, to use an aphorism that might arguably be described as glib, if voting changed anything they’d abolish it.

        When those who call the shots stop speaking of a ‘new world order’ and start speaking of a return to old world values I’ll believe that things could be about to change.

      • Groan

        I think this is a very important point. Time and again surveys show the majority of the population are much more socially conservative than their political elite. I was just scanning a statistical breakdown on Brexit , an analysis which in passing makes the point yet again about the social conservatism of the electorate .
        The “no platform” approach of feminists recognises that opposition has to be given no chance to speak because it would very likely gain support.
        After all both Canada and the USA have been very resistant to “Marxism” or at least the term. Yet the former is gender feminist central and the US has many States in similar thrall.
        This has been achieved by dominating key “liberal arts” particularly law literature and politics as well as social sciences. And through their graduates Law, Civil Service, Media presentation, Family Services in fact a relatively narrow and small part of the total population. But crucially the parts from which the political elite are drawn and regard as “home”.
        In their own tracts the gender feminists and the “long march through the institutions” was planned and has been a success precisely as an alternative to the “masses” who so badly let the revolutionaries down in the late sixties.
        Thus far I think what we are seeing is some disruption to this cosy “behind closed doors” world. Welcome and prodding at the elite. But a long way from truly upsetting the “agenda” (as per Carney).
        Now I suspect that elite are rapidly re-learning the importance of not appealing to the “people”(who have again let them down) and are re-doubling their campaigns to “shut down” any alternative. I’m sure its only a matter of time that J4MB gets plod around investigating a “hate crime incident”.
        Yes recent events have shaken their casual superiority but that’s only the “beginning of the beginning” . I think there are years and years of small victories needed to wheedle the ideology out of our institutions. Being such a law abiding people the hold over Law is going to be particularly difficult to dislodge. How many MPs studied Law?

    • William Gruff

      Be wary of counting your chickens Herbert.

  • Rob

    Rebecca Hilsenrath, chief executive of the Equality and Human Rights
    Commission, said: “It is depressing to see pay gaps that women still
    experience across the public sector

    …. and as I believe recently pointed out to the EHRC a pay gap for the disabled, and minorities within their own ranks.

    I believe the phrase is “Lead by example”

  • Pingback: BBC: Why can’t the Bank of England keep a woman? | Justice for Men & Boys()