It’s difficult not to sink into despair concerning the ‘gender pay gap’ when even journalists at the Daily Mail – always female journalists, needless to say – can write pieces like this, failing to point out that while the pay gap exists, it’s long been known to be wholly attributable to choices men and women make with regards to the world of work, including career choices, hours worked, seniority attained etc. The piece even manages to include gems such as:

A survey by Talking Talent, a consultancy firm working to inspire working women, hinted that workplace sexism is keeping women out of top roles, with 12 per cent of women saying they have been passed over for promotion because of their sex.

‘Working to inspire working women’. Why do women need ‘inspiring’? Maybe because they’d prefer a better work/life balance, more time to spend with their families and friends etc.? Let’s consider the final part of the sentence, and present it another way:

… with 88 per cent of women saying they haven’t been passed over for promotion because of their sex.

Hmm, it’s not exactly a problem of epidemic proportions, is it? And you have to ask, why is it implicitly accepted that the 12% of women who said they’d been passed over for promotion because of their sex were correct in their beliefs? Apart from the final four paragraphs about Dame Stephanie Shirley, the whole piece could have been penned by the Fawcett Society. That odious organisation – winner of the inaugural ‘Gormless Women of the Month’ award – is referenced in the piece.

Moving on. Another extract:

Shadow women’s minister Gloria De Piero told the Evening Standard ‘Whether you’re a chief executive or hairdresser, women across the capital are being paid less than men for doing the same or equivalent work. There are some great examples of companies that are leading the way in efforts to close the gap but delivering equal pay should be a priority for all employers.’

Of course the daft woman presents no evidence to back her assertion that ‘women… are being paid less for doing the same or equivalent work’. If women were being paid less for doing the same work as men, we’d be seeing thousands of court cases brought under the terms of the Equality Act 2010 (which incorporated the content of the Equal Pay Act 1970), and firms could improve their profits by replacing their male employees with female employees. Indeed, why would firms ever hire male employees, if potential female employees are available?

As for ‘equivalent work’, that’s nothing more than a sneaky feminist invention to boost the pay of women in ‘line of work x’, by claiming it’s equivalent to ‘line of work y’ – cynically omitting factors that disincline women to work in the latter lines, such as risk to life and limb, unpleasant working conditions, physically onerous work, unsocial hours, long periods spent away from home etc.

And so it is that we present Gloria de Piero MP with this month’s ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ award. Her certificate is here.