Word Of Life Camp Health Services Wants To Provide Your Child The Best Care Possible: Fill & Download for Free

There are many studies out there that prove the wage gap exists even after accounting for control variables, like maternity leave.Before I answer your question, I’d like to straighten out your botched understanding of the topics in your question, especially since you aren’t operating in good faith and your narrative appears to be nefarious in its intent.These are some of the invalidating arguments people tend make about the gender wage gap:“Men are more ambitious/Men work harder”: [1] [2]The workforce participation rate between women and men is at ~14%75% of single mothers are sole breadwinnersWomen are working outside the home in the largest rates ever, but also are more likely to be in charge of:childrendomestic houseworktaking care of other family membersvolunteer more on average then men2. “Women take more time off work/maternal leave”:An ICEDR global study found that: [3]Company bosses/CEOs/managers believe that women will leave their jobs at 30Women are not seen as good longterm investments because people assume that all women want to have babies and/or want to be stay at home moms [4]Ironically, women are more likely to leave a job because they found one that pays betterWomen who do leave their jobs to have children pay a 4% wage penalty per child [5]PayScale recently collected data from over 1.4 million workers - the data showed: [5]the wage gap in median earnings for women with children is 31%Married men with children get the highest pay among male earners ($67,900) - men typically experience an increase in pay after becoming fathers3. “Women should develop better negotiating skills”:“Just ask for a raise” [6]Women worry that pushing for more money will damage their image. Research shows they're right to be concerned: Both male and female managers are less likely to want to work with women who negotiate during a job interview.Women are seen as bossy, ungrateful and pushy when they ask for a raise and are 4x more likely to experience enduring negative views by their boss then men are after asking [7] [8]4. “Men just have more experience/education”:Women are currently graduating from college at higher rates then men are [9]Women are also going to graduate school at higher rates than men.Regardless, Georgetown's Center on Education and the Workforce found that men who had completed a little college but lacked a degree earn the same as women with a B.A. [9]In order for women to make as much as men with a B.A., women need to have a Ph. D.Women that spend longer amounts of time in the workforce experience the biggest gaps in pay to peers that are men [10]Women in their late 20s: earn ~92% of what their male peers receiveWomen in their early 50s: earn ~71% of a man's wages in the same fieldThe more women progress in their careers, the larger the pay gapThe biggest pay gap is at the executive level5. “Men go after the higher paying jobs”:True, but this is because men tend to be favored and they already dominate careers that pay the mostCareers that tend to be dominated by women (nursing, social work and teaching) are less compensated than the careers men dominateThis doesn’t reflect skill - it reflects gendered preconceptions, or in other words, society’s understanding of what work is valuableWhat is seen as feminine is undervalued, what is seen as masculine is overvalued.Regardless, physicians that are woman and that work the same amount of time in the same field make ~24% less than than their peers that are men in that field [11] [12]Edit: after reading a comment regarding this section of my answer, I thought I should explore this topic more thoroughly:One of the biggest studies done on variables found in the gender wage gap regarding job type and gender, Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 U.S. Census Data [13], further backs up the trend that when more women move into a specific job sector that men traditionally/currently dominate(d), the wage decreases.This study’s controlled variables included:Level of educationWork experienceWork skillsRaceLocationDemand of jobThe overwhelming evidence shows that the work women do is placed at a lower value across the board.In an interview with The New York Times, England, the co author of this study, said:It’s not that women are always picking lesser things in terms of skill and importance. It’s just that the employers are deciding to pay it less.The New York Times explores the findings from Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 U.S. Census Data by looking into specific careers: [14]Examples of jobs that show a decrease in wage when women start to enter a field at higher rates then men:…In the field of recreation — working in parks or leading camps — which went from predominantly male to female from 1950 to 2000:Median hourly wages in this field declined 57%, accounting for the change in the value of the dollar, according to a complex formula used by Professor Levanon.The job of ticket agent also went from mainly male to female during this period:Wages dropped 43%The same thing happened when women in large numbers became designers:Wages fell 34%Housekeepers:Wages fell 21%Biologists:Wages fell 18%The reverse was true when a job attracted more men.The New York Times continues on, saying the following points may influence the gender wage gap:Today, differences in the type of work men and women do account for 51% of the pay gapLarger portion than in 1980, according to definitive new research by Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn, economists at Cornell.Women have moved into historically male jobs much more in white-collar fields than in blue-collar ones.Yet the gender pay gap is largest in higher-paying white-collar jobs, Ms. Blau and Mr. Kahn found…Of the 30 highest-paying jobs, including:chief executivearchitectcomputer engineer,26 are male-dominated, according to Labor Department data analyzed by Emily Liner, the author of the Third Way report.Of the 30 lowest-paying ones, including food server, housekeeper and child-care worker, 23 are female dominated.Many differences that contributed to the pay gap have diminished or disappeared since the 1980s:Women over all now obtain more education than men and have almost as much work experience.Women moved from clerical to managerial jobs and became slightly more likely than men to be union members.Both of these changes helped improve wage parity, Ms. Blau’s and Mr. Kahn’s research said.Yes, women sometimes voluntarily choose lower-paying occupations because they are drawn to work that happens to pay less, like caregiving or nonprofit jobs, or because they want less demanding jobs because they have more family responsibilities outside of work.…many social scientists say there are other factors, like:gender biassocial pressure, that bring down wages for women’s work.Other research, has found that any occupation that involves caregiving, like nursing or preschool teaching, pays less, even after controlling for the disproportionate share of female workers.After sifting through the data, Ms. Blau and Mr. Kahn concluded that pure discrimination may account for 38% of the gender pay gap.Discrimination could also indirectly cause an even larger portion of the pay gapFor instance, by discouraging women from pursuing high-paying, male-dominated careers in the first place.“Some of it undoubtedly does represent the preferences of women, either for particular job types or some flexibility, but there could be barriers to entry for women and these could be very subtle,” Ms. Blau said. “It could be because the very culture and male dominance of the occupation acts as a deterrent.”For example, social factors may be inducing more women than men to choose lower-paying but geographically flexible jobs, she and Mr. Kahn found.Even though dual-career marriages are now the norm, couples are more likely to choose their location based on the man’s job, since men earn more.This factor is both a response to and a cause of the gender pay gap.The New York Times article concludes with the following:Men and women are paid differently not just when they do different jobs but also when they do the same work.Research by Claudia Goldin, a Harvard economist, has found that a pay gap persists within occupations.Female physicians:earn 71% of what male physicians earnlawyers earn 82%It happens across professions:This month, the union that represents Dow Jones journalists announced that its female members working full time at Dow Jones publications made 87 cents for every dollar earned by their full-time male colleagues.Ms. Liner of Third Way said…give priority to people’s talents and interests when choosing careers, even if it means going outside gender norms…for instance encouraging girls to be engineers and boys to be teachers.An example of men getting paid more when they have jobs that are traditionally linked to women would be chefs.Stacy J. Williams, who has a Ph. D. in sociology, explains why women are constantly put at a disadvantage in the job market: [15]Since women spend more than twice as much time in home kitchens than men do, it seems strange that there are so few women in professional kitchens. Many social forces, ranging from the organization of professional kitchens to cultural ideas about women and cooking, can help explain the phenomenon.Mary Blair-Loy has written that there is a cultural “family devotion schema,” or a widespread cultural belief that women’s primary commitments should be to home and family.These expectations do not apply to men; instead, men are expected to have women partners who complete this care work.These cultural beliefs, combined with the historical definition of feeding the family as women’s work, contribute to the continued tendency for women to cook more often in the home.Many professional kitchens also have a culture of masculinity that is not welcoming to women. In 2011, 37% of the sexual discrimination cases that were reported to the federal government involved restaurants…Further, these men are concerned that women can’t “pull their weight” in a fast-paced kitchen environment that is built on teamwork and camaraderie. To prove that they are a useful part of the team, women often have to go above and beyond the required work and take on extra shifts. These behaviors and attitudes among the mostly male cooks and chefs make many women feel uncomfortable and unwelcome, turning the professional kitchen into a workplace where women feel they do not fit.The cultural understandings of women and food, combined with a workplace structure that is inhospitable to women and employees with family responsibilities, present significant obstacles to women chefs. Even though women are considered the authorities of home kitchens, they have a more difficult time gaining equal footing with men in restaurant kitchens. Despite these obstacles, there are women who defy these cultural expectations and compete in the restaurant world. Yet when these women aren’t portrayed as mothers or sex objects, they receive media attention for being outliers in a male-dominated occupation.NPR further explores this phenomenon: [16]Women have historically been told their place is in the kitchen — but not as chefs: According to statistics from the U.S. Labor Department, to this day, only about 20 percent of chefs are women.It all harks back to the fact that being a chef was not as glamorous as it is today, says Deborah Harris, a sociology professor at Texas State University…It might come as a surprise to some that back in the day, in 18th and 19th century France, being a chef was the opposite of being a celebrity."It was a really low-status career," says Harris. In response, she says, male chefs made a big deal about "differentiating between the cultural, high-status, intellectual cooking of men, and the low-status, every day work of women."The Austin Chronicle pointed out the prevailing glass ceiling women experience in an industry they used to dominate: [17]A full 45% of people working in the culinary industry are women, yet women hold less than 10% of the top positions…Most successful chefs are fairly compulsive about their work, women no less than men. And it definitely takes that sort of compulsive dedication to advance through the ranks…But is it really harder for a woman than it is for man?Only in the past two decades has cooking become a glamorous profession…The image of the chef has changed radically in the past decade, though, and there is a certain romantic allure to the field. Today's chefs are educated -- many hold graduate degrees from Ivy League universities. They appear on television, travel all over the world, and lecture on topics relating to food, social science, history, and literature.More evidence of discrimination in the food industry: [18]A new study from pay transparency web site Glassdoor finds female chefs make 28.3 percent less in base pay than their male colleagues. That's the second-highest "adjusted" percentage among the careers included in the study.Glassdoor analyzed more than 505,000 salaries shared by full-time U.S. employees to come up with its findings. The research determined 33 percent of the gap in pay between men and women in the United States is linked to "possible workplace gender bias."Not only are women making less in the kitchen, they seem to be far less likely to earn prestigious accolades for their work. Out of the 211 semifinalists for the James Beard Foundation's regional Best Chef awards in 2016, 30 were women — that's a paltry 14 percent. In the Midwest, all 22 semifinalists were men. The recognition disparity is nothing new. In 2013, Time magazine published a "Gods of Food" issue that was so male dominated, it became known as "Dudes of Food."Dr. Andrew Chamberlain, who wrote the study for Glassdoor, says "occupation and industry sorting of men and women into jobs that pay differently" is the main cause for the gender pay gap across all professions in the United States. That doesn't necessarily explain the pay gap in kitchens because "chef" can be a vague term…The New York Times calls out the sexism seen in the restaurant industry: [19]For decades, chefs of both sexes believed that inequality was inevitable. The same stereotypes used to keep women out of armed combat, off the judicial bench and out of medical school were invoked to explain why women didn’t stick it out in the kitchen. The work, it was said, is too physically demanding and psychologically grueling; the hours were too incompatible with family life…One big question — why even women who make it to the top rank of chefs struggle for recognition — has often been posed, and never fully answered…“We are the quiet power behind the throne,” Ms. Chan said. “But sometimes everyone gets tired of being quiet.”6. “Who Cares?”:With controlled variables (career level, skills, etc.) the gender wage gap is ~8–5% [20]This means that college-educated women who work full time will earn ~$500,000 less than their male peers do over their lifetime [21]>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now I’ll move on to answering your question about the “spending gap”.In general, it is more expensive to be a woman because of unfair androcentric marketing/retail/economic concepts.So, not only do women get paid less than men on average, even when they have the same job/education level/time working/experience/skill, etc., they also have to pay more for basic items then men pay.French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir eloquently said:If the man’s the norm and the woman "different," then men’s products too are considered the "normal version." Women’s products are therefore considered to be more special, luxurious versions, and are consequently more expensive.6 basic examples of women “spending more”: [22]Mortgages:A 2011 study published in the Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics found that women, on average, pay more for mortgages than men, with the mean mortgage interest rates for women coming in 0.4% higher than for men.“The disparity cannot be fully explained by traditional variables such as mortgage features, borrower characteristics, and market conditions,” the authors write.In other words, women with credit scores and other qualifying factors similar to men pay more for their mortgages.For a 30-year mortgage, that could mean a man pays $26,000 less in interest over the life of the loan than a woman (assuming he gets a 5% mortgage rate while she gets a 5.4% rate).2. Dry Cleaning:Not all items are more expensive for women to get dry-cleaned — suits, blazers and slacks tend to have similar prices — but shirts are, according to the study published in the journal Gender Issues in 2011.The average price to clean a men’s shirt was $2.06, while it was $3.95 for a woman’s shirt — and that’s before considering the added cost of shirts made from special fabric like silk or rayon, or with embellishments like sequins or pleats.“The observed pricing disparity is for identical shirts except that one is labeled a ‘men’s’ shirt while the other is a ‘women’s’ shirt,” the authors write.This means that if a man and woman got one shirt dry cleaned per month for 10 years, on average, it would cost a man $247.20 in today’s dollars, while a woman would end up paying $474.3. Haircuts & hair care products:As almost every woman knows, getting a haircut costs far more for women than for men.A study by economist Liston-Heyes found that even for the same haircut, women paid more than men.“We started calling different hairdressers and explicitly said we had the same haircut [as a man],” she says.Still, she says, in almost every case, the price for the woman’s cut was more than a price for a man’s cut.A 1996 study done in New York City had similar findings: Nearly half of hair salons charged women more for a simple haircut. (New York City now prohibits gender-based pricing, though the practice persists.)Liston-Heyes says that this may be because, on average, it takes more time and effort for salons to cut women’s hair than men’s hair, so when they create their pricing structure, they make women’s cuts more expensive.What’s more, the 2015 study by the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs found that the largest price discrepancy between men’s and women’s products existed for shampoo and conditioner (women, on average, paid 48% more for a similar product)4. Deodorant and other personal care products:Stopping odor is a pricier proposition for women than for men, according to a 2011 study published in the journal Gender Issues.While on the surface, prices for a stick of deodorant for men and women seem the same (roughly $3.15 per stick), men’s deodorant sticks tend to be larger than women’s (2.86 ounces vs. 2.29 ounces).This means that, on average, women pay $1.44 per ounce of deodorant, compared with $1.15 for men — a difference of about 20%.Among the other pricier products for women:Razor cartridges and razors cost more for women than men by an average of 11%, according to the NYC study of similar women’s and men’s productsBody wash costs 6% more.“Of all the industries analyzed, personal care had the highest premium for women, with products costing, on average, 13% more than personal care products for men,” the study concluded.“Women’s and men’s deodorant are the same,” says New York City-based dermatologist Dennis Gross.“If you check the label there are the same active ingredients at the same percentage based on FDA regulations.”5. Cars:A 2001 study published in The American Economic Review found that car dealers made better initial offers to white men than to white women (more than $200 lower) and black women (more than $400 lower).What’s more, the final markup was about 50% higher for white women than for white menMore than 100% higher for black women.“Without any negotiating at all, two out of five white males obtained a better offer than their counterparts achieved after bargaining on average for more than forty minutes,” the authors write.6. Clothing:Adult women, on average, pay 8% more for their clothes than men do.The largest price discrepancies were in shirts (15%), dress shirts (13%) and jeans (10%).The Pink Tax: [23]Whether it's razors, dry cleaning or toys, women still pay more for those gender-specific items than men, studies show…"Price discrimination adds another layer to the wage inequality women face, making it harder sometimes for women to make ends meet," said Surina Khan, CEO of the Women’s Foundation of California, a group devoted to advancement of gender equality.The Bureau of Labor Statistics said that in the decade between 2004 and 2014, women earned 80% to 83% as much as men.The Pink Tax, so named because of the color of products directly marketed to girls & women, is the price difference for female centered products compared with gender neutral goods or those marketed to men. And even though the issue has been around for decades, it is still profound.In late 2015, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs published a study comparing nearly 800 products from more than 90 brands, looking for price differences in items marketed to different genders.On average, products for women or girls cost 7% more than comparable products for men and boys.For example:Apparel:Girls' clothing cost 4% more than boys, and women's clothing cost 8% more than men’s.Toys:Girls' toys and accessories cost an average of 7% more than boys' toys.Separately, a side-by-side comparison of two Radio Flyer My 1st Scooters showed this: A red scooter cost $24.99 and a pink scooter cost $49, despite them being identical in all other ways.Personal care:Women's personal care products also cost 13% more than men’s, according to the department's study.Normally, consumers look to supply and demand to remedy inequities. If prices get to high on a product or service, someone finds out how to provide it cheaper.But “not all markets are perfect,” said Michael Cone, a customs attorney who filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade in 2007 that raised the broader question of whether different tariff rates for men’s and women’s apparel violate constitutional equal protection provisions.The case was dismissed, but discussion around the issue goes on.Here is a basic visual of the pink tax:Edit #2: another commenter suggested they’d be interested in how auto repairs costs differ for women, so I looked into that as well and found further evidence of gender discrimination in pricing.According to a 2013 paper from the Kellogg School of Management, this is definitely another area that the pink tax affects: [24]For male callers, there is no difference between having “no idea” about an expected price and being a savvy consumer: either way, you are quoted something right around market price. But for female callers, says Zettelmeyer, “you’re much worse off saying you know nothing as opposed to quoting the price of $365."Below is an exert from a Washington Post article [25] regarding a study done by RepairPal[26] :77 percent of respondents said mechanics are more likely to sell women unnecessary repairs, and 66 percent believed that mechanics charge women more than men for the same services.Health insurance has consistently been more expensive for women. The fact that some women give birth does not justify the discrepancies: [27]…if we ignore all costs directly associated with pregnancy and childbearing (the logic here being that it takes two parties to create a child and both parties should be willing to pay equally to support that endeavor), men aren't actually any cheaper to insure than women."When you get older, men cost more to insure than women," explained Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Later in life, men are more likely to have a variety of conditions including heart attacks, lung cancer, and liver cancer. They're also more likely to smoke, drink, and get in accidents, according to experts.Larry Levitt, a senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said that while Kaiser doesn't have any independent analysis of this, insurers have historically charged younger women more than men in the individual market, even though those plans rarely covered maternity services. "That tends to reverse at older ages, when men have generally been charged more than women," he said. "It's reasonable to assume that insurers set those premiums based on the patterns of health care use that they saw."In 2008 the average expenditure per person with an expense, including expenses covered by insurance and those paid out-of-pocket, was slightly higher for women ($5,635) than for men ($4,952), according to data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. But the difference in expenditures is largely attributable to childbirth.…men's average expenditures significantly exceeded women's for hospital inpatient services ($18,984 versus $12,997, respectively).The New York Times investigated some of the themes in charging women more for health insurance after the ACA had passed (which was an attempt to end gender discrimination in pricing): [28]Women still pay more than men for the same health insurance coverage, according to new research and data from online brokers.The new health care law will prohibit such “gender rating,” starting in 2014. But gaps persist in most states, with no evidence that insurers have taken steps to reduce them.For a popular Blue Cross Blue Shield plan in Chicago, a 30-year-old woman pays $375 a month, which is 31 percent more than what a man of the same age pays for the same coverage, according to eHealthInsurance.com, a leading online source of health insurance.In a report to be issued this week, the National Women’s Law Center, a research and advocacy group, says that in states that have not banned gender rating, more than 90 percent of the best-selling health plans charge women more than men…Differences in rates for men and women are not explained by the cost of maternity care. In the individual insurance market, such care is usually not part of the standard package of benefits. Maternity coverage may be offered as an optional benefit, or rider, for a hefty additional premium.In Louisville, Ky., according to eHealthInsurance.com, a 40-year-old nonsmoking woman pays $196 a month for a HumanaOne policy. That is 53 percent more than the $128 premium paid for the same coverage by a nonsmoking man of the same age.In addition, the nonsmoking woman pays 14 percent more than the $172 premium charged to a man of the same age who has used tobacco in the past year.In an article from Public Policy, there is more evidence that the amount women pay for health insurance is not justified by pregnancies: [29]...ratings say that the different rates for men and women are justified because women and men use different amounts of healthcare. They also often point to childbirth and maternal care as reasons why men and women’s healthcare may differ in cost.The first part of this argument, that men and women use different amounts of healthcare and women are thus more expensive to insure, is false. The fact is, if you remove maternity services, women are not more expensive to insure than men are—they simply use healthcare differently. Women cost the healthcare system more when they are younger, since they use preventative healthcare more than men do.Men cost the healthcare system more when they are older, since they are more likely to have heart attacks, lung cancer, and liver cancer. Also, men are more likely to smoke, drink, and get in accidents. It is unjust to penalize women when in fact both men and women cost the health system relatively equal amounts, just at different points in their life.Additionally, we should not punish women for their cautiousness while rewarding men for their recklessness. The argument that women are charged more because they use healthcare more is also incorrect because the parts of healthcare that women and men use at the same rate, such as specialty clinics and the emergency room, charge women more.The second tenet of this argument is also untrue; women cannot be “more costly to insure” due to coverage of the maternal and child health services, since very few of the plans that gender rate cover maternity services.According to a 2012 report from the National Women’s Law Center, before the implementation of the gender rating ban and inclusion of maternity services on insurance:92% of best-selling insurance plans engaged in gender rating.Of those plans, only 3% covered maternity services.Regardless of the verity of this argument, however, this should never be a reason that women have to pay more for healthcare. Men and women play equal roles in the conception of a child—they should both have to pay for childbirth.Aside from financial facts behind gender rating, it is clear that unequal rates are unethical. The $1 billion that gender rating costs women is especially impactful because women tend to have a lower income, often due to the wage gap. Before the passage of the ACA, 52% of women reported delaying medical care because of cost, and 32% of women reported giving up basic necessities in order to pay for healthcare expenses.The BBC pointed out that women are also more likely to be overcharged in ride share companies. POC experience more cancelations and longer wait times: [30]Ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft may discriminate against black people and women, a study from three US universities suggests.Black riders faced longer wait times and more frequent cancellations than white riders, the research indicates.Women were more likely to be overcharged or taken on elongated routes, it says.Researchers took nearly 1,500 rides in Seattle and Boston, gathering data from three taxi-hailing companies.The sexist stereotype that you (the person who asked this question) are trying to push - that women love to shop and buy things more then men - doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.Spending trends/habits: [31]“We found that men and women impulse shop about the same amount, but the way they feel and how much they spend when they do it are different,” said Credit Cards - Compare Credit Card Offers at CreditCards.com senior analyst Matt Schulz.Men were significantly more likely than women to spend serious money on that unplanned purchase.While just 7% of the women said they had spent $500 or more, 21% of the men did.Men also made more impulse purchases of $1,000 or more.Women tend to keep their impulse purchases small, under $25.Men are more than twice as likely to make an impulse purchase when they’re intoxicated.Women are twice as likely to buy impulsively when they are sad.Women are more likely to regret making an impulse purchase:52% of the women vs. 46% of the men said they experienced buyer’s remorse at one time or another.Women tend to be “in charge” of purchasing what everyone else needs (traditional gender roles): [32]In virtually every society in the world, women have primary care-giving responsibilities for both children and the elderly…In this primary caregiving role, women find themselves buying on behalf of everyone else in their lives.The list is long: in addition to buying for themselves, women buy on behalf of husbands, partners, kids, colleagues, adult children, friends, relatives, elderly parents, in-laws, their businesses and even their kids’ friends, to name just a few. If somebody, somewhere needs a gift, chances are there's a woman thinking about it; tracking it down; wrapping it; making sure it’s accompanied by a personal message and then arriving to the person on the appointed day.I sometimes think entire industries would collapse overnight if women stopped being so thoughtful. Consider the impact to the greeting card industry alone.There are a lot more variables that need to be considered; neither the gender wage gap or the “spending gap” (which is a red herring and is being used by you to obscure a real issue) is something that one basic pie chart can explain or that your uninformed opinion disproves or proves - I would encourage you to educate yourself instead of using Quora as a way to trivialize real issues by regurgitating talking points that originate in hostility.What is your goal here in denying real problems besides reinforcing the status quo, which further disadvantages women?Footnotes[1] Why Parental Leave Policies Are Changing[2] What Women Breadwinners Want[3] https://www.icedr.org/research/documents/15_millennial_women.pdf[4] A Dollar Short: What’s Holding Women Back from Equal Pay?[5] http://content.thirdway.org/publications/853/NEXT_-_Fatherhood_Motherhood.pdf[6] Why Women Don't Ask For More Money[7] Negotiation and the Gender Divide[8] Why Women Don’t Negotiate Their Job Offers[9] https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/10/31/women-more-likely-to-graduate-college-but-still-earn-less-than-men[10] Gender Pay Gap Ratios, Stats and Infographics | PayScale[11] https://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/graduating-to-a-pay-gap-the-earnings-of-women-and-men-one-year-after-college-graduation.pdf[12] Here's How Much Doctors Actually Make in 2016[13] Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 U.S. Census Data | Social Forces | Oxford Academic[14] As Women Take Over a Male-Dominated Field, the Pay Drops[15] Gender in Home Kitchens and Restaurants[16] Taking The Heat: Is Foodie Culture Making Room For Female Chefs?[17] The Whole Woman[18] Why Are Female Chefs Paid so Much Less Than Their Male Colleagues?[19] A Change in the Kitchen[20] Gender Pay Gap Ratios, Stats and Infographics | PayScale[21] collegepayoff-complete.pdf - Box[22] 6 times it’s more expensive to be a woman[23] 'Pink Tax' forces women to pay more than men[24] The Importance of Appearing Savvy[25] The auto-repair industry discriminates against women. So I quit my engineering job to become a mechanic.[26] https://repairpal.com/consumer-survey-march-2013[27] Why Making Women Pay More Than Men for Health Insurance Doesn't Make Sense[28] https://mobile.nytimes.com/redirect?to-mobile=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2012%2F03%2F19%2Fhealth%2Fpolicy%2Fwomen-still-pay-more-for-health-insurance-data-shows.html%3Freferer%3D[29] The End of Gender Rating: Women’s Insurance Under the ACA[30] Uber 'race and sex discrimination'[31] Guess which gender spends more on impulse[32] The Real Reason Women Shop More Than Men

This is a long and rather detailed analysis of not only the BBC but more generally the global crisis of liberalism. If you reach the end, you might see the world rather differently. Or it might just make you rather angry.DECEPTION, SELF DECEPTION, BIAS AND FRANK DECEIT INHERENT IN THE BBC.The profound BBC bias is missed by many because it is not a simple Left or Right Political bias, and those who deny bias miss the subtlety of the problem.Amongst News and current affairs journalists about 70% were privately educated (v 7% of the population as a whole). This group wins 25% of our olympic medals, 26% of the places at our Law and Medical schools, but a full 70% of our BBC journalists, (and interestingly, about 70% of our judges). Moreover, within this group, the major,very expensive Public Schools are even more over- represented than the more modest less prominent private institutions. Within the 30% who are State Educated, Grammar schools (which most closely mimic the ethos of middle class private schools) are themselves massively over-represented versus Comprehensives. Finally, amongst those in charge of editorial control, and senior management, the major Public Schools dominate even more than amongst Journalists as a whole. (These figures are available and reproducible to anyone).Let me be clear. We are talking here about schools which cost £36,000-£42,000 per pupil, per year, and we are talking about families who may be financing two or three children through them for more than ten years each. You get the idea?It is this sensation of the stranglehold which the privately educated 7% exercise over the control of the media, the judiciary, and the Legislature, in controlling the agendas, the issues, the subjects we are even permitted to discuss, which has created the gulf of incredulity between the masses, and the elite.The result is not a question of political Left or Right bias, but a colossal Upper Middle Class bias which is so overwhelming that it passes without challenge within the BBC. It really doesn’t enter their heads that they could possibly be biased, because like many who have I fear somewhat missed the point in answering this question, they look only for clear political bias, and of course that bias probably isn’t there so obviously.I do not want to be misunderstood as suggesting any conscious “ruling class conspiracy” nor “old boy network”, not at all, it is vastly more subtle than these out-moded concepts, it is a sub-conscious and organic product of the human tendency to wish to recruit in our own image, and this afflicts institutions everywhere.The dishonesty of the BBC and “Diversity”, as a front to distract from Upper Middle Class domination.The reason the BBC is obsessed with physical “diversity” is because it wishes to distract from the monumental lack of genuine diversity of opinion. So it openly says it wants to move away from presenters who are “male, pale and stale” (itself both a sexist and a racist phrase which passes entirely unchallenged), it wants Blacks, Asians,Muslims women, the blind, Gays, the disabled, in a very public way, but only if these black disabled blind muslim gay women partake of the same upper middle class values of the institution as a whole. (And by the way, a very similar proportion of the Asian, Black, Muslim gay and disabled journalists were also privately educated).The organic, pervasive bias of the BBC arises because the institution is populated from top to bottom with people from backgrounds that have ensured that they have never at any time in their existence had to be concerned about money in the same way that 90% of the population have had to worry about money.If you are brought up in a family in which more money is spent on the education of its children than most families spend on rent or mortgage, food, drink, clothing, taxes and transport combined, you will be aware, and from a very early and impressionable age, that you have been born with advantages that you have neither personally earned nor merited.Teachers in these schools drum into their pupils how privileged they are, and how their hard work is required to justify the financial sacrifices of their parents. Now this can of course result in the production of arrogant spoiled brats who despise those not raised in the same way. But these sort tend not to be attracted into journalism, which tends to appeal to the inherently more philosophical, thoughtful, and possibly those more desirous of public attention and approbation than the pursuit of financial gain. And for these gilded children of the bourgeoisie, financial gain is anyway less of a pressing necessity than it is for most. However all from such backgrounds are likely to inherit an enduring sense of superiority (and I mean in a genuine, not an arrogant way), and entitlement, albeit one for which, to their credit, many feel no personal merit, and perhaps even a florid guilt complex, as it has just been bestowed upon them.Why does all this matter, and in what way does it produce bias? (I hear you cry).The colossally predominant Upper-Middle Class bias within the BBC makes those who work in it feel deeply uneasy about demanding from anyone not born and raised with the the advantages they have been given,the same social,moral and intellectual standards as they demand from those of their own class,race, and culture.Dishonesty about Social Class, Racial and cultural minorities.The result is that failings, faults and even iniquities associated with any disadvantaged group, will not be criticised, discussed or even aired in any proportionate manner, if at all. Now this of course applies far beyond the BBC, it applies to most of the media, and the liberal Upper- Middle Class who dominate the broadsheets regularly vilify the “gutter press” which is (to some extent) populated by journalists they consider their social inferiors, who more often were State Educated, or if privately educated are less likely to form part of the Class of recipients of massive inter generational wealth transfers, ( ie are the children of “new money”) and who have no such qualms about reporting highly negative stories on Lower Class, and underprivileged groups, from which they themselves have often emerged, and who therefore feel no compunction about “telling it like it is” (and admittedly, for reasons of circulation and attention, sometimes worse than it really is!).This reluctance to report by the mainstream media has had three very unfortunate and very enduring consequences for our society. Firstly, hushing up bad things that happen mainly within disadvantaged groups, doesn’t help disadvantaged groups, because it helps to hide the problem from them and from anyone who might be able to help, and secondly, when it is unavoidable to mention the fact of inadequacy, iniquity or crime in a disadvantaged group it doesn’t help to attribute the problem merely to “poverty”, as these well-meaning bourgeois fools serve up to the disadvantaged a ready-made excuse not to take responsibility or to change. Finally, of course, the veracity, honesty and trustworthiness of the mainstream media has been thoroughly trashed in the eyes of a public vastly less stupid than the highly educated toffs in charge can ever realise or accept. Somehow these people have forgotten there are such things as common sense, and personal life experience, neither of which requires a private education.There are millions of very poor Whites, Asians, and Blacks, Muslims, Hindus Sikhs and others, who are not obese, do not sexually abuse or torture their children, don’t genitally mutilate them don’t force them into arranged marriages, dont murder them if they bring dishonour to the family, are not racist, don’t become absentee fathers, do support their children financially following divorce, don’t beat up gays or women, don’t kill or attack those of a different sect or belief, who do treat women as equals, don’t rape, don’t hand out young girls in sex rings, don’t defraud the benefit system, don’t take drugs, don’t end up in prison, don’t end up pregnant at 13, don’t smoke in pregnancy, don’t break into other people’s homes to steal, do attend for cervical smears,flu jabs and breast screening, are not alcoholic, do take exercise, do get their children vaccinated, do ensure they attend school properly dressed and fed, and do not disrupt the class through bad behaviour, do brush their teeth, don’t eat and drink trash, dawn to dusk, and don’t sit mindlessly in front of the Box for 6 hours a day.So the criminal , abusive and inadequate minority within these groups are responsible for their actions and are regarded as being responsible by the decent and honest majority within these disadvantaged groups.There is vastly less sympathy for criminals among the Working Class than there is within the virtue signalling obsessed Toff Elite, who dominate both our media and our judiciary, because only the lower Classes realise that the lack of any social or financial advantage has not made them into rapists, fraudsters, thieves, abusers or delinquents : it is only the privileged elite who seem to want to exempt criminals from blame, punishment or reform.And with about 70% of the judiciary, and Journalists recruited from this group, it is not difficult to understand the paralysis that grips our justice and penal systems. There is simply no desire to criticise, hold to account, or to punish.This “privilege guilt syndrome” hobbles the privately educated in other ways too, they will criticise Nationalism (as long as it’s English) attack racism (as long as it is by Whites) decry sectarian and religious violence (as long as it is by Protestants against Catholics, or by Jews against Muslims).[edit. LBC 28.12.19, 14.39. A caller from London calls in to say since moving to live and work in Bedfordshire he feels ashamed to be white “to be honest with you”. Says he hears homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic and racist comments in his all-White workplace. His speech ends with the LBC host gushing “it really does make your ears prick up, doesn’t it”.Clearly since the General election and the sweeping national landslide for the Conservatives and for Brexit, the White metropolitan elite need to recruit a working Class White Londoner to reassure them that the Capital has been slapped down by the provinces “because they are 20 years behind”, and Neanderthals have won, but the moral victory lies with the White metropolitan elite.Yes, but perhaps the caller should try “being honest” with himself before he seeks to share his “honesty” with a national audience. It simply doesn’t enter anyone’s head at LBC to ask whether anyone from the Muslim, Indian, Sikh or Black communities within London (never mind Biggleswade) would like to call in to say whether they have ever felt embarrassed to be brown or Black because of sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or racist comments in their own communities? What do Hindus Sikhs and Muslims think of each other (let alone Whites). Funny how either nobody in these communities has either ever heard such comments or perhaps just don’t feel ashamed of them.This White elitist bilge is served up on LBC, taking its cue as it takes its staff, from the BBC, as if such questions will not cross the minds of the thick White Working Class. Well, guess what? it does cross their minds, even though it doesn’t cross the minds of privately educated elitists who have been honed not to even think let alone speak such thoughts.And what are the minorities to think, who hear sexist homophobic racist transphobic rants on a daily basis from within even the elites within their own groups? They simply conclude that the White metropolitan elite don’t even consider minorities to be in the same moral and social league as even provincial Working Class Whites. And this is why nobody asks these questions because only white people are expected to know how to think and behave properly. Can you see how liberalism itself has been betrayed by those who most vociferously proclaim their liberal pretentions?Dishonesty about obesity, homelessness and food banks.This has huge consequences for the way domestic social issues are handled. For example; The Obesity Crisis. This is currently responsible for overwhelming the NHS, even before the demographic time bomb can do so. We can’t do anything about ageing, but there is a great deal we can do about obesity. And what is the contribution of the BBC toff elite? They attack fast food outlets (especially if they are American,of course), Drinks manufacturers, Food producers and supermarkets for not labelling, Doctors for not “educating” patients, teachers for discouraging competitive sports, local authorities for a lack of exercise facilities. and finally of course the Government , for failing to control Fast food, supermarkets, food companies, doctors, teachers and the local authorities.The only group to escape attack is the children and their negligent parents, who freely choose what to eat, and how to conduct their lives to the detriment of their own health, and of the NHS .And of course this is because obesity is a Class issue, and therefore “untouchable” to toffs, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to be obese and to have obese children. And the fattest of all are those inter- generationally dependent on Social Benefits. Everybody living on council estates knows this. And of course the same goes for smoking and a dozen other hugely significant patterns of self destructive behaviour. These are discussed in what the toffs deride as “the gutter press” and on social media. But mainstream TV and radio is out in an orbit of its own, serving the planet self-delusion, with nothing to say to planet Earth.Homelessness.[edit. 5.3.19] BBC businesses news 08.50, discussion of the reasons for the increase in homelessness to 320,000. The “BBC causes”? - high property prices, and cuts to Housing Benefit. Fair enough, but not mentioned are rising alcohol,drug and gambling addictions and breakdowns in relationships. Has anyone ever asked why people end up on the streets? Toff Soft Left are principally concerned to be seen to “want to help” by throwing other people’s money at the problem rather than asking difficult and uncomfortable questions about how and why so many people in such an incredibly abundant society end up on the streets and even at food banks. To even dare to ask such questions is simply beyond the concept of public decency for the BBC. Yet it is only by asking about and addressing these unspeakable realities that problems can be addressed and lives can be changed. eg how many people begging for food at food banks are simultaneously spending money on cigarettes, illicit drugs, alcohol, and gambling, how many also buy fast food, or are unable to access Benefits because of past convictions for fraud, or because they are illegal immigrants? instead we are allowed only to ask about the government’s errors and delays in Benefit payments (which have indeed caused hardship), but there is simply no discussion whatever permitted about these other hugely important things and we are asked to believe the the BBC toff myth that tens of thousands of people are somehow managing to starve in what is probably the nutritionally and socially best provided major State in the history of civilisation, and starving through absolutely no fault whatever of their own!On Council Estates, where none of the toffs live, it is well known who is dissipating their resources on which particular vice, and such BBC elitist bourgeois absurdities are met with utter derision.Because the BBC recruit and train even most journalists who end up on ITV and Sky, the whole TV media is left in a state of utter paralysis in dealing with one of the most pressing domestic issues of our day, because they are constitutionally incapable of identifying faults failings and causes of any problem which requires criticism to be made of anyone who is not also, like them, privileged and Middle Class. The Working Class, and in particular the “Benefits Class” are simply beyond criticism, in exactly the same way that the behaviour of “disadvantaged” ethnic and religious minority groups are beyond criticism, and not to be deemed responsible for their actions.The poor and minorities are treated as if they were infants or mentally handicapped, entirely beyond being considered in any way either responsible for their own crippled lives or iniquitous inclinations.Dishonesty in International reporting on non Western States and cultures. In international news reporting the suppression is even more dramatic. When a Student is murdered, torn apart in Pakistan for “blasphemy” by other students in a University of 10,000,(Mashal Khan, 13 April 2017) shortly after the Pakistani PM (Nawaz Sharif) has declared blasphemy to be an “unpardonable offence” and all this after a Pakistani Cabinet minister (Shabaz Bhatti) had been murdered,2.3.11, for his opposition to blasphemy laws,and the Hudood Ordinances, (which ban eg alcohol, homosexuality or sex outside marriage for muslims and non muslims alike) and the Govenor of Punjab (Saalman Tazeer) murdered 4.1.11 by his own bodyguard for having suggested blasphemy against The Prophet by a Christian woman shouldn’t be a crime, and hundreds of thousands turn out onto the streets to protest at the execution of his killer, (just a couple of more recent examples) these absolutely incredible stories are barely mentioned, nor is there any attempt to analyse the cultural issues behind them.Compare the (absolutely correct) soul-searching by the BBC over the hideous Stephen Lawrence murder all the in-depth analysis of what gives rise to racist impulses, etc. And compare it with the even more hideous case of Kris Donald, (a white 15 year old seized off the street in Glasgow at random by a racist Pakistani gang, castrated and tortured for hours then burned alive) for which Francesca Unsworth was eventually publicly criticised for suppressing. (So successful was this suppression that you will probably not have heard of either of these names, but Auntie Google will help you, just put the two names together and read).[edit 19.9.18] And almost unbelievably, Unsworth has just been made head of editorial control for BBC News and Current Affairs. Yet she was also the one behind the helicopter fiasco when she spared no expense (or sense), in trying to expose the real evil at the heart of our society: Cliff Richard. (Yes, she causes the Corporation to lose millions in legal costs and fines when the Courts denounce her mismanagement and stupidity; but she’s still in post). These same people spend two decades making sure no journalist looks into Pakistani taxi sex rings and rapings of black and white girls “in Care” across all major cities in the U.K. And when an independent person blows this wide open, so even the BBC can’t ignore it, who do they attack? The police and white social workers. No attempt whatever to ask if there is any sickness at the heart of a religion which doesn’t recognise the testimony of a single woman as equal to that of a man in their own “Sharia Courts”. Christ, no! That would be Cultural Imperialism![edit.13.12.19 1300, BBC Asian Network radio reported that in Pakistan Lawyers had trashed a hospital and attacked and driven doctors out, causing three patients in intensive care to die, in a dispute between the two professions. This almost incredible story, somehow never made it beyond the Asian Network on the radio and certainly never made it onto TV. What are we to make of a society whose most educated, best paid and leading members conduct themselves in this way? The fact is, the BBC is either simply not shocked that Pakistani lawyers and doctors behave in this way, or they want to make sure the British Public outside the Asian Community is not shocked. I’m not sure which is worse, but either is an indictment of the BBC. I’m sure the British Asian community was pretty damned shocked.The huge efforts made by people in charge of the “Ministry of Truth” (George Orwell based this on his two years experience of working at the BBC) to pin false paedophile charges on entirely innocent establishment figures like Sir Edward Heath, Lord Bramall, Sir Leon Brittan, Lord McAlpine, and countless others, does indeed appear mind bogglingly stupid. We were treated to headlines, police standing outside homes inviting any fantasist, compensation fraudster, social misfit or nut case to “come forward”, with evidence of abuse, at the same time this same Media, police,and social workers completely ignore the hundreds of raped and pimped white and black girls “in care” who “came forward” in huge numbers without anyone having to go on TV and ask them to, telling of the hundreds of depraved Pakistani taxi drivers, only to be completely ignored over two decades, by the very same authorities so earnestly begging for evidence against Upper Class Whites!It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Toff Elite are much less concerned with who is being sexually abused than they are with who is doing the abusing,and that only Middle Class Whites should be punished for not behaving with decency and it really isn’t fair to expect the same moral standards of brown and Muslim people.[Edit 20.10.19] I reviewed all the Google references to the Manchester Arndale stabbing of 11.10.19. On the day it happened I listened to bulletin after bulletin on BBC radio, and the reference even now is only to “a man in his 40s” or “the assailant”, tantalizingly we are told “anti terrorist police are handling the investigation” but absolutely no mention whatever of the race, colour, or religion of “the assailant” and even now, ten days later, trawling over google I can find no reference whatever to the obvious question on everyone’s mind, “was this another Islamicist atrocity perpetrated against the innocent British public?”We simply are not allowed to know, not allowed even to ask.But actually we DO know, know that he is not White, know that he is a Muslim, because IF he had been a White right wing terrorist, we would all have been told this immediately, repeatedly and gleefully, by the BBC, as indeed we were over the murder of Jo Cox by a white supremacist. His motivation, his book cases, his online reading and activities all minutely described and debated. But when it is a non white muslim knife attacker acting in the name of Islam, absolute silence. Even now. We are deemed all to be such blind racist bigots that we are not able to handle the truth.[edit 13.12.19] Listening to the BBC Asian Network the day after the General Election, I heard the presenter casually say that a contributory reason why a West Midlands Labour MP had failed to get elected in a predominantly Asian constituency was because she was White, and her constituents “preferred to have one of their own”. Breathtaking. Had White electors demanded they not be offered an Asian candidate, I wonder if the BBC might have reacted rather differently! Equally astounding was the same programme a few minutes later held forth that “both major Parties have real problems of racism”. True enough, but the fact is that Asian electors have also just been openly declared to be racist (without using the word, of course). And the BBC perceive no contradiction because by definition “racism” is what only Whites can be guilty of. It was the same in the 1970s when Asian Ugandans were expelled, This was not racism, merely “Africanisation”. Educated Whites have been brainwashed into not even noticing the hypocrisy of applying different moral standards to Whites and non Whites. The irony is that this is so patronising towards non Whites. Working Class Whites have no difficulty recognising that racism by Whites is widespread (just look at football supporters) but don’t try to tell them that what some Asians, Chinese, Arabs, and Blacks feel for each other and for Whites is not also racism. Ordinary folk just know something the expensively educated don’t, which is that if it barks and wags its tail, it is a dog.Honestly, these are just a miniscule taste of merely the more recent acts of suppression by the BBC and other mainstream News outlets. I have included names and dates so you can look up everything I say, because I know your instinct will be to think “this stuff can’t possibly be right”. I’m afraid its just a taster.Dishonesty about Class origins of Journalists. Hiding their own Class privilege, for shame, even makes the BBC dishonest, and a striking example of this was when , in an interview to James Landale, David Cameron announced, to the astonishment of the world, that he would not serve more than one more term as PM, and James was asked why Cameron had chosen to share this with him, he never once mentioned the highly pertinent fact that he had been a slightly younger contemporary of Cameron at Eton.Dishonesty about history; Ireland and the Crusades.[Edit 22.11.17]. Two more major examples of BBC and other TV media deceit I have drawn attention to elsewhere, illustrates the way Auntie believes it has to suppress historical facts in order to protect vulnerable minorities like Irish Catholics and Muslims from potential British Working Class thuggery. So in the 1970s and 1980’s any “History Of Ireland” was only allowed to present the Irish as the passive victims of English oppression. Thus the period c 385 AD-760. AD (when it was the Irish who invaded Britain, created 4 Irish States in what later became England Wales and Scotland, raided and enslaved the length of Western Britain) is simply ignored. As if just never happened. St Patrick himself was a christian Welsh boy, seized by Irish invaders near Carlisle, and sent as a slave back to Ireland. So it’s not as if this aspect of Dark Age Irish imperialism towards Britain is unknown in Ireland itself.Precisely the same is done with any “History of the Crusades”, which are exclusively presented as a violent attack by Christians upon Muslim territory, again airbrushing out of History the fact that in the 400 years prior to the Crusades, the whole of the Middle East and North Africa was largely Greek or Latin speaking and almostly entirely Christian, were over run and many forcibly converted by The great Islamic “Crusade” of the 7C-10C.In both cases, terrorist bombings and atrocities were being conducted (by The IRA and Islamic terrorists) and the BBC felt the need to manipulate facts to help avoid a thuggish “backlash” against innocent Irish and Muslim minorities vulnerable on British housing estates, and in some contorted way felt lying about history might make ordinary British people somehow feel they “deserved” to be knifed, mown down by vehicles and blown up, and so less likely to put a brick through a minority neighbours window or slash his tyres. All utter tripe, of course every group has a few lunatics amongst them, but the British Working Class is nothing if not fair minded.But however could the Toffs in charge know this? Their parents spent up to £45,000 pa to make damned sure their children never had to risk being contaminated by contact with Working Class kids.It’s not that the BBC will never discuss negative aspects of Islam, for example Jenny Murray has addressed it, but this is only done on places like Radio 4 “women’s hour”, where the toffs can rest assured that the audience are going to be exclusively Middle Class housewives, the sort of people who can be relied upon not to subsequently drop off half a pig’s carcass on the steps of the local mosque, en route back home from Waitrose.Upper Middle Class people live their entire lives without any meaningful contact with Working Class people, whose cause they espouse so ostentatiously.( No change since Disraeli’s book “The Two Nations”). Indeed they will do anything for the Working Class except sit next to them on a train, eat, drink, or allow their own children to be educated alongside them.So they have a real fear of what they perceive to be the lower Classes’ potential for bigotry, racism xenophobia and thuggery. They feel that all that stands between civilised man and utter brutishness is an education at Eton Marlborough or Harrow. So they don’t think the public can be “trusted” with the full facts. “They can’t handle the truth”.Indeed, to tell the truth is regarded as socially irresponsible.Thus lies, distortion, suppression and deceit have become moral guiding principles!This perversion of morality is breathtaking, but passes without challenge within the BBC.The only approach that the televisual media have made towards acknowledging even the existence of a “Social Disaster Class” is in series like “The Jeremy Kyle Show” (ITV) (inspired by Jerry Springer in the USA, of course) and “Benefits Street” (Channel Four), but rather than deal with the devastatingly serious impact this Class is having in destroying both our public services and the National finances, the issue is treated rather as a type of social comedy, (without the need for any script writer - you just couldn’t make it up half the time). In fact it puts me in mind of “The Chimps’ Tea Party” that I used to see as a child in the 1960s at the London Zoo, in the era before we learned to take animals seriously.Of course the BBC themselves haven’t dared go here at all.Dishonesty about migration. The reasons why millions of people want to get away from what President Trump (who has a way with words) called “shithole Countries” is fairly easily comprehensible to most of us, even without the help of the BBC. Why they want to get out of France, however, is another of those enigmas, which the BBC, and the rest of mainstream media, simply will not allow us to ask, without implying we are all racist bigots, even for the thought to have crossed our minds.One reason is that this would involve an intimate explanation of another area we are not allowed to know about, the UK benefits system. This includes “tax credits” - handouts from the taxpayer to workers in businesses which can therefore get away with not paying a living wage, which has also been a colossal part of the drawing of 3.5m non “shithole” EU migrants to the UK. You see, benefits are what poor disadvantaged people get, so its a topic utterly toxic to toffs, and none with any shred of decency would ever wish to expose such a quagmire to public scrutiny.The second point is that so many of the unfortunate migrants from countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya, are disproportionately the Upper Middle Class, medics, dentists, businessmen, academics, the sort of people who have access to the thousands of pounds needed to pay human trafficking gangs to get them to the West, and of course usually highly literate and articulate English speakers. Precisely the sort of people with whom our own toff elite readily identify, and want to help through their natural sense of humanity. However, they can’t facilitate the entry of these into the UK, without also facilitating the entry of those desperately poor, illiterate, often Islamic fundamentalists, who have trekked to Europe with nothing more than a desperate sense of necessity and fantastic bravery and resourcefulness. But the manipulation and dishonesty of the BBC means that we cannot be told anything important or truthful about either group.Have you ever heard any journalist attempt even to ask the question why those refugee camps in Calais were full of people desperate to swap France for England? No, nor me.The dishonesty is not, however confined to silence. Active deception is deployed. So when Simon McCoy (Sherborne school, £38,000 pa) pretends to ask this question, of an Iranian “academic” living in the UK, what makes a family of Iranians, who have been rescued in the dead of night, sinking in an inflatable dinghy, decide to set off in the dark into the busiest shipping lane on Earth, from the French coast (November, 2018) risking the lives of their little baby and small children? The Iranian academic lady explains to chirpy Simon that owing to “Western Sanctions” the Iranian economy has collapsed, and the Regime is controlled by ruthless Islamic fundamentalists. But instead of saying “But Iran doesn’t border the English Channel”, Simon, our great investigative journalist, says “Thank you very much”.Now either his parents should seek a refund from the geography dept of Sherborne school, or Simon is participating in the programme of pro migrant fraud and deception at the BBC and mainstream media. Any UK family launching a dinghy from France in those circumstances would have their children taken into care, as the parents are manifestly unfit to look after them, and risk their lives for no conceivable reason. But because these are economic migrants, attempting to get from one European benefit system to a more generous one, no criticism is to be permitted, on the contrary, we get a co operative “academic” wheeled out to give some sort of credence to the irrelevant “answer” she provides, all an utter fraud, and it is played out before us on the national one o’clock news.And of course, the utter contempt the toffs in charge must have for the general public, quite sure that “nobody will notice”.Dishonesty in Natural History. Criticising Sir David Attenborough is akin to breaking wind in front of the Pope. But this dear man, (not himself educated at any major Public School), was born to the principal of University College, Leicester, and was raised in the finest traditions of academic Upper Middle Class gentility. And this national treasure (a term he is known to loathe) illustrates how even a rigorously scientific mind is twisted away from honesty and truth. He is at the centre of the attack against the decimation of our environment and our wild animals by modern society. Had the ear of President Obama. But he is constitutionally incapable of acknowledging that ALL humans everywhere have decimated their environment as soon as they set foot on a new island or continent.Native Americans exterminated almost every large mammal from the Americas, following their arrival there some 20,000 years ago. Elephants, horses, giant ground sloths, all the large South American marsupials, countless species eradicated. The same happened in Australia after the Aboriginal peoples arrived there some 40,000 years ago, bringing the dingo with them. Wombats the size of bison, Kangaroos 12’ tall. Utter annihilation. Same on Madagascar some 2,000 years ago, lemurs the size of gorillas, giant flightless birds twice the size of an ostrich. The same in NZ after the Maoris arrived, as recently as about 1200 AD. Yet (and I will illustrate with just a couple of examples) in his introduction to his programme on the kiwi, Attenborough presents the Maori as children of nature, and ascribes the survival of this flightless bird to the Maori having “ regarded it as sacred”. Yet Attenborough is much less keen to make any mention of the 13 odd species of giant flightless moas that were slaughtered to extinction by the Maori within a couple of centuries of their arrival. The fact is the kiwi survived, not because it was protected as sacred, but simply because it is nocturnal, lives underground, and hasn’t much meat on it. Attenborough can’t bring himself to say anything that might be thought critical of any native people, and indulges himself in all the sentimentalist tosh about native peoples somehow being gentle folk living “in harmony with nature”, and this same Upper Middle Class trait suffuses his discussion of the Aborigines, whose “wisdom” he applauds in “knowing” the Platypus laid eggs, but he attacks stupid White academics like Richard Owen (the man who first recognised the existence of dinosaurs, and the possibly the greatest comparative anatomist in history) for refusing to simply believe what the Aborigines said. What he doesn’t mention is that these same aborigines had also informed White British academics that the Earth was formed by a giant crocodile having intercourse with an emu, that human tribes spirits are carried inside animals etc, etc. Such was the “wisdom” these foolish White men chose to ignore! The fact is that even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day, but it is outrageous for a man of science to criticise our brilliant Victorian forebears for having adopted a rigorous and proper scientific skepticism towards the claim that a mammal lays eggs, and to misrepresent this as “cultural arrogance”, as Attenborough does, is outrageous, when rigorous doubt and the need for proof is absolutely fundamental to everything at the heart of science reason and logic.This shows how even a man of science like Sir David can be utterly dishonest to himself and to the World, in propagating absurd fairy stories about Native peoples. Only Whites and Westerners are to be deemed culpable and responsible for the plight of the natural World. Sound familiar? And all in the name of the pervasive false humility of the White Upper Middle Class, which so loathes itself for its unmerited privilege of birth.Deception over Scottish Independence and Brexit. [edit 3.5.19] I will not go into the claims of misrepresentation and deceit in either of these, as books have already been written about them. But I have to mention a deeply worrying characteristic that is emerging in our media, and that is to prohibit the expression of truth, if it is felt “irresponsible” to utter or publicise truth for fear of how the masses will react to it. We have of course come across this already in the torture and murder of Kris Donald, Pakistani taxi driver sex rings, the “history” of the crusades and of Ireland.However last week I noticed an orchestrated extension of this “principle”. Krishnan Guru Murthy, (Channel 4), Faisal Islam, and Nick Robinson were all heard , independently to berate and call “irresponsible”, anyone who said that Anna Soubry, and other MPs demanding a second referendum to reverse the result of the last one, “traitors”, on the basis not that what they were doing was not a reversal of everything they had previously agreed to, but on the basis that death threats were being made by various Right Wing nutters, against these MPs. But consider this: are we to be prohibited from saying things like “there is no scientific evidence whatever that the Koran and the Bible were divinely inspired, and therefore can have no authority, nor is there a shred of evidence for the existence of any God”, merely because there are plenty of religious nutters who will feel very good about killing anyone who says such things ? So are we destined to be “irresponsible” if we say such things as this too? These Journalists would consign us into a shroud of perpetual intellectual medievalism.And if voting to agree to hold a referendum, agreeing to be bound to respect the result, voting to trigger Article 50, then get re elected on a manifesto that says the same thing, but then, to say you refuse to respect it, if this be not treachery, then I know not what treachery is. Yet these journalists now try to prevent the word even being uttered.Indeed there was an attempt, following the murder of Jo Cox, to say “well this is what you get if you support Brexit”, (that absurd three day “truce” in the campaign, designed to really ram home the message), so because some Leave supporters will murder for Brexit, you should not support it. But does this mean that when some religious nutter murders in the name of Islam, people should not support Islam either?Our elite don’t stop to think about the implications of what they demand. One Right wing nutter kills in the name of Brexit, and this is held up as typical of the sort of thing that Brexit leads to, yet after each nutter Muslim act of carnage, these same people fall over each other saying “oh, this murder has got nothing whatever to do with Islam or Muslims”.The elite are simply blind to the utter hypocrisy and duplicity of demanding one thing in respect of Brexiteers,(because they are perceived to be white) and another entirely different thing for Muslims (because they ain’t).The White Working Class may not have been to Eton or Harrow, but they aren’t as stupid as many who have.Indeed all these issues have made me question whether there is actually something in receiving a very high level of education that can imbue such a devotion to certain liberalist principles, that the intellect is rendered incapable of perceiving glaring anomalies and contradictions which arise from them, which the educated simply can’t see, (I would say have been trained not to see) but the less educated masses grasp clear as day.Certainly, this idea that it’s perfectly fine to call a second referendum to reverse the result of the one you had, in which it was promised there would be no second referendum, and that it would be respected and article 50 triggered “immediately”, is the most bizarre case of media groupthink self delusion I have ever encountered. And millions of highly educated people have convinced themselves that it is perfectly reasonable to do so. When the streets erupt, it will I suppose be met with blinking incomprehension by the chattering Classes. Now I’m no politician, and no clairvoyant. All I know is what patients tell me day after day across the GP consulting desk, without any provocation or inducement to do so.The BBC introduces the discussion on the proposal to block and reverse the greatest expression of direct democracy in the history of our Nation, as if it were announcing a controversial proposal to cancel a proposed bypass on the A38.It’s all very subtle, just part of a carefully orchestrated attempt to normalise the outrageous. Never more than the third or fourth item. “Knife crime” took the headline spot all week when democracy was quietly being throttled in Westminster. And this should be recognised whether you voted Leave or Remain.Prejudice exposed by how identical situations are handled differently between Parties by the BBC.[Edit Dec 2019]. There is sometimes even blatantly Party political partisanship. The most recent was probably the way the resignations of Jo Johnson and David Miliband were handled so differently. Incessantly Jo Johnson was presented as having resigned “because he couldn’t trust his own brother”, whereas when David Miliband resigned, in far “worse” circumstances- Ed having specifically stood against his own brother for the leadership- no issue of “trust” was raised, it was just accepted (as should Jo’s resignation have been accepted) that different siblings are perfectly able to have different political views that make it impossible for them to share collective responsibility in Cabinet. But of course the knives are out for Boris because the BBC hates Brexit, to a man, to a woman, to a transexual.ConclusionI hope in this brief canter through some of the broad subjects within the remit of the BBC, has shone an uncomfortable light upon the wider adverse consequences of the stranglehold of the Upper Middle Class in the media, entertainment, social work, higher education, the judiciary the legislature, and many other key areas of our society.I hope also to have made these generally decent and well meaning guardians of the public conscience aware that the subconscious acceptance of lower moral standards of behavior from non Whites and non Westerners is itself a most refined and subtle form of racial and cultural supremacism, with which it is fatally tempting for racial and social minorities to collaborate. Of course Muslims are glad not to have their atavistic sexist and profoundly homophobic instincts and traditions paraded on our screens, but in conniving with the privileged elite in this act of suppression and dishonesty, they are themselves accepting their position as a moral underclass.But most damaging of all is that the White underclass, who live cheek by jowel with racial and cultural minorities on housing estates know first hand what is going on, how only White iniquities are called out, and this is why the attempted acts of deceit and delusion by the toff elite, cuts no ice whatever. Because personal knowledge and experience of life, of neighbours, of workmates, trumps political correctness propaganda every time, and invokes a sense of fury and rage at the insult to their intelligence as well as the unfairness of double standards being applied. And they simply will not have it.It is because the internet has blown wide open this traditional Upper Middle Class stranglehold on mainstream media that the public has been able to learn the truth about so many forbidden things, and the public is simply appalled.The plague of “false news” on the internet comes from a public now fully aware of the “false NO news” that governs the BBC, which has entirely and rightly lost the confidence and trust of the masses.The result of all this “double-think” and exceptionalism by the privileged liberal privately educated elite which controls the BBC is that the ordinary masses have come to regard the BBC in particular and the liberal elite in general as a bunch of dishonest, inconsistent self-regarding virtue-signalling, out of touch, fools and hypocrites whose opinion on anything can no longer be trusted or taken seriously. So the masses have simply stopped listening to their social and educational superiors, and hence, of course, Brexit and Trump. It simply doesn’t matter what the ruling liberalist elite think or say any more.The inability of the intelligent educated liberal elite to even see (let alone admit or recognise)the self contradictions in the values they so loudly espouse, and the absurdity of their randomly chosen pet subjects to promote, is not shared by either by relatively uneducated Working Class Whites, nor, interestingly, by highly educated Chinese. For both these groups the stupidity of virtue signalling woke elite is seen clear as day. Hence the term (I try to avoid) “Libtards” and it’s close Chinese equivalent “baizuo”.There has been nothing like this since the invention of printing and rise of literacy blew apart the monopoly of the Church on learning and knowledge, and it has, sadly, brought “experts’ ”, learning and knowledge more generally and widely into disrepute.

I was holding out on answering this for a while, but in the wake of Brexit, I think the time has come to levy my thoughts on this thorny topic.Unfortunately, Brexit was and is a shitshow.Let’s break this answer down into three sections:The motivational factorsThe deal we gotThe overall impactOnce they’re examined, we’ll see the lunacy that’s unfolding!Motivational Factors“Taking back control”A biggie on the negotiating table, and one of the major issues that sparked many Brits into patriotic action. Legal culture became a massive sticking point.“Time to take back our sovereignty!”, the Conservatives peddling Brexit would repeat as if it were a religious mantra, as if we were brave fighters during World War Two landing on enemy soil to do battle with the evil European Communities Act 1972. Forgetting, of course, that we have our sovereignty baked into our membership, considering that we can exercise it at any time to leave. Which Brexit proved in 2016. It was a sovereign choice to join te European Union, it was a sovereign choice to leave, it was a sovereign choice to march up to the other countries and demand all the special treatment we could gorge on (no Euro currency, indexed child benefits, et al).We’ve been exercising that sovereignty from Day Bloody One. Pretty crappy a footing to go on, heralding the return of our sovereignty when we’re literally exercising our sovereignty to reclaim our sovereignty, no?EconomicsLook, I get it.When somebody unveils this:Your first instinct is one of joy.We love our National Health Service!However, in that joy, Brexiteers forgot that the politicians pushing for Brexit had very little power to make that promise into a reality. As such, when it came time to discuss the economic issue, we had to deal with U-turns and backtracking from those who had made promises that they could never keep. Meanwhile, on other industries, Brexiteers love to push the case that we have to let European Union companies compete for our contracts (forgetting that we have the right to compete for their contracts too), the fishing argument (0.1% of our GDP, less than even the iconic Games Workshop!), and that the European Union caused industrial competences to leave Britain (as if we hadn’t had enough time to develop and act accordingly before 2016 rolled around).While I have sympathy for the fishermen, I don’t much care for symbolic victories. Fishing rights were a symbolic tool to be used as a stick to beat sovereignty issues over, and that can barely count as a sound economic case (at 0.1% GDP) where the motivation was simple-minded British nationalism and sovereignty.“We were told it was just a Common Market…”And we were told that the Tories had an oven-ready deal.We were waiting more or less up to the last second for that deal.Gee, Brexiteers sure picked their bloody moment to start caring about when a politician lies, especially considering the economic and social fallout of this particular lie!Plus, it’s a bit rich for the Brexiteer camp to have demanded that we be told the truth about the European Union from decades past, waxing weary about the betrayal of our trust and our sovereignty and our whatnot, and then lie about their finances that they spent and diverted to get us out of the Union, racking up a hefty fine from the Electoral Commission for flagrantly breaching campaign spending laws…Every politician stretches the truth from time to time, and it sucks that they do that. I genuinely detest career politicians who’d try to sell their own mother for a grape and some leverage. But pride against having been sold one of the thousands upon thousands of stretched truths across all of political history, fuelled by useless nationalism and dreams of former glory (the good old days of being a superpower, Rule Britannia!), has created a political abomination. And all of this being spearheaded by a Prime Minister (and prominent Brexiteer) who was sacked from his job at The Times for fabricating a quote, who has been deemed by Conservative Member of Parliament Rory Stewart as “the most accomplished liar in public life”;Perhaps the best liar ever to serve as prime minister. He has mastered the use of error, omission, exaggeration, diminution, equivocation and flat denial. He has perfected casuistry, circumlocution, false equivalence and false analogy. He is equally adept at the ironic jest, the fib and the grand lie; the weasel word and half-truth; the hyperbolic lie, the obvious lie and the bullshit lie.Let’s undo a lie that’s given us pan-European rights and trade by appealing to the better nature of a known and infamous liar who has a well-documented history of lying to get through his life but trust us, he’s telling the truth now…Wait, what?“We’ve survived worse, we were fine without it!”The European Union’s website says this:The European Union is set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbours, which culminated in the Second World War. As of 1950, the European Coal and Steel Community begins to unite European countries economically and politically in order to secure lasting peace.Frankly, no we were not alright without it, if the death toll from World Wars One and Two at 40,000,000 and 75,000,000 respectively is anything to go by. Further integration and unions hold us together in a way that we weren’t before, which is desirable both in terms of political gain and in common humanitarian understandings. Even in an era without world wars (if not an end to wars at all), keeping the peace through agreement and common trade is an essential part to that maintenance. To state that we were “better before” the European project is a ridiculous notion, considering how much we have gained from it and how much we have lost in leaving.The European Union was not established immediately (indeed, its official date was on the 1st November 1993, under the Treaty of Maastrict), but the communities and treaties leading up to it date back to the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952. At the same time, we saw the United Nations and the International Court of Justice being founded in 1945, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the Council of Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance in 1949, and the European Convention on Human Rights in 1953. That these dates all more or less immediately follow the Second World War is no accident. The context leading up to the European Union is vitally important, for those little steps led up to the keeping of the peace that we know and enjoy today.Plus, let’s consider the “better before” and “survived worse” rhetoric. It harkens to a mythical era of a land of milk and honey. Take the example of the fishing industry, since the fishermen were all complaining that the Union has shafted them for years (not all sunshine and rainbows for them now, is it?); would they like to go back to the days where nets and hooks and fishing lines weren’t invented, because “we have the olden ways”? Not in the slightest! Technology advanced, rendering the old obsolete! Just like in our technological advances, politics shifts to render old models as incompatible with the current era; the globalised world makes the nation state look quaint.The nation state is fit for a few purposes, owing to cultural heritage and specific modes of legislative implementation in the countries. But alone, European powers ravaged the world through colonialism and wars, and so the nation state without an inter-state accountability mechanism proved to be reckless and harmful. We proved that our nations were not to be trusted acting in isolation from one another, and we continue to mess up even with the European Union. The difference is that, until Brexit, we had twenty-seven other nation states within one web to point out where we had gone wrong. When the time comes for the European Union to be rendered obsolete, the same will happen to it.But we’re not there yet.The world has all changed.It’s globalising.Some say that’s for the best, others for the worst. But the old ways of doing things are gone. Dead in the water, as it were. Fit to be gawked at from a museum, behind a red ribbon, but nothing more. If we want to go back because we’ve “suffered worse”, that just smacks of single-minded British nationalism above all else, and it’s both misguided and foolish to base an argument off of that alone.But hey, if you want to go back to the days of “Keep Calm and Carry On!” as the air raid sirens whine into the night, be my guest!Just don’t drag me down with you.Welfare tourismThis one’s easy to debunk, but it takes a while.I’ll do so the help of researcher Marcus Österman:We found hardly any differences in how EU migration affects the public budget across the different types of welfare states. In four of the five welfare regimes we studied, where the great majority of EU migrants live, the net contribution to the public purse from the average EU migrant household was clearly positive and didn’t differ significantly across the different types of welfare states.[…]In further analysis, we found there wasn’t even a statistically significant difference between the contribution to the public budgets of EU migrants in the less generous Anglo-Saxon “basic security” regime in Ireland, the UK and Malta, and the Nordic “universal” regime.He summarises his findings here (Britain counts as ‘Basic Security’, far less generous than the likes of the Nordic universal welfare model):Moreover, Directive 2004/58/EC has this to say:All Union citizens shall have the right of residence on the territory of another Member State for a period of longer than three months if they:(a) are workers or self-employed persons in the host Member State; or(b) have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State; or(c) are enrolled at a private or public establishment, accredited or financed by the host Member State on the basis of its legislation or administrative practice, for the principal purpose of following a course of study, including vocational training; and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State and assure the relevant national authority, by means of a declaration or by such equivalent means as they may choose, that they have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence; or(d) are family members accompanying or joining a Union citizen who satisfies the conditions referred to in points (a), (b) or (c).In each situation, the person wishing to come to the country has to either be earning, or they have to be sufficiently funded so to not become a drain on the Member State that hosts them. So this is not a European issue, it’s a British one, one that’s clearly been within British competence to fix. It’s not like the European Union sets the benefits scheme of every country; if they did, there wouldn’t be five distinct models in Österman’s study to analyse, and Britain would perhaps have a humane system of welfare benefits outwith the total disaster that Universal Credit has turned out to be.We might have had to cater our system to European migrants as they arrived, but the system we created was ours to control.Even the Commons Library acknowledges this:EU law doesn’t require Member States to allow EU migrants unrestricted access to benefits.Indeed, as the site InFacts notes:Why would people uproot themselves to cross Europe to come to a country where benefits aren’t that generous in the first place? If they really wanted to become welfare tourists, they would be better off going to Germany or Scandinavia.And as researcher Rachel Marangozov stated in 2013:Even the Government has conceded that it has no quantitative evidence for its recent claims of ‘welfare tourism’, when asked by the European Commission to provide more evidence on the issue, and their claim that 43 per cent of EU migrants were claiming benefits has already been widely discredited, not least by UK Statistics Authority.Most European migrants come to Britain to work and to contribute to society.The scare tactics are one part misinformation, one part racism.And leading nicely into the last point…Overt racismCuntface-Extraordinaire Nigel Farage, leader of the Brexit Party, unveiled this poster aptly-labelled as ‘Breaking Point’. His plan was to vilify migrants and asylum seekers who come to Britain in need of a safe haven, portraying them as a wave of scroungers who will GOBBLE UP YOUR BENEFITS IF THEY’RE ALLOWED IN:Let’s counter him with this: Green World tells us about the refugees who supposedly flock to us for our stingy, ‘basic’ benefits (thank you, Österman!):France received 143,000 asylum applications in 2019, while that same year the UK received under 35,000. These figures have been more or less constant for the past five years, so we can immediately see that the problem is not France shirking its responsibilities and palming asylum seekers off en masse to the UK. Rather, it is the UK that takes on a disproportionately small responsibility for the protection of asylum seekers as compared to our European counterparts.Shut up, Farage.Even if we do accept a higher rate of refugees than France (which we should, it’s called basic decency), it’s still clear that we’re not the prime hotspot here. The rates of acceptance are, once again, within British control.Now, Brexit was not a racially-driven movement, and there are plenty of people who were swayed by the (flimsy) arguments on economic policy rather than the racial ones. Indeed, many of those people are incredibly clever friends of mine, and I would defend them against accusations of racism in the Brexit context with everything I have (unless, of course, they did end up making a racist statement somewhere along the line, which is highly unlikely given my experiences with them!).However, Brexit was to racists as a moth is drawn to a flame. A chance to dunk on the brown doctors who come over here and fix us with medicine! Time to bring back ye olde white supremacy! Eryl Jones of Show Racism the Red Card has noted Brexit as a major influencer of increased tensions and hate crimes, with even the Home Office noting a correlation. Brexit was appropriated as an initially non-racial movement to include racists, to the frustration of Remainers and economic-Brexiteers alike. But the damage has been done, and the damage belongs to the Brexiteers in their victory.On the basis of all of these, we can conclude that the Leave campaign utilised faulty arguments, and that by default there were far more arguments in favour of remaining than there were for leaving the European Union. Minus a few legitimate concerns among some affected industries, the mainstream factors involved in pulling Britain out of the European Union were problematic at best, and their rampant nationalism at the expense of common sense precludes much in the way of any rational discussion.The Deal We GotI’m just gonna leave this here, because fuck me.We lost the Erasmus+ scheme.We lost free movement rights.We lost the Court of Justice safeguards (remember the Snooper’s Charter?)We couldn’t even make the fishermen happy for all of this loss:Mr Deas [chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations] said: This is very far away from the fishing industry expected or indeed was promised, we have surrendered access for the EU fleets to fish in our waters, for a further five years, without securing the quote advantages that we have a right to expect as an independent coastal state under international law.And this is what drivers at Dover have to deal with now:This is as recent as December 2020.I mean, thank fuck we have a deal, but we don’t get to celebrate. Our options were the shit of no-deal or the slightly fragranced shit of the deal we got. We should take it, not because it’s a great deal, but because there’s no other deal on offer. Any delay to this one will sink any hope of a deal at all. Brexiteers are cheering that the deal wasn’t as bad as it could have been, that there are opportunities, but the carnage that these miserable opportunities has been bought with was never worth it in the first place. So we don’t get to celebrate; we get to tuck our tail between our legs, and we get to thank our lucky stars that our shit was at least fragranced.Damage limitation does not make for a good deal.The damage should never have been done.But we get blue passports, at least!Living the dream here!Overall ImpactThere’s more overall factors to consider here:Continued racism: you thought racism was going to end after the Brexit process? Think again. It’s just gonna get worse. This is the Windrush country, the Hostile Environment perpetrators, the “let’s wheel out Priti Patel as our female Asian shield so that we can say what we like about BLM” people. Not to say that the other parties don’t have racists (God knows Labour has anti-Semitism issues), but the Tories are in charge now, and it’s their policies.Scotland: Britain to Scotland be like “oh, please don’t leave, we’re so much better as a union!” and then be like to Europe “please let us leave, we’re so much worse as a union!”, saying both with a straight face. We Scots rejected independence partly for Europe, and we got swindled on the Smith Commission and now on the Union membership that we wanted. You’ll understand, I hope, that Scotland is not exactly filled with happy bunnies right now.Ireland and America: the Irish border was a sticking point, and the situation we’ve got pleases nobody. That’s what you get when England asserts itself over everyone to drag us out of the European Union: can we rename the United Kingdom to “England and Friends” yet? Plus, treating Ireland with kid gloves is a must for a good relationship with the new President-Elect Biden, and as we know, England has such a wonderful history of doing just that.Boris Johnson’s administration: we could have had a great deal, and it would still have only mitigated the impact. Brexit now has to be dealt with by the donkeys currently in charge. These are the folks who can’t even get ventilators because the invitation email went to an unchecked spam folder, who got their asses handed to them by Dr June Raine when they tried to claim that they got their vaccine approved due to Brexit. Utter titheads.Reduction of trust in experts: with twelve devastating words, “I think the people of this country have had enough of experts”, questionable human Michael Gove tarnished the reputations of every expert in their field. Doesn’t matter that researchers debunked the welfare myth, or that there’s a new COVID vaccine, or that the world’s not flat: they’re the global elite! How can we survive when the academics sit around reading Michel Foucault!Economic priorities: between excessive defence spending mid-pandemic (the largest increase since Thatcher’s leadership at £16,500,000, after refusing to fund school meals and cutting foreign aid) to a great big Brexit festival planned at £120,000,000, we’re sinking money into trash. At least fund the NHS like your bus promised, instead of clapping like seals every Thursday! Our priorities are inane; no wonder we had to scapegoat Europe.Disaffected youth voters: the 18–24 year olds voted 73–27 to Remain. 25–34 year olds went 62–38 to Remain. 35–44 went 52–48 to Remain. The ages 45 and above voted to take us out of Europe, and my generation have to deal with the fallout. The 65+ year olds went 60–40 to Leave; we're already faced with Millennials vs Boomers socially, and these optics hurt reconciliation. It's funny how our elders get to order for the entire restaurant before leaving themselves!Yes, I know, not all 65+ year olds, but statistics don’t lie.Mistrust in politicians overall: from David Cameron’s miscalculations, to his successors’ ineptitude, to Leave.EU failing to report their spending resulting in a fine of £66,000, to Remain groups being fined (at lower rates owing to the severity of the breaches), to lies about Turkey joining the Union (Britain has a veto, people!), politicians suck. But Leave.EU outshone all other breaches of electoral law; very bad optics for the alleged defenders of British sovereignty.The COVID-19 response: England had the "longest continuous period of excess mortality” across the European Union between January and June, so said the Office for National Statistics. Economic upheaval in conjunction with one of the worst crises in our twenty-first century lives? Yes please, why not? Thank you! It’s not like we wanted an easy time of it, we might as well throw in some plot twists to keep 2021 as spicy as humanly possible!Human rights: this doesn’t end with the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty aimed to keep members in the European Convention of Human Rights (the one that Theresa May wanted to scrap), and now we’re fully unchecked. Sovereignty is a hop and a skip away from ignoring the Convention outright. The United Nations already lacks the teeth to enforce human rights issues, so now it’s onto the days of the Snooper’s Charter once again.Spike in British nationalism: we had this in spades before, in no small part drummed up by Nigel Farage and his shitty little lackeys, but prepare for the overdrive. Case on point: instead of accepting an offer to remain in the Erasmus+ scheme for students to go to foreign European universities as part of their development, Britain snubbed the offer and decided to make their own program. A lot of grandstanding from the spam email administration.Regardless of the economic benefits that might come about (sparsely and slowly), we’re left facing a social backlash that will never recover. We’ve burnt so many bridges, we’re viewed with mistrust and contempt almost everywhere we go. England even faces hatred from Scotland, so we’re barely stable internally!Whatever deals we make, whatever economic ups or downs we have, Brexiteers still have to account for the social harm that Brexit has wrought. There is no remedy that can be paid off for this kind of thing. Britain was already fairly arrogant as a country (I’m British/Scottish, I know what I’m talking about!), but now it’s on full display. Make a million new economic deals, but the social fallout has crippled British goodwill and our standing throughout the world, leaving us very vulnerable at an already very vulnerable time. We need to rebuild that goodwill quickly.And we have a Prime Minister who quoted Kipling in Myanmar.We’re so very fucked.If it isn’t clear enough by now, I’m foul angry at those who dragged Britain out of the European Union. My generation, and those who come after, will have to deal with the fallout for years to come, while the older populaces who voted overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit will get to clap themselves on the backs for the next ten years before they become too infirm to vote any more.The United Kingdom is in tatters, our economics are a joke, we’re cravenly bowing to any country that offers us a trade deal, our NHS and human rights are edging close to the chopping block, and we’re reliant on limited international goodwill after our historic and present shenanigans.These were issues that existed well before Brexit.The NHS blood plasma supplier was privatised and sold to Bain Capital in 2013 (who sold it off to a Chinese buyer for £820,000,000 three years later), Alex Salmond wanted to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom in 2014, and Theresa May wanted to take Britain out of the European Convention of Human Rights in 2016. God knows that racists were abound in the United Kingdom before the Brexit vote was on the horizon. These are all pre-existing issues within our ‘great’ British society.But they’ve been well and truly exacerbated.I care little for the European Union as a body. I won’t be rushing to embrace Guy Verhofstadt if I ever meet him. I won’t be praising Ursula von der Leyen if we ever cross paths. I don’t hold leaders or organisations in any form of reverence; to do so is culty, and if there’s one thing I detest, it’s a cult. However, I’m still very sad to see the advantages that we had disappearing, all for negligible economic returns, brazen and unmerited nationalism, and social devastation in return for our troubles.And do you want to know the real kicker in all of this?"What is the EU?" is the second top UK question on the EU since the #EURefResults were officially announced pic.twitter.com/1q4VAX3qcm— GoogleTrends (@GoogleTrends) June 24, 2016Well done, British exceptionalism.Born, bred, and created to be as stupid as possible.I hope it was worth it.