The Myth of the Gender Wage Gap

Nick Capaldi

The ‘gender wage gap’ myth is a classic example of selective reasoning that attempts to justify the wholesale looting of male productivity. It assumes that men and women are separate, social entities competing for the same resources; as opposed to a typical family unit or partnership working together for mutual benefit. It does not take state benefits into consideration (many mothers, for instance, voluntarily choose low-paid, part-time work to maximise state subsidies (tax-credits etc.) with the minimal of work effort…

Increased female wealth and opportunity has not curbed the age-long female tradition of ‘marrying up’ and many women still enjoy the benefits of being with a higher-earning partner (women having long held the greatest purchasing power). Certainly in my family background, it is not uncommon for the husband to handover all/most earnings to the wife; rendering any ‘pay gaps’ irrelevant. Despite this, I doubt that we will ever see the reverse practised on a large scale as female wealth and income increases exponentially… Spiked! online is one of many sources claiming that single women entering the UK workforce are now earning more than single men (yet where is the outrage when the ‘pay gap’ is in women’s favour?).

The ‘gender wage gap’ myth ignores natural, innate female social and sexual advantage. One example would be that the only way many low-status males can access sex is through illegal prostitution (if they can afford to do so, and are willing to risk prosecution) while it is rare for women not to get their sexual needs freely satisfied for long, extended periods. Even casually viewing online pornography is a hazardous undertaking due to new and vague Government definitions of ‘extreme’ and ‘child pornography’ etc., where an unsuspecting viewer could technically have illegal content filtering through their browser without even being aware of it…

To sum up, the political class are only looking at their subjects through the lens of personal earning potential in the workplace without acknowledging any innate female social advantages and innate male social disadvantages. They are failing to address the resulting ‘sexual access gap’, ‘loneliness gap’ ‘self-esteem gap’, ‘suicide gap’, ‘prison gap’, ‘workplace fatality/injury gap’, ‘childless gap’, ‘homelessness gap’, ‘education gap’, ‘life expectancy gap’ and many other ‘gaps’ you could add to the list… The ‘gender wage gap’ myth is also a rejection of natural male-female dynamics and an attempt to improve human behaviour without a clear understanding of our basic biological drives and evolved gender roles. It can only end in tears.


  1. Nick, I agree. In fact, I think egalitarianism means that women are now overpaid compared with their fundamental worth to business.

  2. Thank you for this. I sometimes feel as though we have been living through a period of collective mental illness, so patently flawed has been the ruling ideology. I have suggested elsewhere that it is indeed the falsity of beliefs that gives them their power. Like confidence tricks, they rely on face-saving: induce insecurity by getting people to profess as unquestionable an obviously questionable proposition, and rely upon pride to do the rest. “Equality” has been the baited-hook, the absurd identity on which the new geometry is founded, and thus we find ourselves twisted into excruciating and ultimately impossible contortions. If we had had genuinely free-debate I believe we might have avoided the worst excesses of all this; how is it that “they” managed to silence more reasonable voices? Partly I think we have only ourselves to blame: like the Chinese of yesteryear, we assumed we were unassailable, and now we find ourselves wretches.

    • One view is that feminists and affiliated women’s groups are merely the political wing of natural female self-interest and self-preservation. Women were once happy to stay in marriages while the men were out doing dangerous, life-threatening jobs, but as modernity brought material abundance, new technologies (the pill/safe working conditions etc.) and systems of wealth-redistribution; it became far more convenient for many women to extract resources from men through the state (i.e.; welfare/non-jobs/divorce etc.), than through the ‘indignity’ of voluntary exchange – regardless of the long-term ramifications…

      Naturally, the wholesale looting of resources from one demographic to another requires a ‘legitimising ideology’, and that’s where feminist culture (goaded on by the self-interest of the political class) steps in to spread lies and misconceptions about the groups being unfairly exploited (mainly men from the bottom-half of the socioeconomic spectrum).

      Having worked a number of ‘dead-end jobs’, I realise that there are many hard-working men who barely earn enough to survive, (never mind having a social or love life), yet their taxes and productivity goes on to support women and children who don’t even know they exist… Politicians then boast about the rising wealth and opportunities for women, but rarely acknowledge the groups that have been sacrificed to pay for it all (white, low-status males probably being the most disadvantaged group in Britain today).

  3. Nick, prostitution is not illegal — it is not illegal to pay for sex in the UK. There are restrictions on curb calling, brothels and pimping. The law is a bit of a dog’s breakfast, but I just thought I should correct a misconception in your article.

    • Not to split hairs, but the point is that ‘paying for sex’ can still get you into a lot of trouble, as is the viewing of online pornography (both activities being actively ‘discouraged’ by the state).

      Higher status generally increases male ‘sexual market value’, so as you ‘redistribute’ the spoils of male productivity, you are taking away a large portion of his sexual attraction and likelihood of being ‘eligible’ for partnership and starting a family (women choosing benefits instead).

      Easier access to prostitutes and porn etc., could at least help to alleviate male frustration (women barely suffering any sexual disadvantage through loss of status). It is no surprises that we are returning to a pre-civilised norm where only 20% of men have regular sexual access to 80% of the women, and where a six-pack, high testosterone count or bad-boy criminal credentials, is more likely to get you laid that having a manual job – well done social planners!

      • Nick, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. The average low-status male in the UK has no problem finding willing females. Are you struggling to attract female company?

        • My ability to attract female company is irrelevant to the discussion. Naturally, you always risk facing ridicule when discussing male disadvantage. You get the same kind of snarky responses from both feminists and tradcons alike. Even the act of acknowledging male disadvantage is often seen as an emission of ‘lower status’ or ‘unmanliness’ in other people’s eyes, yet I expected a bit more self-knowledge and restraint from yourself. This is also why the experiences of many marginalised males goes largely undocumented, through fear of being shamed.

          Outside the fictional world of EastEnders, studies point to a shortage of ‘viable’ men at the top, and a shortage of available women at the bottom. As already said: increased female wealth and opportunity has not reversed the age-long female tradition of ‘marrying up’ and ‘pairing upwards’ (hypergamy).

          This may be of interest:

  4. Of course it’s rubbish, but it’s also an illuminating example of how to win an argument by choosing the statistic that seems to prove your case, and which causes the audience to unwittingly side with you due to implicit assumptions.

    I think Feminism can only be partially and cautiously explained as a manifestation of female self interest. Firstly, bear in mind that self interest motivates people to do not what is best for themself, but what they think is best for themself. For instance, if you believe that your crops will grow if the Gods get a good enough sacrifice, you’ll end up killing your best oxen or even your children in your own self interest, even though it is actually self-harmful in reality.

    But I think Feminism is more motivated by a class interest than a self interest; its goals are to the benefit of a small number of bourgeois women, many of whom have basic psychological problems like an extreme “phobia” regarding men and the heterosexual act in particular. “All women” are no more an homogenous group with the same interests than are “all men”. Feminism can equally be seen as a reflection of womens intra-gender competition, for instance the hysterical campaigns to exclude competitor women who are more attractive from capitalising on their physical assets, either in the personal or economic spheres. Which for instance is why unattractive middle class women are obsessed with ending Page 3 and its equivalents, which are beneficial to the pretty, working class women who appear therein.

    • ““All women” are no more an homogenous group with the same interests than are “all men”.”

      There is growing evidence that females do actually share an in-group preference… And although there is indeed female ‘intra-gender competition’ to be the most physically attractive within the group; it is nothing compared to the life-and-death struggle of the male ‘dominance hierarchy’, where if failure doesn’t mean physical death or lower life expectancy, it certainly means ‘genetic death’. The leaders of the male dominance hierarchy have always been willing to use lower status males as cannon fodder and cheap labour for the protection and provision of women and children. Yet it is rare to see women exploited by their own gender to the same detriment.

      “its goals are to the benefit of a small number of bourgeois women”

      Well I don’t hear young-single women complaining about their newfound privileges: bar hopping, shopping for £150 handbags and chasing alphas – for these women life is one big party. As their looks fade and they can no longer bear children, there are always plenty of desperate younger men out there to fulfil their needs, and plenty of non-jobs to maintain a good lifestyle and cosmetics.

      The single mother enjoys both state benefits and a well-paid part-time non-job, as well as maintenance (declared and undeclared). Her ex has the kids at weekends while the latest boyfriend comes over; showering her with gifts and free dinners. It’s like having 4 separate incomes. Life doesn’t get much better than that.

      • I think to some degree you’re making the same mistake as the Feminists, which is common in MRA, of only seeing the alpha females.

        Females for instance have routinely held their lower status sexual competitors in a non-reproducing state by servitude, even to the extent of imposing an effective purdah on them, as with the classic Victorian model of literally locking them in the house to prevent “immoral” (i.e. sexually competitive) behaviour. And hence the constant animus against prostitution, porn, and any other “loose” behaviours.

        • “I think to some degree you’re making the same mistake as the Feminists, which is common in MRA, of only seeing the alpha females.”

          Not sure what you mean. I wouldn’t regard the 2 examples I gave as ‘Alpha Females’, they are pretty typical at least from my experience. Even the most timid female will also exploit men she views as beneath her sexual market value.

          “Females for instance have routinely held their lower status sexual competitors in a non-reproducing state by servitude,”

          And the reason for that was mostly benevolent, as there was no state benefits should she get preggers. High-status women today encourage promiscuity among their female ‘lower status sexual competitors’. Take Madonna and the like…

          • It’s no good copying the Feminist movement, and certainly no good ignoring that what we see today developed in the Victorian Era as moral crusading by a small elite of women, originally driven by extreme Christianity (Protestant Post-Millennialism, mainly) as a means of control.

            Women as a sex are not the enemy. Don’t buy into the Feminist sex war, then just reverse the sexes. There is no class struggle.

            • You’re constructing a lazy strawman and caricaturing here.

              I also find it absurd that a small group of women (the feminists) can control and corrupt the entire female population, and if only we could get rid of them, women would return to being the ‘good, little innocent angels that we all know they are’….

              Women have simply seen an opportunity to exploit their perceived vulnerability and used state power to extract resources from men without the need for reciprocation – it is as simple as that. Men would do the same if it wasn’t for the biological quirk that has men competing against each other, rather than acting collectively (as do women). The elephant in the room is not feminism, but our evolved psychology. Rather than just reading political history, it may be beneficial to explore a bit of biohistory.

Leave a Reply