The hypocrisy of the BBC when it comes to impartiality

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

There's nothing like agenda based bias and factless discrimination to fuck things up.

This^^ 

Equality in this world just winds me up.  (warning rant ahead)

It's all very good paying people the 'same wage for the same job' but this means that 'everyone's pay should go up right?' take the BBC, should 'all forgiegn correspondents get paid £250k when some are on £100k? The answer is no. 

There's NO discussion on the one bloke on £250k getting his pay cut (cause that's illegal right).. but I'd be mightly pissed if they 'all went up' becuase of this.

It's morally bankrupt that public money should fund everyone's pay rises. What should 'morally happen' is that the one bloke getting paid £250k should probably get paid a lot less, if he doesn't like it he can leave.

Everyone for a given job should be paid the same or given the same opportunity to be paid the same, in the case of the correspondents, there should be slight allowances for regional living allowances and probably a mirryad of other things I care not to think about, end of BBC rant. 

In the British Army we're not bad on equality, but eh?! to this:

Minimum Standards For Women: Press-ups - 21 • Sit-ups - 50 • 1.5 mile run - 13 min

Minimum Standards For Men: Press-ups - 44 • Sit-ups - 50 • 1.5 mile run - 10 min 30 secs

So women can't do press up or run a 7min mile, but they can do 50 sit ups, I just don't get it. Surely if we should account for phsyical disparity, then it could have been more like 35 press ups, 40 sit ups, and maybe 12mins (8min mile)..  who comes up with this stuff? 

On a more cycling note, how rubbish is it that the womens CX get lower barriers next year? That's surely a backwards step for equality. Many riders didn't/don't understand that desicion. But I want to know who would push this rule change through and why? A feminist or a chauvinist?

I'm absolutley loving the womens CX racing this year, it's great as you don't know who's going to win each week..and depends a lot on the conditions/course, however why are the races shorter than the mens if it's equal? ....OR, is equality in force there simply becuase womens hearts aren't as large as mens and it's 'as fair' as we can expect taking into account that physiological hurdle. 

Does or Should equality account for the physical differences between the sexes? 

How can we be more equal in sport and phyical capability? Is it possible to do this without being patronising and belittling to females at the same time?

I think I'm a confused feminist. 

peted76 wrote:

It's morally bankrupt that public money should fund everyone's pay rises. What should 'morally happen' is that the one bloke getting paid £250k should probably get paid a lot less, if he doesn't like it he can leave.

Everyone for a given job should be paid the same or given the same opportunity to be paid the same,

I think I'm a confused feminist. 

This is the problem though, there might be a male that's done the job, climbed the payscales et al then when a reporter takes the average they decide that the females are less well paid... There's many factors to a pay scale, though I agree sexism may be one

And don't worry, most feminists are confused. It's cos most of them are birds innit!