NEIGHBOURS of politically-aware women will have been wondering what's going on these past few days as the radio pips waken us at six or seven, and cries of delight are heard all around. As the story of Carrie Gracie's resignation as the BBC's China editor broke, millions of women heard the headlines and cheered her on.

Incensed at discovering she was being paid markedly less than her male equivalents, Gracie handed in her notice. Offered a substantial rise she refused. Not just because it was still below what her male colleagues were receiving, but because her request was not for more money but to be treated and paid the same. Instead of taking the £45k sweetener, she returned to her old job on the London news desk.

Another cheer could have been heard yesterday morning at the news that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission will be investigating this case, since it may prove to be a breach of the law. It seems particularly invidious that flagrant inequality exists in such a flag-ship and pontifical organisation as the Beeb. That a raft of high-profile female presenters including Victoria Derbyshire, Clare Balding and Fiona Bruce have added their names to a protest over the pay gap confirms that beneath its righteous exterior, this institution is as riddled with sexism and prejudice as in Lord Reith's day. Reprehensible as many other workplaces, it is possibly more so, given the emphasis it places on women's age and looks.

Yet what is going on in the BBC is mirrored across the land. From EasyJet and Ladbrokes to the civil service, income disparity based on gender is a blight on every postcode and trade. How little has changed. Since the end of the First World War, great strides have been made in employment law. The intractable pay gap, however, shows that at some basic level the hoary old myths thrown at the suffragettes continue to influence the way women are viewed. Despite all evidence to the contrary, we are still regarded as second-class employees.

Before 1914, scorn was poured on the idea that a member of the weaker sex could do the same job as well as a man, let alone better. The Great War changed that perception, and led the way to universal suffrage. But in some quarters, this pernicious – indeed illegal – outlook persists. If an employer as educated and supposedly enlightened as the BBC tolerates such antediluvian ideas, we are right to be alarmed.

The heart of the problem is an age-long culture in which men are taken seriously, and women are not. One hundred years is not long enough for us to learn to think differently about ourselves and our entitlement, let alone for men to discard inherited opinions. Even now, male superiority is engrained in almost every aspect of public life. The raised eyebrow when your surname does not match your husband's, the eye contact levelled only at the man when in conversation; not to mention the endless ways in which male authority – pace Weinstein et al – is wielded over women who seek only to do their job. It might seem a quirk of timing, but it is not really such a coincidence that Gracie's resignation came at the same time that Hollywood staged a red-carpet protest against sexual abuse. Lower pay and lesser status are two sides of the same grubby coin.

Since the BBC is such an egregious offender, it is surely right to question its values, and the worth it places on household names. John Humphrys bridled when Mariella Frostrup asked how he'd like to be called a "star", but his £600,000-plus pay cheque indicates that is how he's seen. Yet would the Today programme fall apart without him? Of course not. Is he worth it? Or to put it another way, is Mishal Hussein worth only a third of him? Either way, the idea is offensive.

Explaining why she resigned, Gracie implied that rather than pay women more, men's income might be reduced. So to women's chorus of support can now be added male roars of alarm. Yet asking run-of-the-mill men to accept less than they were originally contracted to be paid is profoundly complicated, not to mention unethical. They have neither condoned, nor solicited the disparity. They are beneficiaries of a historically unfair culture.

In a case such as Humphrys, and other alpha earners, taking a drop when – if – his contract is renewed might seem a wise move. It would certainly do wonders for his image. But change has to be deeper than winning a few high-profile salary scalps. Altering perceptions of women's abilities is a generational shift, not something to happen overnight. It will only succeed if those – of whatever gender – who hire and remunerate staff can change the way they and their colleagues think. Whether it's at the BBC, or a small, local firm, tackling diehard prejudice is not an enviable task. Those up for the challenge, however, should know that at least half the population will be forever grateful.