Gender Pay Gap due to women's choices

radio, what's happened in Sweden, along with maternity/paternity leave being a a joint 'pot' of time shared between the parents, it's now mandatory for 3 months of it to be taken by the dad, in order to start to force a flex in attitudes like the one at your DP's company. Effectively it is much easier for families to make choices that overall impact more on the woman's ability to earn and the man's ability to parent. (I should stress I don't think WOHP are not parents, I work outside the home f-t myself but it's the best term I could come up with).

I don't believe that the gender pay gap is down to family lifestyle choices alone, but that must play a part. In which case allowing men more flexibility of employment will surely only help to harmonise pay faster?

i think that point about work / life balance being a choice that should be made and implemented by both parents is spot on. i would love my DP to cut down his hours so i could increase mine and be better placed to progress in my career (so would he), but his workplace would not look at this sympathetically. So is this back to the big picture of society's views on gendered roles, or can legislation play a part in creating more flexibility for both parents?

comixminx, it may be unspoken but it does 'happen' like that, even if the couple's opening assumption is "the guy will work full time and then the remaining question is what the woman will do in terms of what can be afforded or desired". It's all part of the choice. A family's choice, not a woman's choice. This is one of those areas where language is so important - I got told off by a colleague a few weeks ago for asking if his wife used the free nursery hours for their ds: "no *we" use them" he huffed (quite correctly)!

Hah tribpot, yes, you might think so and in your world and mine it does, but I bet in a lot of households it doesn't happen like that.

At my workplace there are quite a lot of people working four days a week for family reason but almost without exception they are women. It means that my return from mat leave next year will be fairly straightforward but it does mean that even in my reasonably enlightened workplace the visible signs we see of childcare arrangements are with the woman giving up working time, not the man.

soupspoon, very good point about increasing seniority meaning increasing flexibility - as you say this is never mentioned it these sorts of articles and yet it's quite an important factor in my planning!

I mean if a bloke had written it we would have said it was nonsense, but the fact it's by a woman generates a sort of double whammy.

Well she's obviously just a terrible sexist. If this article had been written by a bloke we would have reacted less strongly - as the message she propogates is a widely held one in society.

I still can't get over the fact that she said that women have no desire to be financially independent. That's basically saying they're completely stupid, isn't it? I mean who doesn't want free access to money???

Woman 1: I inherited a lot of money, I am independently wealthy.
Woman 2: Oh dear how awful for you. I am completely reliant on others for money. If DH was to die or leave me and the children would be fucked. I far prefer it that way. Have you thought about giving all of your money away so that you can feel the joy of dependency too?

"Until we can break down the notion that juggling a family and career is a woman's problem alone we have a very, very long way to go until the battle for equality is won."

Exactly. It's actually not a hard concept to grasp so lord knows why the article misses it so wildly.

Are these "women's choices"? I had assumed that as parents couples sit down and plan what is the best combination of work and childcare for their circumstances and within the current constraints of workplace practice. In my old department we had five people working a 4 day week for childcare reasons - four of them were men. I assume each one of them sat down with their partner and agreed this choice as a joint one.

Until we can break down the notion that juggling a family and career is a woman's problem alone we have a very, very long way to go until the battle for equality is won.

This sort of article must surely discourage lots of women, even if only subliminally, from trying to get on in their careers, by implying that success is not what they really want; "child-free, nominal families, long hours, total commitment, most women want other things".

As someone in a senior role, I would say that it's probably easier for me to juggle my day (more latitude with hours etc) than it would have been for the more junior me 10 years ago, or for someone lower down in the organisation now.

Yes, there's more reponsibility and buck-stops-here type of stuff, but there can also be more personal flexibility and also more money for childcare etc.

This is never mentioned by these sorts of articles.

LOL "bog standard sexist denier"

Why do they have such ENORMOUS platforms to shout from??

Generally though, men do not get criticised for having a family and a successful career. I say generally, like the media. My DP criticises his dad for having had a successful career and never seeing his kids.

Yes radioBB it's bizarre how the same statement can be interpreted to mean polar opposite things depending on your POV.

surely her point that women make a choice between career and family is exactly the point! because the option of having both in any meaningful way still does not exist

I only got as far as boggling at the maths of:

?In Britain half of all women in senior positions are child-free; and a lot more of them have nominal families with a single child and they subcontract out the work of caring for them to other women,?

If 50% are child-free then it means 50% are not. Of the non-child-free, some will have 1 child, some more. How is that "a lot more of them"?

In my office the senior men subcontract the work of caring for their children to their SAHM wives, usually ex-wives!

Oh she's a twat, a bog standard sexism denier.

The patriarchy will always find an idiot woman who will bleat their sexist bollocks for them.

Oh dear.

So she is saying that we have equality, as women can now choose whether to have a good career or have children. Riiiight. Not much of a choice, is it.

And can I just give a double, jaw dropped "WTF??????????" to this gem:

"She also attacked the idea that men and women have the same career ambitions and values and that women prefer to be financially independent."

What a complete arsehole she is.

the term 'nominal' very definitely implies it - it means 'in name only' - and you said the point is valid!
I think a researcher who uses this term is a deliberate controversialist tbh.

Do non-senior women who work long hours also have "nominal families"? Or are they somehow exempt from this horrible slur?

Agree that the key way of improving a woman's lot at work is to increase paternity rights and flexible working for all - and to somehow undermine the long hours culture that the UK has developed.

And a 10% differential in pay is definitely still worth fighting for, in most people's experience...

Strawberry - as msrisotto said. That's what I meant.

Strawberry - I read Scallops comment about how many male CEOs had children to illustrate how having children doesn't hamper the success of male business people but it does female. I don't have stats to back this up but i reckon it's be a reliable bet that more males in senior positions had children compared to the women. That's how this 'women's whoice' thing doesn't equal equality - because men get to have children AND successful careers.

StrawberrySam - of course they delegate childcare, but then men have done so (to wives) for centuries and no-one refers to that as having a nominal family, do they?

some have small families, some don't IME.... Xenia has 5 IIRC; Nicola Horlick has quite a few too doesn't she?

anyway a small family is not less of a family than a large one. We wouldn't go onto the one-child family threads on here and tell them they only had nominal families, would we