Gender pay gap

@Picassospaintbrush I think you're right! That quote about middle-aged women was possibly more accurate in the past...or for mothers in their 30s or 40s who feel unable to leave their (perhaps flexible and/or part-time) job that works well for the family, but less well for them personally, so they don't want to rock the boat.

Someone at my work has been part-time since her daughter was born (5+ years ago), and despite official policy encouraging managers to put everyone forward for promotion once they've been in a role for a certain amount of time, those working part-time seem to have to fight for it, and still are denied year after year...she has now given up trying.

Also, I'm sure it's been said before, but it seems like especially from what I've read of that facilitated man thread helpfully linked earlier the child-related issue for women often starts with the firstborn (after taking up to 12 months off for maternity leave, during which time their partner is still working, may be on track for promotion, etc.) and then if a second child arrives, it becomes much harder financially (or even impossible logistically) for the family to make it work...and by then, the mother's career may be stagnating or she's earning less than the father, so the logical choice for the family is for her to give up work to avoid those childcare costs altogether, or at least go part-time for a few years, and the father's salary and career becomes more important to the family, with the pressures that brings.

If people only had one child, maybe it would match up better with the saving up to take 1-2 years off travelling scenario (assuming that the parents can afford high quality childcare for 10+ hours per day with their combined salaries once they both go back to work full-time...), but it's not really the same situation.

And even if it were, this mother penalty apparently only accounts for around 20% of the pay gap (not sure how they determined that though -- I still need to read that paper I linked to earlier)...

But I suspect young women and men do, to some extent, make early career-related decisions with these 'traditional' roles subconsciously in mind -- well before they think about having kids or getting married.

P.S. I'm still interested in the approaches companies are taking to combat this, if you can share.

I am learning to love fmsfms, she has talked in another thread (not stalking, I was invited by fmsfms) about her personal history in a way that is very open and honest and this openness is usually given a lot of respect here on feminist chat. fmsfms has shared something that is triggering my empathy, despite my male socialisation. If that's confusing anyone I am female, but have spent my entire life immersed in male socialisation, it rubs on.

anyway:
If you wanna hire someone to exploit...productively, you hire middle-aged women who are hyper conscientious and who are agreeable, because they'll do everything, they won't take credit for and they won't complain. And that's nasty. And I think that happens all the time".

I think the age cohort regression analysis will show a change in this dimension.

I'm late middle age and do not fit this profile, the opposite in fact, I mean 70's punk women are now late middle age.

I have no reason to please any fucker and I have every reason to shout my mouth off as intelligently as my years have educated me to do. Beware.

Yes, they did, they're good like that if you report posts that break talk guidelines.

ok so MNHQ felt the need to police her posts, not me, nor mine.

That the post broke talk guidelines. I remember why.

who is policing what? I'm just reminding PP that despite her reporting my posts yesterday she's the only one that had posts removed.

What does that tell you?

It's fairly infuriating that women discussing the gender pay gap end up with a thread dominated by men, policing who says what. But crack on.

@mrghardy "Sorry but I think you are trying to equate "gender pay gap" with lifetime earnings and that's a different issue."

"The gender pay gap is the difference in the average hourly wage of all men and women across a workforce." gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/public/assets/pdf/gender-pay-gap-explained.pdf

You also said: "Women earn more in their 20s than men. By the mid 30s it's the other way round."

So if women earn more in 20s, then less in 30s and for rest of their career, then clearly on average over the course of their careers they earn less, so no, it is not a different issue.

Women earn less than men on average over their entire career - it is an earnings gap

"Your lifetime earnings, but not your salary and not your career progression."

Please read my example again. I never said anything about Brother B getting pay rises or promotions whilst Brother A was travelling.

So I'll ask again, clarifying this time, their salary and job remains equal throughout their career, even though Brother A took 2 years off to go travelling

Brother B has +2 years of salary and pension contributions. He's earned more than Brother A, is that fair? Of course it is

"If you have worked 20 or 22 years, you should really be in the same position and not so far behind just because you had 1-2 years out because of children"

Most women have children in their twenties and thirties, which does not = 20 or 22 years of work experience.

How do you control random events that might occur in those 1-2 years whilst a female colleague is on maternity leave - like her manager leaving for another job and thus his/her position becoming vacant, and the job going to a man who wasn't on maternity leave?

"Large organizations run on the unheralded labor of people who are high in agreeableness and high in conscientiousness and they are disproportionately women..... If you wanna hire someone to exploit...productively, you hire middle-aged women who are hyper conscientious and who are agreeable, because they'll do everything, they won't take credit for and they won't complain. And that's nasty. And I think that happens all the time".

Take from that what you want.

Here he talks more about what agreeableness actually is:

Here:

(5 min video where he talks about agreeableness).

"If the pay gap is the difference on average between lifetime earnings of men/women. Then clearly all other things being equal then taking 1-2 years out of your career is going to reduce your lifetime earnings vs someone who doesn't."

Your lifetime earnings, but not your salary and not your career progression. If you have worked 20 or 22 years, you should really be in the same position and not so far behind just because you had 1-2 years out because of children. Even if theoretically there was a measurable detriment let's say, then imo it would still be a 'morally' right decision to not penalize women for it. We would be nowhere as a species without offspring.

Sorry but I think you are trying to equate "gender pay gap" with lifetime earnings and that's a different issue.

It's a real shame we can't actually discuss the gender pay gap on a gender pay gap thread.

This is beyond a joke.

In response to an equally flippant and dismiss post. But, yep, my bad.

AssassinatedBeauty
"No.
Which is why I asked.
For a genuine answer, not a flippant and dismissive response."

Says the person who writes....

"Oh bless you. But thanks for trying" 😁

Agreeableness and the big five personality traits are such an accepted topic that it really didn't need a video, as evidenced by the google search results

Yes it's a shame you can't understand what other people are saying, and get bogged down in excessively literal interpretations.

I would have though that as a enthusiast about JP, you would have had a link to post or a YouTube video to recommend. But hey ho.

You asked me a direct question, lol - I wanted to continue the discussion, I had no idea answering the question would result in this pointless and totallly unnecessary derail/tangent

We know about the interview tactic of answering the question you want instead of the on asked. Srsly. Clear communication 101.

You asked me a direct question, lol - I wanted to continue the discussion, I had no idea answering the question would result in this pointless and totallly unnecessary derail/tangent

Or, you know, you could have just ignored my post and not responded.

"you would suggest that the definition used in such research came direct from Wikipedia."

See, this is the misrepresentation inherent to your posts. You think that me using the wikipedia definition means that everyone else follows that definition. You seem to be casting some level of doubt onto the authenticity/reliableness of wikipedia.

The wikipedia definition was visible on the first page of search results, as was similar definitions from other sites. The definition barely varies from site to site, therefore I have no doubts about the authenticity of the wikipedia definition

I mean all this could have been avoided if you took the time to use google yourself

Ok. You're misunderstanding everything I'm posting. I hope not deliberately. You seem to be working from the assumption that I'm quite dim and completely literal.

I asked, an age ago now, what JP and his ilk defined "agreeableness" as. Considering that research is conducted into this specifically, and it's often given as an example of where women are vastly different to men. I'd like to understand more about what people like JP mean when they're talking about this personality attribute.

You responded by giving an apparent quote as to the definition of agreeableness. I asked where from, and you quoted Wikipedia via an Internet search. My next question was supposed to demonstrate my incredulity that you would suggest that the definition used in such research came direct from Wikipedia. It was not a suggestion that I literally thought that's what you meant. I'm not working on the assumption that you're quite dim and completely literal. I knew that you couldn't possibly mean that this was the definition used on scientific research. Hence the incredulity that you were being so dismissive and flippant as to dump it on the thread as a supposed response. But, whatever, dude.

you don't really need to ask but you did anyway?

No.
Which is why I asked.
For a genuine answer, not a flippant and dismissive response.

It's such a rhetorical and obvious question - do you really need to ask whether an ex Harvard academic with a global reputation uses primarily uses wikipedia as the foundation for his research/knowledge/opinions?