Sex discrimination linked to depression in women

You're phrasing this as though women bring the pay gap on ourselves.

I did say that there are likely many reasons. However, it's not unreasonable to think that an individual's choices might affect their circumstances/outcome surely.

Your first step is acknowledging thatthere is a man benefiting from a woman's disadvantagein this scenario.

Do most couples really see it like that? Seems pretty cynical to me. I know my sister certainly doesn't. She gave up a good career and is extremely happy working part time. Her husband has been able to focus on his job and is now a director, meaning that as a family they have a pretty exceptional standard of living. There's no way she would've let anybody else bring up her kids, that's for sure, and she says her life is much less stressful nowadays.

Everybody and each couple are different. If both partners want to work then I guess they need to find childcare, but many women seem pretty happy working part time from what I've seen in the real world outside of internet forums and feminist circles.

Many couples have joint finances once married, so perhaps it becomes less of a priority for some women to focus on their career once they are not entirely 'fending for themselves' as when single

You're phrasing this as though women bring the pay gap on ourselves.

This is effectively victim-blaming. Take some responsibility, do your bit to tackle inequality. Put men's actions and their consequences back into the equation.

The context your hypothetical woman here is in, is a couple. There are two of them. Her husband's behaviour and thought processes are part of the context she has to navigate and make choices within.

Stop pretending there's nothing he can do to change anything. You're a man; it's your job to sort men out, not ours - your first step is acknowledging that there is a man benefiting from a woman's disadvantage in this scenario.

Maybe marriage is also a factor.

Many couples have joint finances once married, so perhaps it becomes less of a priority for some women to focus on their career once they are not entirely 'fending for themselves' as when single.

I can certainly see why some women would think it made sense to continue to be primary carer for the baby after nine months of learning the ropes as it would likely be much more disruptive to both baby and couple to switch roles nine months in.

I'm sure these aren't the only reasons but they certainly make some sense.

What you seem to be saying is that women should choose not to have children to stay on a chosen career path, but you're not saying that about men? Do you not see the sexism there?

Where did I say that?

I just mentioned that women who don't have kids continue to outpace men, which made me think that maybe kids (not prejudice) are the issue.

It seems clear to me that the problem is possibly more likely to be extended breaks from one's career rather than just sexism.

It seems clear to me that our collectively-agreed understanding and application of the notion of a career is utterly entwined with the notion of the default male. Thus it cannot help but perpetuate inequality - because inequality is built into the normal working parameters of the system.

Want to fix the pay gap? Actively resist the assumption that there'll be someone else around to deal with the child-bearing and -raising; do away with the ridiculous system in which two full-time incomes are a standard requirement for anyone wanting to actually maintain a home; radically recalibrate our societal understanding of what constitutes a healthy work-life balance; adjust your behaviour to bring it in line with the principles you claim; stop normalising the hampering of women's attempts to liberate themselves from male dominance and, while you're at it, stop doing it yourself.

I reckon if we manage all that, we might just about crack it.

(For clarity and arse-covering purposes I would like it known that the above is all directed at General You rather than anyone specific.)

As for the topic of the OP - I'm utterly unsurprised. From my personal experience I reckon the strain of constant cognitive dissonance probably has a correlation with depression in this context too. Wouldn't be at all surprised if that's a factor in the phenomenon of 'younger women seeming to be hit harder than we were' mentioned by pp.

The idealism side of where we want to be (eg no sex discrimination) gets pushed hard. At the same time, the pragmatism of more experienced women is minimised and denigrated, which further increases the gap between the world we're told we ought to be able to expect and the real world we actually get. We have to expend a portion of our mental resources continually smoothing over the discrepancies thrown up by this gap; it's a psychological defence mechanism without which we would struggle to function effectively as an oppressed class.

There comes a point where this becomes intolerable (often this point is babies) and we have to accept that we've been told an absolute whopper of a lie - and then we get to be gaslit by society's insistence that a) it wasn't an actual lie as such and b) it's our own fault for being stupid enough to believe the lie.

Buggered either way, because we're stuck at the shitty end of an abusive dynamic. Of course we're depressed.

I can understand why a man can't see it because a man hasn't experienced it.

I've said it before and someone said it upthread. When I started work following university and for a few years after, I didn't see discrimination. But I was naive and at the bottom of the ladder anyway.

As I moved up the ladder I was told certain work wasn't suitable for me, as a woman and was utterly shocked. I always found I was expected to be doing more of the 'woman's' work around the office - answering phones, making coffees for guests, even as I became one of the most senior. Once I got pregnant it was pretty much game over and my career has been up and down since, mainly due to the challenges of being a single mother and an older woman in an industry where older women with children are not the norm.

Manofreason - If you read the research with an open mind, it is pretty clear that it is not just taking time off which affects women's pay. A massive chunk of the pay disparity is straight up discrimination.

Bazzlejet - Its actually worse than that. When men have babies their pay goes up compared to men who don't. The whole thing is completely sexist.

ManOfReason you do know that men become parents too but it doesn't affect their pay or their progression? What you seem to be saying is that women should choose not to have children to stay on a chosen career path, but you're not saying that about men? Do you not see the sexism there?

One of the researchers was interviewed by Jane Garvey on Woman's Hour today. Episode is not yet up on Radio 4 website but will be later today.

The gender pay gap is made up of the 'explained' part and the 'unexplained' part. The explained part is made up of the things you would expect to impact on pay levels: full time rather than part-time working, permanent rather than casual work, education level and age. The unexplained part is just that, the bit that analysts can't explain by the things which are known to affect pay levels. This is discrimination and makes up around 40% of the gender pay gap, according to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

It also cuts in most savagely when women have babies, so the gender pay gap is mostly about motherhood.

It seems clear to me that the problem is possibly more likely to be extended breaks from one's career rather than just sexism.

In America maternity leave is short - I think 8 weeks? They still have less women in leadership positions.

In my industry it's common for people (more usually men) to take sabbaticals of several months - we still have far fewer women in leadership positions.

However most of the senior leaders I've known are a) childless, b) have a stay at home wife or c) have a nanny. C is only an option if one is already earning good money when children come on the scene and the number of men prepared to stay st home is small so basically mothers are being penalised for not being able to be available to work at all times....

I believe I've also read a while back that the number of young men earning £60k is rapidly increasing. I think the article stated that there is not yet parity but it predicted that women could well outpace men in the next few years.

If I remember rightly it suggested the reasons as a decline in blue collar jobs and 'traditional' jobs and an increase in demand for soft skills like emotional intelligence, adaptability, etc. And also the fact that three women now graduate for every two men

But if women are out-earning men in pay up until they start taking actual maternity breaks, that seems to suggest what you saying isn't happening in large numbers (relatively speaking, anyway).

I'd be interested to read that study by The Economist. I've not read it but it was referenced by the economist Kate Andrews in a debate about the pay gap that I watched on Facebook (so I have no reason to doubt its truthfulness).

It would be interesting to know the approximate age of said childless career women who are 'promoted more aggressively' than their male peers - is it that they are generally past the age where businesses view them as 'a risk', or is it just that they don't actually choose to have children and take the time off (suggesting that maybe it is the act of having time off itself rather than prejudice that causes the disparity).

Thanks for the share token. Makes perfect sense to me.

That is simplistic. Discrimination isn't just about rates of pay. It is about being overlooked for jobs/promotions because you might become pregnant.

But if women are out-earning men in pay up until they start taking actual maternity breaks, that seems to suggest what you saying isn't happening in large numbers (relatively speaking, anyway.).

Or am I oversimplifying this too?

Yes.

I often hear that us men can have our cake and eat it (I agree) but surely this also requires women to be complicit? If they say 'no' then there is no baby. Or am I oversimplifying this too?

Discrimination isn't just about rates of pay. It is about being overlooked for jobs/promotions because youmightbecome pregnant.

Actually, I've definitely seen this happen, I think (and not always men doing the discrimination sadly).

I wonder what the solution is. It's not hard to see why small businesses don't want to take the risk of training up somebody to possibly lose them and pay for a temporary replacement (I believe there are lots of people who wouldn't necessarily 'do the right thing' despite their claims to the contrary, a la Sophia Amorosu).

It seems clear to me that the problem is possibly more likely to be extended breaks from one's career rather than just sexism.

That is simplistic. Discrimination isn't just about rates of pay. It is about being overlooked for jobs/promotions because you might become pregnant.

That affects all women of childbearing age, particularly in our 30s, as it is often assumed we're about to rush off and have babies even if we don't want, can't have, have already had as many as we wish.

We are all at risk of not getting the job because of assumptions made about us. That can impact our long term earnings but it is about much, much more than just money.

Admittedly the above is just as much of an issue as biology isn't about to change anytime soon (despite what TRAs might argue - whoops there goes my taurettes again...).

I hope that this isn't too much of a derail (if it is then I'll save for another thread) but wouldn't it actually be more accurate to call the pay gap a 'maternity gap'.

I say this because young women have earnt more than young men for a decade now in both the US/UK, and studies that have looked at childless career women (think it was a study by The Economist) have found that they continue to be promoted more often than their male colleagues.

It seems clear to me that the problem is possibly more likely to be extended breaks from one's career rather than just sexism.

I tried to look for the paper itself but couldn't find it. I wish newspapers would all provide links if they're discussing published research, some do.

Me too Errol. I looked at the journal early view and the web page of the researcher who was quoted but without success.

Really interesting, thank you for sharing

Agree young women seem to find it a bigger shock. They really do seem to believe they have achieved equality - especially the highly educated ones. Maternity discrimination is such a shock to them.
Yes and the erosion of the term 'woman' and women's rights will make it even harder.

This makes sense. Discrimination at work takes a huge toll and can leave women in a difficult situation if they either don't get or retain positions and end up in financial difficulty or with feelings of resentment. I have suffered discrimination before, during and since pregnancy in an industry with a lot of women at more junior levels but which is dominated by men in senior roles.