To think Justine Roberts should not have written this in the FT

[FreeWorker]

Justine writes a comment column in the Recruitment section of the Financial Times section which most MNetters will not have seen as it is behind a paywall.

In her most recent article of yesterday she writes on the gender pay gap and I was astonished to read the following sentences:

"As far as I have seen, then, the gender pay gap has very little to do with discriminatory practices or policies against women."

"The second big problem is that women just do not seem to care as much as men do about salaries and promotion."

One commentator under the FT article called Ezra sums up how I feel.

"Some valid observations - but to say that the gender pay gap has nothing to do with discrimination is frankly delusional."

For those who want to see the full article you may be able to read it via the following link if you search for it via Google and answer a few online questions:

For the rest of the year your pay will be zero

The Financial Times is an extremely influential newspaper in business and Government circles and Justine is also extremely influential as an opinion former because of MN.

AIBU to think that the views Justine has expressed in this article do not reflect the daily experience of women at work? AIBU to think it also contradicts the thousands of posts about unfair treatment at work by women on MN that show discrimination is rampant and that women DO care about salary and promotion?

I have name changed for this post but am a long time male poster on MN and have had male bosses throughout my career who openly and routinely made discriminatory comments in meetings when no women were around to hear them. They knowingly paid women less and passed them over for promotion. I worked in an industry where virtually no women make it to senior positions.

The gender pay gap is always about discrimination in my experience.

Merging of threads is way beyond the technical capabilities of MN, FreeWorker1 - although we could start a new one and link back to both or something.

Interesting if lightweight article in The Pool today about the part-time power list - apparently one third of all the part-timers in the highest tax bracket are men. An inference is drawn that this means men are participating more in domestic life - in fact the only example they give is of someone who works 80% of the time in order to go skiing the other 20%. However, it's an encouraging statistic.

" Even woman who goes part time damages other women."

There you go blaming women for sexism again Deo.

Women who go part time do not damage other women. Women who blame women for structural sexism, damage other women.

"AskBasil My question was about who or what you consider responsible for sexist practices in the workplace and an unequal division of labour at home - men, men and women, society and culture?"

A mixture of all.

"And how far are these things done wittingly or unwittingly? You've talked about the workplace not being structured for women - is it the case that the workplace is simply not evolving sufficiently to offer truly equal opportunities and fair treatment of women? Or does the workplace continue to be designed in a way that purposefully marginalises women?"

Well that's a really interesting question and I don't think anyone can claim to definitively know the answer to it. But I suspect it's a combination of both. Workplaces are still being structured to disadvantage women and this structuring is "purposeful" if someone who cluelessly does it because s/he hasn't bothered to learn how to avoid structuring it in a way that disadvantages women (or any other disadvantaged group), is in a position of power and chooses not to educate themselves to use their power to avoid building a structure that systematically disadvantages specific sections of the work pool.

AskBasil - it isn't about structures. It really is more basic than that.

Its about individual managers sitting behind desks making decisions about pay based on prejudice. An organisation can have all the HR policies and procedures, structures and so on in place but individual managers sit there making the decision and if they have the power and authority and they abuse it then women lose out.

Like the example of my old boss. He just hated women, had no respect for them and was determined regardless of evidence to get rid of them and or pay them less than men.

The higher the pay and the greater the pay discretion, especially in 'star' based systems in things like financial services, university research, entertainment industry and the like the worse it gets.

If it is just about how many widgets did someone produce or in pay levels close to minimum wage then the difference is likely to be minimal.

I would add lawyers and other kinds of professions as examples of 'star' based pay systems.

I don't completely agree.

Individual men who make decisions, are not necessarily consciously deciding to pay women less. Of course the ones like your ex boss are still there, still hating women and deliberately paying us less.

But I suspect most bosses genuinely think they're egalitarian. They have a lot of unconscious sexist crap in their heads which they are unaware of having and which they would vociferously deny they had if you pointed it out to them. They make up all these excuses for why the outcomes over which they preside, systematically show that women are worth less than men.

And articles like Justine's validate them.

And yes I agree with you about the star based system. It inevitably favours men.

Some of the biggest differences though for men and women were between dustbin men getting big bonuses and cleaning ladies who got none. The jobs were found comparable and the women got all the back pay - thanks to lawyers (we're nice like that).

Anyway some jobs have more flexibility on pay and others have totally open pay structures.

New company law will require disclosure for bigger companies;

"Gender pay gap reporting to be mandatory

Consultation was launched on 14 July 2015 on regulations to be introduced in 2016 requiring companies with 250 or more employees to carry out an equal pay review and publish their gender pay gap.

Section 78 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) contains a power for the government to make regulations requiring mandatory gender pay gap reporting. Until now, these powers have not been effected and a voluntary reporting approach has been favoured (unless a company has an equal pay finding against it). However, following the introduction of a voluntary reporting initiative in 2011, only five companies (including PwC) have published their gender pay gap. On 6 March 2015, it was confirmed that the government will back reforms to bring section 78 of the Act into effect and thereby require mandatory reporting. On 14 July 2015, consultation on the government's proposals was launched. "

The 2010 already allows people to force co workers into disclosures on pay for litigation on equal pay even if the employment contract prohibits pay disclosure.

I don't think women should tolerate even a day of a sexist man at home<

I think you also note somewhere that women should marry a non-sexist man. Who are these sexist/non-sexist men who are someone else at home than they are in the workplace? The same men that are sexist in the workplace are sexist at home.

Secondly, in my opinion, I actually think non-sexist men are few and far between - they may not be intentionally sexist, or they may think they are not sexist or they may just be plain selfish; but societal expectations of men and women's roles are so socially ingrained that it sneaks in even where there is supposed equality. Plus, problem is these sexist men don't come stamped with a big sign on them - some of them even talk the right talk, they are respectful and treat you like an equal until children come along. Then somehow, it is like feminism never happened. Even if you both work full-time and are paid the same. Been there, done that. So, what happens if you don't tolerate it and end your marriage (been there and done that too) - they don't suddenly turn into your 50/50 shared care father, nope, you have answered all their prayers because you legalise a situation where you ARE the main carer. Super, they are off the hook, but get to be great dad EOW and single man the rest of the time. No sexism there, YOU initiated the separation, suck it up.

Or my experience from my first marriage - didn't tolerate lack of support - very quickly found I was dispensible for a younger version of me who would take on the housewife role.

I do not for one moment regret standing by my principles and ending the marriage (or in the case of my second marriage, not being able to carry the relationship and H's needs as well as everything else, so there was no choice really, I would not have survived otherwise, and I don't mean that lightly), but it is a lonely path to follow. Let's not pretend otherwise. It was the action of last resort.

For what it is worth, I'm trying out an experiment whether the not tolerating sexism and separating has worked over the long term and whether a more equal balance can be negotiated three years later. The jury is still out.

That is my first point.

Second point: "Every woman who goes part time damages other women".

I will add to AskBasil's response, which I agree with, that this statement not only ignores structural inequalities, but the fact that equality is not about working all the available hours for more and more money. It is recognising that people are different and have different needs. My needs changed professionally when I had DS who has special needs and did not adapt to childcare. I had to change path quite substantially within the same field. That does not make my contribution to professional life any less, in fact it makes it more - because it is possible to say, there is another way of viewing/of doing things. It is not one model fits all.

Yes, we all need money to live, but actually, I also need time to breathe, to be, to notice the colours of the leaves, to take my children to the park, to know what they are doing at school - and let those experiences shape the person I am at work. I don't care if my DD outearns the men, I care that she is independently financially secure, yes, but that also she has a fully-balanced and rounded life which allows her to develop as a person, however that person is and to be comfortable with that person and to stand by the integrity of that person. The same I wish for DS.

I know I have not contributed to much of this thread, and I am jumping in with an essay. But please, please don't negate the experiences and choices of other women (and men) by myopic vision. One of the most successful women I know worked three days a week until her children left school; and explicitly said, I need to be there for my children as well. Does she earn the same as her male peers? No idea. Does she have a more balanced life than many of them? I think so.

(By the way, I still work FT as a single parent of two with little outside support; if I could afford it, I would work 0.75 in a flash! I am exhausted).

AskBasil - Yes I agree with all you just said.

I do feel quite strongly that since the financial crisis that society has swung markedly away from caring about equality. Its like society has decided collectively that equality is a 'nice to have' but now there are more important issues and paying people equally when so many have lost their jobs and firms are under pressure has to go by the wayside.

At the individual level a male manager under pressure to cut cost is going to be more sympathetic to 'someone like him' and more likely to select a woman for redundancy or a pay cut.

I have made a lot of points on this thread so I expect some people agree with some and not with others, but on those just raised - sexist men first....

My mother wouldn't have tolerated a sexist and nor would I. How you find them out before marriage? First of all you aren't after a man to keep you so you don't see it as some massive reward to you when he proposes, that you've secured a deal that you will be kept and you owe him heaps of sex and love because he's going to be keeping you. Instead you see it as an equal bargain - he is jsut as lucky to have you as vice versa. Secondly you do your due diligence before marriage - you look at who does the cleaning in his house, whether his mother was a housewife who ran around after his father, what his views are on women working full time, you talk and talk and talk about these things before you commit. There are loads of non sexist men around. Iv'e met and know lots of them and that includes my sons too. Obviously some cultures and religions are very very backward and sexist but you can avoid those pretty easily.

RR - you said " My needs changed professionally when I had DS who has special needs and did not adapt to childcare. " So was the same with the father? Did his needs change professionally and he felt he should be at home too? If not why not?

Oh Deo how long have you been on mumsnet.

Have you never read the threads where woman after woman after woman says how she was expecting equality within her relationship, her man talked the talk and it was one of these new modern equal relationships right up until the baby was born?

Again, you are blaming women for men's sexism. Many women do look for men who espouse equality. They are careful about ensuring that they marry men who recognise the importance of their wife's career. And to be fair to many of the men, they don't consciously realise they are sexists - they actually think they're Good Guys. The hidden sexist assumptions of both men and women, often only come to the fore once the first baby is born. They haven't come to the fore because women don't do "due dilegence", they come to the fore because sexism in our culture is hidden in plain sight and unless you are sensitised to it, you don't notice it until it hits you very hard.

That is not because women are too stupid to look for good men as you seem to be implying. It's because we are encouraged to be in denial about its existence.

I mean about sexism's existence, of course, sorry, wasn't very clear there.

First of all you aren't after a man to keep you so you don't see it as some massive reward to you when he proposes, that you've secured a deal that you will be kept and you owe him heaps of sex and love because he's going to be keeping you>Secondly you do your due diligence before marriage, you look at who does the cleaning in his house>whether his mother was a housewife who ran around after his father, what his views are on women working full time, you talk and talk and talk about these things before you commit<

Well, after marriage no1, where his mother did both work fulltime and run around after his father, I was super hot on this topic. Husband no2's mother worked full-time; very successful actually; he believed that I should carry on working FT (even when it was clear that something had to give); and he is very good at talking, he makes a living from it. Listening may have been more of an issue.

Did his needs change professionally and he felt he should be at home too? If not why not?

Here is why I am earning less than men...due to childcare issues I can't stay late, come in early or go to events to raise my profile or go on interesting jobs abroad.
After a rough ride I have finally got a flexible working agreement.
To get a pay rise I would have to go get another job offer and I am unlikely to get another job offer as I work flexibly. My work know this so benefit from my loyalty.
To get promoted I would have to exceed the already unrealistic billable hours targets and bring in new business and raise my profile around the firm.

alltheworld - its difficult in your situation to assess if you are being paid fairly because its sounds like a 'star' system job (are you a lawyer?).

If you do say 40 billable hours per week at £500 per hour and you get say 35% of that as your gross salary then a man billing the same a hours at the same rate per hour should get the same as you.

However, if he is also doing 20 hours of unbillable client schmoozing, flying abroad, to win new business that you don't do he should earn more - but how much more?

Do you feel that you are getting a lower percentage of your total billable income?

I do though agree with you that generally asking for flexible working is often used by employers to exploit employees who they know cant move to another employer easily.

So is there anyone on Mumsnet apart from Justine who does agree that the reason women get paid less is not to do with discrimination but because they don't care as much about their salary and getting promoted?

It seems to me that I have only read varying shades of disagreement by posters on this thread.

It has also randomly occurred to me that one way for individual women to be successful is to make sure that their rise to the top is an exception which doesn't challenge the sexist status quo. I wonder if Queen Elizabeth I or Margaret Thatcher would have been so successful if they had espoused feminist ideas.

I agree with JR's point - one of the reasons women can do worse in the pay stakes if they don't ask for enough money. We need all women to be much more forceful in not accepting low pay and realising they are very good; to lean in etc. That is definitely part of the problem. i don't think JR would say it was the whole problem.

" "Obviously some cultures and religions are very very backward and sexist but you can avoid those pretty easily"
Sounds quite racist! "

I can state facts. There are objective truths - that some religions put women second to men and encourage women to stay at home, abort baby girls (look at India and China on that score), cut women's genitals up. I am not racist to say that. I have a moral obligation to state it for the good of women.

"Add message | Report | Message poster AllTheToastIsGone Mon 09-Nov-15 21:49:41
So is there anyone on Mumsnet apart from Justine who does agree that the reason women get paid less is not to do with discrimination but because they don't care as much about their salary and getting promoted? "

Nope, not here

But DG we've heard that often women DO ask for more pay and are rebuffed

(Although I do think women sometimes undervalue themselves - which isn't the same as not asking or not caring)

"It has also randomly occurred to me that one way for individual women to be successful is to make sure that their rise to the top is an exception which doesn't challenge the sexist status quo. I wonder if Queen Elizabeth I or Margaret Thatcher would have been so successful if they had espoused feminist ideas."

YY. Men love women like Thatcher, who sell out other women. Women who present themselves as exceptions to the humdrum woman, not because they have managed to somehow kill all the dragons on the way to success, but because like men, they deny the dragons exist and pretend they're just trivial little lizards which other women get unreasonably hysterical about and only they are strong enough to just step over them, while other women are stupid or weak or lacking in due diligence.

Those women validate men's sexism and also pander to men's egos. Men are reassured that they're not really benefiting from an unfair advantage and that actually, the reason they're in the job isn't because there's an unspoken, unacknowledged default to them and they really have to screw up to not get it while a woman has to be better than them to get it, but because they are just really, really good and all the women out there can't hack it because they're just not as good as men.

And that's why those women are allowed to get to the top. They seem to me to massively outnumber women who get to the top, who refuse to play that game and support other women instead of stroking men's egos.

Have just spent an hour or so reading tis thread. Justine's original article is so disappointing as it makes some sweeping and rather lazy generalisations about women, that are frequently used to validate the sexism and discrimination women face in the workplace.

Tragic that she so blatantly sells out on the women that have made her company