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.

AskBasil - I would make a slightly different point about unique women like Margaret Thatcher. I think they are very unique but far too often held up by men as an example that sexism doesn't really exist. It happens today with rare examples of women who make it to the top of business to somehow show that really FTSE 100 boardrooms are opening up to women - when they really are not.

One swallow a summer doesn't make and one woman an equal society DEFINITELY doesn't make.

That said, Margaret Thatcher was a rare but powerful example of a woman who reached the top with the unstinting support of a loyal and self effacing husband who in fact was a very successful business man in his own right. She always fully acknowledged that and his crucial role. You might also recall Professor Alan Walters who was a staunch supporter/mentor and of course 'Everyone needs a Willie' Whitelaw.

I wouldn't call it a sell out to point out that women are worse than men at bigging themselves up and asking for more pay. We need more women to get better at asking for higher pay (and in my view never going part time) as well as tackling other discrimination.

It could be argued that Thatcher, and women like her are viragos, gender transgressive, the exceptions which prove the rule

The rule being that women do not occupy positions of power, the few women who do reach such heights serve to reinforce gender norms because they are seen as masculinized women who have stepped outside of what is normal for women

These few women at the top gain an enormous amount of kudos from being 'a woman in a man's world' and it is not in their interests to promote other women.

Better to pull up the ladder, paint other women as not ambitious enough, mere part timers

AllTheToastIsGone
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?

I don't recognise that as an accurate summary of Justine's article (e.g. I think she is talking about a lack of overt discrimination, rather than no discrimination). But to answer your question, I agree with some of the things she's trying to say, although I would phrase them differently, provide more context and add in other factors. For me, the FT article actually strikes fewer bum notes than GlossWitch's blog, mainly because I don't buy into the idea of the patriarchy deliberately, consciously, subjugating women in the workplace. I think it's more subtle than that and more complex.

FreeWorker
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.

FreeWorker Whilst that may be one element, I think that's far too simple. I believe the issues and causes are multifactorial. And I think AskBasil is right. A large element is to do with the way work and workplaces are structured. The design and scope of part-time roles is an issue, particularly since a much greater proportion of working women than men work part-time. I do wonder as well how many people are obliged to work full-time, because sufficiently good part-time options for the role they want do not exist. Work is not just a problem for women - workplaces are not well structured for men either. Expectations from some workplaces (e.g. long hours; work as the first priority) impact negatively on the work/life or work/home balance of men as well as women, and are not optimal for society in general, reinforcing differences of opportunity and differences in equality. I think there needs to be much greater flexibility for employees and a greater value placed on life away from work. Too often there is conflict between work and other aspects of individuals' lives and something is forced to give.

(Thanks AskBasil and FreeWorker for answering my earlier questions.)

My experience of women bosses is not that they pull up the ladder and want to be the only one. Just like many men they are keen to promote others. In fact lots of women want the law of threes (once you have 3 women on a board women are not "other" and different and suddenly become people/normal).

As for how much leisure time people want that is for each person to decide. I like my work. I like the children too but I am happy to work full time. That of course in a sense is unfair on a man who wants to be with his children half the day (or a woman) but that is just how it is. Not surprisingly those who like their work and spend quite a bit of time at it tend to get better at it.

I think the vast majority on this thread think that JR's article was not helpful, unsubstantiated in parts and not representative of the thinking of her client base. It's been a very interesting discussion though with lots of interesting perspectives. I wonder why it's not in discussions of the day

I agree with the last post. I think Justine is guilty of conflating the relative and the absolute.

I guess I'm a case study in the dragon obstacle course. Sorry this is long and anecdotal.

First major interview I went on after a lot of postgrad study, I was wearing a fairly bright outfit. The man interviewing me still calls me the girl in the pink suit .
Second major interview, I was interviewed at the house of the man who had started the company I wanted to work at. I remember him saying, when it got to the salary discussion, what the range was. The starting salary was more than both my parents' wages added together at their retirement and I thought it incredible riches. Something made me say 'but of course I'd prefer £Kxx' which was the top of the range not the start.

I got it. I'm pretty sure a male in my position would have done the same.

They kept me on the same (ad-hoc) salary for three years, not even inflation. I needed a mortgage by that point and one day went in shooting. I got back-dated inflation plus a gross rise. A few months later I found out a man with similar education and job (and there for less time than me) had a higher salary. Went in shooting again. Got onto a proper pay scale with performance increments.

I am now on precisely the same rate as the chap's replacement (male). But I can't be complacent, since he spends a lot of time doing professional body voluntary work to get kudos, and this means travel. I am a mother and can't just go off for day meetings which don't finish until late whereas he can as he has a SAH wife. I have DH who gets home after school pickup.

This is where I get cross. DH insists he can't work and do school runs, even when he is contracted nearby. He can't possibly go in later or negotiate flexi-time. The whole school run (and indeed DS's school choice) is built round the assumption that I do it, and if I can't then DH has to take a day off. He is completely inflexible, yet I've built my recent career around late clubs, breakfast clubs and DS being at school close enough to my (permanent, full-time) work for me to be able to drop off, pick up AND still do 8h work and take DS to after-school activities. I'll get home at the same time as DH if there are no activities. He leaves 30min before me. Inadvertent sexism? He argues that because he contracts and doesn't know from month to month where he'll be, he can't commit to the school run. Yet I am expected to? I can't change jobs and get a promotion until DS can take himself to school?! Would a man in my position have held himself back?
All this rot conspires to make a woman's professional life harder. And I consider myself a well-paid successful knackered professional with a DH who encourages me to not take rubbish from folk at work. Double standards. There's another bit of sexism. If I were single I'd end with all of the work all of the time expect probably the odd weekend. Not only do a lot of women stay in jobs where they don't want to rock the boat for fear of losing their positions let alone getting a raise, they also stay in relationships beyond their sell-by date because their lives would get even harder if they left. The Relationships board is full of the fallout.

I am torn really. I quite like the optimism of those on this thread who feel that it's just a case of leaning in and being assertive because it makes me feel more optimistic for myself and eventually my daughter.

However I have seen direct blatant discrimination occur several times in my career so I know that it happens and that denying it is wishful thinking.

I also suspect that more happens than I am aware of because it is hidden from me because of being female myself. For example a close friend growing up was Asian. She was convinced there was almost no racism around. In lots of ways this was great as it didn't knock her self confidence or ambition. However over the course of the years quite a few people made racist remarks to me about her. I always stood up for her but never let her know as I didn't want to upset her.

moonbells, why do you tolerate that? Why were my busband and I more equal? Is it upbringing? Is his family sexist? Does he think having a penis make him some kind of God too worthy to do school runs?

Why do you hold yourself back and I haven't? Does he earn more? Is he brighter than you are? Did he go to a better university? It is fascinating to work out how in some marriaegs women's careers play second fiddle and in others they are equal or even superior priority.

So moonbells to put it bluntly, what would your DH do if you died? Would he give up work because in the world of contracting (the one I work in) it is impossible to have any commitments between the hours of 8 and 6?

I'm not completely unsympathetic to him - it's a bit of a high wire act especially at the start of a contract when there's no goodwill built up. I've been lucky (for which read: made particular choices) in that my work has mostly been public sector and often for friends and ex-colleagues, so a lot of flexibility comes from that. But I have to make it work; sometimes I have to ask one of the other parents to give ds a lift to school, I make use of the before school club often when I don't really need to in order for there to be a buffer when I do need to (ds likes going, I don't make him go at 7:30 for no reason ).

There's always a solid-sounding reason that care-avoiders have for why their career needs come first. Normally it's because they earn the most money. If your DH is contracting he's obviously on a good wedge and he's also in the most uncertain kind of employment there is (hmm except zero hours contracts and so on). Thus is all sounds like it's teetering on the edge constantly. But posters on MN hear the same from DHs in permanent employment - here the excuse is that it will damage their promotion prospects. There's always something. But I think it's all code for 'I earn the money'.

Its a puzzling comment, because I know many women who are very career oriented and who care very much about their salaries. Often the lower paid jobs can be harder in different ways than the higher paid ones, and honestly, who wants to work hard for lower pay?

I also know a surprising amount of very able men who just do not work at all. There seems to be a plethora of them around at the moment.

Its an odd statement, particularly the second part ""The second big problem is that women just do not seem to care as much as men do about salaries and promotion." which seems to actually be a very clear cut example of indirect discrimination.

There are not people about who surely think the only form of discrimination is direct (obvious) discrimination? Surely?!

On the which parent's career comes second for most parents in full time jobs it just depends onthe day. If you have that all important meeting then and your spouse doesn't they deal with the emergency. Also I went to all the during school time carol services as I had more flexibility over my hours than my children's father. He took the children to the dentist for 17 years and more importantly remembered it and arranged it as he had a bit more holiday. You just share it out.

Also where you both have contract work it isn't assumed the woman arranges the emergency childcare. Amazingly men have eyes and fingers and can look up nanny agencies , nurseries and the like. Even 30 years ago my children's father had the cognitive ability to advertise for and interview with me a nanny. Amazing that a man can actually do that.... not. Working fathers do that all the time so never tolerate the ones who don't. Just say I'm at work early every day next week so you'll need to make for the yellow pages or ring round friends with nannies and fix child care for those early starts if you're contracting on those days - there's the computer - there is google - get on with it.

I think it would often be unreasonable to expect a contractor to ask for flexibility. (Thinking back I can think of one who was let go for insisting on it.)

If breakfast and after-schools clubs are insufficient, then the correct solution for a highly-paid person, who doesn't feel able to ask for flexibility, is to pay someone to bridge the gap.

(I am assuming contractor = someone who earns several times the hourly rate of a child-minder.)

Not unreasonable to ask Theoretician, the answer may well be a decided no. But depending on the role being in half an hour later in the morning may make no difference.

I have certain set things like talks people pay me to give a year in advance and I fix my childcare around that. Other work I determine the hours but the point is for reasonable men and women they (not their other half), they fix the childcare think of it have responsiblity for it. That is part of being a parent.

That is the bit I don't get in unequal marriage where you both work. Why do some women get saddled with having to think about and plan and deal with everything unless they ask their other half for occasional help and others of us have that basic equality?

I know plenty of contractors who ask for and get flexibility

DG, your husband swanned off with a chunk of your cash without seeing the job through! And his job passed on to your eldest son!

Would your thoughts be any different if you had separated (and he had fucked off into the ether) when you had, say, your 3 eldest as little ones and before you'd got into a position of being able to work for yourself and charging the rates that you do?

As Buffy says, it's not about one person demanding. It's about the other one being willing. And if they aren't, where does that leave you? Like I said earlier in the thread, mothers have different choices to men. As it turns out (with only words to go on), many fathers won't step up. What then?

To clarify a point and hopefully add to the thread, sometimes we women paint ourselves into corners. I cannot go anywhere in my job now. I am senior and the only promotion level left is something I have no experience to do because I chose a niche field which interested me rather than do the long winded training scheme which would have left me an ordinary worker but with possibility one day of being head of dept If I got to the top of the pyramid. I am more fulfilled this way. I do Dh a disservice. He does an awful lot at home. I am financially independent and indeed am the main name on the house due to permie job. DS is at a school which is not a million miles from ones you talk about Deo ;) but I still get cross at the things I said above. I guess I just want to have my cake and eat it! Like men do...

I'm disappointed with that article: it seems so inarticulate and woolly headed about this prescient issue. What a lost opportunity to make a positive difference.

The pay gap is the most pressing problem for women today.

Justine, you are in a position of power and influence, and don't forget, we have put you there.
We expect you to think more clearly and put our points of view forward and not blather on and make generalisations about women's priorities based on some pretty narrow and perhaps personal / anecdotal evidence.

Of course women are concerned about money and pay and discrimination. To say we are not fuels the misogyny and discrimination prevalent in society. It's blatant victim blaming to say we earn less because we are more invested as parents and have different priorities than the male parents. And there is a real danger now that you as the mouthpiece of mumsnet have condoned it; that it seems writ in stone as being accecptable.

Being a female parent doesn't preclude our ambition to succeed in our careers and to earn as much as the male parents. Being a parent has had a most stimulating effect on me. I'm extremely ambitious since having the dcs, and I fight for equality in every aspect of my life.

I think you need to read up on things Justine, and have a long think before making such simplistic and victim blaming statements TBH. The feminism section might be a starting place for some ideas? Hth.

If anything, I would say i care more about pay than the men I work with. I have to. No one is going to look out for me. Of course, if I am fighting my corner, and pointing out things like, "you can't be sure this review process is not fair, because..." then most of my colleagues also benefit.

I just read a blog post by Laura Perrins on Conservative Woman proposing abolition of motherhood as a solution to the Pay Gap.

On the face of it the blog post reads something like a combination of Justine's article and the posts made by DeoGratis.

Not sure if it is serious, tongue in cheek, playing devils advocate, outrageous or actually might be making some serious suggestions worth considering.

Try to read down to the bottom of the post though as she says some stuff at the top you likely won't agree with but her suggestions are at the bottom which might be worth thinking about - or perhaps not!

That article made me cross. I think it is making fun both of feminists and the lean in advocates. Then it just flat out denies that the gender pay gap could have anything to do with discrimination because companies are just far too rational to do that. A touching Conservative quasi religious belief in the power of the free market there I think! And loads of companies do employ lots of underpaid mostly female staff to do the drudge work because their cheap anyway.