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.

Justine, please, please do come and explain. I do not believe that this represents your views. Discriminatory practices don't contribute to the paygap? I don't believe you think this.

Something is off here.

I get what you're saying here merry but being a woman surely includes all that goes with that, including such things as often also being a mother, and all of society's norms and expectations?

Not really, if that was the case then men would be treated differently once they became fathers.

The world of work values work, not parenthood. This does affect women more but that is not because they are women, that is because women take on more caring roles. If a man wanted to spend more time with his children and stepped back, he would be treated the same.

The issue is around understanding that when both parents work there needs to be a level of flexibilty, for men and/or women and that just doesn't lend itself to climbing the ladder.

Oh that's interesting theoretician, can you link?

I wish I could, but it's just something I remember from news media. I think I've encountered it more than once, so the info shouldn't be too obscure to be located. I suppose we could have a competition to see who in the thread can google it fastest.

I may be wing but are the key words in her second point not 'do not SEEM to care...'? I'm fairly sure that I've read about research which indicates that there is a difference in approach, typically, between how men and women approach workplace dynamics - in particular around appraisal and compensation and promotion negotiations. In many companies the 'norm' is modeled around the way men typically behave and therefore women are at a disadvantage since they 'seem' - when viewed through the prism of the way men 'play the game' to be less fussed. In reality they are not less fussed, but they don't conform to the 'man way' of doing things. Many firms in my field have recognized this and made adjustments designed to remove that disadvantage (I personally don't think they have been all that successful).

The wider issue is that where mechanisms and procedures are designed for the 'man way' of doing things (or indeed in some areas, the 'woman way') then women (or men) may be disadvantaged. Of course it's a terribly blunt analysis - for all that accepted wisdom might decree that 'men are good' at face to face negotiation and asking for what they want (and 'over asking') and 'women are not good' at those things, we can all provide copious examples of men who are crap at that and women who are great. But still...

WRONG. Not 'wing'. Bloody iPad.

Thanks for bringing this up, FreeWorker!

Yes, I'd also like an explanation for those statements. It might be exciting to twist things in "Freakonomics" fashion, but such statements really should not be simplified, or "headlined".

There has been some excellent and nuanced discussion already on this thread.

Uhtred, that is interesting and sort of rings true, but the compounding issue is that if women decide to try and signal their seriousness by using male socialised techniques (leaving aside for a moment the question of if / why they should have to?) this behaviour is in itself punished. It is not viewed as "attractive" for a woman to behave like a man in terms of pushing her agenda.

In googling I came across a Wikipedia article (on gender pay gap) which suggests 40% of the gap is due to discrimination and 60% due to other factors. Obviously 60% is not "almost all" so either my memory is wrong or there was different research that said something different. For the time being we should probably lean towards the research I can link to.

The European Commission defines it as the average difference between men’s and women’s aggregate hourly earnings.[2] It is generally suggested that the wage gap is due to a variety of causes, such as differences in education choices, differences in preferred job and industry, discrimination in hiring, differences in salary negotiations, differences in the types of positions held by men and women, differences in the type of jobs men typically go into as opposed to women (especially highly paid high risk jobs), differences in amount of work experience, difference in length of work week, and breaks in employment. These factors resolve around 60% of the pay gap, however the remaining 40% can largely be attributed to sex discrimination.[3][4]

In the United States, the average female's earnings have been cited as 78% of those of an average male.[5] However, multiple studies from OECD, AAUW and the US Department of Labor have found that pay rates between males and females varied by 5-6.6% or females earned 94 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts.[6][7][8] In the UK the gender pay gap has continued to close and as of 2012, the gap officially dropped below 10% for full time workers.[9][10] The gender pay gap can also be viewed as a generational sliding scale, with females between 55-65 with the largest disparity (18%) and females between the ages of 25-35 with the smallest disparity (6%).[11]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

Putting info in the first and second paragraphs together, can we roughly conclude that in the UK, women are paid 10% less than men, and 4% of that is explained by discrimination? (Only 4% lower pay due to discrimination sounds a bit like what I remember reading/hearing.)

Extremely disappointing.

Even in areas of work where women and men do get paid the same there is still a gap and lack of opportunity.

I teach and currently job share with another member of staff we share a management responsibility. I've been teaching more than 10 years as has the member of staff I job share with. When we got the job there was an element of the school needing us to do it because if we didn't they would have had to employ staff with just a years teaching experience - the post was limited to a specific department within the school and not open to external candidates.

They do not like the job share and I know its a one off. I would actually like to progress but if you're part time it seems impossible and that has an impact on far more women than men. I'm willing to bet that if part time working was something men did then things like job shares or promoting those working part time wouldn't be looked down on as they are now.

Unfortunately it is true that women don't push for high pay in the same way that men do, nor do many women assess themselves as worthy of the next rung or next pay bracket yet.

There was a test not long ago. A job was advertised at a salary of £100k. The same job was advertised again at £30k. All requirements of qualifications etc were identical, and the job spec was the same. No women applied at £100k and several did at £30k. I can't remember where I read that, sorry, so it's only anecdotal. If I can find a link I'll post it.

I also think Justine is wrong - utterly wrong. There is an entrenched misogyny in lots of professions that treats women as almost invisible and inaudible, and pays low because women are seen as less valuable. but women too, sadly perpetuate this myth by not asking for the salaries their male counterparts (or men less experienced) would demand.

Blimey, i am surprised at that and would indeed be interested in Justine's response, it seems very different to my entirely imagined picture of her!

Lock - I agree completely. Women shouldn't have to model what are perceived as male behaviour traits to get fair treatment. Some women who do, it works out for them. Some who do (or try) it backfires spectacularly. While (some of) the men sail on unaware. What needs to change therefore is the procedures and attitudes within organizations realting to how they approach these specific issues (appraisal, compensation and promotion). The firm I work for has made a lot of effort in this area, and I am aware of other firms who are putting actually huge amounts of resource into 'fixing' this. Because they have belatedly realized that they will reap a whirlwind if they don't (these are organizations of a size where lack of female representation at higher levels causes issues, and where things like gender pay gaps get noticed). Because of my age (late 40s) I've experienced the full force of the phenomenon (earlier in my career) and have possibly benefitted later on from the burgeoning realization (in others) that it is A Thing. But I'm not particularly gender conforming so in some ways I have been insulated from the impact of this over the years but in other ways my lack of conformity to perceived gender behavioral norms has been a hinderance to me also. And I do wonder if I would be benefitting as much from some of the improvements that have been implemented in some places, if I was at an earlier stage in my career, as other women will and are.

I sometimes am part of discussions nationally and internationally about how these issues are impacting on my profession (rather than individual companies) - it's fascinating and appalling at the same time. But sometimes it's hopeful too. Because I have witnessed huge changes during the course of my career, particularly in the last ten years.

On the face of it, just reading your quotes, it is very unhelpful.

I would like to hear what Justine has to say.

I used to be a middle/senior manager in large corporates, I had trouble getting women paid appropriately and put in the frame for promotions. I think the discrimination wasn't conscious. It's just that women with their squeaky voices, and lower height, etc just seemed to lack "gravitas" that certain something otherwise known as a penis.

I agree with Theoretician that we should be looking at the root causes so we know how best to address the net effect. I can't see the whole article either, but women (on average) make different choices and take different approaches to men and these different choices and approaches are no less a product of our excessively gendered society than the direct discrimination which sees women earn less than men for doing the same job. I know newspapers and nuance don't go together but we have to be clearer about this stuff.

I think part of the problem is that, for the sake of our sanity, we need to believe that we made our choices freely. But our choices are all made in a very gendered framework and we owe it to our kids to be clear about that. That does NOT mean that women who choose to work part time, or decide not to push for promotion, or who decide to SAH, are letting the sisterhood down. We should be open with our kids about this stuff so they can make their decisions with all the information available to them.

It's true though. Women earn less because they don't negotiate. There has been extensive research from Harvard on this.

Now, partly, we don't negotiate because we don't want to be seen negatively, and the fact is that a woman who negotiates for more money IS negatively viewed by her employer/potential employer, so it's six of one/half dozen of the other.

There are endless threads on here about women deciding to stay at home with their children long term or being the ones to pick up all the childcare/emergencies and choosing lower paying careers or wilfully harming their careers rather than expecting their partners to go 50/50. These are DECISIONS, not impositions, IMO.

I think we absolutely have it within our reach to earn as much as men.

One area in which men are unfairly paid more for the same job is when it comes to City bonuses, but I have read that the thinking behind this is that men tend to reinvest their bonuses quite heavily in their jobs - taking clients out etc, whereas women SHOCK HORROR keep the money.

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc21b3a8-780d-11e5-933d-efcdc3c11c89.html#axzz3qhqMbj5S

I care about work, money, pay promotion and I earn a lot. It rocks.
I am with JR a bit on this though. A quote from her article is below.
I want to get on and have a lot of pay. Ergo I earn... well a lot more than most mumsnetters. You can sod the work life balance and give me the money any day. Let some other muggins wash the chidlren's clothes - that's dull and not for many of we higher paid women. Your children never thank you for changing 15 nappies a day rather than 3. Always go for the money and you rarely go wrong in life.....

" As far as I have seen, then, the gender pay gap has very little to do with discriminatory practices or policies against women. There are much deeper forces at work, among which are the conflicting signals women receive about how best to conduct themselves. The behaviours for which men are rewarded in the office (laser-like focus on their own projects; a willingness to tell co-workers what to do without apologising) are often frowned on in women. But failure to display them means women often miss out on promotions and higher pay. Unfortunately that is not the half of it. The second big problem is that women just do not seem to care as much as men do about salaries and promotion.
The 2015 Global Management Education Graduate Survey found that things such as professional development, a good fit with the company culture and flexible work hours matter more. At its starkest it can be summed up as men want to get on, women want work-life balance. No surprises, then, who gets the pay rise.
You could argue that what women lose in pay and seniority they gain in work-life balance, and that is a fair trade. Many fathers no doubt regret the paltry amount of time they spend with their children and would perhaps willingly take a pay cut to increase it.
Whichever way you look at it, one thing is clear. The model of the ideal senior employee that we have collectively manufactured (available at all hours, smartphone under the pillow, last attended a parents’ evening some time before the millennium) produces unfairness on both sides and a certain amount of misery for all. So, now we are working for no pay for the rest of the year, let us from today think about dismantling a model of work whose dysfunction is increasingly apparent."

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

I think there's a mistake here. Women do care a lot about this. They are often the ones who have to struggle with household budgets, raising children alone, shitty or absent maintenance payments, financial abuse.

But women also know that they are undervalued and often discriminated against. One example of that is how they are often demoted, marginalised or ultimately unfairly dismissed for having children. Even where that's illegal, employers know that very often a woman won't have the time or energy to pursue a claim.

There are other forces acting against women at work too – sexual harassment, underpromotion.

On top of that there is the general message to women n society that they are worth less, which often operates at a subconscious level. You don't think "I'm worth less" but you do think "Oh I couldn't ask for a 5K pay rise, people would laugh at me."

Therefore IMO it's deeply ingrained in many women that you don't rock the boat. Asking for a pay rise is frightening, even if you know you deserve it and it is fair, because you can be punished, or you're afraid of seeming greedy/difficult/ridiculous.

Men are often cockier, think they deserve more pay (even for a less good performance), and just demand it. I've seen it happen, where in comparison I would think "I couldn't do that! What would they think of me?"

And I'm a feminist, yet I definitely fell into that way of thinking, especially when younger.

Yet of course I want decent and fair pay. When women behave in certain ways that could be seen as holding back or undervaluing themselves, that's not because women are idiots who aren't fussed about money. It doesn't happen in isolation – it happens because of patriarchal forces.

THAT is why for me the main point of feminism is identifying and challenging patriarchal forces, not blaming women for not acting feminist enough.

Morning, here's the entire piece I wrote for FT which gives my comments a bit more context...

Each year at this time, we pass what has come to be known as Equal Pay Day: the point beyond which, thanks to the UK’s gender pay gap, women effectively work for free until January.

The actual date changes from year to year. While in 2013 it fell on November 7, in 2014 it came three days earlier, courtesy of the fact that the pay gap last year widened. This year, it is November 9, making us a bit better off; not that we need feel grateful.

Let us look at the numbers, courtesy of the Office for National Statistics. Its preferred measure of the pay gap uses hourly earnings excluding overtime, resulting in a wage gap of 9.4 per cent. The gap in favour of men is wider in the top decile of earners (18.3 per cent) than in the lowest decile (5.9 per cent).

The one area where women out-earn men is in part-time work, where the pay gap is negative (5.5 per cent in favour of women). This probably reflects the fact that older, more experienced and better-paid women tend to reduce their working hours in order to cope with caring responsibilities.

We all love a bit of righteous outrage, and on this topic there is plenty to go around. The problem is where to direct it. Very few of us work for companies that expressly seek to keep women down or out. Pretty much every job I have had since graduation has been in a male-dominated field (trading floors, investment banks, sports journalism, internet start-ups) but in my experience, these sectors are keen to hire more women at all levels.

Breaking into sports writing was undoubtedly easier because I was an “unusual” applicant. Via Mumsnet’s Family Friendly programme, meanwhile, I see businesses trying all sorts to support and retain senior female workers. Barclays, for example, has instituted policies to help their employees throughout family life, from support during fertility treatment to maternity and paternity leave, or while caring for relatives. At Facebook they are offering up to $20,000, about £13,000, for egg freezing treatment.

Businesses know it looks terrible if their employment ratio is skewed wildly in favour of men, or if the only woman in the senior leadership meeting is there to take notes. Most organisations are increasingly aware that diversity makes good business sense, too. If you are aiming to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, you will need to employ more than just white, middle-aged men. However talented they may be, they will struggle — just as any demographically uniform group would.

As far as I have seen, then, the gender pay gap has very little to do with discriminatory practices or policies against women. There are much deeper forces at work, among which are the conflicting signals women receive about how best to conduct themselves. The behaviours for which men are rewarded in the office (laser-like focus on their own projects; a willingness to tell co-workers what to do without apologising) are often frowned on in women. But failure to display them means women often miss out on promotions and higher pay. Unfortunately that is not the half of it. The second big problem is that women just do not seem to care as much as men do about salaries and promotion.

The 2015 Global Management Education Graduate Survey found that things such as professional development, a good fit with the company culture and flexible work hours matter more. At its starkest it can be summed up as men want to get on, women want work-life balance. No surprises, then, who gets the pay rise.

You could argue that what women lose in pay and seniority they gain in work-life balance, and that is a fair trade. Many fathers no doubt regret the paltry amount of time they spend with their children and would perhaps willingly take a pay cut to increase it.

Whichever way you look at it, one thing is clear. The model of the ideal senior employee that we have collectively manufactured (available at all hours, smartphone under the pillow, last attended a parents’ evening some time before the millennium) produces unfairness on both sides and a certain amount of misery for all. So, now we are working for no pay for the rest of the year, let us from today think about dismantling a model of work whose dysfunction is increasingly apparent.

The fact that we have a different approach to discussing pay doesn't mean that it's not discrimination. We are working in a man's world and their modes prevail not ours. This won't change until we have equality - and we don't have that atm.

And I disagree with deogratias. Being career focussed does not make this go away. I have a very successful career, have always worked FT, deliberately chose a high-paying sector - and I still earn significantly less than the men I work with. There is a sense that my money is less important to my family than theirs - ironic since I'm a single parent so my money is actually far more important than theirs.

I would like to hear from Justice.

Icanteven, it's true that women don't tend to negotiate, but they are being rational. Further research has shown that women are punished when they negotiate while men are rewarded.

Women's fear of negotiating doesn't come from the inside, but is an externally enforced norm that they learn from bitter experience and watching how the world judges / reacts to other women.

tbh Justine, I don't think this was a helpful sentence:

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

You go on to cite a study that says they care about things like flexible hours. They care about those things because often they have no choice. Men don't need to care about those things because someone else is doing that for them. Yes women need to manage their lives and responsibilities first (while we wait for men to take on their share of responsibilities) but that's a million miles from saying women don't care as much about salaries.

Women are taking what they can get in terms of salaries but the fact is that men still reward people who look like them and women have to get along in this working world so they fight the battles they need to fight first.

Well. That quote from the article that deograzias has supplied is both bang on and yet also ...not. Because - from that quote - Justine appears to feel that the modeling of 'what makes a good senior employee' as almost exclusively 'being a bloke' is not discriminatory. And it is. Men have, over time, constructed an edifice where the 'good' behaviours are male behaviours exhibited by males, and the bad behaviours are female behaviours or male behaviours exhibited by females. That is discriminatory.