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.

Off topic, but that judgment makes fascinating reading. In my opinion (ignoring the law), the husband has benefitted unduly from his short marriage coinciding with the period during which his wife received extremely generous bonus payments, funding expensive marital assets on her own. Given the circumstances of the marriage, the outcome seems rather unfair.

Fuel trader on £2million - nice work if you can get it! But I know of so many high earning women with lower paid spouses/partners. It isn't at all unusual.

DeoGratis I read the judgment and am still wondering why Foster v Foster wasn't followed. It seems wrong. I hope W appeals to the Court of Appeal. The judgment here seems very purposive, certainly the decision seemed to have been reached before the somewhat cursory review of relevant case law, which ought to have been binding on a lower court...

one of these typical English family court decisions with excessive yet piecemeal factual detail and little law but hey, people rush to spend their fees in English courts due to decisions like this.

I hope I am not being biased in thinking that a spouse who earns currently 4-5k per month, who spent the other spouse's money for house renovations on a succession of Aston Martins and his long term mistress's presents and holidays, should not profit to the tune of nearly £1.5 million from a short marriage.

I suspect it was not quite short enough a marriage for it to be legally a "short marriage". I just don't like the principle of 50/50 if you both work full time but one just happens to earn more (particularly where there are no children and no career sacrifice). In my own case we both worked full time, both did as much at home, neither sacrificed promotions for children but I earned 10x more and had to pay 60% plus keep the children for a clean break. Why does the higher earner there whatever their gender have to pay so much to the lower earner to keep them to the standard to which they'd become accustomed? In the old days before 50/50 was the norm you just ensured the lower earner had a house and a reasonable income. I think that was better.

The case certainly vindicates my view that I would not marry again as it's financially too risky. I am not even sure I'd want to move a man in.

I agree that the decision illustrates the risks of litigation. Better to settle if you can and also avoid getting bogged down in detail which seems very important at the time - like who slept with who where and whether a £200 bill was paid for a hotel.

I liked the idea that your investment before the marriage might be counted as a pre marital asset which then led to a huge bonus after marriage but which was really in that sense a premarital asset although the court did not allow that which is not surprising.

I agree DeoGratis but it does make a fortune as destination of choice for the English courts as destination of choice for lower earning spouses, or am I being too cynical? I wonder how many people don't get married over fears of having something like this happen to them and whether it actually causes more misery overall to those unmarried partners.

It would have been helpful if the judge had made clearer the factual basis of his actual decision, i.e. if he considered the marriage not quite short enough for what appears to be binding case law to apply, particularly since he spent so much time reiterating the facts and non-proven facts in great detail.

So many female lawyers I know earn more than their husbands!

Scremersford - "Fuel trader on £2million - nice work if you can get it!"

Yes but to put that in perspective the bonus Mr Andy Hall was fighting for as reported in the Telegraph in 2009 was a little larger.

"Citi trader Andrew Hall fights for $100m bonus

A trader at Citigroup is pushing the troubled US bank to pay out a compensation package of up to $100m (£61m) for 2009, setting Citi on the path for a collision with the US government's new pay regulator.

Mr Hall reportedly earned more than $100m last year. He is one of the world's top collectors of modern art and owns a castle in Germany. His pay for 2009 has not yet been set, but Phibro is reportedly having a good year.''

A single supertanker full of crude oil in mid 2008 was worth $250 - 500 million

Trade one of those every week and make a 2% profit margin on each one and that's how you get a big bonus.

Women who are successful at work tend just to get on with it and they think they are good enough and don't seek perfection. Works for me. So there is no need to think about things that are past - just go forth into a non sexist future in equal marriage

As ever, I don't have time to keep up with this thread, but I have been reflecting on this, DeoGratias.

At a personal level, yes, I am where I am/we (H and I) are where we are; with greater insight into what brought us there (I have been a bit brutally clear in spelling it out to him; and he doesn't actually get back over the doorstep until I see a commitment to equality in action; and then that needs to continue every day forth).

At a societal level, the past is what we learn from; and why - for many of us - gender inequality is something that still needs to be negotiated, resisted, challenged or (hopefully) overcome on a day to day basis for that non-sexist future to exist (and even if I don't have it at home, it is there writ large at work).

In historical terms, any gains women have are actually very recent, they go back in one or two generational memories. In many ways, I think women (and men) are still working out what that means (some men embrace greater gender equality and find it liberating; others cling on to entrenched privilege in many overt and not so overt ways). And certainly for me (I grew up in the 1980s), it seemed like the biggest lie I was ever sold that women had equality - no, it is something we need to stand up for, and fight for, individually and collectively.

The other thing which strikes me about this thread - is that, if middle class/elite professional women are still writing about and struggling with these things, what hope is there for those with less of a voice, who are actually much more at the coal face of the day to day struggles and realities of gendered inequality, financial and social? That is not to be dismissive in a 'first world issues' sense, but to say, if we are still fighting for inequality to be recognised in these places, then ... I don't know; it somehow seems even more important to get it sorted; because I cannot advocate for women's empowerment if I myself am not empowered (if that makes sense).

"Women who are successful at work tend just to get on with it and they think they are good enough and don't seek perfection. Works for me. So there is no need to think about things that are past - just go forth into a non sexist future in equal marriage"

And of course, they have the good luck not to have been de-railed by a sexist organisation which gaslighted them and knocked the confidence out of them, an unplanned pregnancy which interfered with their career goals, an abusive relationship which took their eye off their career path, a husband who isn't outright abusive but simply has deep-rooted unacknowledged, unrecognised sexist assumptions which only emerge when babies come along, or all the other dragons which women may have to negotiate on their way up the career ladder, which men don't.

Those women have to be lucky every time or have the good luck to have the emotional, psychological and financial resources to fight off the dragons. They have to have resources men don't need. And yet our society is structured to ensure that they are actually less likely to have those resources. So women also need a massive amount of luck and make no mistake, having an educated, financially secure, loving, functional, anti-sexist family, is a hugely important legacy because it gives you the resources to deal with every single dragon you come across. Most women didn't have all those good fairies doling out all those resilience-building gifts at their christening; if you did, you were very lucky and it would be nice if there was a fairy there who also gave you the gift of empathy.

My comment being quoted was more about whetehr action or navel gazing works. I certainly did not mean we should not think about the past. I was interviewed by a journalist for a series abot reasonably successful women with children and she said what we all had in common was being "satificers", know when we had done enough at work or home, not fussing or reflecting on not having done something perfectly and getting on to the next task.
If you just look at the Mumsnet thread on the Women's Equality party you can see the problems some people have and it's the same for men in communists cells etc and the like - you can end up just talking about the basic issues of what is a woman or what is true equality rather than just getting on with the organisation's main aims. If you can avoid sweating the small stuff life can be easier and goals achieved. Some parents are perfectionists which is never a good thing with children.

Aks, yes to some extent but you will also see a lot of parents on here and elsewhere who did very well in life precisely because they had a difficult upbringing. I don't write about my childhood but I was out the door at 17 at university a year young not because of a necessarily wonderful childhood but because I could not wait to get away. Neighbours were saying wow wonderful A levels, take another year, try Oxbridge but I just wanted to get on and be away. Ditto my divorce, parents' deaths - I don't really have some gilded life secure from the tribulations of others although I certainly accept that I have some advantages others don't have which is why I want all mumsnetters to push those clever daughters into being actuaries, surgeons and the like and not work in the local call centre. I want women to have huge ambitions for their daughters rather than the usual refrain I get from those committed to losing - that we need care home workers. Yes we do but it doesn't have to be your daughter doing that.

I also agree with RR, that the past must not be forgotten. Whenever Muslim women on here talk about the wonderful equality of islam and then I see their daughters at our local primary their heads covered being brought up curbed by clothing I think of the Victorian women who rebelled to get ouf those clothes which stopped them cycling and running due to the modesty rules of the day. We have a huge battle even today in the UK against sexism from many quarters.

On the divorce judgment I quite enjoy reading them as they give an insight into other lives - perhaps they are my equivalent of watching the Kardashians. Until women know just how much some other women can and do earn they won't seek that as they will think it's impossible. Role models are very very important. Not everyone of course is materialistic and that's fine - the fewer that aren't the more money for me. bring on the poverty chastity and obedience lot as it leaves all the more for the rest of us.

Not everyone of course is materialistic and that's fine - the fewer that aren't the more money for me

not much room at the top is there Deo, get your big hobnail boots on and stamp on the hands of those beneath you who are trying to claw their way up

it's a zero sum game after all

actually that's bullshit, most people are materialistic , they just don't get much chance to have a share in the goodies because those with wealth and power use their wealth and power to maintain their wealth and power

it's a bit like gravity, the way that money goes to money....as your stash gets bigger it's power to attract more loot increases exponentially

Thought this might be of interest to contributors on this thread.

Jayne-Anne Gadhia, CEO of Virgin Money, is leading a Government review into the representation of women in senior managerial roles in the financial services industry. More details and a survey link here:
uk.virginmoney.com/virgin/women-in-finance/

Let's not forget Justine is human and whilst she started a website for women is allowed to state her beliefs as we all are :/

Yes Pinot, but when she writes about women in an article "as far as I have seen.." readers assume she is drawing on her broad experience as founder of a giant website used by women.
If I wrote an article talking about women in my experience, people wouldn't give it half as much credence, seeing as I don't run a website used by thousands of women.

She is more privy then to know the percentages isnt she.

This site has, what, say a few million users. Of that a small percentage probably feel the way you do.

Poor woman :/

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

I have no idea what your last post means

Deo, you are making up straw women, as usual. I've never seen anyone on Mumsnet say 'well, my DD could be a lawyer, she's got the grades, but I think care home worker is the way forward for her'. Same as your 'marrying up and older' drum - the average age difference between spouses is falling every year (around 2 years now IIRC) and lots of people meet their spouses at university or work and are in similar professional and fiscal positions, at least initially.

Your son the postman could enable his wife to work late every night after they had kids, as long as his wife did the early shift; no doubt your ex's ability to cover the school holidays along with your nanny meant there were a lot of occasions that you could start early and finish late.

But as you are increasingly a caricature of yourself, not sure why I am bothering...

My last post means everyone is human.

Your view is not the only one.

Justine created a website for women and good for her.

Stop bashing the poor woman to fit your ideals.

Well that is more clear, thank you, but I haven't seen anyone being bashed on this thread. And I will continue to point it out if I think someone is holding a mistaken (and, in this case, harmful) opinion about other women, even if it is our illustrious leader. In fact the high regard she is held in is partly why the article was such a disappointment.

Iggi, its a good idea never to put people on a "pedestal" they get knocked off.

Hi all, sorry for not coming back sooner. Thanks for further comments. Those sceptical about gender differences in employment priorities might want to
take a look at the 2015 Global Management Education Graduate Survey Report - as cited in my piece. (you can download here

This survey report explores the early job search results for 3,329 graduating business school students in the class of 2015 at 112 universities worldwide, representing 29 countries and 106 citizenship groups.

Here's the salient bit:

Key Employment Attributes
As part of the job search process, students must decide
which job opportunities to pursue and more importantly,
which job offer to accept. A variety of factors influence this
decision. When asked to select the five most important
attributes related to their future employment, total
compensation (57%), challenging and interesting work
(53%), opportunity for professional development (47%),
fit with company culture (42%) and advancement
opportunity (41%) were the most widely selected.
The top five employment attributes are similar for both
men and women in terms of the ones most widely selected
but there are some notable differences. Men are more likely
than women to place greater importance on compensation
(61% men vs. 51% women), advancement opportunity (44%
vs. 37%), job autonomy (12% vs. 9%), and visibility with
executive team (11% vs. 7%). Women, on the other hand, are
more likely than men to place importance on opportunity
for professional development (51% women vs. 44%
men), fit with company culture (46% vs. 40%), work-life
balance (35% vs. 28%), flexible schedules (12% vs. 7%), and
emphasis on community and inclusion (6% vs. 3%).

Justine, have you RTFT ?

@Preminstreltension

Justine, have you RTFT ?

Of course I've RTFT

Women, on the other hand, are more likely than men to place importance on opportunity for professional development (51% women vs. 44% men), fit with company culture (46% vs. 40%)

Women have to. If you work for a company which doesn't focus on professional development, and particularly professional development for women, you're unlikely to do as well as male colleagues.

The default company culture is usually male, so men don't have to worry about company culture in the same way. They've already got a head start. Many men probably aren't going to worry much if a particular company seems more macho, if they even notice, but that sort of culture will really work against women.

I went for one job interview, and while I was waiting in reception, I was flicking through a company brochure. Photos of the employees in one country and another country - all men. Photo of "the wives of " - they'd have had to really impress me after that that it would have been the sort of company I'd want to work for. Upstairs in the offices through to where the interview was, it was all men, and a weird vibe. I've been working in a techy area of IT for nearly 20 years, so I'm used to being the only woman in the room, and I've only once had a woman interviewing me who wasn't part of HR. But this company made me feel really uncomfortable and out of place - they do need to do something about their diversity, but I don't have to inflict that much discomfort in my personal working life by getting employed by them.

If you work in IT as a woman, the odds are stacked against you in most companies. You can't afford to overlook opportunities for professional development and fit with company culture, because it will make those odds even worse, and if you are ambitious, then anything which helps move things in your favour is important.

(Have to admit to not having read the full report - should be in bed - so it's possible they do go into the reasons why people gave the results they did - will look tomorrow. Sometime maybe - must set alarm, busy day...)