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.

Iintradental* - looking at the statistic a bit more I believe the largest group of people in the survey are in the US and the largest age group are in the 31 - 39 age group.

The US has notoriously short maternity leave and given the dominant age group they will tend to include professional women who are most likely to be in their childbearing years so flexibility will be a dominant issue in their lives but clearly not for men so much. Much like the UK - but are women really "choosing" or are they being forced into it by the way society is structured and their male partners view their role and work life balance.

That said it is certainly not going to be representative of the UK and even if it were the fact that women want a work life balance still does not justify discriminating against them. The people in that survey are all highly educated, investing very substantial sums of their own money in their MBA education and all clearly aiming for higher positions after graduation. These are not average people by any means.

We know that the pay differential increases dramatically and is at its widest in high level executive positions and undoubtedly these women will face more pay discrimination in their later careers than any other group of women.

New research on UK sixth-formers showing girls less interested in salaries than boys.

The latest article has made me chortle (well, I can't read the article with it being behind the paywall but the quote from Justine certainly has).

This is women's choice, isn't it? To have a world owned by men because they were too busy valuing flexible working over power.

We need to work on teenage girls and not let them think helping others for a living at low pay, the arts or living off men are valid options.

Don't we already pretty much have a world owned by, funded by and run by men?

And I don't think helping others for a living or the arts shouldn't be seen as valid options. We might want to look at why they are paid so poorly, but I'd quite like someone to be doing those things. What they shouldn't be seen as are the only options, nor only options for girls.

Also, you need to start younger than teenagers - a lot of research into why girls don't choose STEM subjects suggests it starts quite a bit younger.

Don't we already pretty much have a world owned by, funded by and run by men?

Yep. But of course we are choosing to lean out.

I think Justine's highlighted point from the research is selective use of the evidence - the article clearly says that girls have internalised gender stereotypes already by secondary school, are less confident about every area of job application and are put off by the working culture of many high paying jobs as male- dominated.
I don't have time to add more but it seems to me a compelling argument that this is about structural realities of gendered inequality, not choice - after all, if history shows that women have generally taken or been located in caring, nurturing roles, and that men have the financial role (power), and that is still embedded in culture and society today, it is not an irrational 'choice' to locate your future in caring, conserving or creative roles, rather than public or financially powerful roles.
The question is then why these roles are so little valued in monetary terms.

(And of course women are more interested in job security and flexible working, they are the ones most likely to have to look after DC if things go tits up)

The other point is the public abuse and scrutiny which many women who are successful face; and indeed the workplace misogyny, which is much more subtle but there, in male dominated environments.

We do indeed already live in that world, of course we do.

Indeed. So many discussions on line about what women wear and how they look in a way never done for men (even the FT has been found guilty in weekend lunch columns - I remember a lady from the UN)

Look at people who say I am somehow wrong or bad because I chose to take 2 weeks off and go back full time to have babies. Why can't I make that choice without others saying it's wrong or a bad example?]

As Miriam Gonzalez (Mrs Nick Clegg) the lawyer said - women only want what men have. Many of us are more than happy to lean in and 1 in 4 or 5 of us don't even have children.

Deo - you seriously think there should be a concerted effort to dissaude girls from pursuing arts based careers?