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.

I get the first . I'm awarding a second for having a less competent male colleague promoted ahead of you and a third for being told the client wouldn't accept a woman in the role and a fourth for the explanation that as there had never been a woman in the role one would probably not cope. I handed in my notice worked freelance for double my salary and doubled my salary again within 6 months when I accepted a job in the US. Awarding myself an extra shiny for standing my ground and voting with my feet throughout my career as DeoGratis suggests.

I have witnessed plenty of discrimination in the workplace.

The most common form is that a perfectly capable woman isn't promoted as she is not seen as leadership material.

Subsequently even if you have a female dominated area you often witness a male manager in charge. Often significantly less competent than several of the women working under him who could easily do his role but he collects all the credit and the large salary whilst they do all the work.

If women try to assert themselves that will often be viewed badly as well. Which is another form of discrimination.

It all makes me really cross and I can't believe people think it doesn't happen.

My team at work is female-dominated (five women, three men) but my boss is a man and I'd definitely say the men have more 'clout'. Weekly, possibly even daily, there are examples of our ideas being reworked as belonging to one of the men.

Me: "I think we should do xyz."
Boss: "Hmm, not sure that would work..."
Another man: "How about we do xyz?"
Boss: "Brilliant!"

We do now pick up on it, but even when we complain about it, we get laughed at or belittled. A favourite phrase when we point out that we'd already come up with that idea is: "Sometimes you have to go a long way round to end up at the same place."

I do sort of agree with Justine in that the discrimination is less overt in the workplace than simply "don't employ her because she's a woman". But that doesn't mean it's not there. I'm lucky in that I work in a very female-dominated industry and even the CEO of my company is a woman, but it's still there - I can only imagine what it's like in more male-dominated fields.

As an aside, I wonder how many women with kids are stuck in jobs because they negotiated flexible working after maternity leave (for example, I work four days a week now) and can't take that with them if they move jobs? My two best friends and I have all stayed WAY longer in our current jobs than we would have otherwise. I am desperate to change roles, I'm really ambitious (or at least, I used to be) and yet I'm reluctant to apply for other jobs because I don't want to work full time.

And Justine doesn't see any irony in making these statements when she was invited to do so primarily because she runs a website where (mostly but not exclusively) women come to share their stories, including their stories of:

1. discrimination; and
2. their struggle to maintain a career in the face of sometimes overwhelming responsibilities...?

I absolutely acknowledge that it's possible she would have been interviewed on the issue of women in the workplace if she had still worked in investment banking. Any of us, in any job, MIGHT be interviewed by the FT about this issue. But I haven't. Have any other MNetters? Please shout? No, just Justine then. Maybe it's just me...

Justine
Judging men and women by different standards i.e. seeing a laser like focus as positive in a man and negative in women is discrimination, plain and simple. Just substitute black and white into the sentence and it is glaringly obvious.

I am seething about your comment that women don't care as much about salaries and promotion. How dare you generalise. Maybe some women don't but others do.

However, if you have found out that your male colleagues are being paid more than your for the same work [raises hand], some of whom were less experienced and so you have to have stand up rows with your boss and then report him to HR to get anything vaguely looking like fair treatment; it's a real struggle to keep battling. So some women give up the fight. I am lucky that I work in the City where going in and hassling your boss about your salary is acceptable behaviour even for women. For some women going in and arguing for fair treatment is likely to be career suicide.

If a women is carrying more than her fair share at home, then being treated unfairly at work, maybe its not that she doesn't care but that she doesn't have the energy to take on yet anther battle.

The Wage Gap Myth Myth.

Numerous examples on these boards over the years of how even the same work behaviour is perceived differently, e.g. man works part time (Fridays off) to play golf = fine, women works part time (Fridays off) for childcare = you've checked out. The man in this example probably wouldn't even describe himself as working part-time.

Anecdotally I know of someone (a man) who used to lie about going to play golf when he was actually doing doctor's appointments or school things for his children. This was some time ago admittedly.

Whilst Justine's article is not as click-baity-bullshit as the quotes suggested it might be it lacks sufficient nuance to get the actually important message - our corporate culture is both inherently sexist and damaging to both sexes - across.

Incidentally I note from the picture with Julie Walters yesterday that MN employs almost no men (or that they are extremely camera shy / not fans of La Walters, the latter of which is a sacking offence). I'd like to know what the gender ratio is, whether there is a pay gap and whether the men are primarily found in technical positions.

Wow. I'm not sure Justine's posting the whole article makes that much difference to be honest.

Very disappointed.

On these two issues

I said "I am often the only woman speaking at public events because the other womenar e ironing a husband's shirt, cannot be bothered to come or are worried that what they say will get them into trouble."
Someone then said:
"Is that a fact? They turned down an invitation to speak at an event because they were afraid or because they needed to iron a man's shirt? Right.

Unfortunately, while I suspect doing so wasn't your intention, you've shown that two things others have been saying are correct:

1. That women have to fight harder to get the same. Not only the career battle but the social one too.

1. Those who aren't and won't ever work in highly paid, six figure careers have fewer options than wealthy women.

As much as the idea that it's all about pluck, derring do and taking no shit suits your narrative. And I'm not saying that those things didn't work for you, by the way. It utterly sucks as an emancipatory strategy for women. It's simply the argument that a tiny minority of women can also benefit from capitalistic individualism. Meh."

Let us not get into socialism/ capitalism, cleaning the floors is just as much a higher calling as leading BP as we'll have different ideas on this. Cleaning and childcare is no pay or low pay because anyone can do it and it's boring and quite rightly is appreciated less in our society.

I tried to put on a conference earlier this year to be 100% female speakers. I ended up with 50% women and I chaired the day. That was better than often.

When I've gone on Radio 4 and had to get a car at 5.30am women who have allowed sexism at home or won't get out of bed at that time often aren't on it because they only want a slot at 11am which allows the long le in or the chance to buff their husband's shoes before he leaves for work.

So I am a take charge person - every woman on here is the master of her own fate, able to move her own destiny in the direction she wants who can seize every day, who can kick the man between the legs if he so much as suggests she does one iota of domestic stuff more than she does etc etc. Take risk. Take action. Push yourself. You're worth it.

Then on this second quote above "A whole thread started about women's ambition in the workplace completely dominated by views on childcare and relationship inequality"

Yes, exactly. Now my youngest children are in the sixth form children/domestic stuff starts to be irrelevant as it is for 20% of women without children.

What we need to do is praise girls who are pushy and forceful and say they are wonderful and who get angry and lose their tempers rather than being passive smiling little flowers in pink.

We need more businesswomen writing in the FT. I often have letters in there. Women need to keep their voices heard in the public space and not hide in female only ghettos.

I want women owning News International not sleeping with the boss to get a share of its wealth.

It is a fine achievement to be published in the FT, so kudos to Justine.

Thank you to Justine for posting the full FT article here. I don't see the problem with it that many posters are seeing - it would have been completely pointless for Justine to write an article simply saying that the world is unfair to women and women deserve to be paid as much as men and should not be paid less just because they do the majority of childcare/housework etc etc - because while this is all true:

1. It is plain and obvious. I'm guessing FT has not said to Justine 'please write down some plainly obvious points that everybody knows for us to publish'
2. The debate has to move forward, not just repeating what we already know; I think Justine is trying to introduce some new angles to think about
3. It's a very valid point to make, that many companies are doing everything they possibly think they can to help (paying for IVF and egg freezing even! I was shocked) so the problem isn't simply that nasty corporations are trying to be unfair to women
4. Constantly banging on about how unfair the world is to women, while true, and we all know that, will never take the equality debate forward. We can bang on about it on AIBU but I think it's stupid to expect Justine to write a MN-style rant for the FT, probably with a red angry face in it too like this just to show that she really really cares.

I honestly think all the stuff about a) girls being conditioned to be passive and compliant and not 'pushing' for recognition and more money and b) women wanting more work-life balance once they become mothers ...misses the point.

Many women are forced into that 'work-life balance' thing ie. part-time jobs, jobs with less responsibility etc because of lack of affordable childcare.

Many other women - who may well start of as ambitious, firebrand types - quickly realise they are not going to be accommodated or supported in any way in mid level-senior positions once they have children.

Both of these (seemingly conflicting) situations have happened to me, and I cannot be the only one. In the latter case, I really feel that looking at why women aren't getting pay rises and promotions is about looking at why MEN - who still hold the balance of power by far in senior positions and on boards etc - aren't playing ball. This is why I believe in quotas for females on boards and at senior decision-making level. Tis is never going to change unless women have more power in the workplace.

Anecdotally, in my first career, in broadcasting, I was basically told, post-birth of my first child, that they couldn't accommodate flexible working even for the short period I was requesting it (a year). That stymied my career progression, and I was 'marked' as a 'Mum' - a woman who valued work-life balance over my career. It had major implications for my career, despite me being very ambitious. In my department in that organisation (major broadcaster) there are NO senior figures who are women with children. Not all of the mothers who work there are nice, compliant women who can't argue for pay rises and promotions, and most of them aren't asking for flexible working long term. So....throws up a lot of questions, really.

And I loves Justine ...but I REALLY do take issue with the comment that women dont care as much.

And raising that issue with Justine's comments isn't 'moaning' about inequality. Its calling out misconceptions and massive, inaccurate generalisations that adage women's progress where you see them.

*damage

DeoGratias
I applaud your work ethic and congratulate you on your deserved success.

But perhaps you fail to realise there is a tone to your posts that suggests "if only all women did as I do, you would all see that you too can achieve the exact same success, and see the barriers are all in your minds"

And what some of us are saying is that DESPITE being like you, there are many women out there who are prevented from achieving similar success by factors outside their control. Whilst men step into positions less deservedly.

I actually think our male dominated society welcomes having a tiny number of women succeeding.
It allows them to put forward the justification that they allow women to succeed: "look how fair we are!" whilst sadly opining- alas, only a few women are exceptionally talented enough to compete with the men.

And some the women who made it buy into this sometimes because - why bite the hand that feeds you? And, well, ego. Who doesn't want to believe that they are just that little bit better, more determined, harder working, assertive and so on than the women who didn't make it.

slugs so you want an article for the FT that says 'women would like to be paid, more, please, just because they do childcare/housework doesn't mean they don't want more money' - is that it? That's what Justine should have written? Because I don't think that would be a ground-breaking sort of article to write. In 1950, yes; in 2015, no. Everybody wants more money. Men. Women. Kids. I think we all know that more money would be great. I think it's stupid to read this as if Justine is saying women are not interested in pay. I do not think the article will be read that way by the largely intelligent FT readership. We have had equal pay laws since the 1970s and nothing has changed, so simply saying 'we want equal pay' is not where we're at.

kawliga
My boss who paid me less than my male colleagues read the FT from cover to cover every day. Don't be so sure you don't need to spell out the bleeding obvious even to the readership of the FT.

I think it would have been a better informed article if Justine had read the blatant discrimination stories on her own website and then had a deeper think before she said that there weren't discriminatory practices holding women back.

Instead it either looks like she has a blind spot and has missed the many reports we have shared over the years. Either that, or she has heard us but doesn't believe us - we somehow brought it upon ourselves for not being enough like men.

It is striking me again as I write this that some of these sentiments are women saying "this unfair thing happened to me"
and some responses are "you didn't deserve that, it is not your fault, that shouldn't have happened",
but others are saying, in effect "are you sure you didn't somehow bring it on yourself? How did you behave? (less assertive? less committed?)"

So I'm going to say it again. We need a different type of #IBelieveYou

I agree that the bleeding obvious needs spelling out sometimes. But I do not think Justine or any woman should be playing the role of writing articles about the bleeding obvious for the FT. Writing in the FT is an opportunity also to influence policy-makers, and you will never influence policy simply by spelling out the bleeding obvious as if you're writing for the intellectually-challenged who understand nothing about society.

So, an article could be written about the great suffering that women endure, but I don't think that would fix the problem. Policy-makers are not going to read about how women are paid less and say 'oh, no, we didn't realize that women are paid less, we must do something about it!'

Let's not forget how long the equal pay debates have been going on, and the fact that discrimination against women on grounds of pay or anything else has been illegal for a very long time. We need a more sophisticated understanding of the problems and why they are still not getting fixed. Restating the bleeding obvious or repeating anecdotes about how much we are suffering is not going to get us there.

Even before I had my children I was struggling to do my professional job without a wife at home to keep domestic stuff going.

Most of the men I worked with had sah wives/partners. Dh pulls his weight but also worked long full time hours.

Perhaps it would have been a better article if it had said "women just do not seem to care as much as men do about salaries and promotion." But why is that? What's really going on here?

Sorry put the quotes in the wrong place - should be at the end after here.