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 agree with you Buffy. I felt that above sentence you quote sounded quite arrogant really and like other women aren't quite up to doing Justine's high profile role or earning her 6 figure salary because they are just too meek, apathetic, timid or busy being the 'little woman' in charge of the domestic detail.

We are not worthy

Otherwise Buffy I also agree with the remainder of your post and you expressed pretty much exactly what I was thinking [and said it better than I would have].

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?

Well, that would have been a better way to put it if the article was intended for a readership of approximately 8 to 12 years old.

Justine raised many interesting points about the steps corporations are taking to make things easier for women. It would have been nice to debate those points, but instead mumsnet is debating whether Justine has let down the side by not ranting loudly enough. Here is what she wrote in the full article:

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.

It is true that companies are doing A LOT and they are trying to show a more diverse workplace. Are we debating that, asking whether the measures are effective? No. Instead we're debating whether Justine is a genuine feminist.

Indeed. Follow my practical advice and the world is your oyster:

1. Ask for more pay
2. Pick high paid careers. Leave teh low paid stuff to others.
3. Never give up full time work
4. Don't marry a sexist man nor tolerate sexiam even for a day at home.
5. Lean In
6. Show off your skills, keep in the public arena, spend as long telling people at work how good you are as actually doing good work.
7. Don't bring up your children in a sexist way.
8. Take risk
9. Move jobs regularly - make the man move cities or countries to follow your career, not vice versa.

If someone has to go part time i.e do more dull domestic stuff let it be someone with a penis. There is no prize for taking on more at home than your other half - only a veil of tears and regrets (particularly when he runs off with a younger woman and you're left in poverty)

Is now a bad time to fess up that I don't know what leaning in is? Or how to do it...

2. Pick high paid careers. Leave teh low paid stuff to others.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

There is nothing "sophisticated" about saying that women value work life balance more than money. It's pandering to what FT readers might like to hear.

Absolves them, doesn't it?

It is useful to point out bias. We all have biased views. We are human. Research has shown that people do make better decisions when they are made aware of their bias. Gently pointing out the classic institutional biases against women is a good thing to do.

I couldn't help thinking that, had the article been a post on MN, it would have been greeted, quite rightly, with ' another person who doesn't know the difference between anecdote and evidence>' and, less politely, 'well so long as your career has been unaffected, that's ok then...' and so on.

There are so many acceptable ways to have dealt with the discrimination point, conveying that the writer didn't know about or want to discuss that topic but did want to talk about other topics she thinks are real and interesting.

It is also rather shocking that she doesn't know anything about discrimination and, from a position of not knowing, has chosen to disregard other women's experience, of course.

No one else on this thread wrote an article in the FT. I regularly publish letters there. Get on with it and write something if you don't like with J writes. It is very easy to criticise from sidelines but not so easy to put aside darning your husband's socks or messing around with your phone and write an article. Women will only change how they are perceived if they get out of kitchens and move more into the public arena.

Also anyone saying lower class stops anyone following my list of points is doing working class women down. Many of them do exactyl that - lean in - and do well and earn a lot. It does them no favours to say FT type careers are not for the likes of you, no point in trying, you are too thick, no up to it. At least I advocate women pushing themselves forward and leaving boring domestic stuff to men.

2. Pick high paid careers. Leave teh low paid stuff to others.

That option depends on the level of education available to you and secondly, whether you're actually interested in the high-paid career.

3. Never give up full time work

Nursery for 10 hours a day five days a week was not what I wanted for my 10 month old.

9. Move jobs regularly - make the man move cities or countries to follow your career, not vice versa.

Moving around is expensive, stressful, socially isolating and unsettling for many people, especially children.

Like your other points though!

" It is very easy to criticise from sidelines but not so easy to put aside darning your husband's socks or messing around with your phone"

ooookaaayyy.

"Leave the low paid work to others". , right, presumably the women who clean your house , cared for your children when they were small, Taught your children at school, cut your hair/ did your nails, served your food, sold you your clothes, delivered your mail and just about every other service that enabled you to have your fantastic life ?
Oddly enough, not everyone can have ( or even would want). A high flying / superbly paid career.

Here's a radical idea : how about paying high wages to people who do the real work?

If the founder of everyday sexism decided to write an article announcing that, having read the thousands of women's stories, she had decided that on reflection, sexism didn't really exist after all, women just behaved differently and thus the world treated them accordingly, all perfectly understandable. That women just needed to examine themselves and their own behaviour better.

...then I'd feel that she was misrepresenting the experiences of the many women whose stories she was privy to. And as a sort of spokeperson for them, those women would have a right to feel aggrieved.

Justine is entitled to her opinion, of course. But a fair few mumsnetters on this thread are astonished that she could have heard what we are saying, read any research, and landed upon this conclusion.

How is it possible to believe there are no discriminatory practices when the evidence and an overwhelming amount of women's experiences shared on Justine's website say otherwise?

Justine could have said "I've been lucky enough not to experience discrimination, but some mumsnetters have stories that would make your hair curl, so there's no doubt sexism is alive and well in the workplace today."

Funnily enough Victoria corne mitchell has called for "low paid workers" to quit London and leave all the rich in their ivory towers.
Let's see how long they last without refuse collections, postal services, cleaners, nannies.....
Fucking hell.
This thread is a real eye opener.

Yes, and if everyone left the low/lower paid work to others what would happen when you or one of your family have some sort of medical emergency?

And all those lowly paid [but educated and intelligent] paramedics, nurses, physios, dieticians, occupational therapists, etc, have upped sticks and decided to become bankers or lawyers?

Why is it that female dominated professions are so low paid in comparison to those that are male dominated? They are not all boring, shit work jobs you know. Some actually require a great deal of skill and knowledge and experience. The experienced practitioners are not easily replaced when they leave [and oh yes they do, in droves] but the system persists whereby these careers and their salaries do not reflect the importance of the role, or in fact supply and demand as again is often the case in other [male dominated] industries such as IT.

I know the NHS is generally meant to be a not for profit organisation [unless you are bidding to install a new computer system and then it seems to be a free for all with very little to show for the vast sums of money spent to external contractors] but still some of the salaries they propose to pay for experienced staff are an insult. And again this issue seems to disproportionately affect females as in female dominated professions are often most affected.

Do women really just have to enter male dominated professions [and this ones rated worthy and important by society] in order to be valued for the work they do?

Hairylittlecarrot, absolutely.
It is astonishing, bizarre and disappointing in equal measure.

Is it discrimination if one is assured and resoundedly deserves a payrise for their good and hard work over the last year then the money mysteriously is no longer available once they realise the woman is pregnant?

This happened to me and these little injustices happen all the time and add up to bigger injustices. If this happens to me twice them I am two pay rises behind my male equal. That's discrimination.

And I do fucking care

I think some of what she says is true. Many women do want a more balanced life. On the other hand many part time workers earn far less pro-rata than full timers with similar experience because many promotions don't apply to part time women as there are concerns about continuity.
Many part time jobs as directors in companies employ fewer women for no obvious reason.
It is true that jobs with a lot of women in them have less esteem.
Some doctors think that the reason junior doctors and GPs are being treated so badly at the moment and in recent years is because female doctors now outnumber male ones so the "prestige" of the job has gone down. Ditto teaching.

I tick all of DeoGratia's boxes and am still stuck in lower middle management watching some absolute useless men get promoted around me . Maybe I just don't want it enough?

It is very easy to criticise from sidelines but not so easy to put aside darning your husband's socks or messing around with your phone and write an article. Women will only change how they are perceived if they get out of kitchens and move more into the public arena.

Yes, you are so right, I am too busy darning my husband's socks to step out of the kitchen and my self-imposed prison and write an article and enter the public sphere....

WAIT A MINUTE, I've been active in the public sphere for decades. i don't have a husband. I've been published (articles, not books) and arranged for others to be published.

Still low-paid. Who knew?

Get on with it and write something if you don't like with J writes. It is very easy to criticise from sidelines but not so easy to put aside darning your husband's socks or messing around with your phone and write an article. Women will only change how they are perceived if they get out of kitchens and move more into the public arena.

Justine was published in the FT because she has a platform as the founder of mumsnet. There is an assumption that she has insight into the lives of women that others don't after so many years of managing this site. Her constituency us disappointed. Many if the disappointed have no platform, for reasons we are discussing!

US=is
If=of