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.

Many women do want a more balanced life

Do many men not want a more balanced life? I would say arguably many do, but they can see (as you say) that many promotions don't apply to part time women (actually people) and so the die is cast. Do women want a balanced life more than men do, or do they need it more? Part time is seen as career suicide in many offices, or at the very least parking yourself for a number of years on the career ladder whilst others climb around you, leaving greater competition when you climb back on.

Mumsnet was very supportive of the Maternity discrimination campaign - which seems at odds with the apparent new information that women are not overtly discriminated against in the workplace.

If you go for the male dominated professions then you will get a decent salary. I work in software development. This will help pay the bills and for childcare which is a big plus.

However there are major downsides. No female company and role models. An assumption that you aren't as technical. A battle to prove you are just as good. Your face won't fit to get promoted as there will be no female management whatsoever in your field. There won't be any part time jobs to apply for if you want more time with the kids.

It will be like attending an all boys school or joining a male sports team. Sometimes fun, sometimes a bit lonely.

Toast, yes. Technically , I'm doing well. But sometimes I feel so TIRED, and knowing that this is yet another year where I will be told that I'm doing great but am not ready for promotion 'just yet'...

Are you a software developer too then? DepthFirstSearch gives it away I guess!

Over the past 15 years I have sadly worked with so few women...

Yup!

Hi all

Been following the thread throughout the day but messed up my account in the name change when I posted the original post so have re-registered.

I agree with 99% of what has been said and clearly there is a lot strong feeling here. I am glad Justine posted the whole article as it appeared in the FT to give the full context but I still don't feel that she has explained how she has come to her view that the gender pay gap has very little to do with discriminatory policy and practice.

The most crucial statistic is that far fewer women reach the top echelon of the pay scale and when they do they are paid nearly 20% less than men. There is no other explanation for this than discrimination. Women in the very top echelons of the payscale are not choosing work life balance in exchange for a lower salary. No one in a high powered job does that.

I have worked in the very top echelons of the pay scale for the last two years and there were no women in the room - ever - except to deliver the coffee and take notes.

My DD is a Maths teacher and all of the women she worked with have left/gone pt after having a child.
All of the department heads are men, all with young children, and all have stay at home or part timer wives.
DD is 25 and is already considering what she will do when she has children, career wise, the pressure on teachers is immense, she regularly does12 hour days and goes in during the holidays.
Very few men have to juggle careers and childcare, they are practically canonised if they do, constantly told how marvellous they are, how strong, yet women are damned if they stay at home and damned if they work full time.

I think the article was just hedging enough for Justine to have deniability while not ruining her growing career as a member of the media commentariat.

She quite rightly calls for a dismantling of the dysfunctional work system, while seeming to deny that the work system is dysfunctional.

“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. “

So she is pointing out structural sexism. But she’s not calling it that, she's calling it "deeper forces" while also pretending it doesn’t exist, by saying: ”the gender pay gap has very little to do with discriminatory practices or policies against women”

Those 2 positions directly contradict each other. The fact that women are not rewarded for behaviours men are, "the deeper forces"is discriminatory practices and it has nothing to do with women’s choices or priorities, it has to do with how women are expected to perform femininity and are punished for not doing so, while being punished for doing so at the same time.

In other words, sexism exists and Justine recognises it, while either pretending not to or not being consciously aware that she does.

I'm not sure which.

FreeWorker
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'm interested to know your responses and actions in relation to the discriminatory comments and practices you mention.

I really cannot believe, Justine, that you wrote that sentence about women not caring about salaries and promotions without any kind of context.

I've always said that the glass ceiling lies primarily within the home - the decision to go part - time or not go for a promotion / different job is so often not one that is decided based on equal options available to each parent. Because the level of commitment, organisation and care proposed for running the non-work part of life by each partner is not equal. One of the parents often still has to do a whole load of stuff relating to the family, even when a decision has been made to prioritise their career, or even make it 50/50. And there are not enough hours in the day or enough berocca tablets to not make taking the foot off the work thing seem the best option. Buffy gave a good example up thread and I see it every day.

Is there a particular reason why you didn't make the point about men needing to take up the non-work slack in a paper that is likely to have a high proportion of readers that it would affect, both male and female (for different reasons.)?

I am fed up to the back teeth of dealing with mediocre men in relatively senior positions. That they would be equally shit at the home stuff should be no comfort to anyone. There is some serious game - raising that needs to be done. And these guys know that, hence the sly discrimination that goes on,as well as the more obvious MRA stuff.

You had a platform. Shame you failed to use it. You get masses of free content on here - why on earth did you not draw on it? Use your nonny log in and get a discussion going. Or even just do an AS? There have been loads of threads on this stuff.

Excellent post Basil - as usual

Yes, fabulous post by AskBasil (and yes, as always. I miss you posting more often).

We as women have to name those "dark forces". Plenty on here do and you own their words, Justine.

For the record, I have no problem with the op. Only a bit sad that it wasn't a woman who read the article and posted about it on here.

Have read the article now and think it is a very superficial analysis, and could have been so much more. Let's hope it doesn't give further justification to some boss to enhance Steve's pay and not Susan's.

fascicle - I know the point you are driving at in your question. I have seen it asked often on MN in general and directly to me a few times.

It goes something like this:

"Why aren't decent men doing more to stop the discrimination against women. Do they not have mothers, sisters, wives and daughters?"

I have been in the world of work about 30 year. When I began work after university there were no women at all in my firm above secretarial level. None at all. I was the most junior man in the firm as a trainee manager. I had no power at all to influence that.

After a spell at business school I went back into a big professional services firm where numbers of men and women were equal in number at my level. Much better than my previous firm to start with but my boss over a two year period systematically removed all the women. I argued strongly against him and the way he treated women in my team but he ignored me. It was completely nonsensical and illogical to discriminate against his best employees. It damaged the business. Discrimination is always illogical and bad for business. I eventually warned two of the women in my team they were being discriminated against and they left soon after. I quickly followed. It was a horrible place to work. One of my female colleagues subsequently recruited me as a consultant to work as her deputy.

After that I worked on my own as a consultant in many organisations on short assignments and the numbers of women I worked with dramatically declined as they hit their 30s. I then took a ten year break to share childcare and worked with my wife from home.

I returned to work a few years ago again as a specialist consultant and in that time all the women have disappeared. There are literally no women anywhere in my field at or near my level. The lack of women is stark. It is literally impossible to find women with the necessary experience.

Admittedly it is a small very specialist field but the outcome is stark and the reason there are no women at my level started 30 years ago with bosses like my old boss.

I just wanted to post to say I am still annoyed about this article. I am still annoyed that the very articulate, salient points made have been ignored by Justine. I'm both frustrated and disappointed about that.

I am however heartened by the number of women who have stood up and said THIS HAPPENED TO ME. For the record I have an actual screen shot of the pay difference and I have the record of appraisals and income earned for both me and that man and I come out on top on everything except the pay I was taking home. In reality I was doing a much bigger job (incidentally as soon as we were audited he resigned before he was pushed). You may say "well did you take them to a tribunal? Did you do anything about it?". Yes, I did. I got a shit hot lawyer and they paid a large settlement to me of which approximately a third went on legal fees. This is obviously of comfort to me in the years when I don't even earn enough to pay basic rate tax having been a higher rate tax payer with a career previously on a steep upwards trajectory

To deny the experiences of women, women like me, is to deny women.

Hear Hear Freeworker I recognise you now

If we were designing workplaces from scratch we wouldn't work in the way we do now, based on employment practices taken from times when men went out to work and households could survive on a single income.

Employers need to look at the things that make money and lack of diversity and failing to keep pace with the changing world are the two things stopping us from making as much money as we could.

Sadly I think the world is moving to slow to help me much but I'm buggered if I'm standing by and just hoping for the best for my children. I'm going to keep trying to change things for the better.

You took a ten year career break and got back into professional work. That's what I am trying to do. When a cv finally gets through, I have excruciating interviews where men people tell me how serious and grownup the job is and ask about my childcare plans. Or take a moment to applaud the "brave" step I am making by seeking to return to the workforce. Words fail me. I find it mortifying. I don't actually want to delve into my personal, family life with them. I am in my comfort zone while we talk about competencies, work history and skills. The soft, subjective stuff feels like the rug being pulled out from under me.

SettlinginNicely I work in recruitment and I had a significant client Big 4 who had expressed an interest in setting up a scheme specifically for people like you who are returning to work after a break with proper training and support and jobs at the end (without the fuckwit questions because it would be run by sensible people like me). A bit like a graduate scheme but for people with a proven track record albeit some time ago.

I contacted MNHQ because I had been on their Returning Talent Programme a couple of years ago and thought it might be of interest for them as their current programme seems to be on hold and this one is 1000 times better with actual paid jobs at the end.

I heard nothing back. They didn't even have the courtesy to say thanks but no thanks.

It would be a huge opportunity for candidates that fit your client's brief. There are a lot of "off ramps" for women, but not so many "on ramps."

Although I agree there are organisations that have/are going a long way to support women progress and pay well (AON - a business I worked for, for many years before moving in a different direction), I feel a bit depressed reading Justin's analysis/article.

I haven't read everyone's posts but Ask Basil, I really agree with you and when you say In other words, sexism exists and Justine recognises it, while either pretending not to or not being consciously aware that she does.. Neither sits well with me but I would prefer to think it was the later.

You may say "well did you take them to a tribunal? Did you do anything about it?". Yes, I did. I got a shit hot lawyer and they paid a large settlement to me of which approximately a third went on legal fees. This is obviously of comfort to me in the years when I don't even earn enough to pay basic rate tax having been a higher rate tax payer with a career previously on a steep upwards trajectory hmm

This. I've had a couple of experiences where I could totally lawyer up...assuming I don't mind never working in my industry again.

Secretarial work used to be associated with men. It was well paid. If you map out the reduction on pay for it against the change from being male dominated to female dominated the pay drops as the number of women climbs.

So we're punished for not being like men but when we are like them we're also punished and when we do 'their' jobs those jobs become devalued.

Depressing

Deogratias I've done everything in your list - and I'm still paid a huge amount less than my male colleagues.

I do feel let down by Justine posting this tbh. She has a right to her opinion but she's also often used by the media as the voice of women, or the voice of parents or the voice of working mothers or some combination of the above by virtue of her MN role. Yet I don't recognise the view of MN women in Justine's words, as evidenced by this thread. I feel misrepresented.

Justine should feel free to speak for herself and her own experience. But this piece attempts to speak for women with the various claims about what women do and don't want. Really not happy.