To ask if you feel feminism doesn't include you?

[FlyingElbows]

I was brought up by a mother who, like so many others, found feminism in the late 70s / early 80s. She spent most of my life telling me that I could do anything but I was essentially too stupid to form my own thoughts and opinions and needed "feminists" to think for me. Throughout my adult life I have met women who proclaim to be "feminist" but hold what I have found to be questionable views about who "feminism" should be open to. So, do you feel feminism wants you or are you too stupid, too lacking in academic prowess, too working class, too blonde, too keen on glittery things, too married, too a sahm, too anything at all to be good enough? Just wondering because I have had enough of other women telling me what to think and I'm wondering if it's just me?

I find the gender pay gap an interesting one. I have never suffered from it. But then I only every took a maximum of 6 months mat leave.

I have known men and women to be behind where they should have been due to career breaks. All for various reasons.

I wonder if as more men become sahp this will even itself out. What does bother me about that is the majority of women I have managed and know in RL would not entertain the idea of them working and their Dp/dh staying at home. Or sharing and both workings PT.

At work several women have laughed about how their dp/dh wanted to discuss them being a sahp or working part time. As though there is no way in can happen. I am often disappointed in women's (and men's) reactions to men being sahp. Until it's equally as normal for a man to stay at home, I can't see the gender pay gap being resolved.

I can not see how a person male or female can take several years out of the work place and expect to be in the same position they would have been if they were working.

Some of the women I am talking about here were the higher earners too. But still became the sahp.

Also I do know that some employers are dicks and just pay women less. But in my experience a lot of women feel it's their right to be the sahp.

I would like to see a change in attitudes to sahp from both genders.

That's true to some extent, but the lawyer who posted earlier made me think- much of the legislation to 'protect' certain workers has arguably just meant these jobs have become minimum wage and they tend to be the ones chosen mostly by women- office cleaners etc. Traditional 'female' skills - caring, mass catering etc fit this too and are seemed as un or semi skilled in a way that traditional male jobs of an equivalent level just aren't. And are paid as such.

I do think some legislation has made work harder for women.

I think a lot of women end up in these jobs as a result of Working around the children and/or the only thing they can find after a career break.

Again I hope this evens out as sahd become as equally normal as sahm.

It will be interesting to see if these jobs all of a sudden become more respected and better paid if men are doing them.

Katenka - great post. I couldn't agree more. Equal pay should be equal fire man and women for doing the same work at the same level of skill /experience that has the same value to the employer. However I'm not sure this has the same definition for all women. They hear "equal pay" and think they should be entitled to special treatment ie the same wage for offering a less valuable service in terms of experience, time etc. Economics just don't work like that and the argument loses reason and credibility.
I'm all for women (and men) making the choice that is right for their family dynamic. I take my hat off to sahps - looking after children is bloody hard work! But it's not a decision to make in a vacuum and I'm surprised many women don't take into account the impact on their careers if that is important to them. My husband and I shared the maternity leave when we had our youngest. When I told people at baby group we were swapping I got a lot of "oh I wouldn't let my husband do that, he's not getting MY maternity leave etc. " Some of the same women are now back at work and roundly pissed off that they've been shunted to the "mummy track" because the plum work has had to be allocated during a year's absence. A man would find the same and fair play too. You reap what you sow. No one has it both ways.

Also have been musing about the application of the law which I still think is back to front. After having another look at the female soldier case I'm not so sure (despite flexible working for both sexes) that my earlier night shift example wouldn't go the same way. If a soldier can refuse to go on training because she has childcare issues, and wins a sex discrimination case on that point, why not a woman who doesn't want to do night shifts, or foreign travel etc? The result is the law saying "there there dear of course it's sex discrimination because we all know that children/childcare is the responsibility of women alone." Ffs!

". If a soldier can refuse to go on training because she has childcare issues, and wins a sex discrimination case on that point, why not a woman who doesn't want to do night shifts, or foreign travel etc?"

If you can find a case re night shifts that went that way, let us know. Otherwise it's speculation based on generalising from a single case from 5 years ago.

Katenka, I had a conversation with a male colleague who said he thought DH and I both being part time was cool. I pointed out he could do the same. He shuffled and um'd a bit, made it clear that he wouldn't actually want to take the career hit. I wonder what proportion of couples have a man even prepared to consider it, vs those where the man was prevented by his wife.

Anyway, it's been interesting, but I think I'll leave the thread here.

I wonder what proportion of couples have a man even prepared to consider it, vs those where the man was prevented by his wife.

It's something I would like to know as well.

Like I said, both genders need to view a sahd as something completely normal.

I didn't want to take the hit to my career either. Which is why dh changed jobs so he could work around my hours. As neither of us were ready to take the hit. We were lucky as we both could work FT.

It should never be assumed that a woman is happy to take the hit. Each couple should decide for themselves, based on what's right for them as a couple.

I would just like to see sahd (or part time sahd and part time work) being as normal as it is for women.

Dr S - Night shift tribunal decision: Avon Constabulary v Chew - still considered good law. It's an old case (2001). Still lots of recent cases using this precedent. Several involving refusal of flexible working found to be sex discrimination if the refusal was to a woman with childcare issues. See Cowley v Diamond 2015, Henery v Quoteline 2013, Cooper v House of Fraser 2012.
Right I must do some real work before I get sacked. I doubt I'd win a tribunal for messing around on the Internet.
Have a fabulous day everyone!

"The argument being made by almost every feminist source I have ever seen is that the pay gap is basically about some meanie somewhere deciding to discriminate...just because. Because they are evil, and hate women.
But the bulk of the difference appears to be arising from different choices made in further education, different feelings about work/life balance, differences in how prepared women and men are to work unpleasant/dangerous but lucrative jobs, differences between men and women in terms of willingness to work extreme hours or desire to take time out of the workplace to raise children, and so on."

I have not seen anyone say bosses are evil meanies and that's why women get paid less.

Choices re further education & women's unwillingness to work in dangerous but lucrative jobs are not relevant, since pay gap refers to differences in pay between men and women doing the same job.

The rest is correct - pay gap is largely attributed to prejudices/expectations re fertility ("Ah she's almost 30 so will be off to make a baby soon") and unwillingness to work extreme hours once a woman has children, but feminism does recognise this and campaigns for better conditions/facilities set in place so that women cannot be discriminated against in their fertile years and their children will be looked after while they work later on.

It's not just the odd person or the occasional experience, though. My experience of feminism "experiences"the blogs and FB pages and sites and books and courses I mentionedis that the vast, vast majority espouse world views that I don't agree with and think are silly.

It's the same for me and I imagine for lots of other women. But I don't say things like 'I have better things to with time' I just get on with what I believe and talk to the people I agree with or who can calmly show me something new or persuade me to a different point of view.

Like matilda and many of the other people on this thread.

You don't get people saying: 'I've looked into the core beliefs of PETA, the Animal Liberation Front and various other extreme animal rights organisation and I've concluded they are crazy, dogmatic and violent. So long Tiddles. I'm done with caring about animals. I've got better things to do with my time.'

"The argument being made by almost every feminist source I have ever seen is that the pay gap is basically about some meanie somewhere deciding to discriminate...just because. Because they are evil, and hate women."

Really?

Have you tried googling "Why is there a gender pay gap?" I did- and I went down several pages without finding a single example of "It's because men are mean". Lots of stuff about socialization and working structures and unconscious bias and issues around childcare and women's expectations though. You might want to take a look.

But the bulk of the difference appears to be arising from different choices made in further education, different feelings about work/life balance, differences in how prepared women and men are to work unpleasant/dangerous but lucrative jobs, differences between men and women in terms of willingness to work extreme hours or desire to take time out of the workplace to raise children, and so on.

This is not a revolutionary thought. I believe this too and so do many others. I don't doubt there are people who think these things exist because someone, somewhere is a meanie, but I find that reasoning to be the thing that's not worth my time. I prefer to listen to people who come up with ways we can change that philosophically and practically.

Helena Kennedy QC gave an impressive talk about the "pay gap" and a thing called badge pinning, this will also apply to people of colour or with disabilities. So Mr White Old Guy is thinking about promoting someone, most people in positions of power and leadership will be older white guys, they look around and decide the best person to promote will be just like them. After all they're a super brilliant worker and leader and so it makes sense the next great leader will be just like them. so they overlook women, PoC, people with disabilities and go for the young white guy. This means from the off women are at a disadvantage, no one is pinning badges onto them.

posie that's a different issue.

As cote said earlier pay gap refers to differences in pay between men and women doing the same job.

what you are talking is women and other groups being disadvantaged. But not the gender pay gap.

I don't agree that the gender pay gap refers to precisely the same job. As shown in the case where the low paid female workers successfully sued their employer for their pay in comparison to men, the men had better paid jobs.

In the case I've linked it's where female employees didn't get bonuses.

www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/24/women-birmingham-council-pay-court

For me the gender pay gap is not black and white with two comparable jobs, it also applies to work in general.

Gender pay gap also refers to "women's" jobs being less well paid than "mens" jobs.

I see what you mean.

But until we tackle the issue of women being assumed to be the childcare provider and /or sahm. I don't see how we tackle it.

Until men are as more likely to go part time, take a break or Extended paternity leave, I can't see how the gender pay gap can be rectified.

I think the issue you speak about is important and very complex. People tend to gravitate towards people like themselves. Less overt discrimination.

As I said I haven't come across this in RL. The companies I work for have always been actively seeking women, ethnic minorities and disabled people.

In my last job I was the most promoted employee in a decade. I am female and had taken Mat leave. I also got promoted whilst pregnant. Hopefully more and more companies become like this. But it needs more work.

Posie - Your link about certain jobs at the Birmingham council getting bonuses while others don't. That is not really about pay gap.

I like dictionary definitions. They help us avoid sentences that start with "For me, xxx means...". This one is from Cambridge Dictionaries:

Gender pay gap: The difference between the amounts of money paid to women and men, often for doing the same work.

When it is not exactly the same work, it refers to doing comparable work and/or in positions of same level of seniority.

Gender pay gap does not refer to the different salaries of a cleaner and a rocket scientist, although the vast majority of cleaners are women and the vast majority of rocket scientists are men.

Even if you find some online source that agrees with your use of the term, that was not what TheNewStateman was talking about with "feminists say pay gap is about some meanie deciding to discriminate, just because". "Discriminate" here clearly refers to a woman getting paid less for doing the same job. Surely you can appreciate that paying a cleaner less than a rocket scientists would not be discrimination.

CoteDAzur
Posie - Your link about certain jobs at the Birmingham council getting bonuses while others don't. That is not really about pay gap.

Gender pay gap does not refer to the different salaries of a cleaner and a rocket scientist, although the vast majority of cleaners are women and the vast majority of rocket scientists are men.

The Birmingham City Council example is directly relevant to the gender pay gap. Awards were made precisely because there should not have been a pay gap between equivalent roles, or roles of equivalent value, at the Council. It's not cleaners vs rocket scientists, but cleaners, cooks, care staff etc (roles predominantly occupied by women, previously no bonus included), compared to refuse collectors, street cleaners etc (roles predominantly occupied by men, bonus included).

Yy fascile. It was about comparable jobs.

"Awards were made precisely because there should not have been a pay gap between equivalent roles, or roles of equivalent value, at the Council."

My understanding is that one set of jobs had an additional benefit (bonus) that the others did not have. Not salaries for men being higher than women, which is what gender pay gap usually refers to.

"It's not cleaners vs rocket scientists"

That was a theoretical example meant to clarify what I was saying, but does not seem to have worked for you. Of course I wasn't suggesting that Birmingham council employs rocket scientists.

The additional bonus was part of the pay though, they won because they showed the bonus was paid on gender grounds.

Posie -

(1) They only won the right to go to court on this issue.

(2) The ruling was not given on "gender grounds", just that there seemed to be benefits available to one set of jobs that others did not receive.

FYI Bonus is not part of the regular pay in a salaried job, as a rule of thumb. It is an extra benefit usually designed to boost productivity (i.e. a function of output).

Anyway, these are details. You agree with me on the main point that gender pay gap refers to women getting paid less than men for doing the same job or a similar job of equal seniority in the same place.

And I said that because TheNewStatesman thought it refers to women's different education/career choices leading them to lower-paid jobs (I gave the example of cleaner) as opposed to men's education/career choices leading them to higher-paid jobs (I gave the example of rocket scientist).

Yes I agree with you!

Oh you're so aggressive.

CoteDAzur
FYI Bonus is not part of the regular pay in a salaried job, as a rule of thumb. It is an extra benefit usually designed to boost productivity (i.e. a function of output).

Pay, under the Equal Pay Act, extends to other remuneration such as bonuses/other benefits. It's important to consider bonuses because the criteria for awarding them can be somewhat arbitrary, and therefore prone to discriminatory practices.

(2) The ruling was not given on "gender grounds", just that there seemed to be benefits available to one set of jobs that others did not receive.

Maybe not, but it's still a form of discrimination because it disproportionately affected women.

"It's not cleaners vs rocket scientists"

That was a theoretical example meant to clarify what I was saying, but does not seem to have worked for you. Of course I wasn't suggesting that Birmingham council employs rocket scientists.

Yes, the example didn't work for me. Not because I am under any illusions about Birmingham City Council employing rocket scientists, but because it was an odd example to pick when this story was about comparable jobs that should receive comparable remuneration. I don't think you'll find many/any people who expect cleaners and rocket scientists to be identically remunerated.