To think that 16% pay inequality between the sexes isn't necessarily a problem....

[Bananabread123]

.... so long as:

1. men and women are paid equivalent amounts where there is parity of responsibility, experience and competence

2. affordable childcare is available

3. men and women are equally able to take career breaks for the purpose of child rearing, and that cultural barriers inhibiting this are removed

4. there is equality of access to money and spending decisions for women in households where the man is the main breadwinner (and vice versa)

5. Barriers that prevent or dissuade women from working in high paid professions are removed.

Why do I say this?... because in my experience women, on average, tend to want to lead on child rearing, and that this is a biological tendency that exists over and above any cultural norms. Clearly it will be different for every couple, but I'm talking about norms here. Not all, but many women want to take time off after their babies. And many (not all) women embrace the flexibility of part time work when children are young. And if that being the case, they will have less experience than their male counterparts, and it follows they should expect to be paid less on average.

The pay gap exists before women have children - how often do you see on here that a woman says it was the 'obvious' choice for her to give up work after maternity because her husband earned more?

No, if they are equally competent, even if they are twins and followed the same career path, they are still equally competent and the pay should be equal. Thats the point of the equal word.

But experience is a key component of competence. Someone may have the same innate potential as another, but the one who has developed that potential with more experience will tend to be more competent. So though a mother may have the same innate potential, if they have a career break, they won't have developed the same level of experience. For some jobs that won't matter much, but for others (generally more senior positions) it definitely will.

FWIW I think I understand what you are saying banana and I tentatively agree. A man taking time out of his career and then working part time would also find his career and pay will slow.
There is also the fact that women in general often tend to choose the lower paid type careers anyway. No one makes them.

But it's totally out of order if (and I'm presuming this is the case, I haven't got evidence to quote) employers pay women less and promote them less, where there is no meritorious reason, because of the chance (even if it's a high chance) that they might get pregnant, and might take a year off, and then go part time.

I am the main earner in our house and a huge factor in that is that I chose to have children with someone who isn't a chauvinist who assumed that maternity leave (we shared it), child rearing and wifework (ditto) was primarily a woman's responsibility. I'd rather have stayed single!

The pay gap exists before women have children - how often do you see on here that a woman says it was the 'obvious' choice for her to give up work after maternity because her husband earned more?

And the circumstances that have brought that about should be challenged... I'm not arguing for a moment that all is currently fair and as it should be with men's and women's pay.

Time and time again I see posts on MN saying that it makes sense for the woman to give up her job and be a sahm / be the one to take time off when kids are off / take low paid p/t work because the DP/Dh earns more and is the main breadwinner. Families 'can't afford ' to share the childcare responsibilities because he earns more.

How does this so often become the case before they have even had children ?

If the man had to take a year off work because he was having cancer treatment and surgery, should he also be shunted down the payscales in your world? And never catch up, as he'll always be a year less experienced?

"No one makes them" hmm. Are you sure about that? No influence from society/culture/upbringing at all in that decision?

Sorry , my point had already been made: I took a posting break to make coffee and found the world had moved on. If only DP had made the coffee....

Also a lot of women who come back part time after mat leave just become disillusioned and feel overlooked for promotion and see their male colleagues advancing their careers whilst theirs is at a standstill. They don't fight it because they are juggling everything and trying not to feel constantly guilty that they are not doing either job to the best of their ability. There is a glass ceiling and there is still an attitude that if you work part time you are not committed enough and don't deserve to be promoted and until that changes the gender pay gap will continue.
Equally I agree there is also discrimination against women generally ( even those without children). You only have to look at the number of women executives on boards or female partners in firms compared to males to see that.

I also think women have a different attitude to men generally. They are less pushy ...whereas a woman who is given a pay rise might say thank you and be grateful I know a number of men who have challenged their employer and said the pay rise is not enough!

Another tricky issue is that on average, the male partner is 5 years older than the female in a relationship. So he's had 5 years more career experience and will therefore usually earn more/be higher up the career ladder when a couple have children. So if one partner takes the seat career wise it's logical for them to agree it's going to be her.

What's the answer to that? I honestly have no idea.

Not sure I agree that women biologically feel the urge to take on child rearing. I certainly don't!! Don't you think you're getting "biology" confused with "what society expects and they feel guilty if they don't"?!

This gets to the kernel of my argument. If the fact that mothers lead on child rearing purely due to societal expectations, then my position is baseless, and i accept that.

However, if the tendency for mothers to lead on child rearing is something that is biologically driven (albeit with societal support currently) then I believe my views have merit and are logically consistent.

This is getting very dull. Yes, women are inevitably going to have, on average, slightly less professional experience than men because they have to give birth to the babies that both men and women want in order to start families. Yes, to date in our society, women have tended to do more childcare. Some of this is down to their choices, some to those of men. These are joint decisions. Women should not be financially and professionally penalised for them.

Bore off.

Which do you think it is, banana? What are these biological impulses that make women "lead in child rearing"? What's your basis for believing they exist?

I strongly disagree that because you have more years experience at something you are by default more competent. Up and down the country there are people sitting in jobs that they have done for years who are reluctant to learn new skills, or afraid of change. And people who have done the same job for a year are more productive and competent. On the flipside, up and down the country there are people who have done the same job for years, are highly skilled, productive, always keen to learn new things but they are overlooked for promotion because those things aren't actually valued, and someone twenty years younger who doesn't really know what they are doing but can really talk the talk, will be appointed to lead them. In a lot of those cases, the steady reliable staff are the middle aged females who have remained in their job because it fitted with their family commitments. There are a lot of complex issues at play.

SpeakNoWords

Personal experience and those of friends and family... in may be wrong, but to say women can't have a biological tendency for attributesnis clearly wrong... for instance, the majority of women are straight. That's biological.

How can you possibly disentangle this from the influence of an unequal society/culture?

What are "biologically driven maternal instincts"??

It's awfully convenient for men that they don't have these instincts. It means they don't have to limit themselves to career options which allow flexible/part time/term time only work. They don't have to do the lions share of the housework, school and other child-related admin. They don't have to clock up emergency days off work as the first ones on call when a child is too sick to go to school/nursery and has to stay at home.

And they get to negotiate better salaries while their partners have to negotiate flexible working in order to accommodate their "instincts"

How can you possibly disentangle this from the influence of an unequal society/culture?

This. Sorry OP but I don't buy it, and I think you're part of the problem.

However to argue we should aim for no pay gap is going too far as mor women than men choose willingly to lead on child rearing.

There should be no pay gap between women and men who have equivalent experience/qualifications.

In my job there is currently a significant pay gap between women and men with equivalent experience/qualifications. This is illegal but very hard to challenge, when (a) salaries are not published and (b) jobs are hard to come by.

Talking about childcare duties and career gaps is a complete red herring in my field. Even after taking into account any career gaps (and most women don't have children anyhow) women have to work longer in any given role before they get promoted, mainly because 90% of the people in senior positions are white men who like to promote other white men.

Well, banana, let's say it is biological - why the hell should an innate biological tendency that benefits both men and women (making men fathers and delivering the children who will pay the taxes that pay their pensions) result in women being paid less than men? We can't help it if it's biology, can we? So let's chalk it up to that and get on with ensuring fair workplace pay policies that reflect the different biological imperatives women are clearly subject to.

The idea that either parent should "take the lead on childcare" is sexist and outdated.

You are using sexist prejudices to justify the retention of a sexist situation in which it "just so happens" that women's work is less valuable than men's.

Your argument is sexist.

You are justifying women being paid less than men because of biology.

Dress it up how you like. That is your argument.

It's not nuanced. It's the same stupid, sexist argument patriarchy has been making for decades.

for instance, the majority of women are straight. That's biological.

LOL

Maybe you should stop making up biological causes for social phenomena?

OP, whatever finer points can (and should) be argued here, the truth is that none of these issues exist in a vacuum - you say, 'if all prejudice and discrimination were removed and more women chose to have career breaks then it would be fine that overall they were paid less than men' but this massively oversimplifies a hugely complex issue from which it cannot be separated by good intentions, and therefore makes it a rather moot and theoretical point.

The 'pay gap' for many people incorporates many of those issues so is used as convenient short-hand to bring them into public discussion. An unfortunate side effect is that many people then view it over-simplistically.

It is quite clear that more women choosing to have 'career breaks' is not distinct from societal pressures and prejudice, and is even then not the sole factor in the pay gap, so trying to strip it back to that doesn't really help anyone and could be inferred as quite offensive (even though you may not mean it that way).

Well said, Trifle.

Shared parental leave only works if both are employed, self employed people get no break there.

It would be fantastic if your five things were in place op.

It would be even better if my dsis didn't do more work than the two male managers in her division and get paid less. With gender being the only difference between them.oh and her doing more.