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.

Dedication to careers is a bit 20th Century.

Jobs for life and proper pensions are pretty much over.

It really is like a conversation from the 80s.

How are people (not just your schoolgate mums' husbands) working today? What kinds of jobs are being created? With what benefits?

This really is not about middle class women deciding to go back to their typing pool job and the car factory and hoping to get promoted to PA.

What is happening with all of the newly self employed?

What is the gender pay gap there?

What about people on zero hour contracts?

Constantly extended fixed term contracts, broken every 2 years?

Yes, the wage gap would go if SAHPs were paid for being SAHPs.

Women in the UK tend to always be invested in their babies because women who are not invested can avoid late pregnancy and labour.

We could culturally change all fathers investment levels by banning sperm donors, holiday flings etc, but who wants that?

The comment about schoolgate mums' husbands sounds very sexist.

If a man or woman spends 25 years dedicated to a career, they will likely be earning more at th me if the 25 years than the man or woman who has a 10 year career break.

Not really, there are plenty of people in their 40s and 50s (mostly men, as it happens, given my industry) who are doing the same professional role alongside people 10-15 years their junior.

Only the good ones have been promoted way up the chain. It's not a forgone conclusion that if you do something for a long time you'll be better at it. Many of these 40-50 year old are being managed by someone who is mid-late 30s and much more talented.

So someone having a couple of years out, but who is more talented, should still be promoted ahead of, and paid more than, someone who has been doing the job for longer with no break. Because they are better.

Ayeamorak, why don't you look at the Fawcett Society's research rather than claiming issues women say they are facing don't really exist?

I think that ageism and sexism both play a role in keeping pay for women lower than it should be.

If a woman were to take even a five year career break in her 30s, by the time she is 45-50 she will still have had a good 15 years experience in her chosen career. Fifteen years experience would be considered enough in most jobs/professions to get to director/partner/other senior level. In fact, most men I see tend to reach that sort of level in their late 30s - with about 15 years experience.

Why are we not seeing a load of late forty something women, who have taken a career break, then making these senior management grades? Is it because it is perceived that productivity falls off for lower workers? If so (even if true), the man promoted in his late 30s still reaps the benefit of his promotion and isn't pushed back down the pay scale.

This is just one example of a basic unfairness.

Ehhhhh.

I never suggested anything of the sort.

And I'm perfectly clear on the issues women face at work, thank you. You have completely misunderstood my post.

My point is that I don't believe that,all things being equal, a man will be better than a woman purely because he's not had a year, two or three out of the workplace.

Sometimes, people are just better at their job than others despite only having been doing it for 5 years versus 20. Experience doesn't always trump talent and hard work.

So there is no reason why a talented woman (who has had a few years out years before) should not be promoted over a mediocre man who has been there longer.

The fact women are not getting these jobs is a problem of culture and society, which is what the OP is completely ignorant of.

If all of your points applied, there wouldn't be a wage gap to start with...or at least it would be a lot smaller.

I've made it easy for you.

Acceptable things:
•paying someone more because they have more experience and/or qualifications that another colleague.

Unacceptable things:
•paying someone more because they have a penis and their colleague does not.

The comment about schoolgate mums' husbands sounds very sexist.

Lol

More sexist (and classist) than the original comment using them as "proof" of women's biological need to be worth less than men?

There are various changes that could be made at a systemic level. But I also feel strongly that couples needs to maximise the opportunities available to them and think strategically long term if they are serious about wanting greater balance and equity for both partners.

For example, the legislation around shared parental leave has been around a while now, but take up is shockingly low. Therefore, for whatever reasons, couples are reluctant for the woman to transfer some of her leave to the child's father. In some cases it might be a financial reason- short term it might be more economical for the woman to take the whole leave. But if couples are serious about wanting greater balance, they would consider taking that short term hit for the longer term effect. Because it starts there: once the first child is born and working/caring patterns fall into place. I know a few couples who have recently had children where the mother doesn't want to transfer any leave. It's not a financial decision, but her desire to take the whole leave herself- which is fine, but it's no good then complaining about losing pace in your career compared to people who have taken less time out

and yes, I do know about taking the financial hit myself because when we had our kids 20 years ago, some of my friends told me I was mad to continue working even when dc3 arrived and the childcare costs were the equivalent of my salary, so after factoring in a second car and petrol, we were temporarily worse off than if I'd given up work. It was a decision made for the longer term. Ideally shared parental leave would mean the same pay as if just the mother takes the whole leave (and who knows, hopefully further legislation will mean this) but in the meantime why aren't couples taking advantage of it? It's the first step towards men being seen as equally capable and responsible for caring, and I've no doubt if we saw a culture shift towards it being the norm, it would have a knock on for how women are viewed and remunerated throughout their career.

Why are we not seeing a load of late forty something women, who have taken a career break, then making these senior management grades?

Actually, in my experience we are! I know at least as many women in senior management positions as men. I accept though that more needs to be done and that the workplace remains skewed towards men.

Actually, Bananabread, I'm seeing some of it too amongst friends who are now going back to work full time or nearer full time.

I also agree that more needs to be done. My experience is that culturally some workplaces are much more open to women in senior positions than others. It sounds like your current workplace (and maybe also the sector in which you work) is pretty good.

I know a few couples who have recently had children where the mother doesn't want to transfer any leave. It's not a financial decision, but her desire to take the whole leave herself

Is this cultural or biologically driven... probably a bit of both. I believe promoting 'fair pay' recognises this, and if it's all cultural, well 'fair pay' is the same as 'equal pay'. The problem with insisting on equal pay is that it assumes that the desire of women to be the lead career for children is entirely cultural, with women who choose to be SAHMs seen as letting the side down.

If all of your points applied, there wouldn't be a wage gap to start with...or at least it would be a lot smaller.

Exactly! So I'm not sure why some are making it out as though I'm some kind of male chavinist!

We considered shared leave, with the possibility of my DP taking the last 3 months of the leave. But this would have been financially difficult, as this would have been unpaid and he has the (much) larger salary. Plus I want to breastfeed long term and the logistics of this whilst sharing leave is impractical. I would rather we had concurrent parental leave rather than this system of taking it in turns. I think this is the system they use in some parts of Scandinavia (Norway?).

Doitfine

I agree that there are issues, but to say careers no longer exist is plain wrong. Yes, we no longer have jobs for life, and many have to change careers at some time during their life, maybe more than once, but very many also progress in careers for large portions of their working life, moving jobs as required, but progressing nonetheless. Someone within a career who has never had a substantial career break will (all other things being equal) always be likely to have a pay advantage as they will have the opportunity to acquire the experience to be promoted and won't have to refresh their skills when they return..... and that's only right and natural, irrespective of whether it's a man or woman.

Grinchy

That sums it up nicely!

The very idea that the "lead childcarer" should be paid zero despite doing work that contributes enormously to the economy is the real insult to SAHMs.

Interesting point about whether SAHMs should be paid... if it's not to impact on their earnings maternity pay would need to be 100% of their pay before may leave lasting until they returned. Even then that wouldn't provide equality as hypothetical 'twin' who stayed at work may have got promoted!

Unless, and I'm just brainstorming here. The law required that a percentage of the non child carer's earnings were given unconditionally into a separate account of the child carers. So when a couple decide which one is going to raise the children, the financial implications are more even?

From a personal perspective, there is no way my husband could have achieved his success in his career, if I haven't done the child-rearing, and domestic duties. If he had had to leave early to pick up the children, going to their recitals, sports days, doctors appointments etc, he couldn't have done it. He can only do it because of me.

More men need to sacrifice their careers to look after their children whilst their wives flourish in theirs. It's ridiculous that still so often women are expected to put careers on hold, sacrifice career progression or give them up altogether for men.

I agree, we need to work towards a culture where men and women are equally able to take a career break.... would that lead to a 50:50 split? I don't know.

IAmAmy- it starts at grassroots level- couples need to decide whether they want their careers to keep pace with each other once they have a family, and do everything possible to make that happen.

And I'm not saying that lightly.... I've said this before: I'm of the generation where we had 12 weeks ML and our husbands had NO paternity leave, it wasn't that long ago either. It was very hard to keep two careers going, and would definitely have been easier in the short term to be a SAHM (and would definitely have been financially more beneficial for me to be one by the time we were paying childcare for 3 dc!) but you need to think long term about these things. Legislation now makes it far easier for couples to have greater equality in caring and
Working- but people have got to use that legislation. It makes total sense to me that nowadays couples generally want a better balance. I have a son and daughters and I certainly don't assume that my son will have a great career and my daughters won't

munster looking long term is fine if you can afford that. The less you earn as a couple , the less you are able to take are a hit on childcare. There are lots of jobs - even that graduates do that won't pay for a nanny for example which might be needed if someone is a HCA for example.