To be really annoyed and disappointed with Dh views on this

[fleec]

Dh just said to me that the gender pay gap doesn't really exist. He said that women choose lower paid jobs because it suits them . Also that women choose to slow down their careers because of children and that women have less assertive personalities meaning that they are generally suited to less senior roles.

I am fuming with him. I cannot believe that he thinks this . AIBU to think that we are all different and that you can't generalise in this way! I am not one who generally holds very strong feminist views but this has really got to me.

How about rather than getting personal, TIRF, you respond to the actual substance of what I said? I'm quite happy for you to disagree with me, but it is very childish of you to avoid the substance and instead pretend I have deliberately somehow blamed homosexuals for anything.

@DeltaG I recognise your experience!

Women do ask for pay rises - we just don't get them!

Using data collected from 4,600 Australian workers across more than 800 employers, the study from the University of Wisconsin in the US and the University of Warwick and Cass Business School in the UK found “no difference” in the likelihood of asking between the two genders. A lack of assertiveness in negotiations is often cited as a potential reason why women might make less money than men for similar work.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37278170

And also see this article re: social cost of women asking for pay rises:

hbr.org/2016/09/gender-can-be-a-bigger-factor-than-race-in-raise-negotiations

Throw in workplace cultures that are pale, male and stale and the gender pay gap seems to be less down to women 'choosing' easy options and more that assumptions are made on what is womanly behaviour and what is allowable

See my long response at Thu 15-Mar-18 17:21:03 @roundabout

I didn't say you blamed homosexuals. I said you used a homophobic term and were too cowardly to accept it. "ponce off" meaning to take is clearly not the use you intended.

@GallicosCats

No idea why the word (initial for) inclusion in my username would suggest you shouldn't engage.

I think it's less about jobs become less important or prestigious (such as clerks) but they became easier so whether women did it or not, it took less skill. I do have a secretary but most of my diary keeping which would have been a big part of her role is done by me speaking to Siri / "OK Google".

"shutting women aggressively out of the fledgling software industry just as the status of programming went up"

I didn't see this post or know about it but I've been involved in IT since '77 and haven't seen this aggressive removal.

I'm not sure what point you're making about invisible labour. Most people know how to make dinner and do the invisible labour things.

How do you define your success? Salary? Pride? Power over others? Supporting others?

"The problem is that there is currently no agreed way to measure people skills in the way you would academic and practical skills"

Does there need to be? I also think that people skills are an integral part of the monetisation aspect of someones worth in a capitalist society. I think I got a big head start in life by being taught at school how to schmooze, how to talk to people who can impact your life and how to get ahead with them. These soft skills are an integral part of 'value' or earning potential but by themselves have less value and use.

It's 2:45 in Singapore now - jetlag's completely fucked me but I'm interested in your response @Gallicos

"pale male and stale"

What does this mean? Too many white men?

Oh my goodness. Haven't had time to read any of this so will have a look through now. Can't believe my idiotic husband has caused such a debate.

If you agree that raising children isn't of value to society, did your own parents do nothing of value in having/raising you? Are you doing nothing of value when you raise your own children

I'm raising my own chidren because I am their parent, nothing to do with being of value to a society but a personal responsibility when I made the choice to have them.

They themselves may become of value to society when adults dependent upon their career choices or tax levels etc but I don't see how parenting is of value to society other than creating a new generation but work status has nothing to do with that. A lot of those parents and children will actually be a burden on tax payers and never really contribute to society.

TIRF - I was not cowardly, I just took a quick look at the first definition I found to check whether there was any reference to something inappropriate or offensive in it and didn't give it any more thought, because it seemed such a silly thing for you to bring up. I am aware calling someone a ponce is offensive, but simply didn't stop to think when I used it that the verb actually can have the same connotations, hence not bothering to check lots of dictionaries or remind myself of the way I had used it - the fact it is often used in ways that have no reference whatsoever to homosexuality was enough for me, as it seemed so obvious to me from the context of this thread that I would not be intending to use the phrase to offend homosexuals... I have accused my sister of poncing off after an argument before - and not because I thought she bore any resemblance to a homosexual man, but because I thought she was trying to get away with pretending she had won the argument, was entirely in the right, and didn't need to bother with me any more. My apologies if this is not how you interpreted it, but I still fail to see how you could really think I was trying to offend homosexual men.

Now - how about you address the actual substance of my previous posts, because I would be interested in your counter argument.

By the way, most people know how to cook dinner and care for the culnerable like most people know how to play football. You don't find extremely well paid carers, though, even though some are undoubtedly far more talented at it than others, just as with footballers. Human beings will avoid paying for things if they think they can get away with it, and they are more likely to get away with it if they are using someone's caring skills, because it is easier to use emotional blackmail on caring types, because of their overgrown sense of obligation and empathy... Besides, if carers became too expensive, we wouldn't be able to afford to pay them to do that work for us so that we could do something else, because we can only go out and do something else if they earn less than us, or we share what we go out to earn with them. This does not mean their skills are automatically lesser, though, just that this fiction is necessary in order to free some of us up to do other things that are also of huge value to society and then not fully share the fruits of that freed up time with those who have given up their own free time and capacity to enrich themselves in order to care for others. Capitalism works beautifully up to a point, but it needs checks and balances to prevent it just becoming another word for abuse of power. There is undoubtedly still a gender divide in the workplace that is not solely to do with natural and inevitable differences between men and women. That is not to say there are no natural differences between men and women - Inagree with you that there are, it's just that the jury is still out on precisely what they are, or how they can best be used to everyone's advantage.

There’s a study, I think it’s an article in the telegraph, that actually shows women are more suited, psychologically, to do the higher paid ( ie high level) jobs.

Really interesting article in die Zeit (German newspaper) a few weeks ago about pay rates for carers. There is no national minimum wage there, wage levels are negotiated by trade / industry by the trade unions. But hardly any carers are members of the relevant trade union so they don't have much negotiating power. There is a shortage of carers so the rules of supply and demand means they should be on better pay but without collective bargaining they can't leverage that. The carers they spoke to were offended at the idea they might ask for more pay, as this implied they were greedy.

"My apologies if this is not how you interpreted it"

Well played. That sounds like something I'd say.

"but I still fail to see how you could really think I was trying to offend homosexual men."

Surely you're not that stupid.

//-----------------

"You don't find extremely well paid carers, though, even though some are undoubtedly far more talented at it than others, just as with footballers."

I suspect because a talented carer isn't that unique. There are better and worse carers no doubt but the best still aren't going to be that scarce. As well as this, an excellent carer will likely have transferable skills so would move to a more challenging and better paid job.

"if carers became too expensive, we wouldn't be able to afford to pay them to do that work for us so that we could do something else, because we can only go out and do something else if they earn less than us, or we share what we go out to earn with them."

Exactly! If they're paid more than they're worth then people stop paying them and do it themselves. That's how the free market works.

"There is undoubtedly still a gender divide in the workplace that is not solely to do with natural and inevitable differences between men and women."

Says who and what evidence do they have?

"the jury is still out on precisely what [innate sex-differences] are, or how they can best be used to everyone's advantage"

Nature vs nurture and economics; yes, 2 perhaps unanswerable questions.

With nature vs nurture, I don't really think it matters until a group of people start complaining that they haven't achieved equally with another.

Equal pay for equal work - yes!

Illegal to discriminate based on protected characteristics - yes!

Assuming that the system is broken when there isn't equal representation everywhere - bollocks.

The best way for everyone to benefit is for everyone to be greedy and think of themselves and their own. Collectively, this benefits all.

You have spoken about 'lesser' and 'invisible labour' etc so I assume that you judge someone's worth on their salary?

There is undoubtedly still a gender divide in the workplace that is not solely to do with natural and inevitable differences between men and women.

I raised an eyebrow at this comment as well.

What do you mean by this, and can we have a link? I agree there is an actual gender pay gap when all factors are controlled for, but it's something

The Uber gap that accounted for all controlled factors was 7%.

TIRF - I think you sometimes attribute things to me that others have said. Where have I talked about lesser or invisible labour? Imvho, human beings are naturally exploitative and greedy. It's why we are all scared of old age, vulnerability and ending up in a care home and why children in care homes do so badly. The ultimate carer, who is not inclined to take advantage of the weak and vulnerable is actually too rare, not ten a penny. Also, for children in particular, the better educated, more intelligent carer with the richer vocabulary and instinct to do more than just basic, practical care who also has the rare characteristic of being more caring and empathetic, is going to aid that child's development significantly more than the less well educated, less bright one, albeit both can make them feel safe, secure and loved.

Why do you think the ability to care is so common? Just hecause so many of us do it? Why is that different from so many people playing football? It's just that one has been fully adopted by capitalism and the other still sits on its fringes, because capitalsim isn't about non-exploitation.

And there undoubtedly is still a gender gap because you only have to look at the way parents dress and talk to their children, the toys they give them and the things they encourage them to do. We are still encouraged to take on different roles and perspectives. As you have agreed yourself: nature versus nurture. As for equal representation in all things - where have I argued for this? Again, you keep attributing arguments to me I have never, ever made. Stop assuming what I believe. I can hink of two reasons for arguing formit, however. One is, to avoid unwitting sexual bias - assumptions being made by the designers and creators of things actually used by both sexes. The other is to stop the main sex represented using their natural exploitiveness to benefit themselves at the expense of those not involved, meaning that those not involved should want to take part in it, if only to stop that happening. It certainly seems to be the case that when women become involved in something in large enough numbers, overall pay structures become more flattened out/lower for everyone. It would be interesting to see if we continue to have that effect and how economics would explain it if we get involved equally in everything.

Btw, you never responded to my earliest argument, that if you argue women are less suited to higher management than men because they are less assertive, you could just as well argue that men are less suited than women because they are too inappropriately aggressive. I really do not see lack of "assertiveness" as a characteristic women have by nature. Where are all the meek little girls in pre-schools? Are all men so very aggressive? Where does assertiveness end and aggression begin? Are those arguing that women are not assertive not really meaning they respect their opinion less? How can you test that scientifically? There is certainly plenty of evidence on the internet of lack of respect of women's opinions in particular.

Do you really think everyone being greedy benefits us all in the long run? It seems to me the most progress has been made when the naturally inquisitive, the naturally exploitative and the naturally caring work together in reasonable balance. Everyone being greedy doesn't sound healthy or productive to me - a recipe for resentment, chasing the easy profit and short sightedness. Enlightened self-interest is surely better? Greed is a bit basic.

I find it incredibly bizarre that people are arguing on this thread that providing the actual members of society is of no value to that society. It doesn't even make logical sense!!

The best way for everyone to benefit is for everyone to be greedy and think of themselves and their own. Collectively, this benefits all

Yes, that really works for large parts of Africa, doesn't it? As we can see, when a dictator builds himself palaces and buys a fleet of Bentleys, all the people in the country collectively benefit from this too..... oh wait, no that's not true and the above statement is the biggest load of bollox I've read for a while

*What do you mean by this, and can we have a link? I agree there is an actual gender pay gap when all factors are controlled for, but it's something

Who knew Ayn Rand was alive and posting on Mumsnet, eh?!

One issue I rarely see mentioned is the number of women whose partners would love to take parental leave or go part time, but who won't allow it because they want to take the entire mat leave to themselves and then be the part time worker in the couple.

It seems very common, only anecdotally I know about five or six couples for whom this is an issue, the husband or partner has expressed from the start they want to take their share of the mat/pat leave and their wives won't hear of it.

A colleague of mine requested that he and his wife both go down to 4/5 days work (same wage) but she refused and insisted she did 3/5 and he did 5/5.

It's hard to see how these women want equality in their careers, earning power, childcare responsibilities when they feel so certain that part time work and parental leave is only for mothers not fathers.

By which I mean, I don't always buy that the gender pay gap is being done to hard done by women. Many women choose to take time away from work to be there for their kids more, even when they have another option and have a partner who is desperate to do their 50%. I think for those women they can't then complain about their reduced income and progression at work when they've openly made that decision.

It's hard to see how these women want equality in their careers, earning power, childcare responsibilities when they feel so certain that part time work and parental leave is only for mothers not fathers.

Do the women you know state that they want careers? Not every woman or man does.

Regardless, I agree that the attitude of all society (some women as well as men) needs to change if there is ever to be equality. I also think that attitudes to part time workers need to change and it shouldn't mean the end of career progression.

I think for those women they can't then complain about their reduced income and progression at work when they've openly made that decision.

They probably aren't the ones complaining but even if they are I do think they have the right to complain about their careers totally stalling just because they took all the maternity leave and/or went part time.

Some people may be happy to go part time, not really want a career, stay at home with children etc. Other people may want to share leave with their partner, go back full time, progress and reach the highest level of their professions. It should be possible for all people to do either in most circumstances.

What actually happens is that regardless of what they actually want the majority of men work full time and progress in their careers while the majority of women end up juggling work and childcare in some fashion, thus stagnating their career. This is down to the way work tends to be structured, the cost and availability of childcare, the attitude towards workers who want flexibility (ie you're not committed enough), the attitudes of employers towards women of childbearing age, the guilt that is placed on mothers by society if they work fulltime. All of that can be changed so that the full scope of options is open to everyone, but if people say 'oh there's no real problem' then nothing will change.

Do the women you know state that they want careers? Not every woman or man does.
Regardless, I agree that the attitude of all society (some women as well as men) needs to change if there is ever to be equality. I also think that attitudes to part time workers need to change and it shouldn't mean the end of career progression.

All but one have a career, yes. One has what she'd happily refer to as a 'job' rather than a career. They all became established in their work before having children.

Yes, I agree. Women (who don't already feel this way) need to start seeing men as equally important parents with the same amount of responsibility and capability as mothers.