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.

'It's not that continuing the species has no value to society, it's more that it falls away because 1. almost everyone does it 2. there's little risk of people not doing it to the point where we'd actually have problems (I don't lump pensions into this, incidentally, and work in job automation so this will certainly colour my perspective).

I'd value something like reducing plastic a lot more, because people actually have to be induced to do it, and relatively few people do it.'

So reducing plastic is more valuable than growing, birthing and raising people simply because fewer people do it?

Good point Tufted. So in that case, are 'biological differences' just a load of nonsense?

"there will always be the opportunity to pick up the career again once the children are older"....

do you really think so? Most professions will take you back after maternity leaves, even sequential ones. But do you really think you could walk back into being a surgeon/ litigator/ fund manager/ judge/ architect after even a 5 year break to care for kids till school age? Walk back in at the same level and expect to be on the same trajectory? If I could wish for one meaningful change in employment practice, it would be an infrastructure for allowing parents (women or men) back into careers after this type of substantial career break for child-rearing with a defined and active period of re-training to cover what they have missed and then they should advance on the usual trajectory for that career.

less assertive personalities meaning that they are generally suited to less senior roles

I don't even know if assertiveness is required that much in very senior roles - certainly in our organisation it's the lower-middle management/team leader level that would require the most assertiveness, as they have the most pressure. They have to deal with both the management of staff underneath them and the demands of management above them. Senior management don't really have to be that assertive as their very position dictates that their instructions are acted upon.

@Inseoir

I'm not talking about treating individuals differently, I'm talking about an explanation of a pay gap and other differences in society that aren't blamed on 'the patriarchy' but very basic evolution and biology.

As @HeavyLoads said, in her company, women without babies were senior. Parenthood is a choice and you can't blame someone else for a choice you made freely.

So. We agree that everyone should be treated equally i.e. given the same opportunities. No allowances made. Correct? If that's the case then when we look at large numbers (Uber, FTSE Board Members) we're likely to see differences because we aren't all the same. When you look at big numbers you'll see grouping of sex / gender. I think this is down to the differences in brains and behaviour between males and females which is present from around half way through gestation until death. It's this pre-birth difference which sells nature being the main factor for me.

re. race. Women aren't told "you didn't get a promotion because women tend to ...". You're still confusing cause and effect. Judge everyone on their merits but yes, if you look at sports, for example, the best competitors tend to be different races. Every swimmer I can think of is white. Every sprinter black. That isn't them being told to fuck off because of their skin colour, it's because when you look at large numbers, one group is biologically better at a certain task than another.

If my company was looking for life guards then I guess I'm likely to have a higher percentage of white people. That isn't racism. It's selection of the best. If Willy Wonka needed sweet testers then there'd be very few Pacific Islanders as they're prone to diabetes.

"So in that case, are 'biological differences' just a load of nonsense?"

No. See 'evolution' for more.

You've also missed the fact that there were male and female monkeys and Hominids and that in the animal kingdom there are often very defined gender roles. Usually with the female looking after the children while the man goes out to 'work'.

It's not always about typical assertiveness. Studies show that women in general will only apply for a job/promotion if they meet over 95% of the requirements. Men in the other hand will apply if they meet only 60%. These are obviously average figures from the studies. In some cases men would go much lower and women in some industries would only apply with 100%.

That is likely rooted in socialisation, as his was different sectors and industries. If men apply for more promotions, they will eventually get more. If that makes sense.

This was in Sheryl Sandberg's book Lean In.

So reducing plastic is more valuable than growing, birthing and raising people simply because fewer people do it?

I'm beginning to think that you're wilfully misinterpreting my posts.

Inseoir

It boggles me that women actually still think this way. '

Ideally there is a chance to pick up a career again, but in practice formany women it's extremely difficult or impossible, because time at home with children is seen by patriarchal society as time the woman spent 'doing nothing' - it counts for nothing, despite being the thing that is forming the next generation of humans.
Why do women accept being treated in this way?

Sometimes, galling as it is, we can't have it all. Someone pointed out that a lot (but by all means not all) of highly successful career women don't have children. Maybe they chose to forego the option to have children in lieu of the high flying career? I don't think this is right or wrong, but just how it is.
Yes in a perfect world I agree - men would take equal amount of paternity leave and step up to the plate (and also experience having to put their careers on hold) but a) only women can go through being pregnant, giving birth and breast feeding - unless they opt to bottle feed (again I have no views on that - down to individual's choice). Therefore there is already some inherent imbalance in the obligation of women v men in the time they have to take off work.
Secondly, if a woman does take time off to have children, (and the man remains or becomes the main earner) than that man should equally share resources, money etc as his contribution for the mother not working/having less income and that's why on divorce, the emphasis would be on 50% equal split on assets with favour going to the main child carer (eg they get the matrimonial home).

Having said all that, I know women who have it all - the children and then successful career after having time out. But I do think that sometimes women expect to have children then whinge about having to make concessions on the career - sorry, but we can't have it all ways all of the time.

"That is likely rooted in socialisation"

Is it?

Why am I the only person who's linked to evidence of their assertions?

Why is it likely due to socialisation? You must have some kind of proof for this?

I do think that sometimes women expect to have children then whinge about having to make concessions on the career - sorry, but we can't have it all ways all of the time.

I think unfortunately when you have children, you are making a choice between sacrificing your career and having children, no matter how determined you are to maintain your career.

I was adamant I'd go back to work full time but it wasn't until I had my baby that I realised this wasn't possible for me practically or emotionally. I didn't feel like I had knowingly made this choice though, I just had unrealistic expectations for myself. It suddenly made complete sense why we live in a patriarchy but also, more traditional views of male/female roles started to make sense to me (as much as I hate to admit it!).

I actually had a conversation with my male partner last night about me feeling like I've sacrificed my career for DC and he admitted he didn't feel the same emotional pull that I did, which meant he was happy to leave our children 5 days a week but I found it extremely difficult and conflicting.

Ultimately, I think the pay gap has nothing to do with differences in personality but is solely to do with the fact women carry children and BF and perhaps have a maternal instinct a father doesn't that is hard to overcome (at least in my experience). I work 3 days a week now, which I feel is the right balance for me.

Society should make it easy for women and men to support their kids when they are little. The pressure and onus is always on the mother to take time off, and there is nothing wrong with her wanting and needing to take a period of time off for this, and then return to work when she is ready.

Society and the world of work should not punish or undermine women for this.

Men and woman are both parents but society is constructed so men benefit from the women doing all this enormous unpaid labour.

Anyone who cannot see this from a wider societal perspective is being myopic.

Someone pointed out that a lot (but by all means not all) of highly successful career women don't have children. Maybe they chose to forego the option to have children in lieu of the high flying career?

I think it’s more the other way around: women who don’t have children (for whatever reason, whether it has been an active choice or not) are simply more likely to progress to the top of their field because they’ve had no distraction from it or time out of the workplace.

Slightly off tack, but if you have a partner, then the decision to have children should be an equally no quibble shared commitment to the cause.
I don't get it where some women on mumsnet have said since they have less income after having a baby, they can't afford to do the same things as their partner - WTF is this all about?

In our relationship, my partner was clear that because of the sacrifices I was making as a mother, that everything he earned was our not his money, and would have been horrified at the thought of me having to ask for anything.

Men and woman are both parents but society is constructed so men benefit from the women doing all this enormous unpaid labour.

Presumably the women in question are benefitting from the enormous paid labour in return, or they've mated with twats.

There's really no guard against this other than knowing someone very well before you make this decision. Most women are going to choose to stay home with their babies, the UK will probably remain a free society where paid workers get to keep most of their money, and so it's best to have this conversation upfront.

Love me fluffy kittens, me

@HeavyLoad I think that's a broad generalisation based on your experiences.
I went back to work full time after having my baby and actually my career has soared. I find that i am super focussed and efficient so that it is possible for me to leave at 5 most nights and still perform to a very high standard and i have no issues with my child being in childcare as he is thriving and suited to that environment.

However, it helps that I work in an organisation that allows me flexibility - i can work from home, it has an excellent dependents leave policy etc and I have a partner who takes 50% responsibility meaning we work it put between ourselves if one of us needs to work late or needs to take time to look after a sick child.

I feel the key issue is that organisations need to allow both male and female staff the flexibility to balance work and home life. Society has changed and I think some workplaces need to acknowledge this - although I know it isn't possible for all sectors.If organisations offered a degree of flexibility then they may find their workers actually gave more back.

Also, this only works if you have a true partnership where both parents are willing to take responsibility for the care of their children. My DH earns more than me but has never me me feel like my career is less valuable and will do what he can to support my work just as I do with his. The value of a career and work is so much more than your salary.

*Someone pointed out that a lot (but by all means not all) of highly successful career women don't have children. Maybe they chose to forego the option to have children in lieu of the high flying career?

I think it’s more the other way around: women who don’t have children (for whatever reason, whether it has been an active choice or not) are simply more likely to progress to the top of their field because they’ve had no distraction from it or time out of the workplace.*

Erm...wrong on both accounts. I'm highly successful and I have a child. The two need not be mutually exclusive.

So reducing plastic is more valuable than growing, birthing and raising people simply because fewer people do it?

that's not what road said or meant.

Basically, the value you place on something is how much you want it to be done, and how likely it is going to get done if you don't pay people to do it.

Population: while it is important, you don't need to pay people to make babies. They'll just do it. from 10,000s years of experience, they'll just do it.

Plastic waste: if you don't pay people, they will waste plastic.

it's not charity to raise your own children.

The reason some of us hold what you would no doubt consider 'very strong feminist views' is because we have encountered so very many men in positions of power who think similarly, and witnessed the effect.

Welcome to the dark side

Men and woman are both parents but society is constructed so men benefit from the women doing all this enormous unpaid labour.

Any man (or partner) who is half-decent will be aware of this and do what they can to share the load, including equally sharing of any money brought into the household. Given that some things cannot be changed (eg the woman has to be pregnant and give birth) then surely we should be educating society about sharing parental responsibility (to compensate the woman putting her career on hold and sacrificing some of her earning potential).

I think one person in a relationship needs to be more available when you have children, sick days etc. Just a shame it’s usually the woman. It’s also sad the comments Sahds receive from other people. It’s often about their ability (or inability) to cope with children.

I remember being asked by a male colleague(same job role) ‘I don’t know how you do this job with young kids’. I replied ‘you have young children too, how do you do it?’. ‘Yeh but my wife’s at home’ he said. ‘So’s my husband...’

road I am in a similar position.

As for equality? We have made some progress but whilst there is biology we will never achieve true equality. But I don't think that's a bad thing. Why can't we accept the different, but both equally important, roles that men and women play in keeping society going?

It's women who carry babies, give birth, breastfeed and do much of the nurturing so yes of course that has an effect on their earning potential.

I think there is huge pressure on women (and men too actually) to have this amazing, high-flying career. Why? It's over-rated IMO. You shouldn't need to have a career to feel valued as a person.

@Blaablaablaa Yes, it was a generalisation but looking at pay gap disparities and number of women in senior roles it does seem to be the norm.

It was talking to women like yourself before I became a mum that spurred me on to continue to focus on my career but I felt differently after having a baby. I am also a relatively young mum (youngest at my old workplace by about 7 years) and so wasn't as far on in my career, therefore the company were less flexible with me because of the nature of my role. I was told had I been at managerial level they would have been more flexible.

I think you're right about true partnership. Something I have struggled with is my partner's career soaring while mine has taken a back seat and I have felt pressure from his parents to let him focus on his career. They do mean well but they also think the sun shines out his arse and that he is destined for greatness so I should let him get on with it

Anyway, it was just after my experience that I began to notice all the women in senior roles at my work didn't have children and any that did soon left after they had children but a lot of mums had bad experiences at said company so you may be right that it really depends on your place of work.