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.

www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/08/the-socialization-of-women/495200/

There was an academic study in Thinking Allowed, I'll try and find. There are literally hundreds of papers about it. Sociologists make some assumptions when they have accounted for all other evidence.

How would you explain the 95/60 split? They also interviewed those women and men about why they would or wouldn't apply.

Cathy Newman has (unwisely) stepped back into the gender pay gap debate-

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/work/angry-female-itn-colleagues-still-having-argue-top-roles-pay/

Harvard business review:

hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless-theyre-100-qualified

It starts early:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11511128/?i=18&from=/7076377/related

@heavyload that's a real shame your company chose to treat you that way. With a little bit of forward thinking they could have kept you and had a loyal, flexible worker.

However, i did experience quite a bit of negativity when i returned full time - mainly from women which was incredibly disappointing. I was told what a shame it was i had to come back full time - nope! Not a shame and it was my choice! Funny how my DH ( who works for the same organisation) was never asked that question......

Also, your PIL's attitude must be very frustrating. I really feel for you. I have a friend in the same situation and her job is seen as a bit of a hobby (she's a nurse!!) I'm very lucky in that my DH has 2 sisters who have very successful careers and children so it's the norm in their family and if anyone was to suggest otherwise there would be outrage!

What is it that makes so many of you petrified of their being any mental differences in the sexes due to nature?

We're not petrified of that possibility. Merely very aware that any measured differences are small (too small to justify the pay gap) and difficult to ascribe to 'nature'. We can also see that anything we're seen to be good at as a sex will become automatically downgraded. Look at social skills versus logical analysis. One is a 'soft skill' only semi-visible in the workplace, generally assumed to exist among functioning humans, the other is formally tested, graded, codified and ultimately monetised. One is paid for, the other isn't. Sexism is deeply embedded in the structure of these values. I could go on.

I do agree with him that the gender pay gap doesn't really exist, if by which he means you take two professionals in the same job, one male, one female, they would be paid the same - this is generally true.

He is generalising an awful lot. But is he correct that women do choose lower paid positions? For example, in my workplace 90% of the support team is female, as 90% of applicants are female. The support/admin positions are lower paid so will skew the pay gap data.

Within the highly qualified fee-earning professionals and managers there is a 50/50 split male/female. Salary is determined by qualification so there is no gender pay gap if support staff are excluded from the data.

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? Did Stephen Hawking's/Rosa Parks'/Marie Curie's parents do nothing of value to society?

I find the idea that something is of value only if you have to incentivise people to do it really odd.

If I look after my elderly neighbour but there's no official incentive for me to do it, I just do it because I think it's the right thing to do, is that worth nothing to society?

@GallicosCats

"Merely very aware that any measured differences are small (too small to justify the pay gap)"

Are you sure about that? How big are the measured differences and how big do they need to be to justify a pay gap?

"We can also see that anything we're seen to be good at as a sex will become automatically downgraded."

Nonsense. You're simply making things up.

"One is a 'soft skill' only semi-visible in the workplace, generally assumed to exist among functioning humans, the other is formally tested, graded, codified and ultimately monetised. One is paid for, the other isn't."

Yes, the skill that's monetised is paid more for. One that exists amongst functioning humans is less scarce and therefore worth less.

Do you think this is sexist?

Things that are harder to do are done by fewer people so they are paid more (footballers, for example). Things that are more valuable to a company means that the person who can do them will be paid more.

Is capitalism / meritocracy sexist?

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? Did Stephen Hawking's/Rosa Parks'/Marie Curie's parents do nothing of value to society?

OK, well what does it mean to you to 'value' raising children? Does it carry a financial reward?

How do we correspondingly devalue parents who produce people like Pol Pot?

Mine also made assumptions but i made sure it DID cross his mind.

Obviously I made sure it crossed his mind too. There was no way he would have worked part time though. As far as he was concerned the choice was between us both working full time or just one of us.

Its a pain that we have to do that in the first place but if we want equality we have to challenge such attitudes. We can hardly place all the blame on employers if we are unwilling to address the issue with our husbands.

I did challenge but got nowhere. Unfortunately, as DD was already born there wasn't much I could do about it.

Any idiot can play football... it is also merely entertainment - we can happily live without it. It's just we prefer to pay to watch good footballers play than average or bad ones. We would also prefer our elderly not to be abused in their care homes, but we look down on people who care for others and need a whole tonne of people to do it, too, so are willing to pay very little for what is sometimes a very bad job. Footballing skills are not that bloody rare, necessary or special.

I think it's a more rare skill to care for a group of elderly people with severe dementia than to kick a football around a pitch...

'OK, well what does it mean to you to 'value' raising children? Does it carry a financial reward?

How do we correspondingly devalue parents who produce people like Pol Pot?'

I believe raising children has an inherent value to society because society only exists in the first place due to women growing and birthing humans. A society that supports and values parenting is likely to have healthier, happier and more productive children that in turn become healthier happier and more productive adults - don't you agree? If the attitude is that having children is a life choice and whatever happens to parents is not really our problem then the consequences of that are likely to be negative, aren't they?

In Japan, women are opting not to have children at all and as a result the Japanese population is suffering a very serious decline. Japanese society tends to be highly patriarchal and now that women aren't forced to have children through societal norms they're just not bothering - why would they when it's so much to their detriment?

So many assumptions about population growth hinge on the idea that women are baby factories driven by a biological urge. In actual fact, as soon as women in any society gain control over their own fertility the first thing they do is have fewer children, because once they have a choice they choose not to be worn down by constant pregnancy and childcare.

A society that supports and values parenting is likely to have healthier, happier and more productive children that in turn become healthier happier and more productive adults - don't you agree?

This sounds suspiciously like a platitude. I'd need to know more about how this 'support and value' is manifested in order to judge.

'This sounds suspiciously like a platitude. I'd need to know more about how this 'support and value' is manifested in order to judge.'

I'm struggling to respond to this. To go to the most basic level - a society that ensures all children are fed and clothed and free from abuse will have at the very least healthier children (or to go even more basic than that, lower child mortality) than a society that doesn't. That's pretty obvious isn't it?

@roundaboutthetown

I think you're completely wrong about almost everything you last posted.

Yes, any idiot can play football but to do it well takes natural skill that few have. Because these skills are scarse they command a higher price. If you're an idiot who can kick a ball, why aren't you making obscene amounts of money doing it? Because you aren't as good as those that do?

I'd say that any idiot can look after the elderly. What qualifications do you need? It isn't pleasant but ironically, most unpleasant jobs aren't well paid. That's because unpleasant doesn't mean few are able to do it.

"Footballing skills are not that bloody rare, necessary or special."

They aren't necessary but they are special and rare and they're valuable.

Strangely enough I think when people are old they start to see the value of carers' skills. Perhaps a little too late at that stage.

There's a shit tonne of examples of the consequences of lack of appropriate caring in the world. Just look at all the damaged people coming out of war zones, the overflowing prisons, the food banks etc. If we think footballers are fantastic and deserve millions, but wonder why our infrastructure is crap and nothing works properly, we only have to look at our own priorities, the things we admire and aspire to and what we take for granted.

Bollocks, TIRF - if all the world's footballers died tomorrow, there would be loads of people happy to replace them. We just don't need any of them.

We need lots of people to care for the weak and unappealing, though. It's just because nobody wants to have to do it that we pretend anyone could do it and force it on those who can't ponce off to do something far less essential. It is often done very badly as a consequence.

"deserve" is your word roundabout and needs defining.

Deserve because of their personalities? Who knows. Charity work? Probably not. Because that's what their skills are worth on the free market? Absolutely.

Do you want government controlled salaries for everyone or a meritocracy where we're paid what our skills are worth?

"our infrastructure is crap and nothing works properly"

A little off topic but you haven't traveled much, clearly.

Yes TIRF, that's just the way it is and we shouldn't question it. It's all about the 'free' market that isn't controlled in any way by anybody (ever heard of Big Oil?) and we just have to accept it.