Pay equality will be hard to achieve while we continue to prioritise lifestyle

[CaramacFiend]

Had an interesting discussion with a colleague last night whilst out for drinks and she made some points I've never really considered.

She pointed out that the woman often takes on the carer role as 'it made more sense due to his salary being higher'. This is no doubt true because even without the pay bias towards men there's also the fact that the husband is often a few years older and hence further along in his career. Also that men are more likely to ask for pay rises and choose high paying jobs - even more so in working class demographics where men often learn trades and women become carers etc.

So of course it makes financial sense for a family to do this. But what if the man took some of the hit and the woman continued building her career? In the long run this might even be better as the man might bounce back more easily (women may still continue to face prejudice from some for the perceived risk of them becoming pregant again).

Of course there's the issue of men not being able to give birth but the fact that only 1% women utilise shared parental leave does suggest that there's plenty of room for men to be more involved. My colleague believes that a lot of us want to have our cake and eat it.

Another colleague chipped in to say that a lot of families can't afford to take the hit on the main salary, but the original colleague said "well, that's a lifestyle choice". She said that she deliberately waited a couple of years until her salary/experience had reached the level where she wasn't reliant on her husband's salary. Obv not an option for everyone but it was an interesting point. She said that it can be a mistake to build your life on the foundation of a rich partner.

She said that she understands why people prioritise things like nice houses/areas, private schooling, nice holidays, etc, but that in many cases these choices funnel you in a direction that isn't necessarily the path to achieving true equality. She said she told her husband early on that she wouldn't be sacrificing her career and she 100% claims she would've left him had he gone back on his promise to share the leave.

I'm not sure what my thoughts are not having kids myself but I thought it was an interesting discussion. Do we end up forgoing equality for a better lifestyle?

My sister has done extremely well in a science subject and is now pretty senior in imaging tech used by military and security forces. She's the only woman in her team of 40.

Humans are in a -perhaps? - unique situation in where we can make an active choice to delay procreation, or to stop it completely. We are also in an unusual position where our ability to procreate is not entirely dependent on our physical prowess.

In lions for example, the males do vwry little whereas the lionesses do the bulk of the work (both hunting and raising cubs) - it almost feels like weak (human) men would use this kind of argument to excuse their own failings.

In my opinion; things are either evenly split or they aren’t. In our house; things aren’t evenly split. I do more work outside the home; he does more inside the home. Childcare is probably even tbh because after work I like to spend time with them and don’t see it as a “chore” - but while I do that, he cooks and cleans. So although the load is uneven, it’s fair. Id say we both feel like we are getting a good deal; but as is often the case with young children in tow; we both feel we are getting a shit deal.

I think an easy way to solve this would either be to increase child benefit to main caregiver to a useful level, or to reduce tax on women/main caregiver who have children under 12.

That way women can have their own money. It’s so sad to see so many threads where women are begging for childcare money or forced to live on a pittance on SMP. I’m surprised things haven’t changed in the 21st Century, but if they haven’t it’s time to change. 100 years ago men were the breadwinners and gave women ‘pin money’ and it seems in some relationships little has changed.

To clarify, I'm in no way saying that because women are naturally more inclined to nurture they should be predisposed to do so.

I also do think that we're subject to our biology more than we realise. I mean, why do the vast majority of women still want to have children when the world is already hugely overpopulated? I think it's hardwired into us.

@willWillSmithsmith my niece said that biology, physics, maths and psychology were the 4 most popular subjects at her school. All girls grammar.

The issue is that our government won't be able to afford that for a very long time. And also we'd need to somehow stop it being abused, cynical as that sounds.

I think tax should be applied at a household level rather than an individual level. It’s frustrating that someone on £50k with a partner on £10k will pay more tax/ NI (approx £13.5k/year) than two people on £30k (approx £11k/year)

I strongly disagree. I work in a sector that's traditionally male and fortunately have quite a few female colleagues.

I know plenty of women who are assertive, logical etc. Plenty of men who are more 'nurturing'.

We're not animals. Unless socialised into sexism (I'm lucky my parents were progessive) there's no gender to traits.

Eyeroll.

I work in STEM. So do many women.

No, it isn't just that. It's about having a meritocracy so that people are accepted and given equal opportunities for training and promotion in any industry they want to work in regardless of their sex, without being stereotyped or disadvantaged or subjected to toxic cultures that hold back their career progression and therefore pay.

It's about the fact that if you submit a CV for a role with the same experience and qualifications on it - identical in every respect other than the name of the candidate - but change the name from female to male, the identical male candidate is far more likely to be given an interview. Research has demonstrated this. It is about how women in senior positions are frequently ignored or ostracised and subjected to sexist terms like "bossy" when men would be called "assertive" for the same behaviour. It is about how these stereotypes are so insideous that research even shows that women are more likely to prefer to have a male boss than a female boss, and the majority of men will openly admit still that they dislike having a female boss.

It goes right back to the fact that these stereotypes are instilled from the moment a child is born, with studies showing how people interact with a young baby differently depending on whether they are dressed in typically "male" or "female" clothes. That a far higher proportion of girls in single sex schools choose STEM subjects for further study than do so in mixed sex schools, therefore bias in encouragement within school and sexist attitudes from teachers are the only plausible explanation, intentional or not. So despite girls achieving higher grades at every stage of education on average they are still fighting a never-ending wall of prejudice throughout life in order to become successful in a career.

And when they become mothers receive a level of judgement from friends and family that would never be heaped upon fathers for the same behaviour. It is insideous in every aspect of life. Choices are not made in a vacuum.

But there's a whole lot of chemistry involved though isn't there? Like how women are attracted to more masculine men when ovulating etc.

No doubt we can ignore/override instinct on an individual level but at a societal level I think there are clear differences between the sexes. Testosterone alone accounts for a lot of differences in behaviour and there's lots of scientific data backing this up.

I must be in the minority- most people I know the man and woman close to match salary wise, and a lot of women I know out earn the man. Most of my friends actually! At our school gates there are also as many sahds, and hands on ones. And I’m honestly not just saying that

So what about lesbians etc?

What jobs are they allowed to do?

I'm not sure I understand your point. Anybody can do any job they want if they're physically/mentally capable, although it certainly seems that a higher proportion of lesbians do 'mens jobs', like butch lesbians working on the doors etc.

And equally you see a lot more gay men as hairdressers than you do straight men.

I feel like biology is increasingly becoming seen as a narrative we can alter depending on our ideological stance. A decade ago nobody seriously believed that humans could change sex or that men and women were the same.

How old are you?

I'm not being rude, though I get the feeling 60-ish?

Closer to half.

In the 90s, there was a huge push for gender neutral toys and parenting. Myself and my siblings (all female) really benefited from that.

We're all in previously male-dominated careers and high earners.

What jobs did your parents do?

No doubt we can ignore/override instinct on an individual level but at a societal level I think there are clear differences between the sexes. Testosterone alone accounts for a lot of differences in behaviour and there's lots of scientific data backing this up.

That's an extremely simplistic, outdated, rather reductive and quite misleading portrayal of how hormones affect human behaviour.

Yeah, I don't buy into all the pink is for girls, dinosaurs for boys, etc, but you can observe the difference between the sexes from an early age. It's only really a particular line of feminist thought that seems to believe it's all down to socialisation.

There is no PAY inequality. Numerous studies have established that.

There is EARNING inequality because some people choose to take time out of workforce in favour of other lifestyle options. Of course they are going to earn less. That's their choice.

Natural consequences. Can't have everything. Not a problem to be solved.

Yet experiments have shown that the socialisation of children into sex-stereotyped roles begins from when they are babies, with both parents and strangers interacting with children differently based on their sex (or perceived sex in the case of strangers). Therefore the claim that differences in behaviour are innate is unsubstantiated. Even more so given these allegedly "innate" differences manifest differently depending on social norms of the particular society in which the child lives. This is not about "feminism", it's about science.

I think this is something we really need to educate the next generation on. I already talk to my 12 year old daughter about not giving her career up for a family. Now we have women wanting to work from home to facilitate family life, and that’s just another nail in the financial coffin.