Guest post: “Gender stereotypes hold us all back”

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

It’s that time of year again when large employers are reporting their gender pay gaps. This year we (unsurprisingly) find that 45% are reporting bigger gaps than they did last year. So what is going on? Undoubtedly, the fact that employers are not required to have an action plan in place is one of the issues. We have to focus on the action required and hold employers to account for that, rather than just requiring them to report the gap. But we also have to get behind the numbers and the regulation to address the underlying causes, and the elephant in the room is gender stereotyping. By that I mean the social norms and expectations that limit what women and men or boys and girls should do.

Take who does the caring, for example. We build our parental leave system around a 1950s model of family life. Yes, we have shared parental leave, but it is structured in a way that means fewer than 1 in 10 dads take it up because it is paid at too low a rate. It starts from the assumption that it’s the mother’s leave to give to him and not a dedicated entitlement for fathers. Pregnancy discrimination drives 54,000 working mothers out of their jobs each year. Many mothers find themselves trapped in low paid part-time work. Working mothers experience a 30% pay gap by the time their first child is 20. All of this is underpinned by the expectation that mothers should be at home caring for children and not in the workplace, and that fathers should work to provide for the family. You may think we have left all this behind, but Fawcett research suggests that we haven’t.

Another cause of the gender pay gap is occupational segregation. This is where we see men concentrated in some sectors or roles and women in others. Take childcare and teaching, for example: both are grossly underpaid and undervalued (because women do them) - just 2% of pre-school teachers are men. Take as another example engineering, where just 7% of apprentices are women; or physics where just 20% of A levels are taken by girls. This is after decades of trying to ‘encourage’ and ‘inspire’ young women into STEM subjects. Girls’ attainment at GCSE is equal to or better than boys, but at each subsequent stage girls fall away. By the time they graduate or complete their apprenticeships, there are just a handful left. So why isn’t it working?

The answer to all of this is the way society is straight-jacketing our children into harmful gender norms and stereotypes. Often, as parents, we do it unwittingly. Sometimes we are simply so bombarded by the ‘pinkification’ of life, as campaigners like Let Toys be Toys have so powerfully demonstrated. Sometimes we give in and think ‘What harm can it do really?’ (I have four children, so I understand how hard this is). But, as our research shows, the truth is that pushing children to conform to gender norms is indeed harmful. It’s gender norms which make us reward men who ask for a pay rise but regard women who do the same as ‘pushy’, or which treat women in leadership roles as ‘imposters’. It’s gender norms which create the expectation of visual perfection for girls and which contribute to one in five 14-year-olds self-harming. It’s gender norms which limit boys to be one version of masculine, and which reinforce and normalise aggression in boys from a young age.

It is tempting to feel helpless in the face of such an enormous problem. But evidence suggests that all is not lost. Research shows the wiring in our brains is soft, not hard. Professor Gina Rippon argues we can mould our ‘plastic brains’, even as adults. The truth is, though, that we have a better chance of change if we intervene early on. This is why Fawcett is launching an exciting new Commission on Gender Stereotypes in Early Childhood and we would love Mumsnet to be involved. We have to get to the underlying causes and make some fundamental changes to our education system, our parenting, and the commercial world too. Gender stereotypes hold us all back, but if we can change them, we can change the future.

You can read more about Fawcett’s Commission on Gender Stereotypes in Early Childhood here.

Sam Smethers will be returning to this post on the 1st of May to answer some questions

Women going in to men dominated fields are going to spend their working lives working almost solely with men. I'm not sure at 16/17 when choosing a career that appeals to them.
I can only think that girls hope/assume they will be part of a couple because many of the jobs which are dominated by women are not well paid, paying your own mortgage would be difficult alone. Yet they still go for these jobs.
I can only assume that this isn't spelt out to schoolchildren and that they are told to choose a career that they love. Which is a bit hard as you haven't actually worked yet.

I work in a male dominated Job and have never once felt like I was ring fenced because of my gender. I started at 17 and now at 31 still absolutely love it. I am currently on maternity leave with my first child and am going back to work in a few months having only taken 6 months; that being at full pay. I am the bigger earner in our household and the statutory pay is not even a quarter of my salary! I owned my own house at 25 solely paying the mortgage and now still pay the lions share of bill and fully pay our £1000 mortgage.
It really frustrates me when other people 'speak' for me. I am a respected member of my team because I earned my place as an equal just like any male would. I have watched some females come into the industry (railway) and expect an easy ride because of their sex, they are the ones that make a big thing out of it. In my job we are all paid the same and treated the same. I get annoyed when I see that certain jobs 'must' employ more females, races, religions etc. Some people just don't want to do certain jobs and it doesn't matter about their sex it's a personal preference. I wouldn't work in an office, not because I'm female but because I love being outside!

Has the Jordan Peterson webchat started early or something?

Apparently. Or someone else who subscribes to the bollocks that is "evolutionary psychology".

@Jessie9323 I think YABU - I also took less mat leave than average, and work full time. However, i think you're doing other women down by assuming they all have choices like you. Many women have difficult pregnancies that mean they're off for a long time, that's not their fault and they should never be penalised for it. Equally, taking your full entitlement of maternity leave is perfectly normal, and any industry that penalises a woman for taking her legal entitlement (which incidentally is MUCH shorter than most of Europe) is a sexist industry, which your post tacitly acknowledges. For many women it's financially punitive to go back full time, for many going back isn't even affordable.

Want to stand up for women? Think about women in circumstances that aren't the extremely privileged ones that you and I enjoy. Get off that high horse.

@HavelockVetinari
I didn't mention how my pregnancy had been at all. You've just assumed it went smoothly. I was off work for months before I gave birth. I lost the ability to work nights and weekends yet my company still gave me the enhancements I would have earned. I also had the option of taking a year off of maternity leave.

There's no high horse here. I am however allowed to have an opinion formed in an environment they are talking about. Just as you are so maybe you are the one on a high horse 🤷🏽‍♀️

My point is that not every company should be tarred with the same brush.

Nyushka1 I'm going to guess you missed Yabber's name in the bit about street cleaners.

For several centuries, work that most would describe as secretarial work (or, these days, personal assistant work) was done by men. That only changed about a century ago after the typewriter was invented and became more common. This is fairly well documented, not really something to agree or not agree on unless you want to throw out all history before 1900 while discussing human biology as the reasons people take certain jobs at the same time. Similar more modern shifts from male to female dominance in biology and most of the social sciences has had similar status and wage downshifts.

A more modern similar transition the other way would be things like computing work which, with the association with typewriters, was very much seen as women's work for decades until fairly recently when it more men went into it and the status rose. It's why there were a significant amount of women involved in the US space things and similar. I do not think earlier computing work could be seen as "caring", it was seen as menial and dull.

Going on about how men or women "naturally" take certain jobs because of evolution when we can easily, even within our lifetimes and variations around the world, see those changing in employment patterns is to cherry pick data. Biology influences many things including most likely personality and behaviour, but there is plenty of strong evidence that socialization and other environmental factors have major influences on personality, behaviour and most of human biology as well.

While on average men are stronger, plenty of women are just as valuable as the average man in building and similar trades and plenty of men who are no value in it -- and far fewer types of employment require that than previous times in history so not as important and I suspect fewer men would be suitable for those jobs these days in comparison to days of male secretaries. Plenty of mainly female jobs like care work and housekeeping require quite a bit of physical strength and endurance that some people of either sex cannot keep up with.

Stating that one cannot see women facing discrimination based on our bodies and that said discrimination is not part of the differences in wages or status of work is to remove sex from play, whether or not recognizing sex differences is part of that. Creating overly simple personal examples does not erase the mountains of evidence on the long history and prevalence today of sexism around the world and the ways and questions around dealing with it. I, like many, may not put much stock in The Fawcett Society or it's proposals on this, but all one has to do is look into WHO or many other organizations that have worked around the world for decades on trying to raise the quality of life and circumstances of many.

Some companies are great, but many of them are not when they can get away with it - it's why governments have gotten involved in things like when some companies used to pay their employees in tokens that could only be used in the company's overpriced shops or many other ways we can see governments having stepped in to deal with and prevent future corruption within businesses when they do not give people what they are worth - or enable them to survive - when those in power do such things. It's why governments need regulations as well - power and organizations bend towards corruption without continuous conscious measures. Individuals do as well too.

And, Nyushka1, you haven't actually provided much evidence -same with most of us as the nature of how these forums work - just a lot of assertions that when challenged you either ignore or act like our reading of your writing in certain ways is our fault rather than the way you've written. If several people "misread" something, most of the faults lie with the writer. Your writing reminds me of students who've watched a little too much of certain people on youtube and think regurgitating bits of it is enough evidence that they know what they're talking about when anyone actually working in the field or related ones can when someone either needs a major refresher in the basics or is talking shite for whatever reason.

I think a lot of people, when they hear "gender pay gap" are thinking of top end roles, where men might be earning £80K to their similar aged female colleague's 50K. The reality is that many of the jobs included in the surveys are likely to be mostly female 10p above NMW menial roles vs mostly male 40p above NMW menial roles. They're also likely to be families where both work but childcare would cost more than either parent could earn singly so something has to give. It is a societal issue that, in these familes, it's rarely the man who is capable of keeping the kids cared for and the house ticking over, so the woman takes the time off, and the same goes for the families where earnings might be 20-30% above minumum wage, only de-skilling over the 5-7 years it takes to get 2 kids into full time education takes you right back to the bottom.

So it's not really the high octane boardroom jobs where this pay gap becomes most apparent at a statistical level.

FuzzyShadow

I didn't define what most would describe over the centuries as secretarial (personal assistant), I defined secretarial work per se. If we're going to debate on the the shifting titles and depictions of certain jobs that's going to add another level of difficulty where I don't think one needs to be. If we can narrow down job roles as relating to specific tasks it makes it more relevant and easier to pin down.

You give examples of the ratio of men and women changing over longer periods, but it not relevant as the task has not remained constant.
I'm sure if you were to narrow it down to specific tasks that the propensity for a similar male female ratio would also narrow accordingly.
Otherwise, why do you believe woman dominated the field with the introduction of typewriters sat at desks?
While there may be different reasons for choosing a certain career outside natural propensities, is there any evidence aside from that propensity linking woman with typewriters for example?
I would argue that its because women are often better conversationalists, more friendly, and more agreeable, therefore provide greater value to interact with clients on behalf of a company.

I'm sorry I haven't provided any evidence to back up what I've been saying. I'd be typing for hours to back up every little bit of evidence to prove it exists. The point is I know this evidence exists as I've read it in the past so I know anyone who may question it will be able to find it out for themselves. If there's a particular piece you're in doubt of and are genuinely having difficulty fact checking something I'd be happy and willing to provide you with various sources to help.

The thing is I haven't really said anything that's particularly controversial or that should be difficult for anyone with access to the Internet to check themselves. If you're saying I'm wrong about something specific and would like to provide evidence that refutes a point I've made then I'll show you what I've based my argument on and we can debate the evidence, but it's not normal to list evidence when discussing general points as it would take all day.

What I'm having difficulty understanding is why you feel that in general a female builder is as valuable as a male builder?

Im sure we can both agree that to be a builder, at any point in history, has required a large amount of strength to be able to lift heavy objects over fairly long periods of time.

It entails lifting steel beams often to positions above the head, moving concrete beams to set foundations, carrying blocks, roof tiles and bricks, and regularly wheeling heavy wheel barrows full of rubble or wet concrete up and down narrow beams to list a few.
When you've already agreed women generally have less strength than men, in what world do you have to live for the average female to be as valuable to the average male as a builder? At times watching men carrying 3 large blocks at a time above their shoulder to climb a double ladder to stack them at the top, for over 2 hours, bearing in mind these were the same blocks I struggled to pick 1 up with 2 hands, I can't believe I'm suggesting this but I would even go so far as to say sticking the avarage female with a group of builders AND expecting her to do the same work (to be of equal value) would be placing herself and others in danger!

I can't for the life of me understand how that would work? OK there could be value in lighter work but then limiting the amount of work she could do would also limit her value. Please will you explain?

I don’t agree with the notion that it is a good thing to be discouraging sex stereotypes. I think in the long term if we continue on this road we’re going down in forcing these beliefs on our children that the outlook for women is very bleak indeed. Its already clear that many women are adopting the belief that they don’t need a man to support them or their family, and they can do it alone. Rates of single motherhood are growing annually and a generation of children are growing up without a father or constant male role model. That's what isn't good and is far more damaging than gender pay gap.
While I don’t personally believe individual cases of single motherhood are always a bad thing, the data, over which there is no dispute, is something that as women and mothers we should find worryingly dire; - the fact that single motherhood is the single closest measure of poverty to its surrounding area. So in other words if there is no data or records and you want to find out where the poorest areas are simply find out the rate of single motherhood and the area with the highest number will most accurately correlate to the poorest area.

I don't expect anyone not to know this but poverty is directly linked to many many negative outcomes such as health & disease, employment prospects, domestic violence, drug & alcohol problems etc. etc.

When we see evidence such as this I can’t understand why women just aren’t taking notice. After all maybe I’m wrong about us being more caring than men and we’ve just stopped giving a shit, maybe it’s the men who need to take over the role we’ve dominated in for centuries of caring and taking on a first line responsibility for our families. Its an interesting experiment for sure, but at what cost? Its not until you stand back and consider whats happening, without all the window dressing of being for equality, that you can see it’s the same evil creeping back under a different guise.

I find it to be very demeaning to women by saying that the government should mandate employers to put more money in our pay packets just for being women. Its embarrassing! It would feel like being given a handout and being told “there you go luv, theres a bit extra for being female, just to make you feel like your worth a bit more to us”. How on earth is that a step in the right direction?

It would be simple to equal things out a bit in the workplace though if we really wanted it. If we took burden off women by giving parental responsibility to the man as soon as the baby leaves the mother? That would be a win win for both sex stereotyping and better opportunities for women. Literally handed straight to the man! After all its so stereotypical to be given to the mother and its been holding us back for years! Everyone fighting against sex stereotyping must agree this would work great, surely they don't pick and choose what their stereotypes are? Or do they? , before realising "hmm, well I didn't think that one through very well".

Maybe I'm wrong but I think those arguing we shouldn't have sex stereotyping are hypocrites, and they probably believe that stereotypes shouldn't exist, bar the ones that they like. I have a feeling that when the rate of mothers prevented from seeing their children began to rise, the transparency of the egg on their face would disappear and the reality of their ill-thought quest to 'equality' would start to set in.

We need to empower women by building their confidence and instilling value and self respect. The only way to do this is to teach women that they have the ability to be a valuable asset, that it’s achievable but they are going to have to damn work for it like the next person regardless whether it be man or woman.

This is the only way value is increased by going out and fighting. It’s not always going to be fair. There will be men that want similar high paid jobs, but its tough at the top. Unfortunately too many women are learning that is normal to blame men and label a culture of victimisation as the reason for not succeeding, and this only keeps them back.

FuzzyShadow

Im very humbled that anyone would mistake me for a student trying to come over intelligent. Personally I don't think anything I've said goes into any particular depth of knowledge that anyone with an average IQ couldn't decifer with ease, but what do i know? . Indeed after all I am basing much of what I've said on several other peoples work who have done studies beyond that which I ever have. That doesn't mean the points shouldn't be discussed or any of the thousands of people before me who have cited their papers are trying to act clever in some way.
Bringing in the quality of grammar used on a forum to form part of a debate won't replace lack of substance either.
For the purpose on a forum I'm sure most can understand the language with out me proof reading for perfect grammar.

There are some issues I disagree on with the clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson as I read a lot of his work years before he became known to a wider audience , however much of what he's got attention for recently I haven't given the attention it may deserve as its attracted an undesirable following it would seem but he speaks sense from what I've heard of his arguments on transgenders and freedom of speech and is much the same argument I've made focused on government involvement in our lives being negative.

There is indeed not a gender pay gap. The pay gap is not based on "feminine" behaviors, but on male privilege and disadvantaging of females. Some of the disparities that involve women's physiology would of course affect pregnant transmen as well. So please be clear that you are talking about a sex pay gap.

Difference in pay between men and women.

Pregnant human being = female

The caring work is often on hand for women going back to work. It is easy to find a nursery/ hospital/ care home/ shop nearby - how easy is it to find an office running a business you know about, to find a building site (they will be there one minute gone on completion). So what we see as women choosing to work in care is actually a total lack of choice.
Council employment is on hand, and where I live many women work in it.
This could be a large part of the problem. Once you have DCs you don't want an hour or so commute each way added to your job. You don't get paid whilst commuting.

I can't keep up with the huge endless essays on this thread.

Anyone who denies the idea of injustice in society is bonkers though.

What I'm having difficulty understanding is why you feel that in general a female builder is as valuable as a male builder?

Gee thanks.

Im sure we can both agree that to be a builder, at any point in history, has required a large amount of strength to be able to lift heavy objects over fairly long periods of time.

Amongst other things.

About 28 years ago when working in construction I was told this. Women aren't as good as they can't lift the bags of rubble.

I simply ordered smaller bags. All the young lads at the time came to me and thanked me as lifting the huge bags was giving them backache. I saved them all from lifelong injury. Go me.

It entails lifting steel beams often to positions above the head, moving concrete beams to set foundations, carrying blocks, roof tiles and bricks, and regularly wheeling heavy wheel barrows full of rubble or wet concrete up and down narrow beams to list a few.

I know, right. Been there, done that. Ever heard of cranes, hydraulic lifts/pumps? I have - we used them 25 years ago. And back then, no female toilets on site, you had to hold it til you got home [or to a McDonalds or the services - I always knew where the nearest tesco was as it had toilets I could use]

When you've already agreed women generally have less strength than men, in what world do you have to live for the average female to be as valuable to the average male as a builder?

I love the way you say 'valuable'. When I was off sick for 3 weeks, they hired 3 men to do my work whilst I was off.

At times watching men carrying 3 large blocks at a time above their shoulder to climb a double ladder to stack them at the top, for over 2 hours, bearing in mind these were the same blocks I struggled to pick 1 up with 2 hands, I can't believe I'm suggesting this but I would even go so far as to say sticking the avarage female with a group of builders AND expecting her to do the same work (to be of equal value) would be placing herself and others in danger!

I had a group of students a few years back, one female and 8 males. They decided to do a ninja skills challenge one day which was to hold a brick sized piece of wood above their heads for the longest time. We had to ask the female to put her hands down after half an hour as they males were getting upset that they could only manage 5 minutes.

Your arguments are bullshit.

I didn't come on here as I knew I would end up writing loads but honestly, you don't know what you are talking about, if you have never actually worked in construction, let alone done the same job for 75% of the wage, just because you had the fortune of being given a uterus instead of testicles.

Your argument is that construction is too hard for women, my argument is that the actual work can be done, it just might take a different mind set to work out how to do it without putting ALL their staff at risk of lifelong injury. 'It's always been done that way' isn't an excuse.

I find it to be very demeaning to women by saying that the government should mandate employers to put more money in our pay packets just for being women.

No, I'd have quite liked to be paid the same as the men that I was working alongside, especially when I had qualifications that they didn't have. I found it demeaning to pay me less, anyone would.

We need to empower women by building their confidence and instilling value and self respect. The only way to do this is to teach women that they have the ability to be a valuable asset, that it’s achievable but they are going to have to damn work for it

Why do women have to work damn hard for the same thing that men just get on a plate?

Im very humbled that anyone would mistake me for a student trying to come over intelligent. Personally I don't think anything I've said goes into any particular depth of knowledge that anyone with an average IQ couldn't decifer with ease, but what do i know?

Not alot judging by your previous post.

The lengths some people will go to, to blame women for discrimination against women, is quite astounding.

However you look at it, the pay gap between biological men and biological women is disgraceful. This is hourly pay, so accounts for part time work. The pay gap is at all levels of seniority.

Institutional sexism.

You want ideas? Stop teaching kids about gender brain. Get rid of stereotyped images in school books.

Teach kids that different subject choices open different doors. That different doors offer different career prospects including salary banding. Give them people to aspire to.

Educate kids about equality. That it doesn't have to be the woman who sacrifices her career. Explain how things can be shared and give examples.

Explain how choices affect pensions.

I wish I had known stuff like that when I was at school.

And another...

Do we teach kids in school about sexism and misogyny? They get taught about racism, homophobia etc. About acceptance, differences etc.

Do they ever get taught what sexism and misogyny are, what they look like, how it affects people and that they are wrong?

Or is that not considered appropriate teaching material in a school.

My point is that not every company should be tarred with the same brush

Given the pay gap statistics, fair to say your company is in the minority.

Another consideration is, I too, at 31 was on track for management. The real issues didn't start for me til I returned from mat leave at 35. I had a choice to return full time to the crazy hours I was doing and rarely seeing my daughter, or work flexibly and have a balance. My career has definitely taken a hit. I'm happy with my choice but the statistics are also clear that once family comes along, salary doesn't rise as fast.

@sackrifice It is also the case that a high percentage of "construction industry" roles don't involve moving bricks and steel. There are lots of trades that require skill rather than brawn, not to mention the high number of desk based roles. These still have a majority white male workforce (my own job included) so it's disingenuous for @User7777 to suggest "they can't lift heavy bricks" is the reason construction is male dominated. It's a culture thing.

@tilder

I think the teaching depends on the teacher. We've had some cracking stories of some of the stuff they are still teaching. Thankfully DD speaks up when they get it wrong.

Part of the problem is the teaching materials are outdated because schools can't afford to replace them. Many reading books, worksheets we've had home are really badly stereotyped. One teacher used a story about a boy who wanted expensive new shorts. In comprehension the kids were asked why the characters were poor. There was no dad anywhere in the story and the teacher decided they were poor because mum was a single parent and wouldn't accept any other explanation from the kids. That was to a bunch of 7 year olds. 😡

Why would that be a bad thing for the teacher to tell the kids the reason the people in the book were poor was because it was a single parent family. 'Single parent' isn't a dirty word or it shouldn't be. It isn't wrong to teach children that the most common reason a family will be poor will be because of single parenthood, that's teaching!

Sackrifice

I have never said there are not women out there who can do the job or that on occasion a female could outshine the men on a ninja class. The fact is that it is the exception rather than the rule.

So, when u say it can be done by women it just requires a different way of thinking. I see so as long as it's planned in advance?

I can see some potential problems there. So that would mean you couldn't just go and replace 1 of the guys at Bob Builders operation? Unless they reordered the bags delivered beforehand for the small woman bags now required and paid the hire charges and made all the extra arrangements needed for the hydraulic lifts and pumps that the guys had always just handballed up the ladders.

Jesus I'm not surprised the lads were thanking you they probably got home and didn't feel like they'd been to work.

Poor Bob on the other hand is almost bankrupt! He's had to write off a load of material that couldn't be sent back, pay for disposal, buy back the material at a higher cost due to smaller packaging, pay for hire costs or buy expensive hydraulic machines and pumps and pay for any additional training costs to use them where none had been necessary previously.

Maybe Bob will understand that you' re as valuable as the lad he's got on the sick? I think he'd agree with me after spending his entire profit margin to make adjustments.

Being more serious I do have a lot of repect for anyone like yourself choosing to go into such a male dominated environment and sticking with it, heck even giving it a go. I think men and women need to work damn hard I wasn't just referring to women.

I'm afraid nobody can pretend that there are not clear differences between male and female brains. The university of Edinburgh have recently released the largest scientific study ever done to date in order to get a definitive answer to the debate of hard-wiring. Their scientists agree the results will be difficult for many women to swallow but shows clear predisposition of the male brain to earn higher money.

And it is hard to take, I can't deny it exists though just because I find it difficult.

Sexism has been around in the past, but any women claiming they are being paid less than a male colleague sitting next to them is just outright lying and I say that with a high degree of confidence that they will be unable to show that is the case.

People are still getting confused about value, claiming they should get what they are worth. Question: Who determines what someone is worth?

the male brain shows a predisposition to earn higher money and its hardwired in

Why are more men unemployed than women surely that's earning nothing

why do women earn more until they have children - does my predisposition to earning get expelled with the placenta?

I heard my 3 year old son recently telling someone that my job is one that is stereotypically done by women, whereas I actually do a job in the same field that is stereotypically done by men. I asked him afterwards what he said that my job was and he looked embarrassed and said I know that your job is ... mummy, I just got muddled up. It seems he is already adjusting what he is saying to conform to gender stereotypes as someone must have corrected him at least once when he said what I really do so he's now starting off saying what he knows is more socially acceptable rather than correct.

why do women earn more until they have children - does my predisposition to earning get expelled with the placenta?

You know when your waters broke, that is actually 'predisposition brain fluid' ejecting itself from your body.

The interview below with Gina Rippon, a cognitive neuroscientist, might be of interest to anyone who believes that there are substantial innate differences in the brains of the two sexes (spoiler - there aren't). She explains that, excluding differences clearly linked to biology (like reproduction) the differences between male and female brains, if they can be found at all, are incredibly small. She also discusses the impact that our gendered world has on brain development - essentially brains are not fixed and are extremely malleable, and try to find ways to make us fit within society, which influences both how society treats us and the decisions we make.

www.newscientist.com/article/mg24132190-100-how-neuroscience-is-exploding-the-myth-of-male-and-female-brains/

This makes perfect sense to me. If a very young girl grows up seeing all the women (like her) with limited ambition and opportunity - if it is always the woman who has to take time off to care for sick children, or who goes part time, or if it's always the man who goes for promotion, she will internalise that this is a woman's role and this will affect decisions she makes. If little girls are told off for being pushy while boys are praised for being assertive, or if girls are given dolls to nurture while boys are given building blocks, this will all quite literally affect their brain development and their understanding of their place in the world.

Unconscious gender stereotyping is something I am extremely conscious of, having children of both sexes. I make a point of just putting all the toys in together and giving my children free choice of what they want to play with, and I have observed absolutely no difference between them. My daughter is not more innately attracted to dolls and teddies - although she does sometimes play with them, at other times she choose the bricks or puzzles or trucks. I also make a point of dressing her in practical clothes that allow her to explore/discover things, climb and move safely rather than floaty dresses and frills that would automatically restrict her, and she is probably the best climber of the lot. I feel very strongly that I want to give her the same opportunities to both develop physically and develop the problem solving/spatial areas of her brain, so that she truly can have a choice when she's older. I am careful not to treat emotions on gender lines either, and teach all my children to talk through what they're feeling, and there is no real difference there either.

I agree with the principle that cutting ties between sex and gender is the only way that children can truly have the same opportunities, and am extremely concerned and disappointed that some children are being told that if they don't fit into their assigned 'box' that there is something wrong with their basic biology. It seems clear to me that the problem is with restrictive gender stereotypes and that we need to play down the concept of 'gender' rather than reinforce such stereotypes.

Taxi drivers who have done the "knowledge" have real physical differences in their brains compared to people that haven't. Is that hard wired too?

It's called plasticity and all brains are plastic. Yes even female brains.

To argue that men are hardwired to earn more, and therefore deserve better paid jobs because of that is such utter nonsense I can't even...