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

[Nyushka1]

@AssassinatedBeauty

I think it reinforces what I said in that 18 months was still too young to understand the identifying differences between male and female.

I also think that it's absolutely wrong to say all of this 'indirect' discrimination is a genuine issue.

The example that was given was when for instance someone would arrange an event to take place somewhere with no disabled access and so leaving a group out.

The fact that a certain group is affected is not automatically due to discrimination. There are many many people on this planet that are simply unthoughtful and inconsiderate. Of course it would be nice if people were more considerate but to try to pretent that we need a new word to describe these people or their actions, that will fit under the umbrella of the cause they are fighting is a very clever but dishonest use of vocabulary. Those people, just because they are inconsiderate, are not necessarily sexist, which would be a deliberate attempt for them to exclude women.

Just because a certain group are affected by someone's actions, this doesn't mean that it is because of discrimination.

So let's not pretend that Athena Swan's agenda is to make people more considerate. That would be completely ignoring the elephant in the room that is womens issues.

[SonicVersusGynaephobia]

Just because a certain group are affected by someone's actions, this doesn't mean that it is because of discrimination.

The cause might be a lack of consideration, the result is still discrimination.

This is pretty basic, Nyushka1.

Regarding the 18 month olds and the toys, the only way that could be a fair test is if no child had seen a toy before the study. Otherwise, 18 month old children will play with the toys they have become used to playing with. Which are the toys their parents and others have given them, which are influenced by gender.

[SonicVersusGynaephobia]

Nyushka1 have you read Caroline Craido-Perez new book? You should do.

[Nyushka1]

BOOM! There it is. Theres my point of the brainwashing that occurs where people begin to believe it's basic when they're just wrong!

For starters discrimination is not the result. Discrimination is the action and oppression is the result.

Would you please explain how the result can be the discrimination of anyone, when it's derived from thoughtlessness?

For the benefit of anyone else who isn't sure what discrimination means, it's when a group of people are treated unfairly or worse only because of differences such as skin colour, ethnicity, gender etc.

If there has been no discrimination to start with it is simply impossible for it to occur.

For example a drunk driver accidently loses control and ploughs into a group of Asian men standing chatting. That doesn't mean the driver is a racist, he's just a thoughtless moron. Just because Asians are the only ones affected doesn't mean they've been discriminated against or racism has occurred. They've just been affected negatively by a thoughtless moron.

It worries me that it's so engrained in us now to assume we're always badly done to. You automatically assumed I was the daft one for not realising when it's clearly yourself who's got the definition all mixed up.
Try removing any preconceptions of sexism and thinking that one through again.

Also I don't think there's any evidence to suggest kids would only go for the toys they had at home.Anyone who's had kids will know they don't care whether its what they've played with previously and would enjoy a new toy. I'm sure you made that up as I can't find any literature that b
H
bravetheworld.com/2016/08/09/50-real-"differences-men-women/

[AssassinatedBeauty]

So, the kind of oppression that affects physically disabled people in our society doesn't exist, because it is all from thoughtlessness and not from active discrimination?

[aprarl]

Of course @AssassinatedBeauty. There's nothing wrong with the world, and if there is, it's no one's fault so let's keep it this way and drone endlessly at anyone who challenges it. Obviously.

[EmpressLesbianInChair]

Is anyone else wondering at this point whether Sam Smethers will engage with all the comments except the ones about sex versus gender?

[Nyushka1]

Injustice is apparent everywhere you look of course it exists, but it's not necessarily happened because of discrimination. We don't all discriminate against disabled people by not installing ramps on our property giving access for all. Yet there is an injustice simply by not providing access should a person needing a wheelchair want to become a postman. Reasons such as people can't afford it or feel it will make access more difficult for those living there already are all reasons that aren't discrimination but result in injustice.

For those that keep asking people to respond to other comments, would you like to point out something in particular that you would like to see a response to?

[Beamur]

Hope this doesn't turn out like the Penny Mordant one. But I suspect we will see only the questions answered that the Fawcett Society think they won't get a pasting for.

[EmpressLesbianInChair]

I suspect we will see only the questions answered that the Fawcett Society think they won't get a pasting for.

I think so too. That’s how WEP & Penny Mordaunt tried to play it - a quick platitude instead of actually trying to understand why we’re all angry and worried. And so they just ended up making us more worried & more angry. With them.

[SonicVersusGynaephobia]

Again, Nyushka1, have you read Caroline Craido-Perez new book?

I think you could learn something.

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

We're going to have to delay Sam Smethers' answers to your questions for a few days I'm afraid - this is because of factors here at MNHQ (staff absence) not a delay at Fawcett's end. We're just trying to set up a new date now and we'll update when we have it - hopefully we'll be able to make this happen next week.

Sorry for the delay
MNHQ

[EmpressLesbianInChair]

Is it too late to add another question, Rowan?

Back in 2018 the Fawcett Society were promoting Gendered Intelligence, whose principal object is to push gender stereotypes onto children. I’m sure we’d all be relieved if Sam could confirm that Fawcett have changed their minds about that particular group.

[Ereshkigal]

Great question. Please send it.

[Ereshkigal]

Great question. Please send it.

[Ereshkigal]

Only once is fine

[BuzzPeakWankBobbly]

I identify as Ereshkigal. Great question. Please send it.

[SamSmethers]

Hello - good to join you on Mumsnet today. I look forward to responding to the questions and posts.

[SamSmethers]

@KingHenrysCodpiece

I agree with Nyushka1

Last year I did the obligatory six form and further education investigations with DS who is interested in Electrical/Aerospace engineering. We looked at apprenticeships, BTECs as well traditional A levels then Uni.

In all the presentations in the 5 or so colleges we went to, you could count the girls taking engineering on less than one hand. In one electrical engineering class the total cohort was 40+. There was 2 presentations so roughly 20 in one and 20 in another.

There was one girl present in our time slot. Out of curiosity and ( a bit of annonyance) I asked the tutor how many girls he had last year. He said 2. He said the college was given funding to try and attract girls, and he delivers career option talks in schools, but the take up was still very low. He said he couldn't persuade his own daughter to show an interest in taking up engineering and she intended to go into media.

I saw the same pattern reflected when I accompanied 2 uni open days with my nephew for Architectural technology. All of about 20 or so max girls across all related subjects: Archietectual engineering, interior engineering, etc. Construction was particulary dire. Civil engineering had 3 girls. These were just open days, so perhaps not truly reflective, but the disparity was noticable.

I don't think the differences in earnings can truly be said to be mostly driven by employer bias etc. I think it more reflects differences attributable to unique sex preferences. If more girls are going to university and achieving more GCSEs than boys it does beg the question of why they are not actively choosing science based courses in the similar rates to boys who reportedly are underperforming. Careers in these occupations pay better than teaching or nursing. Of course a better question might be (and is imo) why these careers are perceived as less worthy of being paid more?

In answer to KingHenrysCodpiece, what we’re really talking about here is the split in the types of careers that women and men are more likely to choose. That’s definitely a major contributor to the gender pay gap – Prof Wendy Olsen’s recent assessment found that differences in both occupation (the kinds of job a person might do, e.g. receptionist, senior manager, financial analyst) and the industry you work in (e.g. banking, health) make up about a third of factors that cause the gender pay gap. See the graph on page 24 here: openaccess.city.ac.uk/19821/1/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_UK_evidence_from_the_UKHLS.pdf

What we think is important, though, is to say that these differences aren’t biologically determined. The nature versus nurture debate is ongoing, but what can be said is that the extreme “nature” position - that is, the idea that the differences between girls and boys are all biologically predetermined and unalterable – has been discredited. This paper by Prof Gina Rippon, who is a member of our Commission, is great on that point: sfonline.barnard.edu/neurogenderings/eight-things-you-need-to-know-about-sex-gender-brains-and-behavior-a-guide-for-academics-journalists-parents-gender-diversity-advocates-social-justice-warriors-tweeters-facebookers-and-ever/ .

But we can see from other evidence that segregation by career is down to stereotypes, not biology. Girls perform as well as boys at Physics GCSE – they’re just as good – but they are less likely to choose it at A-Level, because it’s portrayed across society as a man’s world. Yet the Institute of Physics have found that actively challenging that stereotype can really boost girls’ rates of participation in the subject. And that stereotype just isn’t present in other cultures – for example, in China, where there’s little difference in takeup of physics or maths.

[SamSmethers]

@S1naidSucks

When the Fawcett Society research the pay gap, are they researching gender or sex? Are they including transwomen in their research? Please answer, as surely ignoring any questions regarding the inclusion of transwomen, would be ridiculously ‘transphobic’?

In answer to S1naidSucks the pay gap data we quote is Office for National Statistics (Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings) data. It is derived from a sample of 300,000 jobs registered with HMRC and the information available to HMRC about the employees doing those jobs. In answer to whether trans women are included in this – probably, although we don’t know, and the numbers, and therefore the impact on the stats, is likely to be quite low.

[SamSmethers]

@Yabbers

My employer has an action plan. They have been actively working to reduce the gap. They have done mandatory bias training for all staff. They have many different programmes in place which help remove the barriers to entry and promotion. They have worked with the female staff to try and find problems and solutions. We are the most female friendly organisation I've worked for.

Our gap increased this year to 46%. Why? Because we are in construction.

The problem is not that companies aren't doing enough. It is because the gap is a societal problem not just a business problem. My organisation cannot close the gap alone.

For employers in fields which are stereotypically and historically viewed as male, closing the pay gap won’t be entirely in their gift, you’re right Yabbers. They need to support work to get more women in to the sector, as well as ensuring the route up is there.

[SamSmethers]

@TheBullshitGoesOn

What definition of 'women' and 'girls' are you using?

The issues around trans identity that TheBullshitGoesOn and a number of other Mumsnetters are referencing are important – this document on our website sets out our positon: www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/sex-gender-and-gender-identity-qa.

Within our vision is for a society in which women and girls in all their diversity are equal and truly free to fulfil their potential, we include women who are trans. This is because our starting point is an inclusive one. But the position we have taken is nuanced and complex as the Q&A document on our website shows. It is vital that we need to continue to be able to talk about the role biological sex has to play in discrimination against women and that women can have the discussion about sex and gender without it being closed down.. Throughout history the patriarchy has been built on sex discrimination and the sexual exploitation of women. From female genital mutilation to rape as a weapon of war; to the sex bias in medical research; and from periods, pregnancy and childbirth to motherhood and the menopause, women have experienced discrimination and disadvantage because of their biology, and how it has been viewed by a patriarchal society.

[SamSmethers]

@SciFiScream

Why aren't you calling this sex-stereotypes? It's not based on gender. Surely everyone knows you can choose your own gender now? And from a list that has over 70 choices! Are you really going to investigate 70+ stereotypes? Just think! Don't like the stereotypes of one gender? Then simply pick another that suits you better. Easy.

No, what you mean Sam is sex stereotypes. Please say what you mean

I cancelled my membership of Fawcett because of your acceptance of the mantra TWAW

Gender is complex– as SciFiScream says, it is indeed a social construct, with biological sex key to how it is constructed as a set of harmful stereotypes based on the facts of biological sex.

That's what our Commission is setting out to address, so please do get involved and respond to our call for evidence.

[SamSmethers]

@SonicVersusGynaephobia

Do these gender stereotypes get imposed on transwomen in the same way as they are on females?

I know a lot of people will post saying "sex, not gender". Gender is the cause of the pay gap, imposed on the basis of sex. I understand why it's called the Gender Pay Gap (although it could be called the Sex Pay Gap).

However, it's disappointing to not see the word "sex" used once in the post to acknowledge that the people who are financially impacted by these negative stereotypes and structural discrimination are the female sex, never the male sex (even if they identify as women).

In answer to SonicVersusGynaephobia, no, I don’t think gender stereotypes are imposed on trans women in exactly the same way as on women who are female at birth. A trans woman who was treated as a boy or a man before they transitioned may have experienced some of the privilege society gives men; and/or they may have experienced oppression if they were perceived as a man who didn’t conform with masculine stereotypes, with all the conflict and distress that might cause.

We use gender when talking about stereotyping because it's the language people recognise in this context - but in, for example, our Sex Discrimination Law Review published last year, or our annual Sex and Power reports, we are clear that sex is key to understanding oppression, and is the legal equality characteristic.

[BuzzShitbagBobbly]

Within our vision is for a society in which women and girls in all their diversity are equal and truly free to fulfil their potential, we include women who are trans....

...It is vital that we need to continue to be able to talk about the role biological sex has to play in discrimination against women

Have you even read this? It's nonsensical.

If "women" equals "males and females", you have zero chance of being able to isolate how a "woman" experiences anything to do with being female. The term "woman" has been rendered meaningless in your explanation.