How come we are not discussing the terrible gender gap in UK?

[Miggsie]

I thought that the doyens of Mumsnet should really look at the report about UK dropping in gender terms.

Despite girls getting good grades at school and going to university, we still have a shocking pay gap and women in their 50's fade away in terms of senior posts.

Why?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8327895.stm

Also in the Independent.

Yes custy, the supply and demand argument is a universal truth in capitalist societies

Tear down capitalism! Tear down capitalism!

Oops, sorry, just had a momentary lapse in concentration, do carry on.

Can't believe women are arguing that bin men should be paid more than carers. Why, exactly? Because emptying bins is hard physical labour? Why is that worth more money than the hard physical, mental and emotional labour of caring for elderly people - who also need lifting, as it happens?

"The erroneous perception is that "anyone can be a bin man". It's not true - you really need to be strong"

this kind of view is the heart of a lot of the reasons for gender inequality.

The pure academic example is the society that needs 40 hairdressers, 40 garage workers and 40 firefighters (lots of burning bras, obviously). The society has 60 women and 60 men in the available workforce.

Result? Culturally, the 60 women are conditioned to want to be hairdressers - you have 60 of them chasing 40 jobs. Result? the salary for hairdressers drops until demand equals supply and 20 women drop out thinking "it is not worth it, I may as well not work". This leaves 80 'male' jobs to share amongst the 60 men. Again because of supply/demand, the jobs cannot get filled and the salary for the mechanics and the firefighters rises in an ongoing spiral.

So, this is society in practice, because you have/had (you choose the tense, I maintain 'have' is the correct one) more women available for women-type jobs and not enough men available for men-type jobs. To some extent the way the UK has bent to correct this has to allow certain industries (such as teaching) to shift from being male/neutral to being female. But generally the ones that have shifted are the ones that are not considered to be 'status' type careers (and, even when they are, you see their status and perceived value dropping as they shift - just look at the difference in how headteachers were valued 40 years ago compared to today). Where the career itself is highly valued (judges, surgeons, industry leaders) the competitive nature keeps the girls out. And as you head up the poles in these types of industries the leaders see no reason to remove the barriers. So you still have key positions where you can only get on if you put in 100 hours a week (financial services) or where you have to travel at the drop of a hat (politics, industry), or where your career progression is highly dependent on your networking abilities (ie the golf club, the freemasons, yada yada). And there is no incentive whatsoever to remove those barriers, because to do so would require those at the top to say "We are not the best type of people to be running these industries" It is like asking turkeys to vote for Xmas. When you have been in board meetings and seen with your own eyes another woman's extremely valid viewpoint being totally dismissed by the men round the table,you find it very difficult indeed to dismiss sexism as being just down to women wanting part-time/less demanding roles. I have seen extremely successful women in very valued high-earning jobs, but they have generally had to 'build up their testosterone' to do so and they themselves are not normally supportive of women climbing behind them, because they also learn to value assertiveness and 'strength of character' over other skills. The good strong powerful woman who is valued for her skills at empathy, negotiation, compassion, diplomacy? A myth still. And that absolutely sucks.

Asking whether it is right for women to opt out, or whether women should stay at home are both topics for other threads. As is any discussion of the value of being at home and raising your children yourself. The point of this thread is to point out that when people are in the same profession, at the same level, with the same skills and the same commitment, they are still paid less and valued less than the guy sat next to them. And I have seen this with my own eyes. And I have seen bosses pay assertive but not very good men the same bonuses as brilliant but not so aggressive women, simply because it is less stress for them to cut the bonus pool in any other way. And it really really really sucks. And it sucks even more when people say that women can go off and start their own brilliant businesses when this happens and then work their hours to suit them. Great in theory, but in practice our industries lose the best people, and most start-ups do not get further than the cottage-industry level which means that the women still get oppressed (much as I hate to use that word) in terms of their political/economic power.

The gender thing infuriates me, I have seen it, I have studied an MSc and conducted independent research around it and I have had to shift careers to bypass it at times too. And anyone who says it doesn't exist because of X,Y or Z reason, are doing a very serious diservice to their own daughters.

"And I have seen bosses pay assertive but not very good men the same bonuses as brilliant but not so aggressive women, simply because it is less stress for them to cut the bonus pool in any other way. And it really really really sucks."

I don't think it sucks at all. This seems to me entirely fair - he/she with the strongest negotiating position wins. I always say that women need to learn better negotiation skills to get their own way. Your example is a good one.

Still, I am not sure anyone would say sexism does not exist (or racism, ageism, whatever). Of course it does exist, I simply do not think that it is the only reason behind the gender gap.

And frankly, why do people expect women to be better at "empathy, negotiation, compassion, diplomacy" as opposed to other qualities like assertiveness, or leadership or sth else?
I am a woman so I am supposed to be better at X&Y and valued for it. If I am not X&Y, then it's because I have decided to become more like a man would be. I have never bought this argument, and I am quite offended by it - it's sexist.

Women in the UK who are determined to succeed (whatever that means to them) mostly have the opportunity to succeed - I say in the UK that because it's not the same everywhere of course.
But I would also say to my daughter that she will have to ignore a few idiots, and make some very tough choices on the way.

Funnily enough - I will say exactly the same to my sons.

some of us don't have any kids and still get paid shit wages compared to the men who do the same job.

I worry about this a lot.

I am bringing up my DD exctly the same as her brother. She knows the world is her oyster, that there should be no limits to what she wants to achieve.
I often worry I'm selling her a pup - that she'll discover the world is a sexist place and despite all her efforts she'll be held back.

At what age should I burst her bubble and tell her the truth?

minerva. It is actually quite clear and quite biological. The female brain has substantially more neuron connections between the left side of the brain and the right side. That is biological fact, not an argument.

The result of this is that in general when women use their brains they generally bounce three or four things in the air at a time. So if there is a problem then they are generally thinking not just of issue a, but also of the effect that decision X might have and whether decision Y will result in problem Z occuring. This is because they are crossing more easily between right/left side of brain. Because men have less 'bridges' they generally focus more on the one issue, and therefore in effect their fewer neurons light up brighter, which can make them for example, more decisive and assertive, but less able to see implications as quickly.

That is all a horrendous generalisation of what is actually a very fascinating aspect of biology - it is very worthwhile googling this in depth of you want to find out more. Yes, I have made sweeping generalisations, and there will always be exceptions but the bell curves of natural behaviour and skills are different between the genders, any teacher will tell you that. It is not sexist, rather like stating that top level athletics is dominated by certain genetics more prevalent in some African countries than in Europeon ones is a statement of fact, not a statement of racism.

So, if you accept the biological differences, then you have to interpret what they mean for society. and that is where sexism steps in - because as a society the people in power have convinced everyone to value those skills more generally seen as strengths in males ratehr than females. And women are just as conditioned - as evidenced by a belief that you need to be assertive to get the bonus you deserve, rather than be paid fairly for the work you have done.

i think accepting the biological difrences is key for how we should develop the education system.

time and time again we hear how girls do better than boys in exams.

I entirely agree with that custy.

In society, the biological differences work against the 'norms' for each gender depending on the context you're in.

Educationally, our current systems work against boys. In the work sphere, yes, there are careers where the culture may work against the biological 'norms' for women, but equally, there are careers where 'female' traits are valued more highly. Look at some of the traditional 'female' roles primary school teacher, midwife etc.

stillquaffing - but the differences in brain structure between the average woman and the average men don't actually tell us anything about the individual. And it's a hell of a stretch to say they mean any one woman is 'better' at empathy and 'worse' at making fast decisions, or that any man is vice versa. There are plenty of men who hesitate - look at our PM!

There are lots of women who make damn fine civil engineers as well as plenty of men AND lots of men who make damn fine hairdressers as well as plenty of women. (Although it would be interesting to see how much those men earn over their careers compared to women, and how many end up owning their own business or climbing the corporate ladder at Toni & Guy, etc. etc. etc.)

Btw, people with dyslexia are said to have fewer connections between both halves of the brain and apparently this means many tend to have better visual-spacial skills as a result. Should we be paying dyslexic women more or only allowing dyslexic women to become engineers?

Pay should not affect some vague notion of biological differences in brain structure in the general population. (I doubt the average MD setting the pay policy for his or her company has a PhD in brain structure.) Nor should people be guided into careers because they are 'male' or 'female'.

FWIW, on the Myers-Briggs occupational psychology scale I came out as having many traits that would be traditionally described as 'male' - I like making quick decisions rather than fannying aboutand am impatient with people who cry in the loo at work (unless their Granny has just died). Do I deserve to be paid more than someone who comes out as having more traditionally 'female' characteristics? Don't think so.

The point is those traditionally 'female' careers are less well paid than traditionally 'male' careers - look at the massive issue in councils mentioned earlier. Local authorities have been illegally paying women less than men for work of equal value but associated with different genders for decades and are using dirty tricks to avoid stumping up the back pay these women are owed.

and am impatient with people who cry in the loo at work (unless their Granny has just died)

lol is that actually a question on the MB test?!

edam - I entirely agree that there should be equal pay for equal jobs/hours. In fact I don't think anyone is arguing against that are they?

My point was not really about pay, it was about the broader issue of which aspects of society are weighted more favourable towards male 'norms' and which towards female. The current education system is geared very much towards females. And even though a male primary school teacher or midwife may be paid the same as his female counterpart, they may have had to fight numerous battles to establish themselves in those roles. And vice versa.

nah, not actually a question. But the tutor grouped all of us who came out as I forget what (INTP or summat) together and it became apparent on the empathy scale we all had similar reactions which would include that scenario!

I don't understand why some posters think choices women make regarding childcare are not part of a sexist structure in the workplace. WHY should choosing to work part-time have such a negative impact on a man or woman's career? Why do I have to choose between applying for promotions that would require 45+ hours a week, or staying put to have children and work 25hrs? Flexible working approaches really are the way forward to address gender pay gap - and should of course be applied to both sexes.

Grrr this really gets my goat. I don't see how you can rule out sexism when you look at the published statistics. Either men are better are their jobs, or women are being discriminated against. I don't even think some employers are aware of what they're doing - they pay people what they can get away with, and if you don't know what the going rate it, and your pay is based on your previous job, it's just going to get worse. One way of dealing with this would be for the private sector to publish pay audits, they operate in secrecy which makes it easier for them to hide pay differentiation.

I had to go out so I hope this has not moved on too much.. If so apologies

"They have convinced everyone to value those skills more generally seen as strengths in males ratehr than females". Politics is essentially a survivor's game - those in power are those who defeat the others, same as the survival game in the animal kingdom. Unsurprisingly, at high levels (whether in a school or in a bank), things like assertiveness and leadership tend to shine through more - but "people in high places" are not uni-dimensional - they are great negotiators and good people managers too. True "bastards" are probably outliers. Men have to change too to get into positions of power - because assertiveness alone will very rarely get you to succeed.

So I do not think biology explains alone why women succeed or not, and it certainly does not stop them from succeeding - because being a bastard may make you a good banker (which in my experience, it does not, but let's assume this is the case), but empathy can make you a great sth else. So one can succeed in that - being a fantastic teacher/carer may pay you less than a banker, but how is it less successful? Unless you measure success with money, that is - I do not.

"And women are just as conditioned - as evidenced by a belief that you need to be assertive to get the bonus you deserve, rather than be paid fairly for the work you have done."

So you aren't conditioned ? Actually, I just think that your female genes are talking here!

Binmen and unskilled labourers earn £30K? And not even in the south east?

FUCKING HELL.

You learn something every day.

That's a fucking hell not an fucking hell BTW

I suspect bin men get £30k if they do lots of overtime, rather than as basic pay. But could be wrong.