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.

I take your point on not wanting to be seen as the disciplinarian for the older kids, yes.

And there is a lot of very very annoying 'fun' sexism that a large group of woimen teachers come out with when there is man around. It is truly embarrassing.

Exactly. I think anyone who is in a minority group in their line of work can have a tough time.

It's not right but it's not uncommon.

In some respects, they have an easier time.

Whether it's easier or tougher though, it illustrates the point that they are treated differently doesn't it? And if one group is having an easier time, then by definition, another group must be having a tougher time.

The fundamental point is surely that gender (or ethnicity or sexuality or any other defining feature) should not dictate how you are treated in the workplace.

Absolutely not, agreed.

I'm not sure male teachers=discipline, but I do know it is sometimes hard for young boys to find positive male role models in life, particulary if their father is not a particularly positive role model...
so from that point of view, i love seeing male teachers - especially in primary school.

Oh please, don't anyone try to tell me that men are discriminated against in teaching.

What percentage of teachers are women?

And what percentage of headteachers are men?

I think you'll find that the number of HT's, deputy HT's and acting HT's who are male, is wildly disproportionate to the number of males in the profession. If anything, they are being discriminated for, not against.

i'm a little uncomfortable about the menopause jokes on the walls of the staff room toilet though... i do wonder whether it makes the male governors uncomfortable in the same way that i feel slightly ill at ease visiting offices in a professional capacity and being greeted with 'tits-oot' pin up calendars... to which i normally say 'niiiiiice, how appropriate' and raise my eyebrow.

I'm not sure menopause jokes carry the same message as tits oot calendars.

Tits oot make women feel uncomfortable because they reduce women to their body parts and we all have breasts. Menopause has never been used as a way to degrade men, so I don't really see that there is a valid comparison there.

the cartoons are all men/ women's attitudes to men courtesy of menopause... there was definite 'degrading' going on, whether courtesy of body parts or not.

What are menopause jokes? Why are they up in the toilet?

lol - wasn't really expecting an inquisition, just thinking aloud as an example of a female-dominated space that might make men feel uncomfortable. the jokes were cartoon drawings depicting menopausal women in various scenarios (mostly hot flush/ hormonal rant type thing) and the general inadequacies of surrounding (usually skinny, scrawny, diminished) men. mostly power jokes with a dash of sexual innuendo - nothing deeply sinister, but enough for me to raise my eyebrows and think 'wonder what the men who use this facility feel....'

please don't ask me for a specific 'joke' to deconstruct, because they really weren't that memorable. i just thought it was a bit shoddy.

not actually comparing it to glamour calendars - just wondering aloud whether men in female dominated environments such as primary school teaching were subject to the same low-level but equally powerful 'message' as women in male-identified careers.

i'm imagining so, remembering the newly promoted HT enthusing about the firemen's visit.

Since we are getting into sexual harassment, I know of a particularly horrid case at my old workplace - a charitable organisation with a very strong reputation for being ethical. (Should anyone work out what it is, please don't say anything - the person most closely concerned decided not to press charges and I have to respect her decision.)

Handful of people away from the office, lobbying VIPs in another EU country. Colleagues go out for dinner and drinks. No-one is drunk as this is a work social and it's not that sort of organisation, would be frowned upon.

But man X decides this is an excellent opportunity to grope my former colleague - actually stuck his hand up her skirt. Later turns out he did this to THREE women.

Company tried to hush the whole thing up, woman who was brave enough to complain had a lot of pressure put on her to shut up about it. She insisted on a proper disciplinary investigation. Mistake as she ended up having to leave herself the atmosphere was so poisonous - it was made very clear SHE was the problem.

Man also threatened my friend and made it clear he knew people who could do very nasty things indeed. She checked it out and apparently his threats were plausible (can't say more about this for obvious reasons).

Man was made 'redundant' with a generous package - not sacked. AND immediately re-employed as a consultant on great rates, which was illegal last time I looked. Later stood for a position closely related to the company and got in!

And this is in an organisation that, when I was there, was led by a feminist (had left by this point), has a huge reputation to lose and apparently very high morals and HR practices. Ho bloody ho ho ho.

madwoman I was just interested - the idea of menopause jokes in the toilet was so alien to me! I have never worked anywhere with jokes in the toilet. Let alone ones about such a niche topic as the menopause! Maybe that's where I've been going wrong...

edam that is shocking.

I think that there is an expectation that women will sacrafice career for family that means women are discriminated against.

DD had to be picked up from nursery because she was ill a while back. DH told his boss he had to go get her, his boss said 'why can't your wife do that?' (to dh's credit his response was 'it's not her job')

At my school there are no women with children of school age in management positions. I know that a women with young children was discouraged from applying for a senior job because of her 'family commitments' I doubt a man in the same position would have had the same discussion. I really feel we value men more than women. We totally see family as womens work.

Things won't change soon if we deny there is a problem. We know about the salaries in the public sector and can take action on them, but in the private sector it is much more difficult to change things.

I don't know what the answers are but I had hoped that things would be better by now. I hope that it is better for my daughter.

Wonderstuff, dh got the same question from his boss once when he had to take a day off to look after ds. When I'd already taken the previous TWO days off anyway.

I'msonottelling - it bloody shocked me. Luckily my friend, who is brilliant, went on to get an ever more senior job at A N Other organisation. But I'm not sure what happened to the other two women.

dittany - yes, shared toilets. a single bathroom off the main staffroom. 'staff' toilets, not male or female.

i once worked in an environs where you had to flip a piece of card on the door if you were going for a (communal) shower, to let followers-on know whether the facility was being currently used by men or women. lots of jokers around who used to flip the card as they walked on by, and many many instances of one sex walking in on the other showering...

edam - v similar to my junior colleagues earlier experience. the gentleman in question was escorted from the premises and then reinstated 6 weeks later because hr didn't know what to do and so did nothing. the female colleague left due to the strength of feeling in the workforce that she was in some way responsible. that and she had to work for the guy, natch.

Stillsquaffing

You say that "Asking whether it is right for women to opt out, or whether women should stay at home are both topics for other threads."

See I think that's utter nonsense. Women staying at home is an absolute integral part of the problem.

If women stay at home or opt out of work, then of course they are going to earn less if/when they return to the workplace. And rightly so. Someone who has taken five years out to look after children shouldn't be paid the same as someone else of equal ability who has used the intervening five years to develop skills and acquire experience.

someone who has spent five years raising children WILL have acquired skills and experience that may be jolly relevant, though. Organisational skills, communication skills, negotiation skills etc. etc. etc.

Why do you assume that someone who has been in the workplace 5 years longer, has used that time to gain more valuable skills and experience than someone who hasn't? Maybe he's just sat on his arse. Maybe being out of the workplace has given the other candidate different, transferable skills.

If the rate for the job is £20K and you have 2 candidates who are perfectly capable of doing it, who cares if one of them in a 15 or 20 year time period has spent 3 or 5 years travelling or bringing up children or acting, while the other one has stayed put and either sampled more sandwich fillings or done a MSc in their chosen work area ? surely they should both be paid the same, if they are doing the same job as competently as each other? You might choose the last one if you were interviewing, but don't assume that all employees who don't take time out of the workplace, are not merely the sandwich samplers - the idea that they are automatically better candidates than those who have done other stuff with their lives ? (and that's not just child rearing, it could be other careers, artistic endeavors etc) seems rather narrow-minded to me.

Most jobs at most levels just aren't that difficult and simply don't need that extra 5 years of expertise. They really don't. And we are talking about most jobs aren't we, as opposed to the really specialised ones where an extra 5 years over 20 years does make a difference? Because even lower down the chain, where those 5 years shouldn?t matter, there is a gender gap, isn?t there?

I suppose I was talking from my own perspective where five years out of work would quite simply render someone unemployable. But that can't just be true of my job it must be true of most professions, where keeping knowledge and skills up to date is critical, as is the level of experience.

There are very few jobs where you have to keep your hand on the wheel constantly or you'll be lost. Most professions have continuing education so you can keep up with current developments, keep your licence, etc. For the vast majority of jobs, you can be retrained or reacclimatised in a very short time, and most people who start a job need a certain amount of training at the start no matter how current their experience is, because different workplaces do things in different ways. No-one who starts a new job hits the ground running from day one. Using the excuse that you won't hire a woman who has spent time away from the workforce because her experience is not current is veiled discrimination, sexism, institutionalised misogyny.

I agree if they are five consecutive years, and the individual hasn't retrained, or otherwise got back to speed, and is applying directly for a job. Because to some extent you are then starting almost from fresh. But if the time is spread out and taken as maternity leave then it shouldn't really be a problem, because you step back into the job you had before, and so by the time you are applying for something new you should be judged by your last job performance and applicability for the role in question, just like any other candidate. Otherwise (in general) I think it is perfectly reasonable to appoint the person who did a similar job yesterday over the person who did a similar job five years ago.

I'm afraid that at a senior level I don't think that what you spent time doing during maternity leave is really terribly useful to be honest - assuming that time was spent "just" being a SAHM. I did learn a lot from having children, but I wouldn't say the time I was not working I learned anything more than I did when I was working too. And you do have to be a little careful about not treating your colleagues like children (even when they often behave worse than kids do).

if I look at the very senior people I work with or know (so partners, CEOs, those type of people), the vast majority of males in those posts have Stay At Home Wives/Partners. In fact, I can only think of one who doesn't (his wife is in the city in a v senior post).

I think this helps engender the culture of giving it all up for the company. Most of these people work ridiculous hours, go out for drinks when they like...all because they can. I'm not sure it's necessary but the culture is there and they continue with it. And because they have someone at home, they can do it.

I'm not saying this is the fault of SAHMs ;-) and I'm sure someone will come on now saying their husbands couldn't have got where they were without them holding the fort at home but I think it is exactly that attitude that helps encourage these office based lives people lead!