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.

hi fox

I absolutely believe that when people (of either gender) take time out then they are going to suffer career-wise, and I consider it perfectly appropriate to pay someone with 5 years less experience a different salary than someone who has been on the job for those 5 years, all other things being equal. Absolutely.

But the pay gap issue is not all about that. The pay gap research shows up time and time again that even women who have not had kids and not taken time out are still getting paid less than the man sat next to them. And are still less likely to get promoted. That is what is absolutely scandalous. Can you imagine how much more political the issue would be if it were black lawyers being denied promotion rather than women lawyers? And even when women are promoted to partnerships or directorships, you will still see salary differences (most usually because the women have been channelled upwards along the 'gender routes' - eg Tax Partners, not Consultancy Partners in a prof services firm).

When people start talking about flexi working and career breaks etc as part of the problem they are of course raising very good explanations to explain the difficulties that many people do face in getting on (and indeed that many companies face in their attempts to promote diversity) but by bringing these into the gender gap issue we are in effect hiding away the fact that even if all of these career-breaks/outside responsibilities/flexi working didn't exist, we still have differences in pay. A woman who has never had kids still struggles to get to the top. The FTSE 250 still has - IIRC - less than 3% of female representation at Board level (and I shudder to think what the % would be if you remove the female HR directors and female media/PR directors from these numbers).

Yes, the flexi working/career-break etc etc cause genuine career problems (and Christ, do we all know about that), but they also provide very good smokescreens and excuses that business leaders can hide behind, rather like managers in the 70's used to cite cultural differences and 'team motivation' difficulties when they refused to hire minority workers. You need to (A) recognise the sexism, (B) actually determine to do something about it, and then (C) work out how to overcome obstacles such as career breaks, flexi working, wrap-around childcare, etc etc etc.

oh and look at the pictures from the European Summit from last night (after the Lisbon Treaty breakthrough)

looks like a convention of undertakers there are SO many men in black suits and so so so few women

Excellent post stillsquaffing.
You are absolutely right, that the two issues need separating:

• women who are paid less because they have signficant chunks of time out of the workplace (and I'm not talking statutory ML here, I mean extended periods of time out, or part time working)

• women who are paid less when they have equivalent qualifications, skills and experience, which is scandalous.

Realistically, there ARE many jobs, particularly more senior positions, where a chunk of time out can leave you behind in terms of skills and up to date knowledge. That's not being discriminatory - it's a fact. Some one may use their time at home very productively, and they may develop other skills to do with organisation, time management etc while at home, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be directly relevant to the job they later apply for. When I make appointments as a manager, I look for the best person for the job that needs doing. End of. I can't imagine any employer would do differently. The whole process of recruitment is hugely expensive apart from anything else. If the best person for the job is someone who has the most recent experience and up to date skills, then so be it. That's the reality. It's not discriminatory to act on that.

As a mother and a full time worker in a senior position, I do think sometimes people can have a jaundiced view about employers - as if we don't want to embrace good practice, flexible working etc etc. I really think that's a bit of a myth at times. Any decent employer wants the best person for the job that needs doing, end of. And if that means employing someone who will work full time, and has recent experience, then that's the way it is.

Years on the job aren't everything, though. If I think about my male friends and acquaintances in their mid-forties, with 20+ years of professional life behind them and no career (maternity) breaks except for MBAs (probably about 30% of them), they are all in very different jobs and with differing levels of responsibility today, despite coming from a similar starting point. And their careers haven't all been straight trajectories - there are points where they learned little and points where they learned a lot.

Do we really think that extended periods out of an industry justify unequal wages for the rest of someone's career? Really? Over a 40-50 year working life, taking 5 -10 years out or working part time for a few years, is going to make that much difference to someone's professional capabilities by the time they're 50 or 60?

If that were the case, no-one would ever have a career change. Ever. Because it would disadvantage them for the rest of their lives.

But that patently doesn't happen. Lots of people nowadays change careers in their mid thirties and by the time they're in their mid forties to fifties, they've caught up with and in some cases overtaken their industry peers. Some people have 2 or 3 or more career changes over their working lives and don't seem to be any the worst for it, and the way the workplace is developing, I think in future this will be the norm rather than the exception. It would be v. odd if only mothers were uniquely deemed to be unable to play catch-up.

"It would be v. odd if only mothers were uniquely deemed to be unable to play catch-up."

Here you have hit the nail on the head, HerBewitcheditude, as far as defining a key element of the problem. The process will be speeded up if more dads become SAHDs and take advantage of parental leave policies. This will be a big cultural shift.

Well that's what everyone says Matha and I hope it's true, but unless sexism is properly tackled, I think in 20 years we'll be having discussions about why former SAHD's seem to be catching up with their industry norms so much quicker than former SAHM's. (And indeed, overtaking childless women who never took any time out at all.) And doubtless people will come up with v. complicated explanations about former SAHD's being more motivated blah di blah while former SAHM's choose to coast because they're looking after their parents now, etc. etc... and sexism will still be the one explanation that cannot be countenanced.

It will take a fair dose of legislation and lots and lots of sex discrimination litigation, and huge financial awards to victims for a lot of industries to wake up and smell the coffee.

That is v. depressing but I think you may be right.

When I got pregnant my employers treated me like I had committed some kind of crime. It is the lack of recognition and celebration of motherhood that sets women back. Not to mention the lack of recognition that we can be effective mums AND workers!
I agree that we live in a patriarchal society. it's annoying me no end.

Totally agree fox (I have a SAHP and does make life much much easier). Mostly agree stillsquaffing, except that there is also discrimination in many fields against visible minorities - probably even worse if you are both a minority and a woman. Certainly in medicine it is documented that the majority of really successful/best paid surgeons etc tend to be white men. Any area where patronage plays a part has a built in prediction to raise "people like us" over everyone else.

Here's the answer!

Androgyny!!

I agree that traditional "womens work" is undervalued, and when we enter the areas of paid employment we also seem to be undervalued (or, we undervalue ourselves).

It seems mad that boys achieve less at school but go into the workplace and are paid more because they think they are worth more so bargain more over pay (this is the argument trotted out constantly when firms are asked to justify large pay gaps).

If we are to achieve equality we should have mothers who stay at home supported and valued and also women in the workplace paid the same.

And why why why do women of 50 and over seem to disappear from TV??????
It is as though society really can't be bothered, until they hit about 70 and are rolled out as "old dears" in various dramas.

Miggsie - totally unrelated to the OP but I nicked your name and called a characterin my new book Miggsie.

~See that link - androgyny - says it all really.

It says act the way men will take you seriously because they call the shots.

Rather than questioning why they call the shots and how we can be women in the workplace on our own terms, rather than on the terms of those members of the workforce who have penises.

"Funny how women continue to have families, but men don't."

LOL