Women vs Capitalism - The biology argument

[Blindspot82]

Was reading a book over Christmas called "Women vs. Capitalism" by Vicky Pryce which was very insightful. In her book, she quotes one leading economist as saying that the reason the gender pay-gap is so large is because of biology - the woman's natural choice to give birth and then, raise children which ultimately takes them out of the workplace for significant periods of time. They lose vital workplace skills, don't make the important connections that their male counterparts are making and thus miss out on promotion opportunities/chances to work on big projects that showcase their ability.

I agree with the economist's statement - that the gender pay-gap is related to a question of biology ultimately. But this argument doesn't solve the intrinsic problem, which is that women are generally penalised in the workplace for having children whilst men tend to scoop up the top jobs. The other obvious counter-argument is that yes, women could "choose" not to have children at all. But then the human race would die out. So it doesn't really hold up as a valid reason for such inequality.

In reflection, most workplaces now promote women into high senior roles. But...……..if you go right to the very top, 99% of the time it's a man, or a group of men who hold the leadership accountability.

I can't help feeling that women also feel forced to choose low-paid, less senior jobs after having children because they are in the main, the principal care-giver for their child/children, and the responsibility of motherhood comes first, before all others. Why can't we introduce a basic income to reward the vast quantities of work a woman does in the home, which is currently undervalued? What is it about that full-time job of raising very small children and managing a house that goes unrecognised in financial terms?

The "biology" argument is simply not an excuse to pay women less than men, or to defer finding ways to promote women and utilise their skills and talents in line with men after maternity leave. It just astounds me that we consider ourselves a modern society and yet women are some of the most financially discriminated people within it.

I also think the human race is more likely to die through overpopulation than the reverse.

If you’re looking at employed women and asking why they aren’t successful capitalists then you fundamentally don’t understand capitalism. Capitalism rewards two kinds of people 1. Those who risk their capital or 2. People who take others out of their capital (usually by giving them something they want). No one is ever going to get rich (I mean properly rich) by not going on mat leave, that’s just not how it works. The question we should be asking is why more women aren’t doing the above.

The question we should be asking is why more women aren’t doing the above.

My observation is that many of us don't see it as a 'my earnings' and 'his earnings' dynamic, but rather view themselves as a team, often with a joint bank account.

Once you have a comfortable standard of living, what's the incentive to strive for more - possibly self-sufficiency in case your partner leaves you, but this doesn't seem a big worry for many.

Once you can pay for your kids' education, live in a nice property, afford regular holidays, nice car, modern luxuries/tech, etc, and have enough savings to weather any issues like redundancy....why would you want to strive to 'maximise your career' if you're happy working part time and your husband is content in his job?

Many in the thread I referenced seem to have an outlook like the above.

My observation is that many of us don't see it as a 'my earnings' and 'his earnings' dynamic, but rather view themselves as a team, often with a joint bank account.

Yes, I think that's often true, whether there is one account or not.

I'm late to this thread. Really interesting discussion.

I read some research into the factors contributing to the gender pay gap. There are the usual things which contribute to higher wages, such as full-time rather than part-time working, education level, job tenure and age.

However 42% of the UK gender pay gap is not explained by these things. This is the part which is the result of discrimination, like the lower salaries offered to applicants with female names in AnyOldPrion's post.

Like most things where women are disadvantaged, lower wages for women is a mix of what women do (take time out to have babies and care for children) and poor treatment just because they are women.

That's a good point, CustardDream. Some women are very ambitious and they shouldn't have to deal with discrimination or not being paid as well as a man etc and should be able to pursue their goals. However, quite a number of women don't see the point in pursuing a time consuming career if their partner is earning well and this is sufficient to cover the basics as well as the usual luxuries.

While I'm in the 'women should be self-sufficient' camp, I'm not particularly ambitious nor career driven. I work a fairly average job and earn reasonably well to enable me to lead a relatively comfortable lifestyle with or without a partner. That's all I need, really. I've never tried to move up the ranks. More money would be nice, but it also involves more responsibility and stress. I prefer to spend my time and money on my interests and hobbies.

I can see why women would choose that option if they don't mind this financial security coming from their partners rather than themselves. It's not something I could ever being myself to do, but I can see the pragmatism especially if you are wanting to have kids and raise a family.