Perspectives on the sex/gender pay gap

[JackNicholson]

Sorry to state the obvious. I don't know a great deal about this, and know you lot will educate me...

So it seems to me that Jordan Peterson (who sometimes does and sometimes doesn't have good points) has a good point on this - men and women are just attracted to different jobs. The sexes are different (as we on this board well know) and, on average, more women are attracted into (e.g.) the caring professions, and more men into (e.g.) the financial sector. So then a key element of the pay problem is that the caring professions (for example) are woefully underpaid. The sexism isn't (just) necessarily in opportunities for individuals per se, it's in the fact that sexism is so hugely ingrained that it's in all the pay structures to the core. Is this where most of the work should focus? Nursing strikes, etc.?

Its not just the hours or pay that make some jobs more suitable for women. Some workplace cliques try to freeze women out, or women are treated so badly you have to endure hazing or worse.

As a thought exercise, google;
''women (profession/hobby) face harassment and sexual assault'' and see what comes up.

[quote Lockandtees]@DedlyMedally you forget that a lot of women are already earning less than their partners before they have kids. Post children a decision is usually made about which parents will reduce their hours to facilitate childcare. Except this conversation often isn’t he because the assumption is always that the higher earner should continue to work full time. That might seem like the logical choice at the time but it perpetuates the problem of women earning less because once you start working part time or in more flexible types of careers you’re often doomed to be a low earner for the rest of your life.[/quote]
This should be spelt out, in words of one syllable, to all schoolchildren, but especially girls. I've seen far too many threads on here over the years by women who have ended up in this trap, with no pension, not on the deeds of the house because they weren't earning at the time, massive gap on their CV, not married (so no legal recourse) etc. etc. They may still choose to have children, but it needs to be an informed choice. By the time you're pregnant it's too late.

I was once hiring for a relatively entry-level role, but it did have essential criteria & experience required. I had an application from a woman who had never really had a career, children were now in high school and she was desperate for someone to give her a chance, after 10+ years as a SAHM. She wrote a very eloquent, excellent covering letter. I really, really wanted to interview her to see if she was any good, but I couldn't justify it - I'd have had to interview the four candidates between her and the lowest-scoring interviewee, even though I knew they weren't good enough. I still think about her, and I still feel guilty. I hope she did find her way back into the workplace.

My point (hastily typed and not very well-made) was that we need family-friendly legislation that supports and protects mothers but also fathers, as I think that can only lessen unlawful discrimination - let's see what happens when large numbers of men find their employers trying to pull a fast one like that appraisal stunt. I'm aware that there is currently little take-up of shared parental leave, and I think understanding the reasons for that will be important - we need to find the right way to tackle it. Also, dads aside, greater take-up of the statutory right to request flexible working needs to be more mainstream. I'm really hopeful that Covid has shown what is possible. WFH with nursery drop-off and pick-up just down the road is a totally different proposition to commuting an hour each way on top of the nursery run and having to rush out of the office if the nursery calls.

My perspective is definitely skewed towards office jobs, but that's a start at least. I think a lot of the laws are in place now, but they need to be used and enforced to force the world of work to accept that most people have families, and children have to be born. There's so much untapped talent out there and I think employers are starting to realise that.

The next step is much better childcare subsidies, as other countries have. Then there will be no "my salary wouldn't cover nursery costs so I've no choice".

Have I solved the world's problems yet?

[quote Lockandtees]@DedlyMedally you forget that a lot of women are already earning less than their partners before they have kids. Post children a decision is usually made about which parents will reduce their hours to facilitate childcare. Except this conversation often isn’t he because the assumption is always that the higher earner should continue to work full time. That might seem like the logical choice at the time but it perpetuates the problem of women earning less because once you start working part time or in more flexible types of careers you’re often doomed to be a low earner for the rest of your life.[/quote]
In many cases the only reason that the woman was earning less was because she is a few years younger than her husband.

It's an oft-repeated tale of woe here. There's a drawn out example in the Relationships board at the moment. A high-flying woman in an industry such as finance meets a man who is also a high-flyer. She's a few years younger so hasn't built up the same amount of experience as him but if it weren't for pregnancy, her career would have followed the same trajectory. She earns the same as he did at the same age. Marriage and kids come along. It "makes sense" that she gives up her career because she earns less.

Early years come and go and she finds herself having to ask him for any money, whether for a school trip or new clothes for herself. Gradually he has full control over her life, her friends are ostracised and she doesn't have a penny to her name. She never sees his bank statements so she doesn't know that he is squirreling cash into an offshore account.

She realises that the relationship has become a controlling, abusive one. What can she do though? She has no money to escape, she has no remaining friends who could help her escape, he would stop her having access to the kids if she left (and he would win because she would be homeless). She certainly can't afford to employ a solicitor to match his, nor a forensic accountant to recover the money he's hidden.

She's trapped.

It's not just controlling relationships. Even if he was the nicest husband in the world, if he were hit by a bus how would she maintain her family's lifestyle on a death-in-service lump sum and a widow's pension? Going back to work after a ten year gap in her career, she would struggle to find a job paying much more than minimum wage.

Computer programming used to be women's work. Pay not good.

Then it was deliberately changed through biased aptitude tests to favour introverted obsessive men (fascinating story). Programmers are now paid very well indeed.

thewisdomdaily.com/women-used-to-dominate-tech-until-men-pushed-them-out/