Women: Like men, only cheaper

Aaron Thiele:
So the jobs men tend to do vs the sort of jobs women tend to do clearly play a big part. Lifestyle choices - women generally work less hours than men so will obviously get paid less (in the same line of work) etc. But is it more to do with preferences than gender discrimination? Some women may be expected to spend more time raising the children, some women may want to do this (my partner certainly prefers it this way). It would be interesting to see some sort of survey on this to see which is more the case.

Some women may want to look after their children, but so might some men. Some women might want to go back to work, but the costs of childcare are such that it doesn't make financial sense for them to do so (especially if other factors are considered, such as time and money spent commuting). The way that parental leave is set up deters and prevents some people from accessing equal choices. These decisions then stop being "lifestyle choices" and become financial ones. If employers were more flexible, for example offering people the choice of when to work their hours (eg. doing 35 hours over 3 days, rather than 5, therefore reducing the number of days childcare was required, reducing the amount of petrol/train costs too) then this might influence more people's choices regarding whether to return to work after having children. As noted further up in this chain, in the UK, MPs on a select committee made recommendations for tackling the structural causes of wage inequality, but the government rejected the recommendations (MPs said all jobs should be available to work flexibly unless an employer can demonstrate a business case against doing so. The committee also wanted a "more effective policy on shared parental leave", with fathers getting three months well-paid paternal leave. The committee also recommended a "National Pathways into Work" scheme to help women over the age of 40 back into the labour market.)


Read more on this here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39026022

There was an interesting Forbes article about how the studies on the "gender pay gap" in the US misrepresented the stats by not considering these factors. I also heard somewhere that in situations where men are getting paid more per hour than women, for doing the same job, same hours, it could be because men are more likely to ask for more money than women are (where salaries are negotiable). There is still a lot of cultural pressure for men to be the higher earners in a family, so naturally they will ask for more money. I'm not sure how true this is but it seems like a feasible theory. If this is the case then my message to women would be “Ask for more money”.

Where there are situations where men are genuinely being paid more than women for no real reason then this needs to be rectified. It just seems that there are many reasons for the gap that weren't considered in the studies. Also, men have a significantly higher rate of workplace accidents/deaths compared to women, which could be seen as another work related inequality, sometimes these things kind of balance out when other factors are considered. This goes for inequality in the past well. Women were treated unfairly in certain ways, but let’s not forget that it was only men that were drafted for war (for example). While these men are remembered, it’s not in the context of gender inequality. I’m not saying women should have been drafted as well by the way, but is selective equality true equality? I'd be interested to hear people's opinions.

Even starting salaries tend to be different for men and women, so if women do ask for more money, it is an increase on what they were offered, which may still be less than the starting salary that a man is offered. If both candidates ask for more money, then there is a chance that even if the requests are granted, the woman will still be underpaid compared to her male colleague. 


Whilst your suggestion that women should ask for more money is perhaps valid, I think that this seems a little like blaming the victim. Surely the responsibility for ensuring wage parity sits somewhere with the employer? You note that more men have workplace deaths, but nobody says: My message to men is "Be more careful". Instead, people said "we need health and safety legislation to ensure that the number of workplace accidents/deaths is reduced".  Nobody told the families of those who died at work that it was the dead person's fault for not asking for a better ladder etc., but there is a tendency to say to women - it is your fault for not asking. Just as the onus is on the employer to provide better safety equipment and implement better health and safety practices for ALL employees, I think so too should the onus be on employers to ensure equal pay for all employees. It will be interesting to see what happens when the rules start to force employers to reveal any gender pay gaps (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35553573)

Aaron Thiele:
So the jobs men tend to do vs the sort of jobs women tend to do clearly play a big part. Lifestyle choices - women generally work less hours than men so will obviously get paid less (in the same line of work) etc. But is it more to do with preferences than gender discrimination? Some women may be expected to spend more time raising the children, some women may want to do this (my partner certainly prefers it this way). It would be interesting to see some sort of survey on this to see which is more the case.

Some women may want to look after their children, but so might some men. Some women might want to go back to work, but the costs of childcare are such that it doesn't make financial sense for them to do so (especially if other factors are considered, such as time and money spent commuting). The way that parental leave is set up deters and prevents some people from accessing equal choices. These decisions then stop being "lifestyle choices" and become financial ones. If employers were more flexible, for example offering people the choice of when to work their hours (eg. doing 35 hours over 3 days, rather than 5, therefore reducing the number of days childcare was required, reducing the amount of petrol/train costs too) then this might influence more people's choices regarding whether to return to work after having children. As noted further up in this chain, in the UK, MPs on a select committee made recommendations for tackling the structural causes of wage inequality, but the government rejected the recommendations (MPs said all jobs should be available to work flexibly unless an employer can demonstrate a business case against doing so. The committee also wanted a "more effective policy on shared parental leave", with fathers getting three months well-paid paternal leave. The committee also recommended a "National Pathways into Work" scheme to help women over the age of 40 back into the labour market.)


Read more on this here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39026022

There was an interesting Forbes article about how the studies on the "gender pay gap" in the US misrepresented the stats by not considering these factors. I also heard somewhere that in situations where men are getting paid more per hour than women, for doing the same job, same hours, it could be because men are more likely to ask for more money than women are (where salaries are negotiable). There is still a lot of cultural pressure for men to be the higher earners in a family, so naturally they will ask for more money. I'm not sure how true this is but it seems like a feasible theory. If this is the case then my message to women would be “Ask for more money”.

Where there are situations where men are genuinely being paid more than women for no real reason then this needs to be rectified. It just seems that there are many reasons for the gap that weren't considered in the studies. Also, men have a significantly higher rate of workplace accidents/deaths compared to women, which could be seen as another work related inequality, sometimes these things kind of balance out when other factors are considered. This goes for inequality in the past well. Women were treated unfairly in certain ways, but let’s not forget that it was only men that were drafted for war (for example). While these men are remembered, it’s not in the context of gender inequality. I’m not saying women should have been drafted as well by the way, but is selective equality true equality? I'd be interested to hear people's opinions.

Even starting salaries tend to be different for men and women, so if women do ask for more money, it is an increase on what they were offered, which may still be less than the starting salary that a man is offered. If both candidates ask for more money, then there is a chance that even if the requests are granted, the woman will still be underpaid compared to her male colleague. 


Whilst your suggestion that women should ask for more money is perhaps valid, I think that this seems a little like blaming the victim. Surely the responsibility for ensuring wage parity sits somewhere with the employer? You note that more men have workplace deaths, but nobody says: My message to men is "Be more careful". Instead, people said "we need health and safety legislation to ensure that the number of workplace accidents/deaths is reduced".  Nobody told the families of those who died at work that it was the dead person's fault for not asking for a better ladder etc., but there is a tendency to say to women - it is your fault for not asking. Just as the onus is on the employer to provide better safety equipment and implement better health and safety practices for ALL employees, I think so too should the onus be on employers to ensure equal pay for all employees. It will be interesting to see what happens when the rules start to force employers to reveal any gender pay gaps (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35553573)