Women: Like men, only cheaper

Aaron Thiele:
I think these "old fashioned" women could be reluctant to speak out because they fear they will be criticised by other women, but there are a number of studies that show that the majority of women would prefer to stay at home and look after the kids, if they could. If money wasn't as much of an issue most women wouldn't want to put their children in childcare so they could go back to work, most of them would actually want to look after their own children, and if this doesn’t change then a gender pay gap may be inevitable.

 

I think that it is true that many women want to look after their children themselves, if they could. That said, it would be interesting to see the studies themselves, and what the options offered in the survey were. For example, if the choice is "go back to work full time" Vs. "stay at home and not have to pay commuting or childcare costs", or "go back to work full time, but work remotely so that you can see your child every day" or "go back to work full time in a place that has free on-site creche facilities", then it would be interesting to see the answers. A friend of mine works for Microsoft, and they have on-site childcare facilities and many parents (male and female) can pick up their child every day for lunch and eat together in special child-friendly areas of the staff canteens. The parents know that if their meetings run over by 10 minutes then they aren't going to get stuck in traffic and be an hour late picking up their child from a childminder. They can also pop down any time throughout the day (particularly useful if a mother is still nursing her child), and the working parents know that Microsoft also has an on-site doctor etc. and they will never be more than a 5 minutes sprint down the corridor if any emergency situations arise.

Compare this to someone who is having to commute 2 hours each way from the suburbs into London, and rely on 2 tubes and an overground train to get them home, facing endless travel chaos, cancellations and strikes, overpriced ticket fares, 2 hours of standing up exhausted each way on over-packed commuter trains etc.. I'm sure that there would be differences in respondent's answers (from men and women) depending upon each situation and the facilities and options offered by employers. Although not every job lends itself to remote working options, for those that do, I think that remote working would enable more women to return to work sooner than they currently do. Similarly, if employers that needed a physical presence gave the option of working the same number of hours over fewer days, then I think more people (men and women) would take this up too (eg. working 12 hours a day for 3 days, rather than 8 hours a day for 5 days) as this would reduce commuting costs, childcare arrangements etc.

If more employers were set up to accommodate working parents in the way that Microsoft is, then I think that the number of women returning after maternity leave would probably increase. I also think that the length of time that a woman takes as a career break so that she can stay at home with the children would decrease. Also, it would be interesting to know if the studies asked men and women the same questions. If they are only asking women, then there will always be a finding that generalises to say "Women want X" rather than "Employees want X". Most of my male friends who have become fathers say that they would like more time with their children, however money doesn't tend to be invested in research that asks this question of men as childcare is still (predominantly) seen as a "women's issue".

 

 But none of the studies so far clearly indicate that women are being offered less than men purely because they are women, on a systemic level. 

I disagree. Studies have shown that women are offered less money. There is also evidence to say that (lower) pay offered also relates to ethnicity. See : http://www.512tech.com/technology/tech-companies-offer-lower-salaries-women-data-shows/J8ZKIgaSYJXUaYhJZ6MhRK/.

 

I think that as well as women having more freedom to work if they want to, people should also value stay at home parents more than they currently do.

 

I completely agree. It is a valid choice and one that is incredibly rewarding to millions of people all over the world, regardless of original profession. More support should be in place for people who want to stay at home with their child(ren), however it is often financial reasons that prevent people from being able to do so. In the 1980s (when my parents had me), and for previous generations, the average mortgage for a family home was calculated based on ~3 times one person's salary, with the assumption that the dad would work and the mum would take care of the household. Today, the average mortgage for a house is closer to ~4-5 times the combined income of a couple. So although many people would love to stay at home, this option is prohibitively expensive. I agree with your point that it is often a case of needing to work rather than wanting to work. That said, the situation is different if you are in a happy couple compared to being a single parent. An increasing number of relationships/marriages break down, and in most cases (in the UK at least), children stay with their mother. Although it is still the minority, there are an increasing number of fathers do not see their children regularly and some do not pay anything towards child support. Even when authorities take money directly from the wage packet of a father for child support, this is often not enough to cover rent/mortgage payments, council tax, utilities, food, clothes, childcare, transport and all the other costs associated with life for the child (let alone providing any helpful buffer for the "hands-on" parent who also has to survive whilst taking care of them). In these instances it is even more important that wage parity is achieved, so that women can build up a bigger cushion of reserves prior to having children and that extra pressure is not exerted on women's (already smaller) finances once the children arrive.


It is also important to remember that whilst maternity packages are in place, they usually come to an end within a year, when a child still needs plenty of looking after. If you have been off work for a year looking after and bonding with your child, then at the end of that period (and before), the chances are that a pay packet is not your main concern, and your own income and opportunities are likely to take a backseat to the welfare of your child. A person's choice isn't a right or wrong thing here, but the decision a woman makes at this stage does have a big impact on her work experience, her career progression, her salary increases, any bonuses, her pension pot and various other factors in a way that a man who is a father does not tend to worry about. When women are starting with less money than men, then the wage gap is exacerbated even further by these factors for women who are mothers. A couple can make a joint decision for the woman to stay at home with the children, but that doesn't mean that they will have joint consequences further down the line. Whilst it is great that you see any extra money as "household" money, if a relationship breaks down, then typically, a man will still have this extra household money in his account, in his pension pot, in his pocket. This isn't necessarily the case for the stay-at-home partner who has put her (or his) finances and career on hold to look after the children. 

Aaron Thiele:
I think these "old fashioned" women could be reluctant to speak out because they fear they will be criticised by other women, but there are a number of studies that show that the majority of women would prefer to stay at home and look after the kids, if they could. If money wasn't as much of an issue most women wouldn't want to put their children in childcare so they could go back to work, most of them would actually want to look after their own children, and if this doesn’t change then a gender pay gap may be inevitable.

 

I think that it is true that many women want to look after their children themselves, if they could. That said, it would be interesting to see the studies themselves, and what the options offered in the survey were. For example, if the choice is "go back to work full time" Vs. "stay at home and not have to pay commuting or childcare costs", or "go back to work full time, but work remotely so that you can see your child every day" or "go back to work full time in a place that has free on-site creche facilities", then it would be interesting to see the answers. A friend of mine works for Microsoft, and they have on-site childcare facilities and many parents (male and female) can pick up their child every day for lunch and eat together in special child-friendly areas of the staff canteens. The parents know that if their meetings run over by 10 minutes then they aren't going to get stuck in traffic and be an hour late picking up their child from a childminder. They can also pop down any time throughout the day (particularly useful if a mother is still nursing her child), and the working parents know that Microsoft also has an on-site doctor etc. and they will never be more than a 5 minutes sprint down the corridor if any emergency situations arise.

Compare this to someone who is having to commute 2 hours each way from the suburbs into London, and rely on 2 tubes and an overground train to get them home, facing endless travel chaos, cancellations and strikes, overpriced ticket fares, 2 hours of standing up exhausted each way on over-packed commuter trains etc.. I'm sure that there would be differences in respondent's answers (from men and women) depending upon each situation and the facilities and options offered by employers. Although not every job lends itself to remote working options, for those that do, I think that remote working would enable more women to return to work sooner than they currently do. Similarly, if employers that needed a physical presence gave the option of working the same number of hours over fewer days, then I think more people (men and women) would take this up too (eg. working 12 hours a day for 3 days, rather than 8 hours a day for 5 days) as this would reduce commuting costs, childcare arrangements etc.

If more employers were set up to accommodate working parents in the way that Microsoft is, then I think that the number of women returning after maternity leave would probably increase. I also think that the length of time that a woman takes as a career break so that she can stay at home with the children would decrease. Also, it would be interesting to know if the studies asked men and women the same questions. If they are only asking women, then there will always be a finding that generalises to say "Women want X" rather than "Employees want X". Most of my male friends who have become fathers say that they would like more time with their children, however money doesn't tend to be invested in research that asks this question of men as childcare is still (predominantly) seen as a "women's issue".

 

 But none of the studies so far clearly indicate that women are being offered less than men purely because they are women, on a systemic level. 

I disagree. Studies have shown that women are offered less money. There is also evidence to say that (lower) pay offered also relates to ethnicity. See : http://www.512tech.com/technology/tech-companies-offer-lower-salaries-women-data-shows/J8ZKIgaSYJXUaYhJZ6MhRK/.

 

I think that as well as women having more freedom to work if they want to, people should also value stay at home parents more than they currently do.

 

I completely agree. It is a valid choice and one that is incredibly rewarding to millions of people all over the world, regardless of original profession. More support should be in place for people who want to stay at home with their child(ren), however it is often financial reasons that prevent people from being able to do so. In the 1980s (when my parents had me), and for previous generations, the average mortgage for a family home was calculated based on ~3 times one person's salary, with the assumption that the dad would work and the mum would take care of the household. Today, the average mortgage for a house is closer to ~4-5 times the combined income of a couple. So although many people would love to stay at home, this option is prohibitively expensive. I agree with your point that it is often a case of needing to work rather than wanting to work. That said, the situation is different if you are in a happy couple compared to being a single parent. An increasing number of relationships/marriages break down, and in most cases (in the UK at least), children stay with their mother. Although it is still the minority, there are an increasing number of fathers do not see their children regularly and some do not pay anything towards child support. Even when authorities take money directly from the wage packet of a father for child support, this is often not enough to cover rent/mortgage payments, council tax, utilities, food, clothes, childcare, transport and all the other costs associated with life for the child (let alone providing any helpful buffer for the "hands-on" parent who also has to survive whilst taking care of them). In these instances it is even more important that wage parity is achieved, so that women can build up a bigger cushion of reserves prior to having children and that extra pressure is not exerted on women's (already smaller) finances once the children arrive.


It is also important to remember that whilst maternity packages are in place, they usually come to an end within a year, when a child still needs plenty of looking after. If you have been off work for a year looking after and bonding with your child, then at the end of that period (and before), the chances are that a pay packet is not your main concern, and your own income and opportunities are likely to take a backseat to the welfare of your child. A person's choice isn't a right or wrong thing here, but the decision a woman makes at this stage does have a big impact on her work experience, her career progression, her salary increases, any bonuses, her pension pot and various other factors in a way that a man who is a father does not tend to worry about. When women are starting with less money than men, then the wage gap is exacerbated even further by these factors for women who are mothers. A couple can make a joint decision for the woman to stay at home with the children, but that doesn't mean that they will have joint consequences further down the line. Whilst it is great that you see any extra money as "household" money, if a relationship breaks down, then typically, a man will still have this extra household money in his account, in his pension pot, in his pocket. This isn't necessarily the case for the stay-at-home partner who has put her (or his) finances and career on hold to look after the children.