Right-wing wonks claim the battle for equal pay for women has been won


11:10 am - January 4th 2011

by Rowan Davies    


      Share on Tumblr

The latest piece of wearying cognitive dissonance from a right-wing think tank is published by Dr Catherine Hakim, reporting on ‘feminist myths’ in employment practices.

Dr Hakim from the Centre for Policy Studies argues that the battle for equal opportunities has been won (yay!), and that further activity by the all-powerful feminist lobby would be counter-productive.

You may be thinking: ‘why should I give a tuppenny sod about what the CPS thinks?’. The problem is, these people are the non-horse-related working parts of Cameron’s brain.

Women in full-time employment are paid 17% less than men doing equivalent work, rising to 36% for women working part-time. Just 4% of the executive directors of FTSE100 companies are women. Motherhood prompts a slide in women’s earnings and status; the pay gap for mothers who work full time is 21%.

The CPS report doesn’t dispute any of this, but uses it to make some arguments that could politely be described as counter-intuitive.

Dr Hakim concedes that equal opportunity policies have had some notable successes, and concludes that they should therefore be discontinued. The fact that the pay gap has remained constant over the last 10 years is adduced as evidence that no more need be done to address it.

She asserts that women now have more choices than men, requiring us to believe that educated, capable women are taking poorly-paid, low-status jobs purely because they prefer them. “Why are women less likely to achieve the top jobs and associated higher pay?” she trills, swiftly concluding that there’s no way of knowing and that we therefore needn’t worry ourselves about it.

She fails to acknowledge situations where women are required to choose between having children and doing well in their professional field.

Those who benefit from the status quo pretend to believe that the current situation arises from the ‘aspirations and preferences of women’, as Dr Hakim argues. Perhaps it needs to be spelled out: even women who gladly choose to stay at home with their children in the early years do not rejoice in the consequent financial penalties and lifelong hobbling of career choices.

It will not do to tell us that we have made our beds, and we must lie in them. The waste of women’s non-domestic talent and potential is not just a personal disappointment for those concerned; it distorts and encumbers every area of public and industrial life, and has baleful effects on men and children as well as women.

We are where we are not because of a surfeit of feminist practice, but because of its absence. When it comes to reproduction, equality does not lie in pretending that men and women are exactly the same.

Of course we should celebrate and respect those women who do not have children, or who are happy to return to work shortly after giving birth; but the irrefutable truth is that the physical and emotional demands of pregnancy, labour, baby care and breastfeeding have practical consequences.

Too many employers remain stubbornly resistant to job-sharing and flexible working, despite the fact that such practices work excellently in almost all contexts. Children require intensive parenting for a comparatively short time; sympathetic employers who support their staff through this period are rewarded with hard work and loyalty in spades.

Dr Hakim and her colleagues on the right make great play of the desirability of free choice, while doing nothing to encourage its availability. Those who wish to improve the lot of women in the labour force should resist the distractions of neo-conservative thinking, and keep their eyes on the prize.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Rowan Davies is an occasional contributor. She is part of Mumsnet's campaigns team, and also works with international development organisations. She is Vice-Chair of the Fairer Votes in May (Yes to AV) campaign, and blogs at www.rowandavies.co.uk
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Equality ,Feminism ,Think-tanks

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


The tenacity of the naturalistic fallacy in arguments about women’s rights & welfare is truly fantastic. Sometimes I think that the first argument along the lines of “well, we’ve had so much improvement in women’s status, simply wonderful darling, and look how far we’ve come, so surely this must be the best of possible world and what women really want, and can’t possibly be improved upon, so please can you all shut up and go away now” must have been made at Mount Sinai. Or maybe just before the flood, when Noah’s wife was making objections to cooking and cleaning for her husband & three sons plus all their bajillion pets?

“Women in full-time employment are paid 17% less than men doing equivalent work, rising to 36% for women working part-time.”

Erm…aren’t you doing that apples / oranges thing and comparing part time women with full time men, (rather than the implied part time / part time comparison), to reach that highly misleading 36% gap?, (a reference for the figures would be helpful as well).

Motherhood prompts a slide in women’s earnings and status;

Quite. What we have is not a gender pay gap, but a parenting pay gap (lesbians, for instance, earn more than straight women – more in fact than men). And I suspect there’s a pretty good reason for that – being a parent is hard bloody work, and it saps both the desire and the capacity to work 100 hour weeks at work – which is what is required on a reasonably regular basis if you want to be a partner in a City law firm, or a director of a FTSE 100 company.

well said. the stubborn, ostrich head in the sand approach to inequality in the workplace is never ending.

i really believe that if men and women had equal parental leave then this would potentially change everything, as then women would not be penalised for the ‘choice’ of having children. it would encourage better equality and the idea that ‘it’s a mother pay gap not a gender pay gap’ would fall flat on its face.

Tim J – have you got stats for the fact that lesbians earn more than men? i have never heard that before.

i really believe that if men and women had equal parental leave then this would potentially change everything, as then women would not be penalised for the ‘choice’ of having children.

If men took it up in equal numbers to women (which they wouldn’t) then the pay gap between parents and non-parents would widen. The gap between men and women might shrink though.

5 – No, and it’s a balls-up for which I apologise. Lesbians do earn more than straight women though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5224002.stm

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Why-Do-Lesbians-Earn-More-Than-Straight-Women-6369

And, from this parish, Chris Dillow:

And guess what? Controlling for obvious things like education and occupation, lesbians earn 11% more than heterosexual women. Most of the male-female pay gap, then, is a penalty for heterosexual women only, not for women in general.

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2006/07/lesbians_pay.html

“Women in full-time employment are paid 17% less than men doing equivalent work, rising to 36% for women working part-time.”

If you genuinely believe that companies are paying men 20% more than women for doing the same value of work then why not set up a company competing with the sexist employers drive them out of business? After all if you are correct then they can’t be very efficient if they could produce the same goods or services that much cheaper by not giving men this arbitrary bonus.

” What we have is not a gender pay gap, but a parenting pay gap”

Not necessarily, The gap is noted as being for “doing equivalent work”. I can see how a parenting gap might manifest itself in fewer numbers of women appearing in top jobs, but even then you’d expect those women who make it to have equivelant salaries (only you won’t because at that level salaries are negotiated, people head hunted etc). The question is, if you compare like with like, is there a gender pay gap. Which the phrase “doing equivalent work” does suggest is based upon such a comparison.

Also, the parenting gap can only explain differential numbers in top jobs. At the lower end of the scale, it is difficult to see how parenting can explain pay differentials. A break of a few years to look after children is only going to harm your career if you want the top jobs (which is largely why parenting is contracted out to au-pairs, nannies and public schools when you are going for the top jobs).

The fact is we have numerous evidence from industrial tribunals and harrasment cases over the years (plus all those settled out of court) to show that there really are sexist and mysogonistic pricks in management positions in a lot of companies and organisations. Why is so hard to accept that this can manifest itself in pay discrimination? – particularly in organisations where it is not unusual to have 2 people doing the same job on vastly different salaries that often reflect office politics more than ability.

@9 “At the lower end of the scale, it is difficult to see how parenting can explain pay differentials”

Part of it is that more mothers work part time and with the fixed costs of employing someone they will take home less per hour compared to a full time worker. I don’t know how much of the gap that can explain but it has to be a significant factor.

yes, you do need to compare full time with full time, but this quote suggests that is what has been done:

“Women in full-time employment are paid 17% less than men doing equivalent work”

12. Chaise Guevara

@ 9 Planeshift

“Also, the parenting gap can only explain differential numbers in top jobs. At the lower end of the scale, it is difficult to see how parenting can explain pay differentials. A break of a few years to look after children is only going to harm your career if you want the top jobs (which is largely why parenting is contracted out to au-pairs, nannies and public schools when you are going for the top jobs). ”

Gender representation in high-level jobs isn’t the issue here (although it is obviously an issue in its own right). The stats are about equivalent jobs. I reckon one factor is that companies tend to give pay rises based on years served and decide starting pay based on experience – both of which will tend to be lower for a woman who takes X years out to raise children.

If I and a female colleague have the same job description but I’ve been in the role for twice as long, it’s probably fair for me to be paid more.

@ 11 Once again a source for the figures would be very helpful. If the source is a group with an axe to grind, (almost inevitable), then we need to examine the methodology, (what constitutes “equivalent work” could be a very significant factor for instance).

On a more general point of what we should do about this it gets very difficult, (even if you accept the figures at face value). Most of the solutions impose costs on employers, (I assume these costs are not factored into pay, source would be helpful again), so it would be interesting to see what the total compensation including maternity pay, flexible working, etc would come out as. I would assume that the more expensive solutions imposed, (regardless of the merits of those solutions), the harder it is going to be to close that gap in terms of take home pay.

Women in full-time employment are paid 17% less than men doing equivalent work, rising to 36% for women working part-time.

No.

According to the most recent ONS data, the median part-time hourly rate for men is £7.69 p/h. For women, the median part-time hourly rate is £8.00 p/h, which why the ONS has this to say on the subject.

For full-time employees the pay gap is 10.2 per cent, down from 12.2 per cent in 2009. This is the biggest fall in the gender pay gap since the measure was first produced using the ASHE methodology in 1997. For part-time employees the gap has widened in favour of women, extending to minus 4.0 per cent, compared with minus 2.5 per cent in 2009.

Yes, women are much more likely to work part-time and part-time work is largely to be found at the lower end of the jobs market, so you’re right to highlight the lack of opportunities for job-shares and flexible working as an issue but none of that justifies the persistant use of apples and oranges comparisons on pay.

There is no such thing as the “parenting pay gap”. That’s a fiction based on wishful thinking – the kind that goes “well, if it’s true that women get paid less than men in the workforce, then there must be a good reason for it that is not sexism because that doesn’t exist, so we need to look for what women do that men don’t and we come up with babies! QED”.

Men with families in fact experience a negative pay gap – they tend to earn more (over the course of a career) and get farther professionally than single men. Even if they take the occasional sick day to stay home with a poorly child. In fact, men who do some visible parenting reap a reputational reward for it (including professionaly) that is the exact opposite from the reputational knock that women take in analogous circumstances: men who look after their children are seen as reliable, dependable, loyal, and therefore committed and valuable employees; whereas women are assumed to lose commitment and focus professionally as soon as they become pregnant, before the actual effects of motherhood on their work performance can even be ascertained.

What we have is not a gender pay gap, but a parenting pay gap

That makes it ok does it, by putting it in gender neutral terms, despite the fact it mostly affects women?

17. Chaise Guevara

@ 15 MarinaS

“There is no such thing as the “parenting pay gap”. That’s a fiction based on wishful thinking – the kind that goes “well, if it’s true that women get paid less than men in the workforce, then there must be a good reason for it that is not sexism because that doesn’t exist, so we need to look for what women do that men don’t and we come up with babies! QED”. ”

Oh, stuff and nonsense. Any trend such as those listed above will inevitably have many different causes. The “wishful thinking”, if somewhat inverted, is on your part: you seem to want to automatically reject all but one explanation. You’re describing your own attitude, not those of the posters above.

I’m sure that the working partner of a voluntarily non-working spouse is likely to have higher-than average pay, both as a cause and an effect of being in such a relationship, but given that most breadwinners are male, that just goes to provide another reason for the pay gap other than sexism.

“Women in full-time employment are paid 17% less than men doing equivalent work, rising to 36% for women working part-time.”

Sadly this is a great steaming pile of bollocks.

The true numbers are:

“Women in full time employment are paid, on average, 17% less than men in full time employment.”

That number is without any adjustment for “equivalent work”, without any adjustment for years in the workforce, human capital, training, qualifications or anything else. Furthermore, it is of all women working full time: those who are 63 and those who are 23.

Now there very definitely was direct discrimination against those 63 year olds when they joined the labour market 45 years ago. So part of our average over the whole number of women working is a result of past discrimination. To see what discrimination there might be now we would want to look at the gender pay gap of those newly in the labour market now.

And here there doesn’t seem to be any: among those still in their teens women earn more than men, among those in their 20s the last figures I saw were that there was a small gap (a couple of percent) in favour of men and I’ve heard, but cannot confirm, that this has now closed. Certainly, in the US, women in the major cities now have higher qualifications than their male counterparts and similarly have higher incomes.

And we would expect this to continue: the majority of those graduating each year are female (while the majority of graduates in the entire economy is still male) the majority of those entering the traditional professions is now female (accounting, the law etc) while the majority of the entire professions is still, because of this age cohort thing, male.

“rising to 36% for women working part-time.”

This is true only if you compare women working part time with men working full time. I have been shouting and screaming about this lie for years now (and as far as I know I was the first to point to it).

All part timers earn, on average, less than full timers. This is true of men who work part time as it is true of women who work part time. Good Grief, even the Women at Work Commission pointed to this fact.

In fact, if we compare female part time earnings with male part time earnings we find that there is a part time gender pay gap: in favour of women.

Now, with these two specific misuses of statistics we have had both the ONS (who the raw numbers come from) and the Statistics Ombudsman telling Ministers, the EHRC and the Fawcett Society (among others) that they really should stop misleading everyone so.

1) The 17% number uses mean average wages. We should not do this, we should use median average wages. This is always true when you have a series which is bounded at one end (pay of £0) and not at the other (there is no natural limit to the top end of pay).

2) You should not compare women working part time to men working sull time but to men working part time. In which case, as above, the gender pay gap is reversed.

“She fails to acknowledge situations where women are required to choose between having children and doing well in their professional field.”

Gaaaah!

No one at all fails to note this. It’s the reason given for why there is a pay gap! We don’t have a gender pay gap: we have a motherhood pay gap. Blimey, please, get with the program!

“but the irrefutable truth is that the physical and emotional demands of pregnancy, labour, baby care and breastfeeding have practical consequences. ”

Yes, like producing the motherhood pay gap.

“Too many employers remain stubbornly resistant to job-sharing and flexible working, despite the fact that such practices work excellently in almost all contexts.”

It depends on what you mean by “work excellently”. As they are more expemsiove for employers to implement then they work very well at reducing the wages of those who opt for job-sharing and flexible working. That is, they’re just absolutely great at producing the motherhood pay gap.

“Gender representation in high-level jobs isn’t the issue here (although it is obviously an issue in its own right). The stats are about equivalent jobs.”

No, the stats are not about equivalent jobs. They are indeed about all women of all ages in work. And they are thus very mkuch influenced by those in the top jobs: especially as they use the mean not median (as they have been told to do) specifically and exactly increasing the influence upon the figures of the top jobs.

OK, finally, bonus question. Which large European economy has the lowest gender pay gap?

Italy, at 5%.

(Do note that Sweden’s is very similar to the UK’s at 15% or so)

OK, so why is this so in Italy? Because pretty much the only women who continue working in Italy after marriage are the high paid professionals. Most others stay home. So there’s a near entire absence of low paid married women working either part or full time in the economy, dragging that average down.

Now forgive me here, please, for getting angry over this. But I am simply sick to the back teeth of hearing these entirely nonsensical, near lies, of statistics trotted out on this subject. The 17%, 36% things, they’ve been debunked so damn often we’ve actually had, as above, the official statistics agencies saying they’re horse shit.

So why do people keep trotting them out? Especially with added extra errors like asserting they’re for “equivalent work” when even Mrs. Dromey wasn’t stupid enough to try and claim that?

19. Chaise Guevara

@ 16 Sunny

“That makes it ok does it, by putting it in gender neutral terms, despite the fact it mostly affects women?”

Depends on the reasons. Given that the reason the parenting pay gap mostly affects women is that more women choose not to work, what would your solution be?

16 – it makes it much harder to combat, if one of the main driving forces is the choices people make doesn’t it? Since I’m amazed that Tim Worstall hasn’t made his usual point here, I’ll link to a piece from a couple of years back…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/17/pay-gap-mothers-children-inequality

18 – spoke too soon I see…

Falco, I could be wrong, but the 2009 ASHE found a pay gap in *mean* earnings of 16.4%, not far from the OP’s figure (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=167).

It was also cited by the Fawcett Society: http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Fawcett's%20Guide%20to%20Equal%20Pay%20Day%202010.pdf

If it is the figure used for the 17% comparison then it’s a bit dodgy because the ONS does *not* look at ‘equivalent work’ in anything other than in terms of full-time or part-time. And it’s the mean not the median. And it’s out-of-date, as Unity notes.

Of course, it might be from a perfectly respectable other piece of research. But we just don’t know. Seriously, references make better posts!

Just more ramblings from another brownshirt woman who hates her own sex.

Don’t you just love these career, brown shirt woman who hate other career woman. The Daily Mail has been employing them for years. Career woman who hate other career woman.

sunny,

What we have is not a gender pay gap, but a parenting pay gap

That makes it ok does it, by putting it in gender neutral terms, despite the fact it mostly affects women?

Where did Tim J say or imply “it was OK”? You have inferred it, because sometimes you insist on jumping to non sequiturs.

The point is that this is not an ‘attack’ on women, as so many of these articles claim, but on a specific category of woman (or person). And no, that doesn’t “make it OK”. What it means is that the ‘problem’ is different from that stated in the article, and therefore any ‘solution’ is very possibly going to be different.

Getting the facts wrong and reaching illogical conclusions doesn’t seem helpful.

@Sian

i really believe that if men and women had equal parental leave then this would potentially change everything, as then women would not be penalised for the ‘choice’ of having children. it would encourage better equality and the idea that ‘it’s a mother pay gap not a gender pay gap’ would fall flat on its face.

And how is this to be achieved?

Presumably by compulsion?

So in order to fit the world to your ideology you are really proposing that we compel mothers who want to care for their child to go back to work and make the fathers stay at home?

Don’t you think we interfere in people’s lives enough as it is?

26. Ken McKenzie

It’s hardly surprising that the Right wants to sweep this issue under the carpet, as it’s difficult, most of them don’t understand the labour market, and it’s an issue that is ideologically difficult to confront. Labour, who did care about this, had a go and didn’t do as much as we’d have liked. The ToryDems, who don’t care, just don’t want to tackle it.

But, let’s be clear – every single person who says ‘this is a parenting pay gap’ and expects the matter to rest there is someone you can ignore, comfortable in the knowledge that they don’t know what they’re talking about at best, or are deliberately making stuff up at worst. It’s far more complicated than that. Parenting forms part of the gap, but guess what? Researchers *control it out*. And there’s still a gap! There’s a gap for new university graduates. The average age of first child for university grads is now well north of 30, yet there’s a gender pay gap at 21. Parenting?

This is an issue that is, at core, about *one* of the forms of labour market inequality in the UK (there are others. Race. Class.). It is a complex issue, it is a real issue and it needs to be tackled if you care about fairness. The CPS aren’t concerned about fairness – their job is to justify Tory policy, or, in this case, to give them an excuse to discontinue measures to tackle this issue.

Nothing brings the tory trolls out more than attacking woman. It is built into their DNA. Tory men hate woman.

They long for the days when woman were just their property to own, and do what they liked with.

28. Chaise Guevara

If you’re going to ignore anyone who disagrees with you, Ken, it’s not much point you entering the debate at all, is it? Good grief.

Wasn’t there a piece on Lib Con a short while ago criticising the tories for using misleading statistics? Shame the editorial team don’t use the same standards they expect others to use.

I find this article disgusting. It actively damages feminism and the the equal rights movement by misrepresenting the problem and by lying over the scale of the pay gap. If we want proper solutions we need proper evidence to develop them from. Lying will only lead to the introduction of “solutions” that will do nothing to table the problem and which will make things worse by giving a false impression that the problem has ben dealt with.

Parenting forms part of the gap, but guess what? Researchers *control it out*. And there’s still a gap! There’s a gap for new university graduates. The average age of first child for university grads is now well north of 30, yet there’s a gender pay gap at 21. Parenting?

Really?

Landmark official figures showed yesterday that a woman in her 20s working full-time will typically earn 2.1% more than a man in her age group.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/work/article.html?in_article_id=519680&in_page_id=53928

er, that should say tackle, not table.

32. Planeshift

“Once again a source for the figures would be very helpful”

I was using the figures cited in the OP, which appears to be bollocks as subsequent commentators have pointed out.

“what we should do about this it gets very difficult,”

I suspect ways of tackling it are going to involve a combination of provision of childcare, enforcement of existing discrimination laws (pay audits etc), increases in flexible working/job share opportunities, etc

“If I and a female colleague have the same job description but I’ve been in the role for twice as long, it’s probably fair for me to be paid more.”

It surely depends what the job is, how long it takes to develop expertise and experience etc.

Equal pay like abortion would be legal all over the world if men could conceive.

Until then , most men don’t know what the fuck they are talking about on these issues.

@33 Well as far as I can tell I understand more about this issue than I do. Quite frankly, you are sexist, misandrist, bigoted and close-minded. If the height of your argument is ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with then I really don’t see what the point of you coming on here is.

*I understand more about this issue than you do.

Thank Lord Atheismo for you, Rowan. I heard about this spurious claim and it pissed me off, frankly. Any woman who’s had any experience of professsional life knows it’s total bollocks.

37. Chaise Guevara

@ 34

“If the height of your argument is ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with then I really don’t see what the point of you coming on here is.”

Clue: Sally metaphorically has blue hair, lives under a bridge and was turned to stone by Gandalf.

@32 Interesting, if not unexpected, re the figures.

“I suspect ways of tackling it are going to involve a combination of provision of childcare, enforcement of existing discrimination laws (pay audits etc), increases in flexible working/job share opportunities, etc”

My point about most of the above solutions was that these things all have a cost associated with them and this cost will fall on the employer or employee. The more of them you have the more it’s going to cost to employ women relative to men. Therefore there will be a point, (where that point is being the big debate), where any more “help” significantly lowers women’s employment prospects or pay.

Thanks for the comments and, um, constructive criticism. Can’t get into this in too much detail right now because, ironically enough, I’m looking after the kids.

Fair point about sources/references, duly noted. As others have pointed out, the figures I used are from the Fawcett Soc. Hakim’s report (linked in the article) uses a figure of 16%, with the note:

‘The pay gap is normally measured as the difference in average gross hourly
earnings for full-time workers. In the UK, the pay gap on this basis is
variously reported as 16% or else 10% currently, depending on whether mean
or median earnings data are used. However the European Commission
regularly publishes league tables using average gross hourly earnings for all
employees, whether full-time or part-time. This inflates the pay gap in
countries with a large part-time workforce, such as the UK. See for example
Plantenga and Remery 2010, pages 66-67.’

Will come back to the rest of this later.

40. Chaise Guevara

@ 32 Planeshift

“It surely depends what the job is, how long it takes to develop expertise and experience etc.”

Absoutely, hence me saying “probably”. The point is that paying someone more because they’ve worked in the role longer or have more experience is totally valid and, I suspect, pretty non-controversial.

I think we’re on the same side here anyway.

@26 To give Hakim her due, she does argue in the report that ethnicity factors should be addressed. Interestingly, she also appears to be in favour of quotas for women in politics. So she’s not all bad…

“i really believe that if men and women had equal parental leave then this would potentially change everything, as then women would not be penalised for the ‘choice’ of having children. it would encourage better equality and the idea that ‘it’s a mother pay gap not a gender pay gap’ would fall flat on its face.”

Umm, why?

Sweden has equal parental leave…they even force the man to take some of it I believe.

Yet the gender pay gap in Sweden (using the EU standard measure) is 15% to the UK’s 17%. So, err, it doesn’t seem to do a lot really.

And no, that doesn’t “make it OK”. What it means is that the ‘problem’ is different from that stated in the article, and therefore any ‘solution’ is very possibly going to be different.

What a bizarre way to try and twist out of the obvious.

Fact is – there is a pay gap which overwhelmingly effects women because employers don’t want to give concessions and government doesn’t want to step in.

Trying to put it in gender neutral terms is an attempt to pretend that this problem persists because it overwhelmingly affects women, and therefore its not seen as a priority.

And it helps people like Tim J and perhaps yourself and others pretend that its not really sexist because it can be couched in gender neutral terms.

@43 Are you being deliberately obtuse? If you have problem A and think it has cause X but the actual cause is Y, then curing X will not help. You may not agree with the diagnosis but it is unfair to describe that view as a “bizarre way to try and twist out of the obvious”.

Fact is – there is a pay gap which overwhelmingly effects women because employers don’t want to give concessions and government doesn’t want to step in.

Well no, you see. The first half of your sentence doesn’t link to the second – or at least not necessarily. Because a large reason why some mothers earn less than non-mothers is because they choose to. They choose to reduce their hours (the four women in my department who have had children in the last year all now work 4 days a week), or to move into a less time-heavy job (most Professional Support Lawyers are, or seem to be, mothers of small children) or to quit altogether. Note that in the examples above, the firms are being flexible – but you surely don’t expect someone working four days a week to be paid the same as someone doing the same job full time?

Since we’ve demonstrated that among the under-30s the pay gap now operates in reverse, what we’re seeing is that primary carers of children have less time to spend at work than non-primary carers of children. Are we really supposed to be surprised?

46. Planeshift

“These things have a cost associated with them and this cost will fall on the employer or employee. The more of them you have the more it’s going to cost to employ women relative to men.”

Not necessarily. Consider universal childcare. It gets paid for by taxation, so doesn’t have any effect on decisions on whether to employ a women or man.

“If you have problem A and think it has cause X but the actual cause is Y,”

Cause X – employers are sexists who pay women less than men. Solution – anti-discrimination legislation (enforced).

Cause Y – women bear brunt of childcare responsibilities. Thus women have to choose between having children or a career. (Men get to have both). Solutions are more complex but involve greater provision of childcare, cultural changes to involve fathers taking an equal share of the work etc.

Both are still symptoms of patriachy.

“Both are still symptoms of patriachy.”

You could equally well call it evidence of matriarchy. Society is so organised as to allow those women who want to to be matriarchs.

48. Chaise Guevara

@ 43 Sunny

“Trying to put it in gender neutral terms is an attempt to pretend that this problem persists because it overwhelmingly affects women, and therefore its not seen as a priority.”

Unpack that one for me, would you? It sounds more like what happens if you DON’T portray it in gender-neutral terms.

49. Daniel Factor

Feminists blame men for women being low paid. But the cause is capitalism. In working class households where both the man and the woman is working the net result of the woman being paid less than the man is that the overall income will be less.

50. Chaise Guevara

@ Planeshift

“Both are still symptoms of patriachy.”

To an extent: I suspect that “Cause Y” would still be the case in a cultural vacuum, though, albeit to less of an extent. In other words, one reason that mothers are more likely to stay at home with the kids is that society decrees this to be “right”, but another may well be that women are more likely to be inclined to raise children regardless of social pressures.

“but another may well be that women are more likely to be inclined to raise children regardless of social pressures.”

That females do most of the child raising in a mammalian species is an observation about mammalian species, not a description of a particular social set up or human society.

@Sunny and Rowan

Neither of you have addressed the fact that the figures given in the article are incorrect as Unity has pointed out.

53. Planeshift

“But the cause is capitalism”

Are you one of those trot agony aunts who blame “capitalism” for everything from acne to relationship breakdowns?

54 – but women are much better off in non-capitalist states! Just look at North Korea.

daniel factor

Feminists blame men for women being low paid. But the cause is capitalism. In working class households where both the man and the woman is working the net result of the woman being paid less than the man is that the overall income will be less.

Um no, that’s just maths, not capitalism.

sunny,

What a bizarre way to try and twist out of the obvious.

Fact is – there is a pay gap which overwhelmingly effects women because employers don’t want to give concessions and government doesn’t want to step in.

Trying to put it in gender neutral terms is an attempt to pretend that this problem persists because it overwhelmingly affects women, and therefore its not seen as a priority.

Doesn’t make sense – I think you need to rephrase that to get it to mean what I think you mean.

And it helps people like Tim J and perhaps yourself and others pretend that its not really sexist because it can be couched in gender neutral terms.

Eh? How does “pretending” “help” me? I’m not affected one way or the other. More evidence of you being prone to illogical leaps. Try not to mind-read – concentrate on the argument.

If it is true that “a woman in her 20s working full-time will typically earn 2.1% more than a man in her age group”, and/or if it is true that lesbians tend to earn more than heterosexual women, do you think that means “the gender pay gap” is due to sexism? Or do you think it might be a bit more complicated than that?

@Pagar
but surely that is what we have at the moment? a system that tells women that they should be the primary care giver, and take 9-12months off work, and that tells men that they should not be the primary care giver, and should go back to work after 2 weeks.

not only does this have a negative impact on the gender pay gap, (although according to fawcett stats, women who aren’t mothers also suffer an albeit smaller gap) but it also has a totally warped view on how we bring up children and how we divide childcare. straight away we tell men that they shouldn’t be at home bonding with their baby, and that women should be.

all i am advocating is that, like in many scandinavian countries, we should have a more equitable system that fairly divides child care responsibilities, so that both parents (and this applies to gay parents as well, i realise my comment has been quite heteronormative) get a decent amount of time off.

also, if men also got a chunk of time off, we could shut up business leaders like alan sugar saying they wouldn’t employ ‘women of child bearing age’ as both men and women would take career breaks.

i am advocating choice.

@ 57…..but we know this doesn’t close the gender pay gap. Sweden’s is much the same as that in the UK for example.

@ Sian

not only does this have a negative impact on the gender pay gap, (although according to fawcett stats, women who aren’t mothers also suffer an albeit smaller gap) but it also has a totally warped view on how we bring up children and how we divide childcare.

But this is only a totally warped view from a feminist perspective.

Most mothers are grateful to receive statutory maternity pay (if they don’t want it they have the option of returning to work as soon as they are able). Most fathers are delighted to return to work. To those people these roles are normal, not warped.

It is not the role of government to engineer legislation to compel parents to follow your agenda. That is the antithesis of choice.

60. Daniel Factor

ukliberty.

The point I was making is that both working class men and women are poorly paid.

61. Daniel Factor

Planeshift.

No but capitalism is largely to blame for working class people of both sexes being paid shit wages.

“No but capitalism is largely to blame for working class people of both sexes being paid shit wages.”

It is? Oh my!

And there I was thinking that it’s only the capitalist economies who have managed to raise living standards anywhere above shite!

Umm, just as a datum point, can you point to any non capitalist economiy where the working classes earn more than they do in the UK, US, Germany, Sweden, Italy and so on?

Got anywhere in mind? Cuba? Soviet Union maybe?

The numbers from the OP are wrong and it would help if a few more people looked at the ONS website. Their latest figures are that the gap between mean (not median) male and female hourly earnings for full-time employees is 12.2% and for part-time employees is -2%. The latest data on age-related pay gap is a little out of-date (so things have presumably “improved” since then) shows that the pay gap starts at age 32 except for ages from 19 to 23 where presumably sheer physical strength (or skill at football) influences the amount earned by those not able to get into some sort of further education.
The ONS figures overstate the bias (I don’t deny the existence of a bias in some firms but as Ross points out private sector bias is not just stupid but also commercially suicidal so it is not as widespread as certain people claim) because they assume all those on annual salaries work the same hours (yes, I do know guys who think a 50-hour week is part-time) and ignore the cost of employer’s pension contributions. A majority of public sector employees with heavily subsidised final salary pensions are female, the overwhelming majority of private sector employees with defined contribution (or no) pensions are male.
There is an interesting article on the ONS site by Debra Leaker, who inevitably quotes the EOC bull (would she be allowed not to do so?), but also shows that for every level of job tenure the measured gap is less than the headline average. So a significant part of the differential is simply down to the level of skill and experience.
The pay gap is never going to disappear until you (i) reintroduce the maximum wage for footballers and (ii) hire goons to chuck guys out of their office at 5.30 or 6 pm and confiscate their blackberries.

John77: You and your Goddarned facts, you can prove anything with them. It just shows that you’re brown/black/purple/orange, (please delete as appropriate), shirt who eats the babies of the poor, [just to save Sally the trouble].

The part-time pay gap figures are taken from the Fawcett Soc website, where they don’t make it clear that what’s being compared (as Unity says) is men’s full-time pay and women’s part-time pay. Hence I didn’t either, so fair cop on that one. However, given that women are so much more likely to work part-time it’s a valid part of the statistical picture, I think – so long as it’s made clear what’s being compared (fail on my part, obviously).

@56 – If the situations particularly affects mothers (as I think we’re all agreed on, in statistical terms), how is that not sexist, in the most basic sense?

@ 26 Ken Mackenzie
If you stop to think for ten seconds you will realise that the age 21 age-group does not include very many employed university graduates, with four-year courses and gap years being very common and post-graduate courses becoming increasingly common. The age 21 pay gap – which reverses by age 24 – probably relates to the higher earning power of male footballers, building labourers etc than their female equivalents.
@57 sianushka
(i) Breastfed babies are, on average, healthier
(ii) Most new parents cannot afford to have the father take time off work (Samantha Cameron and Ed Miliband’s partner are *not* typical of the earning power of a young mother). My next-door neighbour with a new baby is self-employed – if he took paternity leave he would have not have a viable business to go back to as part of the service he offers is that he is on call when needed.
Please spare a second to think about the disbenefits for the baby when arguing about the alleged benefits for “Society”

68. Chaise Guevara

@ John77

“…and ignore the cost of employer’s pension contributions”

Oh, FFS. Seriously? So we’re talking about stats designed for one thing being quoted out of context by those with an agenda, it appears.

‘women are more likely to be inclined to raise children regardless of social pressures’ – this might be right, all else being equal – it’s pretty impossible to filter out all the counfounding factors, so in a way whether this is the case or not doesn’t matter a great deal. The point is that children require full-on, intensive parenting for about four (pre-school) years, and that women (and presumably men) who make the choice to do that pay for the choice for the rest of their working lives – much more so that can be explained by the actual four-year career break.

70. Chaise Guevara

@66

“If the situations particularly affects mothers (as I think we’re all agreed on, in statistical terms), how is that not sexist, in the most basic sense?”

The most basic sense would be bigotry.

In answer to your question: the fact that a policy mainly affects one gender (nearly all policies do, BTW) does not make that policy sexist unless it’s deliberately aimed that way out of bias against the gender.

Analogy: small-scale state-authorised warfare kills more men than women. Does that make it sexist? Maybe in that men are generally the ones recruited to the front line, but the decision to go to war itself is not anti-men.

I believe some people occasionally complain that the government spends more money fighting breast cancer than prostate cancer, claiming that makes the NHS institutionally sexist. The real reason, of course, is that breast cancer tends to kill people in the prime of their life, while people who get prostrate cancer are fairly likely to die of old age before the disease gets them. It’s sensible triage that just happens to benefit women over men.

@ 65 Rowan Davies
“However, given that women are so much more likely to work part-time it’s a valid part of the statistical picture, I think – so long as it’s made clear what’s being compared (fail on my part, obviously).”
NO, no, a thousand times no.
If women working part-time get paid more per hour, on average, than men working part-time then you *must* not apply the word “valid” to the claim that women working part-time get paid 36% less per hour than men.
Please drink a full cup of cold black coffee and then re-read your post.

72. Chaise Guevara

Better analogy, Rowan: American prolifers often claim that abortion is sexist (leaving the founder of PP’s personal and irrelevant views out of it) because abortion prevalance is disproportionately high among black women. I assume you’d agree that that’s nonsense.

73. Chaise Guevara

@ 69 Rowan

“The point is that children require full-on, intensive parenting for about four (pre-school) years, and that women (and presumably men) who make the choice to do that pay for the choice for the rest of their working lives – much more so that can be explained by the actual four-year career break.”

If this is the case, to a significant degree, then I’m with you. I’ve just yet to be convinced that it is: every time someone brings out stats on this (on either side, to be fair), they generally turn out to be iffy, to say the least.

I know from experience that some people will fall over backwards to say that sexism is over now and people should stop complaining (or that the only people who experience prejudice now are white, straight, Christian men who like Top Gear), and that other people will do the same to make out as if being a woman is akin to being part of a slave race. Of course, these two attitudes encourage one another. It’s a very polarised debate, which makes it very hard to come to a rational conclusion due to all the dodgy claims getting thrown around.

The numbers depend on how you arrive to them – and we’re taking the figures from the Fawcett Society

http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=459

Tim J #45: Because a large reason why some mothers earn less than non-mothers is because they choose to. They choose to reduce their hours

This is being deliberately obtuse. Sometimes they’re not given the choice about taking less hours or about taking different jobs. Sometimes, even if they’re allowed to take time off, when they come back they find that no provisions were made and therefore the job has gone to someone else.

There are in fact lots of ways in which employers can make life difficult for women taking time out for children – so the idea that they always made the decisions without any pressure is rubbish.

My earlier point was simple. The reason why this issue isn’t dealt with, is because it is mostly women doing child-rearing. Most men still think that’s their job, so why make special provisions? So trying to put it in gender neutral terms is an attempt to pretend that the problem has nothing to do with gender.

@ 68 Chaise
It’s more a question of the statistics being designed to meet a set of criteria set by some people with an agenda. Then the statistics produced by the ONS are quoted by those people or their allies to demonstrate the need for the EOC to enforce anti-discrimination regulations that create nearly as much discrimination as they eliminate.
The ONS is not able to produce national data on hourly pay including employer’s contribution to pensions as no-one supplies that data and in many cases even the employer does not know.

@71 ‘If women working part-time get paid more per hour, on average, than men working part-time then you *must* not apply the word “valid” to the claim that women working part-time get paid 36% less per hour than men.’ – no, but you can say that it’s valid to compare women’s part-time earnings with men’s full-time earnings, as part of an overall picture.

Chaise – re sexism – I’m not referring to a willed policy of discrimination. More a failure to address a long-lived situation that results in unfair/disproportionate outcomes. So, to use your abortion analogy – I wouldn’t argue that abortion provision is deliberately targeted at black women, but if they are statistically over-represented in the abortion rates then that’s likely to be the result of social inequity somewhere along the line.

Chaise – and yes, I take your point about the stats.

For those saying that the numbers quoted are bollocks – is it your contention that there is no statistically significant gap between the earnings of men and women (particularly post-30s) in comparable work at hourly rates? Or just that the gap is less than that quoted by both Hakim and the Fawcett Soc?

@ 74 Sunny Hundal
*You* may be taking figures from the Fawcett Society but *I* am taking ones from a trustworthy source. As I have stated there are problems with these figures but the ONS have only one agenda which is to produce data that is as accurate as they can possibly manage.
If you say that you are going to ignore the only reliable source for UK data then you are effectively admitting that you don’t care about the truth.

80. Daniel Factor

Tim Worstall.

Cuba? Soviet Union? No, I don’t advocate rampent comunism.

If it isn’t capitalism and the greed of the bosses that’s to blame then what is?

81. Chaise Guevara

@ Rowan

“I’m not referring to a willed policy of discrimination. More a failure to address a long-lived situation that results in unfair/disproportionate outcomes. So, to use your abortion analogy – I wouldn’t argue that abortion provision is deliberately targeted at black women, but if they are statistically over-represented in the abortion rates then that’s likely to be the result of social inequity somewhere along the line.”

True and fair. Of course, sometimes the reason is less sinister. For example, social inequity is obviously why black women get more abortions, but if that inequality was ironed out you’d still have more people from certain races getting abortions because, say, they were less likely to follow an anti-abortion religion.

“For those saying that the numbers quoted are bollocks – is it your contention that there is no statistically significant gap between the earnings of men and women (particularly post-30s) in comparable work at hourly rates? Or just that the gap is less than that quoted by both Hakim and the Fawcett Soc?”

I’m saying I don’t trust the numbers. I don’t have a better set, I’m just saying these ones are no good.

For the record, I know sexual discrimination exists in the workforce, and while I don’t know whether women suffer the brunt of it I strongly suspect that that’s the case. It’s the rate of prevalence that I don’t know – but I do know that if prevalence is exaggerated using bad data, the likely response will be taking a hammer to crack a nut.

@ 76 Rowan Davies
The hourly rates for those paid an annual salary can only be estimated by assuming an average number of hours worked per week. If someone is working 70 hours a week for 50 weeks a year and you divide his annual salary by 48 (weeks) and then by 40 (hours), you overstate his hourly pay by 82%. And I do mean “his” – there presumably are some women who work those hours at their job but I just don’t know any.
Secondly the “Fawcett Society” numbers (which are wrong in the first place – the pay differential which is not “like for like” for full-time employees was 12% not 17%) would show that full-time female workers get paid 16% more than part-time female workers – is *this* a gender pay gap? Are you suggesting that female full-time workers are a third gender?
There are two reasons for the full-time/part-time pay gap – one is that in many (?most) occupations full-time workers are more productive per hour than part-time ones, as there is a certain amount of time spent on stuff that produces no revenue, and the other is that most part-time jobs are in lower-paid occupations (dinner-lady, cleaner, newsvendor, gardener are all admirable but not highly-paid)
So it is NOT valid to look at the figures for females working part-time and compare them with *estimated* hourly rates for men working full-time, even if you were to use accurate data.

@ 78 Rowan Davies
Please read!
Data for figure 5.11
Pay gap between men’s and women’s median hourly earnings1
United Kingdom Percentages
All employees Full-time employees Part-time employees
1998 27.3 17.4 -4.0
1999 26.9 16.4 -2.6
2000 26.7 16.3 -3.5
2001 26.3 16.4 -3.7
2002 26.9 15.5 -0.6
2003 25.1 14.6 -1.3
20042 25.0 24.7 14.1 14.5 -3.0 -2.6
2005 22.6 13.0 -3.0
20063 22.3 22.2 12.6 12.8 -2.1 -2.2
2007 21.9 12.5 -2.2
2008 22.5 12.6 -3.7
2009 22.0 12.2 -2.0
1 All, full-time and part-time employees on adult rates at April each year, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence. Excludes overtime.

2 Higher percentage includes supplementary information. See Appendix, Part 5: Earnings surveys.

3 Discontinuity in 2006 as a result of further methodological changes.
Source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, Office for National Statistics

” My next-door neighbour with a new baby is self-employed – if he took paternity leave he would have not have a viable business to go back to as part of the service he offers is that he is on call when needed.”

Is he like Peter Liley’s famous French neigbour , who was always breaking EU laws, but turned out not to exist?

Righties always invent people who are their friend/ neigbour/ boss/ bloke in pub that don’t exist and then claim everyone else has an agenda.

Why do tory men hate woman?

So far non of our tory trolls has given us an answer.

86. Charlieman

@12 Chaise Guevara: “I reckon one factor is that companies tend to give pay rises based on years served and decide starting pay based on experience…”

In small companies this may be true. In the public sector and large companies, the Hay system is popular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay_Guide_Chart

In theory, Hay disregards time served and experience. Pay is awarded according to the “size” of the job.

It is all utter bollocks of course. Hay measures hypothetical jobs, not real people.

87. Chaise Guevara

I think we should change the title of this piece to “left-wing wonk…” just to watch sally instantly switch sides.

John77 is saying we need to take the impact on people with low wages into account, sally. Even by your definition of “tory”, that’s pushing it.

88. Chaise Guevara

@ Charlieman

“In small companies this may be true. In the public sector and large companies, the Hay system is popular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay_Guide_Chart

How closely applied is it, though? I’ve come across systems very much like that (you get the impression everyone is trying to reach Level 10 so they can defeat the Dragon King), but the people on the ground who make/influence promotional decisions still tend to feel that people who have been around for awhile should be bumped up a notch. Y’know, the old “We better give him this job because he felt we passed him over for the last one” routine. People are people.

@ Rowan Davies
That didn’t come out as well as it should – get yourself a decent website designer- but the figures from ONS show that the difference in mean earnings is 12.2% for full-time employees and -2% for part-time. That is over all jobs, so it is not like-for-like, does not include employer’s pension contributions, and overstates the hourly pay rates for guys (and a few gals) who work very long hours.
Actually what I am saying is that (although I believe there is some bias, which is much smaller than the Fawcett Society EOC and other lobbyists claim), the data produced give *no information* on whether there is any “statistically significant gap between the earnings of men and women (particularly post-30s) in comparable work at hourly rates?”
The Fawcett Society have chosen to ignore the question of comparability because taking the ratio of two non-comparable figures gives them a headline when supplied to an innumerate tabloid journalist.
The figures produced by Debra Leaker do not compare “work of equivalent value” so they do not answer your question but they do suggest that much of the pay differential is down to experience differential.

“and we’re taking the figures from the Fawcett Society”

Which is your error. Good grief, they are so bad at this that I once wrote to one of their trustees insisting that they were doing themselves no favours by lying about these numbers.

She agreed even if nothing much seems to have changed.

“no, but you can say that it’s valid to compare women’s part-time earnings with men’s full-time earnings, as part of an overall picture.”

But only if you also compare women’s part time with men’s part time. To say that gender plus part time is the gender pay gap is simply dissimulating so badly with statistics that it is lying.

“For those saying that the numbers quoted are bollocks – is it your contention that there is no statistically significant gap between the earnings of men and women (particularly post-30s) in comparable work at hourly rates?”

Leave aside “comparable” for a moment for that is a value judgement. Let’s say “the same” work shall we?

There are a couple of statistically significant differences between people doing the same work as measured by wages per hour. These really won’t surprise anyone and aren’t, at least as I see it, evidence of sexism. Men get more per hour of heavy manual labour: given the differences in male and female musculature I don’t think this will surprise anyone. Women get more per hour of nursing: this might be a little more controversial but given Simon Baron Cohen’s stuff on greater female empathy this doesn’t surprise me all that much either.

Other than a few extreme and obviously explainable cases like this, no, there is no statistically significant difference between what men and women get paid to do any specific job.

This is true pre and post 30s.

There are, absolutely, difference between what the average woman and the average man eanrs: these differences growing substantially (and even reversing sign) as we get into the majority child bearing years.

But then that is telling us that it’s the child bearing that is causing the disparity, isn’t it?

Rowan, seriously, you really do need to stop using Fawcett numbers and start to read around the subject. Fawcett are a campaigning organisation, one that has, on this point at least, been rumbled. They’re deliberately lying to you.

@ 84 sally
Yes he exists. I do not invent people. The guy next to him is self-employed,too .

Nothing like the idea of woman earning the same as men to send our poor little tory trolls completely insane.

@ 90 Tim Worstall
You overlook the point that most women returning to work after four or five (or fifteen) years of looking after kids do not go back into the same job that they left. So they have the relevant experience of a school leaver.

@ 92 sally
Do you mean “earning” or “getting paid”? There is a difference.
Do you believe Lloyd Blankfein earns $50m?

It is interesting that a right wing group would push this crap line now because in America Right wing fruit and nut, and Supreme court justice is now saying that woman don’t have constitutional protection against discrimination .

“The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.”

This of course is not surprising from a Right wing Catholic loon like Scalia, who seems to regularly pull legal judgements out of his arse. Like Bush Vs Gore. But it does give a flavour of the huge global right wing movements attempt to push back womans rights.

Right wing fruit an nuts will not be happy until woman are back in their place with no rights and are just the goods and chattels of a man.

@81 – yes, I think I can get with all of that.

@Sunny

Sometimes they’re not given the choice about taking less hours or about taking different jobs.

You’re wrong on this.

Any employer found guilty of discrimination on grounds of gender is liable to unlimited sanctions.

Every employer treats pregnant women with kid gloves.

98. Anna Hedge

Right, have read the article and skimmed the comments-I think part of the problem is the over-representation of women in low-paid work, and their under-representation at the upper end of the pay scale.

Te reason for this are complex, but amongst them are: The need (and yes, it is a need) for women to have more flexibility in their hours in order to care for children. The sort of jobs that offer this flexibility are often in the ‘Five Cs’-Care, Cleaning, Clerical, Checkout/Cashiering and Catering’. These jobs often have a low skill set and are commensurately under-paid.

Second amongst these factors are the fear especially amongst SMEs of the disruption caused by women taking maternity leave. Whilst understandable, from a business perspective, this also results in the interruption/cessation of the career ladder for women of child-bearing age, which in turn lessens likelihood of their reaching the top of their particular food chain.

I leave these thoughts with you-I’m now going to delve amongst statistics to address the numerical points made above…

99. Charlieman

@88 Chaise Guevara: “Y’know, the old “We better give him this job because he felt we passed him over for the last one” routine.” (Not a particularly quotable interjection, Chaise!)

I have only seen the Hay system through job (d)evaluation. The exercise that I experienced placed a very high weighting on management tasks rather then job skill. When managers put up a case for those who had been devalued, the argument was that their role in contracts or project management had been undercast. Appraising the ability for one worker to do the work of two (ie skill) is not part of the exercise.

Systems like Hay make it very difficult for non-managers to progress. The criteria are how big is your budget and how many juniors.

@93 – If I can descend into the realm of anecdote (which may be the best we can do given the imperfection of the available data), women who return to the *same* jobs, or who attempt to do so, often fair pretty badly. From my own circle of friends, I can offer you:

a senior civil servant who went from being a full-time expert in non-proliferation pre-kids, to a part-time paperclip tsar post-kids;
a documentary-maker who found it utterly impossible to return to that line of work, post-kids, because the culture in TV production companies demands (for no compelling reason that I can see) 14-hour working days;
a senior GP in a group practice who had to relinquish her management role on return to work and take up locum work instead.

None of these women have ceased to be capable, clever or up-to-speed in their fields, but their decisions to become mothers (in the latter two cases, to take only the statutory maternity leave) has had a permanent impact on their working prospects and lifelong earnings potention.

As I say, anecdote, not data. But you don’t have to go far to hear stories like these, and they seem significant to me.

@90 – yes, I think (until the next data geek pops up with an alternative interpretation) that I agree that it’s a gap largely caused by parenthood. But I still think that’s a problem.

@89 – thanks. Tim (@90) seems to disagree though, in terms of statistically significant gap post-30s?

103. Anna Hedge

One further point-if two women are job-sharing a job, at the same level of senoirity as a man doing it F/T, logically if some posters here are to be believed, their combined salaries would be equal to his. Statistics show they won’t be. Why not?

@ 98 Anna Hedge
You are quite right but please remember that it is “often” not always. Add in teaching and actuarial work (no, seriously, there is a very successful business that was set up to place mothers in part-time and/or temporary actuarial jobs).

@ 103 Anna Hedge
I have to spend a lot of time reading each day to bring me up to speed on daily changes in the world economy and anything that affects my job, so only part of my working hours are able to generate revenue.
In other jobs you will find that a chunk of time is spent finding out what the job-sharer has done in your absence and what you need to do next, including a lot of duplicated ‘phone calls (even if there are some emails, a lot of people still use the ‘phone because they find it easier to communicate that way).
In all jobs there are some overheads that cost per employee not per hour worked.
I could go on, but those are the simplest reasons

106. Chaise Guevara

@ 103

“One further point-if two women are job-sharing a job, at the same level of senoirity as a man doing it F/T, logically if some posters here are to be believed, their combined salaries would be equal to his. Statistics show they won’t be. Why not?”

Does that actually have anything to do with gender? My guess is that someone working full-time will probably have been at the place longer (part-time work and temp work go well together); plus, as has been claimed up the thread, full-time hours are valued more highly than part-time.

Second possibility is that they’re covering for him, having been moved from another role, and are therefore just being paid their usual wage, which normally has nothing to do with him. In theory this could also lead to their combined wage being higher than his, but I don’t see two high-grade part-timers being used to cover one mid-grade full-timer (or whatever). They may well be on different wages to each other.

Depends on the situation.

107. Chaise Guevara

100 Rowan

“If I can descend into the realm of anecdote (which may be the best we can do given the imperfection of the available data), women who return to the *same* jobs, or who attempt to do so, often fair pretty badly.”

Ooh, overlooked this one:

Age and promotional chances effect each other strangely. At one end, it seems likely that someone would feel they should promote a capable thirty-year-old over a super-competent twenty-year-old because it’s “right” that older people tell younger people what to do.

However, get past a certain age (varies) and you’re less likely to get a big promotion either because “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”, or simply because the company doesn’t want to spend a few years forming your department around you just to see you vanish off into early retirement.

So if a woman gets pregnant at 21, after uni, then takes 5 years off, she might come back at an advantage over a fresh-faced uni graduate. However, if she gets pregnant at 30 then takes 15 years off, she might well watch the twenty-somethings get promoted over her, despite being very good at what she does.

108. Chaise Guevara

@ 99

“Systems like Hay make it very difficult for non-managers to progress. The criteria are how big is your budget and how many juniors.”

That sucks, especially if, like me, you’re the opposite of management material.

Sunny,

The numbers depend on how you arrive to them – and we’re taking the figures from the Fawcett Society

http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=459

The Fawcett Society figures in that document go up to year 2004.

Your opponents in this thread are using the ONS figures, which go to 2009.

110. Chaise Guevara

@ 95

“It is interesting that a right wing group would push this crap line now because in America Right wing fruit and nut, and Supreme court justice is now saying that woman don’t have constitutional protection against discrimination .

“The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.”

This of course is not surprising from a Right wing Catholic loon like Scalia, who seems to regularly pull legal judgements out of his arse. Like Bush Vs Gore. But it does give a flavour of the huge global right wing movements attempt to push back womans rights. ”

If by happy chance you’re actually up for discussing things sensibly for once, I suspect Scalia is much more interested in the “sexual orientation” bit of the bill. Republicans, as you know, are even worse about homosexuality than they are about everything else.

Rowan,

@56 – If the situations particularly affects mothers (as I think we’re all agreed on, in statistical terms), how is that not sexist, in the most basic sense?

I think a policy is sexist is when it deliberately discriminates on the basis of sex. Is that what is happening here?

Consider the following:

If it is true that “a woman in her 20s working full-time will typically earn 2.1% more than a man in her age group”, are employers of people in their 20s sexist against men?

If it is true that women in part-time work are paid 4% more than men in part-time work, are employers of part-timers sexist against men?

If it is true that homosexual women are paid 11% more than heterosexual women, are employers discriminating against heterosexual women on the basis of their sexuality?

For those saying that the numbers quoted are bollocks – is it your contention that there is no statistically significant gap between the earnings of men and women (particularly post-30s) in comparable work at hourly rates? Or just that the gap is less than that quoted by both Hakim and the Fawcett Soc?

I am not saying the numbers quoted are bollocks but the claims made about them are dishonest or erroneous for the reasons given by Tim Worstall, Unity and Chris Dillow whenever this subject is raised (at least listen to the latter two!).

To me, the gap is significant at 10.2%. But 10.2% is much less than 17%, 20% and 36%. And contrary to your claim in the OP that “the pay gap has remained constant over the last 10 years”, according to the ONS the gap has declined over ten years.

@107 – that may well be true (sounds plausible), but in all the examples I use, the effective demotions were the immediate effect of maternity, rather than something that emerged over time. So, civil servant returning to work was on the same grade, but doing a much less interesting and responsible job (obv., in this case, not feeding into any pay gap, but into a qualititative undervaluing of her skills and experience); documentary worker (freelance) simply couldn’t return to that line of work because job-shares/p-t work not available in that field, and is now doing something that can be done part-time, but for a lot less money.

correction:

The Fawcett Society figures in that document go up to year 2004.

Your opponents in this thread are using the ONS figures, which go to 2010.

114. Chaise Guevara

@ 113

UKliberty, you know very well that “we’re taking the figures from the Fawcett Society”.

Sunny has SPOKEN!

115. Chaise Guevara

@ 112 Rowan.

Wouldn’t surprise me. That said, me ol’ mum recently went back into full-time salaried work after spending over a decade freelancing when the kids were still at home, and she seems to be doing great.

@ 100 Rowan Davies
That is one (and a major) reason why they do not go back into the same job. Now, it is your view that none of them ceased to be up-to-speed, but it may not have been the view of the other people involved – more likely it was the case that their job had been filled during their absence and someone had to find or create a job for them, so one got a make-work job and one got what no-one else wanted. The third is unreasonable – maybe she was squeezed out with the only excuse that they could dream up, because that was easier than finding an excuse to fire the person doing her job.
There is usually a problem when someone wants to return to a job that someone else has been doing in their absence. In 1919 my great-aunt lost her job in the Admiralty because the civil servant whom she had replaced when he volunteered actually came back alive, but she didn’t complain because that was in her original terms of employment. However when there was a shortage of doctors in the post-war era, the mother of two of my friends was able to re-join the practice and ended up as senior partner. Even if the lady is up-to-speed, it is psychologically a lot easier to start something new than to go back and find herself reporting to her former subordinate. More often than not, however, the reason is that the job or skill-set has changed and she has not had the opportunity to keep up. To give another anecdote – I was a trainee/assistant computer programmer in my youth, but I know none of the languages that my son uses and he doesn’t know any of those that I used to use (he had to ask me what one of them was as it fell out of use before he was born!), so there is a snowflake’s chance in Gehenna of my getting a job in his firm or any other software company.

@115 Oh, yes. The work I’ve done post-kids has been much more rewarding (qualititively) and fun than pre-kids work, and paid at the same level (ie buttons). But among women I know, this is very unusual.

118. Charlieman

@107 Chaise Guevara: “However, if she gets pregnant at 30 then takes 15 years off, she might well watch the twenty-somethings get promoted over her, despite being very good at what she does.”

Indeed, Chaise. Which is why I proffered the idea that pseudo rational management systems such as Hay are dishonest. They elect managers. If you are 40, male or female, and are not already a manager, then you are pretty well screwed career wise. For those returning to work, male or female, for whatever reason, prospects are less good.

@ 114 Chaise
But isn’t Rowan the OP?
Or is it that editorial policy overrules both truth and anything the writer has to say? In which case resurrect Beaverbrook, who may personally have had many faults but did at least know how to run a newspaper. (Tony Berry was better on all criteria of which I know but he is merely a martyr not an icon)

@116 – I can see how all of those factors work for the employers concerned (although I still think there’s an inbuilt resistance to treating mothers returning-to-work as favourably, ceteris paribus, as those who have been in continuous employment). But we’re still left with a situation in which mothers returning to work are systematically undervalued, both salary-wise and status-wise. And while mothers are treated like this, there’s still a feminist cause to be fought.

@119 – the figures in the OP were from the Fawcett Soc. (I may be missing your point, I’ve had a glass of wine.) FWIW, the absence of any reasoned defence from more numerate posters of the FS figures has me pretty convinced that they are of limited use (note – not *no* use. But what I’d really like to see is mean hourly rates of pay for comparable work, taking into account things like pension contribs – and one thing we all seem to agree on is that those data don’t exist.)

@ 117 Rowan Davies
My wife would replace “fun” with “worthwhile” – but unless you want to claim that *all* women earn “buttons” for pay before and after motherhood I should disagree. I now work part-time because the value of her pension benefits exceeds the nominal difference between my working full-time and her working part-time and her working full-time and my working part-time. The reason is partly that I can work late at night after she gets home (so occasionally I can work a part-time week of 50 hours while she works 40 hours full-time) and partly because public sector salaries do not account for the difference between pension costs for males and females. Yes, she is highly intelligent with a first and two degrees, but I’m not exactly stupid myself.

@ Sunny: “The numbers depend on how you arrive to them – and we’re taking the figures from the Fawcett Society”

Why in the name of sanity are you using outdated, thoroughly debunked propaganda figures? What are you trying to achieve by doing this?

@ 120 Rowan Davies
I should have said “my maiden great-aunt” but that just looks OTT. All her boyfriends were killed in the War (her brothers were wounded – coincidentally both were at one time in the same hospital before returning to the front which made family visits a lot simpler – she didn’t have to choose which one to see).
“But we’re still left with a situation in which mothers returning to work are systematically undervalued” – but are they? Go back to # 8 Ross. There are some cases where this is true and which I, like you, deplore but far more cases where their value to the employer has declined because their skills have partially atrophied or are no longer relevant. I can write computer programmes in Algol 60 and with a few minutes to remember and practise, write elementary machine code. How valuable is that to someone wanting to write programmes for Windows applications that cannot even spell “programmes”?

@124 I think we just aren’t going to agree about that one. The market doesn’t provide perfectly rational solutions, and employers don’t make perfectly rational decisions.

@110

I suspect Scalia is much more interested in the “sexual orientation” bit of the bill. Republicans, as you know, are even worse about homosexuality than they are about everything else.

Very true, though knowing Scalia he probably wouldn’t mind rescinding women’s rights along the way. His interpretations of the constitution are odd at best, he likes to guess at what the “writers had in mind” and try to rule to that rather than what is actually written. Hence his insistence that the 14th amendment only applies to blacks, despite it being universally written to include everyone.

@ 121 Rowan Davies
Quite!
Why (in a good year) do I get paid more for working part-time than my wife gets for working full-time? Mostly because the public sector is able to appeal to public-spirited individuals to work for peanuts (so, sometimes I work for nothing for charities – they *don’t pretend* to pay me – that isn’t relevant). My pay has never been gender-related (although it has, on occasion, been negatively related to my ability to do a good job while ignoring all the shibboleths promoted by HR).
While the Fawcett Society and others distract most people from the inequalities of payment for the job by falsely claiming that it is a gender issue they delay any move to set pay according to the social value of work done.

@ 125 Rowan Davies
I quite agree that no-one (except Euclid) makes perfectly rational decisions. Given that, why cannot you agree with me? Do you think that someone should hire me to write programmes in Algol or CLC or programs in Fortran? If so, why?

@ 126 Cylux
That may be a valid expression of a personal viewpoint BUT Scalia is a constructionist, which is *why* he tries to interpret what the writers had in mind by reading the constitution and amendments according to the meaning at that time of the words, so he is never going to rescind *anything*. Are you one of those who tries to read the King James Bible but using the changed meaning of the words in 21st century American instead of 17th century English? If so, may I recommend the “Revised English Bible”?

@ 118 Charlieman
Of course any system set up by managers is biased in favour of managers. However intelligent systems can pick up good guys (and presumably gals, but not being a gal, I can’t quote chapter and verse).
A good system will pick out the best guy/gal for the job. I was made redundant at 45 because the new owner of my firm decided to close down the fund that I was managing; Hay was hired to find me (and others) a new job and achieved nothing; after six months I was approached by a consultancy who had noticed I was available and at the interview the chairman read through my qualifications and asked the MD, who (I assume) had suggested I might be worth interviewing, “why haven’t you (got that qualification)”, to which he replied “I set the exam” …
The best executives are worth a damn sight more than the managers – the value of managers is in getting these guys to work.

@129 Neither, my bible of choice is the http://www.thebricktestament.com/

Plus big props to Scalia’s time-travelling psionic abilities that he is able to accurately interpret what “the writers had in mind”.

And another thing…

Sunny and I had a discussion in 2008 in a thread about equal pay and equal representation in jobs and equality in the boardroom etc.

The-then Equal Opportunities Commission said that men who wanted to work ‘flexibly’ (e.g so as to care for children or dependents) suffered similar problems to women who wanted to work flexibly. It therefore seemed to me that the problem was (or included) discrimination against anyone who wants to work flexibly, not discrimination against women just because they are women. There appears to be sexism because more women than men tend to want to work flexibly.

This isn’t about splitting hairs. It’s about correctly defining the problems. Once we have done that we can find appropriate solutions.

Sunny’s approach seemed to “improve the situation for women”. My approach was “improve the situation for people who want to work flexibly” (provided we decide flexible working is something people ought to be entitled to – I think most agree it is).

An irony of the “it’s sexist!” position is that the EOC said men who wanted to work flexibly suffered greater disadvantage in some respects than women!

So I ask again, is the pay gap solely due to sexism against women, or do people think it’s more complicated than that?

@98: Yes, I agree with most of that. There is of course a pay gap. What we’re tryiong to work out (if we’re all being homest about it all) is whether this is a “gender” pay gap, women being paid less simply because they are women or perhaps it’s a “motherhood” pay gap, something that arises only and if women have children.

Given that single never married childless women in their 40s earn more than men in their 40s (on average of course) I’m certainly conviced, along with all these other numbers, that it’s amotherhood pay gap.

And you’ve given three good reasons why this might be so. Time taken out of the workforce to have and wean children, flexibility of hours desired by mothers and the fields and parts of the labour force where such flexibility is available. These are indeed the reasons (some of them) that you’ll find in hte academic literatire trying to explain the pay gap.

@102. Be careful here. I’m absolutely certain that there is a substantial wage gap between, on average, men and women, post 30s. But there are two poosible gaps here.

1) Men and women doing exactly the same job and getting paid diferent amounts.

2) Men and women doing different jobs, different hours, making different decisions about the felxibility they want, different trade offs about full and part time etc.

Number 1 does not happen except in those very limited and entirely understandable circumstances which I mention above. For one thing it’s illegal. Secondly it would be a very stupid thing for companies to do: if you really can get women cheaper than men for the same work then a sensible profit maximising capitalist would simply hire all women, wouldn’t she?

Number 2 does undoubtedly happen.

Part of the confusion comes from “equivalent”. I “equivalent” means as in 1), the same job on the same terms, then there is no pay gap. If “equivalent” is to mean “people of generally the same age doing slightly different jobs with different hours and different terms of employment, career breaks etc” then you might have a point. But that isn’t what anyone rational is going to deascribe as equivalent.

@103. The Women at Work Commission covered this. They noted that employing two people (job share or part time) has higher overheads than employing one full time. There’s more training, infrastructure, management etc needed. Given that employers look at the total cost of a job being done (ie, wages plus overheads) if overheads are higher under one arrangement then wages will be less.

@121.The figures do exist….somewhere..but I’ve long forgotten where they are…..there is a breakdown of wages by job description and gender. But here again we come to “comparable”. The job descriptions are things like “dustman”, “nurse” etc. And other than those very few examples I’ve already given, there really aren’t any significant gender pay differences.

But if your meaning of the word comparable is that school dinner ladies are comparable to dustmen (as the current law seems to indicate they are) then there can indeed be significant gender differences.

It was Adam Smith who pointed out that all jobs will in fact be paid exactly the same amount. Once you’ve adjusted for the skills necessary to do them (ie, the human capital), the filth, unpleasantness of doing them, the hours required and so on. The pay system does reflect this: night work pays more than day work. Jobs with flexible hours pay less than those with non-flexible because some people value flexible hours more than inflexible. More dangerous jobs pay more than less dangerous jobs requiring the same skills and hours (this last is also a portion of the observed gender pay gap: it’s almost all men who do those more dangerous jobs).

But having scorned the statistics we’ve been offered by Fawcett, for scorn is what they deserve, to the important point.

So, we’ve not a gender pay gap: we’ve a motherhood pay gap. So, what are we going to do about it?

The idea of splitting maternity leave seems to excite a lot of people. But that is done in Sweden and it doesn’t actually make much difference: the gap is pretty much the same in Sweden as it is in the UK (the EU range is from 5% or so to near 30%, Sweden and UK, depending upon exactly how you count it, both in the 15-21% range….Sweden on 15% by one method, UK on 17% by that, another method Swden on 17% and UK on 21%).

The only places with low pay gaps are those where there are very few part time jobs and where very few mnarried women work. Like, say, Italy, with its 5% gap.

Other than that sort of situation (which I think we’d all agree is a very not wanted solution to the pay gap) no one at all has “solved” this problem.

It might in fact be that there is no solution to it.

So whadda ya’ gonna’ do now?

134. Chaise Guevara

@ 119 John 77

“But isn’t Rowan the OP?
Or is it that editorial policy overrules both truth and anything the writer has to say?”

I was joking. It amuses me that Sunny appears to be saying “Look, we’re using these figures” when said figures have been discredited.

135. Anecdotal Bloke

My wife and I both have pretty well paid jobs and kids. I do – now – earn more, but that’s just a reflection of our different fields: we are doing comparably well in both our careers, but my wife’s field has seen a reduction in fees in recent years, while mine has fortuitously seen an increase. It could have been the other way round.

In order to do this, we need to spend a large proportion of our income on child care. Some people – my sister for example – can only maintain this arrangement with a nanny, but we have a school with an after-school club which just about allows us to manage.

The alternative, of course, would be for one of us to give up work. That would mean a significant drop in living standards, and possibly a move out of London. That in turn would mean that one of us would see much less of the kids.

There’s a marginal relevance of all this to the discussion above. It is that pay isn’t the only consideration here – you can achieve pay equality, but probably only if the couple pays a lot for child care, if they are professionals in London.

So, this is quite a nuanced argument, really. The bare statistical arguments aren’t particularly informative.

@ 133 Tim Worstall & 121 Rowan
I happened to notice a copy of “Labour Market Statistics” in the library yesterday which reveals that in every one of their occupational classifications men work longer hours, on average, than women and, in nominal terms, get paid more . The differential between average hourly rates of pay ranges from 2.2% for administrative & secretarial staff to 22.5% for skilled trades (because plumbers and brickies get paid more than hairdressers). These do *not* include pension contributions. They also do not allow for different definitions of hours worked.
The proportion of men in skilled trades was ten times the proportion of women; the proportion of women in administrative and secretarial roles was nearly four times the proportion of men.
Male managers & senior executives get paid more, on average, than male professionals; female professionals get paid more, on average, than female managers – there are more male managers and more female professionals.
This, perfectly rational, behaviour means that taking a single figure (even if it is not blatantly and dishonestly wrong) is insufficient to determine whether there is a gender bias or whether the pay differential results from employment patterns including qualifications, experience, hours worked and the nature of the job (if you’ve ever tried to call out a hairdresser to mend a burst pipe or clear a blocked drain you’ll understand why plumbers get paid more).


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Right-wing wonks claim the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm

  2. Matt Hayes

    What the hell is a wonk? RT @libcon Right-wing wonks claim the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm

  3. Bathtubgin

    RT @libcon Right-wing wonks claim the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm

  4. Samantha Kennedy

    RT @libcon: Right-wing wonks claim the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm

  5. James Killin

    RT @libcon: Right-wing wonks claim the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm

  6. CathElliott

    RT @libcon: Right-wing wonks claim the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm

  7. Sonya Thomas

    RT @libcon: Right-wing wonks claim the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm

  8. Nick Entwistle

    Sigh. http://bit.ly/gl2OBm Cameron's think tank concludes that workplace equal opportunities policies should be discontinued. /via @libcon

  9. sunny hundal

    Think-tank close to Cameron claims the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm says @rowandavies

  10. Trish Dever

    *derisive snort* RT @sunny_hundal: Think-tank close to Cameron claims the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm

  11. Samira Shackle

    Meh. Depressing. RT @sunny_hundal Think-tank close to Cameron claims the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm

  12. Captain Disco

    Congratulations women! You've broken trough the glass ceiling! Well done! (what utter fucking bollocks) http://ow.ly/3xUbs

  13. Soph

    RT @sunny_hundal: Think-tank close to Cameron claims the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm says @rowandavies

  14. yorkierosie

    RT @sunny_hundal: Think-tank close to Cameron claims the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm says @rowandavies

  15. Life: Downloaded

    RT @sunny_hundal: Think-tank close to Cameron claims the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm says @rowandavies

  16. Nick

    RT @libcon: Right-wing wonks claim the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm

  17. Hali Santamas

    RT @sunny_hundal: Think-tank close to Cameron claims the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm says @rowandavies

  18. Curious Questioner

    RT @sunny_hundal: Think-tank close to Cameron claims the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm says @rowandavies

  19. Helen Thomas

    RT @sunny_hundal: Think-tank close to Cameron claims the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm says @rowandavies

  20. Fem Rocks

    RT @sunny_hundal: Think-tank close to Cameron claims the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm says @rowandavies

  21. BecauseImWorthIt

    Brilliant piece –> RT @libcon: Right-wing wonks claim the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm

  22. Ali

    Well that's ok then. RT @sunny_hundal Think-tank close to Cameron claims battle for equal pay has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm

  23. Kensy Joseph SJ

    Maybe mothers should be paid simply for looking after children at home? http://bit.ly/idzixN via @addthis

  24. Zoe Stavri

    Apparently feminists need to down tools, because we've done all we can for employment http://is.gd/k505V

  25. I'm so fly.

    RT @libcon: Right-wing wonks claim the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm

  26. Double.Karma

    RT @sunny_hundal: Think-tank close to Cameron claims the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm says @rowandavies

  27. Tim Easton

    RT @sunny_hundal: Think-tank close to Cameron claims the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm says @rowandavies

  28. mmm

    @arnaldobranco http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/01/04/right-wing-wonks-claim-the-battle-for-equal-pay-for-women-has-been-won/

  29. Bored London Gurl

    "Motherhood prompts a slide in women’s earnings and status; the pay gap for mothers who work full time is 21%". http://t.co/IROn32I

  30. Daniel Pitt

    RT @libcon: Right-wing wonks claim the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/gl2OBm

  31. Walton Pantland

    Right-wing wonks claim the battle for equal pay for women has been won | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/GYnjlKD via @libcon

  32. The Feminism discovery « The World Is Watching

    [...] a report by a Tory think-tank – led by a woman nonetheless! – has concluded that the battle for equal payment for women has been won, it’s hardly that surprising. Somebody please tell Dr Catherine Hakim that past progress does not [...]

  33. Camilla Magalhães

    Right-wing wonks claim the battle for equal pay for women has been won http://bit.ly/hL6qVw

  34. Rachel Hubbard

    Right-wing wonks claim the battle for equal pay for women has been won | Liberal Conspiracy http://goo.gl/8qOeV

  35. Recession, mothers and the pay gap | Nonsuch

    [...] on the internet the other day, which is never comfortable but is often instructive. The piece was this one, and the kicking was in the comments, as data-geeks swarmed all over the figures quoted by the [...]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.