Obstacles you face in your work life, role models and the gender pay gap

4friggA

Hi all, I'm new to boards.
I am interested in getting some interesting topics going in the Ladies' Lounge. I think we are a diverse group from all walks of life, all parts of the world and all outlooks therefore I think it is the ideal place for discussion on everything we deal with everyday.

I was chatting with a friend of mine who works in the same industry as me but in a different part of Ireland and we were chatting about how, in our industry, it's mainly women, I'd go so far as to say 95% women, and therefore we're probably not as affected or as aware of gender pay gaps.
I know it's a very big issue in the US and it got me wondering if any of you are aware of a gender pay gap in your industry? If you are aware of a gap, is it something that actually affects you, i.e. do you know you are paid less than a man that you work alongside? What industry are you in? Have you done anything to address the gap?

Also, are there any particular obstacles that you have had to overcome in your professional life? Did your employer make the obstacles easier/harder/were they the cause of the obstacles?

And finally, do you have any role models either in your place of work or in the industry you work in?

I feel I am quite lucky in my job in that I work for a very strong role model.
She is actually the first woman I have worked for, prior to her I had only ever worked for men. That wasn't a choice I made, it was just the way things went.
My boss isn't perfect and she certainly has her moments but in my eyes, she is a very strong role model. In fact, she is so strong that, in our industry, her male counterparts are jealous of her success, her business and her reputation. The jealousy is so bad that they will be rude to her (and me by association) and try to impede her business dealings.
They call her a "bitch".
She is more successful than them so they mock her and make jokes about her being overweight.
I know my boss quite well, I know she knows about this mocking, I know it bothers her but she never lets them see her bothered by it. She ignores them and she hits them where it will hurt them most, she works extra hard on the cases she is against them on and kicks their asses

I worked in two very large firms with a huge body of staff and the main thing I saw was the female bosses were seen as "bitches" when they were being assertive in their roles and trying to meet deadlines but when their male counterparts did the same thing they were respected and not degraded with names and if people were speaking unfavourably about them it was done in hushed voices whereas with the females, people weren't afraid if they were heard giving out about them.

I suppose I quite admire my boss. She has taught me, as a woman, a lot about how to handle myself in our industry, which still has a noticeable imbalance of the sexes. She is also quite involved behind the scenes with regard to female representation in our industry, which I think is great.

So, while I feel lucky in my job, I know that there are so many others who aren't so lucky.

4friggA

Nobody?

Waestrel

A gender pay gap cant exist in a free market economy. Otherwise you'd see companies hiring all women and saving serious money on wages. We dont see this, therefore pay gap is a myth.

therefore we're probably not as affected or as aware of gender pay gaps.

So if not by personal experience, why do you think it exists? Is it possible that any gap that exists is statistically insignificant and...

I know it's a very big issue in the US

... is politically useful?


Also:

in our industry, it's mainly women, I'd go so far as to say 95% women

and then:

She is also quite involved behind the scenes with regard to female representation in our industry, which I think is great.

Mainly women, but still not enough women?

Cheers!

DoYouEvenLift

Gender wage gap has been debunked many times, including in America, when will you learn lol?

ted1

95% female , how about you talk about gender equality

4friggA

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Gender wage gap has been debunked many times, including in America, when will you learn lol?

When will I learn? Is there any need for that tone?

4friggA

Waestrel wrote: »

So if not by personal experience, why do you think it exists?

I didn't say I think it exists in Ireland, I asked if it still exists.

Waestrel wrote: »

Mainly women, but still not enough women?

Cheers!

ted1 wrote: »

95% female , how about you talk about gender equality

I was talking about 2 different parts of the industry. I thought that was obvious.
My friend and I work in one part of the industry and my boss works in another part of the industry which has a higher percentage of men.

baby and crumble

I just admit to being slightly sceptical of a significant gender pay gap, simply because most jobs are advertised with a base salary, and whoever gets the job gets that salary. Differences can be explained a lot of the time by education and experience. More significant I think is the possibility that companies may hire men over women of "childbearing age" to lessen the likelihood (in their eyes) of maternity leave etc.

In my industry there is a pretty good mix of genders in most roles, slightly more CEO and Directors are male but part of me thinks that's because female workers prefer the "on the ground" work to managerial roles.

Waestrel

4friggA wrote: »

I didn't say I think it exists in Ireland, I asked if it still exists.





I was talking about 2 different parts of the industry. I thought that was obvious.
My friend and I work in one part of the industry and my boss works in another part of the industry which has a higher percentage of men.

The only thing that is obvious is that you are spouting recycled feminist talking points with little independent thought. It sounds like have a good happy job, why look for something to be aggrieved about?

as for pay gap: http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=hire_women

4friggA

Waestrel wrote: »

The only thing that is obvious is that you are spouting recycled feminist talking points with little independent thought. It sounds like have a good happy job, why look for something to be aggrieved about?

as for pay gap: -link-

There's no need to be insulting, is there?

Calm down. I was just trying to get a discussion going.

Carlos Orange

4friggA wrote: »

There's no need to be insulting, is there?

Calm down. I was just trying to get a discussion going.

People are probably just reacting badly to the fact you work in an industry that is 95% female and your boss is working behind the scenes to keep it that way.

4friggA

4friggA wrote: »

I was talking about 2 different parts of the industry. I thought that was obvious. My friend and I work in one part of the industry and my boss works in another part of the industry which has a higher percentage of men.

4friggA wrote: »

in our industry, it's mainly women, I'd go so far as to say 95% women

She has taught me, as a woman, a lot about how to handle myself in our industry, which still has a noticeable imbalance of the sexes. She is also quite involved behind the scenes with regard to female representation in our industry

It's there but I'm afraid it's far from "obvious", if anything it's indicates that the "imbalance" is 95% women, 5% men. I'd be surprised if you could get the discussion past this point now.

meeeeh

Waestrel wrote: »

The only thing that is obvious is that you are spouting recycled feminist talking points with little independent thought. It sounds like have a good happy job, why look for something to be aggrieved about?

as for pay gap: http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=hire_women

Hahaha.... Now are you not embarrassed quoting the source like that. You might have a point but for now we have link where author claims women are happier at work because they take less demanding jobs. And foreman on building site is under a lot more pressure than social worker. I am sure all is backed by solid data. The other genius who agrees with you in his post also claimed a while back poor people are thinner because they have less money to spend on rubbish food.

Whatever about the point you are raising, you will have to do a bit better when arguing with op because at the moment you two have zero credibility.

4friggA

psinno wrote: »

People are probably just reacting badly to the fact you work in an industry that is 95% female and your boss is working behind the scenes to keep it that way.

And another person who didn't read my initial post properly.

Anyway, I can see there's no point in trying to start a discussion about this.

Waestrel

meeeeh wrote: »

Hahaha.... Now are you not embarrassed quoting the source like that. You might have a point but for now we have link where author claims women are happier at work because they take less demanding jobs. And foreman on building site is under a lot more pressure than social worker. I am sure all is backed by solid data. The other genius who agrees with you in his post also claimed a while back poor people are thinner because they have less money to spend on rubbish food.

Whatever about the point you are raising, you will have to do a bit better when arguing with op because at the moment you two have zero credibility.

do you think a gender pay gap can exist in a free market economy?

Gongoozler

I think it's crazy that people still believe in a gender pay gap. Even what they're claiming it is, is not that. Usually articles that talk about a gap go on about how women earn x amount less than men. That is not a pay gap. It's nothing to do with unequal pay for the same job. It's always about how women are in jobs that pay less, due to what the job is. Which is all about choice. So I wouldn't even entertain the notion.

meeeeh

Waestrel wrote: »

do you think a gender pay gap can exist in a free market economy?

Why wouldn't it. You are assuming that human behaviour is always predictable and exactly the same. Differences in pay could be down how aggressively someone is negotiating.... there are a lot of reasons for pay gap that can be explained with different factors outside of control of organization. But there are areas of employment where predominately male industries offer much better pay than predominately female. Childcare workers or carers are fairly low paid workers in demanding jobs and it is not surprising that both are female dominated. Unless you think carpenter has more responsibility than someone minding kids it's hard to explain difference.

Waestrel

meeeeh wrote: »

Why wouldn't it. You are assuming that human behaviour is always predictable and exactly the same. Differences in pay could be down how aggressively someone is negotiating.... there are a lot of reasons for pay gap that can be explained with different factors outside of control of organization. But there are areas of employment where predominately male industries offer much better pay than predominately female. Childcare workers or carers are fairly low paid workers in demanding jobs and it is not surprising that both are female dominated. Unless you think carpenter has more responsibility than someone minding kids it's hard to explain difference.

Gendar pay gap is usually defined as less pay for woman while doing the exact same work as a man. Same job, same experience, same responsibilites, same company. Youll find that if you allow for these, there is no gender based pay difference.

The fact that carpenters are paid more than childcare workers is not meaningful or even relevant, and is not what people mean when the talk of gender pay gap .

B0jangles

Here's an interesting study on how interviewers in academic institutions reacted to otherwise identical CVs (only difference was that half of the CVs were headed with a male name, and half with a female name

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full





"Our results revealed that both male and female faculty judged a female student to be less competent and less worthy of being hired than an identical male student, and also offered her a smaller starting salary and less career mentoring. "

meeeeh

Waestrel wrote: »

Gendar pay gap is usually defined as less pay for woman while doing the exact same work as a man. Same job, same experience, same responsibilites, same company. Youll find that if you allow for these, there is no gender based pay difference.

The fact that carpenters are paid more than childcare workers is not meaningful or even relevant, and is not what people mean when the talk of gender pay gap .

No you think this is how wage gap is defined. This is how OECD define it:

The gender wage gap is unadjusted and is defined as the difference between median earnings of men and women relative to median earnings of men. Data refer to full-time employees.

And the EC definition:

At EU level, the gender pay gap is defined as the relative difference in the average gross hourly earnings of women and men within the economy as a whole.
In 2012, the EU average is estimated at 16.4 %. This indicator has been defined as unadjusted (e.g. not adjusted according to differences in individual characteristics or other observable characteristics that may explain part of the earnings difference) because it gives an overall picture of gender discrimination and the inequalities in the labour market that explain gender differences in pay.

I know European Commission or OECD lack the accuracy and precision of a Facebook link but for now they hold a bit more sway on these matters.

Carlos Orange

I find this one more interesting.

http://www.nature.com/news/leading-scientists-favour-women-in-tenure-track-hiring-test-1.17322

"finds that faculty members prefer female candidates for tenure-track jobs in science and engineering — by a ratio of two to one."

Waestrel

meeeeh wrote: »

No you think this is how wage gap is defined. This is how OECD define it:


And the EC definition:


I know European Commission or OECD lack the accuracy and precision of a Facebook link but for now they hold a bit more sway on these matters.

Fair enough, but there is no point discussing this, as i fully accept that men as a group will make more more money per individual than women as a group for the simple reason that men will often take more dangerous, more technical or more remote jobs than women are usually willing to take. The fracking fields of Dakota are an example of this. Or working in mining, two fields that women dont enter in large numbers and pay well.

So yes, men will often make more money than women, if you dont correct for any variables, but it doesn't mean much, in the same way that middle aged men make more than teenagers in the workplace doesn't mean much.

Now women getting paid less for the exact same job is a different issue, and what i generally think the pay gap refers to.

meeeeh

psinno wrote: »

I find this one more interesting.

http://www.nature.com/news/leading-scientists-favour-women-in-tenure-track-hiring-test-1.17322

"finds that faculty members prefer female candidates for tenure-track jobs in science and engineering — by a ratio of two to one."

You forgot to quote part where it says men are still paid more and dominate top positions.

Oh I forgot, according to a previous link, it's because women don't like stressful jobs.

I actually hate this one gender vs. another stuff but then you get selective quotations and "a man on a internet said so" type links,...

B0jangles

Yeah, I think I'm already done with this thread - 23 posts in and it's already been taken over by dudes

Carlos Orange

meeeeh wrote: »

You forgot to quote part where it says men are still paid more and dominate top positions.

I actually hate this one gender vs. another stuff but then you get selective quotations and "a man on a internet said so" type links,...

I didn't forget anything I quoted the relevant portion and linked to the entire article. One study shows people give preference to males over females with identical cvs and the other shows the reverse. And I don't think you should really dismiss an article written by a women in a pretty famous science journal about a study co authored by a women as "a man on a internet said so"

meeeeh

Waestrel wrote: »

Now women getting paid less for the exact same job is a different issue, and what i generally think the pay gap refers to.

But you never get exactly the same circumstances, exactly the same amount of sick days, exactly the same experiences , exactly the same quality of work. And more importantly exactly the same gender representation inside the position.

There is no denying that big part of the wage gap is because women tend to be primarily child carers but I also think that female dominated industries are valued as inferior. There are various reasons for that, I am sure, and some have very little to do with intentional discrimination but that doesn't mean pay gap doesn't exist.

I could be persuaded though if someone actually posts some credible research.

Waestrel

meeeeh wrote: »

You forgot to quote part where it says men are still paid more and dominate top positions. .

And dominate the lowest jobs, working on landfills, sewers, outdoors in the elements, working around dangerous fumes, fighting wars, dealing with dangerous or violent people etc etc etc - but you dont seem to bothered about women working in these jobs?

In any case, there is plenty of female CEO's, both yahoo and reddit spring to mind.

What exactly is your argument? My point is I do not believe women are paid less than men for the exact same job, do you agree or disagree with me? You are parroting various feminist talking points. Stay on topic.

meeeeh

psinno wrote: »

I didn't forget anything I quoted the relevant portion and linked to the entire article. One study shows people give preference to males over females with identical cvs and the other shows the reverse. And I don't think you should really dismiss an article written by a women in a pretty famous science journal about a study co authored by a women as "a man on a internet said so"

The man on internet was meant for one of the previous links from another poster.. I said that you selectively quoted from your own link. You highlighted that there is preference for hiring of female scientists, I pointed out that the same article states they still get paid less. Which is sort of what the discussion is about.

meeeeh

Waestrel wrote: »

What exactly is your argument? My point is I do not believe women are paid less than men for the exact same job, do you agree or disagree with me? You are parroting various feminist talking points. Stay on topic.

My point is that I don't know but I would think that stats I see still point to male advantage. But I could be persuaded otherwise if anyone could actually find a reliable link.

Not just "there is no pay gap because I said so. And I am man, I know things..."

Wibbs

meeeeh wrote: »

My point is that I don't know but I would think that stats I see still point to male advantage. But I could be persuaded otherwise if anyone could actually find a reliable link.

Not just "there is no pay gap because I said so. And I am man, I know things..."

Reliable link you say? National Women's council of Ireland survey I would presume would pass muster? The usual stats are trotted out, however if we look more deeply...

The latest figures from the EU Commission show that the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 13.9% - in other words women in Ireland are paid almost 14% less than men. The Gender Pay Gap exists even though women do better at school and university than men. In the Irish context, what is perhaps most disturbing is the high cost of motherhood. Figures from the OECD show that in Ireland the Gender Pay Gap for women with no children is -17% but this increases significantly to 14% for women with at least one child – a jump of 31 percentage points. The gender pay gap exists across the sectors.

Emphasis mine. Women with no kids get paid nearly 20% more than equivalent men. Funny how they don't directly mention that and hide it as a minus. Then again that doesn't follow the Script(™), so they avoid being too direct. Makes perfect sense too because as they note more women than men graduate second and third level and that gap is increasing.

The addition of children complicates things of course. What I would like to see are the stats for say 30 to 50 year old women without children compared to men of of the same age range. I'll bet the farm the so called "paygap" and "glass ceiling" doesn't exist to nearly the same degree as usually trotted out and indeed it seems at aged 30 goes the other way and at that age an average Irish women is more likely to be earning more than her male counterpart. And as I said this is coming from an official government quango on equality. I'd also like them to look at the stats for women who have children later on and remove those who had children young. Women who chose to have a child earlier in adulthood are more likely to forgo third level so job opportunities are going to be less. Women are still seen and act as the primary carers so time constraints will impact a career at any stage, but especially at the start of a career. I would suspect a woman well on in her career having a child at 35 is going to be impacted less.

meeeeh

The report you are quoting is for 2012. Since 2007 and seven gender pay gap fell from 18% to 8% in 2012. The next year it jumped up 4% again. Those numbers coincide with recession that hit men significantly more. While I have no doubt wast part of a pay gap is due to the children, I presume that statistic is comparing mostly younger generation of women who are on average higher educated than before to men regardless of age and in the middle of dreadful recession that hit one gender disproportionally.

http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=54751

Waestrel

So, for a moment, lets assume you are correct - do you imply a conspiracy or a society wide bias that allows for women to be paid less for same productivity?

meeeeh

Waestrel wrote: »

So, for a moment, lets assume you are correct - do you imply a conspiracy or a society wide bias that allows for women to be paid less for same productivity?

Historically there is no denying that there was society wide bias. Denying that would be somewhat like denying global warming. I think that at the moment we are still living with certain residues of that. Like women automatically becoming primary childcarer even they are sometimes the main earner. So it will be women taking off time if child us sick or staying at home part or full time. Recession changed a lot in headline stats but I would say there are still differences between men and women in more senior , better paid positions. And often it's an arrangement that suits women too. But it wasn't me who claimed that the pay gap is gone without anything really to back it up. There were three of you who basically barged in, told op she hasn't got a clue, slapped each others backs and offered very little to actually substantiate your claims.

Waestrel

meeeeh wrote: »

Historically there is no denying that there was society wide bias. Denying that would be somewhat like denying global warming. I think that at the moment we are still living with certain residues of that. Like women automatically becoming primary childcarer even they are sometimes the main earner. So it will be women taking off time if child us sick or staying at home part or full time. Recession changed a lot in headline stats but I would say there are still differences between men and women in more senior , better paid positions. And often it's an arrangement that suits women too. But it wasn't me who claimed that the pay gap is gone without anything really to back it up. There were three of you who basically barged in, told op she hasn't got a clue, slapped each others backs and offered very little to actually substantiate your claims.

Bias? If there was a bias against women working it was the same bias that had millions of men killed in foreign wars. The bias was that women did the breeding and men died protecting them. Men have always been more disposable than women, for the simple reason that sperm is cheap and eggs expensive. So, please, considerer getting off the cross for a brief period to perhaps ruminate upon that maybe, women as a group have been generally more privileged than men as a group. SO yes, maybe your cherished workplace equality will mean more women getting cancer from asbestos, falling from scafolding, getting trapped in mine collapses, electrocuted, is this the kind of equality feminists really want? Or is the pay gap myth merely a power grab and a clever political angle?

Anyway,back on point, I asked you how do you think a gender pay gap could exist in a free market economy? If it is as you say, you would expect women to be hired in vastly greater numbers than men, as they are just as productive but accept less pay. We dont see this in the workplace generally, which would lead me to believe that the pay gap is not a real thing.

You talk of "bias" but how do you reconcile that with a world of fierce competition which selects for business with only the most profitable business methods? Surely that would quickly select against inefficient biases and remove them from the market?

All you have done is postulated that it exists, without explaining how you think it exists.

B0jangles

You have to be wearing some atomic-strength bias goggles to look at human history and think yep, women were historically the privileged ones.

Waestrel

B0jangles wrote: »

You have to be wearing some atomic-strength bias goggles to look at human history and think yep, women were historically the privileged ones.

must be all those female war dead. Trenches full of 'em!

B0jangles

Was it aliens starting all those wars, or bears perhaps?

Most men have never had to serve in an army, and even fewer died in a war. In the modern world, there are still countries where 1 in 6 women die in childbirth, an experience that actually happens to most women, unlike war.

But this is wildly off the topic of the thread, which, if I remember correctly was intended to draw out personal stories from women about obstacles they have faced in their working lives that are likely to have been caused by their gender.

meeeeh

Waestrel wrote: »

must be all those female war dead. Trenches full of 'em!

So your logic is women should be paid less because they didn't go to war. It makes perfect sense. Because going to war is only thing that qualify you for an income.

Frankly your last few posts are so ridiculous I am not even going to bother. Wibbs actually put up a decent argument (and some interesting stats), but after that it really is slim pickings.

Carlos Orange

B0jangles wrote: »

Most men have never had to serve in an army, and even fewer died in a war. In the modern world, there are still countries where 1 in 6 women die in childbirth, an experience that actually happens to most women, unlike war.

There aren't any countries with maternal mortality that high. Even in sub saharan Africa it is more like 1 in 50.

Waestrel

meeeeh wrote: »

So your logic is women should be paid less because they didn't go to war. It makes perfect sense. Because going to war is only thing that qualify you for an income.

Frankly your last few posts are so ridiculous I am not even going to bother. Wibbs actually put up a decent argument (and some interesting stats), but after that it really is slim pickings.

Not saying that at all.

Regardless, please answer what i said earlier.

Anyway,back on point, I asked you how do you think a gender pay gap could exist in a free market economy? If it is as you say, you would expect women to be hired in vastly greater numbers than men, as they are just as productive but accept less pay. We dont see this in the workplace generally, which would lead me to believe that the pay gap is not a real thing.

You talk of "bias" but how do you reconcile that with a world of fierce competition which selects for business with only the most profitable business methods? Surely that would quickly select against inefficient biases and remove them from the market

This thread has rapidly run its course.

B0jangles

Waestrel wrote: »

Not saying that at all.

Regardless, please answer what i said earlier.



This thread has rapidly run its course.

Have a look around the employment and jobs subforum, you'll find multiple posters who say openly that they tend not to hire women in their 20s/30s because of the possibility they'll become pregnant and go on maternity leave.

Oh ****, did I just post something relevant to the thread?

Also check the ego on you! You declare the thread dead because people arent queuing up to rebut your various bog standard erail attempts

Waestrel

B0jangles wrote: »

Have a look around the employment and jobs subforum, you'll find multiple posters who say openly that they tend not to hire women in their 20s/30s because of the possibility they'll become pregnant and go on maternity leave.

Oh ****, did I just post something relevant to the thread?

Also check the ego on you! You declare the thread dead because people arent queuing up to rebut your various bog standard erail attempts

Its run its course as its turned into a circle jerk of oppression Olympics. All I asked was how a gender pay gap could exist to any substantial degree in a free market, which was related to the opening posters claim of gender pay gap.

B0jangles

Waestrel wrote: »

Its run its course as its turned into a circle jerk of oppression Olympics. All I asked was how a gender pay gap could exist to any substantial degree in a free market, which was related to the opening posters claim of gender pay gap.

The thread was opened to seek personal experiences and to prompt discussion of said experiences. You barged in with some bog-standard MRA talking points and effectively killed any possibility of real discussion, because, who the hell wants to bother refuting the same old crap for the thousandth time?

"circle jerk"

"Oppression Olympics"

Why not go full internet stereotype and have a rant about "social justice warriors" or "femininazis"?

B0jangles

psinno wrote: »

There aren't any countries with maternal mortality that high. Even in sub saharan Africa it is more like 1 in 50.

Apologies, I was wrong, it's 1 in 7 in Niger

http://www.unicef.org/wcaro/overview_2637.html

Stheno

Wibbs wrote: »

Reliable link you say? National Women's council of Ireland survey I would presume would pass muster? The usual stats are trotted out, however if we look more deeply...

The latest figures from the EU Commission show that the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 13.9% - in other words women in Ireland are paid almost 14% less than men. The Gender Pay Gap exists even though women do better at school and university than men. In the Irish context, what is perhaps most disturbing is the high cost of motherhood. Figures from the OECD show that in Ireland the Gender Pay Gap for women with no children is -17% but this increases significantly to 14% for women with at least one child – a jump of 31 percentage points. The gender pay gap exists across the sectors.

Emphasis mine. Women with no kids get paid nearly 20% more than equivalent men. Funny how they don't directly mention that and hide it as a minus. Then again that doesn't follow the Script(™), so they avoid being too direct. Makes perfect sense too because as they note more women than men graduate second and third level and that gap is increasing.

The addition of children complicates things of course. What I would like to see are the stats for say 30 to 50 year old women without children compared to men of of the same age range. I'll bet the farm the so called "paygap" and "glass ceiling" doesn't exist to nearly the same degree as usually trotted out and indeed it seems at aged 30 goes the other way and at that age an average Irish women is more likely to be earning more than her male counterpart. And as I said this is coming from an official government quango on equality. I'd also like them to look at the stats for women who have children later on and remove those who had children young. Women who chose to have a child earlier in adulthood are more likely to forgo third level so job opportunities are going to be less. Women are still seen and act as the primary carers so time constraints will impact a career at any stage, but especially at the start of a career. I would suspect a woman well on in her career having a child at 35 is going to be impacted less.

I'd agree with this rather emphatically. I'm a childless woman (not meant in a pitying way, I chose not to have children) in my forties, and what wibbs posted is almost exactly my experience. As I've progressed through my career, I've had a lot of roles that require significant travel and out of hours work, which is just not possible for a lot of men and women with children.

I've also had roles where I've spent up to two years, working permanently away from home Monday - Thursday, again something someone with children may not be able to accomodate.

I work in IT, and have never encountered a pay gap due to my being female, I have on one occasion in an interview when I was married, had an interviewer look at my c.v. and make assumptions, so his first question to me was to question how I managed my career, lived 80 km from where I worked and as I was married, and obviously had children, coped with my family.

He got a fairly scathing look, and when HR in that organisation subsequently offered me the job, I reported how the interview went to them and politely declined the role.

I've also encountered situations (no more sadly) where I looked quite young for my age, and was referred to as my bosses pa in one engagement with a customer who had a near breakdown when told I was their lead consultant, and I've had people questions if I had the experience/qualifications to be doing what I did, based on looking younger than I was at the time.

In my case, Wibbs assertion is pretty spot on, I earn at least as much, if not more than male counterparts in the same area, I know this as we are all contractors, and the companies we work for will refuse to employ me if they have a cheaper option, but I still get more work than I can cope with as they've no alternative. That said I've no family constraints at all, and can say "yep I'll head off to China for three weeks" with no issues.

I also chose recently to join a startup, and have a casting vote/veto as to whether or not we bid for business. In one recent case my boss said no to bidding, I said yes, we agreed we'd go ahead, I did the work and we won the business, I get a bonus for leading on that.


Women with children, and men with children, are massively constrained, women more so than men, but I've come across plenty of examples of men with children who were restricted in developing their careers, compared to those without children.

I know a large amount of women in senior positions in my industry, and some would consider me one of them, and by and large, they are childless.

So the issue here is not a gender pay gap, but how the responsibility of caring for children impacts on careers for both men and women imo

As an aside, for any women in IT, have you heard of MINT? It's a new service offering mentoring for women in technology, and matching mentees with mentors.

I know that without some wonderful male mentors in my early career, I'd not be where I am now.

Well worth checking out.

Carlos Orange

B0jangles wrote: »

Apologies, I was wrong, it's 1 in 7 in Niger

http://www.unicef.org/wcaro/overview_2637.html

The 2014 State of the Worlds Mothers (2010 data) report puts Niger at 1 in 23.
Infant mortality is about 3 times higher. It isn't a great place for anyone to be.

http://www.savethechildren.org/atf/cf/%7B9def2ebe-10ae-432c-9bd0-df91d2eba74a%7D/SOWM_2014_MOTHERS_INDEX.PDF

Your page is significantly older and the data is probably no latter than 2004.

meeeeh

Waestrel wrote: »

Not saying that at all.

Regardless, please answer what i said earlier.



This thread has rapidly run its course.

I replied to that in one of my first posts already. It is complete nonsense. Even if you imply that free market is always perfectly rational and if this is the most rational decision it would drive female wages up because of competition for their work and it would make them less employable again.

I am not an expert on economy but I know it's not static.

Stheno

meeeeh wrote: »

I replied to that in one of my first posts already. It is complete nonsense. Even if you imply that free market is always perfectly rational and if this is the most rational decision it would drive female wages up because of competition for their work and it would make them less employable again.

I am not an expert on economy but I know it's not static.

Did you read my post? Due to a free market in my area, and limited resources, I've negotiated higher rates, and whilst companies I work for don't want to use me and pay those rates, sometimes the lack of resources means they have to.

Much more than they want to

meeeeh

Stheno wrote: »

Did you read my post? Due to a free market in my area, and limited resources, I've negotiated higher rates, and whilst companies I work for don't want to use me and pay those rates, sometimes the lack of resources means they have to.

Much more than they want to

I read your post. My response was to a poster who claimed that if men are women are equally capable only women would be hired if they are cheaper.

It's a nonsense argument that assumes every one can offer the same stuff, every company is looking for the same type of the person and every job interview is completely blank slate and ratirational. But apparently, because businesses are not employing ony women, it proves a point that women are on an equal pay scale they just don't want to work.

Stheno

meeeeh wrote: »

I read your post. My response was to a poster who claimed that if men and women are equally capable only women would be hired if they are cheaper.

It's a nonsense argument that assumes every one can offer the same stuff, every company is looking for the same type of the person and every job interview is completely blank slate and ratirational. But apparently, because businesses are not employing ony women, it proves a point that women are on an equal pay scale because they just don't want to work.

Do you mean what I've edited above?

meeeeh

Yes. I'm not the most precise poster at the best of times but typing on the phone makes it worse.