The Women and Work Commission have released a new report (PDF) with research and stats on the current gender pay gap as well as a call to action to work on the ground and address various problems that contribute to the gap.
According to their findings, while the pay gap has narrowed in the last 10 years, it has widened again since 2007. I like their suggestion for smaller, local approaches as well as policy changes:
The commission pointed to a failure of "small scale and sporadic" efforts to break down gender stereotypes in schools and urged the government to focus its efforts there."Often without even thinking about it, young girls can choose to role-play at being 'teachers' for example, while boys might choose 'builders,'" it said.
"This segregation is ingrained in our culture and has significant implications for the career choices that young men and women make and, in the long run, their future earnings."
It also said women often faced penalties because they take time out of the labour market to care for family members or work part-time in a bid to balance work and home responsibilities.
New laws would also be needed "to ensure that a step change actually takes place," it said.
Women in the UK currently earn, on average, 22.6 percent less than men. The gap for women who work part time is significantly larger, at a nearly 40 percent gap.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: UK gender pay gap widens, according to new report .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15214
Solution to the wage gap: mandatory paternity leave. Once men are equally expected to take care of their children, then we can have equality everywhere else.
i agree with that . It would also help that false feminists stop loosing their precious time trying to persuade women that pole dance and sex are the ultimate empowerement and start talking more about issues such as the wage gap .
Money is a real empowerment issue . Having the right to be materialistic , shallow , to have one night stands and pole dancing without being called a whore is an issue that only upscale illuminated newyorkers are interested in .
The best way to summerize all this is that lady gaga would not find the issu of wage gap very sexy and interesting .
i agree with that . It would also help that false feminists stop loosing their precious time trying to persuade women that pole dance and sex are the ultimate empowerement and start talking more about issues such as the wage gap .
Money is a real empowerment issue . Having the right to have one night stands and pole dancing without being called a whore is an issue that only upscale illuminated newyorkers are interested in .
The best way to summerize all this is that lady gaga would not find the issu of wage gap very sexy and interesting .
I like this version better....
http://i29.tinypic.com/2dagff8.jpg
:)
The slight increase from 2007 to 2009 is nothing to be worried about. (At this point in time) As far as a trend goes, that would be within the random fluctuations that occur in any data set. There would need to be several reporting periods where the trend has clearly been changed before that could be statistically significant.
Sadly, the report didn't even show a plot of the wage gap over time for that 10 year period. This type of data should always be displayed in graphical form.
It's good that the article points out that job segregation is one reason for pay inequity. At the same time though, I also think it's important to analyze why it is that jobs that are thought of as "feminine" are usually less lucrative than jobs that are typically reserved for men. Teachers, nurses, social workers (fields that are overwhelming female and thought of as "nurturing") for example are all relatively poorly paid even though they play a crucial role in our society. I think this suggests that we subscribe more value to typically "male" work than to typically "female" work without taking into account how important, or strenuous the work is.
"...At the same time though, I also think it's important to analyze why it is that jobs that are thought of as 'feminine' are usually less lucrative than jobs that are typically reserved for men..."
Seems to me that it's the other way around: jobs that are usually less lucrative get labelled "feminine" and jobs that are usually more lucrative get reserved for men.
For example: clerks working with texts in Pharaonic era Egypt and in the 1950s United States. Literacy rates were lower in the former than in the latter, so supply and demand for this work meant relatively fewer workers in the field (and relatively higher pay and status for them) in the former than in the latter. Meanwhile, both societies were male-dominated...
..so no wonder Pharaonic era Egypt's mainstream considered "scribe" a masculine job and the 1950s United States's mainstream considered "secretary" a feminine job.
Teachers, nurses, social workers (fields that are overwhelming female and thought of as "nurturing") for example are all relatively poorly paid even though they play a crucial role in our society
I think it is in error to assume that these fields are poorly compensated (with the exception of social workers), solely on the basis of monetary compensation. They have lower salaries, but they also come with substantial benefits such as job security. For example, education and health care are two fields which are almost entirely unaffected by the recession. If you consider that there are likely to be several recessions in ones lifetime that can ultimately make the lower pay significantly more appealing.
This regards the graphic, not the article. It says "Women: Like men, only cheaper". Something I've never understood is that, if women really did the same work cheaper, why wouldn't employers hire only women? In the fast food industry, you hire kids because you can pay them less than adults. In the fruit & vegetable picking sector, you hire migrant workers because you can pay them less than documented citizens. So... if women are "cheaper", why on earth would anyone employ someone who's going to cost their company more?
Because the MRAs would cry sexism.
You just described what's been happening in the service sector for the last 30 years.
Well, the obvious answer is that women are actually not cheaper. People just forget to take into account risks associated with maternity leaves. These risks heavily depend on the legislation in particular country.
"Well, the obvious answer is that women are actually not cheaper. People just forget to take into account risks associated with maternity leaves."
This is why we should have mandatory paternity leave. Men should be expected to take care of their kids too, and women should not be discriminated against because we can get pregnant.
For the exact same job women are not cheaper than men. (A set job comes with a set wage.) But the point is that female-dominated fields are generally lower-paid than male-dominated fields. Add to that the fact that women are expected to take more time off to care for children than men are, thus losing more wages during their maternity leave than men do in paternity leave, and you get problems!
"For the exact same job women are not cheaper than men. (A set job comes with a set wage.) "
No, jobs don't come with a set wage. Most companies usually have a wage range for each job, but your manager has discretion in what to pay you. The range is usually quite large. My job (I work at a big company and there's about 40 people with the same job title as me) has a range of about $25k a year, and the bottom of that range is only about $30k. I don't even make the middle of the range. Now, this could be because I have a two-year degree instead of a 4-year, because I don't know how to ask for a raise, or some other rational reason. Or, it could be that my company just regularly pays women half as much as men. I don't spend my days worrying about it (I don't want to go insane) but if my company did regularly discriminate against women, how would we ever know? And you can say the same thing about every other company where people's wages aren't common knowledge. If you think that couldn't happen, google Ledbetter vs Goodyear. Jobs do not have set wages, and if prejudice gets in the decision most people will never know.
The paygap can only be fought if there are compulsory salaries to begin with. If salaries are a matter of neogtiation and a man can get for the same work a different salary than some other man, so can the salaries of women differ from those of other women, or other men.
As long as that is the case there is really nothing to grasp on to truly fight for pay equality.