This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/17/tackling-the-gender-gap-is-simple-pay-women-more-money-end-of-story

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Tackling the gender gap is simple: pay women more money. End of story Tackling the gender gap is simple: pay women more money. End of story
(about 1 month later)
There is a solution to the gender pay gap There is a solution to the gender pay gap in Australia, and possibly the world. We can resolve it, and it won't take 75 years, which is how long Oxfam believes the problem will spend fixing itself. No longer must we rend our national garments in shame, watching the gap figure hover around 17%.
in Australia, and possibly the world. We can resolve it, and it won't take 75 Here it is: we simply pay women more money. Whether we do this by reducing women's tax burden, providing them with an income supplement, or allowing women to personally shake down their male colleagues until an appropriate amount of change falls from their pockets, I don't mind. But it's clear that sitting around furrowing our brows isn't working, so it's time to make some changes.
years, which is how long Oxfam believes the problem will spend fixing Of course, this kind of action sounds ludicrous to most people. We've been analysing and agonising over the pay gap for years now, and the shape of that analysis has influenced the range of solutions that we're willing to entertain. But so far, simply solving the pay gap by solving the pay gap has remained off the table.
itself. No longer must we rend our national garments in shame, watching the gap There are two pervasive tendencies in commentary that have shaped our intuitions on the subject, one emanating broadly from the right and the other from the left, that appear different but share some important common assumptions.
figure hover around 17%. Firstly, the straightforward denialism of the right, where the gap (if it's acknowledged at all) is chalked up entirely to "women's personal career choices". These choices include a cluster of practices, mostly to do with unpaid reproductive and caring labour. This sort of commentary invites us to consider the social realities of being female as things we can just opt out of if we choose to act more like men. Caring for children and a family is a naturalised liability here: well, obviously you earn less if you have kids! Duh! Women aren't stupid, they just want kids more than money!
Here it is: we simply pay women more money. The second tendency, seen more often in mainstream and left-leaning sources, is to scientifically account for the causes of the gap. How much is due to differing occupational and industrial preferences? Or unpaid caring labour? Or lack of seniority-seeking behaviour? And so on. A valuable source of information, no doubt. But many of the proposed solutions based on this information focus on each of these factors individually, leading to suggestions that women learn how to ask for more money or partner up with "beta males" who will be more willing to perform a larger share of traditionally feminine labour.
Whether we do this by reducing women's tax burden, providing them with an The commonality between these approaches is that both locate the source of the problem, to varying degrees, in women's behaviour, rather than an economic order that is fundamentally hostile to the way women live now. The prime minister, bless, realised late in the game that the right's approach of "suck it up, princess" results in many women with high earning potential choosing to forego children entirely. Thus his hare-brained Paid Parental Leave scheme, which makes little sense from a productivity standpoint but plenty if you take him at his word and assume he's trying to incentivise breeding among the rich.
income supplement, or allowing women to personally shake down their male And from the left, we hear the kinds of condescending bromides that well-meaning relatives dish out to awkward teenage girls despairing they'll never get a date. "Maybe if you improve that slouch and smile more, you'll get noticed!"
colleagues until an appropriate amount of change falls from their pockets, I This piece is my recent favourite from the genre, with the male author suggesting five things men can do to help close the gap. Number four reads:
don't mind. But it's clear that 4. Mentoring women. Each of us has gone through a workplace trial or tribulation; men can impart their knowledge and experiences onto junior colleagues going through similar situations.
sitting around furrowing our brows isn't working, so it's time to make some Ah, yes! What women really need is the knowledge and experience of senior men, who know far more about what it's like to be female in the workplace than mere women could ever imagine. Apart from the darkly amusing idea that mansplaining could solve the pay gap, the problem with these kinds of suggestions is that we've been doing them for years and they haven't worked. Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In didn't germinate spontaneously, it's a continuation of the 10 years we've spent organising female leadership seminars. Well, it turns out pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is as ineffective for women as it is for everyone else.
changes. Unless we implement simple distributive solutions to the pay gap problem, this is the kind of discussion we'll continue to have for the next 75 years: endless analysis, mealy-mouthed faux-progressivism, and denialism or distributive eugenics from the right.
Of course, this kind of action sounds Women are worth the same as men and deserve to be paid the same right now, end of story.
ludicrous to most people. We've been analysing and agonising over the pay gap
for years now, and the shape of that analysis has influenced the range of
solutions that we're willing to entertain. But so far, simply solving the pay gap by
solving the pay gap has remained off the table.
There are two pervasive tendencies in
commentary that have shaped our intuitions on the subject, one emanating
broadly from the right and the other from the left, that appear different but
share some important common assumptions.
Firstly, the straightforward denialism of
the right, where the gap (if it's acknowledged at all) is chalked up entirely
to "women's personal career choices". These choices include a cluster of
practices, mostly to do with unpaid reproductive and caring labour. This sort of commentary invites us to consider the social
realities of being female as things we can just opt out of if we choose to act
more like men. Caring for children and a family is a naturalised liability
here: well, obviously you earn less if you have kids! Duh! Women aren't stupid,
they just want kids more than money!
The second tendency, seen more often in
mainstream and left-leaning sources, is to scientifically account for the
causes of the gap. How much is due to differing occupational and industrial
preferences? Or unpaid caring labour? Or lack of seniority-seeking behaviour?
And so on. A valuable source of information, no doubt. But many of the proposed
solutions based on this information focus on each of these factors
individually, leading to suggestions that women learn how to ask for more money or partner up with "beta males" who will be more willing to
perform a larger share of traditionally feminine labour.
The commonality between these approaches is
that both locate the source of the problem, to varying degrees, in women's
behaviour, rather than an economic order that is fundamentally hostile to the
way women live now. The prime minister, bless, realised late in the game that
the right's approach of "suck it up, princess" results in many women with high
earning potential choosing to forego children entirely. Thus his hare-brained
Paid Parental Leave scheme, which makes little sense from a productivity
standpoint but plenty if you take him at his word and assume he's trying to incentivise breeding among the rich.
And from the left, we hear the kinds of
condescending bromides that well-meaning relatives dish out to awkward teenage
girls despairing they'll never get a date. "Maybe if you improve that slouch
and smile more, you'll get noticed!"
This piece is my recent favourite from the genre, with the male author
suggesting five things men can do to help close the gap. Number four reads:
4. Mentoring women. Each of us has gone
through a workplace trial or tribulation; men can impart their knowledge and
experiences onto junior colleagues going through similar situations.
Ah, yes! What women really need is the
knowledge and experience of senior men, who know far more about what it's like
to be female in the workplace than mere women could ever imagine. Apart from
the darkly amusing idea that mansplaining could solve the pay gap, the problem
with these kinds of suggestions is that we've been doing them for years and
they haven't worked. Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In didn't germinate spontaneously, it's a continuation of the 10
years we've spent organising female leadership seminars. Well, it turns out
pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is as ineffective for women as it is for
everyone else.
Unless we implement simple distributive
solutions to the pay gap problem, this is the kind of discussion we'll continue
to have for the next 75 years: endless analysis, mealy-mouthed faux-progressivism,
and denialism or distributive eugenics from the right.
Women are worth the same
as men and deserve to be paid the same right now, end of story.