Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination

[kittling]

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (UK) released the results of their investigation into women working in the city. I knew this report was coming and I expected it to be bad - but what I read genuinely shocked me. What does everyone else think?

The Gardian and the BBC coverage of the same story.


(Interestingly the BBC thought Terry Wogan leaving the breakfast show was a more important story! )

[Melaszka]

It is shocking, but I expect there will be a flurry of right-wing columnists eager to explain this away as "not a gender pay gap, but a mothers' pay gap":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...?commentpage=1

Or the old "Women just don't naturally have the ambition and drive that men have, they can't aggressively close deals, so they deserve to be paid less" chestnut.

Yeah, right. In an industry where entertaining clients at lap-dancing clubs is still standard practice, obviously there's no sexual discrimination.

[Moriath]

Originally Posted by Melaszka

It is shocking, but I expect there will be a flurry of right-wing columnists eager to explain this away as "not a gender pay gap, but a mothers' pay gap":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...?commentpage=1

Or the old "Women just don't naturally have the ambition and drive that men have, they can't aggressively close deals, so they deserve to be paid less" chestnut.

Yeah, right. In an industry where entertaining clients at lap-dancing clubs is still standard practice, obviously there's no sexual discrimination.

It is a shocking article and I don't believe that this only concerns the UK. I think it's also proof that the comfortable laissez-faire attitude a lot of women have developed over the years (e.g. feminism is about choice and we have the choices now) is quite counter-productive for the feminist movement. I think that, sadly, feminism is the only movement that is actively put down by its 'members'.

[Voldemorts8thHorcrux]

Originally Posted by Melaszka

It is shocking, but I expect there will be a flurry of right-wing columnists eager to explain this away as "not a gender pay gap, but a mothers' pay gap":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...?commentpage=1

Or the old "Women just don't naturally have the ambition and drive that men have, they can't aggressively close deals, so they deserve to be paid less" chestnut.

Yeah, right. In an industry where entertaining clients at lap-dancing clubs is still standard practice, obviously there's no sexual discrimination.

Even if the pay gap only concerns mothers, there's still the fathers. No matter what, it's still gender discrimination.

[ActingDude17]

I agree with the author of the article.

[Melaszka]

Hey! After all these years, I've finally worked out how the multi-quote button works!

I'm referencing kittling's post, in case anyone missed the shocking articles she cited:

Originally Posted by kittling

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (UK) released the results of their investigation into women working in the city. I knew this report was coming and I expected it to be bad - but what I read genuinely shocked me. What does everyone else think?

The Gardian and the BBC coverage of the same story.

Not so much a pay gap as a pay abyss.

Either women are intrinsically worth 4 times less than men (which i don't believe) or there is a massive injustice going on.

Originally Posted by Moriath

It is a shocking article and I don't believe that this only concerns the UK. I think it's also proof that the comfortable laissez-faire attitude a lot of women have developed over the years (e.g. feminism is about choice and we have the choices now) is quite counter-productive for the feminist movement. I think that, sadly, feminism is the only movement that is actively put down by its 'members'.

Don't get me started on the "We're a post-feminist society now and we don't need feminism anymore as sexism no longer exists" fairy tale.

Originally Posted by Voldemorts8thHorcrux

Even if the pay gap only concerns mothers, there's still the fathers. No matter what, it's still gender discrimination.

I totally agree. The author of that piece went onto a feminist website which I quite often visit, to defend himself after they gave his article a good mauling (fair play, it was decent of him to join the discussion, and I was quite impressed by that, although not by anything he actually had to say), and the hilarious thing was that, when someone pointed out that the gender gap starts before women start to have children, he asserted (on no evidence whatsoever) that this was probably because those women had chosen to earn less because they were "preparing for motherhood".

Hmmm. What exactly do you have to do to "prepare for motherhood"? And why would a woman choose to earn less because she's planning to have a baby a year or two down the line? I've never met anyone who decides to forgo a promotion or work part-time a couple of years before they have a baby...because they need all that extra time to think about baby names or knit matinee coats and booties? Most women I know would, if anything, work extra hard in the run-up to starting a family so they could put some money away, because babies cost money.

It was obvious that he had his theory and was going to twist the facts to fit it.

Originally Posted by ActingDude17

I agree with the author of the article.

Would you care to expand on that?

[canismajoris]

I think it's probably not quite as simple as the first article made it seem. Clearly the disparity comes in women making it to the upper echelons of the firms in question. I suspect they don't make quite as drastically less than men in similar positions--I believe on average it still is less, but that's beside the point in this case. On the one hand, as in a lot of professions, seniority is still an artificial wall--industries that have only recently had influxes of female employees (let's say the past three decades) probably aren't anywhere near even in terms of upper-level positions. However as the current generation ages and retires I suspect this will begin to change, especially if statistics like this become more present in people's consciousnesses--well, provided there's no actual conspiracy to keep women out.

[Melaszka]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

I think it's probably not quite as simple as the first article made it seem. Clearly the disparity comes in women making it to the upper echelons of the firms in question. I suspect they don't make quite as drastically less than men in similar positions--I believe on average it still is less, but that's beside the point in this case. On the one hand, as in a lot of professions, seniority is still an artificial wall--industries that have only recently had influxes of female employees (let's say the past three decades) probably aren't anywhere near even in terms of upper-level positions. However as the current generation ages and retires I suspect this will begin to change, especially if statistics like this become more present in people's consciousnesses--well, provided there's no actual conspiracy to keep women out.

I know what you're saying, but I had a glance at the report itself (I'll try to find a link) and it identified sexism in several other areas, not just pay (e.g. one woman city worker reported that when she asked for a meeting with her boss to discuss promotion opportunities, he refused, telling her "if you wear fishnets to work for a month, maybe then we can talk about it"). A particular worry is that there is a very male culture in the financial industries - team-bonding, corporate entertaining and deal-making often takes place in places like lap-dancing clubs and golf courses. It's actively excluding women.

Also, my impression is that the City is quite a young industry for both sexes - there is a tendency for people to work as a stockbroker or investment banker for 10-15 years, make a pile of money, then get out and find a slower-paced career with more job satisfaction, so I don't think it is just older men in senior positions explaining the difference. I could be wrong about that, though.

But, anyway, my impression is that the pay disparity is far more than can just be explained by there being more men in positions of seniority because they were promoted 20 years ago, before feminism had achieved the level playing field we allegedly have now. My impression is that we still don't have a level playing field.

EDIT: Here is a more feminist article on what the report says, and it includes a link to the actual report itself:

http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2009/09/the_financial_s

As you can see, women's starting salaries in the City are less than men's, which seems to indicate that the problem goes far further than just a few men in senior positions nearing retirement age distorting the figures.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by Melaszka

I know what you're saying, but I had a glance at the report itself (I'll try to find a link) and it identified sexism in several other areas, not just pay (e.g. one woman city worker reported that when she asked for a meeting with her boss to discuss promotion opportunities, he refused, telling her "if you wear fishnets to work for a month, maybe then we can talk about it"). A particular worry is that there is a very male culture in the financial industries - team-bonding, corporate entertaining and deal-making often takes place in places like lap-dancing clubs and golf courses. It's actively excluding women.

Also, my impression is that the City is quite a young industry for both sexes - there is a tendency for people to work as a stockbroker or investment banker for 10-15 years, make a pile of money, then get out and find a slower-paced career with more job satisfaction, so I don't think it is just older men in senior positions explaining the difference. I could be wrong about that, though.

But, anyway, my impression is that the pay disparity is far more than can just be explained by there being more men in positions of seniority because they were promoted 20 years ago, before feminism had achieved the level playing field we allegedly have now. My impression is that we still don't have a level playing field.

EDIT: Here is a more feminist article on what the report says, and it includes a link to the actual report itself:

http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2009/09/the_financial_s

As you can see, women's starting salaries in the City are less than men's, which seems to indicate that the problem goes far further than just a few men in senior positions nearing retirement age distorting the figures.

Hmm, well I'm reading the report itself, but I won't have time to finish the whole thing before work. What I can tell you is that what I've read so far has raised some issues that do not at all sound like what these articles were saying. Whoever compiled this questionnaire into a report in the first place made some wild assumptions, and then it seems these articles followed without a whole lot of inquiry.

[Melaszka]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

Hmm, well I'm reading the report itself, but I won't have time to finish the whole thing before work. What I can tell you is that what I've read so far has raised some issues that do not at all sound like what these articles were saying. Whoever compiled this questionnaire into a report in the first place made some wild assumptions, and then it seems these articles followed without a whole lot of inquiry.

Bill, I'll be interested to see your conclusions when you've finished reading.

I haven't done more than skim-read myself, yet, but have yet to find any evidence of the sloppy practice you seem to have found.

Here's a direct link for anyone else who wants to read the Equality and Human Rights Commission's report into sex discrimination in the UK financial services industry:

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/u...iry_report.pdf

[canismajoris]

I'm not saying their conclusions are wrong, but I have come across several logical non sequiturs that gave me pause. For example the fishnet comment you mentioned earlier:

FSI report As a consequence of being excluded from these client networking activities, women in these organisations were less likely to be able to cultivate clients in the same way as their male colleagues. This sexism also directly impacted in other ways on women’s capacity to secure higher pay. An incident was reported to the Inquiry in which one woman, who wanted to speak to her manager about possible re-grading, was told by the male manager: ‘If you show up for work in fishnets for the next month then maybe we’ll talk about it.’

Maybe it's just me, but is that really the best we can do? The previous portion had given an overview of how women are often excluded from opportunities to entertain clients--which made sense to an extent--often meetings are held in strip clubs or golf courses. But if the bit that follows is meant to be some sort of corollary, it simply isn't. First, we would have to accept that the exclusion of women from clientele-building events is actually exclusion (it could be that business leaders go in good faith with what works best), actually sexism (which I'm not 100% certain of--I would feel just as excluded on a golf course or in a strip club as these women are purported to be), and then further that it's the very same mechanism that led to outright should-be-instantly-terminated sexual harassment directed at a woman seeking promotion (which let's remember is an apparently anonymous anecdote, not a statistic).

Like I said, just an example, not indicative of the whole (yet). Overall so far I think my original conclusion was close to right (when it comes to the distribution of jobs that men and women actually have in the industry). A few things it made very clear, if we are to believe they faithfully report the questionnaire results: more men tend to work in the jobs with higher pay scales, more men work overtime and unpaid overtime, and women are often not considered for raises or promotions because of pregnancy and childcare. All serious issues that need to be addressed in one way or another, but all fairly logical ones from a business perspective--unfortuately.

[Voldemorts8thHorcrux]

i just read the first part of the report and i noticed that the articles above seemed to only notice the percentages about the pay gap for performance (80%) and not some of the other findings

[DancingMaenid]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

First, we would have to accept that the exclusion of women from clientele-building events is actually exclusion (it could be that business leaders go in good faith with what works best), actually sexism (which I'm not 100% certain of--I would feel just as excluded on a golf course or in a strip club as these women are purported to be), and then further that it's the very same mechanism that led to outright should-be-instantly-terminated sexual harassment directed at a woman seeking promotion (which let's remember is an apparently anonymous anecdote, not a statistic).

This is a fair point. Personally, I probably wouldn't feel any special discomfort on a golf course or in a strip club. Neither is my style, but I'm far more inclined to feel out of place in "feminine" arenas than "masculine ones". Perhaps more so since I'm not very traditionally feminine. And I'm fairly comfortable in male-dominated environments provided the guys are comfortable with me. For instance, I used to practice a martial art where the participants were disproportionately male.

I think that assuming that women will not be able to function in "masculine" environment, or vice versa, can be just as sexist.

I also think that some of these things may change a bit naturally as more women rise to the top in companies.

It's reported pay disparities that's of concern to me, and is what strikes me as the most important hurdle.

[Voldemorts8thHorcrux]

is it me or does a strip club seem a rather shady place to make business deals?

[DancingMaenid]

Originally Posted by Voldemorts8thHorcrux

is it me or does a strip club seem a rather shady place to make business deals?

Yeah, I agree. At the very least, it's not terribly professional (and could put a lot of people in an uncomfortable position).

[Melaszka]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

I'm not saying their conclusions are wrong, but I have come across several logical non sequiturs that gave me pause. For example the fishnet comment you mentioned earlier:



Maybe it's just me, but is that really the best we can do? The previous portion had given an overview of how women are often excluded from opportunities to entertain clients--which made sense to an extent--often meetings are held in strip clubs or golf courses. But if the bit that follows is meant to be some sort of corollary, it simply isn't.

I'd agree it was a bit of a tenuous link and the report could have been written better. I don't think that negates the picture of gender inequality it paints, though.

First, we would have to accept that the exclusion of women from clientele-building events is actually exclusion (it could be that business leaders go in good faith with what works best) is actually sexism

I do accept this, actually. IMO, policy which marginalises or disadvantages women is still sexist, regardless of whether the main intention behind it is to exclude women or not.

"What works best" is not a justification for directly sexist, racist or ablist employment practice: e.g. in the UK, you're not allowed to refuse front-of-house jobs to women/ethnic minorities/disabled people, because you know your clients prefer to be served by white, able-bodied men, so you think that would work best in terms of attracting and retaining clientele. The fact that you are not prejudiced yourself and are only catering to your clients' prejudices to increase your profit margins doesn't mean your employment practice isn't illegally discriminatory.

I don't see that it's any more a justification for indirectly discriminatory employment practice. And, IMO, organising your corporate entertainment around lap-dancing clubs and hostess bars is clearly indirectly discriminatory

Posted by canismajoris
(which I'm not 100% certain of--I would feel just as excluded on a golf course or in a strip club as these women are purported to be)

Posted by DancingMaenid
Personally, I probably wouldn't feel any special discomfort on a golf course or in a strip club. Neither is my style, but I'm far more inclined to feel out of place in "feminine" arenas than "masculine ones". [...] I think that assuming that women will not be able to function in "masculine" environment, or vice versa, can be just as sexist.

I take both your points, but I don't think either the report authors or I are arguing that all men (even all heterosexual men) feel comfortable in lap-dancing clubs or that no women do. I certainly neither said nor suggested that this discomfort will make them "unable to function".

But organising your corporate entertainment/company bonding/doing business deals in such establishments is, surely, working on the assumption that your employees and clients all enjoy looking at semi-nude women? And the majority of people who like looking at semi-nude women are heterosexual men, surely? So, regardless of how individuals feel, surely the practice is clearly sexist and is likely to perpetuate a culture in the industry in which far more heterosexual men than women or gay men will feel comfortable. For me, it sends out a clear signal that this industry is run for men's benefit and that women who want to join are forced to adapt to fit around what are socially perceived to be men's preferences and needs.

I take your points that preferences for lap-dancing and golf are not innately male, that many men dislike them and some women like them, but there are plenty of places where business can take place that have neither traditionally "masculine" or traditionally "feminine" connotations - surely, it makes more sense to use them than to insist that lap-dancing clubs are a gender-neutral environment?

I'm afraid I will never subscribe to the narrow view of feminism that all we have to do is allow women equal access to the same jobs as men (without changing the underlying structures and practices, which are based around men's preferences needs).

Also, regardless of how I personally felt about lap-dancing, if I were the only woman in a party of investment bankers on a corporate night out, knowing that the only other women in the room were there because they were paid to shake their breasts in my colleagues' faces, I would not feel very happy about what message this sent out to my colleagues about the status and purpose of women, and how this might reflect on me. Indeed, there have been a couple of court cases recently where women in the city were allegedly sexually assaulted by colleagues or clients after entertaining them in lap-dancing clubs.

Also, I'm not quite sure what the legal status of single-sex golf clubs is these days, but certainly, until fairly recently (and this is possibly ongoing, I'll have to check) many UK golf clubs prohibited female members from using the facilities at peak times, so using a golf club for corporate entertainment/company bonding was more than indirect discrimination - it totally excluded female employees from the loop.

and then further that it's the very same mechanism that led to outright should-be-instantly-terminated sexual harassment directed at a woman seeking promotion (which let's remember is an apparently anonymous anecdote, not a statistic).

As I read it, the article was merely making the point that there is a pervasive sexist culture in the City, which is manifested in both and the use of lapdancing clubs for corporate entertainment and the fishnet comment, not that the first directly led to the sceond.

Overall so far I think my original conclusion was close to right (when it comes to the distribution of jobs that men and women actually have in the industry). A few things it made very clear, if we are to believe they faithfully report the questionnaire results: more men tend to work in the jobs with higher pay scales, more men work overtime and unpaid overtime, and women are often not considered for raises or promotions because of pregnancy and childcare. All serious issues that need to be addressed in one way or another, but all fairly logical ones from a business perspective--unfortuately.

Not just serious issues, but in many cases illegal ones under UK equality laws. Businesses are not allowed to take pregnancy and childcare issues into account when considering raises and promotions, because the UK law does consider that (rightly, IMO) to be sex discrimination.

Other things are also made clear - that many more women than men feel they have been unfairly passed over for promotion, for example, and that lack of transparency regarding pay in firms makes it very hard for employees to find out who earns what, and thus for discriminatory pay practice to be uncovered.

And the distribution of jobs things doesn't negate the accusations of sexism. If the kinds of jobs that women do consistently attract much lower pay than the kinds of jobs that men do, surely that is indicative that society as a whole undervalues "women"'s work and gives more status to the jobs that men more typically do. How is that not sexism?

[canismajoris]

It is certainly sexism. I know I said I'd have that report finished, but I need another day to get through it.

ETA: I have more to say, but I slept in!

[Melaszka]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

It is certainly sexism. I know I said I'd have that report finished, but I need another day to get through it.

I must admit, I haven't finished it, either. My browser keeps crashing when I'm reading it, possibly because the file is so big.

ETA: I have more to say, but I slept in!

I'm looking forward to reading your views.

Originally Posted by DancingMaenid

I also think that some of these things may change a bit naturally as more women rise to the top in companies.

The trouble is, I don't have your confidence that women are going to rise to the top in large numbers, because I think it's a vicious circle - women either don't get jobs in or leave companies early because of sexist practices, so they don't rise to the top, so sexist practices don't change.

Most of the important Equal Opportunities legislation in the UK was brought in in the 1970s, before most of the current crop of City workers were born, so I can't understand why we don't already have more women at the top. If women are eventually going to rise to the top as a result of women's liberation (which some people argue has already been achieved, we're now living in a post-feminist society etc), how long do we have to wait for that to happen? I would argue, from the fact that it hasn't happened yet, that equality for women has not yet been achieved and much more needs to be done.

On another note, I was interested to read that one factor in unequal pay is that men ask for promotions and pay rises more than women do and are more likely to threaten to leave if they don't get them. If businesses are really making their pay and promotion arrangements on the basis of who is most likely to throw their toys out of the pram, rather than on who does the best work, surely this can't be good for productivity? This is one thing where I think a change in practice would probably benefit both women and profits, and would be better for everyone than carrying on with the"Well, if women want to be paid s much as men, they should act like men and demand it" attitude..

[DancingMaenid]

Originally Posted by Melaszka

I do accept this, actually. IMO, policy which marginalises or disadvantages women is still sexist, regardless of whether the main intention behind it is to exclude women or not.

I agree, definitely. Sometime, people can even have arguably good motivations, but still be sexist or have sexist practices.

I think the question, though, is at what point it counts as exclusion or discrimination.

Using strip clubs for business meetings is problematic on several levels, and it's something I'd rather seen done away with, period. It does discriminate, at least indirectly, against heterosexual women and gay men, and it's also problematic on other levels. Not all straight men enjoy strip clubs or are comfortable with them, and some men have partners who wouldn't be comfortable with it, and the men shouldn't have to choose between looking good at work and being faithful to their partners. It's not necessarily comfortable for gay or bisexual women, either. Just because I find women attractive and straight men find women attractive does not mean that I'm always going to feel welcome and comfortable expressing my sexuality in a group of straight men.

But when it comes to things like golf course meetings, the lines are more blurred. It's not unheard of for women to play golf or, indeed, to play casually with men. If women are excluded, I have to wonder if it's more because specific groups of men are hesitant to be welcoming, or discriminatory practices on the part of the club, rather than the nature of the activity itself.

I'm afraid I will never subscribe to the narrow view of feminism that all we have to do is allow women equal access to the same jobs as men (without changing the underlying structures and practices, which are based around men's preferences needs).

I agree. It's not a simple matter of allowing the chance to do something--if there are factors in place that sabotage their efforts, it doesn't do a whole lot of good that they're "technically" able.

But I think it's hard when it comes to socialization. The nature of the socialization is going to depend a lot on the group. If you have a group that's predominantly male, the interaction is probably going to be a bit different than if you have a group that's predominantly female. I don't know that this can be totally changed, or if it should, necessarily.

I do think that companies should try to minimize activities that actually do exclude, such as strip club meetings. I also think that, in general, it's best for business to be kept professional, or at least give people the option to keep it professional. Going out to bars to talk business is a fairly gender-neutral activity, for example, but if someone isn't comfortable in a bar, they're still going to be at a disadvantage. Being someone who's not a big fan of schmoozing, I'd rather keep business to the office as much as possible.

The trouble is, I don't have your confidence that women are going to rise to the top in large numbers, because I think it's a vicious circle - women either don't get jobs in or leave companies early because of sexist practices, so they don't rise to the top, so sexist practices don't change.

I wouldn't say I have confidence, unfortunately. It's an uphill battle, and there are a lot of factors that make it difficult. And sexist practices need to change.

But I'm not talking so much about sexist behavior as gendered behavior. If a woman feels excluded in a group of men because they don't make any point to include her or even avoid doing so, that's one thing. Same if the genders are reversed. But if a woman feels excluded because her colleagues have been exposed to different things and have been socialized differently, and the things they like to talk about aren't things that she can relate to, there's only so much that can be done about that, and in that regard the office is only going to become more "feminine" when there are more women.

Gender differences are a touchy thing for me, and I tend to think that most of it has to do with upbringing and what sort of behavior is encouraged, but they do exist.

[ActingDude17]

I will say I am against affirmative action.