Flexibility
One of the things that comes up with the gender pay gap is that women are apparently paid less if they have kids or could be come pregnant. This is one of the areas I go back in forth in my head on a lot. I expect that, in this current cultural climate, women with kids or in the childbearing age do cost employers more. I'm certain, though I don't have them, that the statistics show that women stay out of work more during and immediately after a pregnancy than men. Statistics can lie, but I bet they are there.
What I wonder more about is the idea that employers assume women with kids are less dedicated to the job than men are. Right or wrong, I've never seen a survey that reasonably asks whether or not this is true. Both whether or not employers really believe that, or women with kids are less dedicated to their jobs then men with kids. The cultural story would tell you that the women will be less dedicated. My personal experience is mixed. Many women with kids that I've known were prioritized their kids over work.
My mom regrets having to prioritize her time at work over her time with me, but it was definitely what needed to be done at the time. It makes me curious as to whether or not there's a strong difference between single and married and/or supported parents. My expectation is that any person with a supportive other, even if they both have jobs, takes their job less seriously than their kids than single parents. I'll need to look for data that compares those two situations as well.
I'm just exploring these thoughts because I'm trying to figure out how one would mandate a close of the gap that makes business sense rather than attempting fiat and hoping everything works out. I was reading an article that talked about the fix being flexibility. You can read it here: http://www.stylist.co.uk/stylist-network/why-having-a-penis-is-worth-10000#image-rotator-2
Most of the time that I've heard this assertion it comes across to me as only fully considering the needs of the woman, not the employer. The word "flexibility" here seems to mean exactly what the employer originally decided to pay them less for: Less time working. I would love to see a stronger definition of what they mean. If they're referring to fitting work in with school hours then, in some cases, less work is exactly what they mean. If the sliding window fits though, then maybe it makes some sense.
I'll revisit this when some of the math settles down in my head. Rather than saying, "This must be done," I wish I heard more voices describing how it would be done. I run into the same thing with the talking heads on the radio where they spend a lot of time focused on which candidate is doing better, but not time discussing anything substantive about the candidates.
What I wonder more about is the idea that employers assume women with kids are less dedicated to the job than men are. Right or wrong, I've never seen a survey that reasonably asks whether or not this is true. Both whether or not employers really believe that, or women with kids are less dedicated to their jobs then men with kids. The cultural story would tell you that the women will be less dedicated. My personal experience is mixed. Many women with kids that I've known were prioritized their kids over work.
My mom regrets having to prioritize her time at work over her time with me, but it was definitely what needed to be done at the time. It makes me curious as to whether or not there's a strong difference between single and married and/or supported parents. My expectation is that any person with a supportive other, even if they both have jobs, takes their job less seriously than their kids than single parents. I'll need to look for data that compares those two situations as well.
I'm just exploring these thoughts because I'm trying to figure out how one would mandate a close of the gap that makes business sense rather than attempting fiat and hoping everything works out. I was reading an article that talked about the fix being flexibility. You can read it here: http://www.stylist.co.uk/stylist-network/why-having-a-penis-is-worth-10000#image-rotator-2
Most of the time that I've heard this assertion it comes across to me as only fully considering the needs of the woman, not the employer. The word "flexibility" here seems to mean exactly what the employer originally decided to pay them less for: Less time working. I would love to see a stronger definition of what they mean. If they're referring to fitting work in with school hours then, in some cases, less work is exactly what they mean. If the sliding window fits though, then maybe it makes some sense.
I'll revisit this when some of the math settles down in my head. Rather than saying, "This must be done," I wish I heard more voices describing how it would be done. I run into the same thing with the talking heads on the radio where they spend a lot of time focused on which candidate is doing better, but not time discussing anything substantive about the candidates.