back to article Why is it that women are consistently paid less than men?

There is undoubtedly a gender pay gap in our society. Even a number of them across our various societies. In the US the usual number given is that women make 77 cents on the dollar that men do and here in the UK we've recently had a government shouting that the part time gender pay gap is as much as 37 per cent. This could …

  1. TheProf
    Unhappy

    Politically incorrect

    Hmm. I earn a lot less than Harriet Harman.

    1. J.G.Harston Silver badge

      Re: Politically incorrect

      You probably earn more than Harriet Harman and most ofther MPs, you're just /paid/ less than her.

    2. scrubber
      Big Brother

      Re: Politically incorrect

      Maybe she gets paid based on hypocritical output - in which case very few people earn as much as HH.

    3. JonP
      Alien

      Re: Politically incorrect

      The article was quite careful to mention that it was about the perceived pay/gender discrepancy for mammals, rather than our reptilian overlords.

  2. Sgt_Oddball

    He's got a point.

    Since we had kids my wife went from 4.5 days a week to 3 where as I moved jobs to a bigger pay packet (for less stress too I might add).

    When they start primary school we have agreed that she'll go back to 4. 5/5 days a week and I might start freelancing to give me more flexible hours so I can pick them up ect. But by that point I expect to have a few ideas to launch and see if I can make something of them too.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: He's got a point.

      now try getting a new mortgage. Freelancer? sorry, computer says nope.

      Back to the main point in question

      I have to wonder if one of the reasons is that the female of the species won't put up with the crap that us men have to endure on a daily basis. All that climbing the grewsy pole backstabbing and the like.

      I gave up on that many, many years ago. I never wanted to be a sodding manager so why do endless and mosly male bosses seem to want to make me into one.

      The only one who even remotely understood my reasons why was a woman. After that we got along fine. All the others in the department treated her like she was from another planet(this was the 1980's).

      Rather sad really.

      IMHO, there should be no difference in pay. Equal pay for the same work.

      The other issue in the workplace today is being able to be friendly with members of the opposite sex without anypaty thinknig that you are 'coming onto them'. In this PC age, and in some workplaces, even smiling at a woman can be grounds for disciplinary action. smile again and you are out of a job. That is not equality.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: He's got a point.

        "now try getting a new mortgage. Freelancer? sorry, computer says nope."

        You're doing it in the wrong order. Get the mortgage & then go freelance.

      2. Velv
        Go

        Re: He's got a point.

        "now try getting a new mortgage. Freelancer? sorry, computer says nope."

        That's not my experience. I had no trouble getting a mortgage from RBS having been freelance for only 5 months, the guy on the phone knew all about company dividends and just wanted to know my earnings as reported on my tax return. A friend had a similar experience with HSBC where they wanted the last three contract values. So I guess it's not just which bank, but which person in the bank you speak to, as its certainly not "computer says nope"

        IPSE (the PCG of old) also have links with specialist providers who understand the freelance market.

        Don't try ang get a mortgage the same week you quit your permanent job for freelance, but don't for one minute fear that being freelance will in any way restrict you.

        1. frank ly

          Re: He's got a point.

          Your accountant, or their director (has to be a Chartered Accountant) can write to the lending organisation to give 'formal' confirmation of your earnings. This worked fine for me after only a year of being a contractor - your experience may vary.

      3. Matt Siddall

        Re: He's got a point.

        IMHO, there should be no difference in pay. Equal pay for the same work.

        That raises two issues though:

        (i) How do you incentivise people to work harder if everyone doing the job gets the same pay. You'll be surprised how many people will do the bare minimum...

        (ii) How do you determine who is doing "the same work"? Where I work there are a bunch of people with the same title who do widely differing work, some having been there for a lot longer than others and knowing a lot more.

        1. Mark 65

          Re: He's got a point.

          "Equal pay for the same work" is a great soundbite but unfortunately it falls short where the rubber meets the road. Sure, if you're both on a factory production line putting widgets X in boxes Y and operate at the same rate then it's reasonably straightforward. However, once you get out into the general workforce it becomes a lot harder to discern "the same". One person could meet the minimal standard, the other exceed it. One may go beyond the call of duty whereas the other may work to rule. So on and so forth.

          I've also realised that, no matter what role you do, a lot comes down to how good a salesman you are - i.e. can you bullshit and self-congratulate or arse kiss yourself to a pay rise or do you say it like it is and invariably get whatever is deemed appropriate. Perhaps men are also better bullshitters.

          1. Squander Two

            Re: He's got a point.

            > Sure, if you're both on a factory production line putting widgets X in boxes Y and operate at the same rate then it's reasonably straightforward. However, once you get out into the general workforce it becomes a lot harder to discern "the same". One person could meet the minimal standard, the other exceed it. One may go beyond the call of duty whereas the other may work to rule.

            And a lot of jobs are quite difficult to define merely in terms of tasks performed per time period. In IT, I'm sure we all know people who are valuable because of the large amount of vital information in their brains, even if that information is hardly ever needed. You often see two people whose day-to-day jobs are basically identical, but, faced with a once-a-decade disastrous clusterfuck, one of them will be able to fix it inside a day and the other will take a fortnight. Even if that disaster never materialises, someone with the ability to fix it can still be considered valuable. Like insurance. And such abailities are based on experience, which is precisely what you have less of if you took time off to look after your kids (or for any other reason).

      4. Tom 13

        Re: Equal pay for the same work

        Except that when the econometric studies are done, they invariably show equal or better pay for women than they do for men when all variables are considered. Tim does a very good job of dancing around this point to support the fully debunked 77% statistic. The number only arises when you aggregate ALL women vs ALL men and ignore actual hours worked and years in the field variables.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: He's got a point.

      Back before the hormonal time bomb went off my wife often earned more than me, only towards the end of this phase of our lives did my income regular exceed hers as I'd ended up contracting and managed to keep busy. Once the time bomb went off and she decided much to her own surprise that actually she did want kids we agreed we'd carry on working much the same, then during pregnancy she decided that life was going to be more tiring and that perhaps she'd like to go part time. Her boss was very understanding and she switched to working 4 days a week. This worked OK till the kids started to approach school age. While the kids are in nursery its easy, nurseries are business aimed at providing a service to working parents. Schools aren't. 4 days became 3, but instead of 4 full days and a day off, she'd switched 5 short days. Arriving late, leaving early isn't easy, even if that's all you're being paid for. Arranging meetings around these arrangements isn't straight forward. Then various of her friends started to drop out of the working life, meeting up for coffee when she was at work etc. Suddenly all the s*&t of the work place lost its appeal and the idea of being a traditional house wife, shock horror, became increasingly appealing.

      Call in peer pressure if you like, but if a lot of your friends are no longer at work everyday, you can start to feel you are missing out.

      1. Tom 13

        @AC-Re: He's got a point.

        Did you ever actually run the financials for her staying fully employed?

        I'm not married and have no kids so haven't experienced it from that angle. I'm also in the US, not the UK. But I do recall quite a number of conversations with my mother about the topic. When I was born she paid for babysitters and kept her job. When my brother kept doing the same but had to keep shifting babysitters which was a lot of work. Eventually she sat down with my dad and they ran the financials. My dad was in a high income tax bracket because he was in sales and she was low to moderate because she was a secretary (what admin assistants were called back then) even if it was a medical secretary. Between what taxes took our of her check, the cost of babysitters, the cost of transportation, and the extra cost of doctors because of all that socializing at babysitters they decided she was adding $20/month to net family income. So she quit and became a stay at home mom.

    3. Martin Budden Silver badge

      Re: He's got a point.

      He's got a point.

      Since we had kids I've gone part-time and I spend the rest (most) of my time as a house-husband looking after the little darlin's, while the missus continues to work full time and has been promoted.

      So yes Worstall is right, it's a home-making pay gap, not a gender pay gap.

  3. Banksy
    Pint

    Request line

    Thanks for the article Tim, interesting analysis. I more or less expected the reasons for the perceived 'gap' but it's useful to have some real numbers behind it.

    I also learned two new words, although I'm not sure when 'primagravida' and 'viviparous' are going to come up in everyday conversation.

    I did enjoy imagining Guardian readers frothing at the mouth too.

    1. WaveyDavey

      Re: Request line

      Steady on - I am a long-time graun reader, and distictyl pink, and I found the article fascinating. i think there are some deep truths in some of those stats.

      1. Thomas 6

        Re: Request line

        I am also a Guardian reader who had no visible signs of frothing whilst reading the article.

        I can't say that I was a fan of all of the language used (e.g. “Suck it up, honey!” being more my attitude, you want the blessing of children then there's costs that go with them) but the content of the article is something that I have been saying for a long time.

    2. graeme leggett Silver badge

      Re: Request line

      I think " primagravidae" would make a good title for a SF novel.

      (quickly checks Amazon - no not one by that name yet)

      1. Shady

        Re: Request line

        Or a cheesy italian salad at Carluccio's

      2. Philip Lewis

        Re: Request line

        ... or a band

  4. Tomato42
    Joke

    Watch out for the pitchforks!

    This is a heated debate, not a cold reasoned calculation!

    <insert calls to patriarchy, discrimination, etc. here>

  5. Alan J. Wylie

    Crunching through these numbers we find that there is no gender pay gap among people under the age of 30. There is a small one among the next age group, and that persists, even widening out as we get up to people in their 60s.

    Could the explanation for this be that well paid, married, women will tend to retire at 60 (or even earlier), less well paid women will slog on.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Retirement age

      Until recently (if I am correct) the age when women got their State Pension was 60. For men it was 65.

      That is one reason for the pay gap amongst us Sixty somethings. Less women over 60 in full time employment.

      Soon it will be equal. 3ys 2months and counting till I qualify for my state pension. Yay!

  6. xerocred

    Checkout the ONS YouTube channel

    It explains all this and more.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Something missing

    You're very specific about comparing pay for the same job, but how about the difference in pay between "jobs that men do" and "jobs that women do"? i.e society generally places more financial value on bricklayers and truck drivers than it does on secretaries and nurses. None of the jobs specifically excludes either gender, but more males do the former (for more money) and more females do the latter (and get paid less).

    1. Banksy

      Re: Something missing

      What would be the point of that? It's not comparing 'like for like' so of course there will be a difference.

      I'm not sure society does place more financial value on bricklayers than nurses. Now at the moment bricklayers can command a lot of money because a lot of people dropped out of the trade when housebuilding collapsed around 2007/08 so there is currently more demand for less workers. That isn't a 'society' issue, it's an economics one.

    2. Graham Dawson Silver badge

      Re: Something missing

      The whole point of comparing like for like is to eliminate confounding variables - things that can't be controlled, like relative supply and demand, required skill, cost of operation and so forth.

      Simple example: Bricklayers require a lot of training and need several years of experience to be any use, and are always in relatively short supply as a result (though not nearly as short as plumbers or gas fitters). Secretaries need to know how to turn on a computer, type reasonably well and answer phones, and can be had for pennies because there's a glut of people with these skills

      A man working as a secretary will be earning the same as a woman working as a secretary (I know this, because I have done so), and a woman working as a brickie (and yes they do exist) will earn as much as a man working as a brickie.

      1. Justthefacts Silver badge

        Re: Something missing

        But you CAN'T restrict to compare like for like, because they just aren't - the going in assumptions build-in the same bias as the outcome.

        The analysis in the article is not even wrong - it is just meaningless to say "roles in HR are paid less, but there's no discrimination because they are different". In a different society, I could do this: "roles in software production are paid lower than HR, but that's OK they are just different"

        In the 60s, when this first came up, the time and motion men made some attempt to compare roles. The problem is that this is much harder to do now meaningfully when most roles are white collar

        Secondly,take a company where everyone starts at the bottom. After eight years you're eligible for promotion to Principal Engineer, but only men tend to get promoted. Analysing role by role, the salaries will be equal, but the outcome clearly is not.

        It's an alternate explanation of why salaries are equal for people in their 20s, but not in older cohorts.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Something missing

          it's rather hard to hire the nearly non existing female engineers. Not only because they fall from job market earlier and more often (children, marriage), but because most of them simply don't go into engineering.

          Or do you really expect non working people to earn as much as working people?!

          But if we look into engineers that are in the market place, they do earn as much per hour. So, where is the discrimination exactly? That many women actually prefer to take care of the children?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Something missing

            Norway has had a policy of encouraging - and even outright quota forcing in some cases - equal hiring in all sectors for several decades. They have one of the most egalitarian societies in Europe, something that can be attested through any number of studies available all over the internet, and yet they have found that women still prefer not to enter into certain fields.

            The Gender Paradox, a documentary by a Norwegian comedian (don't laugh, he's serious), covers it quite nicely.

            1. Mark 85

              Re: Something missing

              Quotas are never a good thing. You don't get the best people for the job, just someone who matches the quota.

              Have you ever been a victim of this discrimination? I have and it's not funny. There was a running joke back in the 70's here in States when they tried to implement racial quotas that the ideal candidate for any job was a black woman who was over 50 and a veteran of the Spanish-American War. No other qualifications needed.

              1. Tom 13

                Re: running joke back in the 70's here in States

                You forgot Jewish.

                The joke has been updated for the twenty-teens. She now also needs to be lesbian. Super Extra Bonus if she's transgendered.

        2. erkulas

          Re: Something missing

          The bricklaying men just take out the pre payment. And they will pay oh so dearly when the time comes for this. How many men make it to the 65 retirement age vs 60 retriement for women? Bricklayers (men or women) SHOULD get more pay than kindergarden teachers because they shorten their life expectancy considerably more on the job!!! And they do.

          I am getting really tired of this feminist BS. All the western societies try to get to the wholy grail of 3 children per woman but in reality are moving farther away from this goal. There is no eating the cake and leaving it too. Look at which societies are doing well on this topic (moslems? Tyrkey? asian countryes?), now look at their gender "equality" score.

          This whole argument is ridiculous - something for the ones who have nothing better on their hands. Once in a while these kind of articles tick me off so here I am wasting the time I have ~10 years less than the women in my country (being a man).

          1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

            Re: Something missing @erkulas

            I think the argument about shorter life expectancy for men, and them not reaching pensionable age is a severely outdated one.

            It may have been true up until 50 or so years ago, but health and safety legislation and the changing demographic of work in developed economies have seriously undermined this line of thought.

            It's true, there are still mostly manual jobs out there. Construction work is an obvious one, but anything that is mostly physical in nature. In these, anything that would seriously affect the health of the workers is now severely regulated in progressive economies, and professions like mining, steel work, and transport (I'm thinking of dock workers here) have almost completely disappeared either because they don't exist any more, or they have been altered beyond recognition due to mechanisation.

            One of the other outcomes of this is that the historical actuarial rules for pensions have been broken, leading to most older pension schemes that assumed that people (esp. men) may either not reach pensionable age, or only have a fey years that need a pension before expiring now face paying 20+ years. This also affects the balance of the state pension (too many pensioners vs. the number of workers), as that is a non-funded pension scheme (workers today are paying national insurance to fund the state pensions of existing pensioners, not paying into a fund for their own retirement). This is one of the reasons why governments actually want population increase, through means including immigration, to provide a mid-term extension of the pensions system.

            1. Tom 13

              Re: I think the argument about shorter life expectancy for men

              You might FEEL that way, but you haven't thought about it and you certainly haven't done an even rudimentary check. The Social Security Administration for the US has actual data about this:

              http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

              Even at age 1, 140 more men die than women per 1000 born. The number get progressive worse from there.

              1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

                Re: I think the argument about shorter life expectancy for men @Tom 13

                That's interesting, but I don't actually think that table is relevant to my post.

                Firstly, all of the life expectancy figures in that table are actuarial, meaning that they are guesses based on historical figures rather than accurate predictions. And my point is that the assumptions that those numbers are built upon are changing because of really dangerous professions either disappearing, or becoming much safer. The only column that is relevant is the "number of lives".

                Secondly, as I was commenting on differences due to work done by men and women, quoting a figure for children aged one is largely irrelevant, unless the US has found ways of infants working.

                These figures for boys and girls below working age show something different, although I don't have a clue what it is. It can't even be misadventure, because (again) infants probably don't really behave very differently.

                Thirdly, within the timespan of the table (1891-2010), there are two very major and several significant minor events that skew the figures in the US. These are the first and second World Wars, together with the Korean police action, the Vietnam war, the first and second Gulf Wars and the following actions, the US war in Afghanistan, and the actions in Balkans. All of these would significantly increase the proportion of male vs. female mortality, as wars are generally still fought by men, and even those who return may have had life altering injuries that persist in affecting the figures long after the events.

                It's also interesting that the figures include populations living outside of the US, which probably include people living and working in much less safe environments than the US mainland. I would also contend that Europe probably has more job related health and safety regulation than the US.

                We will not be able to see the full figures for the period I was talking about for may years to come.

                I certainly wouldn't argue that the figures do show a shorter life expectancy for men, but my point is that recently, and on into the future, the differences due to the type of work people do (my post) will become less as time goes by.

      2. Tom 13

        @Graham Dawson

        Actually, you have the training part reversed. There's not a great deal of skill in bricklaying. You trowel the mortar on the brick, press it down/slide it over the correct amount, and move to the next brick. For the secretary you have to learn to type, spell, a whole bunch of grammar, run phone systems, keep calendars, and multi-task in a way a bricklayer never has to.

        Now the bricklayer is pretty much hard labor whereas the secretary is not. And usually the secretary's job is fairly safe from physical harm whereas the bricklayer usually runs at least the risk of broken limbs and sometimes even death. Bricklaying may also have some seasonality to it.

        I know I'd want more money for the bricklaying work than the secretary. Although if I were a secretary, I'd also want stock options.

        1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

          @Tom 13 Re: @Graham Dawson

          "here's not a great deal of skill in bricklaying. You trowel the mortar on the brick, press it down/slide it over the correct amount, and move to the next brick."

          I've worked on enough projects and knocked down enough shonky walls after the fact to know the difference people people who think that way and brickies who are actually worth paying. Generally speaking, the people who do think that way are called apprentices and they're kept away from anything remotely structural or visible.

          Any fool can slap mortar on bricks and call it a wall. It takes a long, long time before they're actually good at it.

    3. Craigness

      Re: Something missing

      So we pay more for jobs which involve danger and discomfort. And women are not prevented from doing these jobs, nor are men prevented from entering the more stable, comfortable jobs. Yet men and women make different choices! It's like women are buying a more comfortable job whereas men just go for the money and put up with the discomfort! I'm sure the sexism in that situation is solely against women, of course. It's not that in our gynocentric society men are encouraged to forgo the comforts that women seek, in order to better provide for those women, nothing like that.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

    4. Mark 85

      Re: Something missing

      Ah... comparing apples to oranges today or looking for political correctness are we? Political correctness has nothing to do with truth and usually vice-versa.

      I guess next, you'll be telling us that hamburger flippers here in the States are worth the $15 minimum wage they're screaming about.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Something missing

      There are quite a few reasons why some work that is considered 'mens' work gets paid more than 'womens' work. For example: Bricklayers work outdoors and it is more hazardous work compared to secretarial work. So for the most part, bricklayers get paid more. However, PA's get paid more than secretaries, and they do pretty similar work... and both are considered 'womens' work...

      Then you also have a discrepancy in what gets referred to as 'mens work' and 'womens work'. According to the ONS, 'Mens work' is where 70% of the workforce are men, where as 'womens work' is where 80% of the workforce are women. In both instances, the government can override this and simply state a particular job is 'male' or 'female' irrispective of the gender blance in the workplace.

      Oh, and an interesting note from a feminist: Women entering engineering are paid around 17% more than men. This is due to supply and demand - fewer qualified women engineers makes them a more 'valuable' commodity so there is more compeition to employ them, hence they get paid more. That was quite an interesting interview, too - wish I had the link to share, but I caught it on youtube over the weekend and... not at the same computer...

  8. J.G.Harston Silver badge

    When I worked in local government for a decade I observed that the male head of planning was paid the same as the female head of planning, the male head of education was paid the same as the female head of education, the male chief executive was paid the same as the female chief executive, the male bin lorry drivers were paid the same as the (few) female bin lorry drivers, the male head of year four in school X was paid the same as the female head of year four in school Y.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "When I worked in local government for a decade..."

      On the other hand, thousands of women working for local government have fought for and waited years for compensation and back pay because they were paid less than males in equivalent jobs. Many local councils have had to pay out £££millions to such an extent that some nearly went bust. They fought tooth and nail to NOT pay it out, or at least reduce their liability.

      1. PatientOne

        "On the other hand, thousands of women working for local government have fought for and waited years for compensation and back pay because they were paid less than males in equivalent jobs. "

        Nope, what happened was the jobs were incorrectly graded and the workers (men as well as women) were underpaid. The media made out it was gender based in their reports because most council cleaners are women.

  9. Velv
    Boffin

    Ask the wrong question and you will get the wrong answer. Or more specifically, ask a weighted question and you will get a weighted answer.

    Comparing "jobs that men do" against "jobs that women do" and picking bricklayers against secretaries is clearly weighted by the different skills required. Why not compare bricklayers (men) with oil rig workers (men)? Skills are different so pay is different. Or Secretaries with nurses? Different skills, different pay rates. To get a fair comparison you can only do so if all other variables are eliminated, something almost impossible to achieve given the number of variables.

    As an aside, here's an interesting article about comparing like for like:

    http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html

  10. John H Woods Silver badge

    Next question...

    ... does this mean that, in some sense, there is 'discrimination' against parenthood and, if so, does anything need to be done about it? Entirely open question, just seeking opinions ...

    1. Tim Worstal

      Re: Next question...

      You could say that it's discrimination against parenthood. I would cast it the other way around, that people discriminate more about work when they are parents.

      1. John H Woods Silver badge

        Re: Next question...

        "You could say that it's discrimination against parenthood. I would cast it the other way around, that people discriminate more about work when they are parents." -- Tim Worstall

        I agree. I was never keen on working more than my contracted hours for no additional reward before having a family; when you do have a family (or even just a significant other), additional time that you give your employer, whether for free or for additional payment, doesn't 100% belong to you -- so you have to be even more careful.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Next question...

      If anything, in the workplace, there's a discrimination against non-parenthood. Childrens' numerous activities and illnesses are seen as a perfectly acceptable reason for parents to work at home, or to take time off that somehow is never booked as holiday. Non-parents just don't have those excuses.

      I've generally observed (so the usual caveats apply) that fathers work less hours than men without children - I work in IT so I have little data on female behaviour here. I can fully understand that fathers would want to spend time with their children but I am becoming very intolerant of those fathers' tendencies to offload work onto others as a consequence of this.

      1. Rob 5

        Re: Next question...

        Discrimination against non-parents is not limited to the workplace. Those of us without kids get to pay for the tax credits, education etc. of other people's children. Worse, we pay for it with money that we should be saving for our old age, when we'll need it to pay somebody to care for us. Meanwhile, those with kids get cared for by their offspring, who are doing rather well, thanks to all the childless people's money that was lavished on them.

        1. notowenwilson

          Re: Next question...

          And when you get old, who are you going to pay to look after you? My kids! So if I, and all the other parents on here, decided that we don't like the child bearing lifestyle and decided to go without, you'd be left importing immigrants to wipe your butt once you're too old to do it yourself. And if there's one thing most people on the right like less than paying tax, it's immigrants!

          Being a parent is not all about tax breaks and benefits, I've got 3 kids under 8 and I haven't slept in later than 8am on ANY morning when the kids are in the house since number 1 was born. I've got another 20 years of supporting them and they won't be paying for my retirement since they'll be struggling to pay their own mortgage and bring up their own kids. So where's the up-side of parenting? Where's the compensation for all the hard work and stress? The financial compensation from the government doesn't come close to covering the financial cost of raising kids.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            I haven't slept in later than 8am

            Your lifestyle choice; no sympathy from me.

            Much like your level of empathy for non-parents really.

            But thanks for attempting to describe your lot in terms of a noble sacrifice.

            1. Squander Two

              Re: I haven't slept in later than 8am

              > Your lifestyle choice; no sympathy from me.

              Is that what you said to your dad on Father's Day?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: I haven't slept in later than 8am

                Nicely proving that parental self-righteousness really does go up to 11.

                1. Squander Two

                  Re: I haven't slept in later than 8am

                  > Nicely proving that parental self-righteousness really does go up to 11.

                  What's self-righteous about it? I'm just pointing out that small children need help from their parents. That's a biological fact about humans and a legal fact about our society. If I weren't a parent, it still would be.

            2. notowenwilson

              Re: I haven't slept in later than 8am

              I have plenty of empathy for non-parents. Which part of my post made you think that I didn't? I also have empathy for people in jail, just because I didn't specifically reference it in my post doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

              If we're going to label having kids/not having kids as a lifestyle choice it seems only reasonable that those who don't have kids just roll over and accept that their lot in life is to provide the finances (in the form of tax) to support the society. The OP that I was replying to seemed to have missed that point.

              1. Rob 5

                Re: I haven't slept in later than 8am

                (a) Many childless people physically can't have kids. Not much choice there, contra those who choose to have them.

                (b) By "roll over and accept" you mean "There's more of us than there is of them, so stealing from them is right and proper". The argument of looters throughout history.

                There was a time when people paid for their own damn choices, having kids included.

        2. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

          Re: Next question... @Rob 5

          That's called society. Without it, there would almost certainly not be the jobs that you do that pay your salary.

          It's one of the things that differentiates homo sapiens from most other mammals. Society as a whole provides what is required for society's benefit (there are other examples, such as wolf packs which have non-breeding members of the pack that contribute to the pack through hunting and nursemaid roles).

          You, as a net financial contributor are paying for the next generation. Parents, as net care contributors, are 'paying' for the next generation with care. Some of the next generation in the future will 'pay' (with their care) for older people, whether they've had children or not. Society as a whole benefits from all contributions, and many I've not detailed. It's been this way, in one form or another since man started living in groups, although now it's expanding to a scale where it no longer looks like society any more.

          I will admit that in the modern selfish world, where people just say 'what about me' all the time, that this could break down, but hey, nothing is forever.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Next question...

        > I've generally observed (so the usual caveats apply) that fathers work less hours than men without children

        Weird, my experience is that fathers will do anything to avoid going home and having to face the family.

      3. Squander Two

        Re: Next question...

        > If anything, in the workplace, there's a discrimination against non-parenthood. Childrens' numerous activities and illnesses are seen as a perfectly acceptable reason for parents to work at home, or to take time off that somehow is never booked as holiday.

        Ah, this ignorant self-absorbed bollocks again.

        Look, illness happens. Children get ill. And children can't just tell their teachers they're going to take the rest of the day off and go home and look after themselves. They require help. Until they reach a certain age, it is actually illegal to leave them to fend for themselves. So yes, parents often need to go get their kids and look after them at zero notice.

        Employers, not being utter fuckwits, recognise this simple fact of life and so cut their parent employees the necessary slack. Because, even assuming said employers are actually hard-hearted bastards like you and don't give a fuck about their staff beyond how much money they make, what's the alternative? If they refuse to allow a bit of flexibility for parents, those parents will simply stop working for them. You cannot bring up a child while working for an employer who makes it difficult for you. And, of course, the ones who will find it easiest to find work elsewhere are the best ones.

        You seem to think that refusing to allow a bit of flexibility for parents would lead to some vindictively utopian world in which parents were forced to stay in the office no matter what happened to their kids. It would in fact lead to a mass exodus of staff. Unless of course your idea were enforced across the whole economy instead of in just individual firms, in which case it would lead to the collapse of society. GOOD PLAN.

        Or maybe we should just keep women out of the workplace, like we used to. That was an effective solution to your problem.

        Try asking your employer for some emergency short-notice time off because your twenty-five-year-old friend is ill and you need to look after him. Not only will your employer (probably) refuse, but they will refuse knowing that it's not something you're going to leave the company over.

        > Non-parents just don't have those excuses.

        It's not an excuse; it's a negotiating position.

        And everyone benefits from living in a society in which it is possible to work and bring up children. You would prefer parenthood to render people unemployable? How much tax are you willing to pay, just to avoid the very occasional moment of seething resentment in your life?

        All that being said, in my experience, employers have been quite reasonable about letting me take time off in emergencies that have nowt to do with kids. A friend with meningitis, a girlfriend with a kidney infection, a water leak flooding my flat, and the less alarming stuff like bloody useless public transport: time off, no problem. Shit happens. I'm sure some employers are far less reasonable -- and I'm sure they're unreasonable to everyone, not just the non-parents.

        Finally, this:

        > that somehow is never booked as holiday.

        How do you know? Are you in your firm's HR department, or is someone in HR breaching the confidentiality of your colleagues? Or are you just guessing?

        Because I've worked for some extremely reasonable and generous people in my time, and all they've allowed me to do is to take holiday at very short notice or to take time off and then make up the hours some other time.

    3. Allan George Dyer

      Re: Next question...

      Yes, with a special emphasis on discrimination against motherhood. It can be seen in many of the comments here, where changing jobs from paid employment to pregnant is described as "leaving work". In our past, childbearing has been a very dangerous occupation, modern medicine (handwashing) has improved this but it is still not without risk. If you love your job, it doesn't make it any less deserving of pay; parents are making a long-term investment for Society.

      Doing something about it is complicated, involving a fine line between overpopulation and rising retirement ages.

  11. Voland's right hand Silver badge

    Fantastic piece and very spot on until a point

    And that point was: "But don't worry, because society already offers child tax credits and child benefit, the two amounting to about what that motherhood pay gap was."

    Err WTF is a tax credit and WTF is a child benefit in a country where the moment you look at the head of DWP your first thought is "which dig did this social fossil come out from".

    The idea of tax credit and child benefit was and should have been to cover the parenthood gap. Here are the news at 10 for your Tim - it bloody does not. It penalizes those for whom it is actually a gap and still provides subsistence means for those who would not really enter the the workforce in the first place. And for some it is actually means of income.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Italy

    > it's really difficult to think of that as a country outstanding in its gender equity compared to the Nordics.

    Apart from Italy being such a diverse country that generalisations are nearly impossible, I am curious as to why you would think that?

    > it's most unusual for a married Italian woman to work

    Could you please back this up with some data, including comparison with Scandinavian and other European countries? It is certainly not the impression I had while in Italy.

    1. Tim Worstal

      Re: Italy

      Labour force participation numbers for women here:

      http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS

      Italy is low, at 40%. Sweden, Switzerland at 60%, UK and US at 56%.

      And a paper:

      http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/low-fertility-and-labour-force-participation-of-italian-women_263482758546

      "In Italy, as well as in other Southern European countries, low labor market participation rates of married women are observed together with low birth rates. Our proposed explanation for this apparent anomaly involves the Italian institutional structure, particularly as reflected in rigidities and imperfections in the labor market and characteristics of the publicly-funded child care system. These rigidities tend to simultaneously increase the costs of having children and to discourage the labor market participation of married women."

      My "unusual" might have been a bit strong. "Very much less usual" would still be fair.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Italy

        > http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS

        http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.ENR.TERT.FM.ZS

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Statistics, etc.

    As far as I'm aware (and I have only a very fleeting interest on the subject), analyses of pay gap (including a recent article in The Economist) tend to include estimation of *all* work done during a typical day. This includes not just salaried employment but also things like housekeeping and child rearing. Which seems fair if you think of the latter as an important societal function.

    Perhaps that's where your conclusions differ from others? I would be interested to know why you chose to narrow your focus respect to other studies.

    Again, I found the article in The Economist (in the last month or so) a lot more thorough and interesting. I recommend it to those who may be interested.

    1. DaveDaveDave

      Re: Statistics, etc.

      I think you must have misunderstood something there. It would be daft to compare the hourly pay rates of paid workers with those of unpaid workers. Obviously those workers getting paid for their labour will be paid more than those who are not.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Statistics, etc.

        > It would be daft to compare the hourly pay rates of paid workers with those of unpaid workers.

        In terms of hourly pay, yes. In terms of effective income for work performed, on the other hand...

        1. Craigness

          Re: Statistics, etc.

          "In terms of hourly pay, yes. In terms of effective income for work performed, on the other hand..."

          If someone does more unpaid work because their spouse does more paid work then the comparison is meaningless. It would make more sense to take the family as an economic unit with work divided according to the skills and desires of the family members, and measure inequality by measuring how much each member spends on themselves. For example, if women earn 80% of what men earn but spend 150% of what men spend, where should government focus its policies in order to achieve equality?

    2. Tim Worstal

      Re: Statistics, etc.

      The division into household (ie, unpaid) and market (paid) labour is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Statistics, etc.

        > The division into household (ie, unpaid) and market (paid) labour is a whole 'nother kettle of fish

        Exactly. So what do the numbers look like when taking the full picture into account?

        1. 9Rune5

          Re: Statistics, etc.

          >> The division into household (ie, unpaid) and market (paid) labour is a whole 'nother kettle of fish

          > Exactly. So what do the numbers look like when taking the full picture into account?

          From the government's point of view, how is that a relevant question?

          Should employer's be forced to pay women more for less work because statistically speaking those women do more work around the house in their spare time..?

          That does not strike me as fair. Equal pay for the same job – absolutely! But letting one group off easy for external reasons? No, that is unfair to the rest of you. (I assume I will be able to weasle myself into the 'pity' group for some reason or another, despite the fact that I'm presently a white male – nothing a good tanning job and a pair of scissors can't solve)

          1. Swarthy

            Re: Statistics, etc.

            >> The division into household (ie, unpaid) and market (paid) labour is a whole 'nother kettle of fish

            > Exactly. So what do the numbers look like when taking the full picture into account?

            It looks like a field where someone has been dragging goalposts around.

            1. Tom 13

              Re: someone has been dragging goalposts around.

              If it was just the goal posts we might make some sense of it. Problem is the landscape is also chocked full of fox holes, barbed wire, and shell wholes. So much so that it sort of looks like a WWI battlefield.

    3. Craigness

      Re: Statistics, etc.

      If I have a larger house and garden than my co-worker, and a car instead of a bicycle, and I live a 20 minute drive from the supermarket whereas he lives a 5-minute walk away, should I be paid more? Or should the time I spend cleaning the house, mowing the lawn, washing the car and going shopping UNPAID (how unfair!) not be included in any analysis of whether our employer treats us equally?

      The reason unpaid labour is included is to promote the idea that women are discriminated against. Men actually do slightly more work, but women do a greater proportion of the unpaid work, so you can discover sexism by including that. If you look at the spending gap you'll see oppression of men on a huge scale, so nobody ever looks at that. Social scientists have made it their job to find sexism only against women.

      Also, note that the unpaid work gap is only present in family environments. Where people live single lives the unpaid work is equal. It is only when they get married that women meet this new wall of misogyny! So this is proof that marriage is oppressive to women. End the family! But it is in family environments where the ugly misandry of the spending gap rears its head. And we don't talk about that (probably because we live in a patriarchy and male power prevents discussion of oppression in any form that is not male, or something).

      1. Corinne

        Re: Statistics, etc.

        I'm sorry, but I can't quite understand what you mean by "spending gap". Are you implying that women spend more money than men in a family situation or something, 'cause that's how it reads.

        1. Craigness

          Re: Statistics, etc.

          Corinne,

          Yes, women spend more of a family's disposable income than men do. That's why advertising is aimed at women and most of the men in adverts are idiots whereas the women are calm and in control almost every time. It's also why a shop's women's section is near the front door.

          1. Corinne

            Re: Statistics, etc.

            However there's a big difference between spending more and costing more.

            In many households, the woman (especially if she is the main carer/housekeeper) does the majority of the regular shopping. And as they often do the majority of the cooking/cleaning etc, they tend to be the ones who choose what to buy even the larger cost items like white goods. As they tend to have more interest in decor they tend to be the ones to choose new larger household items like furniture too.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Statistics, etc.

              @corinne.

              As a radical feminist I find this comment sexist and derogatory. You should be burned at the stake for these heretical comments, as you imply that there are in fact differences between the sexes, something we radical feminists have been saying does not exist for decades and have proven to our own satisfaction that it in fact does not exist!

              Traitor!

              Splitter!

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Statistics, etc.

              In many households, the woman (especially if she is the main carer/housekeeper) does the majority of the regular shopping. And as they often do the majority of the cooking/cleaning etc,

              That's because we agreed to split the paid work/domestic work stuff 50/50 before having kids.

              Then she thought, sod that, I'm missing out here. Look I've got an idea, you go out and earn the money and I'll stay at home. Of course she now complains I don't do as much around the house as I used to.

          2. Tom 13

            Re: Yes, women spend more of a family's disposable income than men do.

            Not true. I think it is very rare for the wife by herself to decide to buy a new house/where to rent or a new car. Likewise I doubt many of them replace any of the major appliances like fridges, washing machines, dryers, ovens, stoves, heater systems, water heaters, etc. So usually at least 70% of the budget is spend before she gets her hands on the "disposable" portion of the income.

            My dad on the other hand bought pretty much every power tool that came into the house without consulting her. At least one of them ran about $5000.

    4. Squander Two

      Re: Statistics, etc.

      If you're a single parent, then your housework is unpaid (except by the state). Otherwise, you are paid for your housework, by your spouse. Which is fair enough.

      If both parents do roughly as much work for employers for roughly the same pay but one does way more housework without being compensated by the other, then what you have there is an intramarital dispute that they need to sort out between them. I can't conceive of why the hard-done-by parent's employers should increase their pay to redress the problem.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    fathers making more than non-fathers

    No surprise there. Fathers work longer hours, because it gives them an excuse not to take care of the children.

    1. Craigness

      Re: fathers making more than non-fathers

      2 upvotes for misandry...on fathers' day?! The reason fathers work more is that they have more people dependant on them. This is HOW they care both for their children and their wives.

      1. ratfox
        Happy

        Re: fathers making more than non-fathers

        Must be a father who didn't get anything for fathers' day…

        1. Dazed and Confused

          Re: Must be a father who didn't get anything for fathers' day…

          Fathers day is an invention of the greeting card industry to cover an otherwise quiet month.

          K'ching

          Oh and Mothering Sunday has nothing to do with being a mother.

  15. Zog_but_not_the_first
    Thumb Up

    The real stink

    Excellent article Tim. I always like to go back to the basic numbers when I'm faced with bald statements of the kind you analyse here.

    I believe the real stink from our society is the way it values (or doesn't) children.

    1. The Axe

      Re: The real stink

      Why should society value children. The only ones who should care are the parents. It's not society who raises a child.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The real stink

        > It's not society who raises a child.

        Trolling, or really that ignorant?

        1. Laura Kerr

          Re: The real stink

          "Trolling, or really that ignorant?"

          Both, I think.

      2. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

        Re: The real stink

        "It's not society who raises a child."

        That didn't used to be the case. And it's perhaps a sign of where things are going wrong. But I understand why nobody wants to interact with other people's children.

    2. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: The real stink

      @ Zog_but_not_the_first

      "I believe the real stink from our society is the way it values (or doesn't) children."

      I have noticed a movement in how children seem to be viewed which I think relates to this. Some children are just not brought up right and some of the acts of some children go beyond disrespectful and move into full on criminal. This seems to have got worse with kids coming out of school with the sole desire to have a kid to get the house, money and no need for a job (and certainly not a father/partner as it impacts the welfare). In school kids are not allowed to fall behind, so education is dumbed down and trouble makers are harder to discipline/expel and so the other kids suffer and see they can get away with bad behaviour.

      When the police cant keep kids in line and the parents dont want to it makes kids the enemy, a problem. And I can see why some people might resent paying for them. However I see the value placed on children now to be a symptom not the root of the problem.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The real stink

      I believe the real stink from our society is the way it values (or doesn't) children.

      I blame central heating. Fewer chimneys to sweep.

  16. glen waverley
    Paris Hilton

    broken down by race, gender ...

    Tim said "broken down by race, gender, ..."

    Back in my days as a junior data analyst we used to have a joke about tabulations of staff broken down by sex.

    How we used to laugh.

  17. Craigness

    for the benefit of women

    "The political activist in question persuaded Lib Dem and former deputy PM Nick Clegg of this and that's why the country now has paternity leave"

    We get paternity leave because it will benefit women. Has there ever been a successful campaign which has emphasised a policy's benefit to men?

    "House husbands do exist, the choice is open, and it's a rare enough choice."

    The choice is not open though. In what family is it not the woman's prerogative to choose to work or to be a mother? The man only has the choice to support his wife from within the family or to be forced out of the family and support her via the CSA.

    1. Corinne

      Re: for the benefit of women

      You sound more bitter with every post I read from you. Believe it or not, but a woman needs to take at least a minimum amount of time off after giving birth to a) care for the baby in a way a man can't (e.g. breastfeeding) and b) for her own body to recover from pregnancy and birth.

      Many women go back to work pretty quickly after this despite still being sore, probably knackered, maybe expressing milk every day for the baby's feeds, and most likely with their hormones still a bit weird. In general though it tends to be the woman staying at home to care for the children because they were in a lower earning job than their partner, so the higher earner keeps earning.

      1. Craigness

        Re: for the benefit of women

        @corinne I'm just pointing out the bias in the system. Can you imagine a situation where a politician proposes something on the basis that it will be good for men?

        Of course women need time off, but the point is that men only have time off because it helps women. And women have time off because it helps women. Sure, women prefer to marry a man who earns more than them, and this means they get to be the one who gives up work. So what's your point? Are you suggesting this represents men having a choice to leave work?

        @Doctor Syntax "What part of the words "open" and "rare" did you not understand?"

        What part of "choice" do you not understand? If only one person can have something, the person who has first choice has an actual choice. The next person in line does not really have a choice. And it is usually the man who is second in line for the "choice" to leave work.

        When a man (braver than me) says to his wife "no, dear! I will not let you stay at home, I choose to do that and you will have to go to work and support me", his wife still has the choice to stay home and have him support her, because the family courts and social conventions are on her side.

        1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

          @Craigness

          You should have chosen a better wife! :P

        2. Squander Two

          Re: for the benefit of women

          > Can you imagine a situation where a politician proposes something on the basis that it will be good for men?

          The Olympics?

      2. Tom 13

        Re: for the benefit of women

        He may well be bitter. But while your points about the biological constraints are correct, they are short-lived compared to time over which his criticism is made.

        Might not be quite as bad in the UK as it is in the US, but if you're a married man with a kid, the wife pretty much owns you until the kid is 18. And if she decides you are an unfit parent even though you meet pretty much everybody else's World's Best Dad definition, you're still going to lose in court. It's not pretty. It is real. I knew a fellow about 25 years back, three beautiful kids, loved his wife. She lost interest in him, divorced him, sued him for child support. Her PARENTS supported him over her. Judge ruled for her. She met a guy, moved in with him, which was also away from the guy I knew. At which point the judge's original order for joint custody was modified and he effectively lost visitation.

        One of the outcomes of the radical feminist movement is that although individual members of society may attempt to reject it through their actions, in a court of law the male is a sperm donor and an ATM.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: for the benefit of women

      '"House husbands do exist, the choice is open, and it's a rare enough choice."

      The choice is not open though.'

      What part of the words "open" and "rare" did you not understand? The fact that a choice is made rarely doesn't mean that it is never made.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The New Father?

    I think the priorities change. In my experience, those who become fathers are more likely to turn into bureaucratic monsters and ambitious yes men. In business, these happen to be excellent survival traits.

  19. iLuddite

    there goes the neighbourhood

    8 hours in and no disparaging jokes? Right.

    It takes a statistician to make numbers look drunk. It takes a politician bearing numbers to make a statistician look sober.

    It takes a statistician to find that 95% of criminals eat bread. It takes a politician to ban toast.

    Statisticians toss out outliers. Politicians toss out lies.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just for a moment...

    I wondered what Sara Bee would say about this article...

    [edit] I guess I just have a masochistic streak in me.

  21. AsherGoldbergstein

    If you look into any agenda driven politics the left tries to push you'll see it's built on lies.

  22. Paul Crawford Silver badge

    "If you look into any agenda driven politics the left tries to push you'll see it's built on lies"

    There, fixed it for you.

    1. Craigness

      "There, fixed it for you."

      It wasn't broken, just incomplete. You completed it. But who can deny the wage gap myth, and the meddling which politicians can do in response to it, is anything but a leftist agenda.

  23. pop_corn

    Many women don't negotiate like men do

    Ignoring the fact that typically it's men that freelance their way to bigger bucks and considering just permie work, I came across this exact phenomena at annual pay rise time.

    In an IT team of 4 guys and 1 girl, 3 out of the 5 guys negotiated hard for their pay rises, all threatening to leave if they didn't get more than the standard pay rise that year. Using this approach, I myself got an extra 2% on top of the standard 2.5% percent everyone received.

    Over coffee a few weeks late, when the subject came up and I admitted to the above, the woman in the team, who'd been at the company for 6 years, was aghast that I'd "blackmailed" our female manager to get a bigger pay rise. She said: "It had never occurred to me to ask for more."

    Now 2% extra doesn't seem like much, but if she'd done the same for those 6 years say, she'd have been earning 12% more (ignoring compounding).

    There's your gender gap, typically* men are more likely to be prepared to play hard ball and risk losing their job over it; women aren't, especially if they like the job / company / people, as they value those things over hard cash.

    * Typically, but obviously there are many exceptions.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Many women don't negotiate like men do

      There's definitely something in this.

      There's a lot of hand-wringing about the lack of women at senior levels in major businesses and it is assumed there is a problem of gender.

      But if you are a man like me (somewhere roughly in the area of wimpy and unassertive or 'not-an-arsehole' depending on your preference) you find your type un- or at least under-represented at the top of these businesses too and that the women that are in these positions resemble the men that are in these positions.

      It seems to me there's a type that finds itself able to do what is necessary to get to these positions and that this type is present in greater number amongst men than women but a woman that is of this type is more able to reach these lofty heights than a man who is not.

  24. codejunky Silver badge

    Good article Tim

    I expect an interesting discussion when I get home as I have sent my other half your article. Although she will likely approach it from the side of the guardian readers.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's easy

    They just need to cry less and stop falling love...

    and for those of you without any sarcasm glands, I feel it necessary to reference you to Tim Hunt

    1. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: It's easy

      Hasnt he suffered enough.

    2. Schlimnitz

      Re: It's easy

      Dangerous, as people without sarcasm glands probably don't have functioning humour glands either...

  26. JustNiz

    Because society still expects men to be the breadwinners and the main financial support for women/kids.

    I know this argument is labelled "politically incorrect" by many women, but until divorce courts don't treat men like that, and it becomes socially unacceptable for women to expect men to pay for everything when they go out, or to expect an expensive diamond when they get married, or to expect expensive presents every birthday/anniversary/valentines when all they give is socks, or to use how much men earn as a criteria for whether they are dateable, or to not pay their half of all the bills, their arguments don't have a leg to stand on.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not just nurses...

    I believe I have read somewhere that female porn stars are paid rather more than the males.

    And prostitution is an industry where men are under-represented and underpaid.

    Apart from that, I think @Craigness is onto something: "It would make more sense to take the family as an economic unit". In my thinking, nearly all of this griefing comes from stupid-level individualism. It's well-nigh impossible to have perfectly balanced 'accounts' as an individual in a family unit: the interdependency and trade-offs are complicated, specific to each family, and change with circumstances.

    Trying to break that up is tantamount to dismantling what a family is about: trying to pool resources in an optimal fashion with everyone coming out winning. Attempting to legislate for cases where that doesn't work out the way one partner wants is folly.

    To me, it's the equivalent of everyone deciding they're going to be autonomous from society, grow their own veg, knit their own clothes, build their own cars and drill their own oil. Because otherwise the division of labour is 'not fair'.

    1. Tom 13

      Re: take the family as an economic unit"

      Another seemingly common sense idea that in our current environment actually raises more questions than you'd think it would. I'd like to think of myself as an outlier. I'm single, live with my landlord in an undivided townhouse. Neither of us have children but we split household duties and rather unequally. We certainly aren't a family in the traditional sense. But am I really that much of an outlier in current society?

  28. Dieter Haussmann

    WHy can women charge more for sex?

    Why does anyone employ men when they could employ a woman to do the same job for a lot less money?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon