To make it short, I'll take the points you listed as conclusion.
Most care is still provided through family obligations, unpaid but not free, indeed. As I already explained, I don't believe in the societal reasons as the only factor for gender disparities. Family carers are mostly women because of gender norms, but also because women superior abilities and personal preference. Wherever I go, I see women more inclined to dialogue, to compromise, sensible towards the weaker, the victim, the vulnerable in general. I remember one of the strongest arguments for more women in politics or management was precisely this: men are too antagonistic and competitive. Women tend to be more open minded and consider a wider range of solutions and approaches. I believe this is true . There are not only biological differences between sexes, but also characters, inclinations and preferences quite different between men and women. Pediatricians and divorce judges claim women are better mothers, because of their better instincts and talents. That this led the society to consider (and teach) that women are mostly good at that, and little else, I do consider it wrong, and a source of inequalities and even discrimination - hence the glass ceiling you were speaking of elsewhere. But going to the other extreme and pretending women are not better or do not tend to prefer care, is also mistaken. So I think the best approach is to not assume anything at all, but open the doors, educate, show all possibilities and let people decide, trusting them that seeing what opportunities they have, they will overcome family pressure if they want to.
Long hours and low part-time pay rates are a problem everywhere, and for everybody, I think.
Still I cannot help reminding you of that New York hospital statistics showing that highly educated, urban, emancipated women chose (relatively) low pay care specialties instead of brain surgery and others better paid and better promotors - not because they could not do it, but because they preferred care. This is one practical proof that women have different expectations from a job, indeed from a career: they don't always seek high pay, high profile jobs, or quick advancement, but often find different kinds of satisfaction, as is the case when helping others.
Of course this is no reason for individuals, bosses, institutions or the society to force women into this kind of jobs. Many actually do like more responsibilities, top remunerations, power. But if we see a bias towards care, that should not lead us to believe it is exclusively from social conditioning. I tend to not base on statistics alone, but even with them, I doubt there is a range of serious studies today to prove that.
It follows that we see less women in politics and management, less in high profile jobs, and more in care jobs, who are also lower pay. The solution, rather than bothering with why women choose those jobs (family pressure, personal preference, inclinations), we should indeed bother about how to raise pay rates in part-time and care jobs. And if that will convince more men to come on board, so much the better.
"The care sector’s poor pay is a large contributor to the gender pay gap."
Considering all of the above, I definitely do not think that making elimination of all gender gaps a purpose in itself, is the right thing to do. Eliminate inequalities, yes, but unfair inequalities, not those due to personal preferences or qualities. I return to an old example that I know you did not intend as such, but is fitting my point only too well. If bin collecting or construction work requires more physical force than cleaning jobs, it is absolutely normal that it is men who do those collecting or construction jobs, and that they have access to better pay rates than cleaning ladies. This is no example of discrimination, but of physical difference, which in those cases matters and is remunerated in consequence.
Finally, I know many cases where men themselves push their partners to get or return to a job after giving birth, in order to have two salaries in the house. This is where the pressure for reducing gender gap brought us: women are now pushed to work by their own husbands and boyfriends, who do not want to pay for anything anymore, and found the perfect way to elude their socially-conditioned role of providers. The man wanting his woman home and in the kitchen has long disappeared. Men are more and more egocentrical and began themselves to require equality. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
I can't help putting this in the range of those unworkable social utopies the Left is so fond of. I don't think and I don't see why and how the society would or should remunerate unpaid carers rather than forming professional ones in specialized institutions. And it looks to me like today the tendency is towards working more, rather than less. Productivity increases due to more automatisation, better technology, better processes, but that does not imply people being paid the same or more for less work, but rather less - especially given the competition with other countries. So the conclusion would be that the society subsidize differences in pay for part-time employees, which I think quite impossible to realize in real life.
Any other solution would be unworkable, unfair and inconsistent with government commitments to reduce gender inequalities.
Now this is what I call a full-blown ideological statement that we cannot even begin to discuss, for its own inherent extremism. Obviously the person who wrote that is too convinced of her own certitudes to even bother discussing them, let alone contesting. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Let's say a person ends up caring for an adult relative, why shouldn't they be paid for that? And why shouldn't they be paid a decent rate equivalent to a professional carer?
Do you think it is good for people to be made to work more and more hours? My salary is for X hours a week, including X holidays and other benefits etc. If I get pushed into working well over what is in my contract, I get no overtime payment. I can rack up flexi hours to take off but if my workload is too high, I can't find the time. If I can't find the time to take my holiday entitelment, I lose it. Now my employer wouldn't exploit me in that way if my workload consistently because too unmanageable but so many people are too afraid to complain or turn down hours that they are not being paid properly for for fear of losing jobs. So when workload gets too high, why can't emoployers then hire extra people to cover the additional workload? Then everybody gets to work manageable hours that they are paid fairly for. This means that people can have a work-life balance.
They can spend time with their families, they can keep themselves in shape doing sport, they can become community volunteers in their spare time. Force people to work unsustainable hours, we lose out with our physical and mental health, we have latchkey kids spending too much time without either parent, we lose active people in our communities. Far more damaging to the economy as a whole than keeping working hours to a limit in the first place. Ad astra per aspera
We're in agreement on all this, in principle, I was saying I don't see how it could be put into practice, for the costs, IMO, risk to be very high.
I believe in proper pay. I also believe that rather than being made to work more, many persons are actually believing in what they do, are doing their work with pleasure and even passion. I'm not contesting what you say, and just to come clean :) I went on the website of your commission for vulnerabilities and I could do voluntary work for them starting tomorrow. As they concluded, it is all about better unions, better support, and more information so that people cannot be forced extratime or low pay upon, and know they can do something about it.
Employers are motivated to minimize expenses. That's their reason of being: less expenses, bigger prices and bigger sales. That's why they're there, and I'll never expect anything else from them, nor blame them for it. OTOH, work conditions should be precisely and properly regulated by the state, so that it doesn't become unfair, let alone exploitation.
Finally, I also agree with your last paragraph, and again, I don't see how we can put this into practice, even as I'm particularly sensitive to kids spending more time with their own parents instead of filles-au-pair or specialized care. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
how it could be put into practice, for the costs, IMO, risk to be very high.
Are the costs not potentially just as high (although indirectly) through not finding a solution? eg lack of investment in preventative healthcare and early diagnosis causes greater costs in the longer term by firefighting illnesses at a much more serious stage when they could have been prevented or treated more simply.
So by not paying carers and ensuring that they do not suffer significant losses by taking up that role (which needs to be done somehow, by somebody) the 'savings' actually turn into costs in other ways, on the state and not just for the individuals concerned.
The stuff around vulnerable workers is very applicable to broader equalities issues, it is about cutting down the loopholes, bringing in fairer procedures and greater consistency and ensuring people understand what rights they have. I'm glad you took a look.
I often work longer hours than I should, for precisely the reasons that I love my job and I care about what I do, and yes that is my choice. But were I to not be able to do those extra hours, I wouldn't be penalised for it or not considered to be pulling my weight or denied training or promotion opportunities. Where the long hours culture is expected of everybody, that is where people start finding themselves at a disadvantage and that applies just as much to men who can't or won't work the hours as well as women, or disabled people. Ad astra per aspera
Bin collecting and cleaning does - we are talking about the work done being of equal value. Therefore bin collectors (male or female) and cleaners (male or female) should be paid the same. Ad astra per aspera
So I think the best approach is to not assume anything at all, but open the doors, educate, show all possibilities and let people decide, trusting them that seeing what opportunities they have, they will overcome family pressure if they want to.
I've repeatedly said that we shouldn't make assumptions. But if you think that people can easily overcome family and peer pressure if they want to enough, you are wrong. It's the same logic that says people can be whatever they want to be if they are ambitious enough, try hard enough, work hard enough. It is a fallacy.
Me making it through the education system as a deaf person, ending up in a good job and highly qualified, does not in any way at all mean that any other deaf kid can grow up and achieve the same, no matter how much they want to.
cases where men themselves push their partners to get or return to a job after giving birth, in order to have two salaries in the house.
If women were paid fairly and there was no gender pay gap then the choices would be far more equal for men and women. The fact that society no longer assumes that women must stay at home and look after the men and children, is not to blame for pressures on both parents to work. Giving women access to the labour market has not been done on equal terms to men, which has resulted in women disproportionately being underpaid for the work they do and for being more likely to end up in low security, low income jobs. That is why the pay gap needs to be reduced and for flexible working to become more widely available. If a household needs two salaries, that's a more general issue - house prices are too high, cost of living has gone up. It's really expensive being single, I wouldn't mind another income contributing to paying the bills and I have a good salary and no kids. Ad astra per aspera
I do believe people must believe they can do it. I just love this american slogan, it worked for me, as I went myself against the current practically my whole life, and I do think it is good for the spirit. OTOH I am also fully in favour of laws against unfair inequalities, absolutely. Many times people just can't make it by themselves (even if they should believe this, as it can be a fantastic force of propulsion, and of hope - does this remind you of anyone in particular, btw? :) ).
The other issue you quote me about, was not about gender gap. What I'm saying is that far from jobs opening to women as a civil right fallen from the sky, women were practically pushed into working, after WW2! Men are pushing them into it (sometimes even against some deep longing to spend half one's life at work), not from some special respect for gender equality, but from purely pecuniary reasons! And even sometimes, far from being due to high cost of life, it is from pure refusal of "excessive" involvement, and even responsibility. Just as is the case with the life expectancy numbers and work stress statistics, which show men are much more vulnerable today, rather than privileged from those superb opportunities of which women would be kept out. All this shows these issues are far more complicated than just a question of access and rights. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
This is not the subject here, but I wanted to say that I think gender polarization is much stronger in the south. But maybe my experience is subjective. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
The being pushed bit was the fact that women were working and thus in the public sphere/world of work, gender roles were shifting. But there was no comparable shift in gender roles in the home. Women were working more and still doing all the household chores and looking after the children as they did before, and men were still doing what men always did which didn't generally include housekeeping.
So assuming that this change of women in the labour market is irreversible (for reasons of economy and choice) the gender equality bit comes in in paying women fairly and encouraging fairer sharing of roles in the home.
ValentinD:
does this remind you of anyone in particular, btw?
Are you referring to me? I have guts and an iron will to push myself forward and I'm glad I can be a role model but as I've got older I have realised that I have been so very lucky to land in the right places at the right times. My life could so easily be very different through no fault of my own. Just thinking 'I can do it' and working towards that goal isn't enough. Trying to just take opportunities doesn't work, you need to be given them sometimes. You have to hope that somebody will give you an opportunity that you should just be able to take, like anyone else would, but you can't because of discrimination. Ad astra per aspera
It's not something one can regulate, but I hope it continues. You can't be me, I'm taken
