The more eagle-eyed of readers may think that I have mistakenly left the ‘pay’ out of ‘the gender pay gap’ in the title of this article, but this thinking is precisely the problem. When I refer to the Gender Gap, I refer to the gap between men and women, not only in terms of pay but also in social, political, intellectual, cultural, and economic attainments, opportunities, and attitudes.
Yes, female workers do earn 16.8% less than men (OECD, 2016), but even the gender pay gap can’t simply be understood as a matter of attaining equal pay. In fact, even if equal pay is implemented (which is a legal requirement), the gender pay gap may still persist. This can be explained by a multitude of interacting factors that determine what careers and opportunities are open to women, and the roles and commitments they will take.
An important aspect to grasp how there can be a gender gap, despite the implementation of equal pay laws, is the different occupations and working patterns between men and women. For instance, men are more likely to work full-time, and full-time employees earn more and are more likely to be promoted to higher, better paid positions. Women, on the other hand, statistically work more in part-time jobs, which are lower paid (with an average hourly rate of £9.36 compared with £14.31 for full-time jobs).
This concentration of women in comparatively low paid roles persists despite the growing number of graduate women and gender equity reforms. And this is perpetuated by the gap that remains in the educational choices between the genders, which underpins future unequal distribution of men and women in various occupations. For instance, women are less likely than men to major in certain fields (e.g. engineering), which are often linked to higher paid occupations, and while the number of women in STEM has increased, it is still incredibly male-dominated.
Now this begins to sound like the classic sexist argument that we’ve all heard before – that men and women simply have different interests and are better at different skills. However, the actual studies done on this ‘gender-type abilities’ have resulted in contrasting and contradictory findings. For instance, the idea of the ‘maths gap’ between genders is not as significant as it once was, and studies show that is decreasing – perhaps indicating that was a theory based on self-perception, and stereotyped beliefs that reinforced sex differences. This is fortified by the finding that parents, teachers, and students themselves tend to underestimate girls and overestimate boys’ achievements in math and sciences. Perpetuating this notion further, certain gender-type abilities are associated with different occupational pay levels, and thus may contribute to the relatively low pay of the occupations women predominantly enter. For example, quantitative skills (such as those in math and science) are positively associated with occupational wages, whereas there is a wage penalty for occupations that involve ‘‘nurturant’’ or ‘‘caring’’ skills, which women are deemed naturally better suited to.
This idea of the natural ‘caring’ abilities of women prolongs the gender gap, not only by influencing the careers women enter and the opportunities made available to them, but the additional roles they will take outside their careers. Studies show that women opt for occupations compatible with family/home responsibilities. This choice is, of course, influenced by a socialization process, where women are societally encouraged, or expected, to consider their role in the family before thinking about their own career. This difference in caring responsibilities also adds to the gender gap, by women taking more career breaks than men to accommodate family issues.
It has been proven in studies that, from their forties onwards, married women experience a pay disadvantage compared to unmarried women, which is linked to having children. Though childcare is one of the main barriers for women in many countries, it has also been shown that women take on more caring roles, for instance for elderly relatives or people with disabilities. Amongst these carers who continue in paid employment, many switch to more flexible or part-time employment that facilitates their caring responsibilities, with a resultant drop in earnings and work-related benefits known as the ‘wage penalty’. This puts women at a greater disadvantage, as part-time work doesn’t simply increase the gender gap, as women work less hours, gain less pay, but also as it results in less training opportunities, career progression and employment benefits (e.g. paid holidays).
Another unavoidable problem that perpetuates the gender gap is that gender discrimination has yet to be eradicated in the workplace. For instance, various studies have been done on the stigma that pregnant women face as viewed as more emotional, less competent, and less committed to and more likely to withdraw from the organization. There have also been studies done on the idea of the ‘maternity burden’, in that women at the age where it is assumed that they will start having children, find it harder to get hired.
More generally, gender stereotypes still persist, and if the characteristics seen as necessary to succeed as a CEO, for instance, are dominance, aggression, and emotional toughness, which are more strongly associated with men than women, then there will be a gender bias towards men for CEO roles. This is perpetuated by the under-representation of women in a certain sector having a negative impact on being hired in that sector. This can then become a vicious cycle, as certain occupations remain dominated by men, which reinforces the association between men and that occupation, making it harder for women to get hired in those sectors. Women are also more likely to face discrimination in male-dominated environments – whereas, on average, neither gender has an advantage in female-dominated or integrated environments. And since the extent to which a job is female-dominated is negatively related to occupational salary and prestige, women may face the most discrimination in jobs that generally produce the highest pay and status, as these are the ones more heavily male-dominated.
So, while this all paints a rather dreary picture, there are some initiatives that can be taken to try to close the gap. One way forward is to diminish bias in recruitment and evaluation. This could be done by a mixed evaluation panel, as well as establishing accepted criteria for performance assessments so that workers are evaluated against the same criteria and not against one another. Other more progressive routes could be the increasing hours of free childcare to enable women to return to work, as well as recognising caring work for the work it is, and perhaps providing some compensation.