How to think about gender inequality - The Centre for Independent Studies
Donate today!
Your support will help build a better future.
Your Donation at WorkDonate Now

How to think about gender inequality

One of the most frustrating debates in public policy is the one over women’s workforce participation and the gender pay gap.

On one side you have people taking the raw gender pay gap and claiming this is evidence of systemic sexism; on the other are people saying this is all a function of choice and experience, as if there are no systemic factors at play at all.

The data suggests there is a permanent income gap created by motherhood that does not equally apply to fatherhood. But that fact is merely the start of the discussion.

The first — and most important — question to answer is what do we mean by ‘equality’? The simplistic, and incorrect, answer is that average outcomes for men and women should be identical.

Realistically this seems unlikely, at least in the short term, because their situations and choices aren’t the same. Women have babies, men don’t; and socially and historically, women have been the primary care givers for children — typically at the expense of career opportunities.

Importantly, despite the career and income penalties, many women (and families) happily choose the option that maximises their time with the kids.

A lot of discourse proceeds on the basis that there should be little or no penalty for taking maternity leave and then for substantially reducing one’s capacity to work in order to look after kids.

Without limiting the social and developmental importance of this sacrifice, or whether government should recompense it, from the perspective of the employer this typically doesn’t look like a great deal. And it’s the employers’ position that matters from a salary perspective: one reason why jobs with more flexible working options tend to pay less.

That means a more realistic position is to acknowledge that there is an income penalty associated with the flexibility needed to look after kids, but to argue for two important provisos.

First, flexible working options have to be equally available and viable for men and women so that there is genuine choice for either or both parents to work flexibly to parent kids. Second, women shouldn’t be shunted down the ‘mummy track’ just because they have kids or might have them one day.

As long as flexible working opportunities are only seen as a career-killing option for mothers, there isn’t a real choice for anyone, including those without children. A policy discussion that proceeds on the basis of realistically facilitating genuine choice is long overdue.