Tasting Notes: Prosecco is the go-to, affordable alternative to Champagne when you want to celebrate and is now the tipple of choice for many women across the UK. It has that air of class and sophistication while still remaining accessible to everyone.
Before I scare all those male readers away who are expecting a feminist attack on the horrors of a misogynistic business world, don't fret. That is not the point of this post.
As a young women starting out in my career, I am very aware of the gender pay debate. Having been educated at a same-sex independent school, I am also well versed in the 'dominant female' mindset and therefore even more vulnerable to the lures of feminism.
However, I would like to approach this topic in a more neutral manner and try to steer clear of the 'boy-bashing' which sometimes follows from an analysis of gender inequality.
Having said that, I do understand the issue.
According to the government report "Opportunities and outcomes in education and work: Gender effects" released in November last year by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills; "male workers are paid on average 19% more than female counterparts in almost all areas of the workforce."
The report goes on to say that: "women working in financial and insurance sectors, as well as other professional roles, are worst affected in the gap in pay - with some earning almost 40% less than men."
Admittedly, this isn't an ideal situation.
However, since the report was released the percentage difference has reduced to 18% continuing the downward trend from a 28% gap in 1993 and 23% in 2003. So that's a good thing, right?
A recent article in The Week entitled "The gender pay gap UK: How bad is it?" argued that the headlines mask some underlying variables which may be exaggerating the improvements. It claimed that the reason the headline gap has shrunk is due to women "becoming more educated and so able to work in better-paid jobs."
So maybe access to education is the issue here, not gender bias?
Think again.
Another one of the 'legitimate' reasons for the gender pay gap is childcare. Now this is a very flammable topic and even I was slightly put out by this comment in The Week's article, from Ben Southwood of the Adam Smith Institute:
"There is a gender pay gap, but the entirety of it is determined by 'legitimate' factors" Continuing on to say that "women leave the labour market during crucial years, setting them substantially back in labour market terms. That is, the gap comes down to women's choices."
I don't know why, but that last sentence did make me wince - "The gap comes down to women's choices." Ouch!
So is the gender pay gap simply the result of life choices? Can women realistically have a career and a family?
There is an army of career women out there who claim you can - and will shoot down any man who dares to suggest otherwise.
Radhika Sanghani, speaking in The Telegraph proclaimed that it is just as much a man's job to help raise a family as it is a woman's, subverting the age-old family unit stereotype so characteristic of idealistic 50s suburbia. But this is not the 1950s.
Sanghani blamed the government for maintaining this status quo by having "lumped together equality, women and childcare, suggesting that all are 'women's issues."
She concludes that "childcare is not a woman's issue. It's everyone's issue and if we want to end the pay gap, it needs to be treated that way."
The Government has introduced a shared parental leave (SPL) scheme but the uptake has been extremely low, with only 4% of those eligible taking part. Admittedly this is probably due more to a need for economic security than a neglect of responsibility.
So what can be done?
From April next year, more than 250 employers in Britain will be required by law to publish gender pay gap statistics, hopefully shaming those who are guilty into action. But I can't help wondering if a diversity of skills, career choice and deciding to have a child are legitimate reasons for a pay gap.
I would hate to be a traitor to my sex here, but if this was a gender neutral issue and a higher paying job was given to a worker with the right skills, who was also prepared to work overtime rather than insist on part-time (should circumstances require it), I would accept that reasoning.
If the gender skills gap was down to the education system I would be more likely to voice some angst, but I can't see that it is. Schools offer STEM subjects regardless of sex. It's uptake that's the issue, and that is down to choice, not availability. Plus, the recent GCSE and A-Level results showed, yet again, that girls achieve better results than boys.
Is it therefore 'choice' which causes that 18% gap? Is Ben Southwood right?
Maybe he is. The Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings: 2015 released by the ONS last year commented that their findings on gender pay disparity were not actually based on "comparable jobs", claiming that the figures were "affected by factors such as the proportion of men and women in different occupations. For example, a higher proportion of women work in occupations such as administration and caring, that tend to offer lower salaries."
The report also pointed out that part-time workers also get paid less than full-time workers and, once again, these are occupations that tend to have a female majority.
I think this is a very important point. Data has a habit of getting manipulated to fit certain conclusions, and while there is undoubtedly a pay gap in the upper-echelons of the business world - and I am fully behind this being exposed by the Government -it is not as pervasive in society as the media may claim.
It IS a woman's choice to have children, it IS her choice about what subjects to study, career to pursue, and how many hours to work and, unfortunately, these are factors that result in a lower salary, purely due to the demand for certain skills and cost of labour per hour.
This is not to say that women do not deserve the same pay as men when doing the exactly the same job, for the same number of hours. That is actually illegal under the Equality Act 2010.
In terms of women working in male dominated arenas, even politics is starting to diversify. We now have a female Prime Minister, a female home secretary and (I hope to high heaven) we will have a female President of the United States. But could this be down to choice, too?
Politics is male-dominated due to the personal qualities required to work in that environment. You must be on call 24/7, authoritative, thick-skinned and slightly arrogant. Some women are, but I can't help feeling those attributes are more inherently male.
Perhaps a lot of men do not choose a career in politics simply because it is not suited to their personality and I believe that is true of women, too. I am not ignoring the fact that a 'boy club' mentality does still exist, but the fact that there is a female presence now may result in a cultural shift - we can only hope so.
The bottom line is that we should not be rejoicing because women are in these positions of power, but because they have earned the right to be there, just like any man would have done, and it was their choice.
It should not be about 'girl power' it should be about 'people power'.
The #HeforShe campaign is a perfect example of 'people power' over 'girl power'. We should be working together to reach fairness in the work place, championing people who seek equality, be they men or women, giving the jobs to those with the right skills and experience.
But I also think a certain amount of sensibility and realism should be employed (pun intended) when confronting this issue. Choices made by people will affect their career, and therefore pay, regardless of gender.
We are definitely not still suffering from the same kind of gender imbalance that was rife in the 50s. The situation is improving, and hopefully the upcoming government policy changes will shine a light on any issues that need addressing,
Why Prosecco?
Wikipedia defines Prosecco as a "less expensive alternative to champagne" and let's be honest, if given the choice we would all rather sip Champagne. But sometimes circumstances are not conducive to a champagne-lifestyle. And so it is with the gender pay gap.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), it's a woman's biological privilege to be a carrier of children. No man can take this job on. Yes, after the birth a great Dad will share some responsibility; but what if his main responsibility is to support the family while the mother wants to stay at home with the child? Circumstances mean that you can't always 'have it all', it's too expensive.
Prosecco has also acted as a great equalizer: it is a 'classy' beverage we can all indulge in. This is how the world of work should be. It should be an arena where everybody is on a level playing-field where males and females can pursue any career they wish to, achieving equal pay and opportunity for the same work.
A glass of fizz is no longer a privilege only accessible to the elite, it is now available to everybody and in most sectors this is also now true in terms of gender opportunity.
Finally, Prosecco grows stale with time, it does not ferment in the bottle. It should be drunk as young as possible to prevent wastage. In some ways I think this should be a message to all young women starting out in their career. If you make the most of the opportunities you have now, have an awareness of your value (using this handy little app), and continue to work hard, it should stop you getting stale over time.
And while the gender pay gap is not an issue to be ignored, I think we should remember not to let it take the fizz out of our Bellinis.
No comments:
Post a Comment