Another of these woke reports whingeing about how female careers and incomes aren’t quite the same as male. No doubt to be followed by an insistence that capitalism and markets must be overturned and wages centrally set by the benign dictator.
Or, of course, we can observe what is actually being said and think through the problem:
Women are paid less and fail to progress in their careers because they have been “socially conditioned” to feel less entitled than men, according to a major new report.
The study, published in the run up to International Women’s Day on March 8, has uncovered a deep-rooted “unentitled mindset” which is driving persistent inequalities in gender pay and female career progression.
Published by the educational charity, the Female Lead, Women at Work: Breaking Free of the Unentitled Mindset found that current workplace initiatives have limited effect because they are based in part on outdated presumptions about what women want.
Well, given that we now inhabit a world of strong independent women who do get what they want we must assume that the outcome is the best of all possible worlds. After all, society is emergent from those individual decisions.
As to what the report really says, here’s the intro:
The Female Lead’s Women at Work report explores the following questions:
Why, after decades of legislation, gender equality in education, control over
fertility and massive shifts of gender norms, have women not achieved
equality in the workplace?
Why do the trajectories of men’s careers show a steady increase during midstage career, while women’s trajectories flatten?
Remedying this inequality is essential to the UK’s long-term economic
recovery. Evidence shows that companies with a higher proportion of senior
women are more profitable and competitive.
The why is obvious. Given the average age of primagravidae at 30 these days that midstage career is coincident with the having and raising of children. We’re a sexually dimorphic species and thus there should be no surprise at gender based differences in behaviour with respect to sex and its consequences – those consequences being why the different behaviour with respect to sex of course.
Shouting about free child care and all the usual political demands doesn’t change that in the slightest. It’s still going to be, largely enough, women who take care of young kids and moving that task out of the household into state podding hutches is just solving the servants problem for middle class wimmins.
But it’s the second part there that shows nothing needs to be done. Especially not killing capitalism and markets. Because in a capitalist and market system people – those plutocratic bastards owning the employers – will lose money by not employing women in senior positions. Therefor those who indulge in taste discrimination – not employing wimmins ‘coz reasons – will disappear from the workplace over time. Any remaining discrimination will be rational such, here’s the good and sensible reason why we choose these people to do this job.
That is, the very assertion that wimmins managers produce higher profits is why, in a capitalist and market system, we need do nothing else about having wimmins managers. The only reason we could logically have for insisting upon the use of legal force is that the assertion itself isn’t true.
Nice to know that we’ve got a problem solved, isn’t it?