“I concentrate on the financial concerns and priorities of females in a way that resonates with them. I report and advise on issues such as how state pension changes affect women, how they have lower debts than men but become more anxious over them, and how to make immediate and long-term financial plans when child-rearing. I ask, are you and your partner even financially compatible?”

A worthwhile cause and perhaps a justified resolution for this year perhaps then? But what is this then juxtaposed with? Read a little further on in the piece and you will find the idea from clinical psychologist and sex therapist Bettina Arndt of ‘revitalising your sex life’. And though it is not suggested in the title itself, this again focuses on women. Because Bettina is suggesting that a focal problem in long-term relationships is ‘mismatched desire’, that this desire is usually lacked by the female and that these females need to basically get over it (my words not hers):

“Arndt advocates a “just do it” approach for couples in a rut. Women should ignore their lack of desire and just get on it with”.

So women of Britain, take note. Two ideas for a better life:

1. Get some sound financial advice
2. Lie back and think of England.

Happy New Year!

…like the battered wife who goes back to her abusive husband, so City women meekly trot back for more. Many even excuse the system that discriminates against them.

And that:

City women should be thumping their fists on the boardroom tables. Instead, they buy into a system that treats them shabbily. For that, they have themselves to blame.

Personally I’m confused. Am I meant to salute Turner for not falling fault to such behavior and for trying to remove the blinkers from these poor women’s eyes? Or am I meant to boo in her direction for merely shifting the blame?

Laura

In The Guardian write-up, Mary Bousted (general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers) is quoted as saying:

The problem has been that in the 1960s and 1970s boys were getting 12-13% more O-level passes than girls and no one really talked about it. When girls started to do better there were Panorama programmes and inquiries and a national debate. There’s a national panic if girls and women start to be successful. Girls have been more successful at GCSE and A-levels but that hasn’t closed the gender pay gap. Even if they do better they don’t get paid as much.

This is exactly the points I have stressed again and again in any writing on the gender gap in education – firstly this completely unjustified panic over girls ‘doing better’ than the boys and secondly the fact that despite what the qualification statistics show, better attainment at GCSE/A-Level does not equate with the better pay. Why can’t female students be seen as ‘doing better’? And why this stress on the “gender gap”? What about differences according to ethnicity or socio-economic background? Because I’m sure as hell that it’s not every girl ‘doing better’ – what about those who aren’t?

Teacher training courses emphasis the importance of differentiation and using a variety of techniques for learning and assessment in our lessons because no-one learns the same. We are told that coursework is becoming a problem because of plagiarism but then is that really a reason to remove what is potentially an effective assessment method for a large number of female students (if indeed we take the slightly deterministic argument that coursework benefits girls, exams boys)? Isn’t reliance of assessment through exams not differentiating?

A side thought (not properly investigated or backed): I think it’s telling that coursework is being removed at the educational stages where firstly girls are ‘doing better’ and secondly where girls and boys are present in proportional figures to the population when, for instance, no-one would dare suggest the removal of essays (or even dissertations!) at undergraduate level. It would be interesting to see whether such gendered patterns are present at this educational stage and the ratio of female to male undergraduates.

Laura

Anne Perkins has a great commentary about why it continues to exist – that is occupational segregation, women being more prevalent in the severely underpaid in the 5 c’s caring, catering, cashiering, cleaning and clerical

I think there’s a point to be made that we should have better pay rate in these jobs that are severely socially undermined but oh so important, better cash – no doubt – would lead to more males choosing it as a possible career, more opportunities to remove gender profiling for work. If we continue to undervalue them, saying that they are jobs not worth holding then who picks up the slack and remains exploited by our work system?

A lot of the negative commentary around this issue is that women choose to leave work when they have children, they choose to go into lower paid, part time work full stop. Well to me that doesn’t ring true. As always choice is the important part of these accusations, how much choice exists in this world free of pressure from family/friends/society/the bills stacking up at the door etc etc

This isn’t a problem we’re going to fix today, or tomorrow but we need to keep it forefront, stem the growth of the pay gap, get talking, get active, get fixing.

Charlotte

And all of this from day-time tv.

Laura

*Feeling the sarcasm?…

Disclaimer: I don’t particularly like The One Show and I feel the fact I found myself watching this episode on demand this morning was purely a reflection of my avoiding work…