It reminds me of the 1970s when feminists argued that the very fact that boys out-performed girls at secondary level was undeniable “proof” of sexism. Funnily enough, we don’t hear that argument from women anymore. I wonder why? Maybe because girls now out-perform boys?

When the time comes – and it will – when women are paid more on average than men, this line of argument will be dropped like a hot potato, too.

If anything, I’ve seen the reverse – been turned down for jobs simply because I was male, or otherwise seen the ‘girls club’ where membership is required to ease the way. Certainly in my current workplace – a corporate environment working for a telecommunications company – opportunities for promotion are considered greater for women. This is an opinion commonly voiced by women in this company.

Some might think that Just – I recall the then head of Woman’s Refuge saying, in an interview with The Listener, suggesting that ‘maybe they [men] deserve it’, when questioned on ‘reverse’ sexism and bias.

Coming from a family with prominent and obviously strong and accomplished women, it came as a surprise to my younger self that anyone might consider them less able, or less deserving with regard to remuneration or recognition.

Meanwhile, it seems there are ample social mechanisms working to adjust the inequality discussed in the article.

The reality is that the very thorough pay reviews conducted in the core public service and education take this factor into account. They weed out the proportion this contributes to the pay gap and demonstrate that there is still a sizable part of the pay gap that is not due to this. This is the bit that is discriminatory and that the Government has an obligation to address.

The most common problem identified by the reviews was in starting salaries. Women new starters with the same (or more) levels of experience and qualifications as male new starters were offered less than their male counterparts and this gap is never caught up. All of this is not helped of course by our strange practice here in NZ of not publishing salary ranges for jobs.

The other main issue identified was performance pay systems where progression up the pay range is not transparent and is determined by managerial discretion. The reviews show that women with the same levels of experience and performance as men receive less salary progression and smaller one-off performance payments.

So, this has all been proven now. We don’t need to spend more taxpayers’ money on the Ministry of Women’s Affairs trying to figure out whether there is a problem. There is and the Government has both a moral and human rights obligation to fix it.

Secondly, most of our governments in the past 60 years have been relatively conservative, voted for by relatively conservative men and women – its your fault really. These administrations have in recent decades generally had a commitment to ‘less government’, or at least topical government. A side effect has been the giving of less in the way of payments to staff, unless they are to buy skills in demand – such payments are not immediately seen as ‘frontline’ by most of us. Bulk funding has increasingly lead to prioritisation and the margins have suffered.

Contemporary management theory is weighted towards the efficiency and strategic hierarchy model, in which ‘managers’ are paid more than ‘doers’ because their decision making ‘has more value’, and sometimes this is even true. Overall, since the 1980s the organisational approach in public and private sectors has shifted from the concept of increasing equity to one of structured inequity. The resulting gender inequity is likely to be a side effect, or co-lateral damage, than a deliberate policy outcome. People at the bottom, whether teacher support aids or nurses are not exempt. This is the accidental theory of life, located somewhere offshore between the stupidity theory of everything and the conspiracy theory.

Coming back to the central issue of why male teachers are paid more than women, one or two reasons given above hit the target – simply put, employment patterns for men and women are different, because they are sometimes seen as delivering a different product. More men have technical training, or deliver in traditional fields such as mathematics or technology, which are in demand. Proportionately more women have traditional teaching skills such as language and history, which are seen as nice to have, rather than cutting edge – not true but assumed by bureaucrats and politicians nevertheless, and one should have both edges. More women teachers work part time. More women than men are relieving teachers. Women tend to be the child carers during the children’s early years, so they take a break or a series of breaks. Men have suffered somewhat in the moral panic about males generally and therefore male teachers are desirable goods in the current market. Men are also less nice and likely to be more ambitious, and they are either expected to be the main bread winner or the only one during a significant part of their careers. The result is that men staying in the profession tend to be overtly ambitious and tend to succeed in pay negotiations because psychologically the stakes are higher.

While all these are generalisations there is enough truth in each to make a real difference in pay rates over time. Some of these factors advantage men and some disadvantage women – two different concerns. These factors have became relatively more important in the same period that formal pay equity was legislated for and have exercised a countervailing pressure on female pay rates, among other things.

I am sure that some gap filling is desirable, but I suggest that it is less important in the middle and higher teaching ranks, and it is arguably far more important (because more equitable) to plug the equity gaps for many low value workers who provide society’s shock troops – many of whom are women. They are the undervalued glue that sticks our society; often undervalued by their better off sisters, as well as by dastardly male policy makers and politicians. In my experience women at the top, or women aspiring can look after themselves if they have to, having had the education and social exposure to do so. A lot of gender equity focus should instead be on the wider question of equity, funding policy and where decisions are being made, all politically more scary topics. They are also by their nature, not single fix solutions, the love of which created the problem gaps in the first place.

The fact that the majority of men have shown no inclination to support women’s call for equal pay for equal work suggests that they are happy with the status quo.

Women therefore must force the changes themselves.

An updated well circulated essay by Marilyn Waring on the pay differences and paid/unpaid inequality of work value in New Zealand would be helpful.

Women are their own worst enemies the way they undervalue their input into this nation’s past, present and future.

Reference: Briar, C. (2009) Hidden Health Hazards in Women’s Work. Wellington: Dunmore Press.

People who believe that gender discrimination in the workplace does not exist and that achievement and reward are related to merit should read this book – they may find it enlightening to say the least.