Europe boasts that it has the most developed economies and most liberal societies in the world. But, when it comes to women’s advancement at work, the statistics tell a different story. The data overwhelmingly indicates that women are lagging behind their male equivalents, especially when it comes to salaries. Most tellingly, in its report Tackling the gender pay gap in the European Union, the EU found that women are paid on average 16 percent less per hour than men – the ‘gender pay gap’.
Very few women stand on the top rungs of corporate ladders. A BBC study in 2012 found that they occupied less than a third of the UK’s most influential jobs; just over 30 percent of the most senior positions in business, politics and policing. And there are also growing concerns about underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) jobs.
In instances where there is a demonstrable gender pay gap, there is often an acceptable and understandable explanation
Males in comparison
There is a shared narrative in the European press as to why women are not meeting with the success at work that you would expect from their numbers. Journalists blame society, and not the individuals, as if it is all beyond the control of women. In an article for The Guardian, Jemima Kiss wrote of her despair about “institutional sexism in tech”. In another piece for Jezebel, Lindy West loudly complained: “So much of these things that [women] yell about all day exist in weird, invisible spaces – subtle systemic inequalities, exploitation dressed up as feminism, just a feeling we have that something is f**ked.”
These sentiments are echoed in European parliaments, where many initiatives to promote women are based on the premise that external forces hold them back. These perceived barriers could be anything from institutional sexism to gender-biased parenting or stereotyping at school. As a result, executive bodies such have created strategies to tackle ‘sexist’ systems. Countries including Germany have even introduced quotas, forcing large businesses to radically boost female representation on their boards. Policymakers believe that breaking down these barriers will act as a catalyst, speeding the promotion of women in the workplace and levelling the inequalities that exist.
This analysis, however, is far too simplistic. It ignores a wealth of evidence that shows that the reasons women do not get ahead are varied and complex. Policymakers seem to be blind to the fact that in some parts of Europe conditions have never been so optimal for women to rise to the very top.
Mind ceiling
The common assumption is that women struggle at work because of barriers created by others – external forces. Evidence suggests that there are two internal barriers for professional women. The first is motivation – the motivation to get to the top, and the second is confidence – the confidence to seize opportunities when they present themselves.
In her 2013 book, Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg focused on these points. She acknowledged that there may be incidences of sexism in society, but observed: “Internal obstacles are rarely discussed and often underplayed. Throughout my life, I was told over and over about inequalities in the workplace and how hard it would be to have a career and a family. I rarely heard anything, however, about the ways I might hold myself back. These internal obstacles deserve a lot more attention, in part because they are under our control.”
In a huge study by Sandberg’s organisation LeanIn.Org and McKinsey, researchers looked at 30,000 employees in 118 countries. They unearthed fascinating material which should cause a radical revision of received wisdom as to gender-related performance at work.
True, the study found that women were underrepresented at every level of the career pipeline. This was so particularly at the top. Looking at workforces, on average 45 percent were women – but only 17 percent of the members of the C-suite were female. However, the women were not held back by institutional sexism. In fact, they had often held themselves back. The researchers discovered that women in entry-level and mid-level positions shared similar desires for promotion, but senior-level women were less interested in advancing than senior-level men. At every stage of their careers, women were not as eager as men to become top executives. Strikingly, while programmes to help women balance work and family were abundant, participation in these programmes was low.
And so, the evidence suggests that women have not been denied opportunities, but rather have themselves opted not to take the chances offered to them. There may be several reasons for this lack of motivation. Women might internally have regard to social expectations – what they imagine might be expected of them. One thing at least is clear – it has nothing to do with satisfaction. The evidence showed that women were just as content with their lives as those men who had been promoted ahead of them.
Journalist Bonnie Marcus also observed that despite their “obvious talent, [women] don’t feel as competent as everyone else. Their negativity prevents them from asserting themselves, speaking up and offering their opinions. They are not perceived as having leadership potential as a result and it hinders their advancement.” This ‘confidence gap’ has huge repercussions at work, meaning women do not ask for enough pay, or demand to be given more opportunities. Some have suggested that businesses need to take this confidence gap into account when it comes to deciding remuneration and promotions. But the problem with this proposal is that it relies far too much on the emotional intelligence of employers and could even result in protocols that seem patronising. The obstacle is, ultimately, the responsibility of the affected individuals to address, and is unlikely to be improved by quotas or other systemic measures.
Radical STEMinism
A growing concern for policymakers is the lack of women in STEM careers. There is a fashionable consensus that, in early age development, girls do not opt for science as much as boys because of socialisation. One leading physicist, Dame Athene McDonald, even claimed that girls’ toys such as Barbie rob them of the creativity and imagination needed for scientific careers.
To address these concerns, organisations such as the National Science Foundation have invested millions of pounds promoting science to girls. The Institute of Physics has even created its own guidelines to help schools eliminate sexist ‘banter’, which it believes – in part – may explain the lack of ladies in labcoats.
The trouble with these efforts is that they ignore evidence that women may simply not be as attracted to science as men. Girls in Europe have access to some of the best educational institutions in the world, and in some countries consistently outperform boys at school and university. That many do not want to pursue science may be, quite simply, the result of gender-related preferences. Arguably, it may even be said to be sexist to insist stereotypes are enough to dissuade girls from science.
There is, too, a lot of research to indicate that feminine skills do not confer as much of an advantage as male skills in science, when socialisation has not taken place.
Numerous studies show that men and women are wired differently: researchers have found men to be better on spatial awareness tests such as navigating mazes and performing mental rotation tasks. Conversely, girls do better on examinations, as well as social and emotional recognition. Scientists such as Simon Baron-Cohen have even found that certain areas of the brain dedicated to emotional processing are larger in women than men.
The lack of women pursuing STEM careers may not be down to stereotyping, but a reflection of varying interests and abilities between the genders. And, therefore, female underrepresentation may not be an accurate barometer of gender inequality in Europe, nor indeed a reason for taking remedial measures, which may not work after all.
The lack of women pursuing STEM careers may not be down to stereotyping, but a reflection of varying interests and abilities between the genders
Reviewing the pay gap
Some journalists suggest that there is a degree of statistical illiteracy when it comes to interpreting European data on gender inequality. It is even said that the gender pay gap is something of a myth. For example, the ONS has shown that in the UK, far from earning less than men, women between the ages of 22-29 and 30-39, working over 30 hours a week, were paid more than their male counterparts.
In instances where there is a demonstrable gender pay gap, there is often an acceptable and understandable explanation. It may not be so much that women are paid less in a particular job or profession, but that particular jobs or professions pay more. In an article for PBS, Denise Cummins argued that to fix this, women need to demand more remuneration, noting that: “When men move into traditionally female-dominated professions, the salaries and status levels of those professions rise because men demand – and get – more for the work they do.”
Other variables that the gender pay gap does not take into consideration include education, job tenure, hours worked per week, and position. If there’s any real external barrier that holds women back, it is balancing family and work. As many women become the primary caregivers when starting a family, their ability to work long and inflexible hours becomes compromised. This inevitably affects their impact in the workplace.
Still, researchers in the LeanIn.Org and McKinsey study found that ahead of childcare concerns, women’s greatest worries were ‘stress’ and ‘pressure’. Conversely, men were more likely to cite ‘family’ and ‘balancing work’ as a main issue. This might even suggest that policymakers could focus more on improving paternity conditions for men – increasing their time off, and giving them more flexible contracts – to make life easier for both genders.
Self-fulfilling prophecy
In spite of the common narrative in the media that European women are held back due to oppressive systems, the data paints a far more complicated portrait of their situation. The issue with the rhetoric used by journalists and politicians who blame environmental factors when women don’t get ahead at work, is that it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In psychology, there is a phenomenon called the ‘stereotype threat’, when a group is made aware of an unflattering stereotype about themselves, such as ‘women aren’t good at maths’. This suggestion then alters their performance, and researchers have found that people made aware of a stereotype consistently perform worse on tasks than control groups. Ergo, the fact women are frequently told that ‘men’ or ‘systems’ hold them back may actually be to their detriment.
What’s far more empowering is to realise that standards in Europe for gender inequality are better than ever. There are plenty of opportunities for women, but to excel they will need to address their own confidence levels and also consider how to make female-dominated professions more lucrative, instead of crowbarring themselves into roles that may appeal more to the male brain. These responsibilities ultimately rely on individuals – meaning a whole load of government initiatives, including quotas, may not have the desired effect.