This is the final part of my interview with the University of Warwick’s knowledge portal, promoting the WHN conference, ‘Performing the self: women’s lives in historical perspective’. You can also read parts one and two.

What do you think are the key factors in maintaining gender pay gaps in Britain today? 

I think we continue to think about women’s work as a sideline to the ‘real’ economic contribution of men- we often talk about women as disposable to the economy (they can ‘return home’, people won’t employ women if they are paid too much/ get maternity leave, demanding equal pay threatens economic stability), but have you ever heard that discussion happen about male employment? And, I think a lot of this attitude comes from a lack of historical perspective. Because we are so tied to an imagined vision of the economy as the private, non-economic, female sphere versus the paying, public world of work, we can pretend that women’s work isn’t vital to the modern economy and that the women who work today have somehow ventured from the sidelines- always emerging, but never full members of the workforce.

I also think that there is still a sense that men’s work is worth more than women’s work- which comes from a long history of the ‘family wage’ for men and ‘pocket money’ for the wife-, so that when people imagine what wage should a person get for a particular job, they will give a higher wage for a man than a woman. Wages discrepancies then become reinforced when people are expected to ask or negotiate for wage rises. Studies show that while men who ask for a raise are praised and seen as ambitious; women who do it are seen as demanding and aggressive. This is tied into a longer history of expected gendered behaviours for men and women that mean the same behaviours are viewed differently when performed by a man or a woman. Men are therefore more likely to be given a raise, while women are put-off or refused. This isn’t because the people making these decisions are consciously being sexist, but because a ‘demanding’ or ambitious woman isn’t seen as appropriately feminine and so is behaving out of turn.  

What do you think are the reasons why many industries are heavily male dominated: specifically politics, the media, science and engineering?

I think this is partly to do with socialisation- in that women and men are encouraged in particular directions- not necessarily because we tell children ‘boys are engineers, and girls are teachers’, but because that is what they see around them. I would argue that the first step in ‘becoming’ is the ability to imagine yourself in that place and if you don’t have the appropriate role models then that is very difficult. At another level, it is also about the values that we associate with different genders, so that we like to think that boys are better at technical work and detail and girls are better at languages and communicating- so we buy boy children lego and we buy girls dolls. And, then these stereotypes perpetuate themselves when the boy who was given lego becomes an engineer (or why isn’t Bob the Builder, Betty the Builder?)

Then at a practical level, it is difficult for women to break in to male-dominated industries (and also for working class people to break into middle class industries) as so much about doing well is informal networks and friendships- and if you didn’t watch football last night, what do you talk about with your colleagues? In certain historical contexts, swearing and sexist jokes were a fundamental part of workplace camaraderie, relieving stress and making bonds between workers. And, if society says you can’t swear in front of women, or woman don’t appreciate sexist jokes, then women not only don’t fit it, but they upset the traditional balance of workplace politics- they become disruptive to traditional function (which isn’t necessarily bad). These factors all militate against women finding a place in male-dominated industries- and women that do often note of how exhausting this process of continually having to work to be accepted, of changing work-place dynamics to be inclusive of women, can be.

Do you think the way that work is organised and the way work places are run is gendered in anyway?  If so, how?

I think that, as a society, we give insufficient consideration to the place of children, which tends to work against parents, but particularly mothers, in the workplace. So, for example, schools begin at nine and finish at 3 or 3.30, which makes it difficult for women- who continue to be the primary carer for children in most families- to work full-time without paying large sums in childcare fees. This can mean that it is not economically viable to work full-time, which has implications for a woman’s career aspirations, but also pension contributions and long-term earning potential. This is exasperated in certain careers where over-time, long commutes, working away from home, and long-hours are part of work culture, which makes it difficult to have children at all. I think this is going to become more problematic in the future as temporary contracts become more prevalent. When is the right time to have children when you are only on one year contracts, cannot get maternity pay, and have to do well in this job to ensure you get the next? And how do you get the next contract if you had to leave the last one to take time out to have a baby? Where do you live when your employer is constantly changing and your partner is in a similar position?

Long-working hours, travel and commutes can also have implications beyond raising children- as who cleans your home, your clothes and makes your dinner when you are barely there? The worker with the stay at home spouse has significant advantages in this type of work economy- reinforcing traditional models for family life (even as they become increasingly financially unrealistic).

Some would argue that gender is no longer the big divider in the world of work – class is the much bigger factor.  The difference between a middle class man and woman is much smaller than a working class woman and a middle class women – would you agree? Does that mean that feminist’s should focus on challenging class inequality as opposed to gender equality?

This is a very complicated question, because it is very difficult to rank inequalities- especially when they combine as they do for working-class women- and I not sure it’s helpful to unconditionally prioritise one form of inequality over the other in seeking social change. If we want to look at absolute measures, such as life-expectancy, it is true to say that class can have more of an impact on your life than gender. Does that make it the job of feminists to fix this? What happened to the Marxists when you need them? (I hear they are coming back in fashion).

But, seriously, for most contemporary feminists (but not all) exploring the intersection of gender with other forms of inequality and looking to improve equality as an absolute measure has meant that we have needed to give serious consideration to class, as well as other types of difference like race, sexuality, disability and more. Part of the complexity of being a modern feminist is figuring out how you move forward towards equality in ways that doesn’t further disadvantage particular social groups. I don’t think that the job of the feminist movement will be complete until class inequalities are removed, but it does make it a much more complex problem to solve- especially when we are a lot more reluctant to rethink the nature of our economic system, than we are to speak out against gender inequality.

What single piece of legislation would make the most difference to women in the work place?

The rethinking of the relationship between the workplace and home that forces the employer (and society) to give greater consideration to their workers as parents, partners, hobbyists, and physical bodies- and that sees work and employment about enabling life and society, not just making money? Can we word this as a single piece of legislation?

Katie Barclay loves being a gender historian whose work can incorporate thinking from economic theory to sociology to science, and who can use the past to think about the present. She thinks history is particularly well-placed to ask broad questions that reach outwards beyond disciplinary borders.