Women in the workplace.

In about 1986 I made the mistake of arguing with my boss about the negative ways youngsters spend their free time. The consequence was that I had to design and implement a survey of 300 fourteen year olds and analyse the results and although I was proved right in my assertions, the time spent on the project was horrendous.
The followup came several years later when, as Head of a large comprehensive Careers Department, I had to do an analysis of local employers' attitudes about 'unfairness to women in the workplace'.{Never, ever do something well or you just get more to do!}
This time-consuming exercise showed that women's pay levels were lower and promotion opportunities were indeed limited BUT it was the 'why' which was important.
The difference was NOT as claimed by some, that it was because of 'sexist attitudes'. No, it was pure pragmatism which emerged as the key. Unsurprising, really.
Women were on lesser levels purely because of their 'interrupted career patterns'. A man and woman might start together as equals but if the woman after five years takes out five years to have children or even drops to part time levels for that period, it is difficult to see how she can ever catch up with the colleague whose career pattern has been continuous.
It certainly seemed in S. Yorks, in our school's catchment area, that career orientated women who did not take time off for families would do as well as their male colleagues for salaries and promotions.
Since then, well-meaning legislation to protect women has been put in place which has actually made employers more mistrustful of them.
The 'law of unintended consequences' strikes again! Trouble is that when the effect is negative, the next step by the politically correct is to demand 'equality of outcome' - which is inevitably unfair.
I once lost a promotion which I had earned and a senior staff member warned me on the quiet that 'a woman would be appointed' irrespective of all other issues. Reverse sexism is just as bad as any other.
Resentful - moi?

29/12/07. Against the backcloth described above, this link probably shows that sexism is not the issue claimed, as some 40% of women earn more than husbands. Probably what it should be as a level when taking those 'interrupted careers' into account.

LINK: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=504986&in_page_id=1770