If City of London superwomen can’t land themselves equal pay packets in the UK, what hope is there for the rest of British women? It seems that these finance titans have not managed to gain parity with men in the UK’s financial hub.
Far from it: The country’s Equality and Human Rights Commission found that the pay gap between the genders in the British financial services sector is more than double that in the economy as a whole, with women earning 55 percent a year less than men. Even those at the very top are taking home a pay packet 45 percent shy of their male colleagues.
These are shocking figures, not only for the sheer size of the gulf, but also because we are talking about women who are themselves experts in finance. In some cases, they manage billions of pounds in assets and mastermind huge bids and deals, yet they still cannot command the same rewards as a man.
We don’t know why exactly this has happened, but perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. Although women have entered the workplace in ever-increasing numbers, the years of economic boom did not eradicate prejudice or the pay gap, which remains at women earning about 83 pence for every male pound. And in the good years, the cause of equal pay and female financial independence looked as outmoded as 1980s shoulder pads; there seemed to be more than enough money to go around, so why worry about wage differentials?
We might have mocked those shoulder pads, but at least in the 1980s there were portrayals of women as powerful economic agents, smashing glass ceilings and making their own money. But the dominant images during the Labour boom under former prime minister Tony Blair and current Prime Minister Gordon Brown took a step back, portraying supposedly post-feminist womanhood as dependant, even infantile, consumers.
Think of the flawed female role models spawned during the years of excess: the Yummy Mummy, whose leisured lifestyle, Boden skirts and gym membership came courtesy of her wealthy husband, and her flashier sister, the Wag, habitually seen as an appendage of her sportsman partner, even if, like Victoria Beckham, she is a formidable moneymaker in her own right.
Cheryl Cole was driven to protest, saying: “I’ve got my own money, so if my husband’s card is declined I whip out mine.”
But then, like me, she is from the northeast of England, where women traditionally held the financial reins. I was brought up in such a money matriarchy, so when I arrived in London 20 years ago, I was alarmed to see men using their own checkbooks and cards and wondered what their wives were thinking of.
NOT TRUSTED
At home in Teesside, my dad and the fathers of my friends handed over their pay to their wives and were given pocket money. Men were not trusted to be responsible — never mind that most were too meek and henpecked to dare run amok.
If the representations of married women and money in the boom decade were dodgy, that of the singleton, in her fictional incarnations of Bridget Jones and Carrie Bradshaw, was downright insulting. We were meant to think Bridget was adorable because of her ineptitude at her job and to see Carrie as merely ditsy when she spent so much on stilettos she couldn’t afford to keep a roof over her head. As Carrie observed, easy credit and a lust for fashion had subverted feminism to the point where empowerment was equated with a woman’s right to Jimmy Choos.
The subliminal message behind all of this is that women were not strategic planners or providers when it comes to money; we just spent it, witlessly and selfishly. Well-paid work for women was presented as desirable only because it would pay for more designer handbags. Heaven forbid we should want to be a positive role model for young girls or change male corporate structures.
In real life, though, the notion that it is cute and feminine to be a financial incompetent is as dangerous as it is false. Simonne Gnessen, a co-author of Sheconomics, a book on female attitudes to finance, believes some women use shopping for clothes and beauty products as a form of self-medication and indulge in rescue fantasies, expecting a Prince Charming to come along and pay off all their debts.
Such delusional thinking can come at a high price. In Sex and the City, Carrie had her wealthy Mr Big; real women ended up with Mr Bailiff. The London-based accountancy firm Wilkins Kennedy found that the percentage of bankrupts in the UK who are female has risen to 48 percent from 32 percent in 2000. Whichever way you look at it, going bust is not a good look.
Little is said or written about poor women in this country who were excluded from the boom but not from the problems of debt. Research by the Fawcett Society, which lobbies for gender equality in the UK, found that women are significantly more likely than men to have borrowings linked to poverty. In Manhattan or Mayfair, female indebtedness may be down to profligacy or psychological conflicts, but in economically deprived regions it is more likely to be due to sheer need. Women there don’t have outstanding debts on a store card, but with catalogue companies, door-to-door lenders and loan sharks — and as a result of school uniforms, not designer gear.
MORE VOLATILE
For women of all classes and income groups, Fawcett found that finances are significantly more volatile than men’s and much more likely to be badly affected by shocks or transitions such as having children or getting divorced. Yet men are still in control of major long-term financial decisions, while women take charge of day-to-day spending on the family. It’s difficult to know whether women are abnegating power willingly, but far too many wives leave all the financial planning to their husbands.
Because of family responsibilities and lower earning potential, women have less chance to build financial security, often stopping saving when they become mothers, then finding it difficult to start again. Men can ramp up their retirement funds in their 40s and 50s, but women frequently find themselves caring for elderly relatives and so are unable to rebuild their careers, their earnings and therefore their savings. In a grim statistic, the Association of British Insurers says 36 percent of working women don’t save for retirement.
Finance is one of the last big taboos; many women find it boring or intimidating and think it faintly unfeminine to take an interest. But we cannot afford to be charmingly clueless about cash. We need to be more financially aware than men to overcome the inequalities we face and to address the fact that our working lives are likely to be more changeable and complex; and we need to be able to handle our finances, with or without a man in our life.
And if we are lucky enough to have a decent capacity to earn, we owe it to ourselves to use our financial power to change our lives and others for the better by spending and investing thoughtfully.
Just one example: If female investors withheld their money from companies that refused to carry out equal pay audits, it could make a real difference.
The credit crunch has shown men don’t have mystical powers with money. It’s time we flexed our financial muscles — we’re worth it.
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
RSS