As evil as the lure of procrasination might be, it did mean I stumbled across a gem of an interview with Edwina Currie on The One Show
concerning the continuing pay gap between women and men. Such discrepencies don't seem to cause any alarm in Currie; her responses implying that this is the way it is and even, this is the way it should be. The justification behind this? The matter of choice. Edwina Currie talks about the choices women make during their careers, choices involving children (think taking a 'break' in employment when you decide to start a family*). Of course, we women make such choices so it is only right that women's pay reflects such...la di da da. The point at which Currie starts throwing around this buzzword of choice I am reminded of Catherine Hakim and her Preference Theory
(basically the notion that patterns in women's employment reflect the lifestyle preferences of women rather than patriarchal structures in society). Do we see the problem here? We can talk about 'choice' and 'preference' and doll this situation up as women being active decision makers of their life, their roles, their careers because that's the easiest option isn't? It's just merely an attempt to mask the fact that despite equal pay legislation and work by the women's movement, our society, to put it simply, still sucks on this. Why pretend that this is what women want because clearly it really isn't. And of course Edwina will talk about 'choice' because it can, to an extent, be a matter of choice for women like her because of their background affording them more opportunities than perhaps the rest of us.
And all of this from day-time tv.
*Feeling the sarcasm?...
Disclaimer: I don't particularly like The One Show
and I feel the fact I found myself watching this episode on demand this morning was purely a reflection of my avoiding work...
(x-posted over at Subtext)
Labels: choice, employment, Hakim, pay gap, preference theory, television