“These stereotypical views of what the respective gender is skilled at, for example, are already influenced by the upbringing of parents.”

When researching wage inequality in Switzerland, also known as the “gender pay gap”, one initially comes across quite different figures: One time there is talk of 19%, another time of 8.1%.  (As of 2018, EBG). These large differences can initially be explained by the “unadjusted” and “adjusted” pay gap. In the adjusted pay gap of 8.1%, aspects such as different levels of education, professional experience, the scope of work, the choice of profession itself or even the lower proportion of women* in management positions are factored out. This wage difference occurs on average after just one year in the workforce and even when women and men agree on all determining factors – 8.1% by which women are financially discriminated against, one might think. But the wage difference of just under 20% should also be examined more closely from a sexist point of view, because the fact that women work primarily in the social sector or work more part-time than men has to do with stereotypical role attributions. It is important to talk about wage inequality, because the lower wages and the financial dependence of women lead to the fact that they have to struggle with poverty in old age and represent the perpetuation of outdated role clichés for all genders.

In this interview, we want to get to the bottom of the reasons for the existing wage inequality and identify possible strategies to overcome it.

Out & About: The unadjusted pay gap can be explained mainly by the positions (hardly any upper management positions), lower-paid occupational fields (e.g. nursing instead of mechanical engineering) and part-time work in which women predominantly work. Let’s start with the choice of profession: How do you think it comes about that women work predominantly in the social sector, although in principle all occupational fields are open to them?

Benita Combet: When choosing a profession, the various fields and subjects are often chosen on the basis of stereotypes. Socially, for example, there is still the view that women and men have different abilities. For example, there is a persistent prejudice that women find emotional work naturally easier, while men are gifted in logical thinking and in technical and craft areas. But studies show that these attributions are not true. In mathematics, for example, there are no differences in performance and in some mathematical areas women are even better. Due to the permanent confrontation with these stereotypes by parents, friends and the media, these stereotypes are internalized and lead to a stereotypical attribution of abilities. For example, girls’ poor math grades are not explained by inadequate test preparation, but by a lack of talent. As a consequence, they prepare even less for math exams in the future because they think they don’t have the necessary aptitude anyway – a vicious circle. Not surprisingly, this process leads to the development of specific subject interests. And after graduation, these interests are then reflected in the choice of careers and studies: men tend to gravitate toward science and technology, while women tend to gravitate toward social sciences and language.

How consciously are such imprints and stereotypes perceived?

The imprints are both conscious and unconscious and are reinforced by permanent feedback from the environment. These stereotypical views of what the respective gender is good at already influence the upbringing of parents, for example. For example, parents assess their children’s crawling skills differently, boys are often overestimated and girls underestimated. At school, too, girls and boys receive different feedback on their performance, which further reinforces stereotypical ideas. But even if these initially seem rather unconscious, it is possible to become aware of the stereotypes and decide not to conform to them.

Can the one-sided choice of occupation also be historically justified in addition to stereotypes? How did it come about that some professions were typically female and others male?

Women have always been active in professions and fields that do not conform to the classic stereotype. An exciting example is computer science: the occupational field was initially strongly dominated by women, as computer science became significant especially during World War 2 with its encryption methods. At that time, most men were at war and so the profession was mainly carried out by women. Computer science then also had a strong female connotation, for example it was said that the highly repetitive work suited women very well. Later, after there was a large influx of men, the skills necessary for the profession were redefined: The conviction arose that skills with masculine connotations, such as logic, were necessary.

If a woman or a man chooses a profession that does not conform to the classic stereotype, is that already a big step forward or are there other factors that have a negative effect and keep the stereotypes alive?

After all, women not only choose certain professions, but there is also the question of which positions they enter within the company and whether they are promoted. Gender roles play an important role in these questions as well. Those responsible in companies often have a tendency, whether consciously or unconsciously, to hire and promote fewer women. This is because they fear, especially in the case of younger women, that they will sooner or later become pregnant and then be absent for a certain period of time. Since childcare and child-rearing are still mostly the responsibility of the woman, there is a high probability that she will continue to work part-time later on, which influences the recruiters when they hire her.

Would the situation change for the better if more men were to take on the main responsibility for childcare, since employers would no longer automatically assume that the woman would one day be absent?

Hypothetically: Yes. If more men take parental leave, then the assumption that every woman will take pregnancy leave and parental leave sooner or later, so to speak, would no longer be obvious. However, personnel decisions could then be directed against young people per se, i.e. potential parents. Studies show, however, that not only the efficiency argument comes into play when hiring, but also sympathy aspects. According to social expectations, women are supposed to be there for their children, and anyone who doesn’t live up to this comes across as unsympathetic, which in turn means that full-time working mothers with young children are less likely to be hired. But there are also cultural differences. In some neighboring countries, such as France, it is more common to put children in daycare at an early age and is therefore more socially accepted.

If you take a closer look at the figures for the adjusted pay gap, you will come across different figures here as well: Once on the 8.1% mentioned above and then also on 4.8%, from a study of yours from 2019. You explained in an interview that this is also related to the companies examined in the respective study. What do some companies do better than others?

There is less wage inequality in state institutions, as they do not have much room for maneuver and have clear guidelines when it comes to paying for jobs. The situation is different in private companies, especially small ones, without trained human resource management, as the necessary awareness of the issue is then lacking and pay levels, promotions and job allocations tend to be based on personal sympathy. If there is an awareness that all people can be seduced by unconscious biases, it is possible to take concrete action against this. For example, we know that covering up the name and omitting a photo helps to reduce biases based on gender or ethnicity in hiring processes.

Could a woman with negotiating skills stand up to such sexist decisions?

Studies show that the specific appearance of the woman has hardly any influence. For example, there is a prejudice that women are not as good at negotiating as men and therefore get lower wages. Many studies have shown that this is not the case, respectively that when women negotiate for others, they actually outperform men in laboratory studies. When women haggle over their wages just as aggressively as men, the problem is rather that they violate the role model of the empathetic and nice woman and consequently appear unsympathetic. Incidentally, the same is true with regard to leadership positions, as there is an expectation that leaders must be dominant and assertive, which conflicts with the idea of the empathetic and nice woman.

“We are not aware of stereotypes until we are willing to question our perception.”

Are there any successes to report, at least in recent years? Has the wage gap narrowed and what factors are responsible for this?

Absolutely. For example, women today often even have higher educational qualifications than men, which has significantly reduced the wage gap. There are also many professions that are now in women’s hands rather than men’s. For example, more women than men study medicine, law and biology. And that, of course, has a positive effect on later wages.

What would you recommend at the political level to overcome the structures described above?

Politically, it would be important to expand parental leave for both sexes and the range of childcare options. Politicians are currently trying to implement this, which is to be welcomed. More and cheaper crèche places should be made available, as this could enable mothers to return to work earlier. Another point that is very important and is also being discussed in politics is the abolition of the marriage penalty. Marriage taxation, which is currently in place, demotivates women to work, as they have little income left from a job in the end. Implementing all these factors would very likely have a positive effect.

Would it also be conceivable that in the future attributes with typical female connotations will be seen as more suitable and desirable for leadership positions?

That would be desirable and will probably happen, but it could still take a while. We are socialized into these norms and stereotypes and changing them is a very lengthy process, as they are conveyed in many ways, for example through books, films and the media, while at the same time we lack female role models in the real world.

Last but not least: What do you think would be an important step to overcome the unconscious imprints on an individual level?

We are not aware of stereotypes until we are willing to question our perception. This can be done on a small scale by critically reflecting on our own perceptions and associations. Specifically, can it be that in the case of girls who are successful at school, I assume that they study a lot on exams, while in the case of boys, I assume that they are simply intrinsically gifted? In the case of a successful woman, do I automatically assume that she did not get to that position through her own efforts?

Interview by Catherin Schöberl

*Persons who have been socialized female (respectively male)