Gender pay gap begins with children

Family|January 25th 2017

The infamous ‘pay gap’ between men and women could begin as early as childhood.

Parents give sons an average of £2.20 per week in pocket money more than they give daughters, a new study has suggested.

Research organisation Childwise surveyed 2,000 British children from across the UK. They found that boys between the ages of five and 16 receive an average of £10.70 per week from their parents. By contrast, girls are only given £8.50.The gap actually widens as children get older. Among those aged 11 to 16, boys are given an average of £17.80 each week whereas girls were only on £12.50, more than £5 lower.

Researchers also found that sons are given more financial independence than daughters. Additionally, girls are more likely to receive no regular income from their parents at all.

Childwise research manager Jenny Ehren said the results of their research suggest “an early gender imbalance in the way parents educate their children about money matters”. Boys are “more likely to be entrusted with regular cash payments, while girls are more reliant on other people buying them items” she explained. These can range from “expensive items such as clothes and footwear [to] lower cost purchases such as toiletries, hair products and makeup”.

This imbalance could encourage outdated gender roles as young people “pick up gender clues all around them, some subtle, and some not so subtle” Ehren warned.

She added:

“The challenge for parents is to avoid inadvertently perpetuating these gender divisions themselves, and to help children learn the skills needed to be a confident and independent adult.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the majority of pocket money for both boys and girls is spent on items such as chocolate, crisps, soft drinks and going out.

Share This Post...


  1. Andrew says:

    Just as long as no fool suggests involving the law . . .

  2. spinner says:

    You don’t cite a source for this “data”. Only rabid feminists take the “gender pay gap” seriously as the only way to arrive at it is to do the most basic analysis as in take the average wage of all men and all women whilst discounting the different life choices men and women take. Men and women doing the same job with the same experience earn the same and if they didn’t which company would be stupid enough to employ any men.

  3. Andrew says:

    You certainly have to factor in the question whether a woman has taken some years out of her career while her children were young. I know some do because they have no choice; but the fact remains that they then have less experience, doesn’t it?
    Sometimes on a Chambers website you see that someone was called in a particular year and was “previously a solicitor” – useful information although I would like to know how long s/he was in practice.
    But if that member of the Bar was out of practice for more than about three years solid – for any reason at all – I think it should be obligatory to say so on the website. A barrister of twelve years’ call who spent eight years at home (that’s quite common, from before the birth of one until both are at school) has four years’ experience, not eight, and I should know that. Anyone at Marilyn Stowe disagree?

Leave a Reply


Newsletter Sign Up

For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
please sign up for instant access today.

Privacy Policy