Advanced search

I suppose this proves that women just can't stand the heat.........

(243 Posts)
seeker Sun 24-Feb-13 10:23:45


FloraFox Tue 05-Mar-13 18:15:59


- "true to form" - hmm

- "It's just that some are holding their hands over their ears (like children) and refusing to listen." - hmm

And yes, this is Feminism / womens rights chat so it's not too much to expect a discussion from a feminist perspective. It's not AIBU, Chat or In the News.

Dazzler159 Tue 05-Mar-13 12:38:48

"from a feminist perspective" hmm

skrumle Tue 05-Mar-13 11:59:27

I don't want to be tedious for sticking to my belief that the situation is complex and down to many, as opposed to one reason

it is indeed a complex situation - i don't think anyone would view it as tedious if you wanted to discuss the many related issues from a feminist perspective in the feminism section...

Dazzler159 Tue 05-Mar-13 09:55:11


Maybe I'm reading too much into your post but it seems like, true to form, someone (me in this instance) is getting the, "oh, you've come on this thread to tell us.......". I've not come here to tell you anything. I've come here to post my opinion. Do you understand that there is a difference between the two? You're making it sound like it's a cheek for me to even have an opinion, let alone one that may conflict with your system of beliefs. Maybe it's eluded you but:

Forum (noun): A meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

You're roughly right about my posts except that you've simply distilled it to highlight your own skewed preconceptions. You really need to throw a healthy dose of sexism in there too. Then you've pretty much got it, oh and also women feeling they cannot fit everything in because they chose to marry and have kids with a sexist fool. The responsibility for this needs to be shouldered by both parties.

Yes I read the link and the related article and it mainly alleges that women are being queezed out. Where is the evidence for this? The article states that there were many more women MP's when labour were in power but not so many now the Conservatives are in. Maybe it's because women don't like the tories? Of course I'm being facetious but to paint this phenomena with such a broad brush is foolhardy. To be so selective as to only look at FTSE100 companies is foolhardy. Why? Amongst a multitude of reasons it could be because:

a) it neglects the diversity and myriad of successful companies out there, some of which have been incorporated by women, who may not prejudice female employees in the same way.

b) it neglects the senior female managers who have a good level of control over how their female team members are treated, supported and trained to succeed.

c) companies who actively look to meet quotas and treat women fairly but do not have a pool of potential females to choose from.

Anyone who wants to attribute 100% of the shortfall to one reason is a fool. Sexism/oppression may well account for a high proportion but will not be the sole reason. It cannot be. Exoticfruits and I have given examples of this and there are articles like this that prove it. It's just that some are holding their hands over their ears (like children) and refusing to listen.

You may not like it but you cannot deny that some women just don't want it. Have you asked yourself why you don't want to be the next female PM, CEO, head teacher etc. etc. if you're not at the top already?

I know of some measures like laws to prohibit gender discrimination and equal pay policies. You assume again but I have colleagues/friends that work in HR and employment law. These measures are something that many companies have been implementing for years (obviously). Naturally I don't know of all the measures (I doubt any of us do) but given none of us are experts then all we can go on is statistical data. I've already said that I don't like statistics but at least the ONS provide some background information with theirs. And there's no need to wait a further 5 years because the ONS has already found that women have exceeded men when it comes to part time employment.

Anyway, if you have the time then do some research and you'll find the current gap to be less than 10% and falling. Of course the Fawcett Society chose not to use ONS data for their last press release as it's too positive for the spin they want to apply. I hate inconsistency (being an analyst) and they have given no rationale as to why they opted for an independent survey last year but felt that the ONS was perfectly valid for their 2008 manifesto. Maybe it's because the ONS found the gap almost halved in 5 years it just looked too good for their campaign? I have no idea but anyone with any hint of balance/impartiality would be sceptical of a survey that cherry picked a selection of companies to paint a picture. The same could be said of the ONS but at least they use HMRC pay figures from a cross section of the UK's employees.

But ultimately I guess we need to agree to dissagree as I don't want to be tedious for sticking to my belief that the situation is complex and down to many, as opposed to one reason.

FloraFox Mon 04-Mar-13 22:48:50

Did you read the link from the OP? You've come on this thread to tell us that things aren't so bad though as it's better than 50 years ago. Ok.

As far as the "hugely complex" issue is concerned, if I distill your posts, it seems to be a combination of nature, evolution, history and women not wanting it enough.

You don't know what measures are being implemented to improve the pay gap but you feel it will be resolved in five years based on trends. I guess in that case women will be earning more than men in another five years.

I think I get you now.

Dazzler159 Mon 04-Mar-13 21:51:06


I don't know if I'm a feminist. I understand what feminists describe as the patriarchy and the concepts of male privilege. I don't necessarily agree with 100% of it but IMHO that's not as important as actually treating people as equals and challenging what I perceive to be wrong with society. But I digress.

The op posted a link to an article about female representation (or lack thereof) and this thread has questioned the possible reasons. When I say that sexism is a given it is because it is most definitely a contributor to the shortfall. How much is unknown given we only have stats. Since joining in the discussion I have given my possible reasons which counter the argument that the shortfall is 100% due to sexism. Again I believe there are a number of factors as this is a hugely complex issue.

I'm not saying we don't have a problem but it is true to say that we have a fair number of high profile female successes that should help to inspire women. Sure there are still not enough but this is a more positive scenario than 50 years ago.

When I say things aren't so bad I mean relatively.

With regard to the pay gap this is based upon ONS statistics over the past two surveys (2007 and 2012) and assuming a similar trend over the next 5 years. Sadly the Fawcett Society paint quite a bleak picture but this is because they used ONS data for their 2007 manifesto and not for their recent press release (where they conducted an independent survey). I don't know why they chose to do this but it led to them claiming that the gap was worsening when the ONS found it to the contrary. Whatever is being implemented is obviously working and I have read no convincing reason why the trend will not continue, which is a good thing.

FloraFox Mon 04-Mar-13 17:38:49

Dazzler I'm still struggling to see your feminist perspective on what you've posted. When I asked you about this earlier, you said you assumed it was a given that sexism was a factor but I can't figure out what you mean by that given your other posts. Now you're saying things are not so bad that women can't get on and we have a "fair amount" of high profile, female role models in all walks of life. Really? Do you consider yourself to be a feminist?

Earlier you said you expect to say pay parity in five years from now - how will that come about?

I must say I find your overall position quite muddled.

exoticfruits Mon 04-Mar-13 17:32:34

Margaret Thatcher sacrificed a relationship with her DCs for her job- not many women would want to do that.

Schooldidi Mon 04-Mar-13 14:34:11

I don't feel bad in the slightest. I fully believe that dp and I are the main influence over my children, even though we both work full time. I know that time is important to them and I do my best to provide that time, but honestly I do not believe that me being out at work is damaging them in any way. Our cm has a great deal of influence over dd2's behaviour, but that's why we chose her carefully and I assume that the majority of working parents do the same.

I agree that our expectations of women are very different. I do think it is bad that women can't get on. Why should women have to want it more than men to get to the same place? Yes we have female MPs but nowhere near as many as men, that was in the article int the OP. Yes there are successful busineswomen, but nowhere near as many as men. It's better than it was but that doesn't mean we should be satisfied with that, it's still not equal and we need to challenge the assumption that because it's better than it used to be then that's ok. Your example of Margaret Thatcher is great (not that I agree with all of her policies, but the fact she was a female Prime Minister), but she is the only female Prime Minister the country has ever had and we don't seem likely to have another one soon, women are woefully underrepresented in parliament. We, as a society, need to figure out how we can get more representation for women in public positions.

Dazzler159 Mon 04-Mar-13 14:13:13


But that's my point. Of course we cannot have sole influence on our children but we can have the majority. The sad thing about work is that we spend more time with our colleagues than we do with our families. The easiest way to see this in a meaningful way is to break it down into hours. Start with 7 x 24 hours and then break it down into sleep, work, commuting and all the other things you do in a day. Then look at the 'real' amount of time we spend with our children. It's quite startling to see just how much time we don't spend with our kids and how much influence is exerted by external means.

I'm not saying all this to make you feel bad (so no offence meant at all) but is something I did many moons ago as part of a course. It was to hit home just how important time was to the people I care about.

I'm with you on the challenging of things today (so no debate there) although I think we differ on what is expected of women. As bad as it is at the moment I don't think it is so bad that women can't get on. It just depends on how much you want it. We could do with more but fortunately we have a fair amount of high profile, female role models in all walks of life. Many successful businesswomen are in the public eye and Margaret Thatcher was proof that it is possible for a woman to become an MP. It's not enough but is a start and an improvement to when I was the same age as my kids.

Schooldidi Mon 04-Mar-13 13:37:43

It wasn't always two consenting adults that took precedence over unplanned childbirth, don't forget how recently rape was legal as long as you were married to your victim. Of course some couples planned their children as much as they were able to without access to reliable contraception (do you know how reliable the rhythm method or withdrawal are, not very), but I would suspect that a significant number of children weren't planned or recieved very happily.

Who is influencing the morals of my children? That would be me, my dp, their grandparents, the fantastic cm that we looked for carefully, then pre-school, school, friends, tv, internet, wider society in general. The only way parents can have sole influence on their children's morals and values is if they choose to home ed and isolate their children from wider society, not many people choose to do that.

Why do you assume nurseries aren't feminist? Quite possibly the nursery workers won't identify themselves as feminists but I would hope that they would defend a child's right to play with any of the toys available, and they will ensure that the children are treated as equally as they can be taking into account their different personalities.

We need to challenge things today in order to change things for tomorrow. We wouldn't have made the progress we have made in recent decades if people hadn't challenged expectations of wider society. It's all very well saying that we need to change the social conditioning of our children but we actually need to change the social conditioning of all children, not just our own. It does my dd no good to have the expectation of equal treatment if the rest of society has the expectation that she will not want or be able to do the job she wants to do. If I raise my dd to believe that she can indeed be an MP, the PM, or the CEO of a major company that's great but it doesn't help her actually achieve that unless wider society also believes that she can do those things. Currently that wider society doesn't believe women can do those things as well as men, for various reasons, so I believe it's my job as a mother to challenge the expectations of today in order to make society a more equal place for my dd and others of her generation.

Dazzler159 Mon 04-Mar-13 13:18:02

Woah, steady on there DrRanj. As you've only 'skimmed' then I suggest you read all my posts before jumping wildly in and doing yourself a disservice.

It really does amaze me how so many take issue with something when they really do stand from a position of poor foundation and then assume things that hold no water. But never mind, you carry on.


If that's the case then it's no wonder the world has ended up in a mess. If sexual gratification between two consenting adults took greater precedence over unplanned childbirth then what are we to expect from society?

But who is influencing the morals of your children? I'm not knocking your choices or criticising you personally but it really does seem quite simple to me. Unless childcare is well vetted and you know the values these people are imparting on your kids then how do you know what characteristics your kids are forming? If a boy is not conditioned to see women as equals then how is society going to change? My guess is that 99% of nurseries are not feminist in any way, given feminism is a minority thing.

You're talking about what's happening today but the boy being taught (potentially incorrect) values by nursery staff is going to be the adult of tomorrow. If you think the short time a working parent spends with their child is enough to influence them, then what about the majority time that is spent in a nursery? There is already a thread on this board where a child has picked up misogynistic tendencies and it was attributed to the time spent at a nursery. If you are not there to correct (and the staff do not do this either) then we have lost control over the development of our children.

I'm all for challenging things today but this is simply an elastoplast for what went wrong yesterday. If it is agreed that social conditioning is part of the problem for the current status quo then part of the solution is to alter the social conditioning of our kids.

BTW I'm not advocating that women stay at home. I'm advocating that at least one parent stay at home, whether that's a man or woman.

Schooldidi Mon 04-Mar-13 12:41:12

Dazzler I don't think many people ahd a chance to plan their families before reliable contraception became available. Certainly the majority got married before they had their first child, but not all (my great aunt was cut off by the rest of the family for years because she had a child out of weldock, funnily enough the father of that child had no negative effects). I really don't think many people would plan the number of children they had, especially when the next baby would push them over the edge of being able to feed the whole family. I know my great grandparents had very little in the way of planning involved as they had 8 or 9 children, their children were seen as the unavoidable consequence of having marital relations.

Of course "we are society" and we can change our own immediate society most easily but that shouldn't mean we don't challenge wider society. My own children are wonderful and are growing up with the right morals/values, despite not having a parent at home with them.

We want more representation for women in positions of power, so at least some women need to be able to fight within a wider society and be seen to be succeeding. The attitude that women don't really want those positions, or that women will find it more difficult because they ahve to worry about childcare, etc needs to be challenged. There are women out there who do want to do those jobs but are not being selected as political candidates, or are not successful in interviews for promotion, purely based on their gender and the assumptions that are made about women rather than men. That is what needs to change.

DrRanj Mon 04-Mar-13 12:39:52

And if you want a cookie medal for simply moderating your hours to suit family life, well, ALL women already do that, even the ones that work full time.

DrRanj Mon 04-Mar-13 12:37:37

Just skimmed through and realised that dazzler is not a sahd, why not? So would the mother of your children have the choice to work full time? I'm guessing not. Sorry, how is this fair? Sorry I'm guessing many have already pointed this out but I am astounded as to how you can have such string views about childcare but yet not be at home yourself. All your quoting other posters and "eloquent" semantics doesn't get round the blatant hypocrisy of that.

Dazzler159 Mon 04-Mar-13 12:01:20

Springdiva Sat 02-Mar-13 12:48:46

The devotion to child rearing is a relatively new thing because the lack of reliable contraception in the recent past meant that babies weren't always a blessing, quite the opposite alot of the time.

And, imo, many DCs didn't get the fuss made of them that DCs do these days. Are we happier than in the past, not sure.

So stating that DCs want your time over anyone else's is not true imv. A good nanny could surely do as good as job, or maybe better if the parent wishes they were in their interesting job rather than baby minding.

Are we producing more rounded, confident, happier people than in the past through all this child rearing advice? debatable imo.

Really? Are you suggesting that (with the possible exception of the 60's) the bulk of the population didn't get married and plan their families?

It's possible that children get more fussed over nowadays but I think you're missing something very valuable. Admittedly there has been research to suggest that children with 2 working parents don't suffer any ill effects. However, whilst development on a purely academic POV may not suffer I believe you're missing the relationship aspects and the essential input that a parent has on their children.

All things being equal, spending more time with someone will invariably result in stronger bonds and this is hard to argue against. You might dissagree but how close can you expect to be with someone if you only spend 2 hours a day with them compared to 8 or 10? Is human bonding theory fatally flawed or is investing time in people fundamental to building strong relationships? I believe it is. Devotion to child rearing may be a new thing but we've also moved away from the idea that children should be seen and not heard. Fortunately we are more interested in what children think nowadays and empower them to make their own decisions/choices.

I purposely don't work long hours but if I did and my wife said she wanted to spend more time with me then I would do something about it. Why should it be any different with children? Like anyone else that has an emotional connection, it is normal to want to spend time with you and if anything children are more sensitive to this.

Feminists often talk about how gender is a social construct and how society conditions us into perpetuating the status quo. I don't know about anyone else but to me the revolution starts at home. Society isn't something external to us. We are society and one of the ways of changing it is to develop the population of the future with the right values/morals and ability to question convention. I don't see how this can be done effectively if you pass the responsibility to a nursery for 8 hours a day. A nursery isn't going to care whether your child plays with blue/pink toys, reads books that perpetuate the wrong messages or discourages free thinking. The only way to influence these things in a meaningful way is to do it yourself.

Wealthy people may well send their kids to boarding school but IMHO this is even worse as you're effectively placing the responsibility on everyone else to shape your child's character.

exoticfruits Sat 02-Mar-13 19:40:15

I wouldn't send mine to boarding school- although there are situations where it might be necessary, but I wouldn't do it before 11yrs. Do they take them under 8yrs these days? They certainly don't send the under 5s. By the time they go they have made a relationship which they can sustain by phone, weekends and the long holidays. By that age friends are very important and they can cope with the gaps between 'quality' time. It used to be very emotionally damaging when the very young DCs went.

Springdiva Sat 02-Mar-13 17:07:42

Well, many wealthy people choose to pack DCs off to boarding school - in the belief that they will come out better because of it, I think, so those parents must not agree with your veiw that a daily presence is required.

exoticfruits Sat 02-Mar-13 14:23:39

Of course you don't need to be there all the time, there is nothing wrong with a good nanny, but you do need to be a daily presence in the child's life. The DC wants someone's time and attention and that is the person they love and develop the relationship with-not the person who is too busy with other things and can only take you up in the odd moments it happens to suit.
You can't develop a proper relationship with a child unless you have the time to talk on a daily basis.

Springdiva Sat 02-Mar-13 12:48:46

The devotion to child rearing is a relatively new thing because the lack of reliable contraception in the recent past meant that babies weren't always a blessing, quite the opposite alot of the time.

And, imo, many DCs didn't get the fuss made of them that DCs do these days. Are we happier than in the past, not sure.

So stating that DCs want your time over anyone else's is not true imv. A good nanny could surely do as good as job, or maybe better if the parent wishes they were in their interesting job rather than baby minding.

Are we producing more rounded, confident, happier people than in the past through all this child rearing advice? debatable imo.

Dazzler159 Sat 02-Mar-13 12:30:29


You are probably right about the changes within our lifetime. I would expect to see parity in salaries within the next 5 years but this will likely come before real equality is reached in the workplace (in terms of a 50% split). Even then sexism will sadly still be rife IMHO.

Of course sexism is a factor though, I'd assumed we had already established it was a given.

I'm not trying to be a defeatist but society as we know it is a crazy mix of male values + (small part) female that has evolved since the dawn of time and probably before humans developed the ability to philosophise (and apply moral judgement over our actions). Rightly or wrongly sexism has been perpetuated through history but it is changing. However, I would suspect that whilst equal representation will come, a change of attitudes i.e. where all men 'truly' accept women as equals will take longer. But this has to be met with women that actually believe themselves to be equal, which from my experience is something some women don't.

The only way I can see us working drastically less for the same money is if we all start paying more for goods/services etc. Most things are driven by sales, profit and hourly rates. We would have to see a fundamental change before we could all start working 30 hours a week and still be able to have adequate means to provide for ourselves. In order for someone to live on minimum wage, for instance, it would have to double to £12/hour or for everything to halve in cost, which is at odds with what would be necessary to pay two people instead of one.

exoticfruits Sat 02-Mar-13 08:04:14

Parents do need to raise their DCs to be free thinkers.

I agree with you FloraFox that we ought to have more people working and that far too many have an unrealistic workload. But once you get people working like that you are not going to get employers going back.
My father had a very responsible, graduate level job and yet when I was a child he went home for lunch everyday and he was home by 5.30 every night!! He occasionally had evening meeting but he had his evening meal with us before setting out. The same job today would mean that he would be lucky to grab a sandwich and he certainly wouldn't be home on the dot each day. I wonder if it was more productive?
A friend who worked in the sort of culture where you were in the office early and didn't like to be seen to be the first to leave did a few weeks work in the Isle of Man and found that if people arrived early they sat in their car and read the newspaper, they left on time.
When I started teaching you didn't have TAs, there were no computers, everything was written by hand, I had to write my own work cards etc and yet I had time to go out in the evening and most of the weekends and holidays were mine. My ex pupils from that time seem to be doing very well.
When I was at school ( being quite old) I distinctly remember being told that new technology meant that everyone would have more leisure time and the difficulty would be finding time to fill it. How wrong can you be?!!
Technology has meant far fewer jobs but the people in them are working far, far harder and longer. The rest can't get jobs at all, or only ones far below their capabilities. If we could only employ more people then the young would stand a chance. There are so many young graduates who can't get work- and they are so keen- generally they are grateful to get an unpaid internship, they are so desperate to get a foot in the door. In a few months thousands more will be joining them. At the same time older people have to stay in their jobs longer- they can't afford to retire.
While I agree with PromQueen's point that jobs don't need the hours and why are you working 5days out of 7 every week if it could be changed- the fact is that it won't be changed any more than every primary school will take on at least 2 more teachers, each hospital will double the number of nurses etc.

The one fact is that DCs need time and working practices don't give it. Most people juggle, but most people don't have jobs of power and influence. If you are in the job where the buck always stops with you, there is no one to pass it on to, the hours are long and not child friendly. It is even worse working your way up, you not only have to be dedicated but you have to be seen to be dedicated. I don't see how you get change when there will always be people who can manage it. Good child care is necessary, but even with that you do need to see your child in the morning and most definitely before they go to bed. You need to know their friends, what the teacher said, how best friend upset them- just what is happening in their life. If you go days without seeing them you miss this close relationship - they bond with someone who has the time- they are not going to save it up to discuss in 'quality' time next Tuesday - they will have forgotten because it has all moved on. They don't go in a cupboard and come out when it suits you! Children are inconvenient and life changing.
Maybe working hours will change- but it will be slow and very gradual- like getting women into top jobs- it won't be sudden.

FloraFox Fri 01-Mar-13 23:48:39

Dazzler I believe we have seen greater societal changes in our lifetimes than would have been conceivable when our parents or grandparents were children. You've referred to every conceivable reason for "how things are" other than sexism / patriarchy. Do you think this is a factor? What is the feminist aspect of your points?

Also, economic meltdown? I think we could do a lot better economically than we are now if fewer people were doing the work of two people.

Dazzler159 Fri 01-Mar-13 22:41:34

* PromQueenWithin Fri 01-Mar-13 14:08:03*

OK, so I've looked back. Your view is that most people don't want to make the necessary sacrifices elsewhere, primarily time with loved ones (or as you call it, the 'best job in the world'), to get to the top of their chosen career?

But, what I and others are trying to say is that just because society as it stands tells us that family must be sacrificed for power and representation doesn't mean that this is right, inevitable or has to continue.

As you're so very keen on personal experience and choice, I'll tell you that I'm on track to a position where I hope to have some power to make a positive difference in the world through my work. And I stop at 3pm every day.

I think you got the jist of what I was saying except I think 'some' as opposed to 'most' people. I have no idea what the percentage may be but from my social circle it is certainly a significant number. As I mentioned previously the shortfall in representation is likely to be due to many factors and I believe this to be one of them.

I appreciate what you're trying to say and it probably isn't right that power should come at the expense of family. I believe it is accepted that in hunter/gatherer times we worked about 2-3 days per week so can imagine it was easily possible to juggle many moons ago. However, evolution and industrialisation has led to ever more complex societies and longer working hours. These economic changes have occurred over centuries so winding it back to say, 30 hours per week is probably going to take longer than our lifetimes to achieve (without some economic meltdown). Either way, we are all born into this world and are simply making value choices given what we are presented with. Sadly the current status quo still requires ridiculous hours on the way to the top.

It sounds like you are fortunate so good for you and all the best with it, although I can imagine you are the exception (as opposed to the norm).

For the rest of us we have to make a choice between chasing the dream and spending time with your kids. As Exoticfruits says, kids don’t want ‘quality time’ but ‘your time’ and nannies, carers etc. are no substitute for time with mum/dad. Of course it goes without saying that men should support their wives more but this is changing with more SAHD’s (albeit slowly). In other cases I’ve known successful female bread winners that objected to their husbands wanting to be a SAHD as they wanted the added income and for nan/granddad to perform the childcare. This was mainly due to the view that men are useless and cannot be trusted. It’s a poor stereotype but one that a lot of women love to joke about.

There are many issues as this is a hugely complex problem. The workplace needs to improve, parents need to raise their kids to be free thinkers, women need to be more discerning with their partner choices and men need to be more supportive of their partners.

Of course there are deeper rooted issues but these have been ingrained over thousands of years so aren't going to be broken down in a hurry.

exoticfruits Fri 01-Mar-13 21:12:29

I think that increasingly men don't-they work out there is more to life than paid employment-however it tends to be men who haven't a clue what to do if they don't work.
Men generally have a supporting woman, women often don't have a supporting man. How you change that I don't know if people are happy with it.

My newspaper extract said Ruth Kelly managed to juggle four children with her job as Education Secretary. The Tory MP Louise Mensch combined being on a select committee with having three children. Both are resilient women and both quit. Neither mentioned sexism, but instead talked of tiredness and the impossibility of making both roles work.
Even the ballsy health minister Anna Soubry says she would find it almost impossible with a young family

I don't even see that it helps if your DP stays at home-the nature of the job means that you don't see your children except for 'quality' time which is not something that children want. They only want one thing from parents-time.

Those without children don't take kindly to changing everything for parents in the workplace-they are quite vocal about it.

A lot of it is fact PromQueen. I can find lots of threads with women disappointed to have a boy, I can't say that I have seen any disappointed to have a girl.
You can't miss the boy and girl merchandise in shops.
I can find you lots of threads where the DH is an extra child and lots where women have never left their child with anyone other than family, and women who never have a night out.
I can assure you that new graduates can't find a job-fact.
A new branch of Costa coffee opened last week in Nottinghamshire with 8 jobs and had 1700 applications-many from graduates who can't find jobs.
If they do get a job in the right field it can often be the sort of job that you could get straight from grammar school after O'levels when I was young. This is far more worrying IMO.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: