Why do men in female-dominated jobs (nursing, primary teaching, social work) get into management quicker than women?

Peppa - how do you find conferences etc? I always meant to have kids before 30, but in the end, I've done a lot of running around to conferences meeting people and setting up collaborations that I now realise I can't do anymore with a wee one at home (partly cos I'm stilling BFing, partly because her dad's job requires a longer commute so every time I can't do the nursery run he has to work a shorter day and since he his a higher teaching load than me, that's sucky for his research!)

like if they're consitantly 15 mins late its all "oooo good night was it? wink wink nudge nudge" and if a woman does it once for a genuine reason the reason is poo-poohed and the agency gets a phone call / her later shifts are cancelled

higgle my observation (of a hell of a lot more male carers than 3) is that yes, the female colleagues and managers do really like the male carers and give them the most glowey references, but it is NOT necessarily because they are better at their job or kinder to the service users, they can be sulky, rough, lazy, hungover etc.. but it's always recieved well because they're funny/sociable/interesting/quirky/gay........... but if another female colleague behaved the same way they would be called up on it in a flash rather than congratulated!

Higgle, you should get your wish - with the employment market the way it is at the moment, there are far more men applying for things. To the point where some shifts in my company are struggling to find female workers to do personal care with female residents!

They don't seem to realise that getting out of a "career" like this is the hard part

I recruit and manage a team of care assistants. We have 30ish, and 3 are male. The males consistently perform very well, they are friendly and good colleagues, with none of the bitchiness the women display. The service users like them, their female colleagues say they are very good at their work and I'm hoping our next round of recruitment will end with a couple more joining us (strictly on the merits of the applications of course).

Margery - that is terrible. Will you complain?

Me, too. At least my lecturers in nursing weren't QUITE that blatant about it 20 years ago.

I would seriously consider making a complaint about the lecturer's behaviour. He is is giving preference to the male students over the female ones. Do you think he would also only call white students by their name but not Black ones, or not refer to disabled students by their names, only those who weren't disabled? It seriously sucks.

Margery - your post makes me incredibly depressed.

that's appalling margery

and multiple orgasms MI

don't forget those. i remember at university loads of boys saying it was the only benefit to being a woman

(BTW in case anyone thought I was serious in that last post, I wasn't.)

Because men are just better at managing things. In fact men are better at everything like that, didn't you know, but it's OK because we are better at caring and multitasking and being Nice. It's part of our brain wiring. I read an article all about it and anyway Everyone Knows This.

Obvious, innit?

the whole subtle/unconscious encouragement of men to more senior positions is one of the reasons why i am pro-quotas. I was speaking to a swedish oncologist not long ago, and apparently they have something like 40% quotas for women at consultant level. he said that contrary to critics' concerns, you don't get the positions filled by substandard women to make up the numbers. in fact, because those who do the recruiting know that they will need to fill the quotas, the women who show most promise are encouraged much more during training than they would otherwise have been, so that by the time they reach consultant level they are the best candidates, where previously they might not have reached that level for a number of reasons. previously losing them along the way might have been acceptable, they now can't afford to

You don't tend to go marching into your boss asking for promotions/cash if you know you are being paid less than the men

That sounds like exactly the kind of situation in which you should be asking for more money. (I know practically it doesn't work out like that, but asking to be paid the same is hardly as "demanding" as asking to be paid more)

SQ - that's the thing though, I didn't think I lived in the 1950s until I became a parent and became introduced to the world of toddler groups, and school gates where sex determined roles of parents appear to be very much stuck in the 1950s.

Why aren't parents, careers counsellors etc.. saying to girls think twice about opting for a career in nursing, beauty therapy etc.. there is no money in it, unless they are thinking that earning money and status is not so impotent for girls? Why are the same parents and career counsellors saying to boys 'are you going to specialise, open your own salon etc...' unless they think that for boys this is more important than retaining flexibility. I don't think those 1950s attitudes have gone away.

The prospect of bringing up children in a household where the main/only earner is a regular teacher or nurse without management grading, is quite different financially than bringing up children in a household where the second earner is a teacher or nurse and the bulk of the mortgage is paid by someone in a more highly paid job. I don't think the assumption that primary earner= dad, secondary earner= mum has gone away.

Yes, SQ, you have misunderstood me.

The examples are perhaps too specific for you, but contain within them a number of views about male/female appointments.

also I found that in the female dominated settings where there is a man in senior positions, it seems easier for everyone to get ahead at the same pace. All women nursing settings are horrible places to work. After a decade of working in that field I cannot thing of one exception :-(

I don't see how those threads reflect that at all meditrina.

One is "should the head of the mothers union be a man" and the other is "should the feminist movement be directed by women".

Your post seems to indicate (correct me if I'm wrong) that you see our current situation as a slightly flawed meritocracy. If you believe that then you must believe that women are inherently more rubbish than men, otherwise why would there not be equality in the workplace, and why would an organisation like the mother's union find that the only person good enough for the job was a man.

"pre-qualification based on characteristics over which the individual has no control" is a line that sounds like Gattaca. When in fact the suggestion that maybe the feminist movement should be directed by women is nothing like that. And some jobs are allowed to select based on various characteristics. And at the moment "possession of a penis" is something that affords a head start all around the world, so a "pre-qualification" already exists.

This thread put into my mind this one and this one.

There are many ancillary issues, but the fundamental question is whether you want a meritocracy (even though it may be flawed/skewed in places in practice) or whether you want pre-qualification based on characteristics over which the individual has no control.

"Lydia - I wonder if part of why it is unacceptable for men not to apply for promotions is because of the dating/marriage market. A bloke who is 'just' a teacher or a nurse, without ambition to become a senior manager may be not as attractive to many women (..and parents in law..) who are thinking - on sone level - will he be able to support a family?"

Only if you live in the 1950s

I've worked for YEARS in female dominated work places and IMO the reason why men get on better is because the women in management favour them. The men working in nursing etc seem to get away with WAYYYYY more with the female bosses than the women ever do, their sickness leave is never questioned (IMO women are terrible at saying things like "well I saw her the other day and she looked fine to me ), their off duty requests get given, their requests for mentorship/supervision are less likely to be put on the long finger....

Its not because they're any better or more motivated or more pushy, they just get given an easier path by their female bosses than their female colleagues

and then there are a few who get sick of being given all the heavy jobs because they are men and apply for any transfers going too

Lydia - I wonder if part of why it is unacceptable for men not to apply for promotions is because of the dating/marriage market. A bloke who is 'just' a teacher or a nurse, without ambition to become a senior manager may be not as attractive to many women (..and parents in law..) who are thinking - on sone level - will he be able to support a family?

Lydia that's very interesting. In my industry no-one would raise an eyebrow to an all-male interview list. It's in the private sector and quite old fashioned.

In the public sector much more attention is paid to diversity, equality etc - and this is the sector where lots of women work - like in your area that is female dominated.

So it's a win-win for men then. They get an interview in the private sector without a second thought because men are the majority, especially as you look up the ladder. And they get an interview in female dominated areas too - as they are usually public sector - and employers want a diverse workforce.

BAH!