Edwina Currie on why only a third of 'top jobs' are filled by women <headdesk>

Things do stand in the way. Of course they do. And some of those things are good old fashioned bloody sexism.

However, what is becvoming manifestly clear is that a large cohort of highly educated ambitious women give up work of their own volition because they think it is better for the DC.

Why women feel this way, and most men do not is a conundrum...perhaps we are more pragmatic? Perhpas we are naive and think we will slot back into work later (MN will testify that this aint going to happen)? Perhaps we just don't think far enough ahead (baby needs me now)?

Most men at the top are not young - 40s and 50s. Most people do not have babies at this age (I know some do and that's ok). What holds women back is the break to have a baby earlier in their career, lack of affordable childcare, lack of part time/flexible roles. I also think women are frowned upon for going back to work. I'm due to go back in September when my baby is 8 months old. I'm doing 29 hours over 4 days. I'm happy with this but all I get is 'oh you don't have to go back do you', 'that's a lot of hours', what a shame you can't stay at home'. There's also the assumption that all executives work 70 hour weeks and that's a load of bull.

Gender stereotyping definitely still exists and could play a part just look at children's dress up - girls are princesses and nurses whilst boys are firemen and doctors. A lot of people still think it odd for men to work in nursing or childcare or even be stay at home dads. Also look at male role models in the media the 'self made' men are people like Richard Branson and Alan Sugar, the women are people like Jordan!

There are obviously women that don't want to pursue a career or work when they have children.

We all assume that to do a top job you have to do silly hours. Can we change this and if so how? That would encourage people with caring responsibilities (not just mums) to pursue their careers and employers would benefit from having a bigger pool of talent as well as healthier staff.

Lots of women work 12 hour shifts so that part of her argument is rubbish.

I don't know any woman who is 'generous' enough to stand aside and let male colleagues ahead of them in order to 'help' people.

I have, however, seen lots of successful women, including myself, being demoted, made redundant, marginalised, terms and conditions changed due to pregnancy and motherhood.

Whether we want to work less and see our children more is immaterial when that is being dictated to us by shitty work practices and standards. It's us making the best out of the situation we find ourselves in. I don't think it's free choice. Although I suppose there must be some women out there that have blithely gone on mat leave and are returning to the same role or one of their choosing! And good luck to them :)

Things stand in women's way... if they want them to. Ultimately, choosing between your DCs' wellbeing and your bank balance isn't such a difficult choice for many mothers.

She says it's mostly down to women just not wanting jobs at the top of the ladder because most women don't want to work 11-12 hour days and women are not motivated by money, they are more motivated by being 'generous' and 'helping people'

And in the next breath, it's because of 'gender stereotyping' in schools where, for example, girls are not encouraged to take subjects like accounting

If you take her to be saying that the reason that women are motivated differently is because they are raised in a gender-stereotyped way then this makes perfect sense.

It's not that it's controversial, it's just that it's wrong. Women are interested in science, and they are ambitious, but things stand in their way.

Societal attitudes aside, biology probably is one of the hurdles to career progress . I gave up my career to look after DS but the question is, should I be penalized for doing something that is vital to society? If women didn't look after children then who would? Yet it means career suicide in many cases and as the days of working from home are gone, how else are women supposed to acquire the money they need to acquire a decent lifestyle for themselves and their children?

"She freely admits that to get to this point, she had to put her career first and children a distant second."

Indeed. And many, many parents (not just mothers) feel that it is a price too high to make their children pay.

"Are women more likely to be responsible for childcare because of gender stereotyping"

My overwhelming feeling on this is that gender stereotyping is not the issue, but biology.
We give birth to our babies, we have the means to nourish our babies, and as such, we are more likely to feel that we want to take on the majority of childcare.
I know this doesn't apply to all women, but of all the women I personally know (many in potentially high-flying careers, where the glass ceiling scenario might occur), only one has reached the absolute pinnacle of her career and is higher paid than most of her male colleagues. She freely admits that to get to this point, she had to put her career first and children a distant second.
Of my other friends, the ones who have top jobs, but have hit the glass ceiling, they freely admit that it is their reluctance to completely hand over child care, which would enable them to work the very long hours of their male counterparts.

I don't see what is so controversial about what Edwina Currie or Julia Hartley-Brewer said. Common sense.

I caught the tail end of her talking on a morning show yesterday and she was very irritating, basically asserting that women weren't interested in science hence their lack of representation in the field. The woman opposing her pointed out the generalization she was making but it made me want to throw my breakfast at the tv.

What gets me is that if any girls were watching that's just another thing that gonna stick in their mind and veer them from any scientific ambitions they might have. A self fulfilling prophecy.

I was talking about them as two separate factors for the glass ceiling, but I'm sure there's a lot of overlap.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying, ecclesvet. Are women more likely to be responsible for childcare because of gender stereotyping, or is that a separate factor in the glass ceiling in your view?

What's wrong with what Currie says? Is it so unbelievable that there might be more than one factor behind the glass ceiling?

Women as a gender are far more likely to be the ones responsible for childcare, so therefore less likely to take jobs which would interfere with the personal care of children. Vice versa for men as a gender.

And gender stereotyping/social pressure towards classes/degrees is a massive factor, don't know how anyone would disagree with that.