Chat thread - come chat, rant, or celebrate, here!

Still feeling cross today! It spoilt what was up until that point an interesting, informative programme.

I have no objection to the woman being on the programme, obviously, but why like that? Why not have her dressed in normal gardening attire, discussing the seedlings with the presenter? They could have got her to raise some of the typical questions viewers ask, if they didn't want her to present it!

They were going to talk about planting vegetables in tubs on balconies in the next programme, something I'm interested in, as I only have a balcony, not a garden, but I'm not sure I want to watch it now, I'm so annoyed!

Sorry - in not being clear. It's not a competition, so if 10 people apply and all are judged to have hit enough of the criteria all will be promoted. The problem is that until now just how many you needed to hit was not at all clear. So all the women and all tr men might be promoted, but the women would be a bit older.

We are changing this - trying to make promotion criteria much more transparent.

Alex I thought it didn't sound like Gardener's World, the most irrelevant bits of that are shots of Monty Don's dog, which tbf is very lovely.

Speverend fair enough

Doyou - I think the implication is that they apply later. Hence they should be more experienced and should have more success when they do apply. Or so it seems to me. But I'm not sure I'm understanding bigkidsdidit correctly.

I don't really want to go into why, but its more than idle curiosity on my part. I'd like to understand - happy to be pointed at references if that's easier.

Well, I thought it WAS a serious gardening programme! Up to that point, it had talked about various types of vegetables, the best time of year to plant them, the best types of soil for each one, all that sort of thing. It was informative, thorough, very good.

It was on Greek television.

Alex that's ridiculous, what programme was it? Was it a serious gardening programme?

I just want to rant about the casual misogyny on television. Feel free to ignore!

I was watching a programme on gardening and cultivating your own vegetables. It talked about the best times to plant, which plants in which season, types of soil, how to care for your seedlings...

Very little scope for misogyny, you might think. Well, so did I, and I was enjoying it. Until, for no apparent reason, a woman walked into the grubby greenhouse where the male presenter in his overalls, wellies and gardening gloves was kneeling in the soil. She was (of course!) dressed in ridiculously high heels, just the thing you might put on to go in a greenhouse , stockings and suspenders and a lab coat (why??), carefully unbuttoned to show off her breasts. Just why? She came in and asked why her (careful pause) flowers were wilting. Answer: because she had to keep them moist.

Cue strategic shots of her pouting and bending over various plants in the greenhouse, before declaring "Well, what do I know, anyway!" and strutting off. The presenter then went on to talk about the best time to harvest root vegetables!

What was the point of that?? It was about growing vegetables, for goodness sake! It spoiled the whole programme for me!

I thought the implication was that women just weren't applying in the first place. Was I wrong? I admit to this myself, I have ignored ads which male friends have encouraged me to apply for because I don't tick all the boxes whereas their attitude was, 'you can do that job'.

All jobs since Uni have been jobs where I was placed by a temping agency and offered a permanent contract within the first few weeks. I wouldn't have applied for them myself but the agency managed to 'sell' my skills to give me a chance to prove them. I am rubbish at selling myself. And I realise even that last sentence is very telling.

You said women didn't apply for promotion until they ticked 100% of the job requirements, whereas men will apply at 60%. I appreciate that that is not quite the same as 'better qualified', but wouldn't you expect someone ticking 100% of the boxes to have a better chance than someone ticking 60%? Or is it that the process doesn't care about boxes ticked as long as at least 50% (or whatever) are ticked? Or something else entirely?

What do you mean by better qualified? They have had the qualities required for longer, not necessarily more of them

Bigkids - if women are better qualified when they apply, wouldn't you expect their success rate to be higher, all other things being equal?

It depends on your promotion process, I guess. But I'd be interested if you have a better answer.

Thedoctorine.. With your cv always put your achievements in figures / percentages etc. I work in HR so for example I've got: Reduced absence rates by 10% in 12 months; recruited and inducted 200 new starters in 5 new stores over 5 months etc.

Pm me If you'd like me to read over it.

I'm a scientist and a lot of what you're all talking about, especially Amanda, rings very true. I'm on the Athena SWAN committee in my work, have any of you heard of it? It was an award set up to encourage careers of scientific women, and force change in academic organisations. You apply for bronze, silver and gold awards by demonstrating commitment to women's careers, good mentoring and promotion strategies, that women can reach the top, all sorts of things.

It got a massive boost when a couple of big science funders said they wouldn't fund any uni that didn't have at least a bronze (then) and now a silver It's been a really positive thing in only a few short years.

Anyway, one of things we are noticing is that women spend longer at each grade than men. After applying for promotion they are not subject to discrimination, success rates are the same (we have all the data). But we have a culture of women not being groomed for success, the old boys' club being in place etc etc. Also a MASSIVE problem that women simply do not put themselves forward unless they hit every single spec on the promotion document, while men will go for it if they hit 60%.

Related, the EU funds a lot of science and it is all aimed at 'stars' - there is a big gender gap in applications, as women don't go for them.

Amanda, that is a good point. I tend to write my first draft of an email or report, leave it, then come back and firm up all the 'woolly' words (helped with this, assisted with that etc). I read somewhere that men (on average) apply for jobs where they meet 20% of the job spec whereas women (on average) don't unless they meet 80% (or stats along those lines, anyway).

It's one topic on which I do agree with Xenia that women are much more likely not to push for pay rises, big themselves up etc.

I have to write a CV now. This could be a challenge.

Because some american told him it was the best steak in the world

What? Strip club? Michelin star cooking? What?

Hi Norma!

Thank you :)

I am watching the food channel - it is Heston B doing the perfect steak and salad, and he has just been to a strip club in the states to see how they cook their steak.

Loads of extended shots of the 'dancers'.

Marking place to come back and have a rant on here about the lack of sports coverage of England Netball team winning not 1 but 2 matches this week. Currently have a 17 month old sitting on my lap not wanting to read MN for some reason

Not that it's up to me to say since there is no 'owner' of FWR, but certainly a yes from me NSF

Oh. Hello. May I join you here?

I read FWR much, but post seldom (learning)

On the confidence thing, yes, I think girls are often raised and conditioned to be modest.

In my first proper job my then boss did me the biggest favour in the world. I had to write my probation review and wrote the way I always had "I think I have been fairly good at X". She sat across from me and told me to write it again and bring it back. She then explained that the boys would not be writing that kind of qualified rubbish. They would say "My strengths are X and Y". She said that I might not realise it, but a lot of men in my pretty male industry would read this probation review in years to come as it would go on my file. And they would take it at face value and see someone lacking in confidence (and it's quite important to be confident in what I do). So I needed to redo. I was mortified. No one had ever told me to rip up a piece of work and start again. Best part of 15 years later, I wish I knew where she was now so I could thank her.