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

But WHY do you think that women don't want to make the sacrifices but men do?
What about the RL examples of women who DO want to make it but get shut out by men?

OK - There will be some women who want to stay home. There are men who do as well, but WHAT causes the gender bias? When men have to parent they do a very good job of it, yet for some reason some people think it's a 'naturally' female thing.

I would argue that there are a lot of societal pressures that need to be discussed, not just that 'women want to stay home'. That's just repeating the issue, not attempting to answer it.

The fact is that we need very few people at the top and a lot at the bottom.
e.g. A hospital needs a few managers, a few surgeons, a few consultants etc but they need a lot of nurses , they are vital- you can do the operations without them. We want good quality ones that are paid a reasonable salary, we want them to be in the job because it is what they really want to do, not because they can't do anything else. We want a lot of women as nurses, I can't see my elderly mother being happy bathed by man. We want experienced nurses who want to stay on the ward, not disappear into teaching, managerial jobs leaving just the inexperienced. We need hairdressers, car mechanics, etc. It is pointless sending everyone off for law degrees, they can't get jobs when they finish - there are too many of them. We don't want 50% at university.

Of course it is unfair that it is unequal - of course you would expect 50% at the top to be women. However very few are going to make it, even if male. It is sad that we have such a narrow view of success so that being a surgeon is a success and being a nurse isn't- when they need each other and we need both.

I am all for changing working practices but you have to understand that children change the life of a couple - if you only see them for quality time you miss out. I know many young women who discuss problems etc with the grandmother, and bypass the mother- because Granny was there when they were growing up and mother was not.
Normal career patterns are fine, most people juggle- you have to. Getting to the top is more than that- it takes dedication to the job.

It is quite understandable that many women prefer a balance.

I would say that women are their own worst enemies. They make themselves 'senior' parent from day1. Often, as a couple, they know nothing about babies and yet the mother becomes the 'expert' and either does it all or issues instructions. She won't just leave him to it, or go out between feeds and leave him alone. Needless to say they give up and let her get on with it and it become 'her' job. Later on him looking after his own children is 'babysitting'! I was able to go away for a week when mine were 1yrs and 2yrs- they waved me off at the airport- I didn't have to give any instructions DH was equal they were his DCs in his own home- he was used to looking after them.

As far as I can see women want girls because they are seen as more compliant and quieter and will grow up to be mother's best friend.

People complain about toys being for a gender and the whole pink, princess stuff- and yet it is mothers who buy it! Lego have doubled production of 'girls' Lego and can't keep up with demand. It wouldn't make business sense to stop. Obviously women are buying it in droves! I hadn't given it much thought until a friend's DD had a baby girl and then I went into a shop saying 'I have 3 boys, I want to get a really 'girly' present' - and yet when it came to it I couldn't bring myself to and got a lovely brown dog. I had never been exposed to it before and it as a shock!

We need to change working practices, women need to let the father be an equal parent, stop seeing girls as less trouble than boys.

We need to change our attitudes to success and have 'real' choice. Education should be for the excitement of learning- not always jumping through hoops for the end result. A career should be one to suit you, if you would love to be a librarian - then go for it - don't let someone tell you that you should want higher.
Boys seem to win out yet again because they have a free choice- they are not loaded with expectations of what they should do, or not to the same extent and they don't get the same sense of failure if they don't get there- or step off the treadmill.

I would say that the real worry is that our young people can jump through all the right hoops, go to top universities get a good degree and can't get a job in the field they want, never mind one with a future. Maybe with younger children you don't realise that our shops, bars, cafes etc are staffed by graduates who can't find anything else.

(I'm sure that everyone would love a job that makes a difference and stops at 3pm- I think teaching does that but it doesn't stop at 3pm)
.

I posted my thoughts a few pages back (p6 IIRC) but will have a think and get back to you.

PromQueenWithin

Yes I am that poster but sadly I genuinely don't understand the latter part of what you've just written (sorry ).

But yes, the assumptions were very wide of the mark given they were not anywhere near what I was thinking when I posted. That's not me being patronising but pointing out that people had made a mistake.

If you want to take it as an implication of being a foolish, woolly headed thinker and writer then that's your choice but it works both ways. Sarcastic assertions were made about what I had said before, except I didn't take offence to it.

AbigailAdams Wed 27-Feb-13 13:04:31

An expectation that women should be polite and nice is very patriarchal. Being angry and frustrated, not really allowed.

UptoapointLordCopper Wed 27-Feb-13 13:18:03

Feminists are nice and fluffy in real life. We wait politely till our lords and masters have time for us to listen to our petty little grievances. While we wait we mop the floor and cook lovely dinners so that our lords and masters will be appeased and in the right mood to pay us undeserved attention. And after a hard day's work! How magnificent of them!

FloraFox Wed 27-Feb-13 16:22:10

...needing to be all fluffy kittens with any old thing said by another woman...

But I'm going to stop as I can see this going round in circles.

Exotic has chosen to be with her children. Florafox has chosen to work FT (is that right or am I thinking about someone else?). I have chosen to work PT with hours fitted around school (and no, I'm not a teacher). Can you imagine that women had these choices 60 years ago? What has been does not have to be. If we cannot see beyond that then PromQueen is right to despair. I'm off now. Bye.

I wasn't going to bite, given how unbelivably wide of the mark some of you were back there. It's been oft noted when someone makes a comment and it gets overly dissected and totally misrepresented.

For the record I have no idea how some of you made the monumentous leap but I don't expect any male/female to be fluffy. As per any real life scenario I expect people that are discussing things to apply a little civility, common courtesy and perhaps exercise some humility.

Whatever hours a CC works they have to be on call. You can't have a position where they are needed and they say, 'I don't have child care - Wednesday is my day at home'.
I thought that I ought to find out what they did- it is a tremendous leadership role and doesn't look child friendly hours to me. They have to do a lot of community work which isn't conveniently 9-3. The are 6 female ones at the moment- not a lot I admit, but a start. The police hours are not child friendly to get there. I don't see how they can be.
I would agree that any job that requires more than 35- 40 hours a week suggest that they need more than one person- but that will never happen! Primary schools need more than one teacher per class for a start.
They could be a lot more flexible for everyone but when the yahoo boss has taken a backward step by wanting everyone physically in the office, you can't see much progress, and she is a woman.
You can't get around the fact that children need time, and getting to the top needs time too and there isn't enough.
If I had died DH would have had to change his job. He couldn't commute to London everyday at 2 hours each way. He would have had to have worked locally at reduced hours. He couldn't move grieving children to London, away from everything they knew and he couldn't afford London prices anyway. He couldn't afford a nanny from 6.30am to 7.15pm. If we both worked those hours I suppose we could have afforded the nanny, but we wouldn't have seen the DCs much.
I would say that the big progress is men seeing that success doesn't have to necessarily mean money and status. You can be very successful without either, depending on your definition of success. Of course we should change working practices that are set in the past - which would make it easier for all- but we shouldn't burden young people with the idea that they ought to aim for the top. It is just as valid to want to keep sheep in Wales, make pots, be a sailing instructor, gardener etc - with the ambition you want to be good at it. Maybe in mid life you might want a change and public office etc. Boys seem to have this freedom - they can be a nurse without the reaction girls get of 'why not aim higher'. The big message is 'choice' - whether male or female. And there is nothing wrong in choosing family first.

PromQueen I hear you!

Our working hours are set to limit what used to be done historically and before the directive was introduced (working hours used to be much higher and not far off what you've mentioned).

Since industrialisation, people have always worked long hours either due to overtime/incentivisation or slave driver bosses looking to maximise output. The limit, currently 48 hours per week, attempts to reduce the amount of time that people put in but still does not prevent people from working more if they are particularly determined.

I wouldn't say there was a convention as hours vary between 35-48 and I have spent the last year working 4 days a week while other people often work 5 or 6. The last HR document I read stated this 48 hour limit is an average over a 3 month period so it's still possible to work well over 48 hours a week for long periods. I'm guessing that a CC in a big city will be expected to work silly hours thus making a 2-4 day week unfeasible.

We need to start putting pressure on MEN to spend time with their children. Start criticising them when they don't work more flexibly when they have a family. It is so unfair that these discussions are ALWAYS about the mother.

Since CCs don't work 24/7, a line has already been drawn around how much time they must work. In fact, I would guess that very few if any CCs work at night even though a lot of criminals do. Our working hours are set by convention. Why not work seven days a week or 16 hours a day? If a job requires more than 35 - 40 hours a week, that suggests to me that another person should be hired.

Seeing as you were talking about CC's I thought I'd have a look. It's not a 2-4 day job as you're the main focal point and need to be visible. Given criminals don't have a short working week then I doubt long hours are down to 'convention'. See here:

glostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/documents/s16393/Application%20pack.pdf

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_constable

www.strathclyde.police.uk/about_us/force-overview/executive_team/chief-constable/

I am sure many people, myself included, have already decided that the pay to sacrifice ratio is rubbish and just not worth it. I realise I'm going to sound rather bad here (why change a habit of a lifetime) but I wouldn't want that level of responsibility for only £130k pa. You would have to either love the job or specifically want a lot of power/responsibility as there are many jobs that pay similar for a lot less aggravation (I know because I have one). The PM earns similar money and there's no way I'd even consider that job for pittance.

I can adjust my lifestyle to make up the £5-10k deficit. Rarely can you adjust a top level job so you don't miss out on your kids growing up. I couldn't care less about £5-10k (plus all the other monsense) but care infinitely about my family.

Ultimately it's about choices and us men are not immune to sacrifices either. I could rise higher and strive for power but that would mean giving up my family for some faceless company. My marriage would suffer and my relationship with my kids. I'd have no time of hobbies, exercise or anything else. I see it all around me with my friends. You don't get anything for nothing, whether youre male or female, and my guess is that some women look at their career map and simply choose life.

In the first place I made a mistake-I should have written the 1-4 days a month which was what I was quoting. Maybe they can do it in 2-4 days a week-I don't really care -but I assume they would have to be on call.You couldn't have a big emergency and them say 'sorry I'm not available until next Tuesday!'

A lot of girls opt out with mental health problems-they can't take it.

I have no idea really what a chief constable does but I would assume that it isn't a hobby-you need to be prepared to work and be available. If it only takes 2/4 days a week do we need one?

I am quite appalled by the way we treat girls these days-I am glad that I don't have one. We should have advanced and yet it has gone backwards. When I grew up the boy/girl thing was far more divided and yet there was freedom. Although I was a 'girly' girl we didn't have a sea of pink. I like my dolls, but when I look back I spent most of my time outside on my bike, on roller skates, climbing trees and just out. We played all over the village, my mother had no idea where I was-there were no mobile phones-we just had to turn up for meals. We were mixed groups.
I would hate to be a teenager now. I was not attractive to boys being far too shy, but it didn't matter then.
Now the pressure is enormous to be 'perfect' with good looks, popular with boys, trendy, well dressed and good grades.
I think it is even more pressure to tell them they must aim high.
At primary school I loved learning for its own sake, it hadn't occurred to me that it was to get a good career-it seemed so far ahead that I couldn't see myself being old enough. Now ask any 5 year old why they are at school and they will tell you to do well and get a good job!
Why not just relax, think of mistakes as a way of learning, take risks, if you fail try again. Success is a wide variety of things to different people. You can change careers, it is never too late. Both my brothers messed around doing nothing much for quite a few years-one was in his 30s before he sorted what he wanted to do and one was in his 40s. Boys seem to still have the freedom to do this.
With all these years of feminism it is sad that teenage girls still feel that they must be attractive to boys as a measure of success.
It appears to be women doing it-they want girls as first choice-and they don't want ones who are keen on playing rugby and covered in mud!