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

A chief constable isn't something you do 1-4 days a week. I could quite easily be a local councillor -I have the time and the intelligence -I don't want to be.
I voted for the one woman who was a candidate for the police and crime commissioner. She was labour, I was most impressed and she was the only one to send me any literature or invite me to a meeting. However I am in a strongly Conservative area-their candidate would have got in whatever the sex-quite honestly if they were a chimpanzee they would have got in!! The turn out was very low anyway.
I am doing a volunteer thing at the moment-opportunities come up quite often that I do nothing about. If I was wanting to advance up a ladder it would be fairly easy.
I copied and pasted two articles from the Times on specifically why women are not in politics.

you clearly read a lot more in the OP's link than I did then. the guardian story was in the Women In Politics section and appeared to me to be about a discrepancy between britain and other countries in terms of improving the under-representation of women.

i also find this sentence: "The appointment to public bodies where you work 1-4 days a month tends to be done by women who don't have to earn a living- their DH does it and they have good qualifications and time to spare." pretty horrendous... the issue is that women are not doing these jobs, they are overwhelmingly done by men. the link from the OP actually contains this fact:
It provides a wealth of statistics on the extent of the continuing male monopoly on power. Two-thirds of public appointments go to men, 90% of chief constables and police and crime commissioners are male, and two-thirds of local councillors are male, yet men make up 49% of the population.

If a man is left with the children because his wife dies or goes off and leaves the children he has to either change his job, working pattern or get full time, live in, childcare. If David Cameron were to be a widower he couldn't be PM and give his DCs the emotional support they need. He would have to very one track minded to carry on in the job.

I meant that men get on better with other men because they don't have this sort of argument - not that they get on better at work. I can't see how it would possibly help.

The appointment to public bodies where you work 1-4 days a month tends to be done by women who don't have to earn a living- their DH does it and they have good qualifications and time to spare.

OP was about women being under represented in positions of power and influence and there being very few women at the top of anything. Where we are talking different languages is that I am not talking about working women juggling home and career, I am not even talking about women in very good careers such as lawyer, doctor etc. I am talking about the very small selection of people at the top if their chosen field.
Historically it has been men, children were viewed differently and wives of successful men were not stuck at home, they had servants, a social life, good works if they wanted them or lovers if they wanted them. Children had nannies and saw their parents at their parent's convenience. When old enough they went to boarding school. When adults they were supposed to marry in a way that was advantageous to the family, in way of money, power, connections.
Now even the men want a home life, men and women marry from free choice. They want to see their DCs grow up and they don't want boarding school. It is all more difficult. Children want contact with a primary carer who has time for them. It is very difficult to work the hours demanded to get you to the top ( usually at the very time your DCs are growing up) and see enough of your DC who isn't interested in 'quality' time- just time.
Most men and women settle for juggling and not getting to the top.
I am talking 'in general' and only about the tiny percentage at the top of any chosen field.

My relative only got to be a partner in a law firm (as a woman from a comprehensive) by working all hours as required and never having to sort out ill children or attend school parent's evenings etc. She is now on a more reasonable footing but past child bearing age. I don't think she wanted DCs but it isn't the sort of thing you can ask.

exoticfruits the OP didn't post about high flying international careers - she posted a link to a story about lack of representation from women in UK politics and "public life"...

appointments to public bodies tend to involve working 1-4 days/month. hardly the kind of pressure that would totally rule out someone with childcare responsibilities.

exotic to be clear, I am not at all upset that you think my job is boring, not even remotely. I raised it because it seemed to me you were trying to pick a fight and/or being somewhat hypocritical by making value statements about others' choices while demanding not to be judged.

As for skewing your words, you said: "Men probably get on better because they don't tell other men what they should think". I disagree with this on every level.

Of course it is! I think that people misunderstand me!
FloraFox has skewed my words that men don't judge each other and that is why they get on at work! It wasn't connected to getting on at work but they don't judge each other- if I was to say something about someone else's choices to DH or DSs they would look at me as if I had 2 heads and say 'why are you bothered?' It wouldn't be up for discussion. That isn't why they get on at work!
She is also upset because I called her career boring, I was talking in general terms so looked back to see what she did. I'm sure it is fascinating to many but it would be a strange world if we all thought the same.
I am very lucky that my choices fit with the traditional female role. I worked out when I was about 5yrs that I was jolly glad to be a girl.
I am all for people fighting for change, and definitely for the unconventional. I may sound conventional on here but I am really veering on the eccentric in RL!
Unfortunately high power careers don't go with DCs. Once they have the basic human rights of roof, food etc the one thing they want is the attention and time of a significant adult. If granny, or the nanny or daddy are providing it they are the ones with the close relationship. DCs are not interested in quality time- they want time.
We have a corporate lawyer in the family- she is now a parter in the firm- has earning beyond my wildest imaginings. She is now nearly 50yrs and no DCs . She works all hours- if she had them she could go days without seeing them. Her DH has an equally high powered job and the life style suits them they have quality time with fantastic holidays etc but they both choose that - a child doesn't choose.
I don't have the answer- you can't have it all. A man won't get the close father/child relationship either if he has no time to be more than a distant figure.
My only point is that everyone should be free to make their own choices- yes you can aim for the sky, but it is equally valid to have other things for your personal success that don't include power, status and money.
One of my DSs goes for money in a career and 2 are not bothered- they are not right or wrong.
I agree that if women want to aim for the top it is difficult because people assume they might get off the lift when they are single minded.
I am all for having equal choice and opportunities.

I wasn't coming back but the Times today has an article-I can't link because you have to subscribe, but the relevant part is:-

But men behaving badly isn?t the reason why so few women go into politics in Britain. In France, where Dominique Strauss-Kahn still prowls, four are vying to become mayor of Paris. Yet fewer than a quarter of all MPs in Westminster are women and only one in six Cabinet ministers.
This is because it is an increasingly unattractive job, particularly if you are a mother. The first generation who made it to the top ? Barbara Castle, Margaret Thatcher ? either didn?t have children or sidelined them for their careers. Carole Thatcher says she communicated with her mother through her secretaries.
Parliament has slowly changed to accommodate families but not as much as parenting has altered. Women now expect to spend more time with their children. They are not prepared to miss crucial child-rearing years staring at Pugin wallpaper unless they feel that what they are doing is worthwhile.
Increasingly, it feels like it isn?t. Being an MP has become less interesting with more scrutiny but less significance. Ministers are ground down by the daily cycle of petty news stories; backbenchers find their jobs time-consuming but often unfulfilling. While they are expected to act as social workers in their constituencies and keep their heads down in the Commons, decisions are made by small, powerful cliques. It?s no wonder that a sixth of the 2010 intake of Conservative MPs have divorced or separated since they were elected.
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. ?There is too much pressure for MPs to live in their constituencies with little financial assistance any more to have their families near them. One friend would love to have her small child with her during the week but she would be condemned for moving out of her seat. We have to sort this out.?
Maria Hutchings, the Tory candidate in Eastleigh, had to move her family of six to a bungalow by the railway line to contest the seat. She is unpaid, and one of her children has special needs. She has had to sell her car and worries constantly about money while her husband commutes two hours to Essex each day to keep his job.
For most mothers, it wouldn?t be worth it, especially when they?re going to get pilloried by the voters. We should make it easier ? and this is where Lord Rennard has let women down. In his determination to prevent boundary changes, he helped to scupper Tory plans to modernise the Commons by having fewer, better-paid MPs. It is for that piece of political opportunism as much as any alleged personal failings that women should blame Lord Rennard

I can't see how things can change unless working practices are changed and childcare can be done differently. It is actually easier when the DCs are little, school makes it much more difficult because it is about education and not childcare.

Because of the age of my DCs I know a lot of young adults starting a career. It is the girls who are the switched on ones who know where they are going-and getting there. The problem comes when they want to have children-and see something of them.

I agree that we need to educate girls-I thought we didn't from my personal family experience-but it becomes obvious from reading MN, among other things, that we do.
However I think it sad that there is such a narrow tunnel of 'success'. A girl who is an A' student is not expected to have a career with the Early Years for example, even if it is her dream job. One who has a real vocation for nursing is told they need to aim higher.

There now seems to be a tremendous pressure for girls to succeed. If I was young today I would feel almost apologetic to say that I wanted to teach 5 year olds ,and beyond becoming a better teacher of 5 year olds , all my ambitions were outside paid employment.

I see that, to my sadness in my smart, switched on daughter- for example, they had an all day rehearsal for a school show on Sunday. All the girls turned up on time- the boys straggled in anything up to an hour late. The girls were exasperated and cross, but it was obvious that they just sort of expected boys to be flaky

While I agree that this is fairly typical not all boys are like that and they get deeply frustrated and can't do anything either. Even at University, where you would imagine everyone was motivated and wanted good results, my DSs have had tremendous worry as to who they would get in any group work-and heaved a sigh of relief when they have got a 'good' group. My nephew who was heavily into drama at school got driven to distraction by the example above-he couldn't change them either.

exotic it seems as though you braced yourself to expect people to condemn your choices?

I generally avoid feminist boards-they are not for the faint hearted-being called tedious is very mild! I thought that I was a feminist -but I seem to be the wrong kind. The worst was being told not to post at all. So yes-I was braced.

No need to apologise, Abigail, I appreciate your input.

exotic and dazzler both your posts are full of value-laden statements about people (and particularly women) with children who want to pursue senior posts and exotic has singled out a few jobs (including one which a number of posters, including me, have already said we have) as being "deadly boring". That's fine, that's your view, no-one condemned you as you expected to be condemned. How does your continual repetition and justification of your choice advance the discussion when no-one else wants to argue with you about it?

dazzler it's hard for me to believe you're reading this thread and you think I think my view is more important than exotic's. If anything she (and you) are being very holier than thou about your choices to live by your "values", but your choices, whatever.

Statements about men getting ahead because they don't tell other men what to think, which goes beyond the personal choice into a statement on structural / political and say it's women's fault they can't get ahead, cos they're all bitches. Yeah, haven't heard that before. I have no respect for that statement. If you come out with that sort of shit on any board, you can expect to be called on it.

dazzler I have a very different view on equality from you. I actually don't get the leap from believing woman should be equal to men but currently are not treated so (i.e. a feminist) to needing to be all fluffy kittens with any old thing said by another woman. That's a depressingly retrograde statement to make and I make no apologies for not conforming with your view of how a feminist should behave.

Sorry again. A bit too silly. I mean magnanimous, not magnificent. But no doubt that as well.

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!

Sorry. Feeling a bit silly.

And apologies Flora for speaking about you in the third person.

But Flora didn't feel she held a higher view than exoticfruits. And nor was she belittling or demeaning her. Exoticfruits has just been repeating the same thing over and over again, which is tedious. And she has certainly had her fair time on the floor. I can't believe you think she hasn't. Her views haven't been disregarded they have just been disagreed with. Something we are allowed to do. Flora has spent a lot of time trying to engage with exoticfruits. The lack of engagement hasn't been from her side.

And you don't seem to have a reason for holding feminists to a higher standard other than you hold other groups to a higher standard Rightho. Feminism is about trying to rid ourselves of the patriarchy or equality or whatever your view on it. It isn't about being polite to all and sundry. An expectation that women should be polite and nice is very patriarchal. Being angry and frustrated, not really allowed. Put it this way on another forum if it was a man who had said that you wouldn't have thought he was responsible for how men were viewed. You might have said he was rude but not the rest.

OK.

I'm a F/T working mum who chose to go back when her DS was less than a year old.

At the time, DH had no work, but because he was looking for it, going to interviews etc he couldn't commit to childcare. He is a contractor so is sometimes working, sometimes not. I'm permanent, so we can't afford for me to not work as it's our only guaranteed income (such as anything is "guaranteed" in this climate). We have no family help (all parents very elderly and hundreds of miles away). So not much of a choice really!

DS went to a nursery F/T. The current cost of this nursery is over a thousand a month. Even with the free hours and childcare vouchers after he was 3, we still paid out more than our mortgage every month.

We decided early on that we could only afford one child because of all this. He's now at school and logistics are even worse. Holiday childcare is a nightmare and schools close earlier than the nursery did, even with breakfast and teatime clubs. (How we deal with this problem while spending as many hours as possible with DS is another ongoing issue and irrelevant here unless I want to open yet another can of worms!)

So if this is a major logistical struggle for us, with me working at a well-paid job and DH sporadically (and often in other cities, so guess who has to do the school runs?), and only one child, how on earth are women expected to burn the midnight oil that political/judicial/business careers seems to demand?

Oh yes, no children. Or a nanny.

My SIL chose the former. She's an exec. in a global company. Half the time she's in China negotiating something or other. But totally incompatible with having children.

If economic recovery is going to happen, then someone is going to have to come up with a viable non-complex childcare option. Not just early years, or else they'll have the stupid situation of having working mums for first 5 years who then have to give up so they can do the school runs, as firms not surprisingly expect F/T workers to be there after 3pm. No wonder we don't have many board level women.

AbigailAdams

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be 'holier than thou' but disrespect is disrespect and I would challenge anyone on any board for belittling another human being. I'd rather say nothing at all than to resort to telling someone they were being f'ing tedious. I really don't fancy it (because it would be really f'ing tedious ) but I could copy/paste numerous instances (not related to Flora) of regulars who show unbelievably short shrift to rational people with opposing views. I grant it must be difficult constantly facing opposing views but to me, equality is respecting the views/lives of others, irrespective of how much their view differs from your own. It's exactly this type of response that has kept me at arms length. Many lurkers, like me, are fully supportive of feminism but whilst I will happily lurk in an attempt to learn, I dare not (till last night) attempt to discuss what I sometimes believe to be controversial because of the backlash.

I wasn't suggesting that you shouldn't be nasty to another woman. Not in the way you mentioned anyway as you've taken that in the most extreme way possible. I just meant that, to me, believing all women are equal i.e. to both men and women alike, means that you are no more 'entitled' to hold a higher view than another. My opinions aren't any more/less important than yours and neither are Flora's to Exoticfruit's. To demean shows a distinct belief that your view takes precedence over another, which is not an acceptance of equality (not in my view anyway).

Do I want to hold feminists to a higher standard of behaviour? I guess I do but for the same reason I'd expect a religious person to posess higher morals or a policeman to act in a more law abiding manner. I realise the feminist movement is a political one so I won't even try to compare my expectations of how politicians should behave . I genuinely believe in equality and I would be most dissapointed with myself if I chaired a meeting at work and didn't give a female colleague her fair time on the floor, shut her out, disregarded her views, belittled her contribution, respected her views or challenge anyone that attempted to do any of these things. To me it's a simple case of practising what you preach although I completely understand if you don't see it the same way.

But as per Exotic, I'll be making my way and will return to lurking. All the best {smile]

And to quote an older source:

"I deny that anyone knows, or can know, the nature of the two sexes, as long as they have only been seen in their present relation to one another. If men had ever been found in society without women, or women without men, or if there had been a society of men and women in which the women were not under the control of the men, something might have been positively known about the mental and moral differences which may be inherent in the nature of each. What is now called the nature of women is an eminently artificial thing ? the result of forced repression in some directions, unnatural stimulation in others." (John Stuart Mill, on The subjection of women.)

Women less ambitious than men based on current evidence? Stuff and nonsense.

To disagree with dazzler: I think the ILM study is only interesting and informative up to a point: the questions are to do with self-reporting, and in many studies it is found that women are socialised to think themselves less confident (WTF), no good at maths (WTF), better at empathising (WTF) and all the stereotype. When you ask questions like that you get the expected answers. The self-reported ambition of women lags behind that of men, as I could have told you without conducting any study, because I have live this life as a woman and have not been stupid or wilfully ignorant. The other study ask what one would do in different situations that has to do with ambition. I would say that reflects the reality better. And surprise surprise. No significant difference between men and women. How the career of women lags behind men's, well, that is a different question. Read the Delusions of Gender.

To disagree with exotic: one does not have to justify one's choices. This is not about your choice (or mine, which is similarly to do exactly what I want which happens not to be the path of power and glory). It is about the systematic exclusion of women to positions of power and/or high pay and/or great responsibility. And it is about examining working practice. Why should things be what they have been?

And I agree with PromQueen. :)

Promqueen: "So, the interesting question for me is why things are set up in such a way that only those who are willing and able to sacrifice everything else in their lives can have any power. Why does it have to be this way? Who's decided that this is the best way to live?"

Society and the structures within it have become so complex. Running a family is nothing like running a country such as the UK or a corporation with 30,000 employees over 35 countries.

There are so many hours in a day. Even if the politicians and business leaders had people to assist them, there is still a core amount of hard facts, knowledge and skills they need to have to guide strategy, make informed decisions and to implement them. There is also a lot of people management, motivation, schmoozing, dealing with the press.

The role can be enormously engaging and I am sure lots get off on the power trip as well. But if it was so easy to rise to the top, well we cannot all be bosses.

And Hecate's link maybe anecdotal but it is still based in fact. Lord Rennard anyone?