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

Dazzler, you are being unfair on Flora who has been extremely patient on this thread. If that had been a comment in AIBU or anywhere else on the board it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow or be taken for the frustrated remark it was. But for some reason you seem to want to hold feminists to a higher standard of behaviour than everyone else? And hold Flora resonsible for how feminists are perceived?? Grossly unfair.

Feminists get just as frustrated as everyone else when they are banging their head against a brick wall (which is probably another reason why other people haven't piled in - been there, done that, got the t-shirt). The "oh you shouldn't be nasty to other women" really means you should suck up everything that we throw at you with good grace like the naice girl you should be.

There are actually a lot of lurkers, Dazzler, people who won't post have emailed in the past when I have had a hard time. I'm surprised I haven't had a hard time here. I have had a successful career too, seeker- sometimes you just want to move off and on in a different direction. Anyway - will go as promised.

Sorry the thread can quietly get buried- not the posters!

kickassangel Tue 26-Feb-13 23:47:07

The thing is, people choose not to go for a career for a multitude of reasons. We're individuals and whilst there may be some structure that conditions us there will be a point at which we will all use our own judgement to override societal 'norms' or do what we see as being best. You cannot overlook this aspect of human nature, otherwise feminists would never have attempted to challenge the norms that have disadvantaged women. I think you're right about looking into the rationale behind women dropping off. IMHO this is the most important aspect. Stats are useless without this kind of research. Legislating for quotas is fair enough but this is only really a band-aid and does not get to the root of the issue(s). Some of it may well be due to sexism and continued oppression but some of it may not be.

I found the links posted by Schooldidi very interesting but even these do not go deep enough. The 'Institue of Leadership & Management' document was probably the most relevant to us (given the other two were US based and their culture is very different to ours) but even this was a survey of already working men/women. The bigger question is why the ambition of a lot of women lags behind men? I have no shame in admitting I haven't a clue but it most definitely isn't exclusively because of the patriarchy.

I would say that some women obviously don't give two hoots about norms, some do and then some have other ideas of how they want to live their lives. I've worked with people that thought they wanted everything but realised the rat race is a complete waste of time. Some have given 100% to companies and when the chips were down, their loyalty was rewarded with redundancy.

I don't want a high flying career because my values lie with my family, not with power or money. My wife's values are looking after kids and making a home. This isn't conditioning, it's living a life according to one's values.

HecateWhoopass Wed 27-Feb-13 08:25:58

That is an interesting article but is anecdotal with no real evidence. There are numerous incidences on this board where anecdotes are discarded because it fails to represent the 'bigger picture'. If we are being balanced then I would say the same applies to that article.

Funnily enough the comments are spot on. The article is useless without naming/shaming the culprits.

FloraFox Wed 27-Feb-13 08:02:04

You clearly feel you need to justify your choice at great and frankly fucking tedious length

This is exactly why I've been a long time lurker and will soon return to resuming my lurking. I've often read on these boards the reaction of the regulars who disagree with people that hold a different, but equally valid, POV. They are swiftly belittled, insulted and treated like they have no place/right to their opinions. I find it shameful and a poor advertisement for anyone that might think that feminism may be for them. I wouldn't dare speak to anyone with such disrespect and find it amazing how you 'believe' women to be equal but can easily show such disregard to another woman

You have a wonderful way of twisting my words to suit the way that you want to portray me, FloraFox - it isn't actually what I am saying at all.
I would say there is a lot of truth in the article, Hecate and I suppose women should fight it - most just take the easy way and keep well away from that type of environment. I know an MP and all her DCs are at boarding school- not something I would be willing to do. She also has to attend no end of boring functions- a lot in the evenings. You only have to read threads on here and you realise that people like me are highly irresponsible - we hire babysitters ( shock horror- some are still teenagers!!) many never go out because they won't trust anyone with their DCs.
I feel that I am a reasonably well balanced adult, I drive on the motor way on my own, I travel alone (even abroad) I trust my judgement about people, e.g. hiring babysitters, letting my 5 yr old go to a play date of a DC of a woman I don't know well, I can stand up in front of a roomful of people and give a talk, I can delegate to the DCs, leave an 8yr old for 10 mins alone, let a 12yr old cook dinner. I could go on and on but you only have to read MN for a short while to realise that many, many, many women can't do these things - and then you expect them to manage a home and keep a high flying career!
The difference with men is that they bluff a lot- even if worried they don't tell people!
My personal reason is that I always wanted children, circumstances made it seem as if I wouldn't (or only one). I was lucky enough to manage 3 by my personal age cut off point. It is the best thing I have done and work fitted around them- it was my choice not to fit them around work. It isn't wrong to do it the other way , many would climb the walls at home- we are all different.
Many women have no interest in power or influence, even if the path were easy.
I have been much heartened by the fact that it is a very slow thread - only kept going by me and a few other people. Since I am so tedious I will leave and it can carry on without me - or just quietly get buried.

I suspect this is relevent

I would imagine it isn't very nice to be a woman in westminster.

"You would never get a discussion like this where some are having to justify the fact that..."

You are the only person talking about that. You clearly feel you need to justify your choice at great and frankly fucking tedious length. You are the one saying others should be happy to jog along the bottom. No-one has asked you to justify your choice but you can't seem to stop doing it.

What you said about men getting ahead because they don't tell other men what to think is still a lot of crap.

It also takes a very ambitious man who loves his job. DH's boss is one - his work is his life and he doesn't know what to do without it. He loves it. He has no DCs and his wife has to have a life of her own, he hardly ever sees her! He starts early, works late and travels overseas often. He takes holidays but if he can combine them with work he does! There is nothing wrong with this but I wouldn't marry anyone like him!

It isn't a load of crap. You would never get a discussion like this where some are having to justify the fact that they want to go and live in Cornwall and get a job that doesn't take a lot if effort, gives them just enough money BUT gives them the time to go surfing several days a week. They might privately think they were mad, but they wouldn't be telling them that they ought to be aiming higher.
Not many women are going to want to be MPs. Imagine that you are an MP in a Yorkshire constituency, you have children, you have to be in Westminster and you also have to be in your constituency. Your DH is a surgeon in Leeds. How can you possibly manage? When your DCs are little you can bundle them about. As they get older they won't take kindly to it. Probably boarding school solves some of the problems. I wouldn't even want to be married to an MP- it isn't the life I envisaged. It also makes the DH or DW or DP be involved whether they like it or not- having to go to official receptions etc.
A child changes your life. I was speaking to a friend yesterday. Her DD and SIL both have careers in London. They live about an hours travelling distance away. They have a DD in nursery and all is well except that if the nursery phone up and say DD isn't well, please come and collect her they are stuffed. They have no back up except my friend who is 3 hours away and is a busy woman- she has commitments and a part time job that she can't just drop. They are thinking they might have to get a nanny instead. They have no idea how they will manage once the DD goes to school but are shelving the problem in the meantime- it will probably mean long visits to Granny or auntie who lives in Cornwall and doesn't work. Meanwhile the parent that can most easily collect her at the time does it, but it doesn't go down well in the office.
Child care falls down if they are ill. I have been guilty of dosing mine up with calpol and saying, 'I'm sure you will be fine' when I have had to be at work and had no cover - when I speak to anyone they have done the same. As a teacher I know they do.
The only way to get to the top is to have a nanny, use boarding schools and have relatives who will have them to stay in holidays. Many women would rather see more of their DCs and get off the ladder.
Seeker started the thread and has never returned. I don't know if she was ever on a ladder but I get the impression that she hasn't been on since her DCs were born and since the youngest could now have a key and let himself in after school she still isn't climbing one- she seems immersed in her DCs and life at home- I get the impression that this is choice and she seems happy - not bitter that it has stopped her doing what she wished. In that case she ought to understand that many women are simply not on a ladder because they don't want to be.
I think we need more women at the top but it takes a very ambitious woman who loves their job.

"Men probably get on better because they don't tell other men what they should think."

What a load of crap.

yes, I agree with uptoapoint.

you're completely ignoring the structures that lead women to decide not to go for a career. Why at age do the decisions get made that make them think it isn't worth the work required? I don't think it's an inherent thing, and you can't compare us to 'pack animals' - might as well compare us to butterflies or sea horses.

Why do young girls want to be president, but STOP wanting that by the time they're in the mid teens? Somewhere they are picking up the messages that it's a man's role, or that women have to stay home to take care of the babies, or that they don't have the skills, stamina etc.

I don't agree with 'you can't be what you can't see' entirely (otherwise we'd never have a first female anything) but it IS hard to aspire to a role which is never shown to you. e.g. a flight I got on recently where 100% of business class were men in suits. Hard for my daughter to get on that flight, see the business class section, and think 'I want to be just like that woman over there'. At best she might think 'I want to sit in the nice area' but that's a far less specific aim, and harder to carry out. She doesn't identify with being a man so, however much she logically thinks she's just as able, the reptilian part of her brain won't make that connection, there will not be the emotional impulse.

Hi uptoapoint, I have just PM-ed you

I skimmed through schooldidi's links. It seems that in one report there is no gender gap for ambition - these are findings from asking questions about whether you would ask for more pay and whether you are satisfied with your job. In another report there is a gender gap for self-reported ambition - "how confident are you" type questions. If you read the Delusions of Gender where it shows that there is no gender gap for empathising skills but there is a gap for self-reported empathising skill, then you might be suspicious of the findings. Arguments about how "women prefer not to do this or that" has always been used to justify suppression. I would be very careful about using that.

And so to bed. See you all tomorrow!

SizzleSazz

Lol ok I take that back as I got carried away. It's the greatest job that 'some' of us can choose

blueshoes

I can't speak for all men but the directors I know just want to achieve, be the boss and have all the trappings that come with it. I wonder if the difference is loads more testosterone and the need to beat your chest and be the alpha male. We are animals after all and many animal species have males that fight to be 'top dog'. I don't see why we are any different.

To answer your question i think you'd have to carry out some sociological study to determine the factors that lead more men to make the sacrifice than women. I can only speculate (as we all can) about why this is so but that's all we can do surely.

However looking after children is the greatest career for some- we are all different. I am not going to be an MP if I am jealous of my nanny and think she is having a better deal.
Men probably get on better because they don't tell other men what they should think.

I would say that it is lower in UK because child care is expensive and not exactly helpful- businesses don't take much interest.
Many women have their biological clock and fully intend to go back full time but change their mind once they have their baby. I think that we should help and encourage the women who want to get there- we need more. However we should understand that many are simply not interested.
Probably only about 2% of the population want the power and influence - the unfortunate thing is that more of them are men.
I am just surprised that anyone wants it- but am thankful that someone wants to do it. It needs a change of attitude in the workplace and better childcare if we are to get more women.

Exotic - i agree with your lift analogy . I also with blueshoes that just when that lift is heading towards the top floor is (typically) when women are having DC's and looking at mad hours/dull schmoozing/ego mania versus sane life and choose the latter. This might not be giving up a career fully, but accepting they don't want to be part of the merry-go-round and head for PT roles or roles with less pressure (and likely career progression)

Dazzler, interesting viewpoint, although i do have to disagree with "looking after children is the greatest job anyone can choose". Unfortunately I can't seem to 'choose' it as it drives me demented, but PT works nicely

Flora is right about the reasons nobody is piling in. I am glad you are happy exotic, but I don't really see the relevance of what you say to this thread.

Straw arguments always set people off!

exoticfruits

FWIW I don't think you are wrong as you're making perfect sense to me. The trouble is, most articles are primarily focused on statistics, like only 25% of CEOs being women. Maybe it should be 50% I really don't know but as an analyst I know that statistics are pretty useless unless you dig deeper, much deeper, into the reasons why the numbers are like they are. Motivation and drive to become powerful is most definitely a factor in all this so you are not wide of the mark at all. It's a very valid question but one that is not addressed as much as publishing statistics.

I have a very wealthy friend who, before kids, had her own business and earned money I could only dream of. Business is in her blood. A real high flyer who doesn't know the meaning of 'glass ceiling'. When she had kids (in her late 30s) it all changed and now is happy to work part time. Her kids come first despite having a husband that earned pennies compared to her. They are not followers of convention so it would have been more logical for him to stay at home and be sole carer. Yet this did not happen.

I've seen this happen with many successful women.

So exotic, your answer to why there are fewer women at the top of politics and public life is because power and conventional success is not what you (and apparently many women) want and great that more men are turning away from it and don't judge you or them. Huh?

We need people to make the personal sacrifices to lead the country. The question is why it is men that are prepared to do it, want it and achieve it in greater numbers than women in the UK. And why are the rates of women participation at the top so much lower in the UK than other countries.

You are not answering the question and in fact hijacking the thread to run some pseudo-anti-work argument of your own I don't fully understand.

She started the thread.
This is very slow moving. If I am on threads that people feel deeply about I can hardly keep up. Every time I come back it takes 30 mins to catch up. Teachers giving up holidays was one such - and it was full before we had finished. If I didn't keep posting this would die.
If people feel deeply about it they pile in and quite honestly I expected to get lynched! I thought if it was too bad I would just hide it! It hasn't been like that and I have had support.
Lots of women don't want the power and influence because they see the personal cost and think it is too much. You have to question why you are working if it doesn't let you live the way that you want to live.if you want to live that way, and it gives you a real buzz, then go for it- but don't expect everyone to feel the same. It is impossible to have your perfect professional life and perfect homelife- something has to give.

Waves to uptoapoint