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

exoticfruits I'm not sure I've got your points straight. You say you think there are no enough women at the top, that you don't want to be at the top and you don't think many others do and that it is up to individual women to clear their lives so that if they want to achieve that, they can do so. That is, in fact, the problem.

Most top jobs do not actually require a person to completely give up their lives in order to do the job properly. To the extent people are expected to do so now, it is relatively recent, coinciding largely with the appearance of significant numbers of women who are capable of doing those jobs.

If you think that there should be more women in senior jobs, it's not sufficient to say that women must make arrangements so they can devote all of their lives to the job. In fact, many men in senior jobs spend significant amounts of time on activities not related to the job (writing books, being boards of charities, pro bono work, climbing fucking Kilimanjaro) which are all seen as legitimate whereas spending time with family is not. As I said up thread, in my fairly limited experience of working in Sweden, men and women in senior roles would get up and leave important meetings to go to their children's school activities and would talk openly about their childcare arrangements. I believe this attitude would contribute to more senior women in business. Another poster made a comment about paternity leave - I believe there should be a non-transferable right for men to take longer paternity leave. Quotas for senior representation are also something I would look at closely.

I work in the NHS in a training post ( as a dentist not a doctor) and got pregnant very unexpectedly. I am now back at work full time and I am so fed up of people asking what days are you working? Only to pull a bit of a face when I say full time. It's honestly like they cannot conceive of a mother working full time. I love my job I always have. In the hospital I work in it is an expectation that Iif you have kids you go part time, I think a pp did say that flexible working is great but not if mums are forced into it, and I felt lots of pressure to go part time, I had comments like, well see how you get on, if you cant cope being back full time just say. Can't imagine it ever bring said to a male trainee!

You can see now why they don't let their DCs travel alone and the whole problem was probably caused by their parents being over protective. It is pathetic!

I know exotic I had to hide that thread because otherwise I would have called some of them pathetic which would have been very rude. I travelled round India by myself at 18. I had a placement to go to but didn't know how to get there until I was having to do it. I then went to Australia completely by myself with nobody to meet me there, I went all sorts of places by myself and loved it. Dd1 is 13 and went on a music course with a friend, I suggested they took the train together, a direct route with a 5 min walk at the other end, but her parents organised a lift direct from door to door because it wasn't safe for them to get the train apparently

Women do seem to be their worst enemies! There is a thread at the moment about travelling alone and it is amazing how many won't! In many cases they are not even considering abroad- they wouldn't go to London and get the tube!
The difference is that a man would never be on the Internet saying they are too scared to travel alone and that you must be very brave to get yourself from London to Barcelona! You can hardly consider a top job if you won't get yourself to Edinburgh! Sorry for all the exclamation marks- it is just an eye opener to me reading it. I have DSs and they just arrange travel themselves and go and do it - I am not talking about the third world just fairly safe places. DS got himself across US on his own aged 18yrs- and he is dyslexic which can make signs slow to read.

Chiefly mangoes!

I would say that there are more men who want power and influence and they can always find a woman who wants to be provided with the things that it gives - seeing as they can be old, ugly and quite nasty, but if they have money and a powerful position they will always be able to attract a beautiful woman. Women who get powerful and rich are far more fussy! They are not likely to want a man who is good looking but useless! It is easier if you have support.

There are lots of men who don't want it and are quite happy to step off the career ladder- if they are a bit of a maverick they can often jump back. Women tend to go for a more cautious, conscientious way up. e.g. a friend of DSs has a very good degree and job and he has given it all up to lead heli skiing trips, another is similar and has had a complete change and is making films for next to nothing- finances being on a shoe string and he may have to give up. Who knows where it will go? It may be an advantage in the long run, it may not- but they are having a ball at the moment! Both are single with only themselves to consider.

This is just a theory that has occurred to me as I write - a generality and no doubt there are lots of exceptions.

I don't know the answer to that kickass. In my mind it should be a far more even split. There must be a lot of factors going on that I haven't thought about or experienced.

That still leaves us with the question of why there is such a lack of balance between the genders. Why isn't here an even number of men and women who are wanting/nit wanting the top jobs and getting them?

I agree with a lot of what Skrumle says. Politics is really difficult and the different ways the same behaviours are percieved in men and women makes a huge difference. It must be very difficult to find way to fit into the Old Boys club in the House of Commons. I certainly wouldn't want to do it and I don't know a single other woman who would want to. Then again I only know 2 men who want to go into politics either, so I'm possibly not moving in the right circles or maybe it's just not something many people want to go into.

I also agree with exotic in that a lot of the 'good career' stuff and 'success' is not what many of us want. There is a promotion available at work, out of a department of 14 of us only 1 person has applied for the promotion because the rest of us would rather have a better work/life balance. I enjoy my job, I am good at it, but it already takes up as much of my time as I want it to, I don't want any extra responsibility to creep into my family time.

kickass my experience of teaching has been quite different to yours. I had dd1 before I went into teaching and every position I ahve ever been offered has been as a mother. I have only missed out on one job I have gone for and I readily admit that I wasn't properly prepared for that interview as dd2 was only a few weeks old at the time, it went to another woman with 2dcs. I was even asked to apply for the promotion that is currently being advertised and I think I would stand a good chance of getting it if I wanted it but I don't. It will possibly go to a man but that's only because he is the 'in-house' candidate and they know what he is capable of more than any external candidates.

I agree exoticfruits (which types of exotic fruits!?). But I also think that the ideas of "success" and "good career" need rethinking. I haven't "progressed" in my career for many years, yet I do almost exactly what I like at work (mostly - too much to ask for 100%, I guess, but a good 95%, I think), I do almost exactly what I like in my spare time (ditto), and I get as much contact with my kids as possible (bar school hours, which are too long, if you ask me). Why am I not a great success in the eyes of society? That is what puzzles me.

I feel that I had the best of it when mine were small. I had a career that could earn good money. I was a supply teacher. I wrote down all dates that I needed to be free for children's things -nativity plays -trips to the orthodontist etc and kept them free-I accepted work for the rest. It was ideal for me but was never going to be a path to a Headship. If I had wanted a career path then I would have to organise things differently and miss things. In that situation I agree entirely and it would be monstrously unfair to overlook me for a man.

The thing is that very few people actually want high flying positions-which is just as well as there are very few of them.
I agree with you entirely on the cut off points.
What I dislike is the fact that these jobs are seen as the pinnacle and superior -whereas if you are artistic you will be much happier being a book illustrator, sewing dresses for a theatre etc
If I worked in medicine, which I don't, I would want to be a nurse-I would like to be treating Mr Smith in bed 4, the kindly old man who was once a gardener and can give a lot of tips,who like reading and is a great theatre goer etc etc etc-I have no interest in treating the gall bladder in bed 4 and yet I would be told that I ought not to wish this-I should aspire to be a surgeon.
Now boys have it so much easier-if they say they want to be a nurse, infant teacher etc people say 'wonderful, we need more men in these positions'. If a girl says it the assumption is that she is just pushed down a traditional path and is letting the side down-not that she is in her dream job.
I would find being a lawyer deadly boring, but working with autistic children absorbing, challenging and interesting. I don't expect everyone to feel the same- but I do hate the assumption that one is better- other than for the individual who wants to do it.
In the paper today it says that one out of three professional people are suffering burn out-I am not surprised. Lots of men and women don't want it. The other story is the shocking statistic of the number of teenagers who are depressed and self harming. A lot of it is down to the pressure of being 'perfect' in all ways. Girls are more prone to it than boys. A lot of it is the pressure to do well at school and get a good career. I'm sure that a lot would be happier if they could admit to just jogging along with something they enjoy.
By all means aspire to being top of your chosen career but there is no need to make women feel that they ought to and that it is a desirable choice.

I must admit that I am surprised -3 times I have come back to this thread with trepidation -wearing my tin hat -expecting to be attacked. Maybe it will come now!
I just think that a lot of women must be like me and want to work around the family. I could never be Prime Minister because if my child was in hospital I would be with them-they would be my priority regardless of anything else.

But it isn't just about being a big shot CEO. To get there, there are many steps to go through, and too often at each cut off point the women drop by the way side, so that by the time you're choosing the top flyers there isn't much choice.

I don't particularly want to be a 'super head' of a school, but if I did, the experience of not getting promoted post mat leave wouldn't just demoralize me, it effectively cut me off from accessing the next ring up the ladder.

On average, I used to take a massive 1 day a year to take care of my sick kid. I worked longer hours and got better results than most of the men I worked with. Still not able to get the same jobs that they had handed to them (in some cases, without even advertising or interviewing for posts, they just gave the job to the next man in line). I doubt if my situation was unique.

It doesn't even have to be that obvious. Just a little extra pressure on the women each day can be enough to keep them back.

I admire people like Daniel Day Lewis who is taking 5years off, going to Ireland to spend time with his family and learn rural crafts. The only point in having a top job would seem to be to earn the money to get off and be able to spend the time doing what you really want to do. Apparently he never wanted to be an actor- he wanted to be a cabinet maker but couldn't get the apprenticeship.
Making things with your hands, being artistic, nurturing etc are not inferior- a lot of people do it through choice - they are in their ideal job.
There is no way that I would go into politics and I would be very upset if DH were to want to do anything so detrimental to family life.

If you want to get to the top you have to make it plain with any man you meet before you get involved. I think too many marry where the assumption is that the man's career comes first. You either need to make sure that the man isn't ambitious and is the one happy to tootle around on flexy time, being off if the DCs are ill, doing trips to the dentist, taking time off for Sport's Day, running up a costume for Egyptian day, cook the meal, mow the lawn etc OR you have to agree that you will both earn enough to have full time childcare, a cleaner, a gardener etc and that you may miss significant events in your DCs life.
I can see that it must be annoying ( not really a strong enough word) if you have arranged life so that you live to work, to be passed over for a man. However I think it sad that we are made to think that being Head of BP or a top class lawyer etc is the pinnacle we should all be aiming for and that it is superior. I would view it as a prison sentence. Lots of men don't want it either. You often get older men being fathers for the second time and they so much regret the fact that they were too busy the first time around building up their career - and wonder in retrospect what it was all for.
I agree that we don't have enough women at the top- where I disagree is that we shouldn't be made to feel that we ought to want to be there. If I was a nurse it would be because I wanted to work with patients - I wouldn't want to be a manager- if I wanted to do something at managerial level then I wouldn't have chosen nursing.
I was a teacher- my only ambition was to be a better teacher- a Head's job didn't attract me at all- or even a Deputy.
I have lots of ambitions but they don't have anything to do with paid employment.

in relation to politics i think there are several issues:

selection is normally done by local parties - as a society we still appear to think that men are more capable (i think if we had a female prime minister and chancellor there would be unprecedented hand-wringing over whether men were being sidelined, which doesn't happen when both posts are filled by men). i believe most people still think there should be better representation of women, but not at the risk of under-representation of men. i had a woman in our local party tell me she had voted for the other candidate in a by-election selection because he was a man despite the fact she knew me better...

i think it's accepted as a norm that women are not as good at selling themselves as men. IMO women would be seen as pushy and arrogant for behaviour in men that would be seen as authoritative and confident. in party politics that means competent men often end up ahead of exceptional women.

there are still very few examples to aspire to, and if you get elected you are fighting against the norm which is kind of tiring...

childcare and time off for having children is actually less relevant IMO when it comes to politics because you don't necessarily need to build your career in the same way you normally would in industry, and it's not a 9-5 job so it's easier to juggle childcare (especially if you have a supportive partner who does work 9-5). the issue is perhaps that other people assume it will be a problem - when i was campaigning several people asked me how i was going to manage for childcare, i'm pretty sure they didn't ask my male opponent with school age children what he was going to do (even though i know both of us had primary care-giver responsibility).

Not all women want or can have children.

I'd like to see a breakdown of the women who do make it to the top and see how many are mothers.

I think the ML rules are crap. It should be parental leave and fathers should be forced to take at least part of it.

The childcare cost is a red herring. Nursing is still predominantly a female job, but the nurses at managerial level are mainly male.

I'm only a statistic of one, but the glass ceiling dropped on my head with a great thud as soon as I had a child. Previously I got every post I wanted, then I interviewed but didn't get several jobs after having dd. all the jobs I went for went to men or one woman who hated children and refused to have any (we were teachers btw).

This was even though I worked til 35 weeks pregnant, and would have continued if it wasn't the summer, and went on a training day unpaid when dd was 7 weeks, and and returned within 4 months.

But then there were enough women at our school who were deeply unhappy and we were putting together a folder of evidence for a sex discrimation case.

This is in teaching, an apparently family friendly and easy for women to work environment.

I can only imagine how much worse it must be in other places

I can't even see why we are supposed to want it. Only a few want that sort of life- they need to organise it with their DP as to which goes for it. You can only have 2 parents in high power jobs if you pay for child care, housekeeping etc. and don't see much of your children. I would be jealous of the nanny who had the best job!

It comes at a huge cost - not one that I am willing to take. I would feel suicidal if I had to be on some hamster wheel if a career ladder with no time to read, go on long walks, see my DCs school play, be a Beaver leader, have my elderly mother to stay, cook proper meals, make chutney , have time to stand and stare etc etc etc. why on earth would I be working if I missed it all and had to get others to do it? I would much rather have enough money to pay the bills and have time.
I can't see why we have an obsession with jobs, power and status. I don't want status or power - they hold no appeal.

I can't think why anyone wants a position of power- I prefer a life. A lot of men are coming around to the fact that there is more to life than work. You work to live and not live to work. A position of power means that you miss the things that really matter - you are too busy.
I am glad that someone wants to do it but no way am I going to miss the early years of my DCs lives to get there- it is something money can't buy.
Even when I started teaching I knew that I would have no desire to be a Head. I went I to it because I wanted to be in the classroom- I didn't want to progress- it is a different job. I imagine that lots of women feel the same.
I would far rather go and live by the coast, do B&B , keep hens and grow vegetables than be a Head of Industry.

I always assume people are treating me equally too. It's very rare that someone disillusions me but when they do it makes me angry. It also makes me realise that other women are probably treated like that all the time and it's only luck that surrounds me with the nice people I know and love.