Erasure of Women from Public/Cultural life:

I've worked for few different organisations in the same industry. I think it varies dramatically.

At my last place of work, senior (and middle) managers were quite frankly brutish. It played to male strenghts. Women would take on the traditionally masculine traits to advance. I hated it so I moved.

My current employer is different. There aren't any more women at senior levels, but the atmosphere is less "masculine".

Why would two companies in the same industry be equally successful, but very different in the personal traits they value? And why, even in the more "feminine" organisation, would there be very few senior women? Where did they all go? Why did they all "drop out"?

Women can enjoy being in charge, I agree. But not as much as men and not to the extent that their family life suffers to the degree that men take for granted.

Happy to be accused of stereotyping. Disclaimer: not every woman fits my description, nor every man. But this is generally true. Read the millions of threads on mn ...

The solution is for men to step up to the domestic plate. Not for society to change to positively discriminate in favour of women in the workplace.

I don't know about that, happysmiley. Women can do very well up to middle management, through mastery of their work and hard work. The buzz as you say.

But to get to senior management, this is where the male qualities I describe come into it. I have worked in firms that are at the top of their game globally.

The women who make it to that level are remarkably the same as the men in their demeanour. Those who had more 'feminine' style did not really stick around.

This is just what I observe. Not imputing any value judgment on it.

Rewards are not as great because many women don't get the same buzz as men do from dominating a situation etc. More sacrifices because women tend to feel more responsible for the domestic sphere which will suffer if they put in the hours on the workfront.

I am speaking generally, of course.

I agree, these qualities didn't come naturally to me. I had to learn them as an adult (and am still learning them) whereas men are usually taught them as children. But you can learn them, and they are of huge benefit personally, not just professionally (esp the self confidence).

happysmiley, are women less committed? I think they don't see the point of going for one promotion after another a lot of the times.

It is undeniably harder for women - I think pre-children, women work every bit as hard as men. But qualities such as (unjustified) self-confidence, self-promotion, the need to dominate meetings or win the argument or be seen as the authority on a subject come more naturally to men. Unless women have the same drive, it is not surprising that once children arrive that they don't feel the rewards justify the sacrifices to push forward with the same intensity.

At this point, men start to overtake, particularly since this coincides with the early thirties, when most people's careers start to consolidate and reach the hurdle between middle and senior management.

So women stagnate or drop out, and men continue upwards. Generally.

Or you need their father to step up to the plate.

They did a survey recently and found that in their early 20's men and women were about equal in the media...then there was a drop of 80% in the number of women. They just left those jobs.

Basically if you want to have kids you need to be earning megabucks and be able to afford a nanny. Women lower down the pay scale haven't a chance to carry on due to the unsocial hours of those jobs.

Even DD, who was 5 at the time, said to me once "why are there hardly any women on the TV mummy? That's not like real life, is it?"

As women have out performed boys academically for years and are now over 50% of graduates, when will there be a change?

A lot of men in senior positions are fairly mediocre. A mediocre woman would never get that high in a company as far as I can see. Why can't there be mediocre senior women as well as all the useless senior men???? That would be true equality.

blueshoes, I agree with you in that I'm not a big fan of positive discimination. But I do wonder why it's women that drop out of their careers when they have kids, not men. Why would women try as hard in their careers up to when they have children and then just stop?

Is it because they weren't really committed to them anyway?

If women are promoted to positions of leadership and power through positive discrimination and not by merit, it would soon become apparent if they are not up to the job. Far from promoting acceptance, their presence will highlight the unfairness and ineffectiveness of positive discrimination.

So what if people moan about people only being there because they are women/black/immigrant? The fact of having those minorities in positions of (more) power would already be making a difference, both in terms of any policies or actions those individuals do, and in terms of the fact of them being role models once the initial hoo-hah dies down.

If you have entrenched inequalities, then positive discrimination is an important and powerful way of levelling the playing fields - it's a fair way of proceeding precisely because the existing situation is not fair. The people in the minority situation are having to climb uphill as it is; giving them a leg up is perfectly reasonable in that context.

In any case Bidisha's article isn't about positive discrimination, it's about how even when there are numbers of women out there the 'default' choice for a panel or a media slot is a chap. That's the easy choice and doesn't stick out, whereas having the numbers of women on things that reflects actual reality looks like it's out of whack - because we're not used to it. QI once had two women panellists on, meaning that there were two women out of the 5 on screen. They got complaints because there were too many women on!

Agree with minipie.

If in a profession, you start out with 50% men and 50% women, over time, even if you assume all the men and women have equal talent and are not discriminated against, more women will drop out of going for the top of their profession than men, because of family/childrearing alone.

So, except in extremely female dominated areas, I would in general expect more men than women in the cream of any profession. That is not discrimination. That is life - women often don't try as hard as men in their career, for reasons I can understand.

I am uncomfortable with the concept of positive discrimination for women.

Making all equal in law is the only way to have a truly equal society, it simply wouldn't work any other way, you would get someone moaning about they are only there/getting that because they are women/black/immigrant etc.

if the law said everyone was equal tomorrow I would expect it to take at least 50 years to make a change.

So basically we wait for men to say 'ok we are tired of benefitting from having the biggest slice of power, prestige and money, let's abandon that priviledge so that more women can have a go'

you'll be waiting a while then.

Because that has happened over centuries, it is ingrained in the fabric of this and many other countries that men be in the positions of power, to change it over night (which the article seems to suggest) will do nothing but belittle the women involved in the eyes of men and many women too.

Change takes a very long time, no help should be given, only freedom to do something so it happens naturally over time.

ryoko, do you see it as positive discrimination in favour of men when most senior positions are occupied by men?

if not, why not?

I'm saying if 50% did go to women, it would be seen as positive discrimination if it is due to it or not which is not good for the women in th e jobs or in general looking as there will be the perception that they are there due to sex.

same as in politics, all women candidate lists is not a good idea it simply makes women MPs be seen as window dressing for the party.

Ryoko, are you saying that you think that the absense of senior women in any field (not just the arts) is due to their lack of ability, and if 50% of senior posts ever go to women at some future time, it can't ever be because of their ability, but must be due to positive discrimination.

Sorry, if I've misunderstood you.

I'm half way wadding into it (it's very long).

I have a few points so far, we all ready know women get paid less then men and there position in companies tend to be lower, has she not thought about this fact? perhaps the PR companies and the like have sent there "higher up" staff to the events.

Secondly at least there are women there, she is moaning about them being vastly out numbered, who cares?, they are there, they are a presence, if they outnumbered the men or where of equal number there would be a view of them being there due to there sex instead of there skill or knowledge, we do not live in an equal society, black people for example are over represented in the media as they are only 10% of the population of this country yet every advert etc feels the need to show them and people like the police want to take more of them on as staff leading to a general feeling that they are there due to colour only.

Now I don't know about anybody else but I would prefer to be the only women in a work place or on a panel or what ever who got there because I was good at what I do and determined, not because I am a women to equal out there gender balance check sheet.

I think the point is that there are plenty of women in the arts/professions.

Where there have been significant numbers of women in a profession for say, twenty or thirty years, then the reason we are not seeing them at the top is discrimination of one kind or another.

You're right though, its not just the arts.