To think that on International Women's Day the last thing I need is "inspiration" from someone with wraparound childcare and a lucky career?

[toomuchtooold]

I'm not going to point to specific examples (as I don't want to get outed and fired) but I'm sure there are many of you out there today logging on to your computers, seeing the corporate intranet landing page load up and on it there is an interview with some high up in your company talking about how she got to be so successful. I'm going to guess that the article somewhere mentions

• "you can do whatever you want if you set your mind to it"
• "mentors are so important/so and so was such an inspiration to me"
• "being an example to my son/daughter"

What they never seem to mention is

• being in maybe the top 1% of earners and therefore having the means to pay for wraparound childcare
• never having been made redundant, despite often working for companies that go through restructuring on a regular basis

AIBU to think that these success stories of the highly privileged are just big business doing a bit of victim blaming, implying that we could all be captains of industry with lovely lives if ony we had a bit of aspiration and hard work, when in actual fact these interviews depict the lives of a privileged few, and most companies' business models would be bust if we all expected to be earning at that level?

Goldenbear it's not the norm for women to be in these positions in 2015 because of institutional bias, cultural stereotypes, historical and ongoing inequality, social conditioning, religious programming . . .and the list goes on and on. Take your pick of the many reasons why women are under-represented.

It's highly likely that profiles are going to continue in corporate environments. imo women should absolutely be featured in them but the 'quality' of their story/business contribution/career progression shouldn't be judged by different standards than the multitude of male profiles in business publications.

I am very aware of the opportunities available to me and I am held up as a mascot at the lower levels. When I got my promotion last year I received a special mention and had to make a short speech. The first person I thanked were the people who looked after my kids. I made a point to say that I work as much as I can because with two kids under 3 you just don't know what's going to happen that day let alone the next day.

The difference is that my employer is here in the US. There are lots of women at the top and many more en route. The UK has a terrible record of supporting women and families. The town we live in has 16+ daycares to support a population of 70k people. It is very common for women to work full time with one or more children. Our daycare is set up fee wise so you only pay for your two most expensive children. Quite fair if you ask me. If I had a third now our cost would only go up by $375 a month.

toomuch nowhere have I tried to turn anything into a positive - I don't support or not your employers approach. I don't think I actually commented on it.

What I have done is highlight that dismissing the minority of women that do "get to the top" as having got there entirely on luck does nothing to foster an environment where women are likely to put themselves into situations and take risks so that we do achieve equality.

I never said they got there entirely on luck! Read my OP. I said "a lucky career". I'm sure they're all talented and hardworking, but there are lots of talented and hardworking people, and yes I do believe that luck plays a part in determining who ends up right on top and who ends up with just a decent career. Other than luck I think it is very hard to tell what distinguishes people in the top 20% from the top 1%, and because of survivor bias I think that the people in the top 1% have no more clue what makes them special than do the rest of us.

And as for me hindering women from taking risks for fear of criticism - can't you tell the difference between criticising the practice (of featuring these women as an example to us all) and criticising the women themselves? What did I say about them? They are lucky and can afford wraparound childcare. Neither of these things is a criticism. You seem to be suggesting that when a woman criticises something to do with another woman it's got to be personal, got to be bitchy. It's not.

Those who get into positions of power op have in studies been found to have a high proportion of personality disorders such as narcissistic and anti social. Your knocking ther ego by pointing out the truth that luck is involved and that's why your getting a hard time from certain posters.

Pastperfect you are just determined to make a positive out of the negative aren't you?
Well fancy trying to be positive, you should be ashamed of yourself Pastperfect

toomuch So is your employer giving you opportunities for advancement, or is this frustration because you have hit a glass ceiling and that's it, you see no chance for progression in the future and its rubbing salt into the wounds? Just wondering how you are so certain you can't ever hope to make significant progress with your skills and qualifications? I'm probably in quite a similar situation to you and I possibly could go 'out-and-out' to move up the greasy pole, but seeing the pressure some of these top roles I don't think I could hack it!

Oh great so now women who succeed have wraparound childcare, have never been made redundant and have personality disorders.

If men were stating these 'reasons' for why women succeed, they would be lambasted and rightly so.

Joan you do realise that the studies on personality disorders in leaders include a higher percentage of male than female respondents? And, that studies that differentiate between the sexes in leadership roles have found that women manage in a very different style and have a different personality profile? The Harvard Business Review has some interesting articles on it.

Thank you for the information Aplacein. I didn't say all had a pd, you did.

So many posts missing the point. It's a pain in the arse to only hear about the 1% regardless of how they got there, when the majority of workplaces are far from woman-friendly.

Joan you said a high percentage did. Those statistics relate mainly to men. Unless you're now going to imply that in a thread about successful women you suddenly decided to share a fact about men in leadership roles.

For me, it's really this simple. When we assume about other women whether they be in leadership positions; on an International Women's Day website or posting on this thread, it's all too easy to fall into the stereotypes that men have used to keep us in 'our place' for centuries. I don't think it benefits anyone (except those invested in maintaining the status quo).

Please link the studies that are only about Men in positions of power and their personality type, those on any sex and those on females only.

Joan I've already told you where you can find them. There are articles and links to the original research on the Harvard Business Review website.

Duplo no not missing the point! Speaking for myself, I feel it's a shame that the OP feel so negative when she may be n a reasonable position to influence her organisation. She is hardly at the bottom rung. I've been on the graduate scheme and they give you significant privileges such as greater access to management to increase visibility and profile, increased training and development, plus mentoring. So hardly in a position of career deprivation. That's why I'm surprised the OP expresses pissed-offness about the top women as if she sees not future in a senior role even if not a 1% role.

Joan, my career is not down to "luck", I can assure you, each of the circumstances where I made my luck were a gamble, a calculated risk. I guess luck comes into the fact I am blessed with good health, no question that has helped significantly. I don't see a load of inflated egos, just people on here prepared to invest time sharing ideas. No need to be divisive.

You are missing the point, I think, which I read as being that not everyone wants to be in 1% but rather an ordinary life, with reasonable money for expectations that aren't prohibitive of work life balance. The top 1%, by definition, don't live lives relatable to most of us who want something rather more mundane. A colleague has just been absolutely sidelined for asking for carer's leave to tend to her dying mother for a few weeks, she has been told she will need to renegotiate terms if she takes this leave (not UK). It's so incredibly shortsighted, she had had much to offer. Women disproportionately bear the brunt of capitalist inhumanity.

Totally agree OP. And the reality is that stats show it is very difficult to move out of the background in terms of wealth, that you were born to.
I have met people who talk about families helping them with connections and thus to get on, but then say, well anyone can do it. No if you are born into a very poor family, it takes an enormous amount of effort to not be very poor as an adult.
And many people work very hard, but still earn low wages.

Joan here's a quote from one of the Harvard studies:

Here we have it, a grand exercise in comparing women and men, mainly as leaders, in the context of groups, organizations, and nations. There is considerable evidence that female leaders have a somewhat more participative, androgynous, and transformational leadership style than their male counterparts. There are also multiple indications that women, compared with men, enact their leader roles with a view to producing outcomes that can be described as more compassionate, benevolent, universalistic, and ethical, thus promoting the public good.

There is also a study (I'm not sure how extensive) that showed women in leadership roles were more likely to support flexible working and less likely to make people redundant. It's not as simple as gender impacting on behaviour - societal expectations probably have an impact on it too.

Although my time on here might imply the contrary, I actually don't have time to find the original studies

I think what oP is saying is that she DOES want to hear from women like pastperfect, or the mother who originally dropped out, and others like them. She doesnt want to hear from those who began like at Independent schools wgich flowed into oxford, which flowed into a surprisingly good first job, plus marriage to a man with much the same background.

They may have worked hard where they were, but if they had to physically haul their children 5 miles moring and night on a regular basis to get to work, and how they managed to escape the pountless dribbling ends of meetings to be the last mum at the nursery, without being though too uncommitted for promotion, OP would be actually inspired to read those gory details.

Because many, even most of us, have had to do that, but have also come up against the brick wall of being considered not promotable because of it; or have decided as a practical matter to stop making the situation worse by actively wanting/seeking promotion to a level even less forgiving.

Yet, she's dismissed Oprah Winfrey - a woman born to a teenage parent, in a trailer park, who herself was pregnant by 14 (sadly she lost that baby, perhaps her life would not have been as it is if she had been able to raise the baby). She was in extreme poverty, yet she knew that she was not going to be like that. She wrote a letter to her teacher asking to skip kindergarten (she was gifted). She had drive.

I'm inspired by lots of women I meet. One of the people who inspires me the most was a single parent of 3, did a degree by night school, became a TA then trained as a teacher. She's amazing.

It's inevitable in a capitalist society that wages will be determined by supply and demand. The higher up the ladder you go, the more competition for roles there will be and they will be fewer in number.

daisychain why are you so desperate to make this about me? You find it so hard to believe that someone could be (fairly) successful within the system but still think it is a crock of shit? For the last time - I do not particularly grudge any top 1% earner their success. I question the relevance their advice has, given survivor bias and the fact that most of us will never be on the board or want to, and I suspect that the reason these profiles of senior women are so popular in big companies with less than perfect representation of women in good positions is that they give the impression that "if you can do anything you set your mind to" then the only reason women and other oppressed classes are not fully represented is because they didn't want it enough.

Mom again- I hear you but you know I went to a top independent school and got good grades because I worked very hard. I'm married to someone who earns 10x what I earn, who didn't have a stellar education and we live very modestly. I think I have a lot to add to the conversation of how to have a career and children. Just because I come from a position of privilege doesn't mean I don't know how hard it can be to be looking up. Heck I look up and know full well I can't make it to where I want to be because of my DH not supporting me.

Oh and I'm often up at 5 am to get my kids to daycare for 740-8am. I then bolt it to work and return home at about 8pm. I do the lunches, the laundry, the cleaning, fix the booboos and make sure everyone has necessary clothing that fits them. It's exhausting but I do 90% of this on my own plus hold down a 75% job. The fact I come from a position of privilege doesn't help me at all. In fact it probably caused more harm than good as people make assumptions that I don't need their help when in actual fact I do.

Momagain originally I thought that was what the OP was saying too and made suggestions on that basis but then OP posted:

It's not going to make any difference if they disclose that they went to a crap school, had to overcome this and that hurdle, etc etc, to get to where they are - by definition, where they are is not that interesting to me as an average person wanting a normal life.

So it's not about whether they were privileged to get there. The fact that they have been successful automatically renders them uninteresting to the OP because that's not what she wants in her life.

Op sorry to post about you rather than to you!

I apologise if it came across that I want to make it about you (I'm not desperate btw) but if you start a thread making it seem as if you are personally impacted maybe frustrated by these dull interviews that you can't identify with (and I have acknowledged they are corporate spin) I was discussing in those terms. But I shan't say any more on that. I'm not being troll-y I promise!

It will be interesting to see how much they 'milk it for all its worth' at work on Monday. I'll look out for the inspirational videos and yawn quietly as I munch on my sandwiches. All the best!

Of course economic/career sucess is the only thing we should all aspire to. /

I come across things like this all the time in my job - I meet senior men and wonder how they got there and senior women whom I love to meet and hear their stories but I have two examples of women I have met while doing PR recruitment and I am currently in touch with.

Young woman A, met her in 2001, went to school in Wembley got excellent grades and went on to college where she fell pregnant. Took a year out of studying and as a single mum and living with her mum, worked in pubs and McDonalds to work her way through University (An ex Poly) Where she got a 2:1. She had everything worked out, where she wanted to work, how long she was going to be at entry level, what she needed to do to get promoted to the next level, what kind of accounts she wanted to work with to gain the experience she needed to get to where she wanted to be. She was inspirational, driven and I admired her a lot - I found her a job in a small agency and she has done well, but hasn't achieved everything so I'm trying to get her into another job so she can progress further, she works so hard, studies after work, networks etc, she is totally switched on.

Young woman B - met her in 2001, went to a private school then on to St Andrews (at the same time Prince William was there) Got good grades but no work experience. She wasn't as focused as Woman A, wasn't sure what she wanted to do but wanted fashion or beauty agencies - again good grades and a 2:1. I sent her CV out along with woman A but everyone wanted to meet woman B who eventually got a job in one of the worlds top PR agencies.

Now, Woman A is still striving and working her way to where she wants to be, she has married a young man who is a nurse and has had another child. Woman B is a director for the same agency she started at, she has brought in a lot of new business as she has strong business connections, is married to the CEO of the agency but no children yet.

Personally, woman A is the story I want to hear, she has worked so hard to achieve what she has, she hasn't got the connections of B but has put herself out there and networked and done everything by herself. B is very good at her job but A is the one I would like to see as a Director of a big agency and I really hope A makes it but it's a harder slog for her, with a much more interesting and inspirational story to tell.

I challenge the usefulness of anyone's advice to me at all.

I can count on one hand the amount of advice that's even touched on what I want from my life, or how I want to earn my money.

I've pretty much been my own advisor and have stood on my own two feet for my entire life with multiple career changes and businesses.

No amount of reading isprirational books or interviews have made the slightest difference to me except :

the beastie boys "you've gotta fight for your rights to party" and

General Custers sleep schedule- "eight hours every night, except when he was on a campaign, when he got nine."

And Ford's, "whether you think you can or whether you think you can't, you're probably right"

All the rest suits the person who wrote it, at that time, and no one else IMVHO.

Getting enough sleep, thinking "I can", and fighting for my rights, has served me well.

But, there's no magic bullet, just your own bloody minded grit.