I think DH is upholding the glass ceiling (not DIY). WIBU?

[Pa1oma]

DH has a company which employs maybe a thousand people, of which probably about 40% are women. It’s not a traditionally male industry like construction, however, in 15 years, there has never been a female director. Whenever I’ve asked him why this is, he says he would like this to change but no women seem to apply.

Then last night I heard him in the phone to someone discussing restructuring the board of directors and his words were, “She’d be worth consideration, but she’ll probably have a baby or something soon” . When he got off the phone, I told him what I’d heard and asked him if he knew for a fact that this woman was pregnant. He said, “Well I wouldn’t know but she’s in her late 30s and I think she’s been discussing it”.

His argument is he’s not going to risk over £100k on someone if he’s not sure they’re going to see “the next phase” through. My argument is, he is not in a position to presume anything about anyone. WIBU?

These "cliches" are statiscal facts. Sorry if that offends you.
Just to calirfy are you saying that women are duped into caring roles and thats the reason they become nurses?

CyclicalAnger - I would agree that men tend to be physically stronger.

I would also agree that more of them end up in nurturing roles, whether that is because of socialisation, because they have higher emotional intelligence on average, or a little bit of both.

But how on earth does that having anything to do with refusing to seriously consider an individual, highly qualified woman for a role as a company director, simply because she's not a man?

I’m not offended in the least,there’s nothing in my post to suggest offence. I am disputing your post. There’s a difference
And it is passive aggressive to dismiss a response as I’m offended. It’s up there with oh look at the little lady,isn’t she touchy.so emotional^
I am discussing the huge evidence basis of research on gender inequalities
The notion of male,female jobs. Reinforced and consciously and unconsciously assimilated into education,culture and society.

No one is duped into being a nurse, but it has historically had gender connotations. Interestingly,more men train as mental health nurses,than adult nurses. Mental health is seen as edgier.

None of your examples have any bearing on a capable female candidate being purposefully overlooked for a job she could do,because of male bias and privilege

I was just making the point, that there are certain roles that are more suited to men than women and vice versa and that should be taken into consideration as well. Best person for the job argument.

Moreover, the maternity pay laws encourages discrimination against women as it imposes an extra cost to hiring them, to the business. In the sense that the business has to pay the woman on maternity leave and her replacement while holding the position upon her return (which may not be practical in a rapidly changing business environments).
It is my opinion, that if a woman decides to have a child then it is only fair that she bears the cost of that decision and not the business. That way businesses are not liable for potentially paying multiple maternity payments and are therefore more encouraged to hire more women.
Your husband is looking at the decision purely from a financial perspective and calling him names goes to show the immaturity of some women who don’t get everything they want i.e Job on hold, maternity pay and children. We all have to make choices, Men and Women.
I don’t know how to post links.

Your husband is looking at the decision purely from a financial perspective

Yes. agreed. He is being very shortsighted and making his decisions based on only one (probably dubious) criterion. Meanwhile he is ignoring a vast swathe of talent that could bring immense value to his firm.

Moreover, the maternity pay laws encourages discrimination against women as it imposes an extra cost to hiring them, to the business. In the sense that the business has to pay the woman on maternity leave and her replacement while holding the position upon her return (which may not be practical in a rapidly changing business environments).

Are you actually up to date on maternity pay, paternity pay, shared parental leave and how firms can get the costs of maternity pay refunded by the government? Because it does sound as if you are lacking in information relevant to your very old fashioned and limited argument.

Next time he snaps or is grumpy suggest caringly that he get his testosterone level checked.
Seriously, time of the fucking month??! I’d go on holiday solo my next period if my dh said that!he could take two days off work to care for our family.

Fortunately we have laws and pg as a protected categories because of discrimination. A legal acknowledgement that pg is a protected category because it’s the most likely time an employed woman will be sacked

It is my opinion, that if a woman decides to have a child then it is only fair that she bears the cost of that decision and not the business does this apply to men?should fathers progression be impeded too.

actually what does if a woman decides to have a child then it is only fair that she bears the cost of that decision can you give me an example of what you think bears the cost means?
Is it lack of progression, demoted,sacked - because that All happens

Are you a parent cyclical?if you have a partner whats your set up?
Both FT, you FT, partner PT, you PT,partner FT, is there a sahp?

Yankee I didn’t actually say op partner is irredeemable caveman, I did say he was caveman
perhaps with training,a mentor, meeting peers who do employ wome he can change.
Humans have propensity for change,for development if they chose to do so
He’s loaded he could get a coach, 1:1 exploration of his ingrained sexism

it’s a valid question and I’m asking him to look into this and give it serious consideration. He says he will, but it’s “complicated”.

Of course it's complicated. If there was one single, easy solution, it wouldn't be a problem any more, companies would have just done it.

He is right that there aren't as many women capable of applying for executive positions - but a large part of that is because the entire pipeline is the problem. Yes, it makes sense to put someone with a proven track record forward, but from the very start, men are more likely to empoyed and promoted for their potential and women for their achievements. Men are more likely to be given high-profile projects, which gives increases their profiles and builds that track record, so they're increasingly likely to be given the high-profile projects and so on, and others just don't get those opportunities.

What processes has this company in place to make sure men and women are judged equally for recruitment and promotion so that unconscious bias doesn't discount very capable candidates? What processes have they in place to make sure that there is a pipeline of female talent working at all levels on the ladder, being given opportunities to develop their capabilities, do there will be women with the requisite skills and experience to go for the exec roles? Do they have a women's network, to make sure women are supported?

It's not an easy problem, but he's lucky - there are about a zillion articles and consultants and courses and other resources which have looked at the barriers to women reaching exec positions, and how to reduce those barriers and increase the numbers. They'll probably be able to get rid of some of the mediocre, inadequate male managers in the long term, too, because God knows, there are enough shit men around in businesses - but women have to be so much better than men to be judged as equivalent.

Even if he's moving on, these questions are relevant to those who take on the role after him, and to all his other businesses.

A quick Google will probably give him a lot of information about companies with no or only a few women on their boards. There's no shortage of info on this sort of thing out there.

Not all SMP paid can be claimed back and this can be significant at a director's salary. This also can only be claimed back after a significant period of time which can cause cash flow issues to the business. It stands to reason that less time in the workforce means less experience and therefore lack of progression opportunities. Also the point of inconvenience to the employer to recruit a replacement for a short period of time should be considered.
Just an open question, why should an individual who chooses to have no children pay for the privilege for others to have children at their expense? Do you think that is reasonable?

This applies to both parents to take parental leave.

Just an open question, why should an individual who chooses to have no children pay for the privilege for others to have children at their expense?

What does that mean, how is a childless employee financially disadvantaged that others are parents?

We have direct taxation that draws from employee salaries for services the individual may never use eg schools,surestart, campaigns for prostate ca, testicular cancer screening, dementia research . That’s how it goes. Govt decide what the monies will be spent on without it being directly beneficial to that individual

So I directly fund initiative that are of no direct benefit to me
And I have no issue with that
I don’t have a im alright jack,doesn’t affect me mentality

Thankyou for all this. YankeeDad, I think you hit the nail on the head when you talk about work / life balance because this is an area where DH struggles tbh and he surrounds himself by other similar workaholics - many of whom have lost their marriages or taken to alcohol to deal with their issues. DH wants to retire in the next few years, but I doubt he could cope.

As to the “time of the month” comment, it’s by no means the first time he’s come out with that, but I take no notice.

Cyclical - I would never argue that men aren’t more suited to certain roles than women and vice versa. I’m not “screaming” about anything, nor do I “want it all”. I’m a woman, I own my life choices, I know what motivates me. I don’t see “feminine” as “weakness” or “lesser”. I don’t compete or compare myself with men because I’m not interested and I live my life on my own terms. However, there is nothing about most office-based roles that makes them more suited to men, if you look at things from a purely objective standpoint. This is why being overlooked on as spurious a reason that you might get pregnant is so irritating to me - and I am someone who has never even worked in that kind of environment. Would DH ask a man whether and when his wife was likely to get pregnant and then make assumptions based on this. No he would not.

EBear - thanks, that’s very helpful. I will ask him about his company”s policies on this. area.

It goes back to the point that the cost of the decision to have children should be borne by the parent, whether that is financial or career development.

You may get dementia or cancer, but that is not a conscience choice.
Having children is a conscience choice.

If you decide to have children, then it is not reasonable to expect that your job should be put on hold until you get back.

It is not fair to those who are willing to put in the full hours and commitment to the company and forgo the opportunity to have children.

I suggest to the OP to get an understanding on why he is reluctant to hire this woman. What is his fear? How her potentially going on maternity leave will affect the company? He may have non- sexist reasons. Or he may have legitimate business concerns.
Recruiting at director level is a very costly business, recruiting on contract a director is even more costly.

If you decide to have children, then it is not reasonable to expect that your job should be put on hold until you get back.

It may not be reasonable in your opinion - however it is the law. If you don't like the laws then i suggest you lobby your MP to get them changed.

Yes that is my point, it is the law. As stated before the effect of which encourages discrimination against women, as they are more likely to go on parental leave.

This is why OP's DH is in 2 minds and it is difficult for a woman to prove beyond doubt that she did not get the job as she could potentially go on maternity leave.

It puts women in a negative position and the law should be revised.
The spirit of the law and the real world effects are two entirely different things.

Just my opinion.

I don't agree with you. Since laws enforcing equality and equal treatment for women have been put into place, discrimination against women has DECREASED significantly. Which renders your point null and void

There are women everywhere now. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, in boardrooms .... In medicine I believe that women entrants into medical schools now outnumber men (I must check the data there).

Your argument as well as being clearly negatived by the facts also makes no economic sense. Why would you choose to discriminate against 50% of the population? You're missing out on 50% of the talent pool.

I think you totally missed my point. And you're right women take up the majority of jobs in the health sector and completely under represented (at 50%) in many industries.

As a working mum in a senior management role, I'm not at all surprised that the OP's DH has this attitude. In my experience, sexism and misogyny at work are commonplace, and many men who believe that they are forward-thinking hold some pretty unpleasant views just below the surface.

I'd be gutted to find that I was married to a man like that, though especially as the parent of daughters. It's bad enough having to work with them. I am glad that you're trying to challenge him, OP, and hope that you will keep trying. It's depressing that he has dismissed your efforts as being a sign that you're hormonal, though. I think I'd really struggle to be with someone who had such little respect for me. Please don't allow him to wear you down.

There is no such thing as conscience choice.thats two unrelated word jammed together

I referred you to the legislation and that pregnancy is a protected category. Out of dogma and ideology You chose to dismiss the need for such legislation

Thesearepearls Yes in medicine there are more female undergraduate students than male . BMA research

Law degree majority undergraduate are female. Law society

Most computer based and mathematical based university courses are overwelhming subscribed by men, and therefore it stands to reason that the jobs they require those skills would be filled mostly by men.

Most of the early computer programmers were women. It was seen as an admin job, and therefore left to women... until programming began to increase in status. Then it became dominated by men.

hackernoon.com/a-brief-history-of-women-in-computing-e7253ac24306

All the computer marketing in the 80 and 90s was towards men, computer studies courses are targeted at men, and at that point, any woman who attempts to enter the field is going to be entering a relatively hostile environment.

There's a very interesting article on a university that decided to make small changes so that it's computer courses were targeting women as well as men:

qz.com/730290/harvey-mudd-college-took-on-gender-bias-and-now-more-than-half-its-computer-science-majors-are-women/

It's not enough to say 'women don't want to do x or y or z', e.g. 'women don't want to work in IT, that's why there are so few of them', or 'women don't want to be company directors otherwise there'd be more senior women'. We need to look at why the fields are so biased in the first place. Maybe there are barriers to entry, like the OP's husband.

Anyone looking at his company would probably say 'maybe there aren't enough women in the pipeline to be directors', or 'I guess those women in the pipeline aren't good enough otherwise they would have been promoted'. When, actually, there are barriers to those women being promoted that men just don't face.

CyclicalAnger - I agree, it's objectively true that when a company has a woman who goes out on maternity leave, there is a cost to that company, at least in terms of planning for her maternity cover as well as transferring knowledge from and back to her. That cost is highly visible and obvious, which is one reason why some hiring managers find ways to avoid hiring women who could potentially have children.

However, there are at least two sets of arguments why companies should bear that cost.

1. Legal and moral requirements, and responsibilities to society Every company benefits from the social infrastructure in which it operates (rule of law, educated workforce, property rights, etc.) Companies also have to support that infrastructure, for instance by paying their taxes, following consumer protection regulations, and treating current and potential employees fairly. Women having babies are, in the long run, essential to the future existence of society and of all companies, and treating them fairly when they do that is part of companies' contract with society to be allowed to operate.

2. Direct benefits to the company When a company gives full and fair opportunity to an employee who uses their parental leave, there is an excellent chance that company will get rewarded with increased diligence and loyalty when that employee comes back to work. The number of hours s/he works may have to go down, but the productivity of those hours is likely to go up. Once the woman or man returns to work, if they are able to negotiate flexible hours in a way that suits both the business and the employer, that will only further increase the diligence and loyalty of that employee: if things are going well, they are less likely to want to renegotiate those arrangements somewhere else. Furthermore there is reciprocity: where the employee has given reasonable accommodation, they are more likely to then be willing to do whatever they can for the company, often beyond what can reasonably be expected, when there is a big occasion for the company. Finally - a working parent is very likely to spend less time chatting and distracting colleagues fro their work, and more time just getting on with their work in an efficient manner so that they can go home to their families.

The points I make under #2 are not theoretical - I realise this is not a representative sample, but these are all behaviours that I have seen in my own colleagues.

EBearHug, Lannie Duck

Your points are extremely cogent and well-articulated. I would recommend them to anyone who's interested in these topics.

Perhaps OP's DH ? ...

Just to pick up on the fact that parents should bear all the costs associated with their offspring point. This is really short sighted for a number of reasons.

We loose educated women from the workforce. If we follow that argument, what is the point in educating women at all because you know, they might have babies.

We need people to reproduce if you want someone to pay your pension, provide social care when you are old and pay the taxes to support this. The alternative is large scale immigration, I.e. contracting out childbearing to poor countries.

There are lots of reasons to think that isn't long term sustainable or even short term a good idea. Including the destabalising effect of large scale immigration, and a lack of control of appropriate education. Not to mention that those poorer countries might need their own educated young people themselves. Stealing other countries futures is not a great look.

Birth rates are currently below replacement rates in this country. Have a look at what is happening in Japan if you want an idea how it goes.

Raising children has value to everyone, even childless people and it is in our interests that we do it well, and at a sustainable rate overall.

I agree Yankee and Changing. On paper I have the same level of qualifications as DH. I was fortunate that I wanted to stay home with the DC and we could finance that. but at the same time and regardless of this, my career certainly did “bear the full costs” of our decision to have children because, to be perfectly honest, I would have struggled with 3 DC at roughly 2 year intervals, combined with DH’s work patterns and no other family support.