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?

A liberal society is inclusive and promotes women and BME candidates
The ongoing benefit to business is
Increased participation by bright candidates
Introducing different ideas & synergies From underrepresented groups
That can increase customer base by having innovation and choice
Goodwill and brand representation becomes favourable
Identifiably a good employer, bigger incentive for best & bright to join you
By supporting parents you retain skills and time/effort invested

Pa1oma why didn’t you buy in childcare,why did it all fall to you
You said you returning to work wasnt ever discussed.why not?
Knowing what you know now What career advice will you give your girls

Ah CynicalAnger when I totally refute your argument - you tell me that I have missed your point

I don't very often miss points, You were comprehensively in the wrong

Why can you not admit that you got something wrong? Is it a mansplaining thing?

Lipstick - neither of us wanted to use childcare and we didn’t need to. No criticism of anyone who does, of course, but that was the decision we made.

I would advise my girls to be honest with themselves. There are always compromises to be made it seems, but go with the compromise that suits you best. If you’re a SAHM you miss your career potential, If you’re part-time it can be a juggling act, “having it all” can just mean “doing it all” as far as I can see, and if you’re flat-out full-time career-focused you can miss out on time with the family (that’s DH’s compromise in our case).

Luckily not all men are like that.
A friend of mine is a partner in a firm with about 60 employees. It's a very male dominated field, but he recommended one of the few female employees to be made an associate a few weeks after she announced her pregnancy.
I said a lot of ppl would be surprised at that, but his reply was that her pregnancy should have no bearing on her prospects; she was good at her job and deserved it and promoting her before her maternity leave begins would mean she receives more money when on leave. I was pleasantly surprised by his opinion, but, unfortunately, it isn't all that common.

Imo,there is no such thing as having it all.its made up,something gives
No one has challenging career,complete flexibility,and uninterrupted time for childcare

No-one can have it all

But you can have most of it if you try hard enough :)

For me it’s about being realistic,and being in a partnership with dp GP make it work
We know daily who’ll go if we get the call one of the kids is ill
We accommodate each other
Early on dating we had the big discussion eg nursery,working, schools etc
and Both also agreed what our plans and needs were

She’s not even pregnant and there’s a rumour that she might have mentioned kids and suddenly she’s an also ran. If she’s good enough to set up and run the New York office she’s savvy enough not to mention potential family plans - I’m sure it’s not passed her by that there are no female directors and the male ones with dc live at work.

It’s an excuse to sideline her. Just like asking you if you’re on the blob is an excuse to dismiss anything you say. I’m so very glad I don’t have a man like this in my life that does not see women as equal to men, but as something else, akin to a child being allowed to have a play in the big boys world.

“it’s hard to find the right skills set, experience or commitment levels at middle management level with women”

That old chestnut.

Sorry your H is so sexist.

The 'having it all' rubbish is a total red herring - it's nonsense sold to women as a subtle way of punishing them for daring to want to work. It's along the same lines as men saying 'if you want equality then I'm never going to open another door for a woman again!' - it's foot stampy and toddlerish and it's really odd that women have bought it - it's essentially the idea that yes, women can work, but only if they do everything else as well. Why have women ever accepted that shit??

We live in a world where, as an adult, it is important for your own personal survival to have a set of up to date skills that allows you to earn sufficient money to support yourself and any dependants. In that context, dropping out of that system entirely, letting your skills stagnate and spending your life doing work for other people (your children and partner) for free is a very risky manoeuvre - the world at large is never going to value that work and often the people you're doing that work for don't value it much either. Any person whose partner willingly puts themself in such a precarious position for the benefit of the family should be immensely grateful for the extent of the risk they're taking and ensure that the partner has as much of their own security built into the set up as possible - separate savings, assets etc. The idea that being a SAHM is a privilege or a luxury is truly bizarre - it is not a privilege to become a free servant to other people at great personal expense, even if that is done willingly and out of genuine desire and love.

There is no real reason why it makes sense for two people to have children and then for one person to drop out of the workforce entirely while the other person barely participates in parenting. That set up is one that benefited men who didn't want to be a parent very much but it's not a sensible way of doing things at all - one parent ends up deskilled and possibly bored and demotivated and devalued, the other parent is essentially absent from their children's childhoods - losers all round.

The having it all ridiculousness assumes that the current system is inevitable and that women just have to fit into it (without in any way disturbing the desire for men to carry on their lives as if they have no children). It isn't inevitable, though changing it is a difficult thing as men don't really want to change it and they're the ones with the most control.

I would also point out that employers have to take into account many human needs that can be costly to accommodate but are nonetheless essential, given that you can't treat workers as though they are machines - eg sickness leave, the need for rest between shifts, the need for holidays, bereavement leave, etc etc. Given that the human race needs to continue and it is women that bear children, maternity leave is just another one of those accommodations. It's very telling though that this accommodation is seen as 'extra' and 'burdensome' and something business can't or shouldn't have to do - is that because it only applies to women and therefore doesn't count as a human need? Is it only men's requirements that count because women are just extras and add-ons?

OP - well done for bringing it up with him! So much easier said than done, so you should feel pleased with yourself. If you can keep on at him, even better.

I don’t know how this would play out but perhaps you could even consider showing him this thread...? There are a lot of “what a sexist dickhead comments”, which may anger him, but maybe seeing how universally reviled his attitude is would be the wake-up call he needs!

Excellent comments from Spaghetti.

I know many women aren’t keen to pay someone to look after their children - and why should they be? I hate the idea that women must force themselves into full-time, often unrewarding work to stay competitive in a man’s world, even if they prefer caring for their children. As if traditionally “masculine” values are what’s REALLY important and traditionally “feminine” caring impulses are to be smothered at all costs.

But the ideal we should work towards should never be one partner at home. It should be both parents making compromises to ensure they can look after their children more or less equally while remaining independent. On a macro scale this involves a change in work culture, with flexible hours and part-time work offered to everyone as standard, plus equal paternity and maternity leave and, ideally, free childcare for all.

But there are individual cases where people can already choose this type of set-up IF THEY WANT IT - the OP’s situation is the ideal example, as her DH actually runs his business! If family and his wife’s independence was important to him, he absolutely could have reduced his hours and stepped up to parenting...

I don't know how anyone could deny patriarchy exists when people will genuinely argue that having children (an activity necessary to continue the human race) is a hindrance to businesses making money, but make no comment at all about the many men out there who have children and essentially never parent them in any meaningful way.

Women are wrong and burdensome for taking on the huge and often very difficult task of birthing the next generation.

Men who father those children but rarely see them or do anything for are totally fine, not even worthy of comment in fact, because what they're doing is right and normal and necessary.

I mean logically it's a total WTF.

Thankyou Sloth. Spaghetti I found your post really interesting and I agree entirely.
This thread got me thinking something else last night. Over the years, we’ve had 2 cleaners who have ended up going to work for DH. One was from Latvia, she had a business-related degree and she went into an “office manager” role. At the time I thought good for her. She had one son, her DH was a builder, but her mother had come over with them to London and did childcare, etc. She’s been there a few years now. The one before her was Polish with a degree in a computer-related field and went into some kind of translator / liaison role because there is an office in Poland. This is all great, but when you think about it, I’ve watched the cleaners get jobs while I’m still here! I’m not saying I would change things necessarily, but I do think there’s an irony in there somewhere.

Thanks for all the comments. It’s been very interesting to hear all the varied perspectives.

I presume you could easily work in your husband's business Pa1oma? (not that that's necessarily the best thing to do/something that you want).

My skills aren’t really in business or IT. Plus it’s been a long time. I would not work with him anyway. I’m doing something else at the moment that could lead to a new career. I never decided to give up work forever, it’s just harder to get back the longer you’re out and it can feel selfish if you’re not really doing it for the money. Plus there’s always something going on with one of the kids or DH, there’s always “the next thing” etc and I haven’t wanted to add more stress into the equation. That’s my situation really.

I get it. It's worth remembering though that it's your life too and you're allowed to want things. You're not just there for the convenience of others and it's absolutely fine to expect others to step up and change things to accommodate you.

I would be very careful about falling into the trap of being in a 'team' where ostensibly you and your DH are 'working together' to make things work, but in fact, it's always your DH doing what he wants while you 'compromise' (ie sacrifice).

Spaghettijumper makes a lot of sense. How often does x come up for your dh or he thinks about the next couple of years options and thinks now which ones will support what paloma wants to do next after all these years bringing up our children? And what would be best (out of HIS choices) for the dc?

I think especially in a marriage if you are the only one thinking about your goals then you absolutely have to stand up for them.

With respect to what to advise our daughters - and sons! - I would, like my mother (“avoid being financially dependent on a man”) , highlight the huge personal financial risks of being a SAHM. If divorce law further changes to reduce financial share of the nonworking (or lower earning) spouse) that would reinforce my view.

I also like Sheryl Sandberg’s advice that the biggest work decision we will ever make is who to have a long term relationship and DC with. Very true IMO.

Yes fair enough, I have taken a big financial risk, I guess. It’s easy to say, “tell him to adapt his hours”, “do 50/50” etc but some men are simply not like that. To be fair, I’ve never felt restricted financially and he’s very much of the mentality that it’s all family money. If I’d been working over the years, I’m not sure we’d still be together tbh because it might well have all been too much.

What I'm hearing from your last post is that you do get access to money but you don't think your husband would do anything to support you in achieving career goals?