Anonymously they say what we have all known for years.

[divadee]

I saw this article today and I have to say it didn't surprise me. Upset me and made me angry but it only says what women have known for years and years.

Stop moaning about it and get to a position where you get to call the shots just like them. Make your own throne and kick them away from it. If you act like they need for the job role most dont give a shit if you're a woman or not.

Well, yes. Women are far more likely to take time out the workplace, which makes hiring them a more expensive proposition. That is exactly why we have equality legislation. Men and women both have known this for years and years.

alpha well we would all stop moaning and get into that position if the fucking men would give us a chance in the first place.

1 in 3 bosses - it didn't give the gender of the bosses interviewed. you have no idea on that statistic who or what they interviewed.

In my experience, women are just as likely to pass over other women, especially those of child bearing age if they can.

This is why we need more men taking up their entitlement to a decent chunk of shared parental leave. Currently the take up is tiny, about 2% or something.

If men are just as likely to take a few months off, then women are less likely to be discriminated against.

Well we would all stop moaning and get into that position if the fucking men would give us a chance in the first place.

Yeah, because women are powerless and weak, aren't we! We need those pesky men to give us a job because there's no way we can change things for ourselves. We're just women, after all.

I'm a woman and would be one of those 3 bosses.

I don't care about you making babies. My only concern is your performance at work. If you aren't there because you're on maternity leave then you're a real drain. Worse than useless as it has a real negative impact.

I've never broken the law as no one has been left out of a job on the basis of being a woman but if you think it hasn't made a difference to the process then you're not intelligent for me to want to employ you anyway.

I'm sure some won't like my comments but, hey, I'm a boss. An employer. If they don't like it there's a simple solution.

I'm an employer too, gunny, and I think you're being incredibly short-sighted.

I'm nearing the end of my career so I'm not sure short-sightedness comes into it.

Like it or not, women are likely to have more time off work especially at child-bearing age. Only a minority of militant women want enforced paternity leave and assuming they don't get their way, nothing will change. I buck national trends in the sex of people in certain roles* but with anonymity I'll admit that the sex of a potential employee as well as their relationship status and other protected characteristics is taken into account when they're getting the job or not.

*I'm a Principal. Mostly men as Primary Teachers, mostly women as Secondary Teachers and both Primary and Secondary Heads are women.

‘If the fucking men would give us a chance in the first place’

It’s not fair. It sucks.

But if you are so upset by the situation, change it. Start your own company and set your own policies or work harder and smarter than the next guy and take those chances instead of waiting to be given them.

‘If the fucking men would give us a chance in the first place’

They do. Women out-earn men until they have children. Also, as others have said, not all the bosses in that survey were male.

It does not surprise me at all - I say that as someone who has had maternity leave and has had people working for them take maternity leave. In a large company most of the time people cope with it - but it does bring disruption and additional cost. In a small company it can be extremely difficult

But from an economic standpoint, women of childbearing age are likely to cost a business more than a similarly aged man. As a boss I’d be thinking long and hard about whether we could afford the extra cost. It’s a biological fact that women have children, men don’t. That doesn’t mean that I think women are of no use to employers, just being realistic about the fact that they cost more.

@gunnyBear thank goodness the world is changing and bosses such as you will no longer be the norm.

Women, people with disabilities etc. can bring so much to an organisation in terms of creativity, innovation and customer relations to name but a few - it is very short sighted to think that 'how many widgets you make per hour' is what matters. The world is a different place now and we require new skills and new ways of working to fit with that.

I would hate to work for a boss like you, thankfully my company actually cares about me.

How lovely. "I don't care about you making babies. My only concern is your performance at work." This is like saying "I don't care about the continuation of the human race. All that matters to me is my profits". Money and private property over life. Always. gunnyBear, I do wonder who you think has been buying the stuff your company makes over the course of your careers and will be buying it in the future. It's those pesky children. Capitalist logic of having something for nothing (i.e. a business without people) is truly mindboggling.

yupp Just one of the ways in which women pay a much greater price for parenting than men do, and in fact, even women who cannot get pregnant, don't want to get pregnant and /or who have completed their families get rejected too.

Continuing the species, or maintaining the population is a sacrifice that is on women

We shouldn't tolerate this.

I wonder how much of this relates to concerns around maternity leave and how much to employers' experience of what can follow?

I'd hope everyone would expect employees to be treated fairly, but what about the minority who, once a child is here, expect special treatment with their every demand catered to, no matter what the cost to employers or fellow employees?

Completely unfair to penalise the majority for that of course, but maybe unrealistic to expect it to have no effect at all on recruiters?

The state needs to make sure that the structures are in place so that it is no longer any more logical to discriminate against a man than a woman/' Paternity leave that must be divided equally between both parents. Child care available like school places.

A better solution is to offer men the same amount of leave as women. And make them take it, legally.

How the fuck is that an improvement??

Most women with kids don't want their partners to take equal amounts of parental leave. They would rather take more themselves. And most men are quite happy with this.

Interesting. I assume that all those who are admitting that they are less likely to employ or look favourably on women of childbearing age are also trying to second guess who will need more sick leave and other forms of support, so not many disabled people will be employed. I don't suppose the overweight get much of a look in either.

I know women who wouldn't hire a woman of childbearing years as a nanny. And I can't blame them.

A better solution is to offer men the same amount of leave as women. And make them take it, legally. This would equalise the sex inequality for the 'risk' of having to offer parental leave. It would also be be very beneficial for families.

Agreed. Shared parental leave is far more common in some other countries.

40% of degree educated women are choosing not to have children. But of course it's entirely fair to assume that all women of child bearing age will have children...

I agree it's incredibly short sighted. So you're going to miss out on experience, skills, a different perspective, potentially years of service, all because you'll have to fund a mat leave?

Given that women have this inbuilt disadvantage, I believe female bosses have a duty to support women in the workplace. Sadly that doesn't seem to be happening.