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.

I'm a female CEO. I would never treat women unequally - I dont worry about men wanting time off with their kids so why would I with a woman. I benefit from a diverse workforce where everyone's able to have a happy and well balanced life - so I have huge respect for family commitments and work/life balance. I need to have some flexibility so why wouldnt my colleagues - I get the best commitment and engagement from them too.

But i have to be honest - if you have a small team a maternity leave does make a difference - just as it does if you have someone long term sick so i can see for small businesses it would be something that needs managing as it does have an impact. In larger places like my own its easier to fills the gaps.

Bosses just can’t afford to be so myopic in today’s climate. Those who are won’t last

Um.

Actually, have a look on the board of directors of the Fortune 50 companies. 7 in 10 are white men.

There's no point telling people it doesn't make financial dense to do this when it very clearly and obviously does. We may not like it, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect.

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

I did see this but dismissed it as nonsensical. And how ironic you accuse me of illiteracy when you, an educator, misuse capitalisation.

Are you so lacking in imagination that you can’t see how the point I was making - that when you don’t hire from a diverse pool, you miss out on a lot of talent - can be extrapolated to the hiring of teachers and therefore the quality and breadth of education they provide?

There's no point telling people it doesn't make financial dense to do this when it very clearly and obviously does. We may not like it, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect

I’m not saying it doesn’t pay as a strategy now. Im saying that the next innovators, the next disrupters, will buck this trend in the future.

The capitalisation was perfect. Roles are usually capitalised as are Primary and Secondary. I hope that helps.

What was nonsensical?

I am in charge of a school for children from 18 months old to IB age. The school is divided into a Primary and a Secondary. There is a Head of each and they are both women. The majority of Primary Teachers are men. The majority of Secondary Teachers are women. This bucks all national trends.

Do you understand yet?

"you can’t see how the point I was making"

No. My school has a long waiting list and, very literally, world class results and I'll take that as a measure of my success over you questioning the quality of the education. No offense.

I didn't say I don't hire from a diverse pool. Having shown how women are more likely to take time off (and consistency is extremely important in education) and other women posting to say how they have been put off hiring certain demographics do you still not see that I am putting my students performance above nonsensical guidelines? If not, I'll spell it out a little more clearly.

Parents paying the school fees don't give a fuck if I meet diversity ratios. They want their child to get excellent grades, play the cello, speak French, network with future captains of industry and get into an excellent university to propel them onto prosperity.

The capitalisation was perfect

It really wasn’t.

You don’t capitalise job roles unless they appear right next to the person’s name.

So: gunnyBear, Principal of Blah Blah School.

Or: The principal of Blah Blah School, gunnyBear.

You don’t need to capitalise teacher, or primary, or secondary because they’re not proper title nouns. Unless that is your school’s preferred house style. But it’s a weird old style and it’s jarring to read. Perhaps check out the Guardian or The Economist style guides for tips on how to write better.

Hope that helps.

Previous posters have talked about quick turnaround of maternity leaves but I actually wonder if that’s what I should have done. I wanted to have a good period before number 2 but I feel like my card has been marked and everyone is expecting me to get pregnant and go so I’ve been passed over for the most interesting projects etc.

I’ve actually found men to be the most accommodating. In my experience it seems to be women in their 50s that are most anti flexible working, long maternity leaves etc. I’ve found that most of the men at my level seem to have stay at home mothers at home. I can see where the pay gap appears because they are now in the position where they can do the hours, the meatier projects etc that I can’t being part time. They also don’t have to leave to do pick-up.

While being limited in hours is a big barrier for me, it doesn’t seem to be for my husband. everyone at my husband’s place thinks he’s marvellous doing drop-offs and is setting an example as a senior leader. It doesn’t seem to have affected him in any way shape or form. I can’t see that ever happening for me!

I take Gunny's point. I also noticed that Gunny's grammar is a bit poor. I wouldn't necessarily have conflated that with not being an educator though. Our local prep had a sign in the nursery window saying 'Small Fries' in bright colours and huge letters for two whole years. It made me cringe twice a day every day. It was and still is a fine school.

Would a way around the not recruiting women of a childbearing age by making all companies take out maternity insurance. That way the insurance company pays for any extra costs due to maternity cover? I can understand that small companies could go under if too many people go off on maternity leave at the same time.

@Kpo58 but companies can claim back most of the SMP they pay out (if they pay more that's the company's problem) and if the company is small they can claim back a bit more than they paid out to help cover the inconvenience.

@DailyMail:
Gunny wins. With her final paragraph. Even though the bit about networking (= advanced sucking up) makes me cringe.

I agree with @gunnyBear

Parents paying the school fees don't give a fuck if I meet diversity ratios. They want their child to get excellent grades, play the cello, speak French, network with future captains of industry and get into an excellent university to propel them onto prosperity.

That’s just the definition of privilege though isn’t it? ‘It doesn’t affect me, therefore I don’t give a shit.’

By all means keep the elite elite, if that’s your motivation crack on. But you’re part of the problem and you don’t even care.

And it’s not about meeting diversity ratios, which implies that you think anything ‘diverse’ is not as good as the status quo, it’s about working in slightly different ways to make sure the best people for the job can do the job, not just the most available people.

I participate frequently in recruitment for the Civil Service in grades up to SEO. I have never, ever been involved in a recruitment exercise that has discrimated against women of childbearing age. And I've been involved in more than I can count.

For context the CS recruited me back in 1987 when I was pregnant after I'd been made redundant. I was fully expecting them to reject me but they didn't. I'm still there 31 years on and 5 grades higher and I'm still grateful for the opportunity I was given.

When we sift your application it is blind. We don't get to see any personal details at all. Just your key application criteria, such as your competency examples. We know nothing else about you. We score your application based on your competency examples and if you score highly enough you are invited to interview. Only then do the members of the interview panel receive your full application, which includes the CV info you would have been asked to complete.

At interview we are only looking for evidence that you can do the job we have advertised. I have honestly never been part of an interview panel that has asked candidates about future family plans or childcare and I would have pulled up any fellow panel members who asked such questions. And as part of the scoring element after an interview it has only ever been about the quality of the answers they gave, not as to whether they might start a family soon.

I've also sat on a panel that recruited a pregnant candidate, knowing that she probably couldn't join us for a year because she was exceptional and we were prepared to wait for her to join us.

So give the CS a look on CS Jobs. We have some fantastic opportunities and I think we operate a fair recruitment process.

I appreciate that some people may have had a different experience but this is not compliant with our policy or culture.

I am a young woman in business and I understand it. Getting pregnant costs the business money. Also, women statistically have more sick days than men. We are a capitalist society, of course the only issue here is profits - it's the literal definition of a business.
Sucks to be a woman but get over it

Indeed, capitalism would work much better if we just stopped having children.

Our aging population is fantastic for the economy.

You said it Peonylover123 you're young. Pop back when you've got a bit more experience in business and management and know what you're talking about. And maybe try to educate yourself in the mean time.

An employer who treats women well through pregancy, maternity leave and potential flexible working is more likely to have a loyal and dedicated employee who will stay with that employer in the long term.

A male employee is more likely to be looking for opportunities and higher pay elsewhere as soon as they feel they can.

Obviously not every female employee wants kids. I suspect you'd be the type to not give a job to any woman under 55 just in case. And yes, that's the age group. Up to 55 years old, when us ancients are considered to be past child bearing age. That's quite a big slice of discrimination eh? 18 -55.

You'll be included in that too. You say you're young, and you might have been sterilised at 30 after having your kids, but this will follow you as well until you're 55!

@PrincePhilipIsNotDeadYet

"By all means keep the elite elite"

OK

"But you’re part of the problem and you don’t even care."

What problem?

We provide the best education we can for children at our school. Should we do it less well because a school down the road is a bit shit? Ban musical instruments or stop teaching classics because you can't speak Latin or afford a piano? Why the race to the bottom.

"And it’s not about meeting diversity ratios, which implies that you think anything ‘diverse’ is not as good as the status quo,"

No. It's about hiring the best person for the job. If a candidate is likely to take time off work on leave then they aren't the best person for the job. I like making sure that I can do so without ticking boxes.

And apologies for any poor grammar / style in last night's post. Thank god it was picked up on!

Jet lagged and tipsy.

I remember going for a job interview in 2004 where i was asked if i had children?

I replied.............no and im not planning to i dont actually want children.

His reply was.......why not Dont you like responsibility?!!!

Gunny- the majority of the teaching profession are women of child-bearing age. Do you know why? Come on, try and guess. With all your years of experience in the elite strata of your sector, you must have an idea. Why? Can you think of any possible reason why that could be? Why are the majority of teachers of women of child-bearing age?
...
So you are effectively, in your own words, holding a biological feature against the broadest section of potential candidates. That is not just prejudiced, bad business sense, and illegal, but also plainly ridiculous.

I have also had a small role to play in education (not as a teacher, and not in the elite circles you clearly knock around in, where people are happy to, and indeed proud of bragging about how non-politically correct they are, and how much they don't care about diversity,and how cool they are, and how they just give jobs to the best candidate, who, oops, just happens to be a white man, funny that!- I know the sort very well though).

What I have witnessed after some fifteeen years in the sector as most disruptive to education and the classroom is not the succession of teachers going on parental leave (which happens almost in every year in all schools). What is disruptive are cuts to funding, lack of supplies, lack of classroom supports, increased bureaucracy and paperwork, strikes, (though I bet in your school teachers aren't allowed to strike)- all those lovely lovely things which you probably take for granted in your school, and so fail to appreciate, and so you can afford to witter on about teachers falling pregnant harming education.

If classrooms and teachers have proper resources and supports, then a teacher going on mat leave in a year (and realistically, how many times is she going to go on leave) will not dent the consistency of education.

Cut back resources, watch children and teachers struggle in poorly -funded schools, and then yeah, blame female teachers for taking parental leave. Very smart. Very ethical. Very edgy. Good job. So cool, you must be.

I've got 3DC and work FT here in the US. I took as little as 8 weeks and as much an 24 weeks. After my first child I was discriminated against and laid off as soon as they could. This really opened my eyes up and two posters on here opened my eyes as to my options. Xenia gave me excellent advice and in following it I kept my career.

Today I'm in a good position in my career. A huge part was taking short maternity leaves but also I really became passionate about building my career after I was passed over. I've fought the fight and I'm very proud to be under 40 and a CFO of a subsidiary. It's a huge accomplishment to have achieved this while having 3 young children and a DH who is also working very hard, pushing his career and business forward.

Everyone discriminates and thinking they don't is naive.

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

As a (female) manufacturing business owner (before I retired) I so agree with this. ^

But this attitude is awful;

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

OP You do not need a man’s permission to start your own company.

@questionzzz

I think I understand what you wanted to say. I like your Yoda-esque "so cool, you must be" ending.

"the majority of the teaching profession are women of child-bearing age. Do you know why?"

I've no doubt this will make you all frothy but I think that the best teachers often have typically female traits and this is a significant factor.

I have no idea why you had a little rant about government funding. You know that's nothing to do with me, right?

"I bet in your school teachers aren't allowed to strike"

Why? They are but don't. Pay and perks are excellent. We had over 450 applicants for a stipendless class teacher position in December. The person who got the job is an Asian mother so you can shut up with your 'white man' nonsense

"then a teacher going on mat leave in a year (and realistically, how many times is she going to go on leave)"

I can't imagine it being more that once with a 40 week gestation.

We provide the best education we can for children at our school. Should we do it less well because a school down the road is a bit shit? Ban musical instruments or stop teaching classics because you can't speak Latin or afford a piano? Why the race to the bottom.

Where did I say you had to do it less well?? Is your comprehension as deficient as your spelling? I haven’t said that at all. I can’t see how you inferred that from what I posted.

The only way you could take what I said to be suggesting you do it less well is if you think that hiring from a more diverse talent pool would mean doing things less well. Which is very ignorant and discriminatory. But you seem to be happy to admit that you are, and take pride in moulding He next generation in that stead. So, in fact I shouldn’t be surprised that you think diverse = worse.

If a candidate is likely to take time off on leave then they’re not the best person for the job

If the metrics you’re using to determine the right candidate are ‘availability’ and ‘presenteeism’, then yes, I guess. But I’d rather see more robust selection criteria than those.