Hiring women over 40

[Estellelove]

I suppose I've never actually heard anyone say this out loud so it's thrown me I'm not sure what to think.. so my relative, who is a lovely man, has a wife and young children and I want to emphasize is a really nice person, has a small business and I was chatting to him recently he said he is looking to hire a bookkeeper/secretary as he is expanding his business. I mentioned the name of someone I know who is looking for a job and he said, oh if it's a woman I won't hire her unless she is over 40. When I asked why he said I can't take the chance of her getting pregnant or having young children who will need her and she will have to constantly take off. I was shocked and said as much, i asked how he would feel if people treated his wife this way but he was completely comfortable with it and said it's reasonable and he has to think of the good of his business rather than the advancement of feminism. He was completely unapologetic about it and I was quite stunned. I mean I can understand the reasoning, but was thrown that he would so readily admit it so easily. I suppose I am just asking for thoughts... I'm trying to process...

@KrispyKremeDream

What I've seen happen a fair bit is the woman taking a few years out and then never really fully returning to a career job due to the husband's job now having progressed to the stage where they can get by comfortably without her needing to work full time.

Some people believe that the man is the lucky one 'getting to keep his important job', but I disagree. If finances are shared then whoever is working the least is the lucky one IMO. I'd take three days of admin work over a 60 hour week in a stressful managerial position if the financial result was the same either way.

I'd love to work part-time in a less stressful / demanding role if I could! I don't blame some partners (predominantly women) choosing this to be honest.

I appreciate I'm speaking as it being my choice though, I wouldn't like it I was forced to go part time by my husband.

I'd love to work part-time in a less stressful / demanding role if I could! I don't blame some partners (predominantly women) choosing this to be honest.

I appreciate I'm speaking as it being my choice though, I wouldn't like it I was forced to go part time by my husband.

This is how I feel.

Because it's still looked at in a somewhat condescending manner by a lot of women (feminists especially) I think a lot of women are quite defensive/conscious of their choice and feel compelled to have 'a reason' or an explanation when really the truth is that working less and having more free time is just better than sitting at a desk using Word.

He’s putting his family business first, it’s pragmatic and not personal. It doesn’t make him a misogynist.

He is probably as lovely as the OP says, no reason to think she’s wrong about this.

By that logic there are a lot of really lovely organised crime bosses. All they do is put their family business first, it’s pragmatic and not personal.

The idea that men don't want kids it's all women is one that is deeply embedded in society, and one that is constantly reinforced in loads of films TV progs etc.

That's not what I see in real life though. Plenty of men want children and love them and are hands on etc.

If men REALLY didn't generally want children then surely there is loads they can do-

An effective contraception method for men that is reliable etc eg a pill, jab or similar. So they can be more in control of fertility.

Be in favour of easy access for women to contraception, MAP and abortion. Obv not saying that those aren't women's choice. However if men don't want children, then it's obviously nonsensical to restrict/ ban access. Generally the objections, while plenty of women support, are from patriarchal values and religions. Men could alter this globally. Might be slow but could be done as men tend to have the majority/ all of the power in govt etc.

And maybe. To work to disseminate a shift in what's seen as sex, usually PIV is what 'counts' (now anal of course which is not at all good for women/girls). Pushing the fact that there are plenty of other ways to share sexual pleasure, and come with essentially zero risk of pregnancy. This would benefit everyone for a number of reasons. Don't know if it would get far! But has been talked about for a long time.

Maybe some more things?

The fact is that if men don't want children there is plenty they can do, or could work towards, to lessen the risk.

I mentioned earlier though that plenty of men do want children. Esp male children in many parts of the world.

Additionally. As a sort of thought experiment.

Many posters have said it's a given that hiring women under 40 is a big risk. It's a no brainer that mat leave is a nightmare irrespective of company size. Cover, cost. Having two close together so loads of time off.

So essentially any business that hires a woman under 40 is not doing what's right for the business. Not maximising efficiency profitability etc. Is what's been said.

So if that were to come about. No women under 40 in jobs. (I'm assuming all jobs but maybe those posters have some exceptions).

That would be on balance a good thing? Mixed?

No it's not going to happen but that's what logically should.

(Ignore the law too. It's rarely used anyway! This isn't real life its a what if for those on the thread who take the stance it's foolish to hire women under 40).

@KrispyKremeDream

I'd love to work part-time in a less stressful / demanding role if I could! I don't blame some partners (predominantly women) choosing this to be honest.

I appreciate I'm speaking as it being my choice though, I wouldn't like it I was forced to go part time by my husband.

This is how I feel.

Because it's still looked at in a somewhat condescending manner by a lot of women (feminists especially) I think a lot of women are quite defensive/conscious of their choice and feel compelled to have 'a reason' or an explanation when really the truth is that working less and having more free time is just better than sitting at a desk using Word.

Women who continue full time are often defensive as well though. A woman's place is in the wrong!

And why sitting at desk using word? Can you say why you chose that?

Women are in all sorts of jobs these days! Surprising but there you go.
Surgeons, bus drivers, gym PTs, architects, teachers, I mean loads and loads of things!

Even in an office. I've heard that actuaries use Excel and testers use all sorts of complex software. There are even female coders!

Etc etc.

Sitting in office doing word is... An interesting comment!

Wow, female coders. 😂 My mum was actually one of the really early ones - definitely by early 80s but possibly late 70s. But moving to the construction sector I've seen hardly any women compared to when I worked in project management at a FTSE company or when I was in sales jobs. And all the women are in the main offices at the construction companies. I've been to dozens of sites and never seen a woman driving a 360 digger or a forklift etc, so most do seem to do office work.

For me it's about choice. I don't really care if somebody finds their job boring and goes part time in something less stressful because their partner is minted and they can afford to both not work full time. Fuck working full time and wasting your life to prove some point which won't really get you much in return.

It only annoys me when people moan about men having the privilege of keeping their jobs, and it's not really acknowledged that they usually don't have a choice. It's vanishingly rare for a man to find a woman who is prepared to support him working PT. Statistically a woman is over 30% more likely to divorce her partner if she earns more, and also if he is the SAHP, although by a lesser but still statistically significant % in the second case.

Both working and not working can be privileges IMO.

Ah I had no idea you were specifically talking about construction! When I replied I assumed it was across the board.

Were there no women doing project management or sales when you worked in those areas?

I mean when I think of women working think NHS, teaching, retail, and yes office jobs which come in all sorts of types, skills, seniority etc.

I do still find it interesting that jobs women do = office doing word tbh!

It's not about privilege of keeping jobs so much as impact on future employability, impact on pension pot, fact that often will not be able to pick up where left off in terms of experience salary etc.

And anyway when it comes to work. Some love it some hate it. Many are in middle somewhere. For some it is a source of self esteem, challenges them. For some it's just rubbish to have to do it whatever the role.

And all that goes for both men and women.

DH requested to go PT when kids small but they said no. So there's one woman who would have supported OH that way!

Oh anyone got thoughts on my what if?

@CheeseMmmm If parental leave was split equally (and taken more equally) between men and women that would do a long I think.

At the moment because it’s maternity leave, it’s obvious which person is going to be taking the time off. That’s what makes it possible for a business to make decisions that involve more/less risk. So alter that situation and you alter the the rationale of decision making in that area.

If it was just “a person of child bearing age” might take extended leave of hen the risks aren’t so clear cut.

You will never even it up though unless men can start birthing babies.

I still maintain that on average men don't want children as much as women do. Even in my social circle where the childrearing is mainly carried out by the women the men in those relationships aren't champing at the bit to have more children let alone if child care responsibilities were split 50 50.

You can say men can just decide not to have children in that case by taking preventative measures but generally speaking people will always choose to compromise than go without a relationship entirely. This typically results in women taking on the bulk of the caring duties.

I think a PP made a valid point too about generally women aren't that keen to have their partner work a lower paying, less stressful job in order to be at home more. I personally have never encountered any childless couples where the man works part time and the women full time yet I know a few the other way around. This of course could be a chicken and egg scenario brought around by societal pressure and norms but it would put me off a man if he was happy just ambling along without drive or ambitious and I don't think I'm the only one.

I agree men don't want babies as much. If you divulge you have had the chop then women just don't want to know. Indeed dating sites you get a lot more responses if you say you want children rather than not sure. Often the conversation goes the woman wants children (and sees this as non negotiable) the man simply says ok but doesn't commit to the parenting because in reality they weren't that fussed and didn't want it to affect their career.

I would change the law so both parents were required to take equal time off and equally cover childcare. I bet then the birth rate would massively decline as men say they aren't that bothered.

This all very unfortunate for women who don't want, can't have or aren't in a position to have children!

Regarding the IEA study referenced above. They are a free market think-tank. They do good work but you are not going to find a progressive argument on flexible working or inclusion there. I was at a seminar of theirs just yesterday when one of the speakers gave the stat that 3 out of 10 employees can request flexible working in some form as an example of galloping costs imposed on businesses. 3 out of 10! And of course it's only the right to ask, doesn't mean they didn't get managed out.as a result of asking.

@Mouseonmychair

I agree men don't want babies as much. If you divulge you have had the chop then women just don't want to know. Indeed dating sites you get a lot more responses if you say you want children rather than not sure. Often the conversation goes the woman wants children (and sees this as non negotiable) the man simply says ok but doesn't commit to the parenting because in reality they weren't that fussed and didn't want it to affect their career.

I would change the law so both parents were required to take equal time off and equally cover childcare. I bet then the birth rate would massively decline as men say they aren't that bothered.

I can't see the law markers wanting a declining birth rate, western birth rates are struggling as they are (one of the reasons immigration is a must for many countries). Our whole economic and financial model is based on every increasing consumption/money supply/GDP and the easiest way to deliver this is having more and more people.

I'm not sure it's that men don't want children as much.

I think they are not, as a group, as inclined to want to stay home with infants and small kids.

I think a big part of that is biological, the chemical rush that women get from birth and breastfeeding. That's what it's meant to do, make women want to stay near their babies. We also see that when they have the choice without being pushed in any way, women are much more likely to go into people and care centered work than men are. And being a stay at home parent counts as person and care centered work.

I agree lobster that with that first bit. For some men babies are fine as long as they don't have to do too much/ change lives too much.

So many threads on here with men who won't even do essential basics.

IME (at work) there are plenty men who do want to be hands on and so are.

I find the idea that most/pretty much all men either don't want babies or want essentially minimal or no part in raising their children a pretty unfair and unpleasant view of men tbh.

Loads of men (and women) just get on with it.

And a similar number to the hands on. Are calling their partners saying working late. Openly saying it's too avoid bathtime/ bed time. And then reading the newspaper chatting about football etc. Or going to pub and ringing about 7 saying worked late having quick one then coming home. When they've been in the pub since 5.

Some on the thread seem really down on men tbh.

With DH friends some make a song and dance about essentially how shit it all is. Then you bump into them with pram in hand cooing at baby and telling you they have been crawling!!! All excited.

So. I just don't think I have such a bad view about men as many other posters tbh.

It’s just a fact, most men do not want to raise the children. This is born out in lots of different evidence, the most stark being how few men actuallly take paternity leave…
I find the idea that most/pretty much all men either don't want babies or want essentially minimal or no part in raising their children a pretty unfair and unpleasant view of men tbh.

We just can’t be naive about this as women. I was, I thought we were so equal that I fully expected me and my husband to raise the kids equally. When I had the baby and even two hours ‘babysitting’ for my husband had him really cross, he would be ‘on the phone’ on an important call and wondering why the baby was crying. I nearly went out of my mind, I have the higher paid job and was hoping to be really equal as parents.

I had to write the babies whole routine down for DH. He asked as he couldn’t remember, and then he’d freak out and phone me up while I was at work. Across all of my friends this happened. Or the Dad looked after the kids OK but the mother would come home from work and find the house was upside with so much mess.

Or as kids grow older many Dads will bond more and have things they do with their kids.

But let’s face it, it’s really naive to think most Dads take to babies. Many women find it incredibly hard but as they have usually at least the first few weeks and often breast feed, that they just have to get on with it and start to form a routine. Most Dads don’t, and babies do need a caregiver who spends a lot of time with them to ‘tune in’ to their needs.

So to get back to the point of the thread.

It’s not our fault as women that we are the ones taking the maternity leave. Someone has to nurture the children. It’s an important job and one that all of society should support, as we support any other vital caring role.

The problem is once we accept that we go full circle whereby it's an advantage if businesses hire men over women.

No we accept that caring for children is important, and we penalise employers who discriminate against women for that reason.

@coronaway

The problem is once we accept that we go full circle whereby it's an advantage if businesses hire men over women.

Yes. To me, the idea that we have decided to essentially make this not the done thing, because we think it is better for society overall, isn't so much the problem.

It's that even having done that, it doesn't change the basic realities of the situation. So, for some types of small businesses, it's not so easy to accommodate. We can try and mitigate that, but when we try to pretend it isn't true, it just makes people cynical. I knew women in the army who carefully planned their three children so they would have one year of work between them. It made sense for them to bunch the children together, and it didn't matter much in that setting where they are set up for moving people around to fill holes. But if you are talking about an important role in a small business, that's a three year period that will be very difficult - you might as well just hire a whole second employee to keep some continuity.

The other thing I find concerning is this idea that the solution is to make sure fathers take as much leave, or even to require it. With no real thought as to whether that is what mothers actually want - they are expected to scarifies their role as mothers to create some sort of equality outcome for the society. Sorry, I don't think motherhood is less important than everyone being perfect capitalist workers, thank you very much.

I find the idea that most/pretty much all men either don't want babies or want essentially minimal or no part in raising their children a pretty unfair and unpleasant view of men tbh.

I don't even think that's an accurate way to put it.

Plenty of men are perfectly good caring for babies and even like it, and could certainly manage it very well if they found themselves in that role. Some prefer it to paid work.

But they don't tend to have the very visceral, hormone driven imperative to stay close to them in the early months, nor can they breastfeed, nor do they get that same protective hormone wash every time they do.

That's not some kind of primitive irrelevancy that doesn't affect modern, civilized people. It's a part of being a mother and while some women are less affected by it than others, it's part of being a woman. Denial of the biological make-up of who we are hasn't got us anywhere.

Great posts @LobsterNapkin
The pursuit of equality whilst ignoring biology really isn't helpful and ignores the needs of women and babies.