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...

@NCBlossom

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

Thing is, we already have far too many people on this planet so it's an odd paradox that it's incredibly important to care for these unnecessary additions to the world.

People are people though. Individuals.

Men/ women. Some love working. For a variety of reasons. Some work to live. Some just really don't get anything out of it apart from money.

Similarly. Men/ women. Some love being at home with babies/ young children. Really enjoy it and get loads out of it. Some just get on with it. And some really find it awful.

Of course at group levels there are differences no arguing with that. There's a whole load of social norms and pressures and things that push one way or the other.

The idea that women are making all the decisions here essentially. And men are just going along with eg having babies even though they don't want them, being the one who brings in the bulk of the cash even though that's stressful and unfair, women driving all this and taking the role that they want and he's expected to go along with it.

I think it's way more complicated than that. And again I'd say I find the idea that to be blunt. Men don't want children and women are forcing/ persuading/ manipulating them into having them anyway and then setting things up how they want with. No care for their partner. How he feels, what he wants etc.

That's a view of relationships that is really grim. And not a true reflection of how men and women actually feel about each other etc.

I do feel a bit sad that so many have been/ are surrounded by families with those dynamics.

Interesting comment Krispy.

Given overpopulation what do you see as a good way forward?

I can see that a view that should be fewer children born might lead to certain measures at a population level.

The idea that caring for ones born is not important is interesting though. What sort of policies/ changes do you think would be beneficial to support that approach?

The idea that caring for ones born is not important is interesting though. What sort of policies/ changes do you think would be beneficial to support that approach?

It's not unimportant, it's just unnecessary. Not in the literal sense of not needing to feed them etc, but more in that I don't believe they're 'critical to the future of our race' or whatever. We only need to look after them because they're here now whether or not we like it.

Caring for them is necessary then. Surely.

What about down the line- things like education, NHS treatment and so on?

The interesting thing I saw a few months ago was a news article saying in some countries women aren't having enough babies and the govts are really worried. Things like economy, ageing population.

At the time I thought. Ok so that says women not breeding enough, other things often say breeding to much.

First seems it's women doing it wrong whichever way it goes!

Second we don't breed by ourselves.

So when it comes to population it's a whole society thing. Some things apply to women, some to men, much of it is both though.

I think you are confusing the below two situations.

a) More children are necessary for our survival as a species and should be a priority

b) More children are totally unnecessary in this already overpopulated world but we must feed them now they're here

And needing more teachers/carers etc is just another by-product of the issue IMO. It's like needing more and more loans to pay off your spiralling debt, when really the best solution would be to struggle for a while and get rid of the debt completely.

I don't think I'm confusing anything tbh.

My comments are about-

'Thing is, we already have far too many people on this planet so it's an odd paradox that it's incredibly important to care for these unnecessary additions to the world.'

That was fairly straightforward.

The birth rate in England and Wales is dropping pretty fast- 4% 2019-20 and has been dropping for years.

We are at below replacement ratio. 1.6 births per woman 2020.

Is that good or not enough do you think?

Or are you taking a global view?

Yeah, that's shit.
Said as someone who came into the thread as a 40 something year old woman thinking it was going to go the other way lol (as in not want to employ due to age!)
Any kind of age discrimination not here for you don't get that with males.

He's not wrong, though it's a generalization, that women employees are more likely to take of time etc related to having kid
I agree with this {even if I really don't as a woman lol!)
I've always worked.
Then had kids and been a SAHM.
It's always been me who has been rung up, expected to be there.
Even when working.
DH, not so much, he's just left more or less to it.

Most industrialized western countries are not at replacement rate, and increasingly many other countries are in the same boat.

This is tricky for our economic system, but not so bad for the environment. But even ignoring the economics, it is something that it is probably better to do slowly rather than have a population crash.

Surely if population control is of concern then the way to have most impact is by pushing for good access to contraception abortion globally. To work to reduce social norms/ religious view of those things. And somehow to increase wealth and women's opportunities etc.

That's the way that is known to work well.

I caught up with an old friend last week. She’s just turned 49, and is a global director in a pharmacy company. Nobody remembers that 10-15 years ago she took 2x 9 months off to have babies. It’s so short-sighted to see maternity leave as an obstacle to talent and ability.

I suspect a big factor is that the age where all kids are now at school often coincides with the man's age of maximum was no g potential (his 40s).

Nobody wants to admit to being a kept woman, but lets be honest, the idea of working 2-3 days a week whilst maintaining a cushy lifestyle is pretty appealing.

@CheeseMmmm I think men are happy to have children but wouldn't be if caring responsibilities were equal (or in the woman's favour). That was all I was saying.

So women working part time after children, often taking something local with a massive drop in wages, in order to do so the school runs and boring shit at home, are 'kept'

How many hours a week are required for a woman not to be 'kept'? 28? 32? 40?

What about women who go PT in well paid role and earn more than FT OH?

in the world of keeping partners, how does that work? Both kept? She kept because PT? him because bringing in less money?

I'm not very good as these sort of judgements but I think you are quite an expert so interested to hear.