does this sound sexist to you

[LittleSusiesMum]

DP's works do had organised for the guys to go to Cheltenham for the races for the day, but the women (partners of the men) were to take the children to an indoor playcentre for the day . I am seething over this .

Lapin, a workplace being all male in industrial tribunal situations, has been an important factor in assessing whether there is a culture of discrimination.

The law disagrees with you - there is no such thing as "happens" to be all male/ all female. In an IT situation, the efforts the directors of the co had gone to, to recruit more females/ males/ black people etc., train up from their workforce, promote etc., etc, are all looked at as indicators of the company's commitment to equality.

"It happens to be all male" wouldn't wash with the law. Rightly.

Usually all-male workplaces are distinguished by higher wages whilst all female workplaces are renowned for their low pay. That's why it's a problem. Of course this is sexist, starting with the fact that the factory floor is all-male. I wonder how the women in the office feel about being left out of the works outing.

As for sending wives to the play centre, what a bunch of chauvinistic twonks.

Why don't the women in the offices arrange a day at the races though? This is arranged by the people so these women are stabbing themselves in the heart in a sense by being sexist. It's not the men's fault is it? As ever women cause their own downfall.

Usually women in the office earn more than men on the factory floor though so let's not assume there necessarily is a wage problem.

I second the 'chauvinistic twonks.' It was wrong not to invite the women who work in the office to the races. If the male employees are getting a treat then the female employees should get a treat too, and a visit to the soft play centre is not much of a treat for a woman (even if it is a treat for the children involved).

Who came up with the soft play idea?

The women most certainly do not earn more than the men on the factory floor.

The men arranged this as they do every year & every year the WAGS go to the soft play with the kids. I have mentioned this to the other WAGS who agree it is not on.

The company pay for the kids entry into the play centre & pay for a christmas buffet for the kids.

Next year the WAgs will have to arrange something more exciting that doesnt involve kids and playcentres [fsimle].

at some of the acceptance on this thread - acceptance of all-male workplaces. acceptance of all women workplaces (yes there are plenty, and yes it very often is sexist as they are low-paid and in particular industries. if we had as many all-female senior management teams as we do all-male senior management teams that would be differnt, but lordy are we a long way from that)and acceptance of considering taking kids to a soft-play area as some form of Christmas f-ing treat for women. scuse the f-ing but the idea that people think that could be any sort of treat actually makes me pretty angry.

So are the company making a contribution for the men's day out? I can't see why they would contribute to the "wives" day out (babysitting) if they weren't paying for the main event.

Where the flying fandango is the 'day out' element in going to a soft play centre? With kids?

I mean, why not just send out a day pass to the seventh circle of hell with 'sorry, girls, you've got the wrong chromosomes' on it?

The workplace I was referring to was the accounts dept of a major retail card company. I don't know how many men actually applied for or were offered work there but very few accepted it since the company paid rock-bottom rates (this was before the minimum wage). Nowadays the things they got away then (just over 10 years ago) would make the average HR manager start hyperventilating with fear of tribunals and what-not!!

The female office workers have decided to have a day at the play centre though, haven't they? They could have arranged a trip to the races.

Also if the office workers' work is of equal value to the factory floor then they should bring an equal pay claim. Many office workers earn moer than factory workers which is why I made that assumption - low grade man on factory production line, clever women probably ex graduates in the office.

Xenia your optimism is refreshing, nay invigorating.

But I agree, if it were me, I'd just say, bugger this for a game of soldiers, we're going to do a trip to the races while children stay at home with Dad/ Other.

Xenia's obviously never been in an office if she thinks the women in most of them are highly paid. Secretarial and admin work is not well-paid - "ex" graduates or not.

On the other hand factory work, particularly in all-male workplaces, tends to be not too badly renumerated, when you factor in things like overtime and bonuses.

I guess the women at that company could organise their own day out, alternatively their male colleagues could stop acting like sexist gits and organise a day out for the whole workplace rather than just those blessed with the magic penis which apparently makes you love horse-racing but allergic to children's playcentres.

No the female office workers were not invited to the races nor were they to the soft play (well I think they were but none turned up , although from what I understand they had their own private office party.

The wives & gf's of the men went to the soft-play paid for by the company.

As far as office workers go, i am sure it is only the HR staff on great money the average office worker is definately not on as much as the men on the factory floor considering they work 12 hr shifts, ie. 4 on 4 off type system & get more for weekends, nights etc.

that was for Xenia btw

So my old company was sexist because I was the only woman? Despite the fact that the reason I WAS the only one was because the two other women there had left to have children?

And I recruited several people while I was there, and had very few applications from women. I certainly wouldn't have hired a woman over a more qualified man just for some equality requirement, I would consider that patronising to the woman apart from anything else!

Perhaps women didn't apply because they perceived it as a male-dominated environment (trading floor) and yes, that should be addressed, but surely you can't damn a company as sexist just because it only has male or female employees, especially if it is a small firm.

Ha! The trading floor is as sexist as you can get. I can't really believe you worked on an extra-special non-sexist one, Lapin. Financial traders wrote the book on lads culture.

The problem with sexism is that poorly quaified men often get jobs or promotion over better qualified women. That's the way it works in the real world.

No of course you don't automatically damn them Lapin. You look at it in the context of all the other things which are happening in the company and you make a judgement taking all the factors into account.

it is not a small company btw employs over 1000 people, most of them on the factory floor.

Yes it's funny how people panic about the very distant possibility of not such good women getting jobs which well-qualified men would otherwise get, but have no worries whatsoever about the fact that systematicallyl in practically every single industry you can think of, men are continually and constantly getting jobs that better female candidates should be getting, just because they are men. This is not a distant possibility, it is a living, breathing reality and nobody worries about it unduly, but they're all terribly worried about something that's non-existent.

TLL - I would argue - (from a position of some knowledge when it comes to the city) that the reason you were the only woman was not because 2 left to have children - rather it was because, having had children, they did not return - employers who permanently loose female employees to children, not discriminatory?

So this company pays for a Christmas jolly for its male staff and then an event for the male staff's Wags (who don't work for the company) - but doesn't pay for any kind of treat for its female EMPLOYEES? That sounds pretty muhc like illegal discrimination to me.

Xmas parties to which ALL staff are not invited are taxed as a benefit in kind on each individual who attends (ie they all have to pay tax at their highest rate on the cost of the event). Perhaps you would like to share that with your colleagues and your managing director.

In London office workers get paid reasonably well particularly if they do over time, weekenders etc whereas people who work in factories aren't. Obviously a different world in outside of London then.

There are lots of sectors with no sexism. If you're good you tend to do well (in those ones anyway). The biggest problem is women choosing to give up work. That's what leads to more men than women doing better so every mother who requests flexitime etc is really kicking the rest of us in the teeth and doing down their daughters' prospects in due course too. But they will keep doing it.

hatwoman, they did return - just to different firms (different desks, more conducive hours - 5am starts not great with small children).

I have a reasonable amount of knowledge about the city myself (15 years on various trading floors) and whilst yes, there is a lot of sexism and sexist behaviour, you can't just assume that every trading floor or male dominated company for that matter is endemically sexist.

Oh Xenia... didn't you ever learn enough political theory not to blame the oppressed for being oppressed?

It is not the fault of women that so many workplaces are still not family friendly. Or that childcare is so expensive (yet the largely female workforce so badly paid) that it just isn't worth the candle for a lot of women to stay in work, esp. with more than one child.

Mothers are holding up a good slice of the economy but our unpaid labour is not recognised or accounted for. Whether or not we are SAHMs or full-time WOHMs or WAHMs or whatever, our investment in child care is vital to keeping the whole ruddy country going. Yet only the paid work is visible.