The Catherine Hakim research

[LadyBlaBlah]

It is getting on my nerves the way this research is being reported.

The Telegraph

Daily Mail

Reuters

you can get a summary of the study on this page, referenced here too

google books copy see page 9 for some outstanding patriarchal defence

All in all it seems to me that this bit of 'research' has been made to perpetuate the author's own patriarchal views, and hence provides valuable ammunition to the anti-feminists in the media.

I might be the first to provide a review on google books

You're right dittany, in the sense that the best contractor should get the job rather than the one who takes you to the nicest restaurant.

However, I would say that, in my experience, alot of corporate hospitality isn't actually about winning work. For example, I am having (a cheap pub) lunch with a consultant next week because I can't bring him into my office and I don't want to travel to his as it will take time out of my day. Lunch is just because we need a venue. Most of the "posh" restaurants I've been taken to are to celebrate the completion of work, rather than to win it, so isn't a factor in who to award work to. There are, very rightly, strict rules as to what is acceptable and generally I think people stick to them. Although, I agree with you in that they don't always stick to the code and there is an element that is unsavoury.

Sakura, I'm an academic mum, with tenure, and I know many others in my field.

Why? People like doing business with other people whose company they enjoy. Being the "best contractor" is not just about technical delivery, but also about team work and people skills.

Sieglinde - you're lucky and there are a lot of women academics. But there are a lot of academic mums stuck on the temporary contract treadmill which means they have to maintain a ridiculous level of publications right through pregnancy and early years just to keep working.

It's certainly not true of all academic hiring committees, but many do not give young child-free women permanent contracts because they 'will take time out to have children' or 'cannot go to conferences' and so on. (I have been informed of this by men sitting on such committees.) Helpful career hints from senior colleagues have included suggesting taking children to seminars . Also, much store is set by sitting in the pub all night talking about the subject. I love my subject, but it is not kind to women.

sieglinde I based my opinion on a fascinating thread on here a while ago, of academic mums, who went into great detail about how having children benefits male academics (because they suddenly appear more reliable when they have a family) but that the female academics who had really done well were childless

I realise that what I have said about what has been said within hiring committees is illegal, but what are women supposed to do in small fields where they depend upon those that hire them (or their friends) for their references? (Obviously, more women on the committees would help, but they need to get into senior positions first.)

Bonsoir, nothing wrong with hiring people you get on with but do you think that men that play golf can only get on with and work well with other men that play golf? That would be strange, wouldn't it?

And anyway, what do you think about the 30,000 women a year who "choose" to be at home with their children following redundancy, or do you not care for them?

Chaotica, it's interesting how many men will admit to discriminatory practices when they are "off the record".

I had a conversation with my boss yesterday about a team I was thinking of moving into. He pointed out that the drinking culture (very likely followed by strip club visits but that wasn't said aloud) may make it difficult for me to "fit in". This move would futher my career but obviously I'm put off by our conversation. I've had similar conversations with other men I've worked with.

I think it says something about how complacent men are that they are quite willing to admit to this type of behaviour, knowing full well that it is illegal.

Karma - that sounds dreadful.

So far, I haven't been required to go to a strip club, but in some departments I've run into all manner of sexual harrassment (not usually of me, I might add, and that is certainly not the rule). However, a male friend and colleague was told by our then boss that 'it takes a certain type to be a XXXX' (which clearly a woman could never be). Then, of course, women who stand up for themselves or show ambition are 'too pushy' .

sakura - isn't that the same argument that runs that having a family benefits a man's career because his domestic duties are reduced once his wife stops working to bring up the children (and run the house)? Thereby freeing him up for more work?

yes, that's exactly what happens

we all need a wife

Choatica, possibly I'm reading too much into it. We talked about the "macho drinking culture" and how easy it would be for me to adjust to it. Even if there are no strip clubs involved, it just didn't sound like a very nice place to work. But obviously, as Hakim says, I have a free choice as to whether to take the job and advance my career or not. So I'm very lucky.

Yes, I do know about this - about younger untenured women in academia - and I do my utmost to support them and help them, and I am also the token woman on numerous committees, where most men won't openly voice the sentiments you mention.

As for sitting in the pub and droning, I wouldn't do it even if I was childless. It's only good for 'esteem indicators' anyway, which are generally a giant faff. If you are a woman and you get to be on an editorial/advisory board, for example, what it often means is that you do the shit donkey work.

I have tbh done absolutely fine - was invited to put in for four chairs last year alone, whihc prob won't happen this year due to the econ situation - but - and here is the rub - I won't get one in Oxford, and BECAUSE of my children I don't want to move. But I embarked on my career because I value freedom and my subject, not because I wanted the absolute maximum salary.

Sieglinde - Believe me, your work as the token woman is much appreciated.

What you say about moving is very true - I could be doing a lot better than I am in my career if I felt that I could go for jobs anywhere in the world. I have a partner who is willing to move, but not every couple of years. That is another reason why the untenured temporary contract way into academia is usually so unsatisfactory for women, unless they are single and childless. (Some marriages work in these circumstances, but they are the minority.)

Given your circumstances, perhaps we should call you 'Professor'

Chaotica, thanks.

I don't mind not being a professor. Here in Oxford we have an annoying thing called 'titular professorship' which means just what it says - the title with no actual pay rise or change of duties... Really, Gillian McKeith might be envious. Anyway, lots of my childless female colleagues have put in for them and got them. (I've never applied; they seem to me kinda fraudulent.)
And just now and then, I want to scream 'you gave up having children for THIS?'

Meanwhile, all the 'real' chairs are occupied by male backsides.

Chaotica, maybe we should call you something good too....

I have to admit that the research itself confuses me.

For example, take a look at this table.

If I'm reading this correctly, what she is saying here is that approx 20% of women will always be "home orientated" and 20% "work orientated". The rest will be "adaptive".

The adaptive portion will go either way and are hugely affected by government policy, opportunities available for women, attitudes to working women, school hours etc (ie all the things feminists complain about).

In the UK, she estimates the adaptive portion to be approx 70%. That's an awful lot of people, who she must be assuming are "choosing" to downsize their careers. But she seems to be saying herself that if things were different and society was less sexist, that adaptive section of society may well choose to continue with their careers.

So really not sure how she can say that she's showing that women's preferences mean that they want to stay at home. She is showing that a large number of women are heavily influenced by external factors when they make their work/life choices and those external factors favour putting careers aside. Surely?

I did find it rather funny that Hakim pointed to statistics that women were marrying proportionally twice as many 'higher' educated men as in 1949, citing this as evidence that women want to marry men they can look up to academically....

...conveniently ignoring the fact that in 1949 most eligible men had been out fighting wars during the period at which they might otherwise have got a degree, which some might say could just possibly have had a teeny weeny bit of a statistically significant effect on the number of highly educated men actually around in 1949....

I also rather like the idea that if she is right, and the lower educated women are all pairing off with the higher educated men, then it is going to be fun for those dating agencies to match all postgrad women off with the uneducated men that will have been left behind.

Sieglinde - I agree. A titular professorship is not worth making sacrifices for.

(As for a suitable name for me, I think I will have to be content that my American students call me 'professor' anyway while I waste a lot of time trying to stop them.)