Why do men in female-dominated jobs (nursing, primary teaching, social work) get into management quicker than women?

[margerykemp]

Surely there should be less of a glass ceiling in these jobs where 90+% of workers are female?

This seems to happen even early on in the career path so I dont think it can just be put down to 'choices' over eg childbearing.

I don't see how those threads reflect that at all meditrina.

One is "should the head of the mothers union be a man" and the other is "should the feminist movement be directed by women".

Your post seems to indicate (correct me if I'm wrong) that you see our current situation as a slightly flawed meritocracy. If you believe that then you must believe that women are inherently more rubbish than men, otherwise why would there not be equality in the workplace, and why would an organisation like the mother's union find that the only person good enough for the job was a man.

"pre-qualification based on characteristics over which the individual has no control" is a line that sounds like Gattaca. When in fact the suggestion that maybe the feminist movement should be directed by women is nothing like that. And some jobs are allowed to select based on various characteristics. And at the moment "possession of a penis" is something that affords a head start all around the world, so a "pre-qualification" already exists.

also I found that in the female dominated settings where there is a man in senior positions, it seems easier for everyone to get ahead at the same pace. All women nursing settings are horrible places to work. After a decade of working in that field I cannot thing of one exception :-(

Yes, SQ, you have misunderstood me.

The examples are perhaps too specific for you, but contain within them a number of views about male/female appointments.

SQ - that's the thing though, I didn't think I lived in the 1950s until I became a parent and became introduced to the world of toddler groups, and school gates where sex determined roles of parents appear to be very much stuck in the 1950s.

Why aren't parents, careers counsellors etc.. saying to girls think twice about opting for a career in nursing, beauty therapy etc.. there is no money in it, unless they are thinking that earning money and status is not so impotent for girls? Why are the same parents and career counsellors saying to boys 'are you going to specialise, open your own salon etc...' unless they think that for boys this is more important than retaining flexibility. I don't think those 1950s attitudes have gone away.

The prospect of bringing up children in a household where the main/only earner is a regular teacher or nurse without management grading, is quite different financially than bringing up children in a household where the second earner is a teacher or nurse and the bulk of the mortgage is paid by someone in a more highly paid job. I don't think the assumption that primary earner= dad, secondary earner= mum has gone away.

You don't tend to go marching into your boss asking for promotions/cash if you know you are being paid less than the men

That sounds like exactly the kind of situation in which you should be asking for more money. (I know practically it doesn't work out like that, but asking to be paid the same is hardly as "demanding" as asking to be paid more)

the whole subtle/unconscious encouragement of men to more senior positions is one of the reasons why i am pro-quotas. I was speaking to a swedish oncologist not long ago, and apparently they have something like 40% quotas for women at consultant level. he said that contrary to critics' concerns, you don't get the positions filled by substandard women to make up the numbers. in fact, because those who do the recruiting know that they will need to fill the quotas, the women who show most promise are encouraged much more during training than they would otherwise have been, so that by the time they reach consultant level they are the best candidates, where previously they might not have reached that level for a number of reasons. previously losing them along the way might have been acceptable, they now can't afford to

Because men are just better at managing things. In fact men are better at everything like that, didn't you know, but it's OK because we are better at caring and multitasking and being Nice. It's part of our brain wiring. I read an article all about it and anyway Everyone Knows This.

Obvious, innit?

(BTW in case anyone thought I was serious in that last post, I wasn't.)

and multiple orgasms MI

don't forget those. i remember at university loads of boys saying it was the only benefit to being a woman

Interesting.

I've just started training for a female-dominated job and I have been quite at how the handful of men are treated. Firstly, they were congratulated for just turning up (I cant imagine female engineering students get this ). One lecturer refers the men, but not the women, by name in group discussions. (Old boys network) Another outright said that the men amongst us would be our mamagers within 5 years, to the aghast and disbelief of all the students.

that's appalling margery

Margery - your post makes me incredibly depressed.

Me, too. At least my lecturers in nursing weren't QUITE that blatant about it 20 years ago.

I would seriously consider making a complaint about the lecturer's behaviour. He is is giving preference to the male students over the female ones. Do you think he would also only call white students by their name but not Black ones, or not refer to disabled students by their names, only those who weren't disabled? It seriously sucks.

Margery - that is terrible. Will you complain?

They were 3 different lecturers, 2 men, 1 woman. I do want to complain but dont want to be labelled as a troublemaker.

1 lecturer also 'shushed' a female group- I really dont think he would have done that to a group of men.

I recruit and manage a team of care assistants. We have 30ish, and 3 are male. The males consistently perform very well, they are friendly and good colleagues, with none of the bitchiness the women display. The service users like them, their female colleagues say they are very good at their work and I'm hoping our next round of recruitment will end with a couple more joining us (strictly on the merits of the applications of course).

Higgle, you should get your wish - with the employment market the way it is at the moment, there are far more men applying for things. To the point where some shifts in my company are struggling to find female workers to do personal care with female residents!

They don't seem to realise that getting out of a "career" like this is the hard part

higgle my observation (of a hell of a lot more male carers than 3) is that yes, the female colleagues and managers do really like the male carers and give them the most glowey references, but it is NOT necessarily because they are better at their job or kinder to the service users, they can be sulky, rough, lazy, hungover etc.. but it's always recieved well because they're funny/sociable/interesting/quirky/gay........... but if another female colleague behaved the same way they would be called up on it in a flash rather than congratulated!

like if they're consitantly 15 mins late its all "oooo good night was it? wink wink nudge nudge" and if a woman does it once for a genuine reason the reason is poo-poohed and the agency gets a phone call / her later shifts are cancelled

Peppa - how do you find conferences etc? I always meant to have kids before 30, but in the end, I've done a lot of running around to conferences meeting people and setting up collaborations that I now realise I can't do anymore with a wee one at home (partly cos I'm stilling BFing, partly because her dad's job requires a longer commute so every time I can't do the nursery run he has to work a shorter day and since he his a higher teaching load than me, that's sucky for his research!)

I think it is because many women put family and children ahead of their own ambitions.

perhaps they're forced to rebel

I've been in childcare for 20 years and I've never met a male manager. Or deputy. Or 3rd in charge. Or any type of senior/room leader position. (Apart from myself )

It has a name: glass escalator. Some interesting stuff from academia on this.

Men and women are treated differently in groups and business situations. Several studies have been done on this. Even when the male and female subjects say exactly the same things the man gets awarded more eye contact, more attention and a higher approval rating than the female.
Also, other studies have shown that male and female children are socialised differently from a very early age, where boys are encouraged to push in and get things for themselves and resolve a conflict to their own advantage whereas females are told to consider the other person's point of view and negotiate more.

For those who suspect a group is being treated inequitably I would encourage actually having a notebook and jot down the number of times a man is shushed compared to the women. If possible try to note down the length of time given to men to speak compared to the women. Then it is data, not a grumble and it can be brought up in a group discussion, or you could use it to garner support within the other women!
The thing is, some of this is so insidious most people don't even know they are doing it or hat it is being done to them. DD often says "the boys grab all the balls first" when they play dodge ball. So I told her to get in there and grab one herself, or raise this with the teacher, no group should be allowed to dominate like that.