I suppose this proves that women just can't stand the heat.........

[seeker]

here

If you want to get to the top you have to make it plain with any man you meet before you get involved. I think too many marry where the assumption is that the man's career comes first. You either need to make sure that the man isn't ambitious and is the one happy to tootle around on flexy time, being off if the DCs are ill, doing trips to the dentist, taking time off for Sport's Day, running up a costume for Egyptian day, cook the meal, mow the lawn etc OR you have to agree that you will both earn enough to have full time childcare, a cleaner, a gardener etc and that you may miss significant events in your DCs life.
I can see that it must be annoying ( not really a strong enough word) if you have arranged life so that you live to work, to be passed over for a man. However I think it sad that we are made to think that being Head of BP or a top class lawyer etc is the pinnacle we should all be aiming for and that it is superior. I would view it as a prison sentence. Lots of men don't want it either. You often get older men being fathers for the second time and they so much regret the fact that they were too busy the first time around building up their career - and wonder in retrospect what it was all for.
I agree that we don't have enough women at the top- where I disagree is that we shouldn't be made to feel that we ought to want to be there. If I was a nurse it would be because I wanted to work with patients - I wouldn't want to be a manager- if I wanted to do something at managerial level then I wouldn't have chosen nursing.
I was a teacher- my only ambition was to be a better teacher- a Head's job didn't attract me at all- or even a Deputy.
I have lots of ambitions but they don't have anything to do with paid employment.

I admire people like Daniel Day Lewis who is taking 5years off, going to Ireland to spend time with his family and learn rural crafts. The only point in having a top job would seem to be to earn the money to get off and be able to spend the time doing what you really want to do. Apparently he never wanted to be an actor- he wanted to be a cabinet maker but couldn't get the apprenticeship.
Making things with your hands, being artistic, nurturing etc are not inferior- a lot of people do it through choice - they are in their ideal job.
There is no way that I would go into politics and I would be very upset if DH were to want to do anything so detrimental to family life.

But it isn't just about being a big shot CEO. To get there, there are many steps to go through, and too often at each cut off point the women drop by the way side, so that by the time you're choosing the top flyers there isn't much choice.

I don't particularly want to be a 'super head' of a school, but if I did, the experience of not getting promoted post mat leave wouldn't just demoralize me, it effectively cut me off from accessing the next ring up the ladder.

On average, I used to take a massive 1 day a year to take care of my sick kid. I worked longer hours and got better results than most of the men I worked with. Still not able to get the same jobs that they had handed to them (in some cases, without even advertising or interviewing for posts, they just gave the job to the next man in line). I doubt if my situation was unique.

It doesn't even have to be that obvious. Just a little extra pressure on the women each day can be enough to keep them back.

The thing is that very few people actually want high flying positions-which is just as well as there are very few of them.
I agree with you entirely on the cut off points.
What I dislike is the fact that these jobs are seen as the pinnacle and superior -whereas if you are artistic you will be much happier being a book illustrator, sewing dresses for a theatre etc
If I worked in medicine, which I don't, I would want to be a nurse-I would like to be treating Mr Smith in bed 4, the kindly old man who was once a gardener and can give a lot of tips,who like reading and is a great theatre goer etc etc etc-I have no interest in treating the gall bladder in bed 4 and yet I would be told that I ought not to wish this-I should aspire to be a surgeon.
Now boys have it so much easier-if they say they want to be a nurse, infant teacher etc people say 'wonderful, we need more men in these positions'. If a girl says it the assumption is that she is just pushed down a traditional path and is letting the side down-not that she is in her dream job.
I would find being a lawyer deadly boring, but working with autistic children absorbing, challenging and interesting. I don't expect everyone to feel the same- but I do hate the assumption that one is better- other than for the individual who wants to do it.
In the paper today it says that one out of three professional people are suffering burn out-I am not surprised. Lots of men and women don't want it. The other story is the shocking statistic of the number of teenagers who are depressed and self harming. A lot of it is down to the pressure of being 'perfect' in all ways. Girls are more prone to it than boys. A lot of it is the pressure to do well at school and get a good career. I'm sure that a lot would be happier if they could admit to just jogging along with something they enjoy.
By all means aspire to being top of your chosen career but there is no need to make women feel that they ought to and that it is a desirable choice.

I must admit that I am surprised -3 times I have come back to this thread with trepidation -wearing my tin hat -expecting to be attacked. Maybe it will come now!
I just think that a lot of women must be like me and want to work around the family. I could never be Prime Minister because if my child was in hospital I would be with them-they would be my priority regardless of anything else.

I feel that I had the best of it when mine were small. I had a career that could earn good money. I was a supply teacher. I wrote down all dates that I needed to be free for children's things -nativity plays -trips to the orthodontist etc and kept them free-I accepted work for the rest. It was ideal for me but was never going to be a path to a Headship. If I had wanted a career path then I would have to organise things differently and miss things. In that situation I agree entirely and it would be monstrously unfair to overlook me for a man.

I agree exoticfruits (which types of exotic fruits!?). But I also think that the ideas of "success" and "good career" need rethinking. I haven't "progressed" in my career for many years, yet I do almost exactly what I like at work (mostly - too much to ask for 100%, I guess, but a good 95%, I think), I do almost exactly what I like in my spare time (ditto), and I get as much contact with my kids as possible (bar school hours, which are too long, if you ask me). Why am I not a great success in the eyes of society? That is what puzzles me.

I agree with a lot of what Skrumle says. Politics is really difficult and the different ways the same behaviours are percieved in men and women makes a huge difference. It must be very difficult to find way to fit into the Old Boys club in the House of Commons. I certainly wouldn't want to do it and I don't know a single other woman who would want to. Then again I only know 2 men who want to go into politics either, so I'm possibly not moving in the right circles or maybe it's just not something many people want to go into.

I also agree with exotic in that a lot of the 'good career' stuff and 'success' is not what many of us want. There is a promotion available at work, out of a department of 14 of us only 1 person has applied for the promotion because the rest of us would rather have a better work/life balance. I enjoy my job, I am good at it, but it already takes up as much of my time as I want it to, I don't want any extra responsibility to creep into my family time.

kickass my experience of teaching has been quite different to yours. I had dd1 before I went into teaching and every position I ahve ever been offered has been as a mother. I have only missed out on one job I have gone for and I readily admit that I wasn't properly prepared for that interview as dd2 was only a few weeks old at the time, it went to another woman with 2dcs. I was even asked to apply for the promotion that is currently being advertised and I think I would stand a good chance of getting it if I wanted it but I don't. It will possibly go to a man but that's only because he is the 'in-house' candidate and they know what he is capable of more than any external candidates.

That still leaves us with the question of why there is such a lack of balance between the genders. Why isn't here an even number of men and women who are wanting/nit wanting the top jobs and getting them?

I don't know the answer to that kickass. In my mind it should be a far more even split. There must be a lot of factors going on that I haven't thought about or experienced.

Chiefly mangoes!

I would say that there are more men who want power and influence and they can always find a woman who wants to be provided with the things that it gives - seeing as they can be old, ugly and quite nasty, but if they have money and a powerful position they will always be able to attract a beautiful woman. Women who get powerful and rich are far more fussy! They are not likely to want a man who is good looking but useless! It is easier if you have support.

There are lots of men who don't want it and are quite happy to step off the career ladder- if they are a bit of a maverick they can often jump back. Women tend to go for a more cautious, conscientious way up. e.g. a friend of DSs has a very good degree and job and he has given it all up to lead heli skiing trips, another is similar and has had a complete change and is making films for next to nothing- finances being on a shoe string and he may have to give up. Who knows where it will go? It may be an advantage in the long run, it may not- but they are having a ball at the moment! Both are single with only themselves to consider.

This is just a theory that has occurred to me as I write - a generality and no doubt there are lots of exceptions.

Women do seem to be their worst enemies! There is a thread at the moment about travelling alone and it is amazing how many won't! In many cases they are not even considering abroad- they wouldn't go to London and get the tube!
The difference is that a man would never be on the Internet saying they are too scared to travel alone and that you must be very brave to get yourself from London to Barcelona! You can hardly consider a top job if you won't get yourself to Edinburgh! Sorry for all the exclamation marks- it is just an eye opener to me reading it. I have DSs and they just arrange travel themselves and go and do it - I am not talking about the third world just fairly safe places. DS got himself across US on his own aged 18yrs- and he is dyslexic which can make signs slow to read.

I know exotic I had to hide that thread because otherwise I would have called some of them pathetic which would have been very rude. I travelled round India by myself at 18. I had a placement to go to but didn't know how to get there until I was having to do it. I then went to Australia completely by myself with nobody to meet me there, I went all sorts of places by myself and loved it. Dd1 is 13 and went on a music course with a friend, I suggested they took the train together, a direct route with a 5 min walk at the other end, but her parents organised a lift direct from door to door because it wasn't safe for them to get the train apparently

You can see now why they don't let their DCs travel alone and the whole problem was probably caused by their parents being over protective. It is pathetic!

I work in the NHS in a training post ( as a dentist not a doctor) and got pregnant very unexpectedly. I am now back at work full time and I am so fed up of people asking what days are you working? Only to pull a bit of a face when I say full time. It's honestly like they cannot conceive of a mother working full time. I love my job I always have. In the hospital I work in it is an expectation that Iif you have kids you go part time, I think a pp did say that flexible working is great but not if mums are forced into it, and I felt lots of pressure to go part time, I had comments like, well see how you get on, if you cant cope being back full time just say. Can't imagine it ever bring said to a male trainee!

exoticfruits I'm not sure I've got your points straight. You say you think there are no enough women at the top, that you don't want to be at the top and you don't think many others do and that it is up to individual women to clear their lives so that if they want to achieve that, they can do so. That is, in fact, the problem.

Most top jobs do not actually require a person to completely give up their lives in order to do the job properly. To the extent people are expected to do so now, it is relatively recent, coinciding largely with the appearance of significant numbers of women who are capable of doing those jobs.

If you think that there should be more women in senior jobs, it's not sufficient to say that women must make arrangements so they can devote all of their lives to the job. In fact, many men in senior jobs spend significant amounts of time on activities not related to the job (writing books, being boards of charities, pro bono work, climbing fucking Kilimanjaro) which are all seen as legitimate whereas spending time with family is not. As I said up thread, in my fairly limited experience of working in Sweden, men and women in senior roles would get up and leave important meetings to go to their children's school activities and would talk openly about their childcare arrangements. I believe this attitude would contribute to more senior women in business. Another poster made a comment about paternity leave - I believe there should be a non-transferable right for men to take longer paternity leave. Quotas for senior representation are also something I would look at closely.

It isn't like Sweden here- you can't talk openly about child care and expect to go to an activity. You couldn't have a senior post and say I need to leave work at 5 on the dot on Mondays because I am a Cub leader.
You are a unit with your DH. It is a fact that a man is quite likely to have a wife quite happy to be the one in the lesser career - most career women want an equal , they are not really happy with a man who has no ambitions.
They do need to agree before they have children.
Not every woman wants to half the child care- I loved being home with babies- to have had to go out to work and left DH at home would have made me very miserable. There was no real need for him to have paternity leave.
The reason that people ask the dentist which hours they work after the baby is that most women want part time. If I was a dentist there is no way at all I would go full time unless I was forced to- I would want to do a bit to keep up to date.I know a vet at the moment- she only wants to go back part time. Most teachers want a job share.
Men can only write books, go climbing etc once they get to the top- they can't manage it in the way up. If a woman is working part time she has time to write a book, be on boards of charities (they are always wanting unpaid people) or go climbing- you don't have to go abroad.
My only point is that women shouldn't be made to feel that they need to aim for the top- many have a much more interesting, enjoyable time jogging along at the bottom. It is up to the individual to choose what they want.

I am not a "unit" with my DH for work purposes. His work is his work and mine is mine. You are describing the problem as if it were immutable. I don't agree that most women want to work part time nor that men cannot do other activities on the way up. Your experience of senior work positions is much different from mine.

It's not up to the individual to choose because the deck is stacked. Our society and business practice favour men for senior roles.

We are a very long way from women being made to feel they need to aim for the top. When that's even remotely on the horizon I'll start worrying about it.

I agree with FloraFox. Ironically the more senior you are, the more flexibility that comes with the role if it becomes more management, client entertaining and strategic rather than day-to-day firefighting. You have to be there for crucial meetings and events but in between that, there is room for long lunches, disappearing in the middle of the day or leaving early, whilst being available at the end of a blackberry.

The partners at my firm can openly talk about attending child-related events like sports day or during the Olympics taking the family for some blow out event. It makes them look like great dads.

Senior roles are not necessarily the all consuming roles they are made out to be. But to get to those roles, there will be a period where the employee has to put in the hours that god gave to prove themselves more worthy than their peers. That is what is hard for women because these years coincide with their childbearing and engine room years. Going pt and the expectation is that women will ask to go pt after dcs is the often kiss of death.

In other countries, like Singapore where I am from, there are proportionally more women in senior management roles than in the UK. I reckon that is because it is socially acceptable and even expected that professional women would go back to work ft after children. Maternity leave is also much shorter. Pt work, if it exists, is ghetto-ised and most professional woman would not see that as a realistic option. The wanting to go back to work pt after dcs is partly cultural and a result of social conditioning, as is the belief that is prevalent in the UK that children can only fully thrive in the ft care of one parent during their early years.

I am not a "unit" with my DH for work purposes. His work is his work and mine is mine. You are describing the problem as if it were immutable. I don't agree that most women want to work part time nor that men cannot do other activities on the way up. Your experience of senior work positions is much different from mine.

It's not up to the individual to choose because the deck is stacked. Our society and business practice favour men for senior roles.

We are a very long way from women being made to feel they need to aim for the top. When that's even remotely on the horizon I'll start worrying about it.

Once you have a child you are a family unit. The world doesn't owe you a living and isn't much interested.
There are 4 possibilities
The father is the one who takes most of the childcare e.g if the child is ill he is the one who stays at home.
The mother is the one who does most of it.
They do it equally and it is whoever is free- never assuming it is someone's role.
They are both too busy and they farm it all out with nannies etc.

Society doesn't favour any parent who is putting childcare first- you only have to hear the childless on the subject!
Many women want to be the one with the childcare- I certainly do.
I can't see the answer unless businesses are more child friendly in attitudes and hours. The dedicated career person, man or woman, without dependants is going to get the job first. If you want someone to go to New York tomorrow, you want one who can say 'I will go and pack my bag' and not one who says 'I will just have to ring round, see what DH/DW is doing, see if my parents can come over, see if the Nanny can change hours' etc.

If we are to have more women at the top of politics or business, we have to have, as a starting point, fewer of these women who want to go pt indefinitely and spend time 'jogging at the bottom'.

Sure, not everyone wants to shoot for the moon, but those that do are overwhelmingly male. Until women show that burning hunger to get to the top, why should organisations turn themselves inside out to accomodate half hearted ambivalent candidates.

Then on top of that, there are the changes that the organisation must make to remove the hard and soft barriers that stand in women's way, like stop writing employees off who want to go pt or downscale for a short period of their lives, more mentoring for women and grooming them for top posts, and being aware of attitudes how they are reacting to women (e.g. women seen as aggressive but men seen as assertive, women having less presence, no or small network for entertaining).

These attitudes take a long time to change, but it is not helped if so many women just want to be the supportive act at home rather than an equal if not more powerful force in the workplace.

Who said the world owes anyone a living? I find that a little ironic talking about women wanting to work full time, don't you exotic?

We can actually make rules about these things and, in fact, the EU Working Time Directive does that to some extent. The UK government lobbied for us to permit an opt out so we can work longer hours than any other country. It would be a pretty easy start to actually enforce it.

We are still discussing this from the point of view of the individuals. You have to look at the structures in society to understand how the individual makes their decisions.

E.g. If parental leave didn't come heavily loaded to be expected that the woman take the time off work. When women give birth, they often need time to recover, possibly several months. That time gets tied up with the baby's needs and labelled as mat leave when in fact there are 2 different people with needs. For practical reasons it is often the mother who has to care for the baby, but if you look at the bf figures, actually it's less than 50% of babies that need the mother to be at home. The majority of women are fit to return to work within a couple of weeks.

Why not give the mother sick/recuperation leave (as people have when recovering from other medical situations) and then have parental leave as a separate issue?

Separating out looking after the baby from the time the mother needs to recover could have some practical and psychological benefits, one of them being that that people would stop the automatic assumption that mothers need to stay home for long periods.