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

[seeker]

here

That makes a lot of sense to me kickass. I'd love to have had it as sick leave then have the option to share parental leave with dp. Personally I'd still have taken it as maternity leave but that's only because my employer has a better deal than dp's employer so we'd have had more money. I only took 4 months anyway though (then had the 6 weeks summer holidays a couple of weeks after I went back).

Does anyone know of any studies on ambition- whatever that means - whether men are really more "ambitious" than women? It seems to me we either get anecdotal evidence ("all the women I met" or "I don't want it and I'm a woman" etc) or just the conclusion ("more men than women in parliament"). And the fact that fewer women ended up in "higher positions" does not mean than women are less ambitious. I would like to know if there are credible studies on this ...

And hello blueshoes - I think we used to meet at the bilingual board but I might have had a different name before ...

I googled and found a couple of studies Upto. I haven't read them fully because I am at work so I have no idea how credible they are but they look like they might be quite interesting.

Institute of leadership and management study

This is a newspaper article rather than a study but it looks like it should have some studies linked in it

an American study that looks at work and family life of both men and women

Meant to say, yes all the evidence we hear regularly is anecdotal. I'm quite a geek in terms of wanting to see large studies with statistical significance, looking at individuals or small groups is always tricky. I always think as well that the women who want to advance or are rather ambitious probably aren't spending as much time on discussion forums like mumsnet as those of us who are happy where we are, so we're a self selecting sample rather than a truly representative sample.

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.

But this is why I am posting in the first place-many women absolutely love being the support at home. I am one. I find it much more exciting, absorbing and interesting than being 'a powerful force in the workforce'. When I am in the workforce I just want an interesting career I have no desire whatsoever to be a power-it doesn't interest me. There is nothing wrong with this-it isn't inferior -there is room for all.
There is no way that I will get to the top because my family comes before work. If work suddenly announced that I had to see an important client and it happened to be the evening I was seeing my DS in his school play then I am going to the play-I am not telling DS that anything is more important to me. I am not pretending it is OK to send just Dad or put Granny in my place-I am not going to miss it. Since this isn't on in the work place I made sure that I was never in a position where it would happen.
I agree with the comment on it in the paper today. It points out that many successful women step off the career ladder in their 30s and 40s.

I think of the many successful women I?ve known ? in newspapers, the City, teaching, local government ? who have stepped off the career ladder in their thirties or forties. It wasn?t because they hit a glass ceiling. It wasn?t because the men in suits got together over brandy and cigars at the club and decided this feminism nonsense had gone far enough. And it wasn?t as though these women would not have been promoted if they?d hung on. Why did they choose to eschew power? A variety of reasons: because they wanted children; because they wanted to spend time with the children they already had; because, while they were prepared to work 50 hours a week, they weren?t up for working 60, or 70, or 80; because they weren?t greedy; because they didn?t want a life of networking and schmoozing and creeping and politicking; because they didn?t fancy the drudgery and hassle of being an MP or a councillor; because they wanted to work from home sometimes; because, when it came to it, they were ambitious but not at any cost.
They got out of the lift before it reached the very top, in other words, because they were sane, rational, normal people, and wanted to stay that way. It all depends on your definition of power, doesn?t it? When they thought it through, these women ? like most women, and indeed most men ? valued control over their own lives more highly than control over other peoples?.

This is me. I was older when I had me DCs-40yrs when the youngest was born. I knew what I wanted and it wasn't to climb a career ladder.

I don't know why men want to stay in the lift either-much better to get off and have time.

I always think as well that the women who want to advance or are rather ambitious probably aren't spending as much time on discussion forums like mumsnet as those of us who are happy where we are, so we're a self selecting sample rather than a truly representative sample.

Very true. I have been surprised that very few have added comments-I nearly didn't post-I expected far more of a backlash. Even Xenia hasn't appeared-she must be too busy!

It is quite probable that if I had had children when young I would feel differently-not having time to find out that I didn't want to climb upwards.

exotic you have said you would find my job "deadly boring" (not sure how you'd know that) but your main point is that you don't want to be judged for your decision to stay home. I must say, I'm not really getting the FWR angle. It feels a bit like you're trying to pick a fight.

exoticfruits Tue 26-Feb-13 18:09:38

Long time lurker but thought I'd finally sign up to say that I thought your post was (for me anyway) one of the most coherent that I've read in a long time. It echoes how I feel as a man (as well as many successful women that I know who have had children).

My wife worked her way up the finance ladder until we decided to have children and then pursued her ultimate career goal (to be a SAHM) and devote her time to our children. If money were no object then I'd have joined her too as looking after children is the greatest job anyone can choose. My employers can take their management and power as I have no interest in it and as such I got off the lift a long time ago.

For most of my career I've seen what is necessary to get to the top and it sucks. I have no interest in selling my soul when the things that really matter i.e. my wife and kids, are at home looking forward to spending quality time with me. I've often been earmarked for management roles but have shunned them every time as I don't want it. I also wanted to see my kids at sports day, plays, musicals and in the orchestra. When I look back on my life I will always remember seeing my kids and spending time with my wife. I very much doubt I will give two hoots about not driving some faceless company in some wonderful direction.

I have friends that are directors for multinationals and they are a great example of how I don't want to live my life. It takes a special breed of human to turn their backs on their families (via work) and my guess is that there are more men prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice than women.

Since I don't know what your job is I have 't said it is deadly boring- unless it came under ones that I wouldn't like such as lawyer or surgeon. You can't expect everyone to like the same. One persons dream job is another person's nightmare job.
Like Kim - if some one asks me how I see my career going I just want to be a better teacher- however it won't go down well to say that you don't want a post of responsibility and you want a 4day week.
If you want to get to the top, man or woman, you can't say that seeing your DCs school play will always come first. The PM must miss a lot - he has to.
The most important thing to me is time- far more important than money or power. Lots of women are the same. The vet I mentioned earlier doesn't want to go back at all yet but she will because she is being offered reduced hours that suit her. If she gives up the job and wants to go back in a couple of years she won't get such favourable days. She doesn't want full time.

In the US children age 12 equally want to run for president. Within 3 years of that the boys outnumber the girls. Similar things happen to girls in sport. It seems that the early teenage years are when girls start opting out but numbers for boys continue.

What is happening in those years that makes girls stop wanting to be president or do sport? What else do they drop out of?

Life like that sucks to me too Dazzler. I can't see who you want it when it stops you having a life. Much better to go off out of the rat race , both earn less money for less hours and have time to skim stones in the sea, fly kites , go for long bike rides etc. Childhood is so short- the very time that people are climbing ladders and they miss it. As a DC I would want my parents at my school play, not sending Granny because they had no time.
There are people who seek power and money first. - are workaholics - but not all.
This thread is very slow moving- I expected everyone to pile in and tell me I was wrong. The article was from the Times- it got one comment!
Seeker started it- as far as I can see she is at home, enjoying life with her DCs, whatever she is doing she doesn't appear to have the high flying career she thinks we should all want- even though her youngest is now at secondary school and she could get back on the ladder.

Perhaps the reason no-one is "piling in" is that you have set up a straw man argument that no-one cares about. No-one has said they expect everyone to like the same. Where did Seeker say she thinks we should all have high flying careers?

The big step forward seems to me to be that many men think that a work/life balance is far more important than power and influence. Unfortunately, tradition makes it far more difficult for them to say they would like a job share or they need to finish right on time everyday to collect from nursery. Anyone who does those things isn't going to get to the top of the ladder. We have this mad system where lots of people can't get a job and those with one work silly, punishing hours. Someone said that the men at the top can do all sorts of things in addition BUT that is only when they get there- on the way up they are frightened to take time off or go home early in case the bosses think they can manage without them! They can also put their heart and soul into it only to be called in and told to clear their desk - they are redundant.

Waves to uptoapoint

She started the thread.
This is very slow moving. If I am on threads that people feel deeply about I can hardly keep up. Every time I come back it takes 30 mins to catch up. Teachers giving up holidays was one such - and it was full before we had finished. If I didn't keep posting this would die.
If people feel deeply about it they pile in and quite honestly I expected to get lynched! I thought if it was too bad I would just hide it! It hasn't been like that and I have had support.
Lots of women don't want the power and influence because they see the personal cost and think it is too much. You have to question why you are working if it doesn't let you live the way that you want to live.if you want to live that way, and it gives you a real buzz, then go for it- but don't expect everyone to feel the same. It is impossible to have your perfect professional life and perfect homelife- something has to give.

So exotic, your answer to why there are fewer women at the top of politics and public life is because power and conventional success is not what you (and apparently many women) want and great that more men are turning away from it and don't judge you or them. Huh?

We need people to make the personal sacrifices to lead the country. The question is why it is men that are prepared to do it, want it and achieve it in greater numbers than women in the UK. And why are the rates of women participation at the top so much lower in the UK than other countries.

You are not answering the question and in fact hijacking the thread to run some pseudo-anti-work argument of your own I don't fully understand.

exoticfruits

FWIW I don't think you are wrong as you're making perfect sense to me. The trouble is, most articles are primarily focused on statistics, like only 25% of CEOs being women. Maybe it should be 50% I really don't know but as an analyst I know that statistics are pretty useless unless you dig deeper, much deeper, into the reasons why the numbers are like they are. Motivation and drive to become powerful is most definitely a factor in all this so you are not wide of the mark at all. It's a very valid question but one that is not addressed as much as publishing statistics.

I have a very wealthy friend who, before kids, had her own business and earned money I could only dream of. Business is in her blood. A real high flyer who doesn't know the meaning of 'glass ceiling'. When she had kids (in her late 30s) it all changed and now is happy to work part time. Her kids come first despite having a husband that earned pennies compared to her. They are not followers of convention so it would have been more logical for him to stay at home and be sole carer. Yet this did not happen.

I've seen this happen with many successful women.

Straw arguments always set people off!

Flora is right about the reasons nobody is piling in. I am glad you are happy exotic, but I don't really see the relevance of what you say to this thread.

Exotic - i agree with your lift analogy . I also with blueshoes that just when that lift is heading towards the top floor is (typically) when women are having DC's and looking at mad hours/dull schmoozing/ego mania versus sane life and choose the latter. This might not be giving up a career fully, but accepting they don't want to be part of the merry-go-round and head for PT roles or roles with less pressure (and likely career progression)

Dazzler, interesting viewpoint, although i do have to disagree with "looking after children is the greatest job anyone can choose". Unfortunately I can't seem to 'choose' it as it drives me demented, but PT works nicely

I would say that it is lower in UK because child care is expensive and not exactly helpful- businesses don't take much interest.
Many women have their biological clock and fully intend to go back full time but change their mind once they have their baby. I think that we should help and encourage the women who want to get there- we need more. However we should understand that many are simply not interested.
Probably only about 2% of the population want the power and influence - the unfortunate thing is that more of them are men.
I am just surprised that anyone wants it- but am thankful that someone wants to do it. It needs a change of attitude in the workplace and better childcare if we are to get more women.