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

[seeker]

here

However looking after children is the greatest career for some- we are all different. I am not going to be an MP if I am jealous of my nanny and think she is having a better deal.
Men probably get on better because they don't tell other men what they should think.

blueshoes

I can't speak for all men but the directors I know just want to achieve, be the boss and have all the trappings that come with it. I wonder if the difference is loads more testosterone and the need to beat your chest and be the alpha male. We are animals after all and many animal species have males that fight to be 'top dog'. I don't see why we are any different.

To answer your question i think you'd have to carry out some sociological study to determine the factors that lead more men to make the sacrifice than women. I can only speculate (as we all can) about why this is so but that's all we can do surely.

SizzleSazz

Lol ok I take that back as I got carried away. It's the greatest job that 'some' of us can choose

I skimmed through schooldidi's links. It seems that in one report there is no gender gap for ambition - these are findings from asking questions about whether you would ask for more pay and whether you are satisfied with your job. In another report there is a gender gap for self-reported ambition - "how confident are you" type questions. If you read the Delusions of Gender where it shows that there is no gender gap for empathising skills but there is a gap for self-reported empathising skill, then you might be suspicious of the findings. Arguments about how "women prefer not to do this or that" has always been used to justify suppression. I would be very careful about using that.

And so to bed. See you all tomorrow!

Hi uptoapoint, I have just PM-ed you

yes, I agree with uptoapoint.

you're completely ignoring the structures that lead women to decide not to go for a career. Why at age do the decisions get made that make them think it isn't worth the work required? I don't think it's an inherent thing, and you can't compare us to 'pack animals' - might as well compare us to butterflies or sea horses.

Why do young girls want to be president, but STOP wanting that by the time they're in the mid teens? Somewhere they are picking up the messages that it's a man's role, or that women have to stay home to take care of the babies, or that they don't have the skills, stamina etc.

I don't agree with 'you can't be what you can't see' entirely (otherwise we'd never have a first female anything) but it IS hard to aspire to a role which is never shown to you. e.g. a flight I got on recently where 100% of business class were men in suits. Hard for my daughter to get on that flight, see the business class section, and think 'I want to be just like that woman over there'. At best she might think 'I want to sit in the nice area' but that's a far less specific aim, and harder to carry out. She doesn't identify with being a man so, however much she logically thinks she's just as able, the reptilian part of her brain won't make that connection, there will not be the emotional impulse.

"Men probably get on better because they don't tell other men what they should think."

What a load of crap.

It isn't a load of crap. You would never get a discussion like this where some are having to justify the fact that they want to go and live in Cornwall and get a job that doesn't take a lot if effort, gives them just enough money BUT gives them the time to go surfing several days a week. They might privately think they were mad, but they wouldn't be telling them that they ought to be aiming higher.
Not many women are going to want to be MPs. Imagine that you are an MP in a Yorkshire constituency, you have children, you have to be in Westminster and you also have to be in your constituency. Your DH is a surgeon in Leeds. How can you possibly manage? When your DCs are little you can bundle them about. As they get older they won't take kindly to it. Probably boarding school solves some of the problems. I wouldn't even want to be married to an MP- it isn't the life I envisaged. It also makes the DH or DW or DP be involved whether they like it or not- having to go to official receptions etc.
A child changes your life. I was speaking to a friend yesterday. Her DD and SIL both have careers in London. They live about an hours travelling distance away. They have a DD in nursery and all is well except that if the nursery phone up and say DD isn't well, please come and collect her they are stuffed. They have no back up except my friend who is 3 hours away and is a busy woman- she has commitments and a part time job that she can't just drop. They are thinking they might have to get a nanny instead. They have no idea how they will manage once the DD goes to school but are shelving the problem in the meantime- it will probably mean long visits to Granny or auntie who lives in Cornwall and doesn't work. Meanwhile the parent that can most easily collect her at the time does it, but it doesn't go down well in the office.
Child care falls down if they are ill. I have been guilty of dosing mine up with calpol and saying, 'I'm sure you will be fine' when I have had to be at work and had no cover - when I speak to anyone they have done the same. As a teacher I know they do.
The only way to get to the top is to have a nanny, use boarding schools and have relatives who will have them to stay in holidays. Many women would rather see more of their DCs and get off the ladder.
Seeker started the thread and has never returned. I don't know if she was ever on a ladder but I get the impression that she hasn't been on since her DCs were born and since the youngest could now have a key and let himself in after school she still isn't climbing one- she seems immersed in her DCs and life at home- I get the impression that this is choice and she seems happy - not bitter that it has stopped her doing what she wished. In that case she ought to understand that many women are simply not on a ladder because they don't want to be.
I think we need more women at the top but it takes a very ambitious woman who loves their job.

It also takes a very ambitious man who loves his job. DH's boss is one - his work is his life and he doesn't know what to do without it. He loves it. He has no DCs and his wife has to have a life of her own, he hardly ever sees her! He starts early, works late and travels overseas often. He takes holidays but if he can combine them with work he does! There is nothing wrong with this but I wouldn't marry anyone like him!

"You would never get a discussion like this where some are having to justify the fact that..."

You are the only person talking about that. You clearly feel you need to justify your choice at great and frankly fucking tedious length. You are the one saying others should be happy to jog along the bottom. No-one has asked you to justify your choice but you can't seem to stop doing it.

What you said about men getting ahead because they don't tell other men what to think is still a lot of crap.

I suspect this is relevent

I would imagine it isn't very nice to be a woman in westminster.

You have a wonderful way of twisting my words to suit the way that you want to portray me, FloraFox - it isn't actually what I am saying at all.
I would say there is a lot of truth in the article, Hecate and I suppose women should fight it - most just take the easy way and keep well away from that type of environment. I know an MP and all her DCs are at boarding school- not something I would be willing to do. She also has to attend no end of boring functions- a lot in the evenings. You only have to read threads on here and you realise that people like me are highly irresponsible - we hire babysitters ( shock horror- some are still teenagers!!) many never go out because they won't trust anyone with their DCs.
I feel that I am a reasonably well balanced adult, I drive on the motor way on my own, I travel alone (even abroad) I trust my judgement about people, e.g. hiring babysitters, letting my 5 yr old go to a play date of a DC of a woman I don't know well, I can stand up in front of a roomful of people and give a talk, I can delegate to the DCs, leave an 8yr old for 10 mins alone, let a 12yr old cook dinner. I could go on and on but you only have to read MN for a short while to realise that many, many, many women can't do these things - and then you expect them to manage a home and keep a high flying career!
The difference with men is that they bluff a lot- even if worried they don't tell people!
My personal reason is that I always wanted children, circumstances made it seem as if I wouldn't (or only one). I was lucky enough to manage 3 by my personal age cut off point. It is the best thing I have done and work fitted around them- it was my choice not to fit them around work. It isn't wrong to do it the other way , many would climb the walls at home- we are all different.
Many women have no interest in power or influence, even if the path were easy.
I have been much heartened by the fact that it is a very slow thread - only kept going by me and a few other people. Since I am so tedious I will leave and it can carry on without me - or just quietly get buried.

kickassangel Tue 26-Feb-13 23:47:07

The thing is, people choose not to go for a career for a multitude of reasons. We're individuals and whilst there may be some structure that conditions us there will be a point at which we will all use our own judgement to override societal 'norms' or do what we see as being best. You cannot overlook this aspect of human nature, otherwise feminists would never have attempted to challenge the norms that have disadvantaged women. I think you're right about looking into the rationale behind women dropping off. IMHO this is the most important aspect. Stats are useless without this kind of research. Legislating for quotas is fair enough but this is only really a band-aid and does not get to the root of the issue(s). Some of it may well be due to sexism and continued oppression but some of it may not be.

I found the links posted by Schooldidi very interesting but even these do not go deep enough. The 'Institue of Leadership & Management' document was probably the most relevant to us (given the other two were US based and their culture is very different to ours) but even this was a survey of already working men/women. The bigger question is why the ambition of a lot of women lags behind men? I have no shame in admitting I haven't a clue but it most definitely isn't exclusively because of the patriarchy.

I would say that some women obviously don't give two hoots about norms, some do and then some have other ideas of how they want to live their lives. I've worked with people that thought they wanted everything but realised the rat race is a complete waste of time. Some have given 100% to companies and when the chips were down, their loyalty was rewarded with redundancy.

I don't want a high flying career because my values lie with my family, not with power or money. My wife's values are looking after kids and making a home. This isn't conditioning, it's living a life according to one's values.

HecateWhoopass Wed 27-Feb-13 08:25:58

That is an interesting article but is anecdotal with no real evidence. There are numerous incidences on this board where anecdotes are discarded because it fails to represent the 'bigger picture'. If we are being balanced then I would say the same applies to that article.

Funnily enough the comments are spot on. The article is useless without naming/shaming the culprits.

FloraFox Wed 27-Feb-13 08:02:04

You clearly feel you need to justify your choice at great and frankly fucking tedious length

This is exactly why I've been a long time lurker and will soon return to resuming my lurking. I've often read on these boards the reaction of the regulars who disagree with people that hold a different, but equally valid, POV. They are swiftly belittled, insulted and treated like they have no place/right to their opinions. I find it shameful and a poor advertisement for anyone that might think that feminism may be for them. I wouldn't dare speak to anyone with such disrespect and find it amazing how you 'believe' women to be equal but can easily show such disregard to another woman

I had actually forgotten that I had started this thread!

Somebody mentioned my SAHM status- I think I am in a slightly different position to many because I had my children so late,that I was already about as high in my career as I was likely to get, and if I had chosen to go back to work I could have done. Often the more senior you are,the more say you have in your working conditions! However, I chose not to go back. Although I am a SAHM, I run a small business from home. I think it would be very difficult to get back on the career ladder at my age, and I don't want to. But the crucial thing is that I have had a successful career.

Anyway,I just wanted to say that I profoundlydisagree with exotic on this never said that before). I think that the key is in how we educate girls. We have a society that still expects women to take up the bulk of domestic and family responsibilities, and to accommodate the needs of men. I see that, to my sadness in my smart, switched on daughter- for example, they had an all day rehearsal for a school show on Sunday. All the girls turned up on time- the boys straggled in anything up to an hour late. The girls were exasperated and cross, but it was obvious that they just sort of expected boys to be flaky. A trivial example, but these are high flying, ambitious girls who should be the leaders of the future. But they are still being socialised to be appeasers and emotion keepers.

Oh, and, with one or two exceptions (usually in the child care business) men are never required to say why they are good enough for a job based on their gender alone. Women are all the time.

Sorry the thread can quietly get buried- not the posters!

There are actually a lot of lurkers, Dazzler, people who won't post have emailed in the past when I have had a hard time. I'm surprised I haven't had a hard time here. I have had a successful career too, seeker- sometimes you just want to move off and on in a different direction. Anyway - will go as promised.

Dazzler, you are being unfair on Flora who has been extremely patient on this thread. If that had been a comment in AIBU or anywhere else on the board it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow or be taken for the frustrated remark it was. But for some reason you seem to want to hold feminists to a higher standard of behaviour than everyone else? And hold Flora resonsible for how feminists are perceived?? Grossly unfair.

Feminists get just as frustrated as everyone else when they are banging their head against a brick wall (which is probably another reason why other people haven't piled in - been there, done that, got the t-shirt). The "oh you shouldn't be nasty to other women" really means you should suck up everything that we throw at you with good grace like the naice girl you should be.

And Hecate's link maybe anecdotal but it is still based in fact. Lord Rennard anyone?

Promqueen: "So, the interesting question for me is why things are set up in such a way that only those who are willing and able to sacrifice everything else in their lives can have any power. Why does it have to be this way? Who's decided that this is the best way to live?"

Society and the structures within it have become so complex. Running a family is nothing like running a country such as the UK or a corporation with 30,000 employees over 35 countries.

There are so many hours in a day. Even if the politicians and business leaders had people to assist them, there is still a core amount of hard facts, knowledge and skills they need to have to guide strategy, make informed decisions and to implement them. There is also a lot of people management, motivation, schmoozing, dealing with the press.

The role can be enormously engaging and I am sure lots get off on the power trip as well. But if it was so easy to rise to the top, well we cannot all be bosses.

To disagree with dazzler: I think the ILM study is only interesting and informative up to a point: the questions are to do with self-reporting, and in many studies it is found that women are socialised to think themselves less confident (WTF), no good at maths (WTF), better at empathising (WTF) and all the stereotype. When you ask questions like that you get the expected answers. The self-reported ambition of women lags behind that of men, as I could have told you without conducting any study, because I have live this life as a woman and have not been stupid or wilfully ignorant. The other study ask what one would do in different situations that has to do with ambition. I would say that reflects the reality better. And surprise surprise. No significant difference between men and women. How the career of women lags behind men's, well, that is a different question. Read the Delusions of Gender.

To disagree with exotic: one does not have to justify one's choices. This is not about your choice (or mine, which is similarly to do exactly what I want which happens not to be the path of power and glory). It is about the systematic exclusion of women to positions of power and/or high pay and/or great responsibility. And it is about examining working practice. Why should things be what they have been?

And I agree with PromQueen. :)

And to quote an older source:

"I deny that anyone knows, or can know, the nature of the two sexes, as long as they have only been seen in their present relation to one another. If men had ever been found in society without women, or women without men, or if there had been a society of men and women in which the women were not under the control of the men, something might have been positively known about the mental and moral differences which may be inherent in the nature of each. What is now called the nature of women is an eminently artificial thing ? the result of forced repression in some directions, unnatural stimulation in others." (John Stuart Mill, on The subjection of women.)

Women less ambitious than men based on current evidence? Stuff and nonsense.

AbigailAdams

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be 'holier than thou' but disrespect is disrespect and I would challenge anyone on any board for belittling another human being. I'd rather say nothing at all than to resort to telling someone they were being f'ing tedious. I really don't fancy it (because it would be really f'ing tedious ) but I could copy/paste numerous instances (not related to Flora) of regulars who show unbelievably short shrift to rational people with opposing views. I grant it must be difficult constantly facing opposing views but to me, equality is respecting the views/lives of others, irrespective of how much their view differs from your own. It's exactly this type of response that has kept me at arms length. Many lurkers, like me, are fully supportive of feminism but whilst I will happily lurk in an attempt to learn, I dare not (till last night) attempt to discuss what I sometimes believe to be controversial because of the backlash.

I wasn't suggesting that you shouldn't be nasty to another woman. Not in the way you mentioned anyway as you've taken that in the most extreme way possible. I just meant that, to me, believing all women are equal i.e. to both men and women alike, means that you are no more 'entitled' to hold a higher view than another. My opinions aren't any more/less important than yours and neither are Flora's to Exoticfruit's. To demean shows a distinct belief that your view takes precedence over another, which is not an acceptance of equality (not in my view anyway).

Do I want to hold feminists to a higher standard of behaviour? I guess I do but for the same reason I'd expect a religious person to posess higher morals or a policeman to act in a more law abiding manner. I realise the feminist movement is a political one so I won't even try to compare my expectations of how politicians should behave . I genuinely believe in equality and I would be most dissapointed with myself if I chaired a meeting at work and didn't give a female colleague her fair time on the floor, shut her out, disregarded her views, belittled her contribution, respected her views or challenge anyone that attempted to do any of these things. To me it's a simple case of practising what you preach although I completely understand if you don't see it the same way.

But as per Exotic, I'll be making my way and will return to lurking. All the best {smile]

OK.

I'm a F/T working mum who chose to go back when her DS was less than a year old.

At the time, DH had no work, but because he was looking for it, going to interviews etc he couldn't commit to childcare. He is a contractor so is sometimes working, sometimes not. I'm permanent, so we can't afford for me to not work as it's our only guaranteed income (such as anything is "guaranteed" in this climate). We have no family help (all parents very elderly and hundreds of miles away). So not much of a choice really!

DS went to a nursery F/T. The current cost of this nursery is over a thousand a month. Even with the free hours and childcare vouchers after he was 3, we still paid out more than our mortgage every month.

We decided early on that we could only afford one child because of all this. He's now at school and logistics are even worse. Holiday childcare is a nightmare and schools close earlier than the nursery did, even with breakfast and teatime clubs. (How we deal with this problem while spending as many hours as possible with DS is another ongoing issue and irrelevant here unless I want to open yet another can of worms!)

So if this is a major logistical struggle for us, with me working at a well-paid job and DH sporadically (and often in other cities, so guess who has to do the school runs?), and only one child, how on earth are women expected to burn the midnight oil that political/judicial/business careers seems to demand?

Oh yes, no children. Or a nanny.

My SIL chose the former. She's an exec. in a global company. Half the time she's in China negotiating something or other. But totally incompatible with having children.

If economic recovery is going to happen, then someone is going to have to come up with a viable non-complex childcare option. Not just early years, or else they'll have the stupid situation of having working mums for first 5 years who then have to give up so they can do the school runs, as firms not surprisingly expect F/T workers to be there after 3pm. No wonder we don't have many board level women.

But Flora didn't feel she held a higher view than exoticfruits. And nor was she belittling or demeaning her. Exoticfruits has just been repeating the same thing over and over again, which is tedious. And she has certainly had her fair time on the floor. I can't believe you think she hasn't. Her views haven't been disregarded they have just been disagreed with. Something we are allowed to do. Flora has spent a lot of time trying to engage with exoticfruits. The lack of engagement hasn't been from her side.

And you don't seem to have a reason for holding feminists to a higher standard other than you hold other groups to a higher standard Rightho. Feminism is about trying to rid ourselves of the patriarchy or equality or whatever your view on it. It isn't about being polite to all and sundry. An expectation that women should be polite and nice is very patriarchal. Being angry and frustrated, not really allowed. Put it this way on another forum if it was a man who had said that you wouldn't have thought he was responsible for how men were viewed. You might have said he was rude but not the rest.