Is it OK to have a career rant here?

[ItsGotBellsOn]

Just perusing the dreaded FB and noticed an ex colleague of mine (male) has posted up pics of the latest high profile conference he is chairing. We are both late thirties now and worked together 10-15 years ago.

It got me thinking (not for the first time) about how amazingly well all the men I worked with in my twenties have done. Every single guy I worked with at that particular workplace - whether bright and talented or not, whether good people or not - have carved really, really impressive, exciting, creative, lucrative careers for themselves. Very, very few of the women - even the brightest and best of us - have.

I just feel so fucking depressed about it. Yes, it is a bit of self pity. I fucked a glittering career in the media by having a child in my twenties. But there is also a sense of rage. All of those bloody brilliant women have just one by one dropped off the radar, are no longer trailblazing in that sector, are no longer visible in the public world. It just feels so wrong.

"Most companies want work done by the best person. Be the best person and they tend not to care if you've one leg or are blue or red - if the customers/ clients love you and you are feted as marvelous everywhere then they will stick with you."

This just isn't true in all fields. As Tunip says not all metrics are objective. you can't make the leap from "the best person" to "the clients love you". There is a huge gap between those two things. You can be on a successful team where the client always gives your male boss or colleague credit for all your successes; you can be landed with the parts of the job that are inherently less fruitful, but someone has to do it; if you complain about things like these two things, or other similar things, you can be branded as "not a team player" or "difficult"; and so on.

Greengrow, as another poster said, I do like you and your can-do attitude but I think you are very focused on a particular kind of independence ("eat what I kill") through excellence which is inappropriate in some kinds of work, which are of necessity team-based; and the difficulty is, that a team, like a family, can easily become a structure that is designed to deliver women's energy to men to do as they like with it.

Yes, you can refuse to be exploited in a team by refusing to be in a team. But what if you like, and are good at, the sort of work that is done in teams?

Also although I bet you will find the richest people in the world don't work in teams (tho they might direct staff), I bet you will also find the poorest aren't in teams either (as they don't work at all). In other words for very many of us, making work work at all, means working in teams.

Speaking of objective metrics, two observations from me:

I work in a media company which is overwhelmingly, embarrassingly, white. The exceptions are all in our finance teams and in-house law. I hypothesise that this is because those people have passed rigorous exams that cannot be argued with.

Having been patronised, sidelined, and insulted for much of my life, I was astonished (and delighted) to find that I am shit-hot at poker. You play as an individual; aggression is rewarded, whether the people around you actually like you for it or not; discretion is equally rewarded (aggression and discretion both in the correct context). you play the game, not your opponents. There is a ton of bullshit talked about pyschology and tells and all that sort of stuff. That nonsense doesn't get you far but to the extent that anyone relies on it, it works in your favour as you look out of context and people make stupid decisions, misjudging your intelligence. It is marvellous for a few hours of your life to be in a context where no one can argue when you win; and it is an advantage to be underestimated; and it makes them look stupid, not you, when people think you are stupid.

Tunip re clear metric for measuring success - we have that in scientific research, everything is done y impact factor here especially as none of us teach ( our research grant contracts generally ban it).

It has been shown that women need two more papers than men or a significant jump in impact factor (with otherwise the same cv) to get the same grant success rate.

Yes of course it depends on the section and I agree that in some areas where if you pass exams you can get on you see less discrimination. Law and medicine although not perfect are may be examples of that now (they didn't used to be - the Victorians thought women's brains would explode if they went to university).

Yes, I hate teams. I work alone. I am the lone wolf or tiger, not in the pack although of course I was in the pack to start. Perhaps women do better alone if the pack is led by men who discriminate, although to be fair I've worked with loads of non sexist men. Women entrepreneurs do very well in the UK. More women under 40 are millionaires than men are. In some cases women not getting on within the various packs causes them to set up on their own and own rather than work for someone and then they do better than those men they left behind. It is not all hopeless.

So if you are in a team and it's hard to get to the top of it or prove you are better than the men what can you do? I only have my own example and those I've observed over 30 years of advising businesses. I was always the youngest to start as I graduated aged 20. It helped I had babies in my 20s as I had the responsibiities men in their 30s and 40s had so things in common with them where most 23 year olds have less in common with older colleagues at work. What else? I did always loads of self promotion. Even in my teens I was entering writing competitions and the like. Join those committees (in that sense I still do teams), get your name out there, get credit for what you have done. Of course this cannot apply to every job. Some have argued women have two ways of getting on and men only one - women and men have excellence which never goes amiss. Women but usually not men have "erotic capital" which some choose to use too. If we have two ways of getting on and men only one perhaps we should look on the bright side and the day will come when most team leaders and highest earners are female not male.

This is a list of my contemporaries, all of whom are around the age of 40 and achieved grades of AAA or AAB etc in the early 90's.

A. Male. Russell Group University. Investment Banker and financier at v high level. Unmarried, no children.

B. Male. Russell Group University. Investment banker, now hedge funder. Married, two children. Wife was a city lawyer, briefly a partner, now almost entirely a SAHM.

C. Male. Russell Group University. Lawyer, partner in City law firm. Married, one child. Wife works PT.

D. Male. Russell Group University. Chartered accountant, director in big 4 firm. Unmarried, no children.

E. Male. Redbrick university plus Oxbridge postgrad. Lawyer, partner in city law firm. Married, two children. Wife works nearly FT but in well paid legal role, so lots of paid childcare used.

F. Male. Redbrick university. Engineer, started a tech firm which eventually became a listed company (he held director level post). Married, two children. Wife works PT.

G. Male. Russell Group University. Lawyer, partner in city law firm. Married with two children. Wife was previously a solicitor in a similar firm, now SAHM.

H. Male. Russell Group university. Chartered accountant in big 4 firm, now Finance Director in industry. Married with two children. Wife was also chartered accountant in same firm, now SAHM.

I. Female. Redbrick university. Started a tech firm. Worked PT at intermediate level in tech firm after DC1 and DC2. Married to F, above.

J. Female. Oxbridge. Lawyer. Solicitor in City law firm, returned to work PT after DC1, left before DC2. Now SAHM, DH is partner in city law firm.

K. Female. Redbrick university, plus Oxbridge postgrad. Lawyer, then became one of the few female partners in a male-heavy city law firm. Exited from there (Not forced-out, oh no ), now works as senior in-house legal. Married, no children.

L. Female. Russell Group university, lawyer. Returned to work PT after DC1, 2 and 3, but finds it difficult to get work. Employers have been supportive but there are now signs they are trying to ease her out.

So there is a general pattern of men proceeding to senior posts and women scaling back to make time and space for their family. But the problem is not so much the scaling back, as I do believe that young children need that time and attention from people who love them, it is the lack of structured re-entry points for those women that is the problem.

I am married to one of the men in the first part of the list (funnily enough I have better academic results than him!) and am slowly regaining some career headway - mostly because I am willing/able to play the long game and also work in a very supportive, female-dominated environment.

Badgers it is changing, and it has got loads better in my time, and I know that the new generation of women moving up in my trade won't have the same shit my lot did - I just feel like my work is done now (like I said, I'm tired of it all).
There are more women than ever now, and I do my utmost to develop their self belief and ensure they are pushing for fairness when they need to, but at just shy of 40 with bad knees, bad hips, achilles problems and now throwing crohn's into the mix I'm ready for something new and different, I no longer enjoy my job like I used too.
I've another 20+ years of work left in me so plenty of time to start over and work at something different - I'm quite excited about starting over, it's the money I'll miss!

As for your 9 month deployments - just wow.
See, I view that sort of thing as an under the radar way of making it so untenable for a serving couple with children to continue that one of you will opt out. That way they've not sacked you for daring to reproduce, you've chosen to leave.
I'm always interested to hear of couples like the Commodore & the Commander you mentioned, how have they managed? Who has sacrificed opportunity etc? (If at all), do their kids go to boarding school? etc.

I have to say, up until the last couple of years I have loved my job, and I have absolutely no regrets at all - it's just not for me anymore.

yes, but branching you are basically saying women made poor choices and deserved what they got. I always put my career first and realise children definitely don't need a parent at home to do well. That is why I am like your male colleagues and earn what they do. Women who think housework and childcare should be put above their earnings lose out - you could say more fool them and that all we really want is what men have as Miriam G said the other day. She hasn't played second fiddle to her husband and so earns more than him and the family is all the happier for it.

In other words the big con can be that small children need mother at home. Ditch the con and the world is your oyster.

The biggest con though is surely that you can't both have it all.

Someone in the partnership has to sacrifice something for the other to have the unfettered opportunity to succeed.

It is difficult to see an example where both parents have reached the top of their respective tree. (There are obviously exceptions, but they are exceptions).

(Sorry, have namechanged mid thread - I was/am Scarlett)

To make you feel better, I went part time when I had my first child, then my life imploded completely and I had to stop work. Years later, after working from home, freelance, v part time etc, to my complete surprise I started to get the career I'd long since given up on back on track.

I am 47 and have been offered a full time senior role in a very prestigious organisation. I am excited and daunted to be back out there. But what I want to say is - don't give up. Never, never, never give up. We all work so much longer & have much longer working lives. It is a marathon, not a sprint & you may be overtaking them yet when they burn out.

I don't know what to think about this sort of thing cause I went down the freelance consultancy road after middle management and so never became a senior manager and therefore am now very unlikely to manage an organisation in my sector, even a small one, and I am really happy and doing well albeit a bit "behind the scenes".

I know one woman who heads an org and she isn't happy with her job. It's high profile and very accountable. In my sector the role is crushed between "staff" below and "trustees" above and although looks glam it can be very very tough.

Because I don't want to do it, I feel a bit hypocritical wishing more women were.

All the men on my uni course who got the same or worse degree than me all are more senior and earn more than me. It sucks

I definitely did not say that, greengrow, but was rather trying to give a sample of real-life trajectories - these include female high-flyers, many of whom were privately educated, who chose law :), but who are now below the radar...

If the solution is for a father to choose the SAHP role, then surely that just transfers the disadvantage?

In my view, it needs a collective re-thinking on the part of society, educators and employers to say that yes, family life is important and that the career costs of that should not just fall heavily on one gender.

I agree Branching. The whole system of how work is organised is wrong, IMO. There is very much the sense that once someone employs you, you owe them your time and you should be grateful for the pressure they heap upon you. It is totally the wrong attitude I think. Workers are immeasurably valuable and yet employers tend to treat them like workhorses that need to have every last drop of effort eked out of them. As a matter of principle I think it's the wrong way for society to view human beings, whether they be men or women.

YY BranchingOut. I could see what you meant btw. Totally agree with the collective rethink. The workplace is very much an example of 'designed by men, for men' and women are currently just trying to fit in around the edges. If you think about it, it is pretty insulting that half the population (in fact more than that because children as well) are just expected to align themselves within a system that has never been designed to cater for them.

I think the conversation a page or so ago about the increasingly global nature of jobs is interesting. The job I've been being nudged towards and have just decided not to go for is essentially a global version of what I currently do in a UK context. It would mean lots of travel and lots of out of hours phone calls. I really enjoy my job, but I also enjoy doing other things (including spending time with my children), and for me I think getting that balance right is more important than climbing the greasy pole for the sake of it.

Personally I think organisations would get the best out of their employees if they recognised that many people feel the same way I do. I'm good at what I do, and when I'm at work I'm 100% focused on doing the best I can for the company. That doesn't mean I want to sacrifice everything else in my life to that cause though, and by increasingly requiring me to do so they may be about to lose someone who is generally considered an asset to the business.

I think organisations benefit from having different types of people in them. Of course the people who are willing and able to work 60+ hour weeks are hugely valuable. But so, imo, are the people with the experience and self-awareness to know what drives them, and the perspective having a rounded life brings.

Scallops, I actually don't think in the long run men really benefit from the system either. What I've seen with men in their 60s and 70s is that they've totally invested in whole "man working, woman at home" thing and they benefited hugely from it from the age of 20-50, but beyond 50 when they were older, approaching retirement and in especially in their retirement years, they have found that once work is gone they literally have nothing. The women, who struggled from age 20-50 are now reaping the rewards of a close and loving relationship with children they have nurtured. The men on the other hand are disconnected from their children and their wife, they don't feel like they're genuinely a part of the family they've now been thrust back into (after years of being "away" in the workforce) and they're lonely, at a loose end, grumpy, lacking motivation etc. Women gain in the very long run IMO, but it's no compensation for what they lose in younger years, and in the end it's not much fun living with a grumpy husband that you and your children hardly know.

I agree with Greengrow.

Women - we need to big ourselves up more to everyone.

1. One issue is do small children need one parent not to work or be part time. Certainly not in my experience if both parents can hack it working full time. Miriam G and her husband who is deputy PM are one of countless examples. London is full of power couples - they like and attract each other. I am not saying everyone can be in that league but it not so that you cannot both work full time. Indeed the more money and power you have the easier that is.

1. I dispute that if you work full time as a woman you have not nurtured and aren't close to your children. Most parents who work full time make a lot of effort to be home for bed time and be around for their children.

1. Women who don't like the long hours of some companies why not just leave and work in a way that suits you? Talented women often do do that and it works. I work in effect a 7 day week based at home (with 2 weeks away on holiday with the family a year). That is perfect for me. It means within all those days which usually start with checking the over night emails from clients abroad before 7am to the checking of work just before I go to bed at 10pm I can fit everything family life and the rest into those 7 days by getting beyond the mind set that you have to have two set days called a weekend when there is no work. Just think outside the box. No one dies wishing they had earned a lot less. They have a good death because they can afford the at home carers and live longer because they earn more. The myth people are peddled that hard work brings unhappiness is exactly that - a myth. The huge pleasure many high earning women and men get from work and of course children too is there for all to see. Of course not everyone is of that mind set.

1. I have people I pay to do bits of work things for me and we worked around their commitments but they all work hard. My cleaner works our job around others and will often be here at 7.15am. A lady with a baby I use who moved to Sweden fits my work around her other job but she works hard, is never ever late and is happy to work at 10pm. What those women and the men I work with and I have in common is capacity for utter liability, never ill and never late with the work. Most people aren't like that. Woodie Allen said the reason he'd done well was he "showed up" - he was on time, he was reliable. The average IQ is 100 and plenty of people who are brighter don't want to work hard and don't turn up on time and are unreliable so if you aren't like that you can stand out.

1. Anyone who wants to know about erotic capital can buy the book by Hakim www.amazon.co.uk/Erotic-Capital-Attraction-Boardroom-Bedroom/dp/0465027474/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414772113&sr=8-1&keywords=erotic+capital+hakim

Mind you until at least 50% of high earners in the UK are female and at least half the cabinet I will not believe that having our dual abilities of being good at work plus our erotic capital gives women any advantage (although plenty of women who don't earn much marry men who do and obtain wealth that way - it's the classic way for many educated mumsnetters - give up work and get money from your husband).

I think the conversation a page or so ago about the increasingly global nature of jobs is interesting. The job I've been being nudged towards and have just decided not to go for is essentially a global version of what I currently do in a UK context. It would mean lots of travel and lots of out of hours phone calls. I really enjoy my job, but I also enjoy doing other things (including spending time with my children), and for me I think getting that balance right is more important than climbing the greasy pole for the sake of it.

I think it's possible to get a balance, but sometimes you need more imagination than some places show. It's okay to agree to take some calls out of (UK) hours, if it's not taking up every early morning (AsiaPac) or evening (US), and if you get time off in the day, but I'd want to restrict it to a couple of particular days. It can be useful not having to work during normal work hours, though.

I used to work for a US company here in the UK, and some people just worked US shifts, i.e. 2pm-10pm our time. Wouldn't be keen on doing that every day myself (you basically don't get any evenings), but for some people, it worked well with their childcare arrangements.

As for erotic capital, it's just another thing to beat women down with, IMO. You can't get on because you're a woman, unless you flirt your way to the top. If you're not seen as sexually attractive, then you're really stuffed. Having said all that, it's not like it's irrelevant to men - there have been studies which show that if you're good looking and taller, you tend to progress better in your career.

It'd be nice for work to be about competence, not fuckability.

Yes that would be nice although it is not always so. I am certainly not the Hakim exponent that women have it easier than men because they have erotic capital too but it lurks there. It is something that can be relevant in some contexts and indeed is how the many women who earn less than their richer husband and snared him into bed and marriage because he fancied her do all the time. It does exist - that if you are pretty and sexy you tend to get a better husband if not a better job and are richer in consequence just like although genetically blue eyes ought to die out as brown eyes win out, more women and men choose a blue eyed partner and have more children so blue is on the rise which is fascinating.

Anyway back to international work - I do a lot. I try not to travel and always have tried not to as the novelty soon wears off and that is not relevant to having children really at all. It is just that pointless hours on planes and at air ports is not very healthy or fun after a while. I don't regret a few business jaunts above and if the children want to work a year or two abroad that's a good plan to widen your experience but I know for most people being happy comes from getting enough sleep (impossible if you have babies whether you work or not of course), eating good food and avoiding drink and drugs keeps you happy.

Women working based at home can have a huge capacity to do international business. I am replying most days to international emails from other time zones before 7am because I don't have to leave, catch a train and then get to work. I am more not less available. However it also means at the moment I can drive the children to school which is fine. Then as I work from the house I can deal with emails at the other end of the day quite easily too. Actually everything is dead easy now they are teenagers. It's 9.15am on a Saturday. I can sit here doing some invoicing and none of the three sons in the house has even got up yet. Compare that to when they were little with a baby usually up by 6am (and that was a late lucky day after they'd already been up once or twice in the night) and you can see how having older children is so very much easier. (Mind you two went out to two cinema showings back to back which ended at 1am lat night - some kind of Halloween thing not that they woke me up)

I simply meant some women do better at work because of how they look (and I agree that applies to attractive and to tall men too) but totally separately that how much many women have in the family is often related to whether they "married up", the status and income of their husband and if they are pretty etc they tend to find it easier to marry a higher status and richer man and however consciously or subconsciously women do tend to prefer the successful man in a suit than the blue collar worker who works down the local refuse yard. It's a fascinating issue. Men have traditionally married for looks - boss with secretary. However more recently couples tend to be assortively mated often with someone from university so you get two clever richer people marrying these days which did not historically amount to the norm. That means they have clever richer children - less social mixing than when men married thick pretty wives. However very successful women might find life easier if they married the pool boy who is happy to stick around at home and clean the loos and mop up sick when the child is sick yet women tend to want to marry their equal or someone who exceeds them. Anyway it's rather by the way.

Mind you plenty of women on divorce who don't earn much say their husband's career is all down to them so one might argue the converse applies and that a woman could aid her career best as many of us know by marrying a non sexist feminist man who does as much as we do at home.

Most of my work is behind a screen so it really does not matter if I have 4 legs or weight 40 stone. I certainly agree that excellence at work and ability to generate clients/customers/profits tends to win out with most employers and in your own business a lot more than any kind of erotic enticement.