Women in senior positions....

[SquishySquirmy]

I am really unsure of how to articulate this in such a way that it doesn't come across as either goady or offensive (not my attention at all).

But has anyone else noticed how, whilst women are very under-represented in senior roles, women with children are even more under-represented?

It struck me a little while ago how many very senior women (in politics and elsewhere) are childless/childfree. And its one of those things that once you start noticing it, you notice it everywhere.
It seems very obvious, but is rarely commented on.

Its tricky to talk about because I suppose it could come across as criticising individual women for choosing not to have children. Which would be a disgusting thing to do, and especially hurtful given it isn't always a choice.
eg, I don't believe that Theresa May's competence as prime minister is in any way affected by having/not having children. But it does concern me that it seems to be harder for female parents to reach the top roles than male parents.
Its not that I want to see fewer childless/childfree women in top roles at all, quite the opposite; its that I would like to see more mothers also reaching those positions.

When I look at the numbers, there is (to me) clearly something going on. Becoming a mother seems to hold women back in a way that becoming a father doesn't.

And of course, this is all really obvious isn't it? Plenty of women delay having children until they get their career established (all the while being bombarded by the media with dire warnings about biological clocks, fertility cliff edges etc) because they know this.

And yet I don't think the problem is talked about enough. I don't think it is possible to properly address the issue of inequality between the sexes unless we also address why it is so much harder for mothers to progress than fathers. For a start, the pool of "all men" is always going to be larger than the pool of "women who don't have children."

Again, I know I am not articulating myself very well. I struggle because discussing the issue properly can be mistaken for judging individual women in a very personal way (not my intention).

Another point which I think applies to a fair few of my female friends and also my sister (although obv not all women) is that having kids can alter your priorities and sometimes shift them away from career ambitions.

AllDay but why is it that women’s priorities change and men seem to be able to rise to the top despite having kids? Are we really suggesting it’s a nature thing or could it be because the existing social structures make it very hard to maintain a career and a family. Obviously most people will pick their family if forced to choose, but the point is that men are never forced to choose.

The reason there are so few women with children in senior positions is there are so few men willing to take the 'home' role.

This and also in your small child rearing years/level of progression, not many jobs/ professions will come with a whacking great salary that you would need to have to fund the paid childcare you would need if you don’t have a partner (or not one who wants or can work to a pattern that facilitates your career as a mother).

So you are a bit fucked basically unless your personal set up (which is pretty much beyond your control) happens to be in your favour.

This is why the provision of government subsidised childcare is a basic essential for any country that cares about sex equality.

Its fucking hard work having children (as a woman) and having a demanding career. I wish it was easier. I dont know what the aswer is.

Peakpants.

I'm not sure tbh. I'm just commenting on what I've observed. It's defo harder for women who are the primary caregiver to the child to balance a career, but I don't think it's always a case of being 'forced'.

My sister seems perfectly happy to be working part time. She had a high powered engineering job and worked a lot with the military but seems less interested now - although her husband makes around £100k so they're pretty comfortable on his salary alone.

AllDay I am sure she is. The reality is though that 50% of marriages and about two thirds of cohabiting relationships will end in divorce or separation and the women who were happy letting their career go then realise that actually life is not quite so rosy when that happens. Would your sister still be happy giving up her career if there was free or affordable childcare, flexible hours and the way workplaces ran wasn’t incompatible with family life?
That’s the difference between radical and liberal feminism isn’t it? Lib fems accept the system as it is and think that nothing really can be done to change how businesses operate. Rad fems realise that progress will only be made if we change the underlying structures and just because something is done in a certain way at the moment does not mean it is the only way it can be done. Yes, women make choices, but those choices are made in the context of highly unequal structures.

I've said this before, and I know it's not a comfortable thought, but there's a definite downside to the longer maternity leave that many big companies in the UK offer as part of their appeal to women staff. Being at home with a baby for 6/9/12 months firmly establishes the mother as the one who "does" the baby stuff, and minimises the impact on their partner quite a bit. Much as the thought of going back to work after six weeks is terrifying to me (my baby was prem and would basically have been a new born at that point!), it would have meant that neither DH nor I would have formed habits that we had to work really hard to unbreak 8 months later (and in some areas I'm realising that we have never quite broken out of them)

Olenna that is a fascinating point I've never thought of before!

I think the other point raised re. having kids v young is true as well... The first years can be really hard but then you can really focus on a career afterwards without interruption.

Peakpants.

My sister does have childcare available which she frequently uses. She tells me that motherhood is much less stressful than her job was, although she is speaking only for herself. However, she rents out two properties which she bought before marrying, so is unlikely to struggle financially.

Thanks all for all the replies.
I got a bit side tracked this afternoon so left the thread for a while.
I am glad that no-one construed my point as a judgement on women who don't have children, as it is far too common to see groups of women pitted against each other and I didn't want to add to that.

silentcrow Thanks, I hadn't thought about that perspective when writing my op but its a really good point. I suppose the lack of women with their names on scientific papers could be used by some as evidence that women just aren't good at science (and we even educate them nowadays and everything!) whilst in fact they are driven out by the conditions you mention. Presenteeism pisses me off mightily and does no-one any good. Some jobs genuinely require working over Christmas day (in my last industry this happened for good reason sometimes) and that's fine. But when it isn't actually necessary, it shouldn't be an expectation! Maybe some of those who stay late every day are just working inefficiently.

TheMendedDrum and Oct18mummy and others who say that it is not (or less of) a problem in their workplace, I am really genuinely happy to hear that. Things are, hopefully getting better.

I agree with those who say that its not the maternity leave that's the issue, its what happens after the woman returns to work. Because really, a year or two out of a whole career should NOT make it nigh impossible to reach a senior position. A year out at the beginning certainly doesn't seem to; Many people start their career at slightly different ages, (gap years, career changes, graduating from university later etc). I went to uni in England but worked in Scotland, and most of my colleagues that started on the graduate program with me were at least a couple of years older than me due to 5 year masters degrees. Even if you took a full years maternity leave and then counted the next couple of years back at work as a "pause" that's only three years. Nothing compared to the variation in starting and retiring ages, and most career paths are not so long that they barely fit into 4 decades with no time to spare. Maybe a gap to have children before a career starts is the way to go as OlennasWimple suggests.

I still don't fully understand why 2 years out mid-career costs so much more than a year out before you start though. Suspect there may also be some intersection with agism happening in that if you don't reach a certain height before a certain age, you may never reach it.

From my experience its the expectation that women will care less about work after having kids than before that annoys me. I certainly felt like this after returning to work from maternity leave. I took 6 months off, and I certainly didn't expect to pick up exactly where I left off, let alone for my career to have progressed in my absence. I did (perhaps naively) expect to be taken more seriously than I was, and I dind't expect to be sidelined. There was no nastiness, just a subtle unspoken understanding that I wouldn't want any big projects or difficult work despite my trying to prove the contrary.

I'm sure many women are happy to wind down their careers after becoming mothers, and certainly not all are forced to. But its not the case for all women. Not all men are equally ambitious/driven either.

I have had a career break after redundancy and am finding it really hard to get my foot back in the door. Ironically, I feel much more driven career wise than before I had my daughter! Partly because I am older and wiser, partly because I am sick of Baby Shark, but mainly because I want to be successful and provide well for her sake. But I don't know how to convincingly get that across on a CV or an application form!

^ Sorry, should say "I still don't fully understand why 2 years out mid-career costs so much more than 2 years out..."
I know that the number two is bigger than one!

I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about feminism as most of the posters here, but from my observations radical feminists often see the career aspect as an area to push for equality/accomplishment (and rightly so). However, I think many everyday folk just see it as a necessary evil or a means to an end.

Work as a necessary evil, that is. Not radical feminism!

Maybe a gap to have children before a career starts is the way to go as OlennasWimple suggests

Perhaps having a baby at 23 and then a career was an option in the 70s and 80s, but how would that work now with student loans, unstable housing, high rent, and low wages etc. How could a woman hoping to build a successful career realistically (unless she had a rich family) have a baby in her early to mid 20s and then expect to rise to the top of her profession? As a trainee solicitor, precisely none of my contemporaries had children and we were expected to work like dogs with no sympathy for work/life balance. I lived in a houseshare and was not able to buy a property until I was 30. Plus of course I would not have wanted to have a baby, because I enjoyed my freedom. Unless they are rich or lucky or were born in the middle of last century, women having kids in their early 20s tend not to rise to the top either.

silentcrow I think Science is far better than others at acknowledging the problem. In all ththe institutes I have worked in, there have been big drives to keep women in science, and I am still in science because of one of them. All the institutes I have worked in have on site nurseries, and the flexibility to rock up when you want, generally. Yes the hours are long but there is considerable flexibility.

The problems are a) the two body problem and the expectation that you’ll move a few times in your career, b) the time limits on early career fellowships which are usually 5 years post PhD which is nigh on impossible if you have had maternity leave and c) that no matter how hard you work, if you have caring responsibilities there are half a dozen men who don’t have the same degree of responsibility, don’t take 9 months of maternity leave and don’t face the unconscious bias that women do. We have unconscious bias training and the Athena SWAN awards.

And yet all the successful women in science have either made their big strides after children were young (it seems easier to leave science altogether and then start again as a re-entrant when you have reduced responsibilities at home), or are in a two high income family and have outsourced everything (one women I know had a day and night nanny when her kids were young). Those I know who have an unsupportive partner, or don’t want to/can’t afford to outsource absolutely everything child and house related, don’t make it to the top.

I am pretty senior in my organisation and I have small children.

But I have a husband who can cook and put the children to bed all by himself - so I could go to the meetings and the conferences when I had to. Also I took barely any mat leave with the last 2 DCs.

It was very difficult when they were tiny though (bf'ing).

The reason there are so few women with children in senior positions is there are so few men willing to take the 'home' role.

And vice versa. I've been very fortunate to progress quickly in my career alongside having 3 DCs - but that has come at a cost. I'm on maternity leave now with #4 and am really re-evaluating.

My DH is self employed in a much lower paying field and it has made sense for him to take on the school pickups, sick days, school holidays etc - but in the meantime I've been so jealous of all their time together while I am always 'busy mummy', working 5 days a week, rushing home for dinner and bedtime then working late at night, and still trying to do all the good mum stuff from the making of costumes, to late night breastfeeds. Our DCs are always wanting more of my time than I can give, I'm knackered, and have worked out that if I can just convince dh that its fine for the kids to stay in state schools for senior school (as we did!) and scale back on bigger costs like holidays and DHs expensive hobbies, we can do ok with me working in something part time and less stressful. I am SO READY to make a switch. Screw being c-suite....

I negotiated a partnership offer at a professional firm making them fully aware I was planning on having 2 kids close together. I went on maternity leave with child 1 and returned, already pregnant again and was made a partner before going off on maternity leave again.

I thought for years I was very lucky - and still do.

My husband was more keen than me to have kids though and I wouldn’t agree until he committed to doing at least 50% of the work in raising them. He agreed and stuck to his word. That allowed my career to progress.

I subsequently moved on and have my own firm and my top hiring picks are always women returning from maternity leave or career breaks. I’m trying to pay it forward the luck and breaks I think I had.

Having a family is viewed as an advantage to men and a disadvantage to women in the business world. Businesses make it so.

You're so right. I listen to C level blokes a lot and they always talk about how many kids they have, its di rigueur. The women, one level below, keep stumm.

Much as the thought of going back to work after six weeks is terrifying to me

I went back full time when my son was 2 months old. We had a nanny and a cleaner so neither of us got into the being the responsible for home stuff. All school stuff we either did jointly or in turn. Emergencies were dealt with on the basis of who could more easily deal with it.

I only have 1 child. That wasn't a career decision , I never wanted a second one.

I agree with the OP as do many here.

I hate to come over all Sheryl Sandberg but she's right in saying picking an equal life partner is important.. We women are our own worst enemy - fine to prioritise bedtimes with the kids but what joy is it to be the sole laundry fairy or the chief dinner maker? Let's raise our boys so that they expect to chip in as much on chores as their sisters.

One manager told me that as a mother with young children I would never be promoted , he'd put me in to sort problems when more senior male colleagues couldn't so he wasn't questioning my ability.

Yes what he said was illegal but I knew I'd kill any chance of a career if I fought it.

I'd lost so much ground by the time my children left school I was no longer interested in trying to get back on that ladder

I am a single parent with a mid-level professional role. I have 99% of the caring responsibility not anything like a 50/50 arrangement. I have massively changed how I work, and having DC has slowed my professional progress.

But I also have a DC2 with SEN. Before that I travelled overseas with childcare and DC1 has been in nursery overseas. With one DC, it was relatively easy. With two DC, one of whom has SEN, much more difficult.

I find it really difficult to have this debate, so I tend to ignore it. To progress, mostly, you need to have no children or a supportive partner. The number of women who say ‘I achieved X but I have a supportive husband/nanny/childminder’. How many men say ‘I have achieved X but I have a supportive wife/nanny/childminder’

I get why women say it, it is almost like they have to apologise for being successful or talk down their own success or they recognise the unpaid or paid labour which means they can go to work.

I also think there is a point for some women (maybe men too but fewer) where there is a balance to be met. DC2 has meltdowns if he is in childcare or out of his routine (facilitated by me) too long. The extra hours in the office are just not worth the fall out. So I do my garden, get DC out of the house, things which are not paid work and life is better for it.

I know I could get promoted more quickly and do better if I had more time for my job. But that is not the only way to measure success. Success is my DC sitting together playing with no meltdowns. Success is going somewhere new and no meltdowns. Double success is if I get an hour sitting on the grass reading stuff for work. I cannot and do not buy into a model which measures my worth by my seniority or earning potential. It does not fit the rhtymn and needs of my life. I will be poorer in old age, of course.

I think times ARE changing, but upthread someone said something that was very important.

Which is that you have to pick your partner carefully. In many ways this is more of a public service than anything else (only slightly joking). If partners who do not practice equality in the home don't get to marry great women then hopefully the unequal behaviours will die out.