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).

I always remember Xenia's advice to young women looking to succeed professionally: "Don't marry a sexist"

(I know it's easier said than done, particularly as issues often don't emerge until DC come along to complicate things, but it's a good rule of thumb)

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.

I'm genuinely pleased it's worked out for you! Gives me some hope for my girls if they choose that route. It definitely wasn't on the cards where I was 20 years ago, though, not even when I worked in a rather more enlightened European lab. I think I dimly recall my first university having a nursery, which was touted as amazing and really forward-looking at the time.

There were other, personal and supervisory, reasons I left, but I love what I do now even though I get paid buttons and it's a precarious post. I can only do it because my partner joined his company at exactly the right time and is basically a rock star at the job, though.

The government stats tell a compelling story. The average age of first time mothers is 28 and for fathers i think it's 31 - statistically, women tend to be with someone 3 years older. You can tell what happens to the average woman by looking at what happens to 2 typical couples, say, Jane and James, and, Roger and Lucy....

If you have a 28 year old woman (lets call her Jane) having a baby with someone 3 years older (let's call him James), he is already earning more (forgetting pay gap issues, because James has had 3 years more working experience) and the 2 things that happen to exacerbate the pay gap is firstly taking 12 months maternity leave - which means the pay gap between the couple becomes even more material. Second, the couple focus on the short term, i.e. that 4 year gap, and so suddenly James' pay and career becomes the priority. Jane is defaulted to primary carer, her career is not as important or pay as well as his (because of that pay gap), and typically 2 years later, another child is thrown into the mix so the pay gap between them becomes 5 years. During a 5 year period between age 28 and 33, the average woman has 2 children, does 2 lots of 12 month maternity leaves, goes part time to reduce childcare costs, her career becomes increasingly less important at home.

And what's happening at work? That 28/30 mark is when people are hitting their strides in their careers. And in a lot of careers their 30s are when people can make big gains. So during that 5 year period, where Jane's career becomes less important because she happened to be with James, who is 3 years older, what's happening to her male colleague who joined the company on the same day and is the same age as her? If we call him Roger. Well when Jane went off to have baby no.1 at age 28, his only life distraction was that he was getting married (to Lucy who is 25 years old). He didn't have kids then and just carried on while Jane had 12 months out. In fact Roger, doesn't go on to have a child for another 3 years and can 100% focus on their career during which time Jane has had 12 months maternity leave, come back part time and is typically pregnant again. When Roger and Lucy have their first child when he is 31, Jane is like to have her 2nd at the same time. She will then have another 12 months maternity leave at the same time as Roger's wife Lucy. Roger will be able to continue to focus on his career 100% as Lucy is taking care of the baby and make more career strides on Jane. Jane comes back to work when she is 32 and is probably working part time because of the cost of child care for another 2 years where Roger has remained full time. So between the ages of 28 and 34, Jane had 2 kids, had 2 lots of 12 months maternity leave and worked part time the other 4 years. Roger has been full time the whole time and be able to wholly focus on his career and at the end of this 6 year period is now beginning to climb the rungs of senior management, whereas Jane has made little progress in 6 years.

Women in a senior position, and matching Roger, are the ones who either didn't have kids so can match his commitment, presenteeism and energy levels, or, had kids but didn't take 12 months maternity leave, have a husband who at least did 50% share or were able to outsource, or didn't have kids at 28 but waited till slightly later and didn't take 12 months maternity leave.

Oleanna - totally agree. I find it profoundly depressing that my daughter's chances at life will almost certainly be significantly determined by who she choses to marry (or not).

The problem is that men do not come with sexist or indeed abusive stamped on their head. And a lot of the issues are structural and societal.

Do not marry a man who is sexist puts the onus on women

Katara - agree.

I think many men don't even realise they have ingrained views about gender roles until they have children.
Before children its shared housework, equal income etc.
Then suddenly its one of you at home changing nappies on mat leave.

Its not all doom and gloom though - I know at least a few couples who have used shared parental leave to help both partners continue in their careers.

There was a great thread on here a while ago about "facilitated men", covering some of the same issues as this thread. Women with children, even with supportive partners who do 50% of the domestic work (which we all know is itself not the norm) are typically competing with men whose female partners are doing 90% of the domestic work (and usually 100% of the thinking and planning). It's not a level playing field.

I've done well professionally and I have a DD, but I also have DH at home, so we've just reversed the traditional roles. I'm not sure that's advancing anything for other women, though I am a supportive and flexible manager. I do more at home than the average man married to a SAHM, but it's nothing like 50%.

Katara - agree to some extent, the onus shouldn't be placed on the woman when it's the man's behavior that's that problem.

Except... obviously sexist men are ten a penny and women still scupper their careers and financial security by marrying them. I know far too many women married to sexist tossers men who were clearly and openly regressive in their views from day one. I was surprised that these confident, intelligent women wanted to marry men that were so selfish in how they expected their wants to override I do know that nobody was surprised when said women ran themselves ragged while doing all the house- and childcare as well as holding down a full-time job (while their DH did nothing except the odd bedtime story), or gave up all their hobbies for years due to lack of time and energy (while their DH continued to meet up with the lads at least once a week), and so on. None of the women I know in this situation have progressed in their chosen careers (some left, some stagnated at mid-level) despite early expectations that of course they'd be able to move up the career ladder after maternity leave, and despite wanting to progress and really trying to do so.

It's sad, but these women's difficulties largely stem from marrying sexist men.

The real wolves in sheeps' clothing are those who are all about equal housework, equal childcare in theory, etc. but suddenly change their minds when the child arrives. I don't know any personally, though, so not sure how best to spot them.

Gah - incomplete sentence in the middle:
I was surprised that these confident, intelligent women wanted to marry men that were so selfish in how they expected their wants to override their partner's needs.

well, yes, the onus is on an individual to ensure they don't marry a sexist neaderthal. And I think the warning signs are there, if you know what to look for. Does your partner expect you to sort out birthday/christmas presents for his parents? Do they sort out their own washing? Do they sort out a holiday for you as a couple? Organise a social gathering? Iron a shirt for you if you're stressed and have a big work deadline? Agrees (and states publically - tells his mates, makes no secret of it at work) beforehand to take extended paternity leave? I do think it's my responsibility as a parent to show my children what a functional relationship looks like, as well as what are potential red flags.

Also agree about the wolves in sheeps' clothing. I tend to make a point about asking about their kids' homework and stuff at school - the ones who are generally involved can bang on about Biff and Chip and the horror of dress up days, and depending on my mood and appropriateness of the converation I have a stash of sarcastic replies for the rest of them.

Yes, I married one who talked the talk, but managed to never actually be there - and an abusive control freak when he was there. But neither trait apparent at the outset (without hindsight).

I credit Xenia with my realisation that he was, despite being a lefty-liberal Guardian reading woke dude bro, in fact deeply sexist.

Such an interesting thread. I hadn’t thought of the partner choice issue and structural stuff together in this way before. Thank you.

The real wolves in sheeps' clothing are those who are all about equal housework, equal childcare in theory, etc. but suddenly change their minds when the child arrives. I don't know any personally, though, so not sure how best to spot them.

I think for some men, particularly those who grew up in a household where their mum did everything for H and kids without talking much about it, the sheer volume of work created by kids is a shock and something they just don't want to have to contribute equally to even if they were great and equal before kids and talked the theoretical talk about equality after kids. And, in my experience, they're rarely honest with themselves about this. I don't know why, toxic masculinity? Just being used to feeling entitled to things (lots of free time, their needs being put first) and not being willing to give that up even for their own kids / families?

I know quite a lot of women whose husbands were great and relationships very equal before kids...after kids not so much.

I know quite a lot of women whose husbands were great and relationships very equal before kids...after kids not so much.

Yes this is how I feel. It's so complicated, and to some extent I think in my case it's because I took 5 years off while the kids were small and we kind of fell into certain roles. I wanted to do this because I wanted to have the time with the DCs (I do understand my choice wasn't entirely a free one because patriarchy...)

Anyhow, I went back to work part time but still did all the "wife work" I was doing before (which was particularly hard because one DC has SEN). It all took a massive toll on my mental health.

But, DP and I are about to reverse roles, he is going to be the SAHP and I am going to work full time. It remains to be seen how that works out after 10 years of it being the other way round, but I'm looking forward to it :-)

As to the impact of children on a woman's career, my career has undoubtedly been "held back". However I loved being at home with the DCs, we had a ball.

And I have been extremely fortunate to work for a very family friendly organisation which gave me a five year career break and a job to go back to, lots of pt and flexible working etc.

I would like those opportunities to be available in every workplace and, most importantly, taken up by fathers in equal measure.

My partner (in a corporate, male dominated profession) isn't taking a career break, he has resigned. He never felt able to request part time hours because literally no one he worked with did part time.

There needs to be a massive overhaul of the world of work for men and women. A greater acceptance that paid work is only one facet of life. A move away from presenteeism and long hours cultures. A valuing of child rearing by both parents. The genuine availability of family friendly policies for mothers and fathers.

I do think it's my responsibility as a parent to show my children what a functional relationship looks like, as well as what are potential red flags.

Yes! Creating a list of these red flags to share with other women (as well as our own children) would be really useful, especially since many men can talk the talk but then behave very differently when they feel inconvenienced. How to spot a sexist tosser before you marry one...

I think the example above of sorting out his own laundry is a good one. Anyone who always expects his partner to wash his socks, just because she's his partner, is not going to arrange flexible hours at work so he can do half the school pickups and thereby support his wife's career.

I'd like to add willingness to drop plans to deal with unexpected house and family stuff - when something comes up, does he deal with it himself half the time or expect his partner to constantly rearrange her plans? Anyone who won't leave work to let in the plumber - but does expect his partner to do it - is not going to take time off work to look after a sick child.

I agree that what you say is unfortunately true.

I feel very lucky to work in a company where one of the 3 directors (law firm) is a single mum of 2 primary aged children. She works PT flexibly around them and is still senior at work. I'm glad that when I hopefully get to have children one day, I'll hopefully have the opportunity to follow in that path. It's a shame more women don't have that opportunity.

I'm a woman in a senior role. I have 4 children and I had my first when I was 19. My progression has been pretty quick as I only started my career in my late 20's, however my pay is not matching my seniority and I know for a fact part of that is due to being on maternity leave I didn't have a partner during my first few career years but do have one now and we are very equal (home and childcare) in terms of how much we both support each other

No, the example of doing his own laundry has to be balanced with a) does he do your laundry if needed and b) does he do his own laundry because everything has to be done in a certain way? And you need to adopt that way too, otherwise what a joke you are. And then ditto that for every household task, and whatever you do. Controlling much?

Plus doing laundry is easy. Doing laundry whilst cleaning a house, doing a full time job, looking after DC, doing extracurricular runs for DC, shopping, cooking, household maintenance etc whilst not having joint finances or a present husband, not so much.

Oh and don’t get me started on ‘I did the laundry so you would have more energy to have sex’

Having a baby was career suicide for me

Me too.

I'm in a lower level senior role and in my late 30s with 3 young DC. Short maternity leaves and a high income DH enabled me to take short leaves and hire excellent childcare.

The reality is that if you want to be in a senior position you do need to be around and work FT. Most men don't talk about their DC. Also, very few women in the same senior role or higher up have as many children as me, if any. Normally it's 1 or 2 children with the 2nd child at least 4-5 years younger than the first.

This whole job sharing and working PT didn't work for me. I felt like I was being severely short changed and doing way more than 80% work for 80% of the salary. When I dropped to 60% I was basically written off. I had to change employers to rescue my career.

I think the presenteeism thing is an interesting thing. Once you're in a very senior position, it really doesn't factor but you have to get there first. One of the things that has worked in my favour has been being senior enough to choose how i work but also choosing what to be "present" on, the more judgment women use, the more effective they can be without feeling they have to be present at everything just to compete.

I agree presenteeism is interesting. I could work from home a lot more than I do. I choose not to and it's been to my benefit. I've been able to raise my hand to volunteer for work which has helped me in my career. If I had been working at home I wouldn't have known about the opportunity.

See, I don't consider working in the office when it would be possible to work from home as presenteeism necessarily; if it has a genuine benefit (such as being able to share ideas more effectively, or hear about and volunteer for opportunities, or establish better working relationships) that's not presenteeism to me.

Occasionally working late to meet a big deadline is also OK in my mind (especially if it works two ways and employers trust their employees enough to allow them to leave early occassionally when they need to during quieter times).

Routinely working past contractual hours just to be seen to be doing so is what I object to. Especially as this can become a bit of an "arms race" where people stay longer and longer because no one wants to leave "early" (even if "early" now means 1 hour later than their contracted hours!)