Women in Senior Management

Stez Styx · 19-09-2008 10:34am #1

There are a lot of statistics about this thorny issue, but whichever ones you look at, they will tell you that there are much fewer women at senior management level than there are men.

Many reasons for this have been advanced over the years, and a common thread runs through all of them - it is all men's fault.

Now perhaps there was some truth in this in the past. Women were indeed not taken seriously in the workplace and were treated more as ornaments than as serious value adds, but this attitude is hardly prevalent any more.

Consider the following: A man gets promoted to the C suite. His first instinct is to surround himself with his cronies, and reward the people who were loyal to him. Most of these turn out to be men, unsurprisingly.

A women gets promoted to the same level. A Pandora's Box of vengeance against other women is opened. She sticks the knife in to the girl who had nicer shoes than her back when they were both starting off. She has another woman fired who looked her up and down the wrong way when she was getting into the lift six years before. Etc., etc., etc., At the end of the day, she surrounds herself with men, because she can't stand other women.

The truth really is, nowadays, it is all women's fault.

Is it any wonder that H.L. Mencken defined a misogynist as a man who hates women as much as they hate each other?

Burial · 19-09-2008 10:55am

Stez Styx wrote: »

There are a lot of statistics about this thorny issue, but whichever ones you look at, they will tell you that there are much fewer women at senior management level than there are men.

Many reasons for this have been advanced over the years, and a common thread runs through all of them - it is all men's fault.

Now perhaps there was some truth in this in the past. Women were indeed not taken seriously in the workplace and were treated more as ornaments than as serious value adds, but this attitude is hardly prevalent any more.

Consider the following: A man gets promoted to the C suite. His first instinct is to surround himself with his cronies, and reward the people who were loyal to him. Most of these turn out to be men, unsurprisingly.

A women gets promoted to the same level. A Pandora's Box of vengeance against other women is opened. She sticks the knife in to the girl who had nicer shoes than her back when they were both starting off. She has another woman fired who looked her up and down the wrong way when she was getting into the lift six years before. Etc., etc., etc., At the end of the day, she surrounds herself with men, because she can't stand other women.

The truth really is, nowadays, it is all women's fault.

Is it any wonder that H.L. Mencken defined a misogynist as a man who hates women as much as they hate each other?

Ignoring your sexist post, here is my opinion on woman in management. I don't know enough about this, but here goes:

This topic is annoying to me. I view woman and men both capable of doing their jobs properly and effeciently. Men have held higher positions in management and the more experienced people tend to be men due to this age old discrimination that has now changed, so of course they're going to be statistically higher! I hate when people say "omg company X has no women on the board. They are sexist." Thats just insane. Anyone who looks at life this way is sexist.

In conclusion, men have the most experience in management and as such will be better candidates for the job.

damnyanks · 19-09-2008 11:08am

Big companies are crazy to get women in to try and balance it out. Sadly when I've interviewed juniors the women who came through the recruit women event were quite frankly **** compared to the standard I'd expect through the usual process.

Of course this isnt the case for all women but if companies are trying to fill the gap by hiring substandard employee's its going to make it more difficult for capable women as they will have that stigma attached.

Stez Styx · 19-09-2008 11:10am

Burial wrote: »

Ignoring your sexist post, here is my opinion on woman in management. I don't know enough about this, but here goes:

This topic is annoying to me. I view woman and men both capable of doing their jobs properly and effeciently. Men have held higher positions in management and the more experienced people tend to be men due to this age old discrimination that has now changed, so of course they're going to be statistically higher! I hate when people say "omg company X has no women on the board. They are sexist." Thats just insane. Anyone who looks at life this way is sexist.

In conclusion, men have the most experience in management and as such will be better candidates for the job.

This is the Catch 22 situation faced by every young person looking for their first job. Companies want people with experience, but how do you get experience unless someone takes a chance on you and gives you your start?

Women need someone to give them the same chance. One would expect other women to give them to them, but they do not. And why? See above. Or pretend it is not there.

Dragan · 19-09-2008 11:31am

TA re-reg folks.

kmick · 19-09-2008 11:40am

I once worked for a company who had a yearly womens day. All the women trooped off to a fancy hotel and we were left at work. Apart from being slightly bemused by the whole affair most of the men were delighted as a lot of the senior managers were women so we just all dossed for the day.

One of the newer lads who rarely said a thing piped up and said we should spend the day "re-enforcing the glass ceiling". Maybe you had to be there but at the time it was hilarious.

On the other hand I have always had senior managers who were women and found them to be great.

LouOB · 19-09-2008 11:47am

Dragan wrote: »

TA re-reg folks.

anyone have a silver bullet? wooden stake?
something to throw?
anything......

Madame Razz · 19-09-2008 11:56am

Ha; I worked for a company where it was widely known and acknowledged that if you had a uterus you were of no purpose to the MD, hence all the women remained in the lower ranks. Maternity spoilt business you see....

Zzippy · 19-09-2008 3:07pm

manukahoney wrote: »

Ha; I worked for a company where it was widely known and acknowledged that if you had a uterus you were of no purpose to the MD, hence all the women remained in the lower ranks. Maternity spoilt business you see....

That's widespread. I have friends who are med lab scientists in a private hospital, with lots of ex-classmates in hospitals around the country. Any (few and far between) permanent jobs that come up anywhere almost invariably go to male colleagues, and the girls are stuck on temporary contracts. This is even though 90% of the staff are female. Common knowledge that its because the hospital don't want to be replacing staff on maternity leave all the time, but very hard to prove.

Dragan · 19-09-2008 3:27pm

I know this will not be the popular view but personally I can absolutely see how maternity leave can have an extremely adverse affect on any business. I work in a very large mutlinational. Our male to female ratio is about 60 to 65% in favour of women.

Things are generally in a constant state of turmoil because of people coming and going on maternity leave. Projects get dropped, handover is terrible, positions go left unfilled for weeks or months as they can be hard to fill depending on how specialist they are.

When an employee walks out the door what leaves with them is a wealth of personal knowledge and experience and that can be incredibly hard to replace.

Is is right? I'm honestly not sure. At the end of the day businesses are there to make money. The simply fact is that no employer in the world would touch me if i had a possible reason as to why i would be unable to work for up 9 to 12 months at a time.

g'em · 19-09-2008 3:36pm

Dragan wrote: »

When an employee walks out the door what leaves with them is a wealth of personal knowledge and experience and that can be incredibly hard to replace.

So why don't these huge international corporations have contingency plans in place? It's not like women getting pregnant is a modern day thing, we've always done and will continue to do it. If a person leaves there's no valid reason for a gap to be left behind in a knowledge base - why isn't there training to support relief staff? Why is there a common knowledge policy in place? Given that women will continue to get pregnant until the end of time these companies should be able to cater to that.

Dragan wrote:

At the end of the day businesses are there to make money.

Discriminating against a large proportion of their work force won't help that goal.

fits · 19-09-2008 3:37pm

Yeah now the same is expected from both men and women in their jobs as was expected from men when the women were at home full time. This is fair on neither sex, nor on their children. A whole shift in attitudes needs to take place and the value of childbearing and rearing to society properly recognised. Neither sex should be punished for raising and looking after children imo.
Hmm maybe if men had to take compulsory paternity leave for a similar length of time as their partners, things would even out. That may sound ridiculous, but somethings gotta give.

F.A. · 19-09-2008 3:41pm

While I can see Dragan's point, I would just like to point out that if paternity leave existed and was supported like maternity leave, these issues you describe can at least be more equally spread. I mean, it works quite well for Norway for example, not exactly one of the poorest countries around. I do, however, believe that if a woman wants to take maternity leave of at least 6 months and have a number of children, possible close in age, then her demanding the same treatment as a man* careerwise is a bit much. Nobody will deny that the woman also worked during the maternity leave - it's not a holiday - but in terms of work experience, she most certainly lost out.

*If said man worked the same length of time PLUS the time the woman opted for maternity leave.

Nevyn · 19-09-2008 3:42pm

Dragan wrote: »

I know this will not be the popular view but personally I can absolutely see how maternity leave can have an extremely adverse affect on any business. I work in a very large mutlinational. Our male to female ratio is about 60 to 65% in favour of women.

Things are generally in a constant state of turmoil because of people coming and going on maternity leave. Projects get dropped, handover is terrible, positions go left unfilled for weeks or months as they can be hard to fill depending on how specialist they are.

When an employee walks out the door what leaves with them is a wealth of personal knowledge and experience and that can be incredibly hard to replace.

Is is right? I'm honestly not sure. At the end of the day businesses are there to make money. The simply fact is that no employer in the world would touch me if i had a possible reason as to why i would be unable to work for up 9 to 12 months at a time.

Cos it NEVER happens that a man has to take time of due to health issues suddenly, at least maternity leave is expected and can be planned for rather then someone being in a car accident or breaking a leg.

IF we had paternity leave then I bet there would be better systems in place as it standards there is not statatory paternity leave in this country.

LeperKing · 19-09-2008 4:33pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Cos it NEVER happens that a man has to take time of due to health issues suddenly, at least maternity leave is expected and can be planned for rather then someone being in a car accident or breaking a leg.

Unless women are immune to car accidents and broken legs, what's your point?

Thaedydal wrote: »

IF we had paternity leave then I bet there would be better systems in place as it standards there is not statatory paternity leave in this country.

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.:(

Thanks,
LK.

Dragan · 19-09-2008 4:44pm

g'em wrote: »

So why don't these huge international corporations have contingency plans in place?

I don't know, i just work for one?

If a person leaves there's no valid reason for a gap to be left behind in a knowledge base - why isn't there training to support relief staff?

Of course there is, it's called personal experience. There is no way i could write a handover document that would detail all my knowledge of what i do and what i deal with on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The job is far too dynamic with far too many variables. I walked into this job without them and built them up over the course of 3 years. It would take anyone else time to do the same. And of course training is provided but once again that can only be done is systems, processes, businesses goals, targets , current project goals and timelines etc. Once again it would be the personal experience and savvy developed over time in a working environment that would be missing.

Successful businesses do everything they can to limit staff turnover for these very reasons.

Why is there a common knowledge policy in place?

I think mean "why is there not"? Eh, i have no idea, mainly because you spend from the time you walk in the door till the time you leave working. As a company we have a massive database of information on process etc in place but the simple fact is a lot of these will be market specific, company specific, they still take time to read and learn and come to grips with.

Given that women will continue to get pregnant until the end of time these companies should be able to cater to that.

I absolutely agree, and this needs to sorted out by business, interested rights group and relevant government bodies.

Discriminating against a large proportion of their work force won't help that goal.

I don't believe i said that it did, or that i agreed with it as a practice. Do not mistake being able to see both sides of an argument for agreeing with either.

brianthebard · 19-09-2008 5:30pm

If you want to end discrimination against women wrt maternity leave all you have to do is make paternity leave mandatory too.

St Bill · 19-09-2008 5:30pm

Stez Styx wrote: »

Is it any wonder that H.L. Mencken defined a misogynist as a man who hates women as much as they hate each other?

Good to see you've come to terms with the fact that you're a misogynist.

As you were.....

Nevyn · 19-09-2008 5:34pm

LeperKing wrote: »

Unless women are immune to car accidents and broken legs, what's your point?

Cover for maternity leave is easier to sort then sick cover.

LeperKing wrote: »

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.:(

Thanks,
LK.

If men had proper paternity leave like in other countries then I am sure that a system of cover and communication would be found and put in place.

LolaLuv · 19-09-2008 5:35pm

brianthebard wrote: »

If you want to end discrimination against women wrt maternity leave all you have to do is make paternity leave mandatory too.

Is maternity leave mandatory in Ireland? Or do you mean it's mandatory that it be an option?

brianthebard · 19-09-2008 5:38pm

PillyPen wrote: »

Is maternity leave mandatory in Ireland? Or do you mean it's mandatory that it be an option?

Under the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004 at least 2 weeks have to be taken before the end of the week of your baby's expected birth and at least 4 weeks after. You can decide how you would like to take the remaining weeks. Generally, employees take 2 weeks before the birth and the remaining weeks after. If you qualify for Maternity Benefit (see below) at least 2 and no more than 16 weeks must be taken before the end of the week the baby is due.

From here

I'm not sure if that means its absolutely mandatory that six weeks be taken, or if you ask for maternity leave that you have to take those six weeks and then whatever else you want. tbh what I really meant was to make paternity leave mandatory, at least for those six weeks.

LolaLuv · 19-09-2008 5:41pm

brianthebard wrote: »

From here

I'm not sure if that means its absolutely mandatory that six weeks be taken, or if you ask for maternity leave that you have to take those six weeks and then whatever else you want. tbh what I really meant was to make paternity leave mandatory, at least for those six weeks.

Many women here choose to work up until the day they give birth. If a company forced me into maternity leave when I didn't want it then I'd be pissed.

NextSteps · 19-09-2008 5:49pm

You could do a Sarah Palin, just push it out and go back to work 3 days later...

LolaLuv · 19-09-2008 5:50pm

UB wrote: »

You could do a Sarah Palin, just push it out and go back to work 3 days later...

Well, women should have the choice anyway.

brianthebard · 19-09-2008 5:55pm

PillyPen wrote: »

Many women here choose to work up until the day they give birth. If a company forced me into maternity leave when I didn't want it then I'd be pissed.

Well it would be the state doing the forcing, and if it ends or reduces discrimination on the grounds of motherhood I think it should be considered. Also you have 8 and half months to plan what needs to be done before you leave work for a while.

LolaLuv · 19-09-2008 5:58pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Well it would be the state doing the forcing, and if it ends or reduces discrimination on the grounds of motherhood I think it should be considered. Also you have 8 and half months to plan what needs to be done before you leave work for a while.

Right, company wasn't what I meant, state it is. Still, how would that reduce discrimination? Some women like to work and would resent being told, basically, that they're in too delicate a position to be able to continue. That's government-sponsored patronization. You're right that the only way it's fair is to force it on men as well, but then you're screwing over 100% of the population instead of 50%. The best thing would be to make it mandatory for companies to offer both maternity and paternity leave, and allow each individual to decide whether or not to take it.

brianthebard · 19-09-2008 6:02pm

PillyPen wrote: »

Right, company wasn't what I meant, state it is. Still, how would that reduce discrimination? Some women like to work and would resent being told, basically, that they're in too delicate a position to be able to continue. That's government-sponsored patronization. You're right that the only way it's fair is to force it on men as well, but then you're screwing over 100% of the population instead of 50%. The best thing would be to make it mandatory for companies to offer both maternity and paternity leave, and allow each individual to decide whether or not to take it.

But that still leaves pressure on the man not to take leave, or as little as possible, and does nothing to stop discrimination. If both men and women are required to take at least six weeks around the time of birth it means that there's no point in hiring or promoting a man over a woman because the man will still have to take leave if his partner gets pregant. Also from the couples point of view it means the father is given a real chance to bond with his child and partner. My sister's colleague had a baby earlier in the year with his partner, and took a half day the day of the birth and maybe had the next day off. That's it. How sh!t is that?
Anyways, capitalism screws over 100% of the population, 100% of the time.

Nevyn · 19-09-2008 6:07pm

PillyPen it is done for health reasons, there is a welfare payment and most companies will top that up to the full salary of the person going on maternity leave, it's just how we roll over here compared to the usa.

The two weeks before hand is for insurance reasons also, but I know people who fudged their dates on their forums and worked up to a week beforehand.

LolaLuv · 19-09-2008 6:08pm

brianthebard wrote: »

But that still leaves pressure on the man not to take leave, or as little as possible, and does nothing to stop discrimination. If both men and women are required to take at least six weeks around the time of birth it means that there's no point in hiring or promoting a man over a woman because the man will still have to take leave if his partner gets pregant. Also from the couples point of view it means the father is given a real chance to bond with his child and partner. My sister's colleague had a baby earlier in the year with his partner, and took a half day the day of the birth and maybe had the next day off. That's it. How sh!t is that?
Anyways, capitalism screws over 100% of the population, 100% of the time.

So let's just take choices away from women? That's ridiculous. Forcing 100% of women to take off for several weeks is a much greater offense than giving the entire population the choice. And the point of making it mandatory for companies to offer maternity leave is to make sure that people who take it will not be discriminated against just for taking it. If they are, sue the pants off the company.

LolaLuv · 19-09-2008 6:10pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

PillyPen it is done for health reasons, there is a welfare payment and most companies will top that up to the full salary of the person going on maternity leave, it's just how we roll over here compared to the usa.

The two weeks before hand is for insurance reasons also, but I know people who fudged their dates on their forums and worked up to a week beforehand.

I guess I'm just so used to women working up until they give birth that I can't wrap my head around this. Ah well, culture shock is going to come at some point, why not before I ever set foot in Ireland?:pac:

brianthebard · 19-09-2008 6:16pm

PillyPen wrote: »

So let's just take choices away from women? That's ridiculous. Forcing 100% of women to take off for several weeks is a much greater offense than giving the entire population the choice. And the point of making it mandatory for companies to offer maternity leave is to make sure that people who take it will not be discriminated against just for taking it. If they are, sue the pants off the company.

But the choice/chance of promotion is being taken from women because of pregnancy and not giving men a choice! The discrimination is coming from "giving" women a choice! Even though in the end its not a choice at all, because a pregnant woman has to take some time off, that's obvious. I don't get you, lets not give a couple the chance to enjoy their pregancy and new born, but we'll substitute it with the joys of working an extra week or two of a job they'll have for 40+ years, and probably won't get promoted from since as a woman, she's being discriminated against! I don't see how this is even an issue, if a woman feels that strongly about not losing time at beloved work because of a child why not get her tubes tied and be done with it???

Interesting that the American thinks the answer lies in suing the company rather than giving the parents a better quality of life. :pac:

LolaLuv · 19-09-2008 6:23pm

brianthebard wrote: »

But the choice/chance of promotion is being taken from women because of pregnancy and not giving men a choice! The discrimination is coming from "giving" women a choice! Even though in the end its not a choice at all, because a pregnant woman has to take some time off, that's obvious. I don't get you, lets not give a couple the chance to enjoy their pregancy and new born, but we'll substitute it with the joys of working an extra week or two of a job they'll have for 40+ years, and probably won't get promoted from since as a woman, she's being discriminated against! I don't see how this is even an issue, if a woman feels that strongly about not losing time at beloved work because of a child why not get her tubes tied and be done with it???

Interesting that the American thinks the answer lies in suing the company rather than giving the parents a better quality of life. :pac:

What the ****????? A woman who enjoys work ought to get her tubes tied??? Yes, god forbid should a woman want to be a mother and also have a job she enjoys. What century are you from??

And Jesus Christ, if a woman is facing discrimination because of maternity leave, then you hit back at the propagators of the discrimination, you don't force all women to take off of work. There are women who enjoy working, crazy as it sounds. And I'm not saying men and women shouldn't be allowed to take off, I'm saying that every couple ought to be able to decide that for themselves.

Yes, let's bring in some American stereotypes. I don't think someone who comes from a country where abortion is illegal and unhappy couples have to wait five years for a divorce has much room to talk about quality of life.

Nevyn · 19-09-2008 6:26pm

If there was two weeks supported paternity leave on par with maternity leave I think a lot of things would change.

Fun isn't it that countries with falling birth rates which are concerned about having an aging population are investing in paternity leave.

Statutory Paternity Leave in Europe:

Ireland is right down the bottom of the European league table:

* Iceland - 3 months paid paternity leave
* Slovenia - 90 days paid paternity leave
* Norway *(Outside EU) - 6 weeks paternity leave
("use it or lose it")
* Finland - 18 days paid paternity
(proposing to raise it to 25 days)
* Denmark - 14 days paid paternity
* Estonia - 14 calendar days
* France - 2 weeks paid paternity
* Italy - 2 weeks paid paternity
* UK - 2 weeks paid paternity (from 2003)
* Sweden - 10 days paid paternity leave
* Latvia - 10 calendar days
* Austria - 10 days paid paternity
* Romania - 5 days paid paternity leave
* Hungary - 5 days paternity leave
* Portugal - 5 days paternity
* Belgium - 3 days paid paternity
* Spain - 2 days paternity
* Holland - 2 days paid paternity
* Luxembourg - 2 days paid paternity
* Ireland - NO entitlements to paternity leave

Nevyn · 19-09-2008 6:27pm

And PillyPen I think having had two children that the lack of maternity leave in america is barbaric.

Also I don't think you have an understanding of legal separation and divorce in this country.
After two years of living apart a couple can file for legal speration and the separation agreement sorts out the maintaince, custody, visitation and assets. The only thing missing is the right to remarry and the disoution of being each others next of kin ( which can be also changed if wished beforehand). There is then a waitng period and then the divorce decree is done which gives the right to remarry.

Also the distance to travel to the UK for an abortion is the same as some women in the USA face as their state does not allow for abortion.

LolaLuv · 19-09-2008 6:29pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

And PillyPen I think having had two children that the lack of maternity leave in america is barbaric.

I agree. I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, but it shouldn't be forced.

brianthebard · 19-09-2008 6:30pm

PillyPen wrote: »

What the ****????? A woman who enjoys work ought to get her tubes tied??? Yes, god forbid should a woman want to be a mother and also have a job she enjoys. What century are you from??

I don't see why you think its necessary to allow or keep women in work right up to the pregnancy, whether they enjoy their jobs or not. It also (MUCH more importantly) puts pressure on all women to do so "Mary down in accounting didn't take six weeks, so now Anne in tech has to do the same". The needs of the majority of the population should come before the minority who insist on working up until the due date.

And Jesus Christ, if a woman is facing discrimination because of maternity leave, then you hit back at the propagators of the discrimination, you don't force all women to take off of work. There are women who enjoy working, crazy as it sounds. And I'm not saying men and women shouldn't be allowed to take off, I'm saying that every couple ought to be able to decide that for themselves.

Hit back with legislation first, and then if needed sue for discrimination. If the laws aren't strong enough in the first place then discrimination will always be an issue. Making stronger laws would actually allow for more cases to be brought on the grounds of discrimination.

Yes, let's bring in some American stereotypes. I don't think someone who comes from a country where abortion is illegal and unhappy couples have to wait five years for a divorce has much room to talk about quality of life.

It was a joke? I'm sure we could trade quips on our respective regions for a long time but there's no point.

Thanks for the figures Thaed, I think if you look you'll see a direct link between levels of discrimination in a country (on gender lines) and the amount of maternity/paternity leave given to couples.

LolaLuv · 19-09-2008 6:39pm

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't see why you think its necessary to allow or keep women in work right up to the pregnancy, whether they enjoy their jobs or not. It also (MUCH more importantly) puts pressure on all women to do so "Mary down in accounting didn't take six weeks, so now Anne in tech has to do the same". The needs of the majority of the population should come before the minority who insist on working up until the due date.

Hit back with legislation first, and then if needed sue for discrimination. If the laws are strong enough in the first place then discrimination will always be an issue. Making stronger laws would actually allow for more cases to be brought on the grounds of discrimination.

I don't think women should be kept in work, but they should be able to decide that for themselves. And women will face that anyway. Unless you're also going to force paternity leave, which I've already said just pisses off everyone, then forced maternity leave is already discrimination. If an Irish company can choose between a man and a woman of child-bearing age, isn't the man more likely to get hired because he's not forced to leave work for several works? Is it better to be discriminated against before or after you get the job? Not all women have children; why should the ones who are career-focused and are not going to have families have to be encumbered by a forced maternity leave that potential employees don't know won't affect them?

The problem with the US is that legislation doesn't get rolling until someone gets sued, because old habits die hard. To get enough support to get anything changed here, someone has to lose a lot of money. But you're right that stronger discrimination laws would be the best way to go.

It was a joke? I'm sure we could trade quips on our respective regions for a long time but there's no point.

It wasn't funny and it added nothing to the debate but resentment.

brianthebard · 19-09-2008 6:54pm

PillyPen wrote: »

I don't think women should be kept in work, but they should be able to decide that for themselves. And women will face that anyway. Unless you're also going to force paternity leave, which I've already said just pisses off everyone, then forced maternity leave is already discrimination. If an Irish company can choose between a man and a woman of child-bearing age, isn't the man more likely to get hired because he's not forced to leave work for several works? Is it better to be discriminated against before or after you get the job? Not all women have children; why should the ones who are career-focused and are not going to have families have to be encumbered by a forced maternity leave that potential employees don't know won't affect them?

yes of course they should be able to decide for themselves, but the reality is there are all sorts of other factors to consider. I don't see why you think forced paternity leave is a bad idea though? Again if both sexes are given leave then there is no incentive to discriminate against women, regardless of whether they have a family or not, which was my point all along.

It wasn't funny and it added nothing to the debate but resentment.

Sorry.

LolaLuv · 19-09-2008 7:06pm

brianthebard wrote: »

yes of course they should be able to decide for themselves, but the reality is there are all sorts of other factors to consider. I don't see why you think forced paternity leave is a bad idea though? Again if both sexes are given leave then there is no incentive to discriminate against women, regardless of whether they have a family or not, which was my point all along.

I had a big long thing written. The bottom line is that I think it's better to fight the ideas that lead to discrimination rather than just discriminate against everyone.

Nevyn · 19-09-2008 7:29pm

Pillypen we have been, up until the late 1970s here when a woman married she had to quit working. Socail standards here are different but I do not think that abolishing or making it possible for maternity leave to be an opt out is a good thing as it will put pressure on women to do so.

We are still having trouble with parental leave and employeers but the answer isn't to make it an opt out but to enforce it and punish employeers that stall or refuse to honour it and the same with maternity leave.

LolaLuv · 19-09-2008 7:35pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Pillypen we have been, up until the late 1970s here when a woman married she had to quit working. Socail standards here are different but I do not think that abolishing or making it possible for maternity leave to be an opt out is a good thing as it will put pressure on women to do so.

We are still having trouble with parental leave and employeers but the answer isn't to make it an opt out but to enforce it and punish employeers that stall or refuse to honour it and the same with maternity leave.

There's no doubt that Ireland has made a lot more progress in the past 30+ years than America has, but both countries still have a long way to go, imo.

Again, it must be a cultural thing. I know many women who love to work, and I think if maternity leave were forced it would cause an outrage.

Honestly, I think everyone at some point has to make a choice between family and a high-powered career. Why should the women who have chosen a career be forced to take time off to make it more fair for the women who want to take time with their families? That holds true for men as well, some would rather focus on family while others would rather focus on career. But why should anyone who puts more emphasis on family expect to have the same success as someone who is drive solely by their career? If someone makes sacrifices for their career, then they should be expected to be rewarded more. At the same time, someone who chooses to concentrate on his or her family is going to have a more rewarding home life. It's just that people can't be two places at once, which is fine because not everyone wants to be a CEO.

And I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I think it's a valid question.

Nevyn · 19-09-2008 7:46pm

Well as I have said it is only in the last 10 years we are at the stage were the majority of households have two parents working, daycare/creches are fairly new and there are not enough places for the demand and they are on par with mortaguage payments for a lot of families there is not the after school programs or summer camp programs which schools have in the usa.

Women can go back early from maternity leave if sanctioned by their dr and they can be available and be on the phone/email from home. Many women who are self employed or are in small companies take shorter maternity leave.

But it should not be an either or situations and we are working to having a more family friendly work policies.

LolaLuv · 19-09-2008 7:49pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well as I have said it is only in the last 10 years we are at the stage were the majority of households have two parents working, daycare/creches are fairly new and there are not enough places for the demand and they are on par with mortaguage payments for a lot of families there is not the after school programs or summer camp programs which schools have in the usa.

Women can go back early from maternity leave if sanctioned by their dr and they can be available and be on the phone/email from home. Many women who are self employed or are in small companies take shorter maternity leave.

Day care is a huge problem here as well, and it hits the lower income families the hardest, of course. It's a vicious cycle; they need two incomes but if both parents work then one is only working to pay off the daycare bill.

brianthebard · 19-09-2008 7:52pm

PillyPen wrote: »

There's no doubt that Ireland has made a lot more progress in the past 30+ years than America has, but both countries still have a long way to go, imo.

Again, it must be a cultural thing. I know many women who love to work, and I think if maternity leave were forced it would cause an outrage.

Honestly, I think everyone at some point has to make a choice between family and a high-powered career. Why should the women who have chosen a career be forced to take time off to make it more fair for the women who want to take time with their families? That holds true for men as well, some would rather focus on family while others would rather focus on career. But why should anyone who puts more emphasis on family expect to have the same success as someone who is drive solely by their career? If someone makes sacrifices for their career, then they should be expected to be rewarded more. At the same time, someone who chooses to concentrate on his or her family is going to have a more rewarding home life. It's just that people can't be two places at once, which is fine because not everyone wants to be a CEO.

Well I think the first thing is I was suggesting six weeks because there needs to be a certain amount of time for health reasons that every woman should take off. I don't think we need to get into the mechanics of how it might work, lets just focus on whether its a good idea or not. Secondly why is it that people can only have one of the other? You make it seem like you can only either be career driven or family driven. And why is it that someone who wants a family must therefore accept that they won't be CEO?
Because that's the key to all this, woman are being made choose between one thing and the other, but they are not allowed have both, and what you are suggesting doesn't do anything to address this, whereas levelling the playing field for all concerned does. If someone is career driven and puts the work in then they will get noticed, surely that's the point of doing the work? I don't see why a certain amount of mandatory maternity leave should be seen as a huge barrier to that. However when the playing field is not level, when women have to sacrafice career for family or vice versa, then that's where we see choice being taken away not given.

Nevyn · 19-09-2008 7:56pm

And men are not supported in the choice to be the stay at home parent or the parent with reduced hours, it seems to ususally default to the mother rather then the father.

LolaLuv · 19-09-2008 7:57pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Well I think the first thing is I was suggesting six weeks because there needs to be a certain amount of time for health reasons that every woman should take off. I don't think we need to get into the mechanics of how it might work, lets just focus on whether its a good idea or not. Secondly why is it that people can only have one of the other? You make it seem like you can only either be career driven or family driven. And why is it that someone who wants a family must therefore accept that they won't be CEO?
Because that's the key to all this, woman are being made choose between one thing and the other, but they are not allowed have both, and what you are suggesting doesn't do anything to address this, whereas levelling the playing field for all concerned does. If someone is career driven and puts the work in then they will get noticed, surely that's the point of doing the work? I don't see why a certain amount of mandatory maternity leave should be seen as a huge barrier to that. However when the playing field is not level, when women have to sacrafice career for family or vice versa, then that's where we see choice being taken away not given.

Of course I think a woman can have a career and a family, you're the one who said a woman who wants a career should get her tubes tied. What I'm saying is you can't be CEO without missing out on a lot of the family stuff, and vice versa. It's a choice everyone has to make, not just women. Most people aren't bothered by this because they want a job that pays the bills with some extra for savings and fun, but if someone (male or female) wants to be in upper management then they're going to have to contend with people who want to be in upper management more than they want to spend time with their families. You can't have it all.

LolaLuv · 19-09-2008 7:58pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

And men are not supported in the choice to be the stay at home parent or the parent with reduced hours, it seems to ususally default to the mother rather then the father.

In America that is changing a lot. There are many men who are stay-at-home fathers. I'd like that sort of arrangement myself I think.

brianthebard · 19-09-2008 8:00pm

PillyPen wrote: »

Of course I think a woman can have a career and a family, you're the one who said a woman who wants a career should get her tubes tied. What I'm saying is you can't be CEO without missing out on a lot of the family stuff, and vice versa. It's a choice everyone has to make, not just women. Most people aren't bothered by this because they want a job that pays the bills with some extra for savings and fun, but if someone (male or female) wants to be in upper management then they're going to have to contend with people who want to be in upper management more than they want to spend time with their families. You can't have it all.

That was a sarcastic comment, I don't actually think women need to tie their tubes to get along.

Stheno · 19-09-2008 8:01pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

IF we had paternity leave then I bet there would be better systems in place as it standards there is not statatory paternity leave in this country.

+1 imo what is needed here is the system that I *think* is available in either Norway or Denmark, where either parent is entitled to extended leave after the birth of a child, giving the option for dads who want to, to stay at home with their child, if their partner wants to/has to go back to work.

brianthebard wrote: »

But the choice/chance of promotion is being taken from women because of pregnancy and not giving men a choice! The discrimination is coming from "giving" women a choice!

You can cut your maternity leave short, I know several self employed, and "employed by a company" women who have done so, one went back to work three weeks after having her baby as she wanted to.

If someone was in an equal role with a man and takes 3 x 9 months (27 months) out of an e.g. 5 year period to have and stay at home with their children, then they woud by choice have just under 2.5 years experience than their male colleague so yes it might/would affect their chances of promotion imo, but then what of the joy of having those kids etc?

Thaedydal wrote: »

Pillypen we have been, up until the late 1970s here when a woman married she had to quit working.

OT several of the ladies I currently work with had to leave work during the marriage ban!

PillyPen wrote: »

There's no doubt that Ireland has made a lot more progress in the past 30+ years than America has, but both countries still have a long way to go, imo.

Again, it must be a cultural thing. I know many women who love to work, and I think if maternity leave were forced it would cause an outrage.

Honestly, I think everyone at some point has to make a choice between family and a high-powered career. Why should the women who have chosen a career be forced to take time off to make it more fair for the women who want to take time with their families? That holds true for men as well, some would rather focus on family while others would rather focus on career. But why should anyone who puts more emphasis on family expect to have the same success as someone who is drive solely by their career? If someone makes sacrifices for their career, then they should be expected to be rewarded more. At the same time, someone who chooses to concentrate on his or her family is going to have a more rewarding home life. It's just that people can't be two places at once, which is fine because not everyone wants to be a CEO.

And I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I think it's a valid question.

Pilly see above and Thaedydal's post earlier, one can take less maternity leave in some cases.

LolaLuv · 19-09-2008 8:07pm

nouggatti wrote: »

If someone was in an equal role with a man and takes 3 x 9 months (27 months) out of an e.g. 5 year period to have and stay at home with their children, then they woud by choice have just under 2.5 years experience than their male colleague so yes it might/would affect their chances of promotion imo, but then what of the joy of having those kids etc?

I agree. The happiest times in my childhood were when my little brothers were tiny. Kids are such a joy, I can't imagine any parent willfully giving those moments up. But, not everyone feels that way so.

Pilly see above and Thaedydal's post earlier, one can take less maternity leave in some cases.

I just think it's weird that it's mandatory except in some cases. That concept is completely foreign to me. The flip side is a country like the US where the maternity leave laws are sadly lacking, so a woman (if she gets any time off at all) generally isn't paid for leave.

Stheno · 19-09-2008 8:15pm

PillyPen wrote: »

I just think it's weird that it's mandatory except in some cases. That concept is completely foreign to me. The flip side is a country like the US where the maternity leave laws are sadly lacking, so a woman (if she gets any time off at all) generally isn't paid for leave.

Actually forgive my last post, I've just read through the maternity leave link that Brian posted, which says that you are entitled to take maternity leave, and lists the conditions one should follow to take leave.

Nowhere in the link posted does it say you have to take maternity leave. That would explain the various women I know of, who took little or no maternity leave.

Interesting to also note (whilst in tragic circumstances) that the legislation addresses leave for fathers whose partner dies in childbirth, and for women who suffer a late miscarriage.

Women in Senior Management

Comments