Are women naturally less ambitious than men?

just your reasoning behind it, that women enter primary school teaching because it has shorter working hours.

Sorry, I actually wasn't trying to say that was the sole reason. I was mentioning it as a factor, but guess I didn't make it clear enough. Traditionally men would look to the Private sector and business because of larger wage increases, but I think that is changing now since these government jobs have proven to receive increases that place them on par with jobs in business. I think we'll see more men entering teaching as a result of that.

But looking at teaching now, women do dominate the numbers of primary school teachers in Ireland. Going into the reasons, doesn't really matter, since such a domination of numbers, skews the study above.

Zulu

Well in my working experience (Software/Telecoms for 6 years), amonst my peers, the men will put in more effort (ie: stay late, longer & more often).
I can also say that in majority of cases, the men will apply for promotions slightly before their time (take the risk), where as the women later (wait till they're fairly sure). (ie: moving from engineer to senior engineer etc..)

Naturally there's more men than women, and the industry would also be a factor. In the industry I'm in, I see no evidence of pay discrimination.

Zombrex

Zulu wrote:

Well in my working experience (Software/Telecoms for 6 years), amonst my peers, the men will put in more effort (ie: stay late, longer & more often).

Well that view might be a bit distorted being in an industry that has a much smaller amount of women. I mean if you have 10 guys for every 1 woman in your office, if 5 of the 10 guys work very hard it still doesn't mean the women work less, just the 1 woman you have doesn't work as hard as 5 of the 10 men.

I work in a software company that actually has a disproportionatly large number of women working in development (3 women 8 men) and the women here work as hard as everyone else when they are expected to. But then everyone works hard.

Zulu

Wicknight wrote:

Well that view might be a bit distorted being in an industry that has a much smaller amount of women...

...which is exactly why I said:

Zulu wrote:

Naturally there's more men than women, and the industry would also be a factor.

klash

What an absolute load of monkey manure.

Show me a man and a woman in the same job, same position after the same length of time where the man is earning more.

This "On average men earn more then women" is such a load of crap. If men are working in higher paid jobs then of course they're earning more, its nothing to do with gender!

Me and my girlfriend both have degrees (In different things granted), shes public sector, i'm private. She gets paid quite a bit more then me after almost the same amount of time. My job would be the more highly skilled one and should be paying me a LOT more then her job, its just the company i'm with partially, along with other considerations (Shes permanent, i'm contract).

Theres a girl working with me, same work, same hours, same position. Shes here longer (1 yr) and shes permanent and shes on nearly twice as much as me. Should i cry discrimination ? Maybe shes giving the boss a bit of head on the qt ? Should i report it to Bertie ?

Absolute nonsense. Have we become nothing but a nation of whinging whiners ?

On the topic no i don't think women are less ambitious then men. I think that in general women tend to go the housewife route which inevitably shoots down their career advancement. I think the women that don't are actually in general more ambitious then men, e.g > I'm lazy and will do the work i need to do, if i can bullsht my way out of something instead of having to work or learn something i will, women tend to go above and beyond the call of duty so to speak. I think Employers see that and like it.

As for women generally doing the most house work, yes they do. I know in my relationship i would lend a hand now and again but it wouldn't be exactly common. I usually cook more often then her per week but rarely wash up for example. For tasks like putting on the fire, getting coal, replacing light blubs, anything to do with the cars, lifting heavy stuff, etc etc you know what i mean here, i do it.

Look after the kids, yes they do. In general why ? Because generally they're better suited to it then men. I'd play with my niece for a half hour, my girlfriend would play with her all day. women are naturally carers.

Who looks after the money ? Women do or should imo. I'll be the first one to admit that if i controlled the bank balance i'd spend the months wages on beer, fags, take away and magic beans. (I have done it before) Women in general seem to be much more intelligent then men in the common sense department.

Vangelis

Good point, klash. That shows perfectly how different experiences people have of this in Ireland. And how incorrect and inadequate the statistics are.

Vangelis

simu wrote:

^^^

Well, it doesn't have to be Irish women, specifically. It would be interesting to hear about other countries too.

Well, I am generally interested in Irish society. I don't know much about the conditions in my own country. Except it's much better than in Ireland. Fewer complaints, fewer debates, men and women make the same amount of money for the same job. It is only in a few industries that the pay is uneven. Those industries are usually rotten with old men who aren't capable of modernising and appreciating women's efforts. But they are very, very few.

Rather pregnant women are having a hard time finding employment, because the employers have the presupposition that they won't be as efficient and hard-working as other women. And that has turned out to be false.

seamus

Vangelis wrote:

Rather pregnant women are having a hard time finding employment, because the employers have the presupposition that they won't be as efficient and hard-working as other women. And that has turned out to be false.

Actually, I think you'll find it's because she'll only be getting settled in the job, and she'll be gone for 6 months. You can see the employer's point.

the_syco

Deleted User wrote:

Whereas if you look at some service industries like Waste Management, or even Drivers for Bus Eireann, the numbers of women looking for positions compared to men, is much lower. I saw my first female Bus driver in cork about 3 weeks ago, as opposed to men all those other years. Perhaps there is some resistance to women entering these job sectors, but I expect its more likely because these areas aren't as appealing to women as they are to men.

Heh. Anytime I hear about women not being able to do a job, due to inequality, I think of one thing: let see them apply in their masses to drive the bus, build houses, fix your plumbing... or is it not "lady like" for them to do so?

=-=

As for men teaching, its cos its not an attractive job. The goverment did a drive to recruit men into teaching jobs, as it was something like 1 in 5 (or less) men going to the teaching college. This was worrying, as seemingly less men equaled less male role-models in the childs life.

And when I say attractive, I mean, when you thought of being someone when you grew up, how many thought of being daddy/mommy, builder/teacher, etc?

And when I say attractive, I mean, when you thought of being someone when you grew up, how many thought of being daddy/mommy, builder/teacher, etc?

I suppose its different for me, cause both my parents are teachers. My Dad when I was a kid was teaching mostly Irish in 2nd Level, and my Mum was teaching a "special" class for travellers.

So for me teaching was appealing on the face of things. I knew of the benefits, and I'd also heard most of the negatives. However, I also found out first hand while visiting St.Patricks Teaching college in Dublin, that primary school teaching is dominated and controlled by women. And by the priests. I didn't want to enter that tangle of politics, and religious dogma.

My sister on the other hand loved this stuff. She truely enjoys all that internal bull****. I don't know if its down to the different sexes or not. But I 'm truely glad i didn't do it, and she's said she's never regretted doing it.

Vangelis

seamus wrote:

Actually, I think you'll find it's because she'll only be getting settled in the job, and she'll be gone for 6 months. You can see the employer's point.

No, I won't find that. The reasons I stated for the employers' aversions to hiring pregnant women are real. The employers have opely admitted it.

seamus

Vangelis wrote:

No, I won't find that. The reasons I stated for the employers' aversions to hiring pregnant women are real. The employers have opely admitted it.

Really? Where?

Vangelis

seamus wrote:

Really? Where?

Welcome to Norway.

Sleepy

simu wrote:

I think that some men may be pushed by family and school into talking up "high status" careers that require long hours and so on just because they are men whereas they might only push women into these types of jobs if they seem genuinely suited to them. I remember a past bf of mine who wanted to do teaching but was persuaded to do business at uni instead because teaching "doesn't pay well enough for a man", according to his teacher. This was actually rather sad as it was obvious he would be far better suited to teaching (and in fairness, their pay isn't all that bad). Only an ancedote, though, but perhaps it reflects a wider trend. Thoughts?

Would certainly be true in my family, I was always pushed towards business/IT whilst my sister was guided towards teaching. I never even thought to question whether business was what I wanted to be doing until the final year of my B.Comm.

Vangelis wrote:

Rather pregnant women are having a hard time finding employment, because the employers have the presupposition that they won't be as efficient and hard-working as other women.

Well, they may be as efficient and as hard-working as other women, but if they're about to go on 6 months leave, they won't be much bloody use to the company. I'd freely admit that if I was on an interviewing panel, a pregnant woman would be pretty unlikely to be hired. I don't see anything sexist about that at all.

Aye, I agree. If a person knew and told an interviewers panel that they would need to leave after 6 months due to eye-surgery and they'd be unable to work for three months thereafter, it would be the same result. The simple fact is that we're hired to work for a company/position. The company is not doing a favour for us (at least not primarily so)

I believe in equality, however I also believe in common sense. We're paid to work. If we can't be in work, do we deserve to get paid, or even retain our jobs? I don't believe so except in extreme cases, and pregnancy can hardly be considered an extreme case.

I have 17-20 holidays allocated to me in a year. Total. Including sick days. If I needed to leave my job for 3-6 months, you can be sure that my position would not be there waiting for me when I came back. Nor would I expect it to.....

hepcat

I can understand why employers would not hire a pregnant women, and think it is stretching it a bit far to say it is sexist to adopt this stance. Why on earth would you employ someone, then re-employ someone else for 6 months, and hold the job free for that person on the assumption that they will indeed return to work full-time at the prescribed time if you can employ someone else who is equally capable but not pregnant This is just plain reality adn common sense. IN the same way, I suppose (notwithstanding the earlier statistics re graduates in public service) we have to accept as a reality that women who choose to have a family are going to find that their career is affacted. This does not necessarily mean that they are naturally less ambitious but that they decide to shelve that ambition and prioritise other areas.

Vangelis

hepcat wrote:

I can understand why employers would not hire a pregnant women, and think it is stretching it a bit far to say it is sexist to adopt this stance. Why on earth would you employ someone, then re-employ someone else for 6 months, and hold the job free for that person on the assumption that they will indeed return to work full-time at the prescribed time if you can employ someone else who is equally capable but not pregnant This is just plain reality adn common sense. IN the same way, I suppose (notwithstanding the earlier statistics re graduates in public service) we have to accept as a reality that women who choose to have a family are going to find that their career is affacted. This does not necessarily mean that they are naturally less ambitious but that they decide to shelve that ambition and prioritise other areas.

I DIDN'T say that it's sexist. Actually I didn't criticise it a bit. Can understand. But that way, the employers reject potentially good workers and it increases the number of unemployed mothers in need of making for a living and preparing for their children who cannot find other support than social welfare. Or perhaps nothing.

b3t4

Deleted User wrote:

I have 17-20 holidays allocated to me in a year. Total. Including sick days. If I needed to leave my job for 3-6 months, you can be sure that my position would not be there waiting for me when I came back. Nor would I expect it to.....

By this logic, if you were an employer and a woman became pregnant in your buisness you would find it logical to fire her?? Say this person has been with the company for a number of years and would have more experience, in her job role, than anyone coming in therefore a better asset to the company.

By another logic, every woman, bar a few, are capable of having children therefore to limit the risk of ever having an employee out for the 3-6mnths of maternatiy leave just don't hire women.

Someone has got to physcially give birth to children in this world and it just happens to be women. A woman's body goes through an awful lot before and after the pregnancy and it's understandable to not force someone back into work straight away. Also there is the baby to be concerned about. A newborn baby is a tough task for anyone and both parents should be given the time to care for it, along with any other children in the family.

Men have the option to have children but it feels like women have to either choose their career or a family.

A.

Sleepy

b3t4 wrote:

it feels like women have to either choose their career or a family

Well, in reality, women are choosing to damage their careers by having children because they will be out of work for at least 2/3 months by doing so. I know quite a few men (myself included) that would have no problem in being a primary carer to their children and this is a valid option but facts are facts: one of a child's parents will have to damage their career in order to provide adequately for that child (unless leaving your child to be raised by others instead of taking a part in it yourself is considered 'adequate').

Given that women are biologically more predisposed to being the primary carer, it's not surprising that most choose to be the one damaging their career.

If you, or your partner, are not prepared to put your career into second place for fifteen or sixteen years, you have no business having children tbh.

rubadub

b3t4 wrote:

By another logic, every woman, bar a few, are capable of having children therefore to limit the risk of ever having an employee out for the 3-6mnths of maternatiy leave just don't hire women.

That is a logical reason not to employ women. I had a female boss who only employed men or women in their 40's + because of that reason. I am sure many people do. If I was a young woman unable to have children I would probably let it be known on my CV.
I see it similar to insurance quotes in a way, the company is taking a gamble taking on any employee, I know another manager who will only employ married men/women and very few under 30.

b3t4

b3t4 wrote:

By this logic, if you were an employer and a woman became pregnant in your buisness you would find it logical to fire her?? Say this person has been with the company for a number of years and would have more experience, in her job role, than anyone coming in therefore a better asset to the company

in which case, her experience and knowledge of her job, would speak for her. If I was in a car accident and out of my job for 6 months, I might still have a job left. Simply because I know my job better than anyone new could. I've been in this area for over 5 years, and its unlikely they could find anyone with the experience I have or train them to my level in 6 months.

However, This is Business. We're not talking about Government jobs, or charities. Deadlines and profit margins are the important factors here. If I can't be in work, able to do my job effectively, whats the point in employing me with full wages while i'm out? There's no point, and since holding the position for me, may damage the growth of the company, I would be axed.

What I find interesting, is that I don't expect anything less. I expect that my job is only there as long as I can work. Whereas you seem to believe that the job should be there for women if they're not.......... Surely you're being more than a bit sexist towards men here? :rolleyes:

b3t4 wrote:

Men have the option to have children but it feels like women have to either choose their career or a family

Aye, thats right.

However thats not sexism. In fact it has nothing to do with equality. Its just the way our biological makeup is. Its not like this is some grand plot that men cooked up in Victorian times, to keep women in their place. Women's bodies determine that they will be unable to work for a period of the year if they get pregnant. So if women want to achieve the same level of success that men have in the workplace they will need to decide which is more important to them. Having kids, or having a major career.

I know a number of men who do not have much time to spend with their children simply because they've committed themselves to becoming top of their job roles, whether this be top salesperson or a Director. They've made numerous sacrifices in their lives, and frankly if women think they should be able to have children, and achieve this level of success, then I think they're looking for something beyond equality.

Usually, I don't have a problem with pregnancy leave. It doesn't really bother me that women can receive up to three months paid leave from their jobs, outside of actual holidays. It used to, but I've gotten past that. But if they're applying for a job, with the knowledge that they're soon going to be leaving, or are currently aiming to have children, then they shouldn't expect to be treated the same as a man/woman who's capable of working without that leave.

At this stage in our lives, pregnancy is a choice. We're no longer 16 year olds playing with sex for the 1st time. We all have access to birth control, so women should be able to control whether they will have kids or not. Its a personal choice, similiar to whether they aim to work for upper management, and all the sacrifices that it entails.

vorbis

klaz thats far far too short sighted. The bottom line is important but at the end of the day, children are far more important. Even in economic terms, who's going to pay the taxes for your pension in 30 - 40 years time? Also say you force a mother to give up her job and raise her child on social welfare. Again we would end up paying for that. Think about more than the month end results.

Zombrex

rubadub wrote:

I am sure many people do.

Well if they do they are breaking the law

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

Its a personal choice, similiar to whether they aim to work for upper management, and all the sacrifices that it entails.

It is a personal choice, but it is a person choice that society is largely accepted as being a choice that should be supported by society. Which is why you are (in the last few decades) seeing a growth in support for different forms of parental leave, supported by the state.

It is all very well saying that the bottom line is all that matters, but that doesn't really hold true in a social democracy and (thankfully in my opinion) it is beginning to not hold true with relation to children and employment.

The Corinthian

This thread is about to degenerate into another gender war, I suspect. More importantly, the topic has little to do with women having babies and probably more to do with what they do after they have those babies.

Biological differences (women get pregnant, men have testosterone, etc) aside, I believe the difference in ‘ambition’ is almost entirely sociological.

Like it or not it is largely frowned upon for a man to be a house husband. From an early age we are encouraged to be competitive and aggressive. We aspire to be alpha males and, TBH, a lot of women will aspire to be with alpha males. Indeed, most of the self-esteem issues that men suffer tend to be related to our inability to achieve that goal, so it shouldn’t be a surprise to see that we will put in those extra hours, take those extra risks, jump on those extra opportunities that many women will not.

Women are not brought up in the same way. That’s not to say that they’re not ambitious, but they are given a socially acceptable alternative to success, so it’s not a ‘win or die’ scenario for them. If a man has a crap career he’s a failure, if a woman has a crap career she can always go and become a mother and/or housewife. Men don’t have that choice.

Sure, we have that in theory, but in practice we actually think of house husbands as pussies. Go on, tell the truth. Hands up all the girls who want to grow up to marry a guy they have to bankroll.

So it’s hardly surprising if women are not as willing to ‘pull the stops’ as men. I’m sure they’d be just as ambitious if they had no alternative.

Morrigan

Deleted User wrote:

However thats not sexism. In fact it has nothing to do with equality. Its just the way our biological makeup is. Its not like this is some grand plot that men cooked up in Victorian times, to keep women in their place. Women's bodies determine that they will be unable to work for a period of the year if they get pregnant. So if women want to achieve the same level of success that men have in the workplace they will need to decide which is more important to them. Having kids, or having a major career.

What does your mother think of this opinion of yours, klaz?

b3t4

Deleted User wrote:

I expect that my job is only there as long as I can work. Whereas you seem to believe that the job should be there for women if they're not.......... Surely you're being more than a bit sexist towards men here? :rolleyes:

If someone cannot work for a reasonable reason be that sickness or pregnancy I expect that person's job to be kept open for them. I can't see how I am being sexiest. If a man cannot do his job for a justified and verifable reason then I would expect his job to be kept open till he was able to come back to work, within reason.

I have a few friends who have wonderful families and their parents worked all their lives. For one family in particular the mother runs a successful buisness and the father is a teacher. When they were growing up the majority of the caring was done by an au pair. My friend has no doubts as to who her parents are or whether they were loved her or not. In this case neither careers had to take a step back.

It can work but it appears that people's minds can often be closed to the idea. I am very capable at what I do and I am one of the best graduates from my year in college. An employer would simply be extremely small minded to not hire me or promote me simply because I am female and may wish to have a family in the future.

A.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

So it’s hardly surprising if women are not as willing to ‘pull the stops’ as men. I’m sure they’d be just as ambitious if they had no alternative.

Is there any evidence or logic to support the idea that women actually are less willing to "pull the stops" as men are, or is that just something some men like to think so they feel less threatened by women in the work place?

vorbis

vorbis wrote:

klaz thats far far too short sighted.

Sure, it is. But then we were were talking about this in regards to equality, not in regards to what was practical.

The West is already seeing a drop off in the amount of women that choose to have children. We're seeing a drop in the birth rates of most wealthy countries, simply because of changing lifestyles, and the requirements that women need to achieve if they wish to be successful in the workplace.

The simple answer is that pregnancy leave is a requirement. However, women will still need to choose between a career and having children. That in itself is being practical. Its also a requirement for any real business to operate in todays economies. It might not be official on paper, but an employer will see the advantage of having someone thats willing to work their alloted time, over that of someone that intends on being out for a long period once a year.

Even in economic terms, who's going to pay the taxes for your pension in 30 - 40 years time?

Actually I am. I've been paying into a pension since I left college over 6 years ago. While I pay quite alot in taxes, very little of that money taken away will find its way back to me..

Also say you force a mother to give up her job and raise her child on social welfare. Again we would end up paying for that. Think about more than the month end results.

And you need to stop thinking that these are either huge companies or state owned ventures. Most businesses cannot afford to have members of staff out of work, and receiving wages for long periods of time. Where do you expect her wages to come from, if she's not providing anything to the company? I know the company I work for, wouldn't be able to afford such a situation, which is why a woman seeking to raise a family wouldn't be hired at this stage in the company's development. It might not be written anywhere, but as management I know the hiring policies of the company.

And I didn't say anything about forcing a woman to give up their job. I still say that women need to make a choice. Take responsibility for their choices. If they wish children, they're going to need to be realistic. Can she afford to raise children? If she can raise children, while working a 40 hour week, fine. But if she can't, then surely she's better off not having children until she can? Doing otherwise is irresponsible.

As for social welfare, believe me i know. I already pay heaps for people who don't deserve it. I'm not in any hurry to pay any more.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Is there any evidence or logic to support the idea that women actually are less willing to "pull the stops" as men are, or is that just something some men like to think so they feel less threatened by women in the work place?

I gave the logic in my post and the evidence was presented at the start of this thread. You'll also note that I also gave my argument as an opinion, so you can tackle that if you like rather than skip to the end and question the conclusion without bothering to read the argument.

As for what you claim is the motivation; this has more to do with your own motivations than mine, TBH.