Are women naturally less ambitious than men?

metrovelvet

Right I get that. But Im not talking about benfits or anything like that or even returning to the same company.

But what I mean is, a case where a woman is in the work force for ten years and makes a certain amount of headway. Then takes a couple of years off to raise some kids who are under school age.

When she reenters the work force its as if she has nothing on her cv, like she just finished her degree. So she may have left as management or an associate but when she looks for a new job then she'll have to start at the bottom and look for an assistant's position.

Jobs in the US are not held for you until your ready to come back. That just doesnt happen. Im laughing that you would even consider this a possibility. If your out for two years, thats not a leave of absence thats a resignation.I dont have a problem with this at all. Im not a retard you know.

HR makes up the rules. Women make up HR.

b3t4

Something I thought about is the following..

Would a parent who places there child in school for a number of hours every day be considered to be a bad parent?

My thoughts are that people would find it hard to say yes to the above question. Therefore I cannot see how leaving a child in a creche would be bad parenting.

A.

Sleepy

The Market makes the rules, not HR.

Because a person who has taken two to ten years off to mind their children has resigned their position, missed years worth of technical advances in their career's skillset, are out of practice at the skills they have which are still relevant to their career and simply aren't used to working a nine to five any more they may as well be graduates again.

Holding someones job for a couple of months to allow them to have a child is one thing (Even at that, they're not up to the same level as when they left for a few months). I'm not in any way suggesting that a company should hold a position for someone until they were ready to return. In a way, a company is already being generous in allowing someone to leave for the few months as it damages the company's productivity for the best part of a year (between time off and time to get back up to speed in one's role).

If a HR department tried to hire someone who'd been out for ten years back into their old role, I think they'd find pretty quickly that the person they'd hired wasn't up to the job any more (in most cases at least). This is something we have to accept when we take leaves of absences or resign positions to take a few years out whether they be for child rearing or travelling: we usually will not be as valuable to a potential employer as we were before we took the time off. To suggest that this is the doing of women working in HR is simply ludicrous. It's to do with the value of a person as an employee.

Sleepy

b3t4 wrote:

Something I thought about is the following..

Would a parent who places there child in school for a number of hours every day be considered to be a bad parent?

My thoughts are that people would find it hard to say yes to the above question. Therefore I cannot see how leaving a child in a creche would be bad parenting.

A.

Well, for a start it's widely acknowledged by childcare experts that the early years are the most important in the development of a childs psychological make-up (first four years is what I remember but I'm sketchy on the details here). It's during these years where a child could be put in a creche that it's developing it's personality.

Given the apparent variances in psychological problems amongst teenagers who come from dual income families versus those that have had a stay-at-home parent for at least the first few years of their lives I think there's an argument to be made against creches tbh (and my sister actually works in one!).

How much damage being left in a creche does to a child isn't something I'd want to hazard a guess at but I doubt it harms a child that badly if it's just a matter of a few hours a day. With modern commutes and over-time etc, it's easy (and common according to my sister) to see parents dropping off their infant children to creches at 7.30 in the morning and not collecting them until seven that night. I know of few people who would disagree that this could be anything but detrimental to a child's development.

metrovelvet

Oh bt34

You are indeed brave to open up this can of worms.

Personally, I would not feel comfortable leaving a small child/infant in a creche which is why I know I'll never get married and have kids because I also know that to stay at home and look after kids without having a life outside of that would kill me. [metrovelvet prepares to hide under the desk as stones get thrown at her.] Once they are of school age they have developed some independence and don't need the primary carer's love and attention as much.

Also in creches the hygeine standards are more compromised. Nappies etc etc. The baby lotions are all standardised etc etc. I think if I were a mother this would freak me out especially knowing that babies and toddlers immunities are very vulnerable. Im sure it freaks out plenty of mothers who just have to block it out. Its just a fact that a creche worker will not love or know your child the way you do and that has to suck for mothers who are in the workforce.

At school age you need an education and school provides that. In early developmental stages you need love and nurturing, do creche's provide that?

Sleepy I can understand what you are saying and to a degree I accept that. But we're not talking about 10 year absences here. You still have plenty to offer after two years out. Two years is not that much time in terms of non -IT careers. I dont accept that its fair to exclude people. If it were science or even possibly medicine, ok, but the other fields, not fair at all.

b3t4

Ok, after some research this informative link http://www.loadzajobs.ie/news_details.asp?id=553 has shown me that a child under the age of 1 would be better suited to being looked after their parent.

I've also done some research into the idea of a career break being used so that a person could look after a child/children until a certain age and they can then return to the work force.

Some info:
http://www.rollercoaster.ie/new_baby/career_breaks.asp
http://www.irishjobs.ie/resource_centre/individual_article.asp?ArtID=786&SID=7

A.

Sleepy

metrovelvet wrote:

Sleepy I can understand what you are saying and to a degree I accept that. But we're not talking about 10 year absences here. You still have plenty to offer after two years out. Two years is not that much time in terms of non -IT careers. I dont accept that its fair to exclude people. If it were science or even possibly medicine, ok, but the other fields, not fair at all.

Why isn't it fair? Surely it'd be unfair to people who aren't having children if people who on their return from a year or two out for parental leave were getting paid the same as them despite having less real experience and being less competent in the job?

metrovelvet

Look the level of demotion is too stark. Thats all. I can accept that you wouldnt be at the same level as people who didn't take a couple of years off. But not to fall let's say from an exec position to a receptionist which is what happens.

Its not as if you return to where you left off or even near there. You HAVE TO START AT THE BOTTOM all over again.

constitutionus

well getting back to the ORIGINAL title of this thread im gonna throw in my two cents on this.
YES women are naturally less ambitious than men and in my opinion tis all down to the wetware. mens brains are designed to take risks womens aren't.
its as simple as that. on a mental level women will always try to get the best out of an opportunity when the level of risk is low, men wont. and it goes all the way back to our childhoods. i remember watching horizon a few years back when they did this study on kids, equal amounts boys and girls, with a candy dispensing machiene. the kids were told if they turned the switch once they would get sweets, twice more sweets, but after that they could either get more sweets or lose all of em.
cant remember the statistics but damn near all the girls took the sweets on the secound turn while all the boys chanced their arm for the extra amount

this doesnt mean women cant excell in business but it does explain why all these girls ive been told by various media for the last 20 years who are out preforming boys in academic study DONT seem to be starting their own companies because quite honestly its easier to be employed than to be an employer with all the related risks.
and THATS why men dominate business and politics, because we take the risk:) i love the fact that while women want equal representation in the dail (in terms of numbers) and on the board of directors of companies they dont seem to want to have the same level of suicides, mental illness's, destitution ,isolation and bankruptcies that come along with it.

its not all fluffy bunnies you know, for every president of intel there s a guy in the gutter with a bottle of alcohol who risked the same and lost everything

Sleepy

metrovelvet wrote:

Look the level of demotion is too stark. Thats all. I can accept that you wouldnt be at the same level as people who didn't take a couple of years off. But not to fall let's say from an exec position to a receptionist which is what happens.

Its not as if you return to where you left off or even near there. You HAVE TO START AT THE BOTTOM all over again.

If someones going from an executive postion to being a receptionist after just two years out it's because they're short-selling themselves. Maybe that's what happens in the states but it certainly doesn't happen here.

My mother left her job in a bank to have me, then had my younger brother and sister and returned to work sixteen years later and got a new job with the same bank (though in a different county and branch) at only a grade below her old position.

I can see why some people may choose to re-enter their career at a significantly lower level in order to have more free time to spend with their children but I don't think that people are necessarily forced to go right back to the bottom of the career ladder when they return from a hiatus.

Zulu

metrovelvet wrote:

Look the level of demotion is too stark. Thats all. I can accept that you wouldnt be at the same level as people who didn't take a couple of years off. But not to fall let's say from an exec position to a receptionist which is what happens.

Its not as if you return to where you left off or even near there. You HAVE TO START AT THE BOTTOM all over again.

Sorry - thats rubbish. If you are qualified for the job, you are qualified.

Nevyn

sleepy wrote:

If someones going from an executive postion to being a receptionist after just two years out it's because they're short-selling themselves.

Lack of confindce in thier skills can happen after not using them for two years can be a factor.

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote:

Lack of confindce in thier skills can happen after not using them for two years can be a factor.

Well thats their fault and noone elses.

The Corinthian

Zulu wrote:

Sorry - thats rubbish. If you are qualified for the job, you are qualified.

Depends on the job. Business does not sit still, even if you choose to. Try being a technologist who does not keep up professionally with new technologies for a few years or a marketer who does not keep up professionally with new marketing trends for the same period.

You stop being qualified very quickly in most professions if you don’t keep on the ball.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote:

Lack of confindce in thier skills can happen after not using them for two years can be a factor.

“Lack of confidence” is not really a valid excuse, TBH.

Zulu

The Corinthian wrote:

Depends on the job. Business does not sit still, even if you choose to. Try being a technologist who does not keep up professionally with new technologies for a few years or a marketer who does not keep up professionally with new marketing trends for the same period.

You stop being qualified very quickly in most professions if you don’t keep on the ball.

Point accepted, but I can't extend that concept to explain a professionally qualified person becomming a receptionist in two years.

simu

The Corinthian wrote:

Depends on the job. Business does not sit still, even if you choose to. Try being a technologist who does not keep up professionally with new technologies for a few years or a marketer who does not keep up professionally with new marketing trends for the same period.

You stop being qualified very quickly in most professions if you don’t keep on the ball.

Well, surely that's obvious to people who decide to stay at home for a bit? It's possible to keep up with trends (well, in my line of work, anyway) - anyone who cuts themselves off entirely is being silly.

The Corinthian

simu wrote:

anyone who cuts themselves off entirely is being silly.

True, but 'keeping up' with the business when not immersed in it on a day-to-day basis is often insufficient for the purposes of 'keeping up'.

Nevyn

simu wrote:

Well, surely that's obvious to people who decide to stay at home for a bit? It's possible to keep up with trends (well, in my line of work, anyway) - anyone who cuts themselves off entirely is being silly.

Some times it is not a choice
life gets complicted be it postnatal depression or a child with colic or something worse.

Sleepy

Sure, point accepted Thaedydal, but life throws blows at everyone at some stage or other, society can't be expected to soften all of them and business can't be expected to bare the financial burden of all of them.

metrovelvet

Sleepy wrote:

If someones going from an executive postion to being a receptionist after just two years out it's because they're short-selling themselves. Maybe that's what happens in the states but it certainly doesn't happen here.

My mother left her job in a bank to have me, then had my younger brother and sister and returned to work sixteen years later and got a new job with the same bank (though in a different county and branch) at only a grade below her old position.

I can see why some people may choose to re-enter their career at a significantly lower level in order to have more free time to spend with their children but I don't think that people are necessarily forced to go right back to the bottom of the career ladder when they return from a hiatus.

Sleepy- that USED to be possible - what your mother did. But not now. This is the case in the US. I would even say that if you've been out for 5 years there is absolutely no point in going back. Think about it - you have to compete with younger women who have more up to date skills and youth and smaller salaries. At least here - every profession from law to medicine to accounting - make their staff [and this is legally required at least on state by state basis] take classes to keep up to date with latest developments in their fields.

Zulu - I agree with you. And I wish more people did. But they see it that if you've been out of the workforce your qualifications are compromised.

I can see both sides of it and Im arriving at the conclusion that we have two imcompatible models working together to create one big mess.

I also feel that women are biologically disadvantaged to the point where it feels like a disability. I'm sorry but thats what it feels like sometimes in the context of careers.

Zulu

metrovelvet wrote:

I also feel that women are biologically disadvantaged to the point where it feels like a disability...

Oh give me a rest. :rolleyes:

simu

metrovelvet wrote:

I also feel that women are biologically disadvantaged to the point where it feels like a disability. I'm sorry but thats what it feels like sometimes in the context of careers.

I have to say I disagree. Having a kid gives you more focus, I find - your career isn't just a means to buy designer goods or whatever anymore, you actually have somebody depending on you completely. Yeah, it's possibly a disadvantage if you're working in some hard-core Wall Street 80-hour week type environment but that's a pretty crazy lifestyle choice for anyone to make, kids or not, imo!

hepcat

constitutionus wrote:

its not all fluffy bunnies you know, for every president of intel there s a guy in the gutter with a bottle of alcohol who risked the same and lost everything

Come on, you're Alan Partridge aren't you?

metrovelvet

simu wrote:

I have to say I disagree. Having a kid gives you more focus, I find - your career isn't just a means to buy designer goods or whatever anymore, you actually have somebody depending on you completely. Yeah, it's possibly a disadvantage if you're working in some hard-core Wall Street 80-hour week type environment but that's a pretty crazy lifestyle choice for anyone to make, kids or not, imo!

Well a career is not just about buying designer goods. Its about actualising your potential, harvesting your talents and contributing something to the world. I find that perspective that careers are soley about material possession [which they are partially] a little patronising quite frankly especially when your positing that having a child is somehow a superior endeavor.

What kind of focus do you need to be a surgeon? Or a top class athlete? Or a professional dancer? Or a writer?

Give me a break.

Sleepy

metrovelvet - why do I get the impression that you've some related but unresolved issues (inability to have children / bitter about a lack of success in your career or the like) that are making you very bitter about this subject? I'm not trying to be mean or hurtful in the slightest but your views here seem to come more from the "woman scorned" emotional standpoint than any calm rational observations...

metrovelvet

Sleepy-

Are you deliberately trying to wind me up? Im so offended by your latest post on so many levels I dont even know where to start.

I think you are quite rude to be asking me whether or not I can have children. I cant have an opinion unless its somehow grounded in my biology?
Unbelievable.

Actually I think you're the one who has been emotional and irrational on this thread. Any sign of sympathy for a woman whose had to take time out for her kids and you wont even try to see her point of view.

Im pointing out unfair assumptions. Simu said that having children makes you focus and said it such a way that careers are only for people who want to buy designer goods and that there is something more noble in having someone completely dependent on you. Im not placing one over the other as more valuable, but I will certainly bring you down if you claim that motherhood is superior to the other choices women have made, like becoming athletes, world class performers, maverick scientists, writers etc and reduce these scarifices to being motivated to buy Gucci.

simu

Eh, most people pursue their careers for money. "actualising your potential, harvesting your talents and contributing something to the world"??? That sounds like something straight out of a college careers service brochure tbh.

I don't know why you got so offended by my post - I'm just giving my own experience (note the "I find") and I didn't say it was the same for everyone. And why did I give my own experience? Because reading this thread, you'd think it was impossible for a woman to have a family and a career or that all interest in a career goes out the window the second a baby arrives but frankly, I don't think things are all that bad.

metrovelvet

Simu- I didn't get offended by your post. I was offended by Sleepy's post.

Well I dont know what to tell you, the women I know do have dreams and they are not about buying Christian Dior. If they were solely for money we would all be in corporate finance, and I as far as I know that is not dominated by women yet. Sure money is part of it but not all of it.

In some careers it is impossible, like professional dance. Or some athletics. Medicine. High end corporate/law/finance. Beleive it or not there are women who want to achieve things.

Nevyn

It has been 5 years for me as a stay at home parent, but I am looking at getting new skills and a change in what was my career rather then going back to what I was doing.