Are women naturally less ambitious than men?

metrovelvet

Thaedydal- yes you can look at like a chance for a fresh start too.

OT comment for a sec:
[As for your sig - reminded me that it would be appropriate to have a Valoween Day]

Nevyn

OT - Everyday can be Holloween if you want it to be

metrovelvet

OT-

I was thinking about love and fear lately and thought it would be good to have a holiday which combined terror. lust and romance. :eek: Valoween.

simu

metrovelvet wrote:

Beleive it or not there are women who want to achieve things.

Look who's patronising now. :v:

constitutionus

hepcat wrote:

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

*dons blue v neck sweater* " ah haaaw!"

Sleepy

metrovelvet wrote:

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 apologise for any offence but I'm genuinely just trying to figure out where you're coming from.

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.

Did I say that you can't? No, I asked was it the case that you had some major factor influencing your opinions on this because, frankly, a lot of them seem to come from some whimisical, magical land where women's careers are all straight from Danielle Steele novels instead of the real world where people have careers in order to pay their way through life. Yes, a degree of job satisfaction exists for most people but like simu pointed out: "actualising your potential, harvesting your talents and contributing something to the world" is like something from a brochure. Maybe it's just the difference between the Irish and Americans but we just don't buy into that kinda crap tbh.

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.

Show me where I've been emotional or irrational? I'm a cold sort of person when it comes to these things. I look at the facts, listen to reasoned argument and then form my opinions. I don't see why in this day and age it has to be the woman who takes time out of their career to have kids (beyond the time required to actually have the baby and recover from the physical impact of giving birth).

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.

I didn't read Simu's post that way at all to be honest. I read it to mean that most people work in order to buy the things they want and pay for their lives and that having a child doesn't necessarily discourage a career drive but can encourage you to work harder at your career as you now have someone utterly reliant on your ability to provide for them. Did I pick this up right Simu?

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.

What is it with your constant usage of glamourous careers as examples in this thread? Out of the thousands of people I know, I know one who has a career as an athlete, one who has a career as an performer, none who could be described as 'maverick' scientists, and none who have made a living from writing (outside the world of journalism). Most people work 9 to 5's in offices. It may be dull but it's real.

The type of careers you're talking about are exceptional ones where huge amounts of talent, opportunity, sacrifice and sheer luck are required. It makes more sense (to me at least) to look at more 'normal' careers when discussing issues such as the impact of having children on a career in such general terms as the discussion requires. Maybe I'm wrong?

metrovelvet

Ok Sleepy. Well I guess we're working within very different frames of reference so I'll exempt myself from this discussion.

b3t4

Apologies for not leaving a dying thread die:

An interesting document I came across today at www.ewm.ie/dwl/FORUM.DOC It discusses the subject matter of this thread. A quote from said document:

"In relation to vertical segregation, the strong association that exists between putting in long hours and perceived ‘seriousness’ about career negatively impacts on women’s promotion opportunities"

"Of the four countries studied, Denmark (which has the highest level of female labour force participation) has the smallest difference in hours worked by women and men. Interestingly, although women’s labour market participation in Ireland is higher than in Italy, women in Ireland work fewer hours. Employees surveyed in Ireland agreed that working long hours and putting work before family were seen as characteristics of those who are ‘serious’ about career advancement. In contrast, the attitudes of employees in Denmark are markedly different, and show that a different workplace culture is both possible and consistent with a competitive economy."

A.