Why we have too few women leaders

Morag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18uDutylDa4

I got linked to this today, thought I would share it.
It's about how we as women can due to social conditioning hold ourselves back,
and some of the things we can do to be more engaged and assertive in work.

Stheno

Morag wrote: »

I got linked to this today, thought I would share it.
It's about how we as women can due to social conditioning hold ourselves back,
and some of the things we can do to be more engaged and assertive in work.

No offense OP but as it's 15 minutes long, and you've listened to it, I'd appreciate if you gave a bit more detail rather than just the one or two lines above.

What does she suggest? Is this the same Sheryl Sandberg who advocated that it should be perfectly ok for companies to ask women about their plans for having children in Davos recently?

Morag

Yep that is her, she thinks that companies should adjust to that their employees will have kids and that allowances need to be made for both men and women as parents.

In summary, she says that women need to own thier accomplishment and not do themselves down or out of them. Men will say they did well cos they are awewsome, women will say it's cos they got a break or were lucky or someone helped them or they worked really hard.

That women have to include themselves and sit at the table at meetings and actively take part , rather then sit on the sidelines or not speak up due to worrying about speaking out of turn. That men don't back down as easily they push to be heard more then women to and women need to do that and reach for opportunities.

That when it comes to employees who reach senior status who are married in companies 2/3s of the men will have kids but only 1/3 of the women and that women have to work towards at home sharing the child care, housework and associated chores as equally as possible as they are doing on average 25% more of the house work and 50% more of the childcare.

That women take their foot off the accelerator once they start thinking about having kids, not being as ambitious, even before they are pregnant and so stall their career which then makes it harder to get back into the work place as they have fallen behind.

That the 2012 numbers show a little less then 15% of women at C level in industry and she can't see it getting to even 30% in her life time unless women start looking at why they don't put themselves forward as much.

confusticated

A lot of that resonated with me, I'm only 23 and in my first real job so don't have that much experience of women in the workplace or whatever, but even in college most of the girls in my class would talk down how good they were, whereas the lads would talk themselves up. Took me til halfway through final year to realise that actually, they don't know it all either.

Stheno

Morag wrote: »

Yep that is her, she thinks that companies should adjust to that their employees will have kids and that allowances need to be made for both men and women as parents.

In summary, she says that women need to own thier accomplishment and not do themselves down or out of them. Men will say they did well cos they are awewsome, women will say it's cos they got a break or were lucky or someone helped them or they worked really hard.

That women have to include themselves and sit at the table at meetings and actively take part , rather then sit on the sidelines or not speak up due to worrying about speaking out of turn. That men don't back down as easily they push to be heard more then women to and women need to do that and reach for opportunities.

That when it comes to employees who reach senior status who are married in companies 2/3s of the men will have kids but only 1/3 of the women and that women have to work towards at home sharing the child care, housework and associated chores as equally as possible as they are doing on average 25% more of the house work and 50% more of the childcare.

That women take their foot off the accelerator once they start thinking about having kids, not being as ambitious, even before they are pregnant and so stall their career which then makes it harder to get back into the work place as they have fallen behind.

That the 2012 numbers show a little less then 15% of women at C level in industry and she can't see it getting to even 30% in her life time unless women start looking at why they don't put themselves forward as much.

TO be honest there is very little that is new in what she is saying there apart from the thing about

Yep that is her, she thinks that companies should adjust to that their employees will have kids and that allowances need to be made for both men and women as parents.

There have been a fair few studies that have found the same.

From my limited perspective of being in IT for the past 16 years, in the past six or so there has been a shift, and women are coming more to the fore, the CEO of both HP and IBM currently are women, Sandberg is CEO of Facebook, and even here in Ireland, I can think of four or five women who are heads of IT, which is the area I work in, whereas ten years ago it would have been almost unheard of.

Now there is a part of me that does take the view and again I may be blinkered as I've only worked ever in IT, that women who work in a very male dominated environment (I've worked in teams with a 40/1 ratio of men to women, and in companies that were overall 91% male) tend to learn to adapt to male behaviours such as Sandberg references above and can potentially use that to their advantage.

Her point about children is one that's been discussed before and is very valid regardless of who raises it, if 1/3 women in senior positions have children and 2/3 men do, that to me speaks of a greater societal issue, such as lack of joint parental leave as opposed to maternity leave.

I've seen a far greater emergence of women at more senior level roles in IT in the past six/seven years than in the same period prior to that, part of that could be that the women who started in IT in the eighties, and most of the ones I am talking about did, have reached that level, I know the CEO of IBM has been with the company since 1981, so I think in the next ten years it will increase. And tbh going from 15-30% leadership being female, is a 100% increase, in an industry like IT which is 80% male pretty much across the board, 30% female leadership would be an incredible statement, you'd almost be asking then how it was that 20% of the workforce rose to such positions.

That said, in relation to children, I can see why women choose to forgo moving up the ranks to prioritise their children. A lot of my jobs have required travel, my current one up to 50% including weekends away from home, I'm interviewing for one at the moment which requires 35% travel (no weekend travel). That's tough if you are a parent male or female, and it means that my OH would have to take on parental responsibilities if we had children, possibly to the detriment of his career.

In the past year, I've missed being here for his childrens birthdays (both of them), worked half the bank holidays of the whole year due to working abroad (we cherish bank holidays as we have his children every week apart from one in four, so our bank holidays are usually that week, and we get to spend loads of time together), not been able to take more than ten days holidays as I was too busy in work, and couldn't be freed up (which is illegal), and missed five family events such as communions, confirmations, annual parties etc. It actually got to the point and still is at that point, the my family didn't bother telling me about family events as I declined something like five in a row, so now I've to keep an eye out, and the response usually is an incredulous "Are you able to go?"

That's a lot to ask, and in some circles, it's ok for a guy to miss stuff like that as they are seen as the breadwinner/career person, it's more unusual for a women to do it, so outside of behaviour/focus in the workplace, I think there are a lot of societal factors at play. For a lot of senior positions, flexibility, experience of working internationally, contributing to industry via white papers, lectures and key note speeches are key when choosing candidates, and that's a big ask for a lot of women who are focussed on their children. My Oh's mother was dying of cancer during the time I was doing that volume of travel last year, I heard she'd been transferred to a hospice via text, when I was a few thousand miles away, nothing I could do really apart from ring my OH and hope he was ok.

Interesting of the four "High profile" women in IT, Meg Whitman, Ginny Rosetti, Sheryl Sandbery, and Marissa Meyer, I think two have children, of the four/five I know it's about the same ratio of 50%, maybe IT is a kinder overall profession for women?

I know it's one that I have had challenges working in as a woman, but have never felt that my gender was a cause for me not to get a job or progress.

I will admit that I do tend to be proud of my achievements, and not afraid to extoll them and my abilities, I work on a management team with two guys, and have often pointed out that I should play a role in stuff we are doing as I can bring added value to the table, but that's always been encouraged by my colleagues. Sitting in a meeting and not contributing would be anathema to me.

Stheno

I should also mention, and I referenced this in the sexist comments/behaviour thread, that sometimes women see work as very much being secondary to their children, and that's fine.

I've no problem with it.

But I do have a problem with women and I've experienced this several times, who see a certain type of work e.g. contracting, as being a way to it, work around their lifestyle and supplement their overall family income. I've seen this a few times where women will agree to get certain qualifications to back up their real life experience and then say they are happy to do x days a month, but not specify and when given work opportunities as freelancers, say that they can't due to childcare etc, even with up to three months notice, so they put themselves out of the frame and end up not getting any opportunity

Again goes back to wider societal issues, if we had a proper childcare structure here, with maybe an 8/10 fulltime places, and 2/10 flexible in creche if it were a public service, that might be feasible, but it's not so women look for opportunities to use their (in the cases I've described, highly qualified) skills, and find it not worthwhile to do so. Not only that, but if a company experience it once or twice, and they invest both in terms of money and people in terms of getting someone certified/experienced, and they then back out due to the above, it's not something they will want to repeat.

It would be considered anti feminist by traditional feminists, but it really is difficult to achieve at a very very senior level in a job and be a good parent (note the lack of gender application here). It's just more acceptable that the Mum will be the better/more available parent, and the Dad will be working to fund the lifestyle.

Morag

It may be old hat and self evident to you given the industry you have worked in for so many years, but the concepts in the talk may be new to others and they may find it helpful to self check and think about the issues raised.

Stheno

Morag wrote: »

It may be old hat and self evident to you given the industry you have worked in for so many years, but the concepts in the talk may be new to others and they may find it helpful to self check and think about the issues raised.

It's not old hat or self evident, I've spent time researching it as it's a subject I'm interested in given the industry I work in (as my first reply above should suggest), and I've looked into the reasons why it may or may not change, and developed opinions on it.

Why be so negative? I'd have thought some of what I posted was food for thought in terms of what Sandberg said, especially in terms of illustrating how women in at least one industry have advanced?

I could have focused on far less positive areas, and I've a few I can use, especially financial services, but I chose not to, instead I chose to point out that Sandberg is singing from an old hymn sheet, with one differential that is illegal in a lot of countries, and the factual evidence suggests that viewpoint needs to change and is possibly less positive then the real situation in relation to women in some industries, and given it's IT I used as an example, I'd be surprised with the exception of financial services if it's not an extreme example.

ashers222

Morag wrote: »

It may be old hat and self evident to you given the industry you have worked in for so many years, but the concepts in the talk may be new to others and they may find it helpful to self check and think about the issues raised.

don't want to be controversial on my first day back but ime it's women who hold other women back. Don't have stats so it's just an opinion.

Stheno

ashers222 wrote: »

don't want to be controversial on my first day back but ime it's women who hold other women back. Don't have stats so it's just an opinion.

No it's not. Individual women hold themselves back sometimes, but my personal experience (I've no children, have worked in roles that involve a lot of travel and sacrifice of any work life balance) is that it is our societal norms that hold women back.

Sandberg and Marissa have both taken off a couple of weeks maternity leave after giving birth, Sandberg has also admitted to heading home early to take care of her kids, Meyer has recently announced that working from home in Yahoo is banned.

Those are family unfriendly policies, and in no way conducive imo to people having a work live balance when it comes to being a parent and working successfully

Both women enjoy massive salaries, can employ nannies etc, but seem to be almost regressive in their attitudes. In a way they are supporting the norm, based on their lifestyles, which 90% of us male or female will never achieve, or possibly want to. Neither have proposed policies or changes to our societal structure which would advance women in terms of achieving (working from home, flexible working hours, onsite creches in workplaces) that I am aware of. Neither have lobbied for equal leave for new parents, Meg Whitman has come out supporting LGBT marriage, but Sandberg imo is merely living in the past and not proposing anything that will advance any change that will make the workforce more inclusive to women.

In the meantime there are many thousands of women around the world who are achieving and making small changes be it in SMEs or MNCs, and effecting more change than Sandberg standing up in Davos and proclaiming that it should be a companies right to question women about their plans to have children.

http://www.businessinsider.com/sheryl-sandberg-future-moms-are-wrecking-their-own-careers-before-they-even-begin-2013-2

For a woman who has achieved so much, to limit the question to just women, and not men, says it all for me.

ashers222

It's just an observation. I know someone who is an amazing manager, has always gracefully walked into those roles, people have never failed to see her ability and she's never been backward about showing it. (she treats everybody with respect and kindness while being productive too, she's a dream to work for) She has three kids, after her last kid was born, her employers naturally hired someone to step in while she was on maternity leave from the pool of staff in her dept but since her return, the "placement" (who was female) has sought openly to keep the role. She thought after her third child that she wouldn't have any interest in returning to work and has made comments to this effect, publicly and privately has attempted to undermine her at every possible opportunity. (ie:she should be at home taking care of her kids) The girl is currently receiving counselling as a direct result of the bullying she's been receiving. She did at one point consider just walking away.
That's how women like to hold other women back.

clairefontaine

Stheno wrote: »

I should also mention, and I referenced this in the sexist comments/behaviour thread, that sometimes women see work as very much being secondary to their children, and that's fine.

I've no problem with it.

But I do have a problem with women and I've experienced this several times, who see a certain type of work e.g. contracting, as being a way to it, work around their lifestyle and supplement their overall family income. I've seen this a few times where women will agree to get certain qualifications to back up their real life experience and then say they are happy to do x days a month, but not specify and when given work opportunities as freelancers, say that they can't due to childcare etc, even with up to three months notice, so they put themselves out of the frame and end up not getting any opportunity

Again goes back to wider societal issues, if we had a proper childcare structure here, with maybe an 8/10 fulltime places, and 2/10 flexible in creche if it were a public service, that might be feasible, but it's not so women look for opportunities to use their (in the cases I've described, highly qualified) skills, and find it not worthwhile to do so. Not only that, but if a company experience it once or twice, and they invest both in terms of money and people in terms of getting someone certified/experienced, and they then back out due to the above, it's not something they will want to repeat.

It would be considered anti feminist by traditional feminists, but it really is difficult to achieve at a very very senior level in a job and be a good parent (note the lack of gender application here). It's just more acceptable that the Mum will be the better/more available parent, and the Dad will be working to fund the lifestyle.

The other factor [I assume she is American and speaking in an American context] is the high level of divorce [50%] in the US and what it means if you are a custodial parent with no extra hands at home, not to mention possible wide geographic distances. Most of the time the woman is the custodial parent, which leaves limited time for the demanding commitments of both children and a high status job.

Splitting parental leave is a non factor in the US because no parent gets it. The mothers use their vacation time or they take unpaid leave.

The feminists I feel hung onto a delusion that you can have it all, but you can't. Something has to give, there just aren't enough hours in one day for it all. If your boss calls you and tells you you need to get on a plane to see a client, they don't want to hear you can't because your baby is sick, they don't care, you need to get on that plane, and if you can't they will find someone who can. That is the reality of it.

Paulzx

clairefontaine wrote: »

The feminists I feel hung onto a delusion that you can have it all, but you can't. Something has to give, there just aren't enough hours in one day for it all. If your boss calls you and tells you you need to get on a plane to see a client, they don't want to hear you can't because your baby is sick, they don't care, you need to get on that plane, and if you can't they will find someone who can. That is the reality of it.

I think that's basicly what it boils down to. There's only so many hours in the day. The more commitments you have the less time you have for each individual aspect of your life. People end up making choices on which commitment to prioritise.

My own wife took a step back in her career after we had kids. She's a well qualified professional but wanted more time with our kids rather than her career. She still has her career but is happy putting in less hours.

On woman reaching the top i can see where the problems arise. Personally, as a male i have no issues with a women being my boss. If she's the best for the job her sex is irrellevent.

I can see however how woman with kids sometimes reach a stalling point in their career.

For example, 2 woman with the exact same qualifications join a company on the same day. The have equal ability and are both excellent at their job. After 10 years a promotion becomes available. 1 of the women has had 4 kids in that ten years and has obviously had the accompanying maternity leave(and rightly so). The other women has no kids and has never been off.

So one employee has not been there for maybe 3 years of the 10. The other is ever present. They both have equal ability and qualiifiactions.

Who should get the promotion? Releastically speaking its the employee that has never been off. Is the mother being discriminated against? I'd ask it another way. Is the other employee being fairly treated if she doesn't get the job?

There's no black and white answers. People are people and can't conform to what other people think you should do. You have to decide what suits you the best

Morag

Stheno wrote: »

It's not old hat or self evident, I've spent time researching it as it's a subject I'm interested in given the industry I work in (as my first reply above should suggest), and I've looked into the reasons why it may or may not change, and developed opinions on it.

Why be so negative? I'd have thought some of what I posted was food for thought in terms of what Sandberg said, especially in terms of illustrating how women in at least one industry have advanced?

OK so maybe the term old hat was not the right one to use but I was tired and heading to bed. A better way of putting is that you are familar with the ideas and have already explored them in the context of your life and your career.

lazygal

I'm currently on maternity leave with my first child and expecting my second. I got full pay (currently on unpaid extra leave) and will get it when I'm out again. My job itself isn't what one would call 'family friendly' but there's certain little perks and conditions that mean I'll have a work life balance. I'm in a mixed workforce and have a female boss.

However, I have worked in jobs where 'family friendly' policies caused massive resentment. There was often an expectation from parents, mothers in particular but not exclusively, that because they had creche pickups or dropoffs that they had to be facilitated for leaving early/working flexitime. There were often expectations that they couldn't work over Christmas or would be able to take holidays to coincide with school holidays, leaving those of us without children to pick up the slack and work around them. When management were asked if one could work flexi hours to do a course, or for another non 'parent' reason, requests were often refused 'because so and so has to leave at 5.15 to pick up her kids' or 'you can't take leave then, that's school holiday time'.

I don't think every workplace can be family friendly all the time. I don't think every workplace should be family friendly. People without children have things they want to do to, like hobbies or educational course, or just to leave early once in a while.

I might take a career break or adjust my hours in the future. Men and women in my job have done this - but it wasn't contingent on them being parents and needing 'family friendly' working arrangements. I might have children, but that's my choice and if my job can't facilitate that, well that's my problem.

clairefontaine

Paulzx wrote: »

I think that's basicly what it boils down to. There's only so many hours in the day. The more commitments you have the less time you have for each individual aspect of your life. People end up making choices on which commitment to prioritise.

My own wife took a step back in her career after we had kids. She's a well qualified professional but wanted more time with our kids rather than her career. She still has her career but is happy putting in less hours.

On woman reaching the top i can see where the problems arise. Personally, as a male i have no issues with a women being my boss. If she's the best for the job her sex is irrellevent.

I can see however how woman with kids sometimes reach a stalling point in their career.

For example, 2 woman with the exact same qualifications join a company on the same day. The have equal ability and are both excellent at their job. After 10 years a promotion becomes available. 1 of the women has had 4 kids in that ten years and has obviously had the accompanying maternity leave(and rightly so). The other women has no kids and has never been off.

So one employee has not been there for maybe 3 years of the 10. The other is ever present. They both have equal ability and qualiifiactions.

Who should get the promotion? Releastically speaking its the employee that has never been off. Is the mother being discriminated against? I'd ask it another way. Is the other employee being fairly treated if she doesn't get the job?

There's no black and white answers. People are people and can't conform to what other people think you should do. You have to decide what suits you the best

Yeah, sometimes it's not about holding yourself back but about choosing another life. Maybe some don't want that kind pf pressure, there is a payoff for turning your back on it.

Successfull women who have two nannies working for them are not going to have too much compassion for working mothers, because they have staff on hand. So why should we expect more compassion from them than we do from men?

Sometimes it feels like feminism has placed a peer pressure on women to succeed in a male dominated workforce, rather than saying sod this, I'll do it my way, or I'm just not interested in that thank you. I'd prefer another way of doing things.

beks101

I've always had strong female role models in my life who succeeded professionally, my mother included. She worked her way up the ranks and stayed there while she got married and had three kids.

So I've always grown up with the belief that you could "have it all" as a woman, though increasingly, as that point in my life potentially approaches, the reality of it seems to be harder to envisage. I would say top of the list of reasons that I've got my current job is my availability and flexibility, I've always been free to stay late or work a 15 hour shift with no notice. I'm not sure how feasible that would be as a mother - or if I'd want to be away from my kids that long on a daily basis.

My workplace wouldn't reflect the gist of the argument in that video though, I work with men and women in equal parts, and senior management seems to be 50/50. I work in TV News, my exec producer is male, the exec at our rival show is female. Senior producers; as many women as men. The news director who essentially runs business in my TV station, female.

I work with a lot of strong, dominant female personalities who make a lot of important decisions on a daily basis, they sit at the table, they're outspoken, highly highly intelligent and pivotal at any meeting I attend and this supposed reality of women's reduced capacity to lead or to earn the big bucks just doesn't register with me. In my albeit limited work experience anyway.

What I have noticed though, is there's a disproportionately high percentage of women who haven't done the marriage and kids thing where I work, as one particular colleague of mine in her 40s said to me recently, "my job is my husband". It's completely understandable to me, as if I continued to work the hours I work for the next ten years, I'm not sure quite exactly how I'd squeeze in the marriage and babies thing, and this just sort of confirms that idea that sometimes you have to make that choice. Or you leave it too late and the choice is made for you. Working night and day and then being surgically attached to my blackberry in case of breaking news at ridiculous AM just doesn't allow time to prioritize much else - and as a woman, if you want those things, how do you strike a balance? Where I work, some women have succeeded, some haven't. For some it's one or the other. Which is kind of scary.

pwurple

From my own experiences, I firmly believe that the lack of mens rights in this area is holding women back. I have an intersting job which I enjoy and do well within. I am the higher earner in our family. When I took maternity leave, it was not topped up by my employer, which I understand. It's a tiny company, and they were already having to provide a replacement for me.

My husband is a fantastic caring man, who wanted, and was more than able, to take leave to look after his baby daughter from about 9 weeks after the birth. Meanwhile I was chomping at the bit wanting to get back, but I didn't want to put our child into fulltime childcare so young. We checked out transferring maternity benefit, so that if he took unpaid parental leave (even though his company pay full female maternity), and I went back to work, he could get that the remainder of the benefit. We were informed that the only situation where mat benefit is transferrable would be my death. Only if the woman dies during mat leave, can the benefit transfer to the husband. Nice.

If we just had this tiny bit of equality/flexibilty where man could share or transfer these benefits, I am convinced it would make a difference to those women who want to progress their careers higher, and have the support of their partner. I don't see any moral/ethical downside, and it is zero cost to the exchequer. They would probably even do better in tax take from it. Why don't we do this? Why don't we let men look after their own children if they want to?

eviltwin

I've put my career on the back burner since having my second child. I just don't have the same hunger for it anymore.

I still love what I do but I'm not prepared to go that extra mile anymore at the expense of my family and myself. There are plenty of other women in the job who will so if that means they move up the ladder and I stay put then so be it. They will have earned it.

I think part of my reluctance to put myself out there comes from the experience of losing my last job. I used to stay late, take work home and do all the things expected of someone who wanted to work their way up the company but when we went bust we were all let go and all that extra work counted for nothing.

Stheno

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yeah, sometimes it's not about holding yourself back but about choosing another life. Maybe some don't want that kind pf pressure, there is a payoff for turning your back on it.

Successfull women who have two nannies working for them are not going to have too much compassion for working mothers, because they have staff on hand. So why should we expect more compassion from them than we do from men?

Sometimes it feels like feminism has placed a peer pressure on women to succeed in a male dominated workforce, rather than saying sod this, I'll do it my way, or I'm just not interested in that thank you. I'd prefer another way of doing things.

Feminism is supposeds to have a dual purpose, firstly too gain equality with men, and secondly to allow women to choose to pursue that equality os to choose not to and be happy with their choices.

@beks101 i'm a bit overly focused on work and hoping to be in a position soon to move jobs. If it happens I'll have more time aat home, but will work incredibly hard especially the first few months in. Was tallking to my oh last night about it and he was like errr thats normal

If I'd children I'd not even consider the job

fits

We need to be looking at the Nordic countries folks. They have it sussed in this area.

Where I work there is a young married couple with a year old baby. Both of the couple have great jobs in different parts of the organisation. She took 6 months maternity leave and then he took 6 months parental leave. Both of them cover the other if either has to travel (common) or meet a deadline.

I have to say I've had to come to grips with it. I always take a mental note when she is working late or something because that is so unknown in Ireland. And it shouldn't! because I was reared by my father while my mother worked!

I genuinely feel as a woman here that there is no obstacle to professional advancement if you have children.

lazygal

fits wrote: »

We need to be looking at the Nordic countries folks. They have it sussed in this area.

Where I work there is a young married couple with a year old baby. Both of the couple have great jobs in different parts of the organisation. She took 6 months maternity leave and then he took 6 months parental leave. Both of them cover the other if either has to travel (common) or meet a deadline.

I have to say I've had to come to grips with it. I always take a mental note when she is working late or something because that is so unknown in Ireland. And it shouldn't! because I was reared by my father while my mother worked!

I genuinely feel as a woman here that there is no obstacle to professional advancement if you have children.

The Nordic countries aren't perfect either. Its seen as totally abnormal to want to be a fulltime stay at home mum there. I know a Swedish woman who lives here and says she'd be seen as letting herself down by not going back to work in her home city. She likes that her choice to stay home isn't odd in Ireland. The Nordic model looks great, and I saw it as the way to go, but there's an element of choice removed there too and women might feel under an obligation to work because the state policies are arranged in that fashion rather than because she wants to.

fits

In Finland many women chose to stay at home. But a genuine choice exists.

clairefontaine

fits wrote: »

We need to be looking at the Nordic countries folks. They have it sussed in this area.

Where I work there is a young married couple with a year old baby. Both of the couple have great jobs in different parts of the organisation. She took 6 months maternity leave and then he took 6 months parental leave. Both of them cover the other if either has to travel (common) or meet a deadline.

I have to say I've had to come to grips with it. I always take a mental note when she is working late or something because that is so unknown in Ireland. And it shouldn't! because I was reared by my father while my mother worked!

I genuinely feel as a woman here that there is no obstacle to professional advancement if you have children.

Out of curiosity, who covers the cost of the parental leaves? Is it the state or the private company?

Also, what is there divorce rate and how does this affect things after they are babies?

The issues around children don't stop in infancy, but carry through till they are a lot older.

fits

The state pay a percentage of your salary while on parental leave. (no, taxes aren't astronomical) Every child has a right to childcare also and I believe this is offered to those in the system for up to 200 euro a month. Don't know what the divorce rate is, but there are far fewer single mothers.

It is probably the best country in the world in terms of equality, childcare and education.