Women in Ireland working for free from today until 31 December

nkl12xtw5goz70

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Also, taking care of childrne can be more fulfilling that slogging away in an office to make somebody else money.

The "gender pay gap" is really a red herring because it's not about men vs women. It's really about those who are raising children vs those who are not.

For people raising kids, family friendly hours, predictable schedules, minimal travel requirements, and sick days to care for ill children become much more important. Far more important than those without children typically realize. Life is constantly a juggling act, balancing work obligations against childcare obligations.

Those without kids, or who have a partner at home with the kids, can take promotions that require longer hours, can travel more, and have more time to study for advanced degrees or professional qualifications. Naturally they will earn more.

Brittany Sweet Seacoast

Brittany Sweet Seacoast wrote: »

The "gender pay gap" is really a red herring because it's not about men vs women. It's really about those who are raising children vs those who are not.

For people raising kids, family friendly hours, predictable schedules, minimal travel requirements, and sick days to care for ill children become much more important. Far more important than those without children typically realize. Life is constantly a juggling act, balancing work obligations against childcare obligations.

Those without kids, or who have a partner at home with the kids, can take promotions that require longer hours, can travel more, and have more time to study for advanced degrees or professional qualifications. Naturally they will earn more.

And compensating for it wont work for the same reason communism doesn't work... humans being humans. If everyone was compensated for staying at home and minding children, everyone would demand that right. And there goes the neighbourhood.

maccyd13

maccyd13 wrote: »

I personally think that there is probably a slight amount of misogyny in a few business where the owner/manager would subconsciously hire more men for senior roles and promote more men just because of their nature.

But this has recently been countered by a number of newer and modern businesses where the owner/manager would consciously hire more women for senior roles and promote more women just because it's the more praised thing to do by the media, and they might get a good PR mention, which in turn could result in greater sales and be overall better for the business, but only because of the wrong reasons, which comes down to sexism.

Recently, my ass. Gender bias in hiring is common and was "countered" by female dominated industries, or places who had female managers. Anyway, in a balanced workplace without any particular hiring practices, the vast majority of business managers (male and female) are intimidated by the idea that they're being sexist and will alternate their choices over time. You really should read some of HBR (Harvard Business review) articles on management practices.

It's making excuses for the sexism that has been allowed to establish itself in western society. That is acceptable for businesses to advertise for female only positions even though the law is against such discrimination. You, yourself, point to the sexism, but in such a roundabout way, as to protect yourself.

I am part of the younger and less experienced age bracket (22 male) where this has effected me already and I estimate will effect me further down the line and more drastically with the way things are going.

Of course it will, although it's likely to affect older males more because it's the middle and upper positions that are under the most criticisms for the lack of female representation.

JeffKenna

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Pintman Paddy Losty is definitely trolling people

Reading his posts across several threads he's obviously a highly intelligent individual. Pity he wastes it the way he does.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Deleted User wrote: »

And compensating for it wont work for the same reason communism doesn't work... humans being humans. If everyone was compensated for staying at home and minding children, everyone would demand that right. And there goes the neighbourhood.

I believe that more women study fields such as art history, literature, gender studies, etc., because they aren't planning to be economically self-sufficient over the longer term. Many want to study something that will give them a sense of self-fulfillment or purpose, and generate an adequate standard of living through their late 20s — but their answer to the question "How am I going to support myself for the rest of my life, buy a home, and raise a family?" often involves marrying a husband with a good steady job who will the main provider.

The calculus for men is very different. More men expect to work full-time from early 20s through late 60s and be the person who is primarily responsible for paying the mortgage and bills. They're going to make career choices with that in mind, and so art history isn't going to be such a popular choice of course.

Of course, some women want demanding, high-paying, full-time careers — but the proportion of women making that choice is lower, and so the average earnings for women overall are lower.

Eric Cartman

Brittany Sweet Seacoast wrote: »

I believe that more women study fields such as art history, literature, gender studies, etc., because they aren't planning to be economically self-sufficient over the longer term. Many want to study something that will give them a sense of self-fulfillment or purpose, and generate an adequate standard of living through their late 20s — but their answer to the question "How am I going to support myself for the rest of my life, buy a home, and raise a family?" often involves marrying a husband with a good steady job who will the main provider.

The calculus for men is very different. More men expect to work full-time from early 20s through late 60s and be the person who is primarily responsible for paying the mortgage and bills. They're going to make career choices with that in mind, and so art history isn't going to be such a popular choice of course.

Of course, some women want demanding, high-paying, full-time careers — but the proportion of women making that choice is lower, and so the average earnings for women overall are lower.

Absoutely this, friends in HR call them hot air balloons, women in their late 20s or early 30s with usually multiple unrelated qualifications , patchy work experience and never doing the same thing for more than 2 or so years, have travelled a lot and kept the instagram feed flowing from every destination they can think of , work just enough to fund the clothes and travel habit but havent gained any stackable experience or qualification. Going into jobs often enquiring about holiday time, sick pay and maternity benefits rather than career progression routes, upskilling or mentoring.

Its like theyre just running down the clock until theres a ring on the finger and a bun in the oven.


*obviously there are drifter men too and not all women do this and there are quite a number of women with stackable qualifications that stick to one field and have great careers

But this is a reliticely new thing, nothing wrong with changing career path once or twice but we’re talking floating between college and work , never putting the dedication into either and waiting until they can take 2 years off to have kids and sure they wont be expected to go back to anywhere near fulltime work till both kids are in school and even then , sure they’ll be 45 odd by the time they even have the time to consider 40 hours a week and sure at that point you may aswell go back to college , that brings you to 50 then you get a part time book keeping job or something and boom 65 rolls round and youve achieved nothing.

ednwireland

how come i hav to work for 5 months for nothing to match my partners awage ?

oh wait ..... probably because she has 3 masters degrees a phd and a good job unlike me

ErnestBorgnine

thomas 123 wrote: »

Typical RTÉ, Rich vs poor, men vs woman.

In tomorrow’s news a special report on how tough life is for the next minority. Followed by how carbon tax will save the world.

Yawn...

Are women the only minority who are not actually a minority?

maccyd13

Deleted User wrote: »

Recently, my ass. Gender bias in hiring is common and was "countered" by female dominated industries, or places who had female managers.

I only meant recently as far as I am aware. I didn't hear much about gender bias against men prior to this decade, at least not at the current levels.

Deleted User wrote: »

You really should read some of HBR (Harvard Business review) articles on management practices.

Not sure why I should, I only gave my own opinion and experience. I'm not interested in reading articles on management practices just yet.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's making excuses for the sexism that has been allowed to establish itself in western society. That is acceptable for businesses to advertise for female only positions even though the law is against such discrimination. You, yourself, point to the sexism, but in such a roundabout way, as to protect yourself.

I completely agree with you here, excuses are being made for sexism constantly, and this impacts real people.

I am not trying to protect myself by phrasing anything in a roundabout way. I have an open mind on things and that's just the way I talk and think.

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course it will, although it's likely to affect older males more because it's the middle and upper positions that are under the most criticisms for the lack of female representation.

Long term, it will be affecting the younger bracket much more as they have not reached middle/upper positions yet, and for those on the receiving end of these decisions may not get to reach these positions for no reason other than their gender. Yes, the current senior workers are under criticism, but no one will lose their job because of their gender, come on like.

If you have a senior position, you will face criticism but no actual results, whereas those males applying for middle/upper positions may never reach their aspirations purely because of gender.

tritium

irelandrover wrote: »

Why did none point out in these threads that men work on average 7 years longer than women. That has a huge effect on the average salary.

Well UK statistics show men working about 39 hours and women about34 hours a week. That’s almost 3 days per month. Which means that over a year the point where women “start to work for free” is approximately at the same point where it balances all the extra hours men have worked.

Who knew markets were so efficient

Gynoid

Eric Cartman wrote: »

....waiting until they can take 2 years off to have kids and sure they wont be expected to go back to anywhere near fulltime work till both kids are in school and even then , sure they’ll be 45 odd by the time they even have the time to consider 40 hours a week and sure at that point you may aswell go back to college , that brings you to 50 then you get a part time book keeping job or something and boom 65 rolls round and youve achieved nothing.

Perhaps you have inadvertently described the life of your mother, or many of her friends, or certainly your grandmother, or her buddies, and also the lives of many women throughout time and space, who mostly raised families and kept a home and did other tasks including earning around thay. And to describe such a life as "achieving nothing" is very harsh.
Between them and the loved ones who supported them they achieved everyone you see around you.

This " achievement" lark always gives me pause for thought. Apart from some definite measurable contributions to the welfare of ones fellow humans - eg in medicine, teaching, etc - Im not so sure much of the working world is really achieving anything all that fantabulous in the average working life except a weeks pay. Which is grand. And I include myself in the cohort - I enjoy my work but achievement is ephemeral and aught to be kept in perspective. Most work doesnt exactly make the eyes water or the heart thump. Selling insurance, IT products, making botox or plastic items, processed food, banking or financial instrument inventions, playing expensively with legalese, being paid a small fortune to shine the seat of your pants as a politician - I could go on forever with examples of Bullsh1t jobs.
Life is more than a job, or even "achievement".

Eric Cartman

Gynoid wrote: »

Perhaps you have inadvertently described the life of your mother, or many of her friends, or certainly your grandmother, or her buddies, and also the lives of many women throughout time and space, who mostly raised families and kept a home and did other tasks including earning around thay. And to describe such a life as "achieving nothing" is very harsh.
Between them and the loved ones who supported them they achieved everyone you see around you.

This " achievement" lark always gives me pause for thought. Apart from some definite measurable contributions to the welfare of ones fellow humans - eg in medicine, teaching, etc - Im not so sure much of the working world is really achieving anything all that fantabulous in the average working life except a weeks pay. Which is grand. And I include myself in the cohort - I enjoy my work but achievement is ephemeral and aught to be kept in perspective. Most work doesnt exactly make the eyes water or the heart thump. Selling insurance, IT products, making botox or plastic items, processed food, banking or financial instrument inventions, playing expensively with legalese, being paid a small fortune to shine the seat of your pants as a politician - I could go on forever with examples of Bullsh1t jobs.
Life is more than a job, or even "achievement".

Theres no issue with being a home maker but its the societal stigma thats been placed on it or whatever other factors that practically force women to engage in this rigmarole of filling time until they can settle down with children. Think of the wasted educational resources and professional upskilling when it would be easier to just be alright with women saying they dont want a career

maccyd13

maccyd13 wrote: »

I only meant recently as far as I am aware. I didn't hear much about gender bias against men prior to this decade, at least not at the current levels.

Gender bias has always been a "thing". It just balanced out because there are many industries where women make up a fair amount of Mid level management. Consider Finance for example. People never talk about the areas where there are many female executives, and finance has always had many female managers from low to mid management. Hiring bias exists in all industries regardless of the industry, and the bias extends to more than just Gender.

Not sure why I should, I only gave my own opinion and experience. I'm not interested in reading articles on management practices just yet.

Okie dokie.

I completely agree with you here, excuses are being made for sexism constantly, and this impacts real people.

Um, there are fake people? The problem with sexism is that it's becoming institutionalized. Feminists fought to take sexism out of institutions, and now, feminism is fighting to put it back in. Just a different target for the sexism, although many women who don't conform to the Feminist way of life are also affected..

Long term, it will be affecting the younger bracket much more as they have not reached middle/upper positions yet, and for those on the receiving end of these decisions may not get to reach these positions for no reason other than their gender. Yes, the current senior workers are under criticism, but no one will lose their job because of their gender, come on like.

They already have lost their jobs. Gender quotas for management and committee positions have replaced men with women. That's also happened in the education sector at third level institutions. Same with a wide variety of work schemes to place women in positions that were felt to be lacking in "diversity".

As for "long term", younger workers will become the older workers.
(Although, I have to wonder what age bracket you mean by "young".)

Management is the target because it's the most well paid. Feminists won't accept that it's that way because of the hours required or the sheer amount of work involved along with the health problems associated with such lifestyles. Which is why they'll continue to push women into those positions, and demand that women receive greater benefits to compensate them... while decreasing the usefulness of males at the same time.

If you have a senior position, you will face criticism but no actual results, whereas those males applying for middle/upper positions may never reach their aspirations purely because of gender.

That doesn't make sense. In any case, in most companies, promotion to upper positions is based on seniority and the ability to bring in clients/profits. It will remain an area for older people, simply because it takes that long for younger people to learn the mechanics of the various levels of management or executive lifestyle, along with proving themselves loyal. Throw in the money needed to secure those positions.

Edit: Just to add... most males seeking upper positions fail already regardless of gender issues. It's a tough competitive world we live in. I worked in upper management circles and I was extremely lucky to get where I did by 30. I also was passed over for promotions various times in favor of newer people who were simply better than I was or had better networking skills. These female quotas seek to bypass all that. I went for partner in a company but burned out trying to get enough clients/profits to make the high buy in cost.

It's worth considering that many upper positions are contract based and not held by people who worked in the company for long periods. The whole area of headhunting is based around the idea of finding and stealing valuable/experienced professionals for high profile positions. Many companies have a high turnover of upper staff, and these initiatives by feminists will affect these professionals directly.

It's more than young people applying for their first few jobs that will be affected. Everyone, at all levels, is affected.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Theres no issue with being a home maker but its the societal stigma thats been placed on it or whatever other factors that practically force women to engage in this rigmarole of filling time until they can settle down with children. Think of the wasted educational resources and professional upskilling when it would be easier to just be alright with women saying they dont want a career

I'm perfectly fine with a woman (or man) choosing to stay at home. It's a lifestyle choice. Fact is, I know many people who stay at home while their partner works full time elsewhere. It doesn't mean that they're sitting at home watching TV. They have their own businesses or make income from a variety of sources.

This "stigma" is probably more of an Irish/UK thing. I haven't noticed any similar expressions in Europe or Asia about women deciding to stay as a homemaker. It's generally considered a decent way to live.

The thing is... it's Feminism that said that a woman who wanted to stay at home was weak or wrong. Just as they said that a woman who accepted the support of a man was wrong. Women need to be strong, powerful, etc. :rolleyes:

maccyd13

Deleted User wrote: »

Gender bias has always been a "thing". It just balanced out because there are many industries where women make up a fair amount of Mid level management. Consider Finance for example. People never talk about the areas where there are many female executives, and finance has always had many female managers from low to mid management. Hiring bias exists in all industries regardless of the industry, and the bias extends to more than just Gender.

Agreed.

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem with sexism is that it's becoming institutionalized. Feminists fought to take sexism out of institutions, and now, feminism is fighting to put it back in. Just a different target for the sexism, although many women who don't conform to the Feminist way of life are also affected..

Again, Agreed.

Deleted User wrote: »

They already have lost their jobs. Gender quotas for management and committee positions have replaced men with women. That's also happened in the education sector at third level institutions. Same with a wide variety of work schemes to place women in positions that were felt to be lacking in "diversity".

Losing your job because we want a women now just doesn't happen, but yes as senior workers move on to higher promotions or retired, they will and are generally replaced by women for diversity reasons.

Deleted User wrote: »

As for "long term", younger workers will become the older workers.
(Although, I have to wonder what age bracket you mean by "young".)

Obviously . Old workers will retire and not have to deal with this in their working life as much, as it is currently reaching it's peak.

Deleted User wrote: »

Management is the target because it's the most well paid. Feminists won't accept that it's that way because of the hours required or the sheer amount of work involved along with the health problems associated with such lifestyles. Which is why they'll continue to push women into those positions, and demand that women receive greater benefits to compensate them... while decreasing the usefulness of males at the same time.

Yes that's true, but you can't do anything about someone who is already in a job unless they are underperforming. Now a redundancy can be given from the businesses point of view but the businesses will be very unlikely to opt for this and thus men already in jobs will not be effected but their opportunities will be, which is the problem.

Deleted User wrote: »

That doesn't make sense. In any case, in most companies, promotion to upper positions is based on seniority and the ability to bring in clients/profits. It will remain an area for older people, simply because it takes that long for younger people to learn the mechanics of the various levels of management or executive lifestyle, along with proving themselves loyal. Throw in the money needed to secure those positions.

Yes that's true but if you mean older people being over 35. These positions are available based on experience, and after 10 years experience in a position or even sector, you will have reached a level of knowledge that in the modern day would lead you to a senior position.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's worth considering that many upper positions are contract based and not held by people who worked in the company for long periods. The whole area of headhunting is based around the idea of finding and stealing valuable/experienced professionals for high profile positions. Many companies have a high turnover of upper staff, and these initiatives by feminists will affect these professionals directly.

I am aware of everything here. But you are saying that upper male staff will be effected by not being head-hunted as much? That just is not as bad as not getting a promotion to middle management or even getting a grad job at all.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's more than young people applying for their first few jobs that will be affected. Everyone, at all levels, is affected.

I agree with this ofcourse, I still believe those graduating around now will be affected worse than those currently in a position. Nonetheless everyone will be affected, feminists should not use sexist methods to even out the workforce statistics. As time goes on the senior management gender bias would even out naturally.

fattymuatty

What I find fascinating about these threads on boards rather than on sites that are posted on by females in the majority is that no one on boards asks why. They say the pay gap begins when women decide to have children(like there is no input from the males in their life in that decision).

They don't talk about when a family decides to have children the woman takes 9 to a year off to recover from a 9 month pregnancy, recover from giving birth(possibly abdominal surgery) and breast feed(in some cases) their child. We will say the family decide to have 2 children and she ends up having to take 18mnths off work, during those 18mnths she is passed over for promotion and her husband who has also had 2 children in the past 3 years but doesn't have anything to recover from receives a promotion. Now he is earning more and the 2 year old gets chicken pox, he is a more senior role and declares he can't take time off work because he will miss x and y. The woman has to take time off because the child can't go to creche and well, someone has to. This repeats. She has to take time off when the child is sick because of husbands Important Job, he gets promoted again because he never misses time, she gets passed over.

I see this time and time again. Husbands with their Important Jobs who 'can't' take time off for the children so it automatically falls to the mother. Or husbands with Important Jobs who can't alter their hours to suit chidcare, they 'have' to stay back at the office so the mother has to leave on the button to pick who their children because someone has to. How many men take a truly 50/50 approach to childcare(and yes I know you do, but many, many men don't.

This is before we get into the small and medium business that won't hire women of childbearing age, in the UK a third of bosses of admitted to discriminating against women for fear that they might get pregnant soon.

It sounds simple 'well women don't work as much' but I really don't believe it is as simple as a lot of men here like to believe, ie once women have children they just don't want to work as much.

ceadaoin.

Some of the people saying it's all women's choice to work less after they have kids are the same as those who complain about men being "discriminated against" when it comes to custody issues. Surely if you acknowledge that its women who tend do the bulk of the parenting to the extent that it effects their earning ability, then surely you have to acknowledge that courts considering mothers to more often be the primary carers of children is just a reflection of this, and not discrimination against men?

maccyd13

fattymuatty wrote: »

What I find fascinating about these threads on boards rather than on sites that are posted on by females in the majority is that no one on boards asks why. They say the pay gap begins when women decide to have children(like there is no input from the males in their life in that decision).

They don't talk about when a family decides to have children the woman takes 9 to a year off to recover from a 9 month pregnancy, recover from giving birth(possibly abdominal surgery) and breast feed(in some cases) their child. We will say the family decide to have 2 children and she ends up having to take 18mnths off work, during those 18mnths she is passed over for promotion and her husband who has also had 2 children in the past 3 years but doesn't have anything to recover from receives a promotion. Now he is earning more and the 2 year old gets chicken pox, he is a more senior role and declares he can't take time off work because he will miss x and y. The woman has to take time off because the child can't go to creche and well, someone has to. This repeats. She has to take time off when the child is sick because of husbands Important Job, he gets promoted again because he never misses time, she gets passed over.

I see this time and time again. Husbands with their Important Jobs who 'can't' take time off for the children so it automatically falls to the mother. Or husbands with Important Jobs who can't alter their hours to suit chidcare, they 'have' to stay back at the office so the mother has to leave on the button to pick who their children because someone has to. How many men take a truly 50/50 approach to childcare(and yes I know you do, but many, many men don't.

This is before we get into the small and medium business that won't hire women of childbearing age, in the UK a third of bosses of admitted to discriminating against women for fear that they might get pregnant soon.

It sounds simple 'well women don't work as much' but I really don't believe it is as simple as a lot of men here like to believe, ie once women have children they just don't want to work as much.

I agree this is a factor. But therefore why is maternity leave not changed to be paternal leave and the break up of the 9 months is left at the discretion of the parents. This would eliminate companies assuming women have to take 9 months and men none.

Obviously the mother has much more risk and has the childbirth to recove from. But in most situations the mother could decide her job is very important and return to work after 5 months and then the father take 4 months.

This is assumed that there are no major complications.

I still imagine that most mother's will still take 9 months off but the choice is there at least.

That is only one part of the statistics too, there are other reasons as to why the pay gap is there. This would not be discrimination in my book, discrimination is usually towards something you can't change, but having 9 months maternity due to childbirth is a choice at the end of the day, whichever sex it is.

Reviews and Books Galore

fattymuatty wrote: »

What I find fascinating about these threads on boards rather than on sites that are posted on by females in the majority is that no one on boards asks why. They say the pay gap begins when women decide to have children(like there is no input from the males in their life in that decision).

They don't talk about when a family decides to have children the woman takes 9 to a year off to recover from a 9 month pregnancy, recover from giving birth(possibly abdominal surgery) and breast feed(in some cases) their child. We will say the family decide to have 2 children and she ends up having to take 18mnths off work, during those 18mnths she is passed over for promotion and her husband who has also had 2 children in the past 3 years but doesn't have anything to recover from receives a promotion. Now he is earning more and the 2 year old gets chicken pox, he is a more senior role and declares he can't take time off work because he will miss x and y. The woman has to take time off because the child can't go to creche and well, someone has to. This repeats. She has to take time off when the child is sick because of husbands Important Job, he gets promoted again because he never misses time, she gets passed over.

I see this time and time again. Husbands with their Important Jobs who 'can't' take time off for the children so it automatically falls to the mother. Or husbands with Important Jobs who can't alter their hours to suit chidcare, they 'have' to stay back at the office so the mother has to leave on the button to pick who their children because someone has to. How many men take a truly 50/50 approach to childcare(and yes I know you do, but many, many men don't.

This is before we get into the small and medium business that won't hire women of childbearing age, in the UK a third of bosses of admitted to discriminating against women for fear that they might get pregnant soon.

It sounds simple 'well women don't work as much' but I really don't believe it is as simple as a lot of men here like to believe, ie once women have children they just don't want to work as much.

Husbands with important jobs who are giving up the majority of their time to put food on the table, clothes on their back, a high standard of living all the while taking **** from managers, customers and clients.

I always wonder why some people belittle the husbands role in working 40-60 hours per week. Learned behaviour IMO.

jmayo

My MD is paid a lot more than me so who do I complain to about being discriminated against ?

Also the consultant I visited earlier this year for dental surgery is on a huge wedge more than me so once again who do I complain to.

Fecking hell I have a lot of complains to make.

Maybe I might get one of these women to help me. :cool:

nkl12xtw5goz70

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Some of the people saying it's all women's choice to work less after they have kids are the same as those who complain about men being "discriminated against" when it comes to custody issues. Surely if you acknowledge that its women who tend do the bulk of the parenting to the extent that it effects their earning ability, then surely you have to acknowledge that courts considering mothers to more often be the primary carers of children is just a reflection of this, and not discrimination against men?

Discrimination arises when the mother is automatically assumed to be the primary carer, even in cases when she actually isn't.

If the mother is the primary carer, she should get custody. If the father is the primary carer, he should get custody. If they have parented the child in equal measure, they should have joint custody. But that's not the way it usually plays out in court, sadly.

ExoPolitic

Women may get the same money as men, when they work the same amount of hours as men in the same jobs... That's called equality, we have that already though..

fattymuatty

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Husbands with important jobs who are giving up the majority of their time to put food on the table, clothes on their back, a high standard of living all the while taking **** from managers, customers and clients.

I always wonder why some people belittle the husbands role in working 40-60 hours per week. Learned behaviour IMO.

It's not belittling to state that in many households the husbands job comes first. Lots of women I know would also like to also be able to have very important jobs but they can't because if they don't do the childcare no one else will. I'm pointing out that it isn't as simple as 'women choose'. Children have to be picked up from creche at closing time, they have to be dropped off at opening time, they have to be looked after when ill because creches won't do it. Some men refuse to factor this into their careers so by default it falls to the woman to do it because these things are not optional. I have witnessed the husbands of many friends/relations who refuse to budge on their careers so the woman has to. That isn't a choice, you can't just leave your kid at creche for 2 hours past closing so you can do the overtime required to get ahead, or set up a webcam to watch your sick kid so as not to anger your manager when you are off with them again.

Lots of women gladly step back from their careers when the children are born but lots do it very begrudgingly because they feel they have no choice. It is very difficult to have two people in a couple working in high flying careers and have family because someone has to be there for the children.

tritium

fattymuatty wrote: »

What I find fascinating about these threads on boards rather than on sites that are posted on by females in the majority is that no one on boards asks why. They say the pay gap begins when women decide to have children(like there is no input from the males in their life in that decision).

They don't talk about when a family decides to have children the woman takes 9 to a year off to recover from a 9 month pregnancy, recover from giving birth(possibly abdominal surgery) and breast feed(in some cases) their child. We will say the family decide to have 2 children and she ends up having to take 18mnths off work, during those 18mnths she is passed over for promotion and her husband who has also had 2 children in the past 3 years but doesn't have anything to recover from receives a promotion. Now he is earning more and the 2 year old gets chicken pox, he is a more senior role and declares he can't take time off work because he will miss x and y. The woman has to take time off because the child can't go to creche and well, someone has to. This repeats. She has to take time off when the child is sick because of husbands Important Job, he gets promoted again because he never misses time, she gets passed over.

I see this time and time again. Husbands with their Important Jobs who 'can't' take time off for the children so it automatically falls to the mother. Or husbands with Important Jobs who can't alter their hours to suit chidcare, they 'have' to stay back at the office so the mother has to leave on the button to pick who their children because someone has to. How many men take a truly 50/50 approach to childcare(and yes I know you do, but many, many men don't.

This is before we get into the small and medium business that won't hire women of childbearing age, in the UK a third of bosses of admitted to discriminating against women for fear that they might get pregnant soon.

It sounds simple 'well women don't work as much' but I really don't believe it is as simple as a lot of men here like to believe, ie once women have children they just don't want to work as much.

Oh dear god where to start with this. Firstly, it generally doesn’t take 9 months to recover from childbirth- that idea strangely enough only magically started to appear relatively recently. In other countries and in other times this has been managed with a much shorter period with no issues.

Secondly, the idea of men just getting on with it rather than also having time to bond with their children during meaningful paternity leave is so anachronistic as to be shameful. Though when you hear of cabinet ministers declaring, sans evidence, that men play golf on paternity leave it doesn’t surprise me that we’re so backward in that respect.

Thirdly, the idea that men working insane hours and pressure to provide for their family are somehow not pulling their weight is frankly pathetic. Many men simply aren’t given a choice to take a few years out to spend more time with the kids as they grow up. If employers were generally more flexible at all levels with the idea of job sharing etc it might happen but the reality is they’re not. I know I’m my own career given the hours I have to put in (and still juggle the calendar if something unexpected lands, and put in the hours to make that up) that a job share would just become working the extra days for free, while I’ll see colleagues swan off at 5 on the dot

tritium

fattymuatty wrote: »

It's not belittling to state that in many households the husbands job comes first. Lots of women I know would also like to also be able to have very important jobs but they can't because if they don't do the childcare no one else will. I'm pointing out that it isn't as simple as 'women choose'. Children have to be picked up from creche at closing time, they have to be dropped off at opening time, they have to be looked after when ill because creches won't do it. Some men refuse to factor this into their careers so by default it falls to the woman to do it because these things are not optional. I have witnessed the husbands of many friends/relations who refuse to budge on their careers so the woman has to. That isn't a choice, you can't just leave your kid at creche for 2 hours past closing so you can do the overtime required to get ahead, or set up a webcam to watch your sick kid so as not to anger your manager when you are off with them again.

Lots of women gladly step back from their careers when the children are born but lots do it very begrudgingly because they feel they have no choice. It is very difficult to have two people in a couple working in high flying careers and have family because someone has to be there for the children.

I equally know many women who insist they’re taking time out because they want to spend the important years with the children. The other half is just expected to suck it up and provide regardless of what that requires of them

Which if either of those approaches is more selfish in your view?

fattymuatty

tritium wrote: »

I equally know many women who insist they’re taking time out because they want to spend the important years with the children. The other half is just expected to suck it up and provide regardless of what that requires of them

Which if either of those approaches is more selfish in your view?

I think if the man doesn't want to be the sole breadwinner he shouldn't have to be and likewise if the woman doesn't want to take more than 50% of the childcare she shouldn't have to either.

um7y1h83ge06nx

These senior jobs are not all the fun people make them out to be. I'm in a management position and it's pretty tough at times. But once you start rising maybe 2 levels above me it starts to get nuts, living out of a suitcase. One person I know in a more senior position was taken aside and questioned by US immigration due to the frequency he was traveling in and out of the US.

ceadaoin.

tritium wrote: »

Oh dear god where to start with this. Firstly, it generally doesn’t take 9 months to recover from childbirth- that idea strangely enough only magically started to appear relatively recently. In other countries and in other times this has been managed with a much shorter period with no issues.

Have you ever given birth? It absolutely can take that long to recover, especially from a complicated delivery. Also, its not just to allow the mother to recover but also to facilitate breastfeeding which the WHO recommends is used as the exclusive feeding method for at least 6 months.

fattymuatty

fattymuatty wrote: »

It's not belittling to state that in many households the husbands job comes first. Lots of women I know would also like to also be able to have very important jobs but they can't because if they don't do the childcare no one else will. I'm pointing out that it isn't as simple as 'women choose'. Children have to be picked up from creche at closing time, they have to be dropped off at opening time, they have to be looked after when ill because creches won't do it. Some men refuse to factor this into their careers so by default it falls to the woman to do it because these things are not optional. I have witnessed the husbands of many friends/relations who refuse to budge on their careers so the woman has to. That isn't a choice, you can't just leave your kid at creche for 2 hours past closing so you can do the overtime required to get ahead, or set up a webcam to watch your sick kid so as not to anger your manager when you are off with them again.

Lots of women gladly step back from their careers when the children are born but lots do it very begrudgingly because they feel they have no choice. It is very difficult to have two people in a couple working in high flying careers and have family because someone has to be there for the children.

parents choose, essentially

fattymuatty

tritium wrote: »

Oh dear god where to start with this. Firstly, it generally doesn’t take 9 months to recover from childbirth- that idea strangely enough only magically started to appear relatively recently. In other countries and in other times this has been managed with a much shorter period with no issues.

Secondly, the idea of men just getting on with it rather than also having time to bond with their children during meaningful paternity leave is so anachronistic as to be shameful. Though when you hear of cabinet ministers declaring, sans evidence, that men play golf on paternity leave it doesn’t surprise me that we’re so backward in that respect.

Thirdly, the idea that men working insane hours and pressure to provide for their family are somehow not pulling their weight is frankly pathetic. Many men simply aren’t given a choice to take a few years out to spend more time with the kids as they grow up. If employers were generally more flexible at all levels with the idea of job sharing etc it might happen but the reality is they’re not. I know I’m my own career given the hours I have to put in (and still juggle the calendar if something unexpected lands, and put in the hours to make that up) that a job share would just become working the extra days for free, while I’ll see colleagues swan off at 5 on the dot

I absolutely agree that there should be the option to share parental leave, I think that if men spent more time with their children then a lot of the imbalance would be solved.
If both men and women had to take we will say 6 months off work then employers wouldn't be as wary of women of childbearing age, after all we can only have children for a set amount of time, men can keep going til they die. This would only work if men had to spend an equal amount of time off as women.

I also think that if more bonding was done in the early days between fathers and their children then the mother would be seen less as the default care taker and housekeeper. This would be a fantastic thing for women and men.
I am totally on board with fathers becoming more involved in family life, it would be even out a lot of inequalities. Like someone mentioned up thread fathers may actually see their children more in the case of a split and in two parent families I think it would see a closer bond between all family members.

And a yes to flexible working too, it would benefit not just families with children but people without who may have caring duties or other things they would like to pursue.

Thirdly, the idea that men working insane hours and pressure to provide for their family are somehow not pulling their weight is frankly pathetic.

I never said that these men are not pulling their weight as such but surely you can see how one person in a couple with children working long days or working away sometimes or having long commutes reduces the choices of the other person in the couple?