Much Visas plenty cheapness

[mudskipper]

If more women wanted to be top executives they would be.

I believe that's true. And that's partly my point. I don't think 'women only' shortlists are the answer to anything. There is a lot less overt discrimination, but there's something about business environments that encourages men to achieve and women not to - or women to feel they don't want to or can't. Why is that?

Teaching's a good example where things have changed. The majority of teachers are female, but the majority of head teachers are male. This was recognised as an issue that had nothing to do with the capability of the candidates, so there was a conscious effort to make promotion paths more female friendly and the situation is a lot better.

BBC News - Women secondary school head teachers double in Wales in eight years - "Dr Philip Dixon, director of the ATL education union in Wales, believed a number of factors including family friendly policies, greater awareness of the need for gender balance and the crumbling of "any sort of old-boy network" were involved."


So bringing in the discussion of gender specific job titles - 'Headteacher' is a perfectly good, non-gender specific job title. Headmistress conjours up an unfavourable image of a loveless spinster (or maybe that was just my one!) Female headteachers generally call themselves head teachers, male head teachers still sometimes use the headmaster label - why do you think that is?

(I did a straw poll of my local schools - seems to be a good balance of male and female headteachers - almost all of which are referred to as 'Headteacher'. The Reading boys' school had a headmaster, whereas the sister girls' school has a headteacher.

I'm not a "raging feminist". I don't think gender specific terms are a big problem, but they are remnants of a society which considered certain roles to be favoured to men or women. In some cases this is justified - firemen do require strength and 'male' qualities, but most hark back to when men were in charge and women did the sewing - tailor vs seamstress anyone? Where gender is not relevant to the job, why have a gender specific job title? You wouldn't refer to a "black postman" would you?

In a balanced workplace, everyone benefits.

[original PM]

Blah
In a balanced workplace, everyone benefits.

Quite except for white married men who are still with their partner and have kids - try being one of those for a few months and see how it feels to be treated like some sort of leper.

[mudskipper]

Quite except for white married men who are still with their partner and have kids - try being one of those for a few months and see how it feels to be treated like some sort of leper.

Really? They're definitely in the majority in my office.

[original PM]

Really? They're definitely in the majority in my office.

Back in the 1800's the majority of people picking cotton were black!

[mudskipper]

Back in the 1800's the majority of people picking cotton were black!

Now I'm really confused as to what point you're making.

[minestrone]

You ought to have a gander at the IET member news thing this month.

It was spouting on about how it's essential these people are allowed in.

It really is quite depressing.

[original PM]

Now I'm really confused as to what point you're making.

just because you are in a majority it does not mean you have any power.

[mudskipper]

just because you are in a majority it does not mean you have any power.

What gender/ethnicity makeup is the board of your clientCo then?

[original PM]

What gender/ethnicity makeup is the board of your clientCo then?

lol it is (or should be very diverse!)

but beyond that I cannot comment

[DodgyAgent]

I believe that's true. And that's partly my point. I don't think 'women only' shortlists are the answer to anything. There is a lot less overt discrimination, but there's something about business environments that encourages men to achieve and women not to - or women to feel they don't want to or can't. Why is that?

Teaching's a good example where things have changed. The majority of teachers are female, but the majority of head teachers are male. This was recognised as an issue that had nothing to do with the capability of the candidates, so there was a conscious effort to make promotion paths more female friendly and the situation is a lot better.

BBC News - Women secondary school head teachers double in Wales in eight years - "Dr Philip Dixon, director of the ATL education union in Wales, believed a number of factors including family friendly policies, greater awareness of the need for gender balance and the crumbling of "any sort of old-boy network" were involved."


So bringing in the discussion of gender specific job titles - 'Headteacher' is a perfectly good, non-gender specific job title. Headmistress conjours up an unfavourable image of a loveless spinster (or maybe that was just my one!) Female headteachers generally call themselves head teachers, male head teachers still sometimes use the headmaster label - why do you think that is?

(I did a straw poll of my local schools - seems to be a good balance of male and female headteachers - almost all of which are referred to as 'Headteacher'. The Reading boys' school had a headmaster, whereas the sister girls' school has a headteacher.

I'm not a "raging feminist". I don't think gender specific terms are a big problem, but they are remnants of a society which considered certain roles to be favoured to men or women. In some cases this is justified - firemen do require strength and 'male' qualities, but most hark back to when men were in charge and women did the sewing - tailor vs seamstress anyone? Where gender is not relevant to the job, why have a gender specific job title? You wouldn't refer to a "black postman" would you?

In a balanced workplace, everyone benefits.

Women are at an automatic disadvantage when it comes to working in top jobs. To be a head of a school or a board executive of a PLC requires total dedication. Men do this because they are naturally inclined to immerse themselves in a way that is necessary to work in this environment. Women have children and in say 90% (I do not know for sure) of all households it is they that ultimately take responsibility for the upbringing of their children. They are naturally given to procreating and building the home. Men are not. Men are hunters. It is not to say that women are any less capable than men but because if this they are simply not interested.

Which is why women work in jobs that have flexible working times and where the work can be secondary to the upbringing of their children - teaching, nursing , doctors, HR (). One of the reasons why few women are engineers is because they cannot bring up a family and go and work in the Libyan desert on a 30 days on 30 days off. The reason they are not chief executives is because they are not available "24/7" at the behest of the shareholders.

How many female contractors are there with children who will take a gig that means staying away from home for 5 days?

The flip side is that employers do not look so critically of a womans career path. "why did you not get promoted within the 5 years you were in the company?". Employers are much more flexible about employing women who have worked in careers that have been dictated by family circumstances. if a man takes a year or two off as a house husband he won't go far in the race for the top job.

I am not saying about how things should be I am saying this is how they are. Women frankly have better things to do than juggle a top job with the upbringing of their children.