Not quite on the same topic but interesting all the same - http://www.slate.com/id/2131645/fr/rss/
Is the Irish Financial Services industry male-dominated?
- Thread starter RainyDay
- Start date
- Status
it seems that the novelty of male/female workplaces has worn off. Maybe we have reached the high water mark in this. It seems women complain about difficulty in breaking into mens clubs such as golf and football etc. Now we are hearing that women form their own clubs in other areas which men find difficulty in working with. I think in the future men and women will retreat back to male and female dominated jobs. I think the high water mark in this was probably reached with the high tech boom in the nineties and clinton in the white house. They seem totally unrelated topics but the high tech industry was probably the most "progressive" in pushing male/female workplaces.
>>They had a choice whether to have babies or not.<<
Yes but we want women to have babies don't we so that the Irish race will continue to exist. If having babies means going back to pre 1950s and staying at home, or working in a low paid job, I don't think women will bother. You talk about reality - the reality is that many women don't see why they can't have a few kids and a decent career without having a nervous breakdown. And they could if things were set up that way.
Yeah you'll have the odd few power women nowadays who don't have kids and dedicate themselves to the jobs and rise to top but that's not very many. Most career women would like the same chance as men to have babies and still fulfill their career potential if that's what they want to do.
>>You can't have babies and a high powered career unless you work and the man stays at home. If that happens fine, the man will lose out on his career.<<
Or maybe they just share responsibility? Is that an option? There should be equal parental leave so that men can share it. Surely the couple themselves should have those options of who does what.
Yes but we want women to have babies don't we so that the Irish race will continue to exist. If having babies means going back to pre 1950s and staying at home, or working in a low paid job, I don't think women will bother. You talk about reality - the reality is that many women don't see why they can't have a few kids and a decent career without having a nervous breakdown. And they could if things were set up that way.
Yeah you'll have the odd few power women nowadays who don't have kids and dedicate themselves to the jobs and rise to top but that's not very many. Most career women would like the same chance as men to have babies and still fulfill their career potential if that's what they want to do.
>>You can't have babies and a high powered career unless you work and the man stays at home. If that happens fine, the man will lose out on his career.<<
Or maybe they just share responsibility? Is that an option? There should be equal parental leave so that men can share it. Surely the couple themselves should have those options of who does what.
Well there's different ways of raising families I guess. Maybe they (man and women) waited until they could afford creche fees before having kids? I really don't know and amn't really interested in speculating any further, all I know is that in my experience, women in higher up positions in industry were as likely to have kids as not. How are why they got to where they are doesn't really concern me.
ccovich
I think you are being somewhat dismissive. At present a woman must be smarter and harder working to achieve the same level of success as her male peers. If she takes time off work to raise a family her career suffers. If she devotes herself fulltime to her career her children may suffer. Basically a woman now has two jobs, her career and her home. Very few families can afford the level of childcare/homehelp that would make this acceptable.
For the record I'm a middle aged married man with a family and a fulltime job. My wife works parttime. Her career has clearly suffered because of her parttime status.
This may not affect you directly but it is definitely an issue for society.
Regards
I think you are being somewhat dismissive. At present a woman must be smarter and harder working to achieve the same level of success as her male peers. If she takes time off work to raise a family her career suffers. If she devotes herself fulltime to her career her children may suffer. Basically a woman now has two jobs, her career and her home. Very few families can afford the level of childcare/homehelp that would make this acceptable.
For the record I'm a middle aged married man with a family and a fulltime job. My wife works parttime. Her career has clearly suffered because of her parttime status.
This may not affect you directly but it is definitely an issue for society.
Regards
In my experience the women who are very successful careerwise (ie. women who have made partner) generally don't see their children very much - I have seen these women in my office working mad overtime so that they are barely at home. I don't think any career is worth that & I think that a lot of women think similarly to me which is why they tend not to be in top positions.
That is not to say that one can't have a decent career - its just that you don't get to the major top positions......but for me that isnt the be all and end all.
Why have kids if you are going to be so wrapped up in your job that you never see them?
That is not to say that one can't have a decent career - its just that you don't get to the major top positions......but for me that isnt the be all and end all.
Why have kids if you are going to be so wrapped up in your job that you never see them?
tyoung said:
I am speaking from my own experience, in what way am I being dismissive? I think that it is hard to say that a woman 'must be smarter and harder working' to achieve the same level of success as a man. It may appear that way, yes, but it is hard to prove, i.e. will anyone admit that this is in fact the the case, i.e. are there any males (or females) who would say that they would promote a man over a women, given that there respective abilities were equal? Or would a woman have to demonstrate extra ability and motivation over a man to get a job/promotion?
I do think that there is a difference bewteen taking maternity leave and working part-time. If I was working alongside a woman, and we had similar quaifications and experience, I wouldn't feel hard done if she was promoted ahead of me even if she had taken/was due to take maternity leave. However, if the same woman was working part-time for an extended period (5 years or more?), unless I knew that she worked harder than me for the time she was in the office, or was excpetional in her work, I think I would feel aggrieved.
I don't think that we can have it both ways, i.e. women who spend significant time at home looking after their children and yet expect to move up to more senior positions in financial services, or wherever else. There has to be some give and take in there somewhere.
I think Winnie makes some good points above, and she is a woman (I presume?), so is more qualified than me to give an opinion on this issue.
It wouldn't be for me either but I think that if that's what some women want to do, they should be able to. Otherwise, you're saying, any woman with kids is not going to get a top position. That's hardly progress in terms of society and diversity and gender equality and all that stuff.
Exactly they need to have help with their family in order to acheive senior positions.
I mention all this because of the original thread about women in top positions. Everytime there is a discussion about glass ceilings etc it always comes up that some women decide not to go further in their career for family reasons. I wonder whether this is out of genuine preference to stay at home or because they just can't juggle all the balls. If it's the latter surely couples should be enabled to spread/share the work a bit more and make choices. Otherwise, the end result for society is that it continues to be male dominated which to me is not progress.
podgerodge
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,042
annR said:
Most of the women in my office freely admit they have a preference to job share/stay at home and take the loss accordingly.
podgerodge said:
New research in the US indicates that taking a loss isn't necessarily a foregone conclusion.
"On average, Miller has found in a new paper, a woman in her 20s will increase her lifetime earnings by 10 percent if she delays the birth of her first child by a year".
An interesting article.
podgerodge
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,042
RainyDay said:
They do - half the time as they can't afford to stay at home full time. But what they do not expect is to be paid as much as people who work full time. Nor do they expect the same promotional opportunities as, mainly, men for this very reason.
- Status