Do we still set higher standards for women?

Eazybee,

I disagree. Women need to support each other, not blame each other . We are our worst own enemy.

Women do not desert their careers because they lack ambition. Maybe in some cases.

They may want to stay home with the kids because the current job market does not allow a true family-work balance. There is no reconciliation in the workplace as it is set up under a male point of view.

Example: you go back to work and need to decide if breastfeeding is compatible with the job.

In the US, there is only a 6 week maternity leave, 12 weeks if csection.

They are making mothers choose between your infant and your professional life.

A lot of women want to be the main carers and work part-time. What they don't want is to be denigrated for it and seen as somehow 'less'. We do appear t obe our own worst enemies a lot of the time. We judge and criticise and believe that only our way is best.
As for Grandad and Jenny Formby - I think a lot of peopel believe that anyone who hasn't got a degree is not educated (not saying you Grandad) but that is how she would have been perceived, particulalry by the university Educated (Male) MP's of the day.

Oooooh yes, I wonder if anything will have moved on in the next 50-100 years?

Hithere in regard to your post @15:40 today, you state that, quote ["women may want to stay home with the kids because the current job market does not allow a true family-work balance. There is no reconciliation in the workplace as it is set up under a male point of view] end quote.

In the above, I stated in an earlier post in this thread how the above is not commonly the situation as that has been demonstrated only too well by a young woman in our office. She joined us in an administration role but soon expressed a wish to be trained to join the operational side of the business. However, she became pregnant but while on maturity leave studied to gain IOSH Qualifications that has allowed her to be attached to the Assignment teams on returning to work. In taking up that opportunity she has gained a far higher salary, status, and interesting employment

To gain further training that would enable her to progress to the highest levels in an Industrial Safety career she will have to demonstrate that she is willing to travel extensively in the course of her employment. That is obviously difficult for women with a young child, but hopefully, that will be brought about with the cooperation of her home life structures and her willingness to be away from home for at times extensive periods.

There is nothing we as her employer can do to assist her in that decision, as it is an area where both genders in their home life circumstances have to decide what is paramount.

I state the above as I feel it demonstrates there are, even in these times, large psychological obstacles within many women themselves that prevent their progress in employment and the wider world. However, the opportunities are equally available, especially in employment, for women to progress in equality with their male counterparts, but it is long standing attitudes within women and wider social issues that often prevent their gender obtaining the highest personal accomplishments.

We are as the above employee's employer still waiting on her decision which is whether she can commit to extensive travel and periods away from home to further progress her career in our company. We are giving her plenty of time to make that decision as we realise it very much involves her young child, partner and probably grandparents.

The above I believe sums up the dilemma many women face in their careers and the essence of this debate.

Why does she face that dilemma and not the young men in your workplace?

Galaxy, in regard to your post @17:02 today, all members of the assignment teams face the same dilemmas in regard to travel and periods away from home if they wish to progress to the highest levels of Industrial Safety qualifications.

It is the same circumstance for both genders.

Is it now acceptable to say ‘both genders’ ?

Anniebach, as far as I am aware there are only two human genders on this earth, male and female, why should it not to be correct to refer to them as "both genders"?

Because there are more than two genders

If only it was the same for both sexes (not genders) Grandad. The major burden of caring & housework still falls upon women.

What needs to change is men’s arrangements so that it’s a level playing field. Nothing will be achieved until men start to change their life/work balance. Employers could help by promoting this. My daughter works in an environment where her employers are happy to allow all workers to have flexible timetables wherever possible. The result is that people are generally happier in their work and put more into it despite working fewer/different hours, and productivity is up as presenteeism is no longer a factor. When flexibility cannot be accommodated, employees understand why that is.

There are two sexes.
I am sure it is the same employment practice grandad but it is interesting that you mentioned the woman rather than the men in your team as if this is a specific problem for women. And it is because the general expectation of society is that women will be the one to not go to the late meeting, or the trip abroad, not in all cases but in most. Some families manage two parents in high level positions but anecdotally I would say that is rare, when children are young, someone 'steps back' professionally and that is usually the woman. The issue isn't with employment practices as such but how society is structured in such a way that it is almost always the women who makes the choice to step back. I feel I am not expressing this well, but I would argue if one group in society is always making that choice it's not a real choice at all.

Exactly, Galaxy. Instead of forcing women to behave like a man, make men behave like women. Like I said, equal playing field.

When I had our eldest, I earned far more than my husband. I worked for a bank so also had a 2% mortgage (just when rates were very high). I really would have liked to return, at least part time, but it seemed impossible then. Why? He couldn't breastfeed!

Galaxy there is nothing I would fundamentally disagree with in your post @18:02 today.

However, it seems that men very much more readily and easily commit to being away from home in the course of their employment, while women are far more likely to turn down such working even when that means turning away upward opportunity in their employment.

That is a choice that has to made in everyone's employment life when such progress is offered. The choice is one which no employer can, in reality, have an influence on.

Perhaps it reflects the difference in gender attitudes in our society.

I dont think it's really an employer issue, more that to change things men have to give up some of the 'power' they have and that's a hard thing to do. I may be about to tempt fate but this has been a really interesting thoughtful thread, I think its drifted from the ops original question but I am glad she started it.

Galaxy, in regard to your post @
18:23 today, employers could not in any way force male employees to give up anything to favour female employees.

The Equality Act 2010 lays out as its primary purpose that it is illegal to discriminate against any person on the grounds of Race, Religious belief, Sexual preference and Gender.

Therefore whether in employment or any other walk of life gender discrimination operates against the above legislation.

Grandad said:- However, it seems that men very much more readily and easily commit to being away from home in the course of their employment, while women are far more likely to turn down such working even when that means turning away upward opportunity in their employment.

Why do you think that is, Grandad?

No I am not talking about employment practises or law. The power they have to give up in order to be an equal partner. So they have to sacrifice the trip away to be with their children, they have to take equal share at home, they have to do the 'wifework'.

Time away from home, women have a choice, it depends on their career choice, a good example is airline employees. Around 5% of airline pilots are women and there are a great many cabin crew who also are away a lot. In a similar way long distance truck drivers spend many nights away, those women that do drive trucks usually want to get home to their own beds each night. I would guess that no more than 10% of women would choose a job that meant a lot of nights away.

Women in general are far less confident traveling on their own they feel insecure, many will travel with a friend/partner or a group, solo, again I would bet on 10%.

Funny that David, I have lived and worked overseas on my own in China, Spain, the US and now Switzerland. Reason being I don't have family responsibility.

Until men step up and share the family burden, women can't be footloose.

SueDonim, Galaxy, in regards to both of your above posts, men being prepared to more readily work away from home and women carrying out an unequal part of the "home chores" is simply because of long-standing social attitudes still in acceptance by both genders even in today's world of legislated equality.

I feel that the above situation is very slowly changing with men now more often becoming the stay at home main family carer while the female partner becomes the main financial contributor by way of greater income access.

However, the above is still the exception in our society rather than the rule due to, as stated, social attitude acceptance in both genders.

If forum members think back, throughout the second world war women carried out all the occupations normally worked by men while they were way in armed service. In truth, Britain was almost entirely maintained as a working entity by women.

At the conclusion of that war, all those occupations were handed back to those returning men without any protest whatsoever by the women who had held those jobs throughout the war years.

The above situation of male dominance both in employment and home circumstance was maintained with a few exceptions until labour and skill shortages of the late nineteen eighties and nineties gave women better opportunities in the workplace and through that somewhat better equality in the home.

In all the above, I would ask, who holds greater fault for the inequality we still all witness in our society. Was it the men who were so easily given back the jobs that had been carried out by women on their return home at the conclusion of the second world war, or was it the fault of the women who handed over that employment and single home governance at that time without protest. In that, it would seem women have continued to accept that unequal situation ever since that time by way of accepting long standing social stances.

It can be argued that the period from 1945 until 1998 when the Human Rights Act came into being was the weakest period in the women's fight for equality than had been for over one hundred years previous.

The 2010 Equality Act then gave women total legislative parity with their male counterparts, but still we all witness everyday inequality and acceptance of that in the social behaviours of both genders.

God help the woman who wears a dress showing a shoulder to work.

Women are often the most vicious about other women as well.

Gagaji exactly!!

Only just seen this thread, and not yet read all of it, which I’m about to do. However I must say straight away that I absolutely think that higher standards are expected of women than of men, in pretty much every sphere of life. Now I’ll read the whole thread through.

God help the woman who wears a dress showing a shoulder to work.

Or the woman who wears leather trousers to work; or a dress that's deemed to be too short, even though she's actually on holiday.