Childcare is bloody expensive!

Comms69

onlyroz wrote: »

The few men who go into primary teaching usually find themselves with a headteachership after a few years. Funny that...

Is that anecdotal evidence? Or do you have some statistics?


https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2015/feb/11/lack-of-female-headteachers-gender-diversity-education


This article suggests that 65% of head teachers are women.....

bugslet

Comms69 wrote: »

I agree that if employers are choosing not to employ young women, for fear of them having children, we should all unite to boycott and take a stand that it is not acceptable.


That said, discussing working conditions 200 years ago is not useful. It is quite simply not the case of today.

Though from a logical pov, it's a mare having to deal with pregnant women. I take one on as a truck driver, they get pregnant and then what? It's european haulage and you need an appointment time for antenatal. Maybe you could do a UK week, but I have to juggle drivers hours and WTD rules so maybe I need you to go out abroad. Then you have the right to come back, so I have to take someone on temporarily, which takes three months training because we are highly specialised and then I have to get rid of them after x months. Maybe when/if they come back, they have a husband/partner that is going to do the looking after stuff, but in reality, it would be unlikely.

Whilst in theory paternity leave impacts, it's less likley to impact simply because of my drivers, I only know one whose wife earns more than him, so generally the men will keep working to bring the money in.

Office jobs are way easier no doubt to accomodate.

Comms69 wrote: »

Then why weren't more women going for it?

1% of truck drivers are women. There's a campaign to get more women involved in haulage, but whilst a few will like the idea of driving a truck, when it comes to tht nitty gritty, it starts to look a lot less attractive. When you do get a woman truck driver, they are often very good at the job.

Red-Squirrel_2

fred246 wrote: »

I started my current job at the same time as another colleague. My wife gave up work on the birth of our first child and has never worked since. My colleague and his wife both work at our place of work. He nearly bought my house but he thought the mortgage was too big (it wasn't) so he bought a smaller place. I just did my job while my wife looked after the children. No stress. They were always so stressed. Late getting to work. Having to leave on time. Constantly trying to work out who was picking the children up. I went to their house one evening. She had worked all day and had a bag of microwave meals. She was shouting at the kids. I used to get home and my wife and children would be making pizzas with smiley faces. They sent all their children to private school which has been a massive drain on their money with no obvious gain. The private school seems to churn out incredibly materialistic kids who are a nightmare. Our kids have done much better at A levels and have gone on to better university courses. I just found it interesting to compare the two families. We seem to have had a much easier life and don't seem to have lost out at all. My wife always wanted to be at home with the kids though and loved spending time with them talking about every subject under the sun. For me that was key.

Both my parents worked, but we were a very happy family, still are. A couple over the road where the wife stayed at home split up when their kids were about 8 and 10.

Does my anecdote cancel out yours?

Red-Squirrel_2

Comms69 wrote: »

And I’m talking about early years parenthood.

But to spin this, so men are discriminated against in primary education? Or do they choose not to go into those careers?

Men in primary schools are more likely to become headteachers, both in primary and secondary, so certainly not discriminated against.

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Men in primary schools are more likely to become headteachers, both in primary and secondary, so certainly not discriminated against.

Well according to the guardian article above, 65% of head teachers are female.


But I suppose you could argue that if 26% of the workforce take up 35% of the top jobs, then they are more likely to do so.


With all that said, how is this any different to STEM careers? The majority of the workforce, makes up the majority of the top positions.

VJsmum

Comms69 wrote: »

I agree that if employers are choosing not to employ young women, for fear of them having children, we should all unite to boycott and take a stand that it is not acceptable.


That said, discussing working conditions 200 years ago is not useful. It is quite simply not the case of today.

I realise you are on a mission, so will bow out - but i think you'll find that, whilst the nature of hegemony may have changed, the fact has not. Things like the culture of presence at work, even though a woman can be equally productive in the evening after, say, the kids have gone to bed but she might have left at 3 to pick them up; like organising meetings at 8,30 in the morning that could be held at 10; like organising "masculine" (yes, a generalisation) social events - like football, golf, cricket rather than more inclusive things.

bugslet wrote: »

Though from a logical pov, it's a mare having to deal with pregnant women. I take one on as a truck driver, they get pregnant and then what?

You take on a man, he has a heart attack, then what?

Red-Squirrel_2

bugslet wrote: »

Though from a logical pov, it's a mare having to deal with pregnant women. I take one on as a truck driver, they get pregnant and then what?

Same as happens with women in other jobs surely?

Female dominated professions and jobs have managed to learn how to deal with the fact that some women have children without going bust or collapsing, maybe the male dominated professions could learn something from them.

fred246

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Both my parents worked, but we were a very happy family, still are. A couple over the road where the wife stayed at home split up when their kids were about 8 and 10.

Does my anecdote cancel out yours?

We both have successful happy families. We have paid a babysitter to look after our children once. £25. They have worked to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in nursery and private school costs. Outcomes are similar. We have looked after our own children and they have worked to pay others to look after their children. It was the difference in stress levels that struck me. People can choose what they want. I am just pointing out my experience.

ViolaLass

fred246 wrote: »

We both have successful happy families. We have paid a babysitter to look after our children once. £25. They have worked to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in nursery and private school costs. Outcomes are similar. We have looked after our own children and they have worked to pay others to look after their children. It was the difference in stress levels that struck me. People can choose what they want. I am just pointing out my experience.

But the difference in stress levels may not be directly connected to whether they chose to stay at home or not.

Comms69

VJsmum wrote: »

I realise you are on a mission, so will bow out - but i think you'll find that, whilst the nature of hegemony may have changed, the fact has not. Things like the culture of presence at work, even though a woman can be equally productive in the evening after, say, the kids have gone to bed but she might have left at 3 to pick them up; like organising meetings at 8,30 in the morning that could be held at 10; like organising "masculine" (yes, a generalisation) social events - like football, golf, cricket rather than more inclusive things.



You take on a man, he has a heart attack, then what?

Im not on a mission, just engaging in mostly civil debate.


The fact is that employers set working hours for many reasons. Some roles are very flexible, but others do require one to be in the workplace. Whether that's down to customer needs, or to engage with colleagues, etc.


Similarly meetings can be arranged at that time for many reasons, people have different schedules. And managers different management styles.


As far as social events go, that's outside of work. I hold no stock in such things, but if you feel aggrieved, why not arrange your own event?