Peepster

Well, I'm feeling a bit topical, so my question for today is:

Why are women still under-represented in senior positions? Apparently over half of the ASX200 companies have no women on their management boards and women only make up 10% at executive director level. In the places I've worked it's unusual to find a woman in a senior role apart from maybe in Human Resources.

Should compulsory quotas be introduced to ensure that women are getting a fair go?

Broad Shoulders

compulsory quotas would not be giving it a "fair go" though, would it? All you would be doing is forcing the issue.

asprilla

No, compulsory quotas should not be introduced, because women already have equal rights in the workplace. Compulsory quotas would only serve to give women an artificial advantage over men.

There are many reasons why men make up the majority of senior management positions, but not least, is babies. Most women have a period of 2 to 10 yrs in their lives, maybe more maybe less, when work becomes less of a priority, and this causes many women to fall behind men in terms of wages and progression through the ranks.

Another reason, is that men are far more likely to continue working straight throughout their adult lives, whereas women are more likely to stop work in their 40s as their family situation and financial situation allows.

Also, men as a rule are generally bossier than women. Of course, this doesn't apply to all men & women... but as a generalisation I believe it to be true. Many women (again, not all before anyone bites my head off) do not have the same aspirations to reach senior management levels that many men do.

Peepster

But compulsory quotas would therefore give women a level playing field ie it would overcome the baby issue?

Broad Shoulders

so you want to give women an unfair advantage against a man who has worked longer to get to that position than the woman that decided to take off x amount of years to pursue a family?

asprilla

One other point to add is that the whole concept of compulsory quotas is based on flawed logic. There is an assumption that because the population is made up of 51% women, senior management should also be made up of 51% women.

However, this doesn't take into account that men & women are different.

Why are we not introducing quotas to make 49% of nannies male?

Peepster

No, she didn't 'decide' to - she had to take some time off in order to bear children....

Broad Shoulders

she didn't HAVE to have children though. She didn't HAVE to take years off to raise them. I know of plenty of women that take off 3 months to have the child then go back to work to pursue their careers.

Peepster

Because men are already pursuing high-salaried executive positions. If they wanted to be nannies, well great. I doubt it though.

asprilla

Broad shoulders is right. Imagine two women, both 50yrs old and both working in well paid management roles. Mildred has not had any children, has not taken any career breaks and has made work a large priority in her life, often working extra hours, to get where she is today. Whereas Ethel has taken about 4yrs off in maternity leave & unpaid leave for her 3kids, and she has tried to maintain a 9 to 5pm routine whilst still working hard.

Why should Ethel make it as far as Mildred? How would Mildred feel if she found out that Ethel had been promoted to the same level as part of a compulsory quota?

Broad Shoulders

well with that generalisation and logic you can answer your original question by saying that all women are too busy pursuing a family raising career to be interested in pursuing executive high paid salaries

Peepster

So what would happen if all women stopped having children in Australia?
I'm not talking about women who stop work entirely to raise the family. I'm talking about women who take the minimum time off, a few months and then try and make it to the top of the career ladder. It's impossible, there is still too much stigma attached. Unless you are prepared to become like Julia Gillard.

Peepster

No - I'm saying that women don't have a choice because they are the ones that have to physically bear children....

asprilla

Is that really true though? I think that the real reason that men aren't lining up to be nannies, is that the majority of them don't want to be nannies.

There are lots of well paid tradies out there, earning a fortune, but not many of them are women. Why aren't women pursuing those kind of high paid opportunities?

I think that the real reason that 51% of senior management aren't female, is that men want it more than women, just as women want to be nannies more than men, and men want to be tradies more than women. Its because men & women are different.

Broad Shoulders

But that option is open to them, therefore enabling them to NOT put their careers on hold. The point is that you are proposing that women be given an artificial boost to account for the fact that they took years off to care for their kids. That is their choice, they didn't have to, they chose to.
The stigma is something completely different. If they are that career hungry and ambitious I don't think they are likely to give two sh!ts what anyone thinks about their decisions. Sometimes it is a simple necessity