The EOC said there were 33,000 "positions of power" across the public and private sectors. Women were 6,000 short of filling half those roles, it said. "Today's troubling findings show just how slow the pace of change has been," said EOC Chair Jenny Watson.
They seem to surgest that Buisness should offer more flexibility in the workplace so women can become senior management. What does this mean? Being aloud to run out on important meetings to the school run? Being able to escape required overtime to prepair dinner for the kids or put them to bed? Opt out of required travel if its inconvient with there famaily life? Take more time off to look after sick kids regardless of the work load?
For me it’s simple. If they want the responsibility and money that goes with the position they also have to except the realities that go with it.
What do you think?
2007-01-05 00:48:13 · 6 answers · asked by Jack 3 in Business & Finance ➔ Careers & Employment
I work for a company with woman in a lot of senior positions, but its very flexible and allows home working so they dont have to rush around so much if they have children. And why do you assume it should always be woman doing the school run? Your opinions are very dated, woman contribute a lot to the workplace and in many families are the main earners.
2007-01-05 01:11:56 · answer #1 · answered by Annie M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you want your children to grow up poor, lack discipline, or grow up to become poor parents, then be my guest. That is what would happen to most people if what you suggest were the case. Take away flexibility so that women have to accept the "reality" of the situation. The reality, however, is that the meeting can wait an hour if need be. The reality is that women need to work to survive, but children still need to be raised right. The reality is that although they are well under half the total, many women ARE in top spots and doing fine, despite the "horrors" of having to make dinner or run to schoo. The reality of the matter is that it would not hurt men to pick up some of the slack and help out, instead of being male chauvinistic bums. The reality is that many men ARE helping out, and even THEY opt out of travel if it is inconvenient. The reality is that men have always had flexibility when they needed it. They are only trying to keep it away from women now because they do not want to lose power. The reality is that it is obvious you do not know what you are talking about.
2007-01-05 09:01:31 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think a woman should make a decision in her life. It's either motherhood or being a true career executive. The two just don't mix. No, these women shouldn't be given time off for family matters or to attend school requirements, sickness etc. That wouldn't be fair and men could say that this is sexual discrimination against them. If a woman makes a decision not have kids then I think she should be given the all the opportunities she needs to be able to have a top career. I think deep down most women are aware of this and as most women do want to go on to have a family, they make the decision not to enter into positions like that. However, nobody should be discriminated at all while at work.
2007-01-05 09:01:21 · answer #3 · answered by Luvfactory 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree even if I am a woman but I feel it is unfair that the caring role should just be a womans job why can't men be the 'mother' so to speak and look after the child give up wor why is expected that the woman should give up their role even if they are on the way to a huge career to end up with an even field both roles need to be equal which lets face it never going to happen and these women mainly in high power are not running out of meeting the nanny is looking after the child
2007-01-05 09:01:16 · answer #4 · answered by natl7788 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think in this case they are talking about more flexibility in the workplace for both men and women, so that women have the choice to be able to work in senior/executive positions. E.g such increased flexibility being equal paternity/maternity rights to allow parents to choose who returns to work and who might take a primary care role; rather than this be dictated by the inadequate rights to leave and pay for fathers. Particularly important when the female partner is the primary breadwinner and chosing to have a child alters the financial circumstances seriously and negatively.
2007-01-05 08:54:47 · answer #5 · answered by Nix 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Exactly.
A position should be filled based on the ability of the applicant. Sometimes that ability includes acceptance of anti social hours and the requirement to cancel personal arrangements at short notice.
Even ignoring the business environment argument, most women have poor logical reasoning ability, thus making them unsuitable for executive positions.
2007-01-05 08:58:08 · answer #6 · answered by Clive 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋