darlets
11 Dec 2006, 11:30 PM
I think what research like this below eludes to is a systemic problem with how society structures working environment for people. This is only one field but I think it would hold true for higher jobs in the public and private sectors.
"Research shows that 70 per cent of the female academics and other staff in one NSW study have children, compared with 83per cent of the men. Eighty per cent of male academics have spouses, compared with just 63.5per cent of female academics.
Also, 90 per cent of the spouses of female academics worked full-time, compared with just 57 per cent of the spouses of male academics, whose wives tended to work part-time, or not at all.
Professor Hilary Winchester, pro-vice chancellor at the University of South Australia, said: "For women to be successful, they were less able to maintain a partnered relationship than men. The comments you get from women are, 'I just couldn't fit it all in."'
link (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20912099-2702,00.html)
I don't actually like the title of the article as it reeks of eugenics and detracts from the underlying point, that we still can't seem to create working enviroments that don't promote exclusion of half the populations from the higher positions.
How many capable and gifted individuals do we discourage from these roles because we unduly expect them to give up or hinder their ability to have a family?
"Research shows that 70 per cent of the female academics and other staff in one NSW study have children, compared with 83per cent of the men. Eighty per cent of male academics have spouses, compared with just 63.5per cent of female academics.
Also, 90 per cent of the spouses of female academics worked full-time, compared with just 57 per cent of the spouses of male academics, whose wives tended to work part-time, or not at all.
Professor Hilary Winchester, pro-vice chancellor at the University of South Australia, said: "For women to be successful, they were less able to maintain a partnered relationship than men. The comments you get from women are, 'I just couldn't fit it all in."'
link (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20912099-2702,00.html)
I don't actually like the title of the article as it reeks of eugenics and detracts from the underlying point, that we still can't seem to create working enviroments that don't promote exclusion of half the populations from the higher positions.
How many capable and gifted individuals do we discourage from these roles because we unduly expect them to give up or hinder their ability to have a family?