Brilliant, Leslie, I couldn't agree more. I have long argued that if merit is really the way people get ahead then obviously merit is something men have and women don't. A quick glance at many of the men in important positions is all it takes to realise merit rarely has anything to do with worldly success. Indeed, we will only have true equality when there are as many mediocre women in positions of power as there are mediocre men. The exceptional often succeed, its what happens to the relatively ordinary that reveals the true balance of power.

As to educating girls and their relative conservatism; I suspect this is not new. Young women don't want to believe their options are more limited than their brothers, so they ignore the evidence, until, later in life, particularly when they have kids, it hits them right between the eyes.

But there is another factor. Imagine, if you will, there was a religion that ran schools for black people, whose stated philosophy was that while black people are marvellous in their way, it is ordained by God that they never take leadership positions over white people, particularly in the church. What would we think of black parents who sent their kids to such schools? Yet, when we send our daughters to certain religious schools aren't we doing exactly the same thing? And, of course, they get the message.

There seems to be an underlying assumption that those young women who choose not to "do it all" are somehow compromising themselves. There is a lot of pleasure in raising your own children rather than leaving them in childcare for fifty hours each week and only spending a few exhausted hours with them. There are also lots of other fulfilling things to do in your 'spare time' such as volunteering or studying which are not available to working mums. What's more you don't have to spend your weekends cleaning and shopping. Unfortunately there is still a problem when returning to work as few employers can see the the vast resource of highly skilled part-time labour that is right in front of their eyes. Maybe the next generation are on the right track.

On ya Sajo... well waid

From the Article:

<<“biological imperative” and the work-family crunch have reduced the number of qualified women available for such high-level appointments.>>

What a disgrace.. describing 'family' as an unholy competitor to 'work'... its a 'crunch'.... well well well... is this what it all about ? Women not wanting to have children so they can have 'careers' ?
I have a feeling that is a rather 'limited' perspective.. and of very limited duration.. in fact.. it would last as long as it took for the current generation to die OUT!

I wish to go on record as CLEARLY and without the slightest murmer of apology, WOMEN HAVE CHILDREN....and they are built for this purpose.

Breasts suggest in unambiguous terms "Feed me" and given that a baby needs continuous food, and that breast milk is the recommended diet according to the operators manual (and common sense) it is suggestive of a finite TIME... and given the emotional and bonding and nurturing needs of our precious infants.... not to mention the obvious 'cannot miss it' lesson from female motherhood in nature, it is also suggesting a definite time allocation, in the case of humans a few years per baby !

How in Gods name this wonderful aspect of life, becomes sooooo screwed up ..so distorted... so turned on its head.. so convoluted as to be described as a 'crunch' and a burdensome 'in the way of career' one at that.. is beyond me.

Yes.. of course. I do need a Bex or 3 and a good lie down, 3 laps of the retarding basin have tired me, and this article has annoyed me.

...and now, I've probably annoyed a few fellow contributors :)

I find it highly annoying that in these discussions, people such as Boaz-David seem to find it incredible that a woman might not want to be tied purely to her biological function 'for at least a couple of years'!

Many women I know find it strange that in the work/children discussions, it is never suggested that BOTH parents work part-time. Work IS rewarding, if you are lucky enough to have a job that uses your talents and interests. It provides social connections, a chance to think about things from different perspectives, and a chance to interact with adults.

Children are ALSO rewarding. Unconditional love, joy of watching their development, the fun of new discovery of the world.

People should not be forced to choose one or the other. All people, men and women both, should be able to genuinely balance their time in their various roles as parent/worker/friend etc.

I think this article does point out a difficulty with the 'merit' argument. It does seem to suggest that only 'exceptional' women can achieve important goals, and that the rest are just 'not as good' as the majority of men that make up the upper echalons of our society. Who, as enaj pointed out, are hardly paragons of virtue.

Hmm, not sure how coherant that came out. Basically I am saying that we should all be able to participate properly in all aspects of our lives. It should not be that after children that women stay home and men stay at work. Lets mix it up a little and make ourselves all a bit happier

Dear Boaz David,
Women don't curl up and die after they have finished reproducing, you know. I took 5 years out from the workforce while my 2 kids were small and went back part-time. Am I to pay for this - literally - forever? My experience of bearing and rearing children, of juggling family and paid work have given me skills and abilities most people (male and female) who have never done them can only dream of. Yet the skills I have gained at home are unvalued, unpaid and unappreciated. I am crammed so hard up against the glass ceiling I can hardly breathe, micro-managed by people with half my skills and experience who did not take time out for kids. They had wives who did, but they did not.
Women are voting with their wombs, Boaz-David, make it easier for them to have work and family - as men do - or they will stop having kids. Its happening in Italy, its happening in Japan, and, eventually, it will happen here. The evidence is perfectly clear, countries with family friendly work practices, like much of Scandinavia, are maintaining healthy birth rates, those who insist that child rearing is women's work and do nothing to help are watching their birth rates collapse.
Reap as ye sew, I'm afraid.

Yes it would be wonderful if both parents could work part-time. Unfortunately part-time work is undervalued, underpaid, insecure and difficult to find in the professional field. Most families need more financial security and rely heavily on at least one full-time income. Experience tells me that it is usually the woman who chooses to take on the nurturing role although there is no real reason why it can't be the man. It is not the girls who need educating but the boys - especially those who are employers.