Babies V career

metrovelvet

You 've offerred one: paternity leave. Guess you cant think of any others. Funny. Neither can I.

Zulu

metrovelvet wrote: »

You 've offerred one: paternity leave. Guess you cant think of any others. Funny. Neither can I.

It's not funny at all. It only highlights the level of ignorance that exists, and the dismissive, sexist attitudes that some people have towards the subject.

Evidently you couldn't care less that currently, unmarried mothers are immediately registered as 'sole guardians', the father isn't even considered a guardian. If the father wishes to be registered as a guardian, he needs the mothers agreement or court order. Legal battles are expensive, so effectively most fathers are sidelined altogether.

Anyway, I've made my point, and clearly you'd rather argue than discuss, so, slan agus beannacht.

Kooli

To be honest I think that if this is a discussion about married partners not getting equal parental leave, then to bring in the discrimination against unmarried fathers is completely irrelevant. That's a different circumstance.

If a couple are married, cohabiting, coparenting (which I think is the situation we are talking about), then a father getting upset about the hypothetical lack of rights he would have IF he decided to leave, is just too hypothetical for words and smacks of chip on the shoulder.

Zulu

Kooli wrote: »

To be honest I think that if this is a discussion about married partners not getting equal parental leave,

It's not. Well at least it wasn't. It was a discussion about a man and a woman applying for a job.

metrovelvet

Zulu wrote: »

It's not. Well at least it wasn't. It was a discussion about a man and a woman applying for a job.

Well you brought up the whole fathers rights thing. I asked you what rights and then you start talking about ignorance. Well how can you expect people to not remain ignorant when they ask you a question and you refuse to answer it. And now you're not talking about fathers but about unmarried fathers. So you changed the goal post again.

You live in the EU now. You are free to live in a land that has the laws you can or want to live with. So you have choices, you can marry the mother of your child, or you can live in a land where you can father children, married or not and have your rights to sign paperwork regarding healthcare, education and religion and get your paternity leave.

Kooli

Zulu wrote: »

It's not. Well at least it wasn't. It was a discussion about a man and a woman applying for a job.

Yes, both of whom are MARRIED! And metrovelvet made the point that the only discrimination she could think of that happens to fathers in this circumstance is paternal leave.

You have said that there are others, but the only you have mentioned refers to UNMARRIED fathers, who are not part of this scenario at all.

The Corinthian

Kooli wrote: »

To be honest I think that if this is a discussion about married partners not getting equal parental leave, then to bring in the discrimination against unmarried fathers is completely irrelevant. That's a different circumstance.

Actually, this is a thread about babies versus career in the lives of women. The principle reason for the apparent trade-off between the two is that fathers are not seen as child carers, be it in society, custom or law - regardless of marital status, which was only mentioned by the OP to underline their equal eligibility for the job.

Unless you change this perception the discrimination will continue (unless you abolish maternity leave altogether) and the only way to do that is to start with redressing those legally enshrined prejudices that give credence to it.

In short, the woman won't get hired because she's the one who's going to be home taking care of the kids before long. Why? Because that's a woman's job. Why? Because the law says so.

If a couple are married, cohabiting, coparenting (which I think is the situation we are talking about), then a father getting upset about the hypothetical lack of rights he would have IF he decided to leave, is just too hypothetical for words and smacks of chip on the shoulder.

What age are you?

People do not have to be in cohabitation to create a child. It can be a one night stand or a fling of a few weeks too. Even if married, cohabiting or whatever, relationships do frequently end - often with considerable animosity - and not simply because "he decided to leave".

With all due respects, you sound like the one with chip on the shoulder.

Kooli

The Corinthian wrote: »

What age are you?

People do not have to be cohabitation to create a child. It can be a one night stand or a fling of a few weeks too. Even if married, cohabiting or whatever, relationships do frequently end - often with considerable animosity - and not simply because "he decided to leave".

With all due respects, you sound like the one with chip on the shoulder.

You're completely misunderstanding me, and I'm not sure if that's deliberate or not.

I am not a total idiot, I know that you don't have to cohabit to create a child!!

I just believe that the issue of the rights of unmarried fathers is a separate debate (although I don't know how much of a 'debate' there is as everyone seems to agree on the issue).

This thread in my mind is about co-parenting/married parents and how men do not have the option of taking paternal leave after the birth, and this leads to discrimination of women in the workplace.

To bring in the issue of the rights of unmarried fathers is like me saying 'yeah and women are less likely to be promoted than men'. Yes, it's true. Yes, it's another form of discrimination (perhaps) but it's a totally different one, and not that relevant.

metrovelvet

Kooli wrote: »

You're completely misunderstanding me, and I'm not sure if that's deliberate or not.

I am not a total idiot, I know that you don't have to cohabit to create a child!!

I just believe that the issue of the rights of unmarried fathers is a separate debate (although I don't know how much of a 'debate' there is as everyone seems to agree on the issue).

This thread in my mind is about co-parenting/married parents and how men do not have the option of taking paternal leave after the birth, and this leads to discrimination of women in the workplace.

To bring in the issue of the rights of unmarried fathers is like me saying 'yeah and women are less likely to be promoted than men'. Yes, it's true. Yes, it's another form of discrimination (perhaps) but it's a totally different one, and not that relevant.

You didnt get the press release? The rights of unmarried fathers are the square root of all women's problems so when absolutely anythind is mentioned in relationship to women, probably even what lipstick to wear, its still about the rights of unmarried fathers.

The Corinthian

Kooli wrote: »

This thread in my mind is about co-parenting/married parents and how men do not have the option of taking paternal leave after the birth, and this leads to discrimination of women in the workplace.

To bring in the issue of the rights of unmarried fathers is like me saying 'yeah and women are less likely to be promoted than men'.

No, because the lack of rights that men enjoy to their children is a major part of the reason that women are considered the sole child carers. You could give men paternity leave, but that won't change things all that much, because mothers will still legally be seen as those with a monopoly on their children and thus the child carers.

Zulu

Kooli wrote: »

And metrovelvet made the point that the only discrimination she could think of that happens to fathers in this circumstance is paternal leave.
You have said that there are others, but the only you have mentioned refers to UNMARRIED fathers, who are not part of this scenario at all.

Well thats not entirly accurate, she asked me:

metrovelvet wrote:

Zulu - what rights to you want that you feel you dont have as a father?

To which I responded that I had an issue with access rights, and paternal leave.
But she ignored that and requested I draw up a list, and when I suggested it was a waste of time (as I could see the argument coming), she claimed:

metrovelvet wrote:

You 've offerred one: paternity leave. Guess you cant think of any others. Funny. Neither can I.

Which is where my comment on ignorance came into it.

Anyway, I'm not interested in "getting into one". So good luck to you. Slan.

metrovelvet

All fathers have access rights.

Zulu

.

schumacher

Zulu wrote: »

Well, for one, because if we don't produce a future generation, the current generation will have to work until they die, as there will be no one to support their retirement.
Would you prefer to live in a society where you'd have to work until you die? I know I wouldn't.?

No I wouldnt but there is always people who will have children no matter what. After all it is supposedly the natural thing for humans to reproduce.

Zulu wrote: »

I'm not sure you've thought this through. How would people in less paid jobs be able to afford to take the time off? They wouldn't. However, they'd still have children. So would they loose their jobs? Wouldn't they then become more of a burden on the state?.

I never really thought of people in less paid jobs but alot of them probably give up work anyway with the cost of childcare and especially if they have more than one child. As someone pointed out America doesnt pay you if you take time off and they seem fine.

Zulu wrote: »

I still feel the best way to prevent discrimination against women is to acknowledge the rights & role of the father. Follow the Swedish model.

Yeah I agree. I just dont think it will ever happen.

Zulu wrote: »

So you'd have a newly born left in the care of a creach for the larger part of the days? Seriously?

I wouldnt see the problem as long as the creche was a good one. There would still be time to bond with him/her.

Zulu wrote: »

Humm, as I said earlier - just be the best candidate and you won't face this "discrimination".

Yeah thats what I will have to try and be so.

Zulu wrote: »

Claptrap! Men have no rights as a father.
How old are you can I ask? You speak as though you haven't started your career yet - is that correct?

True especially if they are unmarried. I say it will be a long time before any government in Ireland tackles that issue.
I must be very stereotypical for you to guess my age:) Im early twenties, just out of college and starting my career in a few weeks.

Zulu

schumacher wrote: »

Yeah I agree. I just dont think it will ever happen.

You're probably right, but I hope we're both wrong. This could be a great little country...

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

All fathers have access rights.

No. Fathers need to apply for access through the courts, regardless of marital status. It is not automatic and, more importantly, seldom enforced.

Nonetheless, this discussion seems to be getting stuck on the question of father's rights, which is off-topic. To recap on the basic argument that has been put forward on dealing with the discrimination of women in employment it essentially goes like this:

Problem: If a man and a woman both apply for the same job and are equally qualified, the man is far more likely to get it.

Cause: Prolonged absence, or risk thereof, from the workplace due to parental care is considered an undesirable trait in a potential employee for commercial reasons. Both societal norms and the law squarely puts the role of child care to women and sidelines men. Women are thus seen as being far more likely to have this undesirable trait.

Solution: Redress those societal norms and the law so that the risk of someone prolonged absence from the workplace is better evened out between both men and women and both are seen as equally (or as close as we can get it) likely to have the undesirable trait. Simply giving men paternity leave will not do much as the law, and thus society, will still view women as the primary child carers.

Equality is a double edged sword; many disadvantages are ironically built upon related advantages that one group has over the other and unless you are willing to sacrifice the latter you will never eliminate the former - you can't have your cake and eat it. It's not a difficult course of logic to follow and if anyone disagrees with it please speak up.

Otherwise a more detailed discussion on the legal and social changes (just changing the law is not enough) necessary is probably left to a fresh thread IMHO.

Kooli

The Corinthian wrote: »

No. Fathers need to apply for access through the courts, regardless of marital status. It is not automatic and, more importantly, seldom enforced.

Nonetheless, this discussion seems to be getting stuck on the question of father's rights, which is off-topic. To recap on the basic argument that has been put forward on dealing with the discrimination of women in employment it essentially goes like this:

Problem: If a man and a woman both apply for the same job and are equally qualified, the man is far more likely to get it.

Cause: Prolonged absence, or risk thereof, from the workplace due to parental care is considered an undesirable trait in a potential employee for commercial reasons. Both societal norms and the law squarely puts the role of child care to women and sidelines men. Women are thus seen as being far more likely to have this undesirable trait.

Solution: Redress those societal norms and the law so that the risk of someone prolonged absence from the workplace is better evened out between both men and women and both are seen as equally (or as close as we can get it) likely to have the undesirable trait. Simply giving men paternity leave will not do much as the law, and thus society, will still view women as the primary child carers.

Equality is a double edged sword; many disadvantages are ironically built upon related advantages that one group has over the other and unless you are willing to sacrifice the latter you will never eliminate the former - you can't have your cake and eat it. It's not a difficult course of logic to follow and if anyone disagrees with it please speak up.

Otherwise a more detailed discussion on the legal and social changes (just changing the law is not enough) necessary is probably left to a fresh thread IMHO.

OK this may be taking it off topic, let me know if it is, but your post raised another question for me.

Do we all believe that men and women are inherently exactly equal, and would naturally share all parenting duties/parental leave equally if that was what society accepted?

I suppose this is in response to your assertion that offering "parental leave" rather than maternal leave is not sufficient. I believe it is. After that it is up to each individual couple to use that time in line with their own personal preferences.

If they still CHOOSE to have the woman take more leave than the father, is the ONLY reason for this social conditioning? Or could that be the right decision for a lot of families because the mother is the biological caregiver and more naturally predisposed to caregiving, particularly in the first six months if she is breastfeeding? (I know I'm going to get slammed for saying 'naturally predisposed', but millions of years of evolution can't be dismissed!)

Can we really dismiss the differences in parental roles for the sake of equality? Do we really have to aim for total equality in the TAKEUP of parental leave if it was offered? Or do we just have to offer it, and let people choose as best suits them, which I believe for most families would involve the woman still using most of the parental leave.

The Corinthian

Kooli wrote: »

Do we all believe that men and women are inherently exactly equal, and would naturally share all parenting duties/parental leave equally if that was what society accepted?

I don't know. I think some men would and others would not. I think it would take decades, but could well happen. You'd be amazed how much attitudes change in a lifetime.

I suppose this is in response to your assertion that offering "parental leave" rather than maternal leave is not sufficient. I believe it is. After that it is up to each individual couple to use that time in line with their own personal preferences.

I don't. I think it's offensive. And most other men would think it offensive that given additional access to responsibility with no additional rights, we are still being treated as little more than a resource.

On a more practical level, such a move might be in the right direction, but ultimately it maintains the line that children are a woman's thing. She's legally the one in charge of child care still.

Or could that be the right decision for a lot of families because the mother is the biological caregiver and more naturally predisposed to caregiving, particularly in the first six months if she is breastfeeding? (I know I'm going to get slammed for saying 'naturally predisposed', but millions of years of evolution can't be dismissed!)

I think the role of the mother from an evolutionary point of view is exaggerated. None of us actually behave quite how evolution made us - thank civilization for that.

Biologically the mother is only required up to birth at present. In a few more decades, she won't be needed any more than a man.

That's not to say that there will not always be some variations between what applies to men and women due to biology, but we should be trying to minimize those, not justify and glorify them.

Can we really dismiss the differences in parental roles for the sake of equality?

You decide. Do you want equality of the sexes or not?

I do think that is the fundamental question here. On one side you want discrimination against women that favours men (our traditional role as breadwinner/hunter) to be eliminated. On the other you resist eliminating discrimination against men that favours women (their traditional role as homemaker/carer). Yet the two are often intertwined.

So, I'm sorry by you can't have both.

which I believe for most families would involve the woman still using most of the parental leave.

I agree and I told you why. Don't sell us a lump of crap and tell us it's a diamond.

Kooli

I don't know how to multiquote so I'll just reply.

Firstly, I don't know why you are so angry with me!

You've accused me of wanting discrimination that favours men to be eliminated, while wanting to keep discrimination that favours women to be kept on. When did I say that?!!? Are you talking about someone else?

I'm all for gender equality in a realistic sense. But I DO NOT THINK MEN AND WOMEN ARE THE SAME!!!

As I said before, NO ONE is disagreeing with you that the rights of unmarried fathers are a disgrace - NO ONE!!!

I just believe that if fathers were given equal rights, and then married parents were given parental leave to share, THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH! We DON'T need to INSIST that parenting is shared equally, we just need to PROVIDE THE CHOICE that it can be if the parents so wish.

I certainly don't buy the notion that the mother is only required at the birth. I'm not a mother, but I hope to be some day, and I hope to me more than just a vessel who pops the baby out and rushes back to work. I want to breastfeed my baby for minimum 6 months!! That is a biological difference, and although there are ways around it, we don't need to insist people find ways around it for the sake of 'equality', when they might like it the way it is!

Gender equality is not insisting that every activity in life has a 50/50 split. Gender equality is about providing people with the choice. They don't have to take it up, and they shouldn't be criticised for not wanting to.

The Corinthian

Kooli wrote: »

I just believe that if fathers were given equal rights, and then married parents were given parental leave to share, THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH!

OK, you didn't seem to be saying anything about the rights though, just the parental leave.

I certainly don't buy the notion that the mother is only required at the birth.

Strictly, and biologically, speaking a father is only required for the sperm and the mother is only required for her uterus and egg. In a few decades, even the uterus will no longer be an issue. Beyond that, the matter is open to debate, IMO.

Gender equality is not insisting that every activity in life has a 50/50 split. Gender equality is about providing people with the choice. They don't have to take it up, and they shouldn't be criticised for not wanting to.

Let's not go down that road, as where it comes to reproductive choice, there's a serious gender imbalance.

However the point that has been made is sometimes even just having a choice has consequences. Remember, the employer will shy away from a potential candidate not because she is a mother and will take maternity leave, but because of the risk that she may - because she has that choice (and because the alternative candidate, a man, does not).

Kooli

The Corinthian wrote: »

OK, you didn't seem to be saying anything about the rights though, just the parental leave.

Initially I wasn't saying anything about the rights because I don't think it's the same issue. Then I said that everyone agrees about the rights issue.

As for parental leave, I believe that if both were offered it, it would still be more likely that the woman would take most of it (and I don't have a problem with that). For that reason the discrimination would probably still occur in recruitment because it's about balancing the odds for the employer.

It's similar to the notion that 25 year old men have to pay through the nose for car insurance. It doesn't matter how safe that individual man is, what matters is the statistical likelihood of a crash.

And you're right I DON'T want to go down the road of reproductive choice, so I'll keep my mouth shut about that one!

Sleepy

Is there anyone who thinks a father shouldn't be entitled to equal legal rights and responsibilities as a mother towards their offspring (regardless of marital status where neither poses any danger to the child's wellbeing)?

If so, it's really something for another thread (which I won't be participating in because I'd deem you too stupid to be entitled to an opinion).So I'm going to assume that everyone agrees on that in my response:

Assuming we give father's equal right of access and responsibilities towards childcare, I believe the best means in which to seek to redress the imbalance is through a system of shared parental leave where both parents are forced to use at least a certain amount of that parental leave (e.g. pulling figures out of the air 8 months total, with at least 2 months to be used by each parent).

This provides the choice for either parent to be the primary care giver beyond the first couple of months. In the example of Kooli who wants to breastfeed for 6 months or so, this allows her to either do that or to just take the 2 months leave and use (not all that modern) technology such as a breast pump to allow her partner (or child-minder) to feed the child mother's milk for the rest of those 6 months.

The Corinthian is right, equality can't be achieved between the sexes without women giving up some of the priveleges of their sex.

FWIW, my background on this is that of a 29 year old unmarried father, co-habiting with the child's mother with no legal backup if anything happens between us. I've taken as active a role in my child's upbringing as I can for the chief breadwinner in the family unit. We alternated nights for feeding duties (we both had work in the morning, her in the home, me at work). I took 2 weeks of annual leave when my daughter was born to be there for her and her mammy, yet still got work-related calls from colleagues every day of that leave. Those colleagues, incidently would never have called a new mother while she was on maternity leave - they didn't seem to think there was an issue on calling a new father though. I changed my daughter's first nappy and have continued to do so for my fair share (I've never heard of a father under the age of 40 who won't change his child's nappy btw), if I'm home, I cook the majority of the time. While I was out of work I was chief care-giver every second day leaving my girlfriend have a lie in on those days.

As long as there is inequality around the rights and responsibilites of parents, there will be inequalities in the workplace where (prospective) parents are concerned.

Nevyn

While a lot of men do not see it as unseemly or unmanly to be able to care for thier children and turn thier hand to any household chore competently it is not the case for a lot of men, and part of that is irish mammy syndrome, but men can choose to learn those skills if they wish and it makes for better equality in the home and hopefully we will see that then reflected in other parts of society.

Zulu

You see, I just resent the whole "most men" part of that post.

"Most men" aren't accurately described in a three line post.

Nevyn

I mean it as being clearly personally subjective as it is based on my life and my interactions with people, I really tought that was understood but have changed to do a lot of men, as it seemed to irk you.

Zulu

Thanks, it does irk me. You can imagine why.

Sleepy

Thaedydal wrote: »

While a lot of men do not see it as unseemly or unmanly to be able to care for thier children and turn thier hand to any household chore competently it is not the case for a lot of men, and part of that is irish mammy syndrome, but men can choose to learn those skills if they wish and it makes for better equality in the home and hopefully we will see that then reflected in other parts of society.

TBH, I'd regard it as unmanly to not be able to care for your children (or rather, I'd just consider you a pathetic example of a human, regardless of gender).

It'll be interesting to see how this changes with the generations.

I think I'm slightly younger than most of you but I know far more men my age that can cook better than their female partners than vice versa. (I personally attribute this to men missing their mammy's food when they move out and attempting to replicate it whereas most women are too busy following the latest stupid diet in Cosmo to learn how to cook properly... This wouldn't have been the case for my father's generation - he lived on omellette sandwichs until he married my mother!).

Men do tend to be more 'dirt tolerant' than women as pointed out by Zulu but I'm of the belief that it's bad for a child to grow up in too sterile an environment and that they should learn to tidy away their own toys as soon as they can walk.

Home Economics isn't a mandatory subject for girls any more. Most doing it at this stage (male and female alike) are just there for some easy points. I've argued many times on this forum that I'd like to see some form of 'life skills' class on the Irish curiculum, not as an examinable subject but simply to teach students what so many of them aren't learning at home these days: how to make a sheppards pie, plan a healthy diet on a budget, wire a plug, make informed choices about contraception (and know how to put on a condom). etc. I'm sure this would contribute towards not only more equal parenting but perhaps even better parenting.

Zulu

...particularly knowing the difference between a shepard’s pie, and a cottage pie!

RodgerTheDoger

Just saw this thread.

I am not going to get into the rights of parents, I wanted to make a comment on the initial Post, if I was an employer would I employ a man over a woman on the basis I would fear she might become pregnant:

It is a dammed if you do and dammed if you don't scenario...

I think ethics might indicate you should not decriminate in these grounds but given an example, which is a true example, I know an office where 4 of the 5 female staff all became pregnant in a 3 year time period. 2 of which never came back which is in many cases understandable.

I can understand the fear for smaller companies that cannot afford to have someone on the payrole that physically does not bring in any revenue for 6 months + at any given time.

These types of discussion always bring about hard questions on equality, men and women are not physically the same, woman have babies men don't... It is hard to try and find common ground where everyone is happy and no one loses out!

Nevyn

Sleepy wrote: »

TBH, I'd regard it as unmanly to not be able to care for your children (or rather, I'd just consider you a pathetic example of a human, regardless of gender).

It'll be interesting to see how this changes with the generations.

I think I'm slightly younger than most of you but I know far more men my age that can cook better than their female partners than vice versa. (I personally attribute this to men missing their mammy's food when they move out and attempting to replicate it whereas most women are too busy following the latest stupid diet in Cosmo to learn how to cook properly... This wouldn't have been the case for my father's generation - he lived on omellette sandwichs until he married my mother!).

I agree but I think the back lash we see from women in terms of cooking is so that they are not like their mother's left to do it all, so it's a case of can't cook/ won't cook for a lot of young women.

Sleepy wrote: »

Home Economics isn't a mandatory subject for girls any more. Most doing it at this stage (male and female alike) are just there for some easy points. I've argued many times on this forum that I'd like to see some form of 'life skills' class on the Irish curiculum, not as an examinable subject but simply to teach students what so many of them aren't learning at home these days: how to make a sheppards pie, plan a healthy diet on a budget, wire a plug, make informed choices about contraception (and know how to put on a condom). etc. I'm sure this would contribute towards not only more equal parenting but perhaps even better parenting.

I can understand the need for such classes but personally I find the need for it to be weird, guess I was lucky I learned all of that at home and found home ec tbh the most boring subject.

Sleepy

Thaedydal wrote: »

I agree but I think the back lash we see from women in terms of cooking is so that they are not like their mother's left to do it all, so it's a case of can't cook/ won't cook for a lot of young women.

Not simply being lazy?

I can see the logic in that but isn't it simply cutting their noses off to spite their face? Can't Cook / Won't Cook. Eat Rubbish. Whinge about not having the same figure as [insert celebrity here]. Attempt Diet from magazine with said celebrity on the cover. Ruin metabolism while losing half a stone. Put on a stone. Repeat.

I'd also be surprised if there's that many feminists left in the generations after mine tbh. Looking at my younger brother's female friends, most are happy to perpetuate the 'Oh, I'm just a girl, Tee hee hee' nonsense (presumably due to how spoilt many of them were with parents benefiting from Celtic Tiger Ireland whilst they were in their early teens and becoming overly reliant on the daddy atm).

I can understand the need for such classes but personally I find the need for it to be weird, guess I was lucky I learned all of that at home and found home ec tbh the most boring subject.

I never studied it as the (all boys) school I went to had a strong academic focus so anything outside of the core subjects (Irish, English, French, Maths, Business Studies, Science, History and Geography) were relegated to lunch time or after school classes for Junior Cert. I had a primary school teacher who brought in some parents to help run a cooking/bakery class for a year in 4th class which I loved so maybe that's when to do it. Though if you included Driver's Ed as part of the program, I think you'd get a fairly large uptake from 5th / 6th years. It'd certainly be a good idea to complement the cramathon of Leaving Cert with some non-examinable, practical education imho.

Bren1609

Bren1609 wrote: »

An employer has one position available. There are two potential candidates, one man and one woman, same qualifications, both married and in their early thirties. Who would you give the job to?

With so many couples having babies at the moment I think the odds are stacked in favour of the man. Its a stark choice for women that they potentially have to choose between having a family or a career.

Are employers wrong for choosing not to give a job to a woman on the basis that she might decide to have a family and go on maternity leave?

I think the chances of the woman being in her early thirties wanting to start a family being rather slim, and then it would come down to qualifications/skills. I'm thinking of most married couples I know, and few if any have had children after 30. Almost all of them did so before thirty.

Saying that though, if a pregnant woman went for the job, I'd pick the guy, or the non-pregnant woman who also applied. Simply down to wanting a worker that would be able to go to work, and not having to find a replacement in a few months time.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the chances of the woman being in her early thirties wanting to start a family being rather slim, and then it would come down to qualifications/skills. I'm thinking of most married couples I know, and few if any have had children after 30. Almost all of them did so before thirty.

Perhaps, but what if you get two thirty-year old female candidates; one already with two or three children and the other with none. The former is likely to not want any more, the latter either does not want children or may in the future - however, if she does, the future has become a much shorter window and thus is more likely to have them sooner rather than later.

RodgerTheDoger

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the chances of the woman being in her early thirties wanting to start a family being rather slim, and then it would come down to qualifications/skills. I'm thinking of most married couples I know, and few if any have had children after 30. Almost all of them did so before thirty.

Saying that though, if a pregnant woman went for the job, I'd pick the guy, or the non-pregnant woman who also applied. Simply down to wanting a worker that would be able to go to work, and not having to find a replacement in a few months time.

Disagree - Two on my team one out now to have her baby is 34 and one will be going out in Feb to have hers 33.

A lot more women are having kids a little later in life, Stats show average age of woman having their first baby is 30.


According to this

http://www.mothers35plus.co.uk/intro.htm