Iconic Films

2 for 1 tickets to Casablanca, this coming Monday

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Times

May 8, 2008

The glass ceiling in women's heads

Women in their thirties often face the next move up the career ladder with dread

Camilla Cavendish

In my dwindling band of friends who are still combining work and motherhood, there is a common fear. It is fear of promotion. Few say it, few even acknowledge it to themselves. These women are in their thirties, educated, in good jobs. But the next move up the career ladder - or at least the conventional career ladder - seems to produce in them a secret dread.

I realised this recently when one friend, who has been wanting more responsibility for ages, ducked a planned meeting with her boss. “I think I'm OK where I am,” she said. “Why risk climbing up another notch?” Only a few days later yet another friend turned down a job offer that most of the men she consulted said she'd be crazy to reject. This has become a familiar pattern. We mothers hold a steady course, fearing that any deviation will send our households veering out of control. While most of the men we know have their feet clamped hard on the career accelerator, their eyes in almost permanent rotation between the conquests ahead and the rear-view mirror.

“If you were to predict the future on the basis of school achievement,” says Susan Pinker, in her new book The Sexual Paradox, “the world would be a matriarchy.” Women are powering ahead of men in education. As graduates, many are earning more than their male peers. But by their mid-thirties they stick in the middle ranks or drop out altogether, while men who may have much more erratic educational histories are excelling. This trend is most pronounced among the most gifted women, many of whom have bosses or husbands who urge them to aim high. And it is not just a motherhood issue: educated women without children are also not choosing the same paths, in the same numbers, as educated men. As Pinker puts it: “Even with all the barriers stripped away, they don't behave like male clones.”

Why? Pinker believes that the answers are mainly biological. It is not lack of ability or opportunity that prevents so many women from reaching boardrooms and the upper echelons of science, she says, (although she does not claim that discrimination has been abolished). It is because women are wired in the womb to want different things. Baby boys are more exposed to testosterone, which drives them to be daring and aggressive. Baby girls are doused in oestrogen, which helps them to empathise. This makes women by nature resistant to investing all their energies, single-mindedly, in one thing. It makes them less extreme. Women tend to seek “inherent meaning” in their jobs, whereas men tend to seek domination.

Parents like me, who have failed to tempt their children away from gender-stereotyped toys, may nod at this. Some people will see it as an outrageous attack on equality - as I would have done in my feminist twenties. But it is really an argument for a better understanding of why some women dislike roles that are defined by male ambitions. Pinker asks why we think of the male as the standard model and the female as a version with a few optional features. All the high-powered women she interviews are happier for having left their top jobs. In different ways they explain that society impelled them towards the male model, but that it didn't quite fit.

The book is a powerful portrayal of men, too. Pinker realised that in 20 years of clinical practice most of the troubled children she had seen were boys. She discovered that some of the most fragile boys, with obsessive interests or an extreme appetite for risk, had become surprisingly successful in later life. Some of the men who have driven the world forward have (like my distant relative Henry Cavendish, in whose scientific discoveries I have always taken a nonsensical pride) been loners almost incapable of communicating - not attributes to which most women aspire.

This book in fact gives powerful support to Larry Summers' remarks that produced rage on the Harvard campus two years ago. He was the first President of Harvard to suffer a no-confidence vote, for having the temerity to suggest that there are fewer female geniuses than men and fewer women prepared to devote crazy hours to a single topic.

The book raises intriguing questions. If Pinker is right, then women who have the luxury of making career choices may actually increase, not decrease, the sexual division of labour. That is certainly what happened in kibbutzes that were studied over four generations, where all choices were freely available to men and women but where, in each generation, men chose to do progressively less childcare and women less construction work.

What does that mean for our current notions of equality? If women choose not to be corporate CEOs, does it matter? How can we find ways to better value what they do decide to do? If women really are more wired for empathy, this also raises questions about what policies are really “family-friendly”. Pinker cites potentially devastating evidence, from one Ivy League university, that male professors use parental leave to do research, while female professors use it to care for children.

He returns with a book, and she with a backlog. So greater equality in family policy could paradoxically discriminate against women.

To me, this book comes as a relief. I have never felt that diatribes about discrimination chimed with my personal experience, although it does with some of my friends. I have never bought the idea that women aren't competitive: we are. But I see so many able women who are fed up with the idea that the only real progress has to be perpetual upward motion. There's a time for that, but it should be in our own time.

Interesting article this. Having studied management, equality is an interesting subject and came up many times. I always maintained that men and women are different. Open a CEO interview to the public and there is always a higher percentage of men that apply. Thus more male CEO's. No discrimination.

Chris Reynolds, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire

I'd love to be a stay-at-home Dad while my partner goes out to work and climbs the career ladder.

Funny thing is, though, I've yet to meet a woman who is on the lookout for a homemaker male.

I though modern women wanted to demolish those patriarchal gender roles?

Not in this case, it seems.

Sean MacDhai, Newcastle-upon-Tyne,

"As long as women… *have* to have the babies, there will never be any real equality…" (Post above).
Do you mean pregnancy? Not a must any more. Career-women (article's subject) can adopt or hire surrogate mothers. For child raising, there are nannies or stay-at-home spouses.

El Mismo, Lima, Peru

Chris, Wokingham - I disagree with your comments. When girls didn't acheive as much as boys at school this was seen as the norm, but when, for merely a few years boys do not do as well, this is seen as a national crisis - with scientific studies & TV documentaries!

Victoria, London, UK

Camilla Cavendish really hit the nail on the head! In modern society, women have the same rights and opportunities as men. Nothing bars women from the boardroom other than themselves. The feminist myth - about discrimination stopping women from achieving - is just that; a myth!

Tony Brown, Bath, UK

Bravo! The pursuit of truth. Quite refreshing in today's climate. Thank you.

Rich, Middletown, USA

My wife has passed her thirties and cannot break through the glass ceiling. Why? Her boss, a woman in her thirties, is blocking the way.
How does that fit with the one size fits all profile of women that this article appears to embrace?

Rupert, Whitchurch, Hants

Hard wired vs modern day notion about equal labour division between the sexes. 100 years on will sort it. Women are smarter and more sensitive than men. Men are more competitive than women. Its simple if we could only get it. Hunter Gatherer vs Homemaker. We need both in our society, not 2 of a kind

Paul, Barnsley,

I'm 52 now. All the time my two were at home I chose to work part time because I didn't want to miss the fun.

Truth be told, my bipolar really got in the way. I couldn't hack it. If you want to be a CEO, go for it. If not, learn to live with less money and glory.

Annette, Olympia, Washington State USA

Pseudo-science at its very worse.

Proof please? facts? A little more analysis that chatting to your friends?

And what are the consequences of the women who want to go for the higher-paid jobs? What are the consequences for the men who don't want them?

And why is this the only marker of "success"?

Sarah, Gillingham,

Quite honestly, as a man, I don't see this as a gender issue. I think a perfect relationship is one where these issues you mention do not intrude.

Ian cheese, London, UK

I think women deal with change all the time by virtue of our biology. It should thus be no surprise that we define ourselves in a more fluid way than simply by reference to our jobs (as men do). So we work to live and accept that career success might take a little longer.

Laura, London,

As long as women are the ones who have to have the babies, there will never be any real equality.
Sexism in the work place compounds this dilemma with the "breeder or leader" mentality.
We still have a long way to go.

Nadia, Hamilton, Bermuda

Many men also decide that they don't want their boss's job and would rather stay at a level that suits them and their family.

Back in 1968 Laurence Peter recommended Creative Incompetence for those wishing to avoid promotion ("The Peter Principle") so this issue has long been recognised.

Dipper, East Herts, UK

if the author is to present sound evidence, she should not forget policies are not/should not be made by extrapolating the personal experiences and world-views of few moral entrepreneurs - and she's one of . Pinker is pseudo-science

ra, cosmopolitan,

Money isn't everything and it certainly doesn't bring you happyness.

Why spend your full life climbing ladders so you can make a furture for your boss's company.

Happyness is the importany thing, not money, thefore if your happy in the position your in, why change?

Change life not jobs!

Andrew T, England, UK,

What the equality fundamentalists fail to understand is that men & women are not interchangeable units. Though in many respects they are equal, & always are of equal value, they have complementary roles in some areas, particularly family life & the bringing up of children.

Dave, Wrexham,

R. Jones, I work for Shell, my "Big Boss" is 26.

I wouldn't want to be a CEO, it sounds mind-numbingy boring.

A.N., Manchester,

1. If more women used their high paying salary to get help in the house i.e. a cook and a cleaner, on a aregular basis, this would put them at east in enjoing a higher position in their jobs. 2. It is time men also worked less than 10 hours a day.
3. Companies should employ workers-second shift..

judith c. leigh ne'eman, jeruslaem, Israel

Many child-free women don't strive because we don't need to. We don't have the same pressures that men face (status, providing for others etc).

Mothers are increasingly the "career-women" now of course because takes two incomes to support a family.

Vicky, Germany,

When men were "powering ahead of women" that was considered to be patriarchal oppression, challenged by feminists and overturned by direct Government action.

Now that "women are powering ahead of men in education".... that's.... OK.

I see - it's the sexist double standard.

Chris, Wokingham, England

I know it's highly sexist to suggest that "a woman's place is in the home". That is unless, I suppose, that condition is self-selecting anyway! I agree that there's a point where women need to be so "man-like" to "succeed" they become unattractive to men. But what's the measure of "success" anyway?

Bill, London,

I relate to this.Educated to MSc,had 2 kids in mid 20s and returned to work as a PT consultant when the younger was 5 and I tell my boss at each appraisal that I don't want to go FT.
My 2 will only be children once. I'll be 44 by the time the youngest is 18 leaving me with 21 years to work like mad

Anna Heywood, Newcastle upon Tyne,

“Why risk climbing up another notch?”

This approaches the crux of the matter. Women are more risk averse than men. Perhaps this explains why most explorers and leaders are men.

Women intuitively want to stay local and enjoy the world as they know it. Not a problem, nothing shaming in it.

Edwin, Bucharest,

Great Article, and look forward to read the book ! I feel like I have been interviewed for this article.....it is painful living it, even more when realizing it is a trend.

Nassima Brown, Houston, USA

Not all women are mothers.

Susan, London, UK

If women are choosing not to rise to the top, then fair enough. At least they have the opportunity and we should not take that away from them...however they have always had more pressure on them to take the lead role in the family and once they bow to this its no surprise they put this 1st.

madeline, Nottingham,

"Employers and recruiters needs to be more flexible about career paths. "
Why? I am an employer and my prime aim is to maximise profits to pay my employees plus myself. We are not in business to be social engineers, we have enough on our plates as it is!

Carl, London, UK

What about the perspective of the children ? Only mothers can give birth to them and feed them and once this stage has passed it is difficult to put a sudden stop to it and only see their mother for 'quality hour' before bed. The psychological cutting of the umbilical cord takes time !

Lisa, Paris,

"Women are powering ahead of men in education"

Presumably in making this claim, you have sound evidence that refutes the suggestion, as educational testing has become increasingly process based (and, concomitantly, less outcome based), that this has benefited the female brain more than the male.

Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK

Men make choices too, Camilla. My career slowed down and almost went permanently into reverse in my 30s because I chose fatherhood over work. Now the children are older it has rocketed forward again, and I haven't burnt out in the process.

Dave, Slough,

And what's all this tripe about the "career ladder"? Chris was right. Men find meaning in their work, and if you view work as a competition, you have misunderstood what its about.

The ladder? If you are good enough at what you do, then start your own business as I did, then you'll understand.

Alan Robinson, Bjerreby, Denmark

I very much agree with MB. Why shouldn't work structures be tailored to meet the needs of people, rather than abstract employees who live in a 1950s world in which men have no domestic duties? If we're so incapable of rearranging man-made structures, human beings are hopeless regardless of job title

Kate, Lancaster,

As Marketing Manager and 37, I would prefer my own business or a free-lance career than becoming a Mkt.Director. Only because the "glamour" of top positions does not blind me anymore. When I was 20, I wanted to be Alexis Carrington of Dynasty. Now I know there are more in life than domination.

Christina, Athens, Greece

It's simple. Women no longer have the excuse that men hold them back or that opportunites are not offered - it's a choice freely made. Ultimately it's most likely connected to the need to have the time and energy to care for family. So enough of this unequal pay nonsense.

PK, UK,

I have to disagree. As a highly-educated, ex-career woman in my late 30's, I'd love to be able to continue onwards & upwards in my choice of career; but part-time posts in 'career' jobs that fit in with schools hours are still basically non-existent.

Caroline , London, England

This assumes that success is becoming a CEO or more senior? For many people - men and woman - success can be many other things - working for themselves, designing best of breed, recognition as an expert by peers. A good boss/CEO recognises what drives an individual and helps them achieve t

S, London, UK

Women and Men are different. Women can't focus like men do, however, men can't balance tasks like women do.

The net result is that the best managers are generally women, while the best leaders in their field are men.

As soon as the equality types understand this, we might start getting somewhere!

f0ul, deeside,

Most late-thirties mothers feel that they are not doing well enough at either one of their job and their family duties. So they don't want to risk taking on extra responsibilities. Why do they feel this? Perhaps because the playing field is tilted against them, especially by a "long hours" culture?

Janey, Norwich,

What's wrong with 'coasting' a little in your 30s to juggle other demands and then picking things up again later in life? " M. B Edinburgh

Yes! I absolutely agree! - it's become this 'do or die expectation' to go stellar (for women esp) in careers in their 30's or "that's it" ??!

Mia, London, UK

eh? men aren't the way god made them. they're the way women made them.

jem, london, uk

My testosterone levels must be deficient as I am filled with horror at the thought of my feet being "clamped hard on the career accelerator."

Daniel, Belfast,

"Women tend to seek “inherent meaning” in their jobs, whereas men tend to seek domination."

I think you could turn this profound generaisation on is head and say that men find "inherent meaning" in working to be successful in whatever chosen field; business, arts, literature, science, sport etc

Chris, London, England

In my experience combining work and motherhood is easier in a senior management position (greater autonomy) than further down the ladder. Nor do women need to be obsessive or extreme to have a high-powered career ... This article is just one more alibi for women to justify comfortable mediocrity !

susan durst, france,

to be honest at the end of the day we do it all for children! and as family court have it the woman is the best at this job without equal the man must be good at earning the money then the family unit works better for the children their are exceptions to this but overall its the way god designed us

t.oakes, rainhill Merseyside, england

Well, the last 25 years, my wife has had plenty of money and free time to take up any career she wished. I have encouraged her to become all she is capable of becoming. She now has a BA in Classical Studies. And do you know what? She chooses to stay home, drink coffee and embroider Flower Fairies

Alan Robinson, Bjerreby, Denmark

Interesting article - in some ways I think you may have nailed it on the head - there certainly are movements other than upwards...and importantly it is not a trait to be denigrated.

Diane, Sydney, Australia

This is the way the world is. For example, I understand that at Shell Oil one must push ahead in your 30's to make it into the "doomsday book" - the corporation's list that defines who will move into upper management. Or has its name changed?

R. Jones, Nashville, TN, USA

Susan Pinker doesn't get to the cause of the profound difference beyond hormones. It's that men must compete so as to be chosen by women (men choose women for their fertlility). The male acts as 'genetic filter' for the whole lineage and is driven to polarise
(Steve Moxon: author, The Woman Racket)

Steve Moxon, Sheffield,

Maybe the problem lies with the idea that career progress must be made in your 30s or not at all. What's wrong with 'coasting' a little in your 30s to juggle other demands and then picking things up again later in life? Employers and recruiters needs to be more flexible about career paths.

MB, Edinburgh,

Sex equality at the moment is about directing women to be like men. What it should really be is about giving both genders a choice. Men cannot be the main childcareres in this world as only women are entitled to maternity leave.Women are invited to pre and post-natal classes by the NHS.Men aren't.

Greg, Surrey,

Also in Camilla Cavendish

Also in Columnists

Times Recommends

OUR COLUMNISTS

Camilla Cavendish

Camilla Cavendish has been a McKinsey management consultant, an aid worker, and CEO of a not-for-profit company. She is now a leader writer and columnist on The Times