5 ms·

>Female dominated jobs have less flexibility on average then male dominated jobs. It is mostly that primary caregivers after they have children need more flexib

>Female dominated jobs have less flexibility on average then male dominated jobs. It is mostly that primary caregivers after they have children need more flexibility, but original choice of occupation does not reflect this later need. Source? In finance I don't see my boss making my female colleagues skip going to the dentist while letting male colleagues go. I do see the lady that sits near me leave all the time for appointments or what have you for her kids. I don't really mind, I think it's good that we have flexibility, especially with all the top-down directive to make sure women (not men obviously just women) have more scheduling freedom. Personally, I'd take the scheduling freedom and work half time and stay at home with my kids instead of being stuck in a high-pressure career - but I don't have that option. >That would be unusal, nurses I know have to be on the job on time and at schedule True to some extent. When you're actually scheduled you have to be on there on schedule, obviously, but if you don't like your schedule then you can just jump to another hospital, at least in any mid-sized city with a few different hospitals and clinics. I don't see men working at Ford or something complaining that they can't just come in whenever is convenient for their family. I was actually having this discussion with a pharmacist (obviously not a nurse but a nurse on my team was listening in) and she was lamenting about her schedule - really likes her job but doesn't like the schedule - so I was giving her advice (mansplaining and placing an emotional burden on her and others if you live in SF) on how to handle having this conversation with her manager. Ultimately though you don't get everything you want and you have to be willing to quit the job if it doesn't fit your schedule - some people just aren't because of the money or whatever (not unique to women either, obviously). If you're a nurse (because that was the example) and your kids demand more time than your job allows, you should find a new job - it's not your employers responsibility to pay you for not being there or not doing work. They can accommodate you if they can - tech is easier to do that in, but otherwise it's your life and those are your decisions. Be an adult.

monkeynotes 9y ago
> it's not your employers responsibility to pay you for not being there While this is perhaps true in principle, in practice employers pay you not to be at work all the time. If an employer didn't pay you to be sick or take a vacation you'd probably quit. Setting expectations about what is an acceptable work load is an ongoing conversation between employees and employers. > I'd take the scheduling freedom and work half time and stay at home with my kids instead of being stuck in a high-pressure career - but I don't have that option. > you should find a new job I firmly believe that if you are not happy then you should either make life changes to meet your acceptable happiness criteria, or rethink your expectations and acquiesce. Whichever is easier. The main thing is to get happy. The only thing in life worth anything is happiness, pursue it at all costs.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  I don't disagree with you here. You're right that employers pay for vacation - what I wanted to convey was that a flexible schedule is part of the workplace expectations that are set as part of the contract between employees and employers, but what I don't like is the focus on child-rearing as a battle cry for women to spend less time at work or have a more flexible schedule. Frankly, just don't have a baby then. I view my hobbies as more important than your children or your life decisions, yet I don't get a flexible schedule for those, do I? I don't get flex time off to visit an ailing family member do I? I'm fine with people getting time off for kids, but I'm not ok with it being this giant circle-jerk from HBS every other day about how women need more flex time. Don't have kids then! Work just as many hours as men do! I don't need to have it shoved in my face everyday about how you want to have your cake and eat it too. I agree with your second point as well. I actually have a great job that I enjoy, but most men my age that I know (anecdote) are under a lot of pressure and have to stay late instead of spending time with their family or pursuing hobbies or whatever. I don't view their plight as any better or worse than that of a mother but it still exists. I feel bad for them. And with that being said, I do like the Swedish (or is it Norway?) model of allotting time to both parents by law to split as they see fit, versus in the U.S. where it's somehow only about the well-being of mothers. The feminists in the United States have somehow turned gender equality into good stuff for women only, and I have a problem with that. Just as I have a problem with a man making more money than a woman for the same work or sexual misconduct in the workplace as alluded to by the author, though again I don't like how we brush this happening to men under the rug and throw up a "man up" anytime somebody mentions it. I've been uncomfortably sexually harassed (and didn't even realize it at the time) by and older gay man when I interned at a company, including attempting to invite me over and "pay" for me to clean his house, telling me I looked like I had a runners ass, and other related things. At the time I just thought he was a little cooky, he never was explicitly mean, but that was still sexual harassment.

monkeynotes 9y ago

> it's not your employers responsibility to pay you for not being there While this is perhaps true in principle, in practice employers pay you not to be at work all the time. If an employer didn't pay you to be sick or take a vacation you'd probably quit. Setting expectations about what is an acceptable work load is an ongoing conversation between employees and employers. > I'd take the scheduling freedom and work half time and stay at home with my kids instead of being stuck in a high-pressure career - but I don't have that option. > you should find a new job I firmly believe that if you are not happy then you should either make life changes to meet your acceptable happiness criteria, or rethink your expectations and acquiesce. Whichever is easier. The main thing is to get happy. The only thing in life worth anything is happiness, pursue it at all costs.

muninn_ 9y ago
I don't disagree with you here. You're right that employers pay for vacation - what I wanted to convey was that a flexible schedule is part of the workplace expectations that are set as part of the contract between employees and employers, but what I don't like is the focus on child-rearing as a battle cry for women to spend less time at work or have a more flexible schedule. Frankly, just don't have a baby then. I view my hobbies as more important than your children or your life decisions, yet I don't get a flexible schedule for those, do I? I don't get flex time off to visit an ailing family member do I? I'm fine with people getting time off for kids, but I'm not ok with it being this giant circle-jerk from HBS every other day about how women need more flex time. Don't have kids then! Work just as many hours as men do! I don't need to have it shoved in my face everyday about how you want to have your cake and eat it too. I agree with your second point as well. I actually have a great job that I enjoy, but most men my age that I know (anecdote) are under a lot of pressure and have to stay late instead of spending time with their family or pursuing hobbies or whatever. I don't view their plight as any better or worse than that of a mother but it still exists. I feel bad for them. And with that being said, I do like the Swedish (or is it Norway?) model of allotting time to both parents by law to split as they see fit, versus in the U.S. where it's somehow only about the well-being of mothers. The feminists in the United States have somehow turned gender equality into good stuff for women only, and I have a problem with that. Just as I have a problem with a man making more money than a woman for the same work or sexual misconduct in the workplace as alluded to by the author, though again I don't like how we brush this happening to men under the rug and throw up a "man up" anytime somebody mentions it. I've been uncomfortably sexually harassed (and didn't even realize it at the time) by and older gay man when I interned at a company, including attempting to invite me over and "pay" for me to clean his house, telling me I looked like I had a runners ass, and other related things. At the time I just thought he was a little cooky, he never was explicitly mean, but that was still sexual harassment.