Women at work

There is still a problem with inequality between men and women in the work place. Women still tend to get the lower paid jobs. Why?

I think there are two main reasons:

1/There is still a perception that women are less capable than men in many fields

It's subtle but it's true. If I am having a discussion about something with someone and they do not believe some fact I have put forward - I often defer to my husband. "That's true isn't it?". I do it instinctively - and people respond with belief after hearing my husband agree. Why? I am just as qualified as him - and in the same area. Why is his opinion more reliable? He is a man - that is why. It's not simply a matter of numbers - two people's opinion being better than one: it rarely occurs the other way around. And this has gone on for generations - my Mum does it sometimes - and my Grandmother did it all the time. I suppose it's learnt behaviour - and partly my fault. I am perpetuating the problem by going along with it. I am showing that I doubt myself - and believe my husabnd to know more.

The other reason the perception that women are less capable persists is because of the lack of role models. You don't see many women scientists - therefore women must not be good at science. I was actually told by someone in charge of admissions at a Cambridge college, that she thought women were less interested by science, since less of them applied for it, and that she would therefore reduce the number of women studying science at the college - so that their overall results would improve (i.e. she would only pick the cre'me de la cre'me of the women). This reasoning doesn't work. It just means that the women in science will feel more isolated - and that the ones chosen will be probably more masculine (i.e. conforming to the stereotypes that currently excel at the subject). The argument that a few women have got to the top means that any women can is bogus. Those women who suceed in the male world may simply be quite masculine women (look at Margaret Thatcher).

Women should be aware of this themsleves too. Most women also believe men to be more capable in certain professions.

2/Biology

Women were dealt a bad hand here - at least in so far as work goes. Just when they are at their peak professionally they have to decide whether to have children or not. If they have children the chances are that their career will suffer. They will have to take some time away from work - by the time they come back (if they can come back) - no doubt someone else will have taken over all their projects and they will be less essential and less likely to be promoted etc. They may have to switch to part time work (which is never as highly thought of as full time).

Things are considerably worse in some professions. Young academics are only ever given short term contracts - and althought these contracts by EU law are required to include maternity cover - there are ways around it: for example in Italy they give out bursaries instead of salaries (even to researchers who have PhDs) - and a bursary means that you are considered as a student - as a student you don't have maternity cover. In Germany bursaries are also given - you don't pay tax on these, but the "employer" also doesn't pay half of your medical insurance (as is usually the case in Germany). It also means you are obliged to take out private insurance rather than state insurance and this is more expensive for women.



Women are a lot better off than they used to be in Europe but there is still a long way to go. To have equality women need to be accepted as women, not survive by adapting so that they are like men. Many women want to have children - it is a part of their womanhood - and this needs to be accepted by the workplace - if women are to have true equality.

More buses

The public transport system in the UK is a big mess. There has been a lack of investment in it for decades and consequently it is possibly the worst in Europe. London fares better than most of the rest of the UK. But none-the-less commuters stuffed into the Tube during the rush hour certainly wish for something better.

The only answer possible is that public transport cannot be privately run. If it is run for profit, and people have to take it - they are a captive audience - customer comfort will never be a priority. The privately run bus and train services don't really face any competition. Over the small areas each one covers they mostly have a monopoly.

But what can be done? It will take many years to build new railway tracks - the tracks that should have been built years ago - while instead branch lines were being dismantled.

A short term solution must simply be this. Buy lots of busses (and employ lots of bus drivers) and put them on the roads that were built instead of the train lines. It's not an ideal solution - but it's a cheap way of quickly improving the situation, and it has the advantage of using past (misguided) investment in road building infrastructure to its full environmentally friendly potential. If a bus runs every 5 or 10 mins (rather than every half hour) and people know that they can turn up at a bus stop (preferably with a shelter) when they feel like it and not have to wait for a bus - then they will use the bus instead of the car. Who would want to spend half an hour looking for somewhere to park in the town centre (and possibly scraping their car in the process) - when instead they could simply spend 5 mins waiting for a bus?

And what about tolls on the roads? The Government should charge tolls on the roads where busses run. It's not fair to tax people in cars when they have no alternative - but it's fair to charge people driving along bus routes. And it would have the added advantage of keeping the bus routes relatively free of cars - thus enabling the busses to run on time (a nice alternative for bus lanes when the road isn't wide enough).

On her high horse - first posting

Hello - this is my first posting. Welcome to "on her high horse". The reason for the name is that my family always says "she's on her high horse again", when I begin to deliver one of my crazy theories about the way the world should be. So, to save my family from further distress, I will henceforth air my views on my blog.

Crazy idea for a better way to run the world - no.1:

I have been mulling this one over for some time - but the recent fire in Paris brought it to my attention again. In the UK - and clearly in Paris too - there is a shortage of affordable housing. This is caused by a few people who buy up many properties and force house prices beyond what is affordable by most people. These people then rent out the properties. They can charge a high rent - because the renters cannot afford to buy - and the owners have little incentive to keep the properties at a high standard because they have a captive market. Those who can't afford to buy end up living in badly-maintained, yet expensive, housing. There are some laws in Britain to protect renters - but often they seem to have little effect.

If everyone was limited to owning one house each - house prices would fall - and more people would be able to afford to buy a house.

Problem #1 - Families with one home would end up with houses that were worth much less than their mortgage - and so the law would also punish them.
Solution - Bring the law in gradually so that the effect was not immediate. Possibly introduce some government compensation (for one house only).

Problem #2 - Some people would still need to rent - who could rent houses to them?
Solution - Allow people over 65 to own more than one house. They could rent out houses - and supplement their pensions - thus the pensions crisis would also be somewhat alleviated. The number of houses they could own, of course, would still have to be limited.