Ground Floor: Former Irish president Mary Robinson upset a few people with her recent comments about the number of bright women in the US with master's degrees who planned to give up work after they married and had children.
Mrs Robinson said these women were "copping out" and weren't trying to "have society adjust to let them continue to fulfil their potential". Stay-at- home mothers, who feel that looking after their children is fulfilling their potential, complained that her remarks demeaned their choices.
Unfortunately, whenever you talk about women in the workforce, someone is going to be upset. Women who stay at home rightly point out that they are working, and that if they were employing childminders the work would be paid for. Women who work outside the home are aware that their married-with- children colleagues have additional stresses in their lives. But every time there's a debate about women and their potential, the home-and-family woman is pitted against career-woman in a fight for the moral high ground.
It's no wonder we haven't managed to scale the heights of boardroom domination when we're too busy criticising each other's choices. But if you do complain that female representation in the corporate boardroom is pitifully low, you are reminded that Brenda Barnes, the president of PepsiCo and widely tipped to be its first female chief executive, gave up her job to look after her children because she didn't want to miss any more of their birthdays.
There are times when anyone in a top job would like to walk away from it, live a different life and enjoy more time with the family. There has to be a time when the allure of all-nighters in the office palls when set against an evening with your children. But why are the two things always placed in such stark opposition? Why is home baking and listening to the wheels-on-the-bus- going-round-and-round portrayed as good and wholesome, while closing a billion-dollar deal and securing the jobs of people who work for you considered non-fulfilling?
Why is it that, having put in all that study to gain a qualification, so many women apparently think it's not worth continuing? Perhaps it's because there is an additional struggle, as Mary Robinson said. And that is changing society to fit in with the needs of the working-outside-the- -home-and-liking-it-which-doesn't-make-her-a-bad-person mother. There has been so much written about this before (including by myself) that I won't rehash the discussion, but bright, educated women who are used to business life do like wider intellectual challenges than Postman Pat and Barney. It doesn't mean they value Pat and Barney any less, but it does mean they feel there's more to life. It doesn't mean the thrills of the boardroom are a more fulfilling challenge than potty-training your child. It's just different.
But to combine both of these things, society has to change. Today's women, who don't have to fight sex discrimination on a daily basis or the ban on married women working in the Civil Service, are more prepared to accept the status quo. Because every time somebody does bring up the subject of childcare for working mothers, there is an outcry from stay-at-home mums, who think their role is being devalued if their working sisters get some recognition.
We are our own worst enemies. Every time we get upset over a perceived slight we merely fuel the fire.
Meantime, in the schools of the Republic, the concern is not the lack of women in the boardroom, but the lack of men in teaching posts. According to a report by the Primary Education Committee, 18 per cent of primary teachers and about 50 of more than 400 final year students at the St Patrick's teacher college are male.
Back in the summer, the news reports were all about girls outperforming boys in exams, where the gender gap continues to widen. In this year's Junior Cert, girls outperformed boys in all but four subjects, and there have been calls, yet again, for the Leaving Cert to include a two-stage exam that might help boys to reach their potential.
But why are they all so worried? Let's face it, even if boys are doing way worse in the exams, they're still going to end up with the top jobs, aren't they? And even if highly qualified girls come storming into the office, they'll burn bright for a few years, then wander off to leave the top job to a less-qualified bloke while they stay home and mind the babies.
It's not as though we don't need someone to do a good job in raising children. It's just that it's such a shame to think that the common sense and multi-tasking that so many women bring to the office will be lost in a raft of baby powder and school runs. And that we're conspiring to let it happen.
If taking time out to look after the children was valued in corporate land, things would be better. There is some hope. Brenda Barnes re-entered the workforce last February. Eight months later she was named chief executive of Sara Lee. She hasn't lost it!
