dear all
my last email on fellowships/jobs for those who do not wish to disrupt
their families caused such a reaction that I've had some further thoughts.
Firstly I never did mean to restrict it to women partners/ married
partners/ or even partners of a specific sexuality..it was simply the most
obvious example...I was thinking of those currently on Daphne Jackson
fellowships who, after a couple of years part time to get back into the
swing of things after a career break..must then compete for jobs...
most of these are women with children..and the desire to stay ( in this
case it would usually be stay rather than follow) in the same
city as one's partner is rather more complex than the idea to 'stand by
one's man' as one reply suggested. Such people are in mid-life and into
a network of committments involving children's schools/friendships
as well as the job of the partner and thier entire social life.
Of course what this outlines is that traditionally men have been prepared
to disrupt all of this to pursue job opprotunities, and women have rarely
been sufficiently selfish.
This brings me onto the stigma 
of being the 'person who got the job because they were following their
partner' rather than fully on merit. It no longer looks so full of stigma
now that I write it without sex bias. But anyway, in my experience such
stigma would be short lived if one proved oneself in the job.. However I
think the real problem lies in the concept of the 'best person for the
job'. Our culture subscribes to this...but then when one begins to think
about
it there can be more than one opinion as to who that is. For high level
jobs most of the applicants who are shortlisted are of roughly equivalent
ability and who gets it on the day can be a bit of a lottery involving
personal chemistry with the committee.....
as an aside here, returning to women specifically, it is often true that
committees in science are male dominated..even without overt sexism this
can mean that the chemistry works in favour of the male..and we are into
a catch 22 here..there will nevr be enough senior women on these
committees, if they dont appoint junior ones....
now our concept of who is the best person often involves the image of the
scientist as a totally dedicated person who works evenings weekends..every
hour that God made.. this is historically what has stopped women with
families..
after all the best partner in the world will offer only  50% of the effort
on home and family..whereas for the traditional male this has been the
worst not the best he could expect. This could never change without
a corresonding change in attitudes such that all people male or female 
are expected to/allowed to spend a reasonable amount of time outside
the lab with family or indeed on broader social committments. And with
this being celebrated as making them more eligible rather than less
eligible for good jobs. 
now unless this sounds like cloud cuckoo land..I have enough experience on
committees to know that these days the need to appoint someone from within
the EU is being taken very seriously..committees have to demonstrate not
that their non EU candidate is the best for the job..but that no EU
candidate could actually do the job... I am thinking of some similar
encoragement to employ the socially responsible rather than the
workaholic

well, just a thought

amanda






%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%