No breeders, thank you

10 July 2007

1 minute read

Rumour has it there's a new name for female bankers of child-bearing age.

According to one headhunter (who steadfastly refuses to go on the record), at least one of his clients specifies that candidates he puts forward mustn't be women liable to take time off for procreation - AKA 'breeders'.

Given this rules out just about every woman aged from 16 to 40 (or even 60 thanks to IVF), it obviously infringes sex discrimination legislation. Nor does it bode particularly well for banks' aspirations to bump up the proportion of female managing directors from 20% to something more in line with the proportion of women in the general population.

Question is, how common is the 'breeder' moniker? Not very, according to recruiters. "I've never, ever heard that word used," says Alex Williams, a consultant at Pelham International. "I don't know who his client is, but it's somewhat offensive. All my clients are cognisant of equal relations and want the best person whether it's a woman or a man," he adds.

Banks' diversity specialists are equally dismissive. "This kind of thing is very unusual and, if true, would probably come from a single rogue line manager," says one.

AUTHORSarah Butcher

Global Editor

an
anonymous
18 September 2007
I concur with the comment regarding the problems of females in the City - first experiencing problems because of being of childbearing age (many do not have children as they need to be sure of being able to support themselves financially)Subsequently women are suffering age discrimination far earlier than men - it seems that women in the city have to be attractive to men to succeed and this perceived attractiveness declines after a certain age.
Reply
An
Anon
31 August 2007
Its true. The city of london is simply a group of individuals a mini society if you wil. I personally have faced racism and know girls who felt they were being sexually discriminated for certain roles they went for. However as is ALWAYS the case anyone who speaks out is ridiculed for pulling the race card or the sex card! Lose- lose situation. :(
Reply
La
Lawyer
6 August 2007
If you have resource problems when covering for a woman have on maternity leave, then take this out on HR who should organise things better, not on the woman who has committed the "sin" of becoming pregnant.
You may be interested to know that 6 months paternity leave is on the cards. What will banks do then? Refuse to hire any man of child procreating age?
Reply
Ni
Nicole
18 July 2007
To Jonny "I would never work for a woman - useless, scatty and bitchy" Wilkinson; it's not nice to talk about your mother like that.... By the way, to those who are talking about women "planning" to get pregnant as soon as they get a job with the right conditions - are you aware that most women can't just have babies by snapping their fingers, it can take months or even years for it to happen. Therefore, I firmly believe that the majority of those that fall pregnant just after taking up a new role are unlikely to have planned it that way deliberately.
Also, given that this kind of discrimination is alive and well, despite all the legislation, and the continuing grumbles from those who are left to pick up the slack when a woman goes on maternity leave, (by the way, "L", your compensation is the fact that you'll have all those extra years of pension contibutions that the mothers will have missed out on. And if your HR dept insists that you use existing resources to cover, how is that the fault of the woman on maternity leave?)
I wonder whether we are getting to a point where women will have to prove that we are using some form of contraceptive before we can get hired?
Reply
Ni
Nicole
17 July 2007
To Jonny "I would never work for a woman - useless, scatty and bitchy" Wilkinson; it's not nice to talk about your mother like that.... By the way, to those who are talking about women "planning" to get pregnant as soon as they get a job with the right conditions - are you aware that most women can't just have babies by snapping their fingers, it can take months or even years for it to happen. Therefore, I firmly believe that the majority of those that fall pregnant just after taking up a new role are unlikely to have planned it that way deliberately.
Also, given that this kind of discrimination is alive and well, despite all the legislation, and the continuing grumbles from those who are left to pick up the slack when a woman goes on maternity leave, (by the way, "L", your compensation is the fact that you'll have all those extra years of pension contibutions that the mothers will have missed out on. And if your HR dept insists that you use existing resources to cover, how is that the fault of the woman on maternity leave?)
I wonder whether we are getting to a point where women will have to prove that we are using some form of contraceptive before we can get hired?
Reply