I'll take domestic bliss over corporate success

TO BE perfectly honest, most of the time I feel like I should have been born in the 1950s.

The whole idea of the domestic goddess appeals to me: the full-skirted day dresses, the lipstick, the heels, the housework and, of course, the colour-co-ordinated kitchenware.

I long for that old world charm, but instead I've been brought forth into a world of high-powered corporate businesswomen in pantsuits, which doesn't have quite the same attraction.

Today there is an expectation for women to be successful, and this success seems to be centred around the fact that we must live up to the triumphs of our male counterparts.

As a woman, I don't think we should be comparing ourselves so much to men. Rather, we should be embracing our strengths to succeed in ways better suited to us.

The first major influx of women into the workforce was during World War I, when the men were off fighting, as this was the only way that some countries continued to function.

Women became factory workers and farmers in order to sustain their households, as the usual breadwinners were absent. Before this, it was generally frowned upon for women to work, and the upper classes sat idle.

The number of women working grew from here, with more and more entering the workforce. These days, women can have any job they set their minds to, with women becoming athletes, CEOs and even prime ministers, with Helen Clark being a fine example.

Yet women are still paid less than men, with the average woman earning 80 per cent that of a man doing the same job. When asked for an explanation for this, Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association head Alasdair Thompson sparked an outcry by saying it was because women took time off because of their periods and maternity leave.

Success comes in many shapes and forms and giving birth to a child is one example. Many years of work go into the raising of a son or daughter.

Working women should get more credit and more pay for their efforts, instead of being discriminated against.

There is a lot of prejudice behind success these days. We seem to believe that to be successful one must be in a powerful position and earning a high salary.

We see men as more "successful" as their jobs typically earn more prestige and money. That leaves women feeling they have to live up to the accomplishments of men when they don't necessarily have the same strengths.

For example, it's been proven that women are better communicators, build better relationships, co-operate better and are better under pressure.

And yes, the age-old multitasking claim is indeed true, as found when investigated by Professor Keith Laws at the University of Hertfordshire.

We should be looking for jobs that support our strengths.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for a woman to be a CEO, as many of the traits we have would help a woman to head a company very successfully. I'm saying that this shouldn't be all that matters.

Take Betty Draper and Joan Holloway from the American period drama Mad Men. Set in the 1960s, it takes place in a mainly male advertising firm. Betty quits work to become a fulltime mother, and Joan decides to pursue a career at the firm.

Both are beautiful women with very different career paths.

They don't strive to be traditionally "successful". They stand out with their femininity and don't try to blend into the male-dominated environment around them. I admire them for this and for their class and persistence. The clothes probably help a little, too.

Sophie Gardiner, Year 11, St Cuthbert's College