Despite the provocative headline that got you this far, I'm sure there's something to it.

So few women top executives exist that I'm sure there's some "boys club" reason behind it in the board rooms of major corporations where, not coincidentally, there are relatively few women.

But what about female line workers: the female clerks, saleswomen, scientists and engineers. Not the woman who aspires to being the CEO, but the woman who, like most men, just wants to earn a living.

I've often wondered about the statistics and have yet to find an answer to this question: are the statisticians comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges?

Here's what I mean: 

Most men are ready to travel or even relocate away from friends and family if it will improve their career opportunities. I strongly suspect that while many woman are also ready to improve their careers in this way, most women are not. 

I strongly suspect that many women still head toward careers in line with natural feminine inclinations to nurture: teaching, nursing, veterinary care and assistantship jobs, art and craft-oriented jobs.

Add to this some of the disadvantages of women in the workplace such as, greater absenteeism (female health and family commitment reasons), more likely to be a smoker (less likely to give up a break in a crisis situation), and less likely to accept a career move if it means leaving office friends behind, and...

...I wonder what the stats about advancement opportunities and pay would look like if one compared the women who were more like men against their male counterparts.

Views: 1384

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hey Sarah,

Reading that post again, I think I should expound since it might sound a little curt. I think we agree, I'm just pointing out that there can be bad mothers just like there can be bad fathers, for all sorts of varied reasons. I guess I'm stating the obvious but I think most people aren't aware of how depraved some mothers can be. You might be in a better position to know this having worked for Corrections but a lot of people might not, imo.

As for bad fathers/boyfriends, nutjob control freaks, etc. we've all heard of them and they are the driving force behind quite a bit of domestic relations law.

So, finally, your point about maternal instinct and the glass ceiling is well-taken, I'd just rather assess this not by sex but by Individual.

- kk


Thanks Reg. From what I've read this is nothing new, but the trend is increasing: Also some great discussions on kpcc today on the topic for those of you in CA.

Speaking of cultural gender inequalities, I've spent some time on the Navajo reservation, where you may see a man riding a horse, with his wife walking alongside, or if he's a bit more affluent (relatively speaking) he'll be driving his truck, while his wife sits in back, in the truck bed. They shop at the local store and return home the same way.

The first thought, is what a horrible misogynist this man must be, until you learn that that horse, or that truck, is all the man owns. The house is hers, the food is hers, and if she CHOOSES to allow him to eat her food that night, he will, if she CHOOSES to allow him to sleep in her house that night, he will, if she doesn't, he doesn't.

Strange to us, but it works for them, and has for several thousand years.

This just proves that the "everything must be 50/50 or the woman is oppressed" theory ignores the way relationships in couples actually work in practice.

Hey Unseen,

I think this road of reasoning will get much better mileage. Can you give me some examples of in practice inequalities?

- kk

I might if I knew what you mean by "in practice inequalities." Did I use that terminology?

Hey Unseen,

No, you didn't. But you said something about inequalities that tend to exist in practice, 2 replies above, "...ignores the way relationships in couples actually work in practice".


Can you give me an example of "how a relationship works" in practice. I think you might have something there, imo.

- kk

Anyone who believes there's a glass ceiling should consider the alternative, that there's a sticky floor.

Rebecca Shambaugh is a successful business exec and writer who maintains that women who want to succeed are often their own worst enemies. Her article explains why women often don't reach their full potential in their organizations. Read her article here.

Here you go unseen:  I finally got around to looking up the actual Yale study that they referenced at that discussion, and they also had data on salaries offered.  Remember this study passed around identical resumes save for the name - half were for John and the other half for Jennifer.

The mean starting salary offered the female student, $26,507.94, was significantly lower than that of $30,238.10 to the male student [t(124) = 3.42, P < 0.01]

On average, Jennifer was offered 12.3% less than John - simply because her name was Jennifer and not John.  So it's not 30% in this case, but it's still significant.  The interesting thing is that women offered Jennifer less at about the same rate as men.  We're all biased in this way, and we often don't even know it.

In the article you provided, Rebecca doesn't claim that there's a sticky floor instead of a glass ceiling.  Instead, she seems to claim that there are both:

Yes, the unequal playing field in the workplace still needs to improve. But we must change our habits and outmoded behaviors.

I absolutely agree.  Women need to change their outlooks and attitudes just as much as men.

Women need to change their outlooks and attitudes just as much as men.

The usually unstated bias that's evident by reading between the lines in most discussions of the glass ceiling is that it's there primarily because of the men at or above that ceiling.

Hey Colleen,

I absolutely agree.  Women need to change their outlooks and attitudes just as much as men.

I agree, we are all products of the environment and culture that shaped us.

- kk


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service