The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 9, 2015 11:23:02 GMT -5
BUT, unlike a lot of my female peers, Why do you hate women? I don't. I also don't resort to emotional all encompassing statements when something that I don't agree with is stated. I merely posted what I've observed during my career and you choose to turn it into an emotional attack. Kinda makes my point.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2015 11:27:59 GMT -5
I don't. I also don't resort to emotional all encompassing statements when something that I don't agree with is stated. I merely posted what I've observed during my career and you choose to turn it into an emotional attack. Kinda makes my point. You don't think claiming that you are the only hard working, dependable woman is an emotional, all encompassing statement?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,331
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 9, 2015 11:29:49 GMT -5
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 9, 2015 11:39:42 GMT -5
So if it's all women not being aggressive enough and not speaking up enough then how exactly does that explain the studies done where testers are put into a room and handed a resume with a man's generic white sounding name on it. Then they are given another resume a few minutes later where the only difference is the name has been changed to either a female name or a more ethnic sounding name. Consistently the salary offer decreases for the second resume and traits that were positive during the first half of the experiment become negative traits in the second half. They never meet the "candidates" they do not exist. The resumes are word for word the same the only thing that changes is the name at the top. So where is the bias coming from now that we can't use the excuse the female candidate simply didn't try hard enough? journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Abstract/2009/10000/Interventions_That_Affect_Gender_Bias_in_Hiring__A.36.aspxlink.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018839203698I'm not denying that some bias exists. All I can state is that in my profession (accounting) and my sub-specialty (taxes) more emphasis is placed on who can get the job done as opposed to the gender of the person doing it. In public accounting (inarguably the most driven and brutal segment of our profession) you start out at staff level with almost equal ratios. Then between the senior and manager level women take breaks to have children (say what you want, men taking FMLA is rare as opposed to women of child bearing age which is common and FMLA is available to both genders for the birth of a child). By the time most women make manager they have children. It's then that the requests start coming in to balance work/life (again - mostly from the women) and in a decent amount of cases, work part-time. Now there's nothing wrong with this, but don't blame business for women not getting promoted at the same rate as men. It's even more noticeable at the partner level. Now improvement has been made here (in big 4) where 20% of the partners are female. But when you wonder about the gender imbalance you have to consider other factors, like cutting back on hours. Lest anyone say one person's observation doesn't make it true, the attached study shows that around 80% of all part time employees in public are women, which - let's face it, means your career will not progress as far as someone who stayed full time their entire career. www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-accounting
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Nov 9, 2015 12:04:45 GMT -5
so then we're back to the "career vs. family" argument. The Captain, you were able to take on more responsibilities at work even after you had a child - why is that? Did your DH "mommy track" himself?
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Nov 9, 2015 12:06:27 GMT -5
So if it's all women not being aggressive enough and not speaking up enough then how exactly does that explain the studies done where testers are put into a room and handed a resume with a man's generic white sounding name on it. Then they are given another resume a few minutes later where the only difference is the name has been changed to either a female name or a more ethnic sounding name. Consistently the salary offer decreases for the second resume and traits that were positive during the first half of the experiment become negative traits in the second half. They never meet the "candidates" they do not exist. The resumes are word for word the same the only thing that changes is the name at the top. So where is the bias coming from now that we can't use the excuse the female candidate simply didn't try hard enough? journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Abstract/2009/10000/Interventions_That_Affect_Gender_Bias_in_Hiring__A.36.aspxlink.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018839203698I'm not denying that some bias exists. All I can state is that in my profession (accounting) and my sub-specialty (taxes) more emphasis is placed on who can get the job done as opposed to the gender of the person doing it. In public accounting (inarguably the most driven and brutal segment of our profession) you start out at staff level with almost equal ratios. Then between the senior and manager level women take breaks to have children (say what you want, men taking FMLA is rare as opposed to women of child bearing age which is common and FMLA is available to both genders for the birth of a child). By the time most women make manager they have children. It's then that the requests start coming in to balance work/life (again - mostly from the women) and in a decent amount of cases, work part-time. Now there's nothing wrong with this, but don't blame business for women not getting promoted at the same rate as men. It's even more noticeable at the partner level. Now improvement has been made here (in big 4) where 20% of the partners are female. But when you wonder about the gender imbalance you have to consider other factors, like cutting back on hours. Lest anyone say one person's observation doesn't make it true, the attached study shows that around 80% of all part time employees in public are women, which - let's face it, means your career will not progress as far as someone who stayed full time their entire career.www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-accountingThis, in part is why it is difficult to compare apples to oranges. When I was in one of my earlier jobs, I worked with 5 dentists who were in the dentist-scientist program (dentists who got a MS in a specialty degree plus a PhD in the basic sciences) in those 14 years. It's a high powered program, a multi-million $$ grant that we received in order to train new faculty for the next generation of dentists, and promote dental research. Of those 5 I helped train, 3 were female and 2 were male. I went looking as to where they are all today. Of the women, one died, 2 are deans of the dental schools in their respective institutions. The one that died was running a very high powered research lab in a very competitive program at a university. She married later, and had 2 stepkids. The other 2 had their own children. Of the men, one is on the faculty at a university but it sounds like his private practice is his major job. The other is simply a dentist practicing in his specialty. These women were really the exception to the rule though. I was at a dinner one evening and seated at the table with a group who was on the admissions committee of the dental school. Their biggest problem was that they were getting better women candidates then men for admissions......however, in looking at the statistics as to how frequently women take off part time after they had kids, this was really causing some consternation to this committee. Many dental schools are at the max class size that they can have. Dental schools have closed, and there are programs that are going to have to pick up the slack. Currently, they are barely keeping pace of replacing retiring dentists, BUT they're having to worry about half the dental class moving to part time after they had a kid (and I seem to remember them kicking about the 80% figure too. Like with other fields, in dentistry it is highly technical and if you don't practice your skills, you lose them. So taking off 8-10 years while raising a family and working part time is not going to be sufficient to maintain your skills AND keep up with advancements. It really is a conundrum. I had always thought it was pretty cool looking at the dental class pictures over the years and seeing how the classes would go from <10% female to over 60% female. I simply did not realize the impact that something like this had on those who were looking out at replacing those retiring in the near future.
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,759
|
Post by raeoflyte on Nov 9, 2015 12:18:51 GMT -5
On my floor we have male admins. No one thinks less of them (they actually do better work than the female admins). Both are being trained for better paying positions. One of the female admins is very bitter about this. But consider this, if you are going to invest your time in training someone will you do it for a strong producer who doesn't take a bunch of unplanned days off, or would you invest the time in the person who has to be micro-managed, often has to re-do work, and takes off without notice during critical times? It's not always about gender, but for some people that will be all they see. My profession is about 50-50 gender wise, yet women make up less than 5% of the top ranks (it's actually closer to about 1%) in my specialty. Yea, if I'd been a dude I'd probably have been at my current level about 7-8 years earlier. BUT, unlike a lot of my female peers, I didn't take time off for family, go on a work-life balanced schedule, ask for a lightened work load, or even wait for the promotions to come. I went and asked for the difficult projects, the hard assignments and pushed way outside my comfort zone. Women tend to be less aggressive then men, that also impacts how we get promoted. Is it businesses' fault if women don't sell themselves as aggressively, or take bigger risks to get that promotion? Honest question, I don't know the answer to. I do know that if I weren't as aggressive as I am, I would not have the position I have today. What did those 7-8 years in earnings difference cost you? That's okay based solely on your gender?!? Not to get "all emotional" on you, but does your daughter deserve to face that difference as well if she makes the same professional choices you do?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,331
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 9, 2015 12:27:04 GMT -5
So why aren't men leaving the full time work force in those numbers after they have children? Why are 80% of women compelled after children to go part time?
Please do not use the "well they are women and feel the biological drive to do so" argument. It's been shown in science for many years now that men undergo hormonal changes similar to those seen in women when they become parents. The idea that men only contribute their seed and then go off to hunt wooly mammoth has been debunked. So why aren't men "driven" to leave the workforce when they have children if it's all biological?
What unconcious biases are being put on women society wise and we are absording to think that it has to be an either/or situation?
And before anyone accuses me of being sexist I think asking these questions would benefit men as well. I am not enamored of the notion that my ass must be at my desk for X amount of time otherwise I am not "productive". I agree with Paul's "work smarter not harder" line of thinking, there are probably quite a few jobs that if you really looked deep enough don't require 40+ hour weeks.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 9, 2015 12:36:45 GMT -5
I don't. I also don't resort to emotional all encompassing statements when something that I don't agree with is stated. I merely posted what I've observed during my career and you choose to turn it into an emotional attack. Kinda makes my point. You don't think claiming that you are the only hard working, dependable woman is an emotional, all encompassing statement? No. In fact my statement was (because you must have read another poster's quote) I didn't say I was the ONLY hard working, but I will say that my success as compared to others is due to the fact that I worked more projects, took more risks, and took less time off, and did better than my peers. Know something, I bet every man would say that is the reason for his success as well, compared to his peers, but he wouldn't be accused of hating his own gender. At one point half the women in my group at one employer were either on FMLA, fixed hours, or part-time. In the 4 years that I worked there we had one man take FMLA. One. As opposed to at least eight women who took FMLA (which again, is ok but let's be honest and admit that taking time off work is likely to impact your career). Look at the posters on these boards - we use the PC phrase SAHP, but the vast majority of the SAHP's that post here are women. Again, nothing wrong with it, but you're not going to be promoted in business if you're not employed. Workforce participation rates are lower for women, women are more likely to quite if they have a high earning spouse, women are more likely to take time off to care for family. All of which are fine, but can't be ignored when we look at why women in general aren't represented equally at top ranks.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 9, 2015 12:36:47 GMT -5
... ... It's been shown in science for many years now that men undergo hormonal changes similar to those seen in women when they become parents. The idea that men only contribute their seed and then go off to hunt wooly mammoth has been debunked. So why aren't men "driven" to leave the workforce when they have children if it's all biological? What unconcious biases are being put on women society wise and we are absording to think that it has to be an either/or situation? ... Also, what unconscious biases are being put on men society wise?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2015 12:46:34 GMT -5
But the discussion wasn't about your success compared to other women. It was about your success compared to men. It is significant to me that you glided right past the part that your promotion took 7 to 8 years longer because you are a woman and proceeded to justify the bias against women.
Can you give me 3 paragraphs on why men get promoted faster than you do?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,331
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 9, 2015 12:47:11 GMT -5
Workforce participation rates are lower for women, women are more likely to quite if they have a high earning spouse, women are more likely to take time off to care for family.
And the question is WHY does this seem to fall mainly to women? Why are women exiting the workforce in more numbers for these situations than men?
If the "war is over" and women need to stop complaining then why are the numbers still so heavily skewed?
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Nov 9, 2015 12:51:22 GMT -5
You don't think claiming that you are the only hard working, dependable woman is an emotional, all encompassing statement? No. In fact my statement was (because you must have read another poster's quote) I didn't say I was the ONLY hard working, but I will say that my success as compared to others is due to the fact that I worked more projects, took more risks, and took less time off, and did better than my peers. Know something, I bet every man would say that is the reason for his success as well, compared to his peers, but he wouldn't be accused of hating his own gender. At one point half the women in my group at one employer were either on FMLA, fixed hours, or part-time. In the 4 years that I worked there we had one man take FMLA. One. As opposed to at least eight women who took FMLA (which again, is ok but let's be honest and admit that taking time off work is likely to impact your career). Look at the posters on these boards - we use the PC phrase SAHP, but the vast majority of the SAHP's that post here are women. Again, nothing wrong with it, but you're not going to be promoted in business if you're not employed. Workforce participation rates are lower for women, women are more likely to quite if they have a high earning spouse, women are more likely to take time off to care for family. All of which are fine, but can't be ignored when we look at why women in general aren't represented equally at top ranks. at our yearly "state of the business" meeting, our CEO talked about how there aren't many women or minorities at the VP and higher level and that they wanted to address that. I'm certain that there are qualified female and minority individuals who would make great VP+'s. But when you factor in all of the extra hours and travel, the only people who will still be interested are people either with older kids or no kids. And the people with older kids had to have put in a shit load of hours just to get the results to make them look attractive for a VP+ position. Those people again are probably going to be people without families or people who were able to foist a lot of the childrearing load onto their partner. Can any of these VP+ positions be done by two people instead of one? Split the travel and the hours so that no one person is going insane and the job still gets done. simply wishing to address the imbalance is pointless unless the company is willing to change some long-held beliefs and practices. If you want to make positions more attractive to minorites/women, figure out what they'd want/need and see what you can do.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 9, 2015 12:58:40 GMT -5
On my floor we have male admins. No one thinks less of them (they actually do better work than the female admins). Both are being trained for better paying positions. One of the female admins is very bitter about this. But consider this, if you are going to invest your time in training someone will you do it for a strong producer who doesn't take a bunch of unplanned days off, or would you invest the time in the person who has to be micro-managed, often has to re-do work, and takes off without notice during critical times? It's not always about gender, but for some people that will be all they see. My profession is about 50-50 gender wise, yet women make up less than 5% of the top ranks (it's actually closer to about 1%) in my specialty. Yea, if I'd been a dude I'd probably have been at my current level about 7-8 years earlier. BUT, unlike a lot of my female peers, I didn't take time off for family, go on a work-life balanced schedule, ask for a lightened work load, or even wait for the promotions to come. I went and asked for the difficult projects, the hard assignments and pushed way outside my comfort zone. Women tend to be less aggressive then men, that also impacts how we get promoted. Is it businesses' fault if women don't sell themselves as aggressively, or take bigger risks to get that promotion? Honest question, I don't know the answer to. I do know that if I weren't as aggressive as I am, I would not have the position I have today. What did those 7-8 years in earnings different cost you? That's okay based solely on your gender?!? Not to get "all emotional" on you, but does your daughter deserve to face that difference as well if she makes the same professional choices you do? Part of that 7-8 year difference was my own doing. It took me a long time to get comfortable with "selling" myself and making sure management knew I wanted the high risk projects and that I was good at my job. I actually went after my first high profile project after I was asked by my Partner why I wasn't putting my hat in the ring (didn't think I'd be considered). No, I didn't get that one, but I got the next one. Part of it was having those over me take credit for my work - yea not anymore. For too long I was 100% "team player" (which is more of a female trait) than "give me credit for what I've done". Is the above the "fault" of business? Is it really the "fault" of anyone? I don't think so but believe it needs to be recognized. The way men in general are wired, to some extent, makes them more successfull in business. We see the opposite in the classroom (where the female gender excells). And yes, I have no doubt I would have gotten a few promotions sooner had I been male. But I didn't let it stop me and I've achieved a rank few people make ever in their careers. So while there are some hurdles (both exterior and self-imposed) it's not impossible. As far as my daughter, she's smarter than me and unilke me she will have someone who functioned in business to coach her (if she wants) so I have no doubt she'll be fine if she wants to advance (OH here's another thing - maybe coaching by parents plays a role in career advancement - so I think it's a matter of a generation or two and the numbers will start going up as girls are coached more by their mothers). I just don't think it's reasonable to think you can expect similiar results from different inputs. If DD chooses to focus on family more than career I want her to be happy with that decision, instead of bitter that she didn't advance as much as she may have.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Nov 9, 2015 13:06:58 GMT -5
"If you've busted your butt working extra-long hours, put it on your resume, because the law of large numbers works against you. By the time a company is looking at hiring, say, 30 employees, the average very quickly becomes the reality. In a group of 100, say, for every woman working her butt off there's going to be one that barely works at all."
I'm sorry where do you put on your resume that you work x hours a week? Let's be honest, you don't. You make it to the interview and you sell yourself for all you can. You make sure you stand out.
I'm lucky, the 2 companies I interviewed with had strong female presence. My current company has a female CEO and about half the division managers at HQ are women. The only time a comment about my gender was a negative was my PM asked me not to photograph an area because of a homeless camp in the area and that he would take the necessary photographs. The other company had more female engineers at the office I interviewed at then male engineers.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Nov 9, 2015 13:11:41 GMT -5
It can be both, or more than just the women take time off/there are unconscious/conscious biases against women. I do think that people who argue different pay rates aren't always comparing apples to apples- the 70% number is kind of raw. Even when corrections are made for position/time in the workforce, though, there is still a substantial difference. There have been multiple studies showing that women/minorities are judged differently just by name, but there are also women who willingly or through necessity take the "mommy-track". Even barring uneven distribution of labor at home in most marriages, single parents are usually women, and being a single parent changes what you are able to take on employment-wise. These are also self-reinforcing issues- if women are paid less/promoted less/hired less, even in truly egalitarian families it will be more rational for the lower paid spouse (usually the woman, because of the biases shown), to be the one to take time off, leading her to be promoted less, etc, etc. I have also met people who are minorities who underperform and make it difficult to discipline them by playing the race card- this doesn't change the fact that high performers are discriminated against due to their status as minorities. If someone has taken half a decade off to raise kids, or takes a disproportionate amount of leave/does not work overtime, it is, in my opinion, acceptable that that person, all other things being equal, be advanced at a slower rate than someone who spent that period of time being present at work and jumping at opportunities that are logistically impossible as a primary caregiver. This does not take away from the fact that given no prior history, white males are treated with preference over minority and female candidates. Also...FINLAND HAS 62.5% FEMALES AMONG THEIR MINISTERS. WHY WOULD THEY DO SUCH A THING?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Nov 9, 2015 13:14:09 GMT -5
You're also forgetting the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg?
If women are already being discriminated against and being paid less for similar work, doesn't it stand to reason that they might throw up their hands and say, "Fine, if one of us has to take time off to care for _________, it might as well be me since I'm already making less money, have fewer opportunities and everybody already penalizes me by assuming I will." In other words, if you aren't going to be promoted regardless of what you do because the guy in charge assumes you're a ticking time bomb just waiting to ______, you might as well be the one in the couple that takes that role on.
You're assuming that women's actions are driving the difference in pay. I think in many professional positions, it's the opposite. The women get frustrated with already being penalized by the assumption that they will do those things and after a while, in disgust that no matter how hard they work they're still perceived as working less, they give up and do something else.
Your biased assumptions are a self-fulfilling prophecy. You assume something, based on those (often erroneous) assumptions you treat women a certain way and after a while the women conform to those expectations because of your treatment. I never made any assertions in this thread except that a quota system isn't the answer. Beyond that, I am trying to explain why, with statistics, women earn less and get promoted less. I am trying to explain what a hypothetical hiring manager might think. I've offered no opinion if that's right or wrong, or how I would do it or what I think. I think some of you have the perception that I have, or would, think this way or have or would discriminate against women based on what I said about a hiring manager. I think some of you are "putting words in my mouth" and making assumptions. As I said, I was simply explaining why I think women earn and get promoted less. That doesn't equate to an endorsement, or explain what I think.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Nov 9, 2015 13:13:47 GMT -5
Here is something that just happened last week. I promoted this part timer to assistant manager in my new building.
He was off the workforce for a couple of years because between his wife and him they have 3 kids under the age of 4. He only came back to work in May part time since his oldest from a previous relationship (he is 18) moved in with them and was helping out a bit.
Long story short, his wife lost her job and he needed a full time position (with benefits) and he was the most qualified candidate.
When I was asked why I picked him: I listed his qualifications; used to be a department manager before taking time off, best person for the job etc. I was asked if I knew why he took time off and I said yes: 3 kids under 4, he stayed home.
Answer from a 52 year old manager: oh he was doing the MR. MOM thing!
No, how about he was just doing the DAD thing.
Now rewind 3 months prior my regional Vice President was pissed that a meat manager was taking the full Month of July off. In a room full of other managers (some female); and they were all bashing the guy. I raised my hand and I said: technically he is entitled to 6 weeks per FMLA so we should be happy he is only taking 4. I know I am taking 3 when my kid(s) are born. He said: for all 3 of my kids I was there the next day after work (Regional Vice President is 58 I believe). No time off, no vacation... Right back to work!
So I know I will make his shit list when my wife gets pregnant and delivers because I will take my 3 weeks vacation all at once... His opinion be damned.
So here you have this guy in position of power, in a room full of managers (and HR) felt comfortable belittling a guy for doing the right thing by his wife and child.
Yes it is not convenient and others will have to pick up; but the business will survive just fine.
So his generations need to die off/retire so future fathers like this meat manager or me do not feel like they are putting their job in jeopardy or feel threaten for taking time off to spend with their newborn and spouse.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Nov 9, 2015 13:17:10 GMT -5
"If you've busted your butt working extra-long hours, put it on your resume, because the law of large numbers works against you. By the time a company is looking at hiring, say, 30 employees, the average very quickly becomes the reality. In a group of 100, say, for every woman working her butt off there's going to be one that barely works at all." I'm sorry where do you put on your resume that you work x hours a week? Let's be honest, you don't. You make it to the interview and you sell yourself for all you can. You make sure you stand out. I'm lucky, the 2 companies I interviewed with had strong female presence. My current company has a female CEO and about half the division managers at HQ are women. The only time a comment about my gender was a negative was my PM asked me not to photograph an area because of a homeless camp in the area and that he would take the necessary photographs. The other company had more female engineers at the office I interviewed at then male engineers. If I'm hiring someone and they try to sell themselves with how many hours they put it, I can't help but think they aren't very efficient.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Nov 9, 2015 13:22:45 GMT -5
I never made any assertions in this thread except that a quota system isn't the answer. Beyond that, I am trying to explain why, with statistics, women earn less and get promoted less. I am trying to explain what a hypothetical hiring manager might think. I've offered no opinion if that's right or wrong, or how I would do it or what I think. I think some of you have the perception that I have, or would, think this way or have or would discriminate against women based on what I said about a hiring manager. I think some of you are "putting words in my mouth" and making assumptions. As I said, I was simply explaining why I think women earn and get promoted less. That doesn't equate to an endorsement, or explain what I think. You made ridiculous assumptions and assertions stated as either your opinion or fact. my particular job requires a lot of travel. I think you'd be hard pressed to find 50% women to do it. Regarding promotions, women generally prefer to prioritize family over career, as compared to men. Women work fewer hours than men. you give the top jobs and the raises to your higher performing employees. Obviously, I'm generalizing here. Again, it's a load of shit. A sexist, patronizing, obnoxious load of shit.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Nov 9, 2015 13:23:10 GMT -5
Personally, if I was a manager, I'd look at a resume and make my decision based on the qualifications presented, regardless of race or gender.
If I had worked with the individal before, I would take into account a number of factors, quality of work, personality, professionalism, quantity of work, ect.
Nationwide stats wouldn't amount to a hill of beans, neither would what others think, or any other race, gender, ect.
I might place some weight on hours worked, but even then, I'd be more impressed with employees who did more in less time, and that would only be one of many factors.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Nov 9, 2015 13:26:06 GMT -5
Again, it's a load of shit. A sexist, patronizing, obnoxious load of shit. It is the same thing the captain is saying.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Nov 9, 2015 13:26:13 GMT -5
Got to love guys like TheHaitian. My husband is similar- possibly not going to take the full FMLA time period, but WILL be working from home for the length of my c-section recovery, taking at least a few weeks off entirely, and already takes the time off for our son's speech therapy and pediatrician appointments...and my prenatal appointments. He took the time when we were both working, he takes the time even though I'm not working right now, because it is important for him to be there and participating as a father. He does not give any fucks about people judging him for it- because he makes enough money and has plenty of goodwill (and recruiters contacting him). His immediate superior's wife just had a child, and he took two weeks off, just calling in for critical meetings. It does help to be extremely competent, highly compensated, and very employable- it makes the option of bucking the trend a lot less risky. It also takes people in better positions to take the risk to make it easier for others to do so.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 9, 2015 13:26:27 GMT -5
No. In fact my statement was (because you must have read another poster's quote) at our yearly "state of the business" meeting, our CEO talked about how there aren't many women or minorities at the VP and higher level and that they wanted to address that. I'm certain that there are qualified female and minority individuals who would make great VP+'s. But when you factor in all of the extra hours and travel, the only people who will still be interested are people either with older kids or no kids. And the people with older kids had to have put in a shit load of hours just to get the results to make them look attractive for a VP+ position. Those people again are probably going to be people without families or people who were able to foist a lot of the childrearing load onto their partner. Can any of these VP+ positions be done by two people instead of one? Split the travel and the hours so that no one person is going insane and the job still gets done. simply wishing to address the imbalance is pointless unless the company is willing to change some long-held beliefs and practices. If you want to make positions more attractive to minorites/women, figure out what they'd want/need and see what you can do. Thank you for posting this. Do I wish I didn't have to miss as much of DD's milestones as I did? Of course! But DH and I decided that I had more earning potential so it made sense for him to be the primary caregiver and me to focus more on my career. The family as a whole benefited from that decision. I doubt the discussion would even have taken place if our genders were reversed. Maybe a question is why don't more women insist that their partners take on more of the childbearing load? Because I acknowledge that my husband is exceptional in this regard based on what I see from my friends and peers. I've admitted many times that I could not have done what I did, if he didn't contribute what he did. As far as splitting the job, in my role final sign-offs (risk) is with one person so no, that part can't be split. Can the workload be lessened? Of course, but why would business want to pay two salaries, and benefits for two employees to entice minorities/women when they can get one person to do it? Business wants to attract and retain talent. Business is not going to pay more than market rate to have a talent pool that meets certain demographics. Now if we want to have a discussion about business changing to meet changing needs of future generations (millennials) I'm all for it. I think there is too much demanded and really do hope the next generation is able to change that. That's a whole different discussion.
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,971
|
Post by bean29 on Nov 9, 2015 13:31:28 GMT -5
This is why I am so glad DH is in Sales, and paid on commission. He undoubtedly would make less $$ if he was not paid for his performance. If DH did not have a retention bonus in place, he might leave the company for more $$. He is starting to be recruited by competitors. Most people that start out in DH's business do not succeed in sales. On top of that if you want to succeed in DH's niche, you need to be bi-lingual. He scheduled a meeting with this other company this week, but it is just to see what they are willing to offer, we don't think he can afford to leave.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 9, 2015 13:31:38 GMT -5
Again, it's a load of shit. A sexist, patronizing, obnoxious load of shit. It is the same thing the captain is saying. Yep. But if you're a dude pointing out what you observe you're sexist. If you're a chick pointing out what you've observed you hate your gender. Wonder if anyone is going to call out MJ on her observation since she doesn't seem to attract the haters as much.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Nov 9, 2015 13:31:36 GMT -5
In hindsight, I think I worded that post poorly.
When I was speaking in "generalizations" I wasn't referring to my opinion, I was referring to the stats that I hadn't posted yet.
I think generalizing without the data and trying to explain what I thought was going through the mind of a hypothetical hiring manager gave an impression I didn't mean to give.
I apologize to anyone offended by that post. It truly wasn't meant as intended. I can see how it gave the wrong impression.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Nov 9, 2015 13:37:34 GMT -5
Because I acknowledge that my husband is exceptional in this regard based on what I see from my friends and peers. I've admitted many times that I could not have done what I did, if he didn't contribute what he did.
I think that this is more of it than most realize. When my sister stepped out of the workforce, both she and her DH were on comparable levels professionally and financially. They made identical incomes and had complimentary skills. I don't think my sister would have stepped out, had she gotten more help from her DH. But when she had her third child, she had a 4 year old and a 2 year old at home and she was freaking exhausted at burning the candle at both ends.
I know that other men ARE more involved in childcare. My brother was as likely to take his kids to a doctor as his wife - or as likely to stay home with them when they were sick. Same with my coworker. However, this requires that BOTH parents contribute and take hits equally. If you have one that can't (or won't), then there are limited choices as to what you can do.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2015 13:38:18 GMT -5
I'm not denying that some bias exists. All I can state is that in my profession (accounting) and my sub-specialty (taxes) more emphasis is placed on who can get the job done as opposed to the gender of the person doing it. In public accounting (inarguably the most driven and brutal segment of our profession) you start out at staff level with almost equal ratios. Then between the senior and manager level women take breaks to have children (say what you want, men taking FMLA is rare as opposed to women of child bearing age which is common and FMLA is available to both genders for the birth of a child). By the time most women make manager they have children. It's then that the requests start coming in to balance work/life (again - mostly from the women) and in a decent amount of cases, work part-time. Now there's nothing wrong with this, but don't blame business for women not getting promoted at the same rate as men. It's even more noticeable at the partner level. Now improvement has been made here (in big 4) where 20% of the partners are female. But when you wonder about the gender imbalance you have to consider other factors, like cutting back on hours. Lest anyone say one person's observation doesn't make it true, the attached study shows that around 80% of all part time employees in public are women, which - let's face it, means your career will not progress as far as someone who stayed full time their entire career.www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-accountingThis, in part is why it is difficult to compare apples to oranges. When I was in one of my earlier jobs, I worked with 5 dentists who were in the dentist-scientist program (dentists who got a MS in a specialty degree plus a PhD in the basic sciences) in those 14 years. It's a high powered program, a multi-million $$ grant that we received in order to train new faculty for the next generation of dentists, and promote dental research. Of those 5 I helped train, 3 were female and 2 were male. I went looking as to where they are all today. Of the women, one died, 2 are deans of the dental schools in their respective institutions. The one that died was running a very high powered research lab in a very competitive program at a university. She married later, and had 2 stepkids. The other 2 had their own children. Of the men, one is on the faculty at a university but it sounds like his private practice is his major job. The other is simply a dentist practicing in his specialty. These women were really the exception to the rule though. I was at a dinner one evening and seated at the table with a group who was on the admissions committee of the dental school. Their biggest problem was that they were getting better women candidates then men for admissions......however, in looking at the statistics as to how frequently women take off part time after they had kids, this was really causing some consternation to this committee. Many dental schools are at the max class size that they can have. Dental schools have closed, and there are programs that are going to have to pick up the slack. Currently, they are barely keeping pace of replacing retiring dentists, BUT they're having to worry about half the dental class moving to part time after they had a kid (and I seem to remember them kicking about the 80% figure too. Like with other fields, in dentistry it is highly technical and if you don't practice your skills, you lose them. So taking off 8-10 years while raising a family and working part time is not going to be sufficient to maintain your skills AND keep up with advancements. It really is a conundrum. I had always thought it was pretty cool looking at the dental class pictures over the years and seeing how the classes would go from <10% female to over 60% female. I simply did not realize the impact that something like this had on those who were looking out at replacing those retiring in the near future. So rather than try to entice the better qualified candidates to stay in the field with better pay, benefits and family/work life balance they were considering taking the lower qualified candidates? Who does that? Really? If you took gender out of the discussion and just said that the best people were going to part time or leaving the field would the reaction be "Okay, we'll just go with the less qualified people then"?
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Nov 9, 2015 13:40:58 GMT -5
It is the same thing the captain is saying. Yep. But if you're a dude pointing out what you observe you're sexist. If you're a chick pointing out what you've observed you hate your gender. Wonder if anyone is going to call out MJ on her observation since she doesn't seem to attract the haters as much. You are posting truth, whether that truth is pretty or not. People who can't have a discussion about the way thing really are without getting all emotional and accusing others of hate and various other crap is part of the problem. Until we can sit down to the table and discuss things calmly without all the irrational bullshit, nothing is going to change. Dreams of change are great, but they are never going to become a reality unless we, as women, stop helping to perpetuate the notion that we are irrational, overly emotional beings who can't have a real discussion without getting crazy. I say "well done". You've posted what it takes, in your experience, to overcome the gender bias. If others have an issue with it, that's their problem. Yes. It took you awhile, but you did it. Change doesn't happen overnight.
|
|