Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2015 13:44:47 GMT -5
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.
No, she did not overcome the gender bias. Even doing everything her male counterparts did it still took 7-8 years longer to reach this point.
ETA - I also suspect that she is still below where she should be with her qualifications and experience. I suspect many of her male peers are higher ranking than she is.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,331
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 9, 2015 13:55:26 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. Everybody says that. My favorite is when it's followed up "By I work with. .. many of my friends are. . ." The interesting thing about unconcious bias is that it's. . .unconcious. We don't know WHY we answer the way we do, we just do it. The people who participate in the resume studies do not claim to be sexist or racist before the study and will continue to insist they aren't even after the study is revealed and they are presented with their answers. We all have them, it's a part of human nature. That's why we need to keep having discussions b/c if you don't then they just continue to sit there, simmer and be passed on to future generations.
|
|
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 14:34:46 GMT -5
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.
No, she did not overcome the gender bias. Even doing everything her male counterparts did it still took 7-8 years longer to reach this point.
ETA - I also suspect that she is still below where she should be with her qualifications and experience. I suspect many of her male peers are higher ranking than she is.
See my post #77. Part (not all) of the reason it took me longer is tied into how men and women are in general wired differently. I had to overcome that in order to advance. It took me longer to figure out how to sell myself and be more aggressive in getting attention. Again, men are wired to succeed more in business, while women are wired to succeed more in the classroom. Now we could argue if that's the way it should be, and that's a whole different discussion. For now, to succeed in business you need to know how it operates, and work within existing parameters. As far as where I should be, in my profession I have gone as high as you can go. Honestly there's so few women in my role that if someone wanted to stalk me and out me they probably could figure out who I am in real life. To advance any higher I'd have to leave my specialty entirely, going far more outside my comfort zone than I'm willing to do (do we see a pattern here?). Or go to a much bigger company (shudder - who wants that?). Just being honest. I don't want that level of stress or exposure. Now I'm sure a lot of men make the same decision, but I can't help but think more men than women would decide to take the huge risk if the opportunity were offered to them. I almost didn't take the role I have now. Self-doubt, fear, lack of confidence all contributed to me almost declining (I know - doesn't sound like me, but it's the truth). It was a huge risk, a real stretch for me. Now many years later I'm rocking it and making constant improvements to a function that was deemed materially weak (accounting term - not a good thing) when I took on the role. And not a quarter goes by when I have my oh shit moment and wonder if I've managed to get everything right. I'm it, there is no safety net for me. So even though I'm an "expert" in my field I still deal with self-doubt and fear all the time. I see that more with my female peer than I do with my male peers as well (we bounce stuff off each other all the time). With a sample size of two I'm not sure if it's a gender thing or really is tied to the individual.
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Nov 9, 2015 14:35:46 GMT -5
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. How is the next generation going to change that? Will you say to your boss NOW that this workload is too much for one sane human and that it should change? Will you call millennials whiners when they say that to YOU as your underlings? After all, you did it, why can't they? Will the top person even care anyway? They don't want to pay more than they have to, right?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Nov 9, 2015 14:45:11 GMT -5
When men and women were first "wired," I don't think there were many businesses around. What has happened is that how we do business has evolved to play to more traditionally male strengths. So the question to me is, should we as women continue to force ourselves to adapt to a male way of doing business, or try to force the workplace to better accommodate the strengths and weaknesses of both genders? Given the studies that show the differences in perception and treatment between assertive women and assertive men, I think the latter option is probably better. I don't know how we get there, though.
|
|
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 14:49:57 GMT -5
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. How is the next generation going to change that? Will you say to your boss NOW that this workload is too much for one sane human and that it should change? Will you call millennials whiners when they say that to YOU as your underlings? After all, you did it, why can't they? Will the top person even care anyway? They don't want to pay more than they have to, right? Actually I'm working on that. In the time I've been in my role we've added headcount in my function and I'm very proactive in managing my staff's workload. Early in my career, I had periods during busy season where I worked 3 months straight without a day off. It was fairly common in fact. My staff doesn't do that, but we still have to do weekends every quarter to meet deadlines. There is only so much you can expand and contract headcount during the year. You will always have busy periods in the accounting/tax profession which is deadline driven. The top person right now is old school, and yes - he doesn't care. The one set to be his successor is different (he is the one to put the only two women in top roles after all) and I think we will have more success with quality of life discussions with him. Change doesn't happen overnight. I really DO hope that my DD can have a successful career and still be able to fully enjoy her family. I would wish the same for my son, if I had one. But change will only happen if we can prove it benefits the company more than it benefits the individual.
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Nov 9, 2015 14:57:40 GMT -5
How is the next generation going to change that? Will you say to your boss NOW that this workload is too much for one sane human and that it should change? Will you call millennials whiners when they say that to YOU as your underlings? After all, you did it, why can't they? Will the top person even care anyway? They don't want to pay more than they have to, right? Actually I'm working on that. In the time I've been in my role we've added headcount in my function and I'm very proactive in managing my staff's workload. Early in my career, I had periods during busy season where I worked 3 months straight without a day off. It was fairly common in fact. My staff doesn't do that, but we still have to do weekends every quarter to meet deadlines. There is only so much you can expand and contract headcount during the year. You will always have busy periods in the accounting/tax profession which is deadline driven. The top person right now is old school, and yes - he doesn't care. The one set to be his successor is different (he is the one to put the only two women in top roles after all) and I think we will have more success with quality of life discussions with him. Change doesn't happen overnight. I really DO hope that my DD can have a successful career and still be able to fully enjoy her family. I would wish the same for my son, if I had one. But change will only happen if we can prove it benefits the company more than it benefits the individual. I'm glad that you are doing what you can for your subordinates (I figured you were, it was a general question as much as a specific to you one). I understand there's only so much change that can take place, especially when old school people are in charge. Funny how we seem to be waiting for some attitudes to retire/die out so things can get better. (In general) Crone has referenced pharmacists a couple of times and it made me think of the old Andy Griffith show (which still reruns around here) where the new "lady pharmacist" comes to town and gets a whole pile of good old boy attitude. Of course in the end she gets accepted and all but it still is enough to make me want to scream at the tv.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,331
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 9, 2015 15:21:20 GMT -5
en though I'm an "expert" in my field I still deal with self-doubt and fear all the time. I see that more with my female peer than I do with my male peers as well
And why is that? Why do women deal more with fear and self doubt when it comes to our careers?
On the flip side are men REALLY better at managing self doubt/fear or are there underlying pressures making it more desirable as a man to be overconfident which comes with its own drawbacks?
It's not just women that butt up against gender biases in the workplace, men do as well. Both genders can benefit from the discussion.
A LOT of the things we percieve to be true about women AND men stem from the Victorian era when it was in the best interest of those in charge to get people to accept certain biases. Some really shitty science was done to back up those claims.
Science is way ahead of society as a whole when it comes to busting a lot of the gender biases we hold as truth. Society is slowly coming around but those in charge still cling to old biases, it's going to be awhile before they die out completely.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,418
|
Post by NastyWoman on Nov 9, 2015 15:38:20 GMT -5
Fixed; you have just proven that the bias against you was real and not based on performance
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Nov 9, 2015 16:26:44 GMT -5
I don't think The Captain hates women She also does acknowledge that there is some bias, she's just pointing that there are are legitimate factors that happen to affect outcomes as well. The fact that she's working to change the culture is frankly, awesome. I have also in this thread pointed out that not all the difference in outcome originates directly from biases against women/minorities, and I outright stated that I don't agree with official, hard quotas(on the other hand- unofficial quotas in favor of equality I am all for- and this is what was descirbed in the OP.)- I just spend a lot more time focusing on the unjust biases against women/minorities, because what legitimate biases there may be...most people know about, most people acknowledge, and the difference in outcome is out of proportion to legitimate factors. Much love to all the science that points out these unconscious biases, because even with the science, people accuse women/minorities of whining/not working hard enough/etc. Treating people equally is a massive culture change, and despite it feeling like it is crawling/moving backwards at times, it actually happened really fast. I think playing by the existing rules, and making change happen when you get to the top has to play a big part, but "whining", pointing out the biases, pushing for change at all levels, and demanding that the rules be changed is important also. Unfortunately, time and some actual die-off is going to have to happen before things smooth out. In the meantime, shining a light on it HAS to happen- for the status quo to change, you need to keep trying to make it change.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 9, 2015 17:34:49 GMT -5
Even in this reply, you're confusing the idea of judging an individual's characteristics against the idea that it's OK to generalize based on a group's characteristics. I'm giving a spectrum of cases where hiring preference is given to members of a group. In some cases, the hiring is based on an individual assessment that favours certain groups. In some, the hiring is based on an assumption about the characteristics of the group (i.e. profiling). In some, hiring is based purely on the fact that the applicant belongs to the group and the employer is choosing to employ that group (e.g. veterans, ex-cons, people of familiar ethnicity, etc.) I'm not the one who's confused here. Individuals are admitted to universities based on their personal scores and achievements; we don't conclude that because historically black students haven't graduated at the same rates or achieved the same grades that black students as a whole aren't qualified and shouldn't be considered - we decide on an individual basis. Actually, we do just the opposite. We conclude that because black students historically haven't graduated at the same rates or achieved the same grades, we ought to give them preference for entrance into universities. We call it Affirmative Action. If you want an example of profiling in universities, you need look no further than preference given to an individual's academic pedigree. I can tell you without a doubt that certain primary schools, colleges, research institutions, if they appear on an individual's CV, open doors like magic. A Ph.D. from Oxford on my CV would immediately give me a huge advantage over an individual with a Ph.D. from the University of Tehran, although I know several researchers from Tehran whose work is superior to work by researchers hailing from Oxford. Having said this, it's definitely not a bad idea to score Oxford a lot of extra points when hiring, just for being Oxford. And that's the problem with you and Phoenix assuming that an observed characteristic will hold true across all members of the same population. Just the fact that you assume that there are "broad characteristics" is part of the problem. Hiring should not be based on "broad characteristics", it should be based on the skills and attributes that each individual is bringing to the table. Phoenix and I are not "assuming that an observed characteristic will hold true across all members of the same population". We're pointing out the fact that, as numbers get modestly larger, the mean of any sample converges to the mean of the population. I've explicitly acknowledged that variation in individuals is large. Variation in samples (30 hires, 50 hires, 100 hires) is not. You're assuming that "the skills and attributes that each individual is bringing to the table" can always be assessed with high accuracy. That's not the case. If you start with a stack of 100 resumes, you might whittle it down to 20 based on the content of the resumes, 4-5 based on interviews, but what's left over is a numbers game. Perhaps you're hiring for a debate team and historically your female debaters have yelled " This is crappity crap crap!" rather than procuring cogent arguments, hence you don't want to risk hiring more. Perhaps you're hiring an accountant and one applicant is from Germany, which is reputed to have excellent accountants, hence you hire him. Perhaps you want somebody willing to put in long hours and the disparity in average workhours between men and women is what tips the scales. With all other things being equal (which is the same predicate I included, and you ignored, in my last post) averages become important, especially in aggregate. Businesses respect them. The fact that you want to argue that it's acceptable in any form to discriminate prospectively against any group based on the characteristics shown by some members of that group is frankly distasteful and you should be embarrassed. On what basis? This is a ridiculous statement. We all discriminate based on broad characteristics every day. We exploit correlations and stereotypes every day. You just don't recognize how often we do it. It's also hypocritical and I know how you hate hypocrisy so wanted to point that out. In several other threads you have decried the discrimination you perceive is levied against Christians, so it's hypocritical for you to defend the idea that discrimination is not only acceptable but desireable. Or is it just that it's acceptable against groups you are not a part of? Discrimination is a tool. It can be used for good. It can be used for evil. It can be wise. It can be unwise. It can help. It can hurt. Your argument here boils down to "hammers are bad" because hammers can bludgeon people to death and hammers can break windows and hammers can smash hamsters. But hammers can also drive in nails. They can be used for good, and for evil. They can be productive or counterproductive. The same is true of discrimination, including profiling of large groups. It behooves us to figure out which types of discrimination are productive and which are counterproductive.
|
|
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 17:41:12 GMT -5
en though I'm an "expert" in my field I still deal with self-doubt and fear all the time. I see that more with my female peer than I do with my male peers as well
And why is that? Why do women deal more with fear and self doubt when it comes to our careers? Is this a gender thing? I really don't know. But in general I see women voicing more fear and self doubt about a lot of things (am I harming my child by working, am I a good enough mother, am I really competent to do this job) while I don't see the guys in general posting similar thoughts.On the flip side are men REALLY better at managing self doubt/fear or are there underlying pressures making it more desirable as a man to be overconfident which comes with its own drawbacks? I think you are onto something here - men have higher risk tolerances than do women. Is this due to overconfidence on their part as opposed to reasonable risk assessment on the part of women? I don't know.It's not just women that butt up against gender biases in the workplace, men do as well. Both genders can benefit from the discussion. Agreed. I think both genders have general qualities that should be used to compliment each other in business. As it is now, I admit it's a man's game and if you want in you have to play by their rules. Is that any more right or wrong than saying we need to change how education/schooling is done so the advantage girls have is eliminated? I don't know the answer to that btw.A LOT of the things we percieve to be true about women AND men stem from the Victorian era when it was in the best interest of those in charge to get people to accept certain biases. Some really shitty science was done to back up those claims. Science is way ahead of society as a whole when it comes to busting a lot of the gender biases we hold as truth. Society is slowly coming around but those in charge still cling to old biases, it's going to be awhile before they die out completely. My comments and questions are in italics above.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 9, 2015 18:04:42 GMT -5
Face time at the office does not equal productivity. Technically no. But unless you can find credible research indicating otherwise, I'm going to assume that 1 hour worked by a man is equal to 1 hour worked by a woman. To be perfectly clear here, my argument in this thread isn't "individuals shouldn't be hired based on individual merit". I'm saying that discriminatory hiring practices can and will be used to exploit correlations and averages, given the realistic limits on individual assessment. Of the grand ironies of these discussions is that women's average happiness has steadily plummeted since the 1950's when most women preferred to stay home and care for their families. I can't speak to causality, but it wouldn't surprise me if 20 years from now we have more women in the workforce than ever before and lower happiness than ever before (for both sexes) too. It brings to mind an interesting hypothetical. If we could guarantee the relationship is causal, which would be the better society: one in which men and women went out to work equally but people were generally more miserable, or one in which women disproportionately stayed home but were generally happier?
|
|
|
Post by mojothehelpermonkey on Nov 9, 2015 18:25:19 GMT -5
en though I'm an "expert" in my field I still deal with self-doubt and fear all the time. I see that more with my female peer than I do with my male peers as well
And why is that? Why do women deal more with fear and self doubt when it comes to our careers? On the flip side are men REALLY better at managing self doubt/fear or are there underlying pressures making it more desirable as a man to be overconfident which comes with its own drawbacks? It's not just women that butt up against gender biases in the workplace, men do as well. Both genders can benefit from the discussion. A LOT of the things we percieve to be true about women AND men stem from the Victorian era when it was in the best interest of those in charge to get people to accept certain biases. Some really shitty science was done to back up those claims. Science is way ahead of society as a whole when it comes to busting a lot of the gender biases we hold as truth. Society is slowly coming around but those in charge still cling to old biases, it's going to be awhile before they die out completely. It seems like the people who shout the loudest about men being wired for some types of work and women being wired for other types of work -especially when physical size is not an issue- are the least likely to actually have the credentials to properly interpret the science. Hooray for progress though! I am living a much better life than I would have in the 50s.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 9, 2015 18:34:32 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-accountingI spent 17 years in a large, regional firm (12th largest at the time). I can attest that what captain is saying is true. In all of my years in public, I don't ever remember a man asking for a flex schedule, no travel, etc. but there were a lot of women that did, me included. Once I had kids i wqs no longer willing to put in 80 hour work weeks but my male colleagues with children were. I was good at what I did, my clients loved me but I was mommy-tracked. Im ok with that. If I can't work as hard as my male co-workers then they deserve the promotion and not me
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 9, 2015 18:39:57 GMT -5
Hooray for progress though! I am living a much better life than I would have in the 50s. Is this sarcasm? The science is what's telling us that women are more miserable and unsatisfied today than ever before, declining steadily since the 1950's. So... hooray for misery?
|
|
|
Post by mojothehelpermonkey on Nov 9, 2015 18:46:35 GMT -5
That wasn't sarcasm. I guess me and most of my friends are outliers, but we would have been miserable if our only real options were housewife, teacher or nurse. Also, as someone who has chosen to delay marriage and skip having kids, I still get judged for that, but it is nothing close to the scrutiny I would have faced in the 50s. I almost feel silly for complaining about feeling unfairly categorized as "likely mommy track" in job interviews.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Nov 9, 2015 18:46:33 GMT -5
Women work, but also do most of the work at home. Women COULD Be all miserable and unsatisfied because ew, employment, but I think it is a more likely cause that working and still being expected to be the primary caregiver/ taking primary responsibility for the home increases stress, and if in 20 years men step up at home the way women have in the workplace, women will be happier. MEN will probably be less happy, because right now they are not generally expected to be sole financial providers, but they are also absolved from most of the responsibility for home and children, which is still seen as a woman's domain. I'm also living a much better life than I would have in the 50's. I'm not just female though...I'm non-white. Not an awesome thing to be in the 50's.
|
|
saveinla
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 2:00:29 GMT -5
Posts: 5,233
|
Post by saveinla on Nov 9, 2015 18:59:57 GMT -5
My grandmothers worked in the 40s and 50s - one had a business and the other was a teacher. They were the ones who taught us that education and supporting oneself was very important. I don't think they were very happy relying on men who were not reliable. My one grandfather was mentally not right and the other one was a dreamer, which was not useful when you had 5 kids to feed and not much income.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 9, 2015 19:08:52 GMT -5
Women COULD Be all miserable and unsatisfied because ew, employment, but I think it is a more likely cause that working and still being expected to be the primary caregiver/ taking primary responsibility for the home increases stress, and if in 20 years men step up at home the way women have in the workplace, women will be happier. You're right that there could be a reversal of a 60-year trend, but I doubt it. Also, I'd advise against suggesting that men ought to "step up at home the way women have in the workplace" on any parenting forum if you want to leave in one piece. Men are also more stressed out, unhappy, and unfulfilled than in the 1950's, although the decline isn't as sharp there. The stress levels of SAHD's are off the charts. If memory serves, they're 2 or 3 times more likely to have heart attacks than working men. And of course it was just this past week that the news magazines were abuzz with latest demographics confirming white males are dying younger and younger, but "nobody knows why".
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Nov 9, 2015 19:13:01 GMT -5
I don't think we're calling for all dads to become SAHDs, we just want them to do more than "babysit" their own kids every now and again.
|
|
siralynn
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2013 10:33:16 GMT -5
Posts: 528
|
Post by siralynn on Nov 9, 2015 19:14:56 GMT -5
Hooray for progress though! I am living a much better life than I would have in the 50s. Is this sarcasm? The science is what's telling us that women are more miserable and unsatisfied today than ever before, declining steadily since the 1950's. So... hooray for misery? Based in the experience of my grandmother, who has frequently lamented that she was born at least 50 years too early, I'm pretty confident in assuming that I'm happier now than I would have been I the 1950s. Even my mother, who was born in 1950, has stories of not being allowed to check out books out of the library because they were "boys books" and whatnot. That's ridiculous.
|
|
siralynn
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2013 10:33:16 GMT -5
Posts: 528
|
Post by siralynn on Nov 9, 2015 19:23:23 GMT -5
Is this sarcasm? The science is what's telling us that women are more miserable and unsatisfied today than ever before, declining steadily since the 1950's. So... hooray for misery? Based in the experience of my grandmother, who has frequently lamented that she was born at least 50 years too early, I'm pretty confident in assuming that I'm happier now than I would have been I the 1950s. Even my mother, who was born in 1950, has stories of not being allowed to check out books out of the library because they were "boys books" and whatnot. That's ridiculous. But then again, I have a husband who took two semester long leaves of absence when our kids were born, delayed his tenure decision for one year, handles all the daycare drop offs and pickups because I have the much longer commute, etc. We're a true partnership, and I think we're both better off for it. We're stressed, but that's because our daughter is 2.5. It's hard not to be stressed around a toddler terrorist!!!!
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Nov 9, 2015 19:23:45 GMT -5
Face time at the office does not equal productivity. Technically no. But unless you can find credible research indicating otherwise, I'm going to assume that 1 hour worked by a man is equal to 1 hour worked by a woman. To be perfectly clear here, my argument in this thread isn't "individuals shouldn't be hired based on individual merit". I'm saying that discriminatory hiring practices can and will be used to exploit correlations and averages, given the realistic limits on individual assessment. Of the grand ironies of these discussions is that women's average happiness has steadily plummeted since the 1950's when most women preferred to stay home and care for their families. I can't speak to causality, but it wouldn't surprise me if 20 years from now we have more women in the workforce than ever before and lower happiness than ever before (for both sexes) too. It brings to mind an interesting hypothetical. If we could guarantee the relationship is causal, which would be the better society: one in which men and women went out to work equally but people were generally more miserable, or one in which women disproportionately stayed home but were generally happier? And how did they measure happiness in the study? I'm not saying it isn't right. We are very much a society on the go. I think that can lead to a lot of unhappiness. I think we put more expectations on ourselves now. My grandparents lived in their parents houses after they were married until they could buy that 3 bedroom house. My grandpa also had job security that we don't have in today's world. Even my dad didn't have that job security. ETA: My dad was born in '46 and my mom in '49. Their parents were born in '19 and '21 and '23 and '24 respectively. My Grandma's were those homemakers you talked about. But my dad's parents were farmers. My mom's dad worked for the RR from the day he got out of the service to the day he took early retirement in '84.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 9, 2015 20:18:48 GMT -5
Technically no. But unless you can find credible research indicating otherwise, I'm going to assume that 1 hour worked by a man is equal to 1 hour worked by a woman. To be perfectly clear here, my argument in this thread isn't "individuals shouldn't be hired based on individual merit". I'm saying that discriminatory hiring practices can and will be used to exploit correlations and averages, given the realistic limits on individual assessment. Of the grand ironies of these discussions is that women's average happiness has steadily plummeted since the 1950's when most women preferred to stay home and care for their families. I can't speak to causality, but it wouldn't surprise me if 20 years from now we have more women in the workforce than ever before and lower happiness than ever before (for both sexes) too. It brings to mind an interesting hypothetical. If we could guarantee the relationship is causal, which would be the better society: one in which men and women went out to work equally but people were generally more miserable, or one in which women disproportionately stayed home but were generally happier? And how did they measure happiness in the study? I'm not saying it isn't right. We are very much a society on the go. I think that can lead to a lot of unhappiness. I think we put more expectations on ourselves now. My grandparents lived in their parents houses after they were married until they could buy that 3 bedroom house. My grandpa also had job security that we don't have in today's world. Even my dad didn't have that job security. ETA: My dad was born in '46 and my mom in '49. Their parents were born in '19 and '21 and '23 and '24 respectively. My Grandma's were those homemakers you talked about. But my dad's parents were farmers. My mom's dad worked for the RR from the day he got out of the service to the day he took early retirement in '84. There are many different studies showing the same result. They measure in happiness in different ways. Most use surveys. Some look at rates of afflictions related to stress. These are statistical results. They aren't applicable to every single individual. But the term "progress" as it applies to society is general as well, and society hasn't made general progress in improving happiness over the past 60 years. The opposite is true, especially for women. The journals refer to it as a "paradox" because i) it's a very strong and consistently observable trend, ii) it flies in the face of the theory that women getting more degrees, getting higher pay, being less discriminated against, etc. should make them happier. The science is all over the place as to why. Conclusions vary wildly. All we can conclude is that whatever we've been doing for the past 60 years, it's been making people, and women especially, more miserable. The timing and broad social impact of third-wave feminism in western society makes it a prime culprit. Even if it is the culprit, it would still behoove us to find out what specific aspects are the cause. Is it because women are working more? Greater hostility between the sexes? Families having fewer children? Women turning away from their strengths and becoming too masculine? This article from Mercatornet gives a reasonably recent example of a study out of the University of Virginia trying to isolate causes, but it would be easy to find others that reach different conclusions. Whatever the cause, odds are that ten years from now women are going to be more empowered, more career-oriented, and more miserable than ever before. "Progress" isn't going to change direction any time soon. That's the sad fact of the matter.
|
|
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 21:19:51 GMT -5
Hooray for progress though! I am living a much better life than I would have in the 50s. Is this sarcasm? The science is what's telling us that women are more miserable and unsatisfied today than ever before, declining steadily since the 1950's. So... hooray for misery? Because woman can now admit that they aren't happy without being shamed?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 9, 2015 21:22:45 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2015 21:27:13 GMT -5
Virgil Showlion aren't you one of the ones always saying that correlation does not equal causation. A lot of things have changed since the 50's that could contribute to those survey results.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Nov 9, 2015 21:46:11 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. You did all that and STILL had to wait 7-8 additional years....
|
|
mollyc
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 2:12:25 GMT -5
Posts: 874
|
Post by mollyc on Nov 9, 2015 22:33:59 GMT -5
Misery: when ideal of self & wants/hopes for life < reality of self & life (or in some cases, one's perception of the same). Many people seem to come with the belief that what they are feeling now is permanent. Whether your life story is considered to be happy or sad sometimes depends on when it ends.
I once heard a good argument for men and women being more miserable ever since they bought into the idea that you should marry for love. And then doubling down by buying into the idea that your spouse should be your best friend - always. I wish I had recorded it.
I'm sorry so many women and men consider themselves miserable. As the descendent of peasants, poor & working class from Great Britain and Aboriginal Canadians, I am so happy I live in a time when I have more options to correct my misery then death or marrying the right man.
|
|