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 10, 2015 14:08:20 GMT -5
What? Playing the game? It took me awhile to figure out that the people getting advanced were not necessarily the smartest or best workers. They were the ones who knew how to sell themselves, make themselves valuable to their employer, and took risks that got them noticed. (Remember, I'm in accounting and it is less about who you know apparently than other fields). I'm not going to bother linking studies because this has been discussed before in other threads, but women in general are more collaborative which men in general are more individually competitive. One set of characteristics get's you noticed and promoted, the other doesn't. (Now if you don't believe men and women think differently then all of my observations are faulty and my theories are bullshit - but I'm speaking in generalities I've been taught in adult psych and what I've seen in educational and business research studies - YMMV). I'm not making any judgements as to if this is right or wrong, just my observation that is the environment that I must understand in order to advance. Personally I think the sports analogies get old, but you can't join a team, refuse to learn how to play the game, and expect to get off the bench. Then this should not just be a man vs. woman thing. This is about having the capacity to observe and understand your surroundings in order to survive and thrive. Agreed but I needed to come to this realization that this is how things work. In general, to a guy who wanted to get ahead, I think it would have been more intuitive. Maybe not. I've was taught my whole life to avoid conflict and be a team player. Sorry, that's not how you get ahead in business (at least in the current environment - like I've said - I hope this changes).
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Nov 10, 2015 14:12:20 GMT -5
Then this should not just be a man vs. woman thing. This is about having the capacity to observe and understand your surroundings in order to survive and thrive. Agreed but I needed to come to this realization that this is how things work. In general, to a guy who wanted to get ahead, I think it would have been more intuitive. Maybe not. I've was taught my whole life to avoid conflict and be a team player. Sorry, that's not how you get ahead in business (at least in the current environment - like I've said - I hope this changes). So again, it comes down to what you were taught and how you acted, no anything that work was necessarily "doing". I agree these generalizations about women, men, ethnicities etc need to change and like most things it starts at home.
Kind of like the day my 4 y/o son came home from soccer and told me "Mom, my coach is a girl, did you know girls can coach soccer?" What a nice discussion that was
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Nov 10, 2015 14:13:21 GMT -5
Captain, I don't think anyone is trying to minimize your accomplishments or say you didn't work hard. I'm certainly not. Below comments are intended as generally as possible.
I agree, and I think this is the root of the problem. I don't think anyone is advocating giving someone a job for which s/he is not qualified (or even less qualified) just to fill a quota. I am bemoaning a system that seems to be set up to reward what are disproportionately male-socialized characteristics and which may not even result in selecting the best person for the job.
|
|
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 10, 2015 14:19:29 GMT -5
Except that's not what I said. I categorized something YOU brought forth as emotional and/or irrational. Not all women - not even the women here. Your remark about hating women was uncalled for, immature, pouty and irrational and this post above was an exact example of what I was talking about. Spin, untruths, hysterics. What if I accused you of hating women because you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. How would that feel to you?
Nice spin, tho. It might work on others. Not me.
LOL. Where did I call anyone a woman hater? You don't even know what you're frothing at the mouth over. You go ahead and find the quote. I'll wait. I never said anything of the sort about you. What in the world are you all hysterical over? I don't even read your posts and only read this one because you quoted me.
|
|
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 10, 2015 14:20:16 GMT -5
LOL actually that is a classic example of sexism, categorizing issues a woman brings forward as emotional and/or irrational. In a warped way it's kinda funny it was used here. Except that's not what I said. I categorized something YOU brought forth as emotional and/or irrational. Not all women - not even the women here. Your remark about hating women was uncalled for, immature, pouty and irrational and this post above was an exact example of what I was talking about. Spin, untruths, hysterics. What if I accused you of hating women because you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. How would that feel to you?
Nice spin, tho. It might work on others. Not me.
Is this directed at me? I can't even tell.
|
|
Cookies Galore
Senior Associate
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 18:08:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,780
|
Post by Cookies Galore on Nov 10, 2015 14:20:33 GMT -5
Is it possible some are confusing assertiveness with aggressiveness? Just a thought ... Stuff like this doesn't help. A shampoo commercial?! Ugh. The TED talk that played after the video was good.
|
|
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 10, 2015 14:20:47 GMT -5
LOL. Where did I call anyone a woman hater? You don't even know what you're frothing at the mouth over. You go ahead and find the quote. I'll wait. I never said anything of the sort about you. What in the world are you all hysterical over? I don't even read your posts and only read this one because you quoted me. Ok, well I can't even tell. You did respond to me, and I responded to you, and then you got quoted again. I really can't tell who you are arguing with.
|
|
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 10, 2015 14:21:18 GMT -5
Except that's not what I said. I categorized something YOU brought forth as emotional and/or irrational. Not all women - not even the women here. Your remark about hating women was uncalled for, immature, pouty and irrational and this post above was an exact example of what I was talking about. Spin, untruths, hysterics. What if I accused you of hating women because you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. How would that feel to you?
Nice spin, tho. It might work on others. Not me.
Is this directed at me? I can't even tell. No. It wasn't. If you can't tell, it might be prudent to find out before you go off the deep end. Just sayin'.
|
|
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 10, 2015 14:21:59 GMT -5
I never said anything of the sort about you. What in the world are you all hysterical over? I don't even read your posts and only read this one because you quoted me. Ok, well I can't even tell. You did respond to me, and I responded to you, and then you got quoted again. I really can't tell who you are arguing with. I don't recall responding to you because I don't read your posts to respond to - pretty much for this reason. If I did misquote a post, I apologize.
|
|
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 10, 2015 14:22:48 GMT -5
Is this directed at me? I can't even tell. No. It wasn't. If you can't tell, it might be prudent to find out before you go off the deep end. Just sayin'. Deep end? Really? LOL
|
|
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 10, 2015 14:24:07 GMT -5
Ok, well I can't even tell. You did respond to me, and I responded to you, and then you got quoted again. I really can't tell who you are arguing with. I don't recall responding to you because I don't read your posts to respond to - pretty much for this reason. If I did misquote a post, I apologize. Well I actually realized it was confusing because of the multiple quotes so I deleted the original post because I was so
|
|
siralynn
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2013 10:33:16 GMT -5
Posts: 528
|
Post by siralynn on Nov 10, 2015 14:26:15 GMT -5
I don't think quotas are the answer, but I do think that organizations should strive to have their candidate pool reflect the available populations. (For example, my company hires a lot of biology-related PhDs. Fields where 50+% of the degrees are now earned by women. But they still only have a goal to make sure 20% of considered candidates are women. WTF?) If diversity doesn't start showing up naturally in hiring after making sure you've cast your candidate pool wide enough, I think it also makes sense to consider things like resume screening without names attached.
Unconscious bias is real and pervasive. I think people should be trained on it. We're never going to move the needle without asking people to take a hard look at whether their actions/decisions are having the consequences they intended.
Also, I think it's worth just listening to others' experiences without always arguing back. I'm white, so I don't have the experience of retail staff treating me like a criminal and stalking me around stores. If a person of color is relating a story about that to me, I'm not going to be like "oh, you probably misinterpreted the situation." I'm going to shut up and try to learn something.
The "but I haven't seen those biases in my experience" and "but women like their families" responses are the equivalent of the "well it snowed at MY house yesterday" responses to climate change.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Nov 10, 2015 14:34:54 GMT -5
I don't think quotas are the answer, but I do think that organizations should strive to have their candidate pool reflect the available populations. (For example, my company hires a lot of biology-related PhDs. Fields where 50+% of the degrees are now earned by women. But they still only have a goal to make sure 20% of considered candidates are women. WTF?) If diversity doesn't start showing up naturally in hiring after making sure you've cast your candidate pool wide enough, I think it also makes sense to consider things like resume screening without names attached. Unconscious bias is real and pervasive. I think people should be trained on it. We're never going to move the needle without asking people to take a hard look at whether their actions/decisions are having the consequences they intended. Also, I think it's worth just listening to others' experiences without always arguing back. I'm white, so I don't have the experience of retail staff treating me like a criminal and stalking me around stores. If a person of color is relating a story about that to me, I'm not going to be like "oh, you probably misinterpreted the situation." I'm going to shut up and try to learn something. The "but I haven't seen those biases in my experience" and "but women like their families" responses are the equivalent of the "well it snowed at MY house yesterday" responses to climate change. I'll question this one since I said it ... isn't it a good thing that I haven't personally experienced it? I didn't say others were not, I just said I haven't. It's kind of like a ... well there is hope, things are working out somewhere. But maybe I am wrong and there is nothing to learn from that and I should just shut up.
|
|
Mardi Gras Audrey
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,082
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on Nov 10, 2015 14:35:27 GMT -5
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that there are a lot of women that don't chose a work/life balance and are more than qualified for positions of power. More than enough to fill quotas given. Virgil and Politically Incorrect and The Captain and yourself are saying that there are not enough hard working, qualified women to fill the positions.
That isn't what Im saying. Im saying in my experience, most of the woman that I worked with (not all) were not willing to put their careers ahead of time with their kids. I don't see that as a bad thing. but it is a different choice than most of the men made that i worked with.
I was just as smart as the men but once I had children I was not get willing to travel or work 80 hours weeks. There were many more women that were like me there than those that had husbands that took on the role of primary caregiver. I wonder how many of these women had a fully supportive partner at home to pick up the slack. I've noticed that a lot of times when I see a man who is willing to put in 80 hour weeks/travel/etc, he has a partner at home who is willing to do the child rearing, homemaking, etc (This is even if the partner also works). I don't know nearly as many men who are willing/will do the same so that their partner can get ahead in business. It is near impossible to be doing all those "extras" if you aren't sharing the at-home duties. If you have to do all the at-home duties AND all the stuff to get your career ahead, it becomes impossible (There just aren't enough hours in the day). I know, I know.... they should have discussed it before they had kids/women should pick the right partner/etc. Discussing it beforehand and putting it into action are totally different things though. And if your partner will do 70% of what he said he would, do you ditch him and become a single parent? Maybe, maybe not. FOr most women, it probably is not a hill to die on. Another thing that we seem to be overlooking is the societal bias for women for child care/house duties. Who does a school call first if there are child issues? It seems like "Mom" is usually first to be called for any issues. Well if mom is important CEO and gets the call, she usually isn't going to tell the school/org "Not my turn, call dad". She will call Dad to handle it but to her employer, she is the one getting "interrupted" Or look at how many people will say things like "Wow, her house is dirty" if a couple's home is not spotless. Or "Why hasn't she sent out thank yous (for gifts the couple gets)? She's so rude". Why aren't the men judged as much? I always find t fascinating when a man's family complains about how rude the guy's wife is when they don't get a thank you for the presents they've sent the couple. Why doesn't the man have the responsibility of doing the social niceties?
|
|
siralynn
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2013 10:33:16 GMT -5
Posts: 528
|
Post by siralynn on Nov 10, 2015 14:40:07 GMT -5
I don't think quotas are the answer, but I do think that organizations should strive to have their candidate pool reflect the available populations. (For example, my company hires a lot of biology-related PhDs. Fields where 50+% of the degrees are now earned by women. But they still only have a goal to make sure 20% of considered candidates are women. WTF?) If diversity doesn't start showing up naturally in hiring after making sure you've cast your candidate pool wide enough, I think it also makes sense to consider things like resume screening without names attached. Unconscious bias is real and pervasive. I think people should be trained on it. We're never going to move the needle without asking people to take a hard look at whether their actions/decisions are having the consequences they intended. Also, I think it's worth just listening to others' experiences without always arguing back. I'm white, so I don't have the experience of retail staff treating me like a criminal and stalking me around stores. If a person of color is relating a story about that to me, I'm not going to be like "oh, you probably misinterpreted the situation." I'm going to shut up and try to learn something. The "but I haven't seen those biases in my experience" and "but women like their families" responses are the equivalent of the "well it snowed at MY house yesterday" responses to climate change. I'll question this one since I said it ... isn't it a good thing that I haven't personally experienced it? I didn't say others were not, I just said I haven't. It's kind of like a ... well there is hope, things are working out somewhere. But maybe I am wrong and there is nothing to learn from that and I should just shut up. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you shouldn't share your experiences. It's good that things are slowly improving. But I think it all depends on the tone. There's definitely a vibe on this thread that seems to be trying to minimize/ignore the experiences of those that HAVE experienced bias.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 23:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2015 14:47:41 GMT -5
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that there are a lot of women that don't chose a work/life balance and are more than qualified for positions of power. More than enough to fill quotas given. Virgil and Politically Incorrect and The Captain and yourself are saying that there are not enough hard working, qualified women to fill the positions.
There you go misattributing something to me again. Cite me saying that or just admit you're bullshitting and trying to stir the pot. Archie's analogy was actually more spot on. Lots of talented people out there, but if you have one bad day or make one mistake or miss one practice there will be someone who did better ready to take your place on the Olympic team. One of those talented people was my first mentor, the lady who promoted me to supervisor. She was better than I was, but left our profession once her husband passed his specialty boards. I don't miss the irony of that, in this discussion. There are less than 100 people in my segment who have my role. Of that 100, 2 (including me) are women (at least at the last time I was surveyed two years ago). There are 1,000's of people in my industry who work in my specialty. It's so incredibly hard and competitive to get my position that it would have been very easy for the company to give it to a man. The fact that they hired a woman is an argument more against bias than for it (at least in my current case). I am one of two women here is a sea of rich old(er) white dudes. You do anything, and I mean anything, to make yourself less competitive then it's only fair that someone who didn't, advances before you. So instead of acknowledging this, we say it's not fair, and gender and gender alone is what holds women back. I say that's nonsense and we are doing ourselves and our daughters a huge disservice by making those claims. Yea, it may be harder - but in my field, trust me, you are not going to get my role just because you know someone. There's far too much risk to the company for them to do that. You have to know what you're doing and be able to demonstrate that you can take positions and hold your own against those who may disagree with you. I am not the smartest bear in the woods (and have said that many times as well) but I've done everything I can to stay in the race and have worked harder for it than the majority. I won't apologize for that and I won't allow anyone to minimize what I've accomplished by saying it should go to someone who didn't work as hard as I did. At least in my role, I can guarantee you the same would be said for anyone - man or woman. How about the rest of your post where you explain why only 2 women out of thousands are qualified for your position.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 23:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2015 14:59:11 GMT -5
No one is saying promote ALL women to these positions. Just the qualified, hard working, assertive ones. Where you and I disagree is about how many qualified, hard working, assertive women are out there.
|
|
Mardi Gras Audrey
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,082
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on Nov 10, 2015 15:17:10 GMT -5
I do think that straight quotas are wrong though. They merely perpetuate the problem, as the people who get selected to meet the quota are going to be looked at as "they only got the job because of the quota"...Or worse, when people who are not qualified are selected so that the organization may meet their quota. Then it turns into "All women/minorities/etc can't do the job" (because the only experience the person has is with woman A/minority A, etc who wasn't qualified and only selected to meet the quota). This hits close to home with me. When I was in the military, they wanted to use me to meet a quota. Senior leadership called me to ask me to put my name in and I would get a coveted pilot slot (To enter training to be a pilot). These spots are very hard to come by and it costs the military thousands of dollars on this training. I explained to them that I had already tried pilot training on the civilian side, was horrible at it and get extremely airsick (cannot fly a plane to save my life). I was told "It doesn't matter, we can train you anyways". I was telling them that me being selected would be a waste of a slot (time and money) and it should be given to someone who is qualified and would do a good job. They kept insisting I would be fine and should go for it. They wouldn't come out and say that it was because I was female but I knew if was (I had gotten a letter saying they were encouraging "minorities and women". This was highly offensive to me and would not have helped women in the future. I would have failed out and the men I would have trained with would say "women can't fly" (Not "Audrey can't fly"). While it would have helped to meet their quota for that year, we would be bringing up new leaders whose experience with women wasn't with competent ones but with incompetent one (like me) who were selected solely because of what was between their legs.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Nov 10, 2015 15:24:56 GMT -5
I don't really expect things to come to me. If I want to work on a different project, I tell my boss. I don't really consider that playing a game. I don't know if I didn't expect it or was just not very patient and didn't like being bored at work, but I learned a whole other skill set by simply telling my boss that I wanted to do it. I went from doing budgets and corporate financial statements to doing corporate taxes for the entire billion dollar company after one conversations. I did similar things in other jobs. Trust me! I am the last person who plays the game. I am simply not skilled in any kind of selling myself/being tactful/ knowing how to talk to people ways. But when I saw the project I wanted - I did what any 1st grader is taught to do - I raised my hand. I am reading a kind of interesting book that talks specifically about powerful women and how many of them confess that they feel like they don't belong, like they are impostors. I don't think it's sexism that many times is a problem, I think it's the women's mentality. While feminist movement opened many many doors to women and gave them choices, it didn't change their mindset. And that is one of the biggest hindrance to women, I think
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Nov 10, 2015 15:28:52 GMT -5
I do think that straight quotas are wrong though. They merely perpetuate the problem, as the people who get selected to meet the quota are going to be looked at as "they only got the job because of the quota"...Or worse, when people who are not qualified are selected so that the organization may meet their quota. Then it turns into "All women/minorities/etc can't do the job" (because the only experience the person has is with woman A/minority A, etc who wasn't qualified and only selected to meet the quota). This hits close to home with me. When I was in the military, they wanted to use me to meet a quota. Senior leadership called me to ask me to put my name in and I would get a coveted pilot slot (To enter training to be a pilot). These spots are very hard to come by and it costs the military thousands of dollars on this training. I explained to them that I had already tried pilot training on the civilian side, was horrible at it and get extremely airsick (cannot fly a plane to save my life). I was told "It doesn't matter, we can train you anyways". I was telling them that me being selected would be a waste of a slot (time and money) and it should be given to someone who is qualified and would do a good job. They kept insisting I would be fine and should go for it. They wouldn't come out and say that it was because I was female but I knew if was (I had gotten a letter saying they were encouraging "minorities and women". This was highly offensive to me and would not have helped women in the future. I would have failed out and the men I would have trained with would say "women can't fly" (Not "Audrey can't fly"). While it would have helped to meet their quota for that year, we would be bringing up new leaders whose experience with women wasn't with competent ones but with incompetent one (like me) who were selected solely because of what was between their legs. Yes! I like target numbers for candidate pools. I like education on bias, and review of hiring trends that don't reflect the demographics of the pool of talent. Quotas are easy, though. 50%, and look! We've met our numbers. The other solutions are long-term, and take a lot of work that is ongoing. People gravitate to the quick fixes, and unfortunately, this is a sloooow fix problem.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 10, 2015 15:33:43 GMT -5
That isn't what Im saying. Im saying in my experience, most of the woman that I worked with (not all) were not willing to put their careers ahead of time with their kids. I don't see that as a bad thing. but it is a different choice than most of the men made that i worked with.
I was just as smart as the men but once I had children I was not get willing to travel or work 80 hours weeks. There were many more women that were like me there than those that had husbands that took on the role of primary caregiver. I wonder how many of these women had a fully supportive partner at home to pick up the slack. I've noticed that a lot of times when I see a man who is willing to put in 80 hour weeks/travel/etc, he has a partner at home who is willing to do the child rearing, homemaking, etc (This is even if the partner also works). I don't know nearly as many men who are willing/will do the same so that their partner can get ahead in business. It is near impossible to be doing all those "extras" if you aren't sharing the at-home duties. If you have to do all the at-home duties AND all the stuff to get your career ahead, it becomes impossible (There just aren't enough hours in the day). I know, I know.... they should have discussed it before they had kids/women should pick the right partner/etc. Discussing it beforehand and putting it into action are totally different things though. And if your partner will do 70% of what he said he would, do you ditch him and become a single parent? Maybe, maybe not. FOr most women, it probably is not a hill to die on. Another thing that we seem to be overlooking is the societal bias for women for child care/house duties. Who does a school call first if there are child issues? It seems like "Mom" is usually first to be called for any issues. Well if mom is important CEO and gets the call, she usually isn't going to tell the school/org "Not my turn, call dad". She will call Dad to handle it but to her employer, she is the one getting "interrupted" Or look at how many people will say things like "Wow, her house is dirty" if a couple's home is not spotless. Or "Why hasn't she sent out thank yous (for gifts the couple gets)? She's so rude". Why aren't the men judged as much? I always find t fascinating when a man's family complains about how rude the guy's wife is when they don't get a thank you for the presents they've sent the couple. Why doesn't the man have the responsibility of doing the social niceties? But that isn't an employer's fault. I'm getting lambasted in here because I'm basically agreeing with what you are saying. I picked up much more of the slack for my kids...but I wanted to. If my kids were sick, I wanted to be there with them. I wanted to be the one to tuck them in at night. Ok, I could have lived without cleaning and stuff...lol
So I don't blame society and expectations. At least for me, I am wired differently than my ex-husband. I am a desire to kiss boo-boos, tend to sick babies, snuggle, etc. My ex loves his kids but in a different way than me.
Because of my decisions, it took me a lot longer than male colleagues to break $100k. But that isn't because of sexism or my employer...it was due to my own choices and I don't regret any of it..
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 10, 2015 15:38:43 GMT -5
I don't think quotas are the answer, but I do think that organizations should strive to have their candidate pool reflect the available populations. (For example, my company hires a lot of biology-related PhDs. Fields where 50+% of the degrees are now earned by women. But they still only have a goal to make sure 20% of considered candidates are women. WTF?) If diversity doesn't start showing up naturally in hiring after making sure you've cast your candidate pool wide enough, I think it also makes sense to consider things like resume screening without names attached. Unconscious bias is real and pervasive. I think people should be trained on it. We're never going to move the needle without asking people to take a hard look at whether their actions/decisions are having the consequences they intended. Also, I think it's worth just listening to others' experiences without always arguing back. I'm white, so I don't have the experience of retail staff treating me like a criminal and stalking me around stores. If a person of color is relating a story about that to me, I'm not going to be like "oh, you probably misinterpreted the situation." I'm going to shut up and try to learn something. The "but I haven't seen those biases in my experience" and "but women like their families" responses are the equivalent of the "well it snowed at MY house yesterday" responses to climate change.Got it..unless it is a woman who agrees with the liberal spin on things then it is ok for us to accept what she says because she lived in the 50s...but those of us in demanding careers have experiences that mean nothing....
I'm a female and an executive...I think I'm qualified to pipe in on what I've experienced over the last 20 years of my career. And from what I see, it is a difference is what women want out of life versus the men. I just haven't seen many men (actually any) that want a flex schedule to stay home with their babies. It just doesn't happen in the world that I worked in.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Nov 10, 2015 15:41:06 GMT -5
I just wish in general people would look at how the person performs. ESPN hired Jessica Mendoza to do baseball analysis on a limited basis in August. She did so well that they asked her to fill in when one of the regulars was suspended. She called 2 of my teams games in August and September and she was knowledgeable, insightful and had a pleasant demeanor. ESPN had her on the call for the AL Wild Card game. Some ignorant people were complaining about "what would she know about hitting a curveball". If they actually listened to her, they would have known she provided a better analysis of the game than the men who played baseball. If you watch gymnastics, no one complains that Tim Dagget has never been on a balance beam, and yet, he's allowed to provide commentary about it.
|
|
Cookies Galore
Senior Associate
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 18:08:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,780
|
Post by Cookies Galore on Nov 10, 2015 15:51:26 GMT -5
I just wish in general people would look at how the person performs. ESPN hired Jessica Mendoza to do baseball analysis on a limited basis in August. She did so well that they asked her to fill in when one of the regulars was suspended. She called 2 of my teams games in August and September and she was knowledgeable, insightful and had a pleasant demeanor. ESPN had her on the call for the AL Wild Card game. Some ignorant people were complaining about "what would she know about hitting a curveball". If they actually listened to her, they would have known she provided a better analysis of the game than the men who played baseball. If you watch gymnastics, no one complains that Tim Dagget has never been on a balance beam, and yet, he's allowed to provide commentary about it. Yes, somehow Tits McGee was not qualified to call a game because lady parts.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Nov 10, 2015 15:57:26 GMT -5
I think Thecaptain is right.
I think there's more to getting ahead than just being a better worker or producer, you have to sell yourself, establish yourself in the minds of the higher ups. Not just be good at what you do, but make sure everyone knows it.
|
|
Mardi Gras Audrey
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,082
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on Nov 10, 2015 15:57:33 GMT -5
But that isn't an employer's fault. I'm getting lambasted in here because I'm basically agreeing with what you are saying. I picked up much more of the slack for my kids...but I wanted to. If my kids were sick, I wanted to be there with them. I wanted to be the one to tuck them in at night. Ok, I could have lived without cleaning and stuff...lol
So I don't blame society and expectations. At least for me, I am wired differently than my ex-husband. I am a desire to kiss boo-boos, tend to sick babies, snuggle, etc. My ex loves his kids but in a different way than me.
Because of my decisions, it took me a lot longer than male colleagues to break $100k. But that isn't because of sexism or my employer...it was due to my own choices and I don't regret any of it..
I agree it isn't an employer's fault if a woman's partner doesn't step up. What is the employer's fault is when they create a culture where men "aren't real men or dedicated employees" is they take time for their families. Cases like Carl's VP, saying those ignorant comments about the man who is choosing to take a few weeks off to take care of his kid. Yes, they don't want their employee off for 3 weeks. But does the wife's employer want her off for 4 weeks? I understand the employer is thinking only of their own organization but the problem is that the wife's employer has a need for their employee too. So, should only unmarried or childless people be employed? Why should it fall all to the mother and her employer to sacrifice?
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Nov 10, 2015 16:12:08 GMT -5
I think Thecaptain is right. I think there's more to getting ahead than just being a better worker or producer, you have to sell yourself, establish yourself in the minds of the higher ups. Not just be good at what you do, but make sure everyone knows it. Which can often prove to be a trap for women, as those types of behaviors can be viewed very differently depending on the gender of the person doing the self promotion.
|
|
siralynn
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2013 10:33:16 GMT -5
Posts: 528
|
Post by siralynn on Nov 10, 2015 16:14:22 GMT -5
I don't think quotas are the answer, but I do think that organizations should strive to have their candidate pool reflect the available populations. (For example, my company hires a lot of biology-related PhDs. Fields where 50+% of the degrees are now earned by women. But they still only have a goal to make sure 20% of considered candidates are women. WTF?) If diversity doesn't start showing up naturally in hiring after making sure you've cast your candidate pool wide enough, I think it also makes sense to consider things like resume screening without names attached. Unconscious bias is real and pervasive. I think people should be trained on it. We're never going to move the needle without asking people to take a hard look at whether their actions/decisions are having the consequences they intended. Also, I think it's worth just listening to others' experiences without always arguing back. I'm white, so I don't have the experience of retail staff treating me like a criminal and stalking me around stores. If a person of color is relating a story about that to me, I'm not going to be like "oh, you probably misinterpreted the situation." I'm going to shut up and try to learn something. The "but I haven't seen those biases in my experience" and "but women like their families" responses are the equivalent of the "well it snowed at MY house yesterday" responses to climate change.Got it..unless it is a woman who agrees with the liberal spin on things then it is ok for us to accept what she says because she lived in the 50s...but those of us in demanding careers have experiences that mean nothing....
I'm a female and an executive...I think I'm qualified to pipe in on what I've experienced over the last 20 years of my career. And from what I see, it is a difference is what women want out of life versus the men. I just haven't seen many men (actually any) that want a flex schedule to stay home with their babies. It just doesn't happen in the world that I worked in.
I'm a woman in a STEM career who WASN'T alive in the 50s, and I've seen bias alive and well at the company where I work. I'm not arguing that people can't get around it - but I think trying to deny the existence of unconscious bias because of success in individual careers is disingenuous. What I meant via the comparison to climate change is that even if things seem hunky dory in your neck of the woods doesn't mean that there's not a larger picture to be aware of. I don't agree that it's as simple as "women want something different out of life than men." Yes, many do. But many don't. And plenty of men would probably make different choices if society would loosen up with the gender-based expectation nonsense. The "deal with it because I did" attitude makes me sad, because ultimately it could be so much better for everyone. On the other hand, my company's "4Q director promotions" email just came out a couple of minutes ago, and 3/3 were women for the research organization. So there's some progress!!!
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Nov 10, 2015 16:21:21 GMT -5
I think Thecaptain is right. I think there's more to getting ahead than just being a better worker or producer, you have to sell yourself, establish yourself in the minds of the higher ups. Not just be good at what you do, but make sure everyone knows it. Which can often prove to be a trap for women, as those types of behaviors can be viewed very differently depending on the gender of the person doing the self promotion. Yes, I agree, biases can come into play. But some women may be just as good or better than their co workers, but be missing that critical element. Men can miss it too. But a woman might perceive it as sexism. it all depends on the situation. As I said, it's hard to be objective in topics like this, because it all comes down to perceptions people have of themselves or each other.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Nov 10, 2015 16:26:24 GMT -5
Which can often prove to be a trap for women, as those types of behaviors can be viewed very differently depending on the gender of the person doing the self promotion. Yes, I agree, biases can come into play. But some women may be just as good or better than their co workers, but be missing that critical element. Men can miss it too. But a woman might perceive it as sexism. it all depends on the situation. As I said, it's hard to be objective in topics like this, because it all comes down to perceptions people have of themselves or each other. exactly..... so the way to look at it in a non-objective way is to look at statistics at a really high level. If there is no built in bias the people at the top should pretty closely represent the population at large. [/span] Since women make up about 15% of executive level positions at fortune 500 companies. it goes to logical reason that there is some underlying bias.
|
|