billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,643
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 10, 2015 19:35:14 GMT -5
This is the same thing career women point out to people that say they are putting their career before family. It is equally valid on both sides. But it's much more acceptable socially for a man to put his career ahead of his family. Or does society pressure men to put providing financial support for their family ahead of providing emotional support? And what about the wife's attitude? What do women want more than anything in a lifelong mate? For him to have a steady job.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 10, 2015 19:36:08 GMT -5
In my experience, men are more likely to out their careers above their family. I would have quit my job if I didn't get flex time because making partner was much less important than being there for my kids. I would have quit my job if my employer wouldn't give me time off with my sick kid. My career was not more important than my children. Counter that with one partner who came in while his son was in the hospital "because there were deadlines". babies were born and the women were out for a minimum of 12 weeks while most of the guys were back the next day if it was busy season Im only speaking from what I have seen. But in my experience, it was the men who put their careers above family time and time again and were the ones making partner. Partner wasn't wlrth missing my kids' lives so the men could have it I wonder, though, if that's bc for generations that was the expectations that society had of men - make a paycheck. Very well could be but that is on the men and not the employer
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Nov 10, 2015 19:37:34 GMT -5
Oh I agree. The ONLY thing I can think of that would be on the employer is the kind of BS that Milee described. That kind of thing should not be acceptable.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,643
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 10, 2015 19:39:17 GMT -5
... I wonder, though, if that's bc for generations that was the expectations that society had of men - make a paycheck. Was the expectation? Did it change since last year? (Check the link in #280)
|
|
|
Post by mojothehelpermonkey on Nov 10, 2015 19:49:46 GMT -5
It's much more acceptable for a man's main contribution to his family to be financial. bills is pointing out that the reason people work so hard on their career is for the good of their family. I hear that said a lot, but is that really true? What do you think would be better for your family - more money or more Mom/Dad? And are you really busting your ass to be successful for your family's welfare... or to stroke your ego? One of my friends from college has a Wall Street job, and he has mentioned a few times that he thinks a lot of his colleagues who put in crazy hours are doing it to avoid their families. They also aren't any more productive than the other employees.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Nov 10, 2015 21:08:26 GMT -5
I'd be interested in research that shows how women view other women in hiring/promotion. Does the gender gap still exist? Yep. These attitudes are taught to everyone from a very young age and some women are also guilty of the bias. I've read reports that say that oppressed people can respond in a few different ways. On one hand there are those that rebel against it and fight it any way they can. Then there are those that identify with the oppressors and try to distance themselves from the oppressed. And of course there are those that just go along. I think the word "oppressed" is a bit strong of a word for women in this day and age. But otherwise, what you say makes sense.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 24, 2024 8:40:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2015 21:17:54 GMT -5
Yep. These attitudes are taught to everyone from a very young age and some women are also guilty of the bias. I've read reports that say that oppressed people can respond in a few different ways. On one hand there are those that rebel against it and fight it any way they can. Then there are those that identify with the oppressors and try to distance themselves from the oppressed. And of course there are those that just go along. I think the word "oppressed" is a bit strong of a word for women in this day and age. But otherwise, what you say makes sense. It's not the exact word I wanted but it's close. I rejected abused or enslaved.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 10, 2015 21:37:36 GMT -5
Hm. I might go for "marginalized".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 24, 2024 8:40:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2015 21:44:32 GMT -5
Not strong enough and usually used to refer to street people or troubled youth.
|
|
violagirl
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 17, 2011 11:04:54 GMT -5
Posts: 703
|
Post by violagirl on Nov 10, 2015 21:59:58 GMT -5
Going back to the original post. I thought the 50/50 split for the cabinet makes sense. Assuming all elected MPs are equally qualified, how do you choose members who can fulfill the individual role and also represent the population which is approximately 50/50 gender split? At work they talk a lot about diversity, and I don't think it is a bad thing to actively choose to have a diverse workforce. Ostensibly, that is part of the "qualification" for the job in the same way as not everyone has the same skillset, perhaps we could think about a different perspective as a valid skillset.
I consider myself a fairly liberated woman, yet when I longingly spoke of working a 3 month secondment in another country I discounted the idea as impossible as I would not be willing to leave my family for that long. My husband on the other hand said if granted the same opportunity through his work, he'd jump at it. Not sure if that is a gender thing or just me. I will say however, that when he does travel on business he gets homesick after about 2 weeks so I'm inclined to believe he is all talk.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Nov 10, 2015 22:07:55 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? And the funnier part was in that room there was a female store manager that was 7 months pregnant and last I heard was taking 3 months off maternity leave... But that was not a problem. But a man dears to take 4 weeks? Where are his balls?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Nov 10, 2015 22:20:02 GMT -5
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? And the funnier part was in that room there was a female store manager that was 7 months pregnant and last I heard was taking 3 months off maternity leave... But that was not a problem. But a man dears to take 4 weeks? Where are his balls? That really makes me sad. I had DD on a Monday and DH didn't go back to work until the next Monday. I was still a physical and emotional wreck. If he had gone back any earlier I don't know what I would have done. I hate that it is expected that anyone should be at work the day after they have a child, even a week after! Men should not be shamed for wanting to bond with their new child and help their wife recover.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Nov 10, 2015 22:36:11 GMT -5
By the way; I believe men went back to work or go back to work because that is what is "expected of them". From their wives, parents, society etc. My wife, MIL and mother truly believes it would be crazy for "me" to stay home and raise our kids. Unmanly, weird, you name it! Yet they would not bat an eye if my wife were to stay home. We raise boys not to cry, be strong, ruff house, boys will be boys. We raise our girls to play house, pretend to cook/clean, feed the baby doll. The bias we have is ingrained in us! Girls should be nice and polite, boys should Raise their voice, be aggressive. Do you really believe only man beat their wives? I knew 1 man that was getting his ass whooped by his wife on a regular basis; but he would rather die than call the cops or admit it to the public. It is unmanly, impossible. Same for male rape... If it is up it is because you wanted it! It is impossible for a woman to rape a man. Jokes about having a woman as commander in chief; every month when it is that time of the month they will bomb a country. Kids listen to that, they hear it; girls are thought to emulate their mothers... Stay inside and clean. Boys are brought outside to mow the lawn, work on the car... Or not do shit, as long as they are not doing lady work. It might not be everywhere but on the board of directors in this country, hiring managers, CEO's COO's... You still have people when they envision a position a power: they envision a MAN! I am black and Haitian; and I will be honest... It took me re-wiring my whole upbringing to accept and understand that yes I am black but I can also do this. White was good - black was bad! We are wired that our blackness would never be good enough to the point people would bleach their skin to pass. Take Brazil... Half of their population is black but they refuse to accept that part of their society. It was not till last year that BLACK Brazilian were put on television. So yes a mother working 80-90 hours would be seen as neglectful/ bad mother by her superiors and co-workers. While a father working 80-90 hours week will be seen as the provider, hard working. Basically this is to say: women with families are taking on more of the housework/child rearing because: - they were raised to do so - their spouses were raised to expect that - their community/work expect them to do so. It was not too long ago that women were fired the moment their boss knew they were pregnant... Because the expectation was they would stay home and raise their kids. Change is here... Slow but it is here! Heck: I am crazy enough to think I can be the first black Regional VP my company ever had if I stay with them ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 11, 2015 4:24:20 GMT -5
And you will be. I have no doubts about that. IF you want it.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Nov 11, 2015 5:58:28 GMT -5
My husband took off 4 weeks when my DD was born, no one blinked. About a year later another guy he works with did the same thing. He is a trailblazer!
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Nov 11, 2015 6:25:19 GMT -5
My wife, MIL and mother truly believes it would be crazy for "me" to stay home and raise our kids. Unmanly, weird, you name it! Yet they would not bat an eye if my wife were to stay home. We raise boys not to cry, be strong, ruff house, boys will be boys. We raise our girls to play house, pretend to cook/clean, feed the baby doll. The bias we have is ingrained in us! Girls should be nice and polite, boys should Raise their voice, be aggressive. I come from a culture like this too. My parents both defied the social norms they grew up with and I grew up watching them work together as a team. My Dad would cook and clean, he would also put gas in my mom's car for her. Sometimes my Dad worked 1 job while my Mom worked 2. Whatever. Maybe that is why I have the attitude I have. No one ever told me I had to act a certain way and I watched my parents not give a crap what others thought. That's a good start and hopefully my kids can get a similar lesson from me and DH. Be happy, productive, helpful and kind to others. People are different, there will always be differences between men, women, ethnicities ... it can be celebrated. The world would be very boring if we were all the same. I'm not trying to minimize the struggles people have, I am also not trying to claim I have struggled because I have not. However I have witnessed people do something outside their comfort zone, and that can inspire change.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Nov 11, 2015 8:18:35 GMT -5
In my case, it is brought up because some of these behaviors are learned from actions at home. It seems to me like I was exposed to some different things growing up than others. This shaped the way I am now and how I react to certain situations.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 11, 2015 8:28:44 GMT -5
Not strong enough [referring to the term "marginalized"]
I think marginalized is more applicable though. IMO, oppression is generally carried out with intent to harm or keep the other person down. The oppressor knows and is making the choice to oppress the other person.
Are there some misogynistic sexists who are completely aware that they are being that way and consciously make the choice to oppress women? Sure. But I don't think that's the majority of what is happening out there. I think many of the issues women face are as the result of bias that's unintentional and most of the people with the bias are not only not aware they have a bias but will staunchly defend how unbiased they are.
When we see a behavior that we react to as "leadership" in a male and "bossy" in a female, that's not normally a conscious bias and those types of reactions are at the root of the majority of the discrimination I have seen. Not Neanderthals proclaiming women should be barefoot and pregnant. It's men and women who have been conditioned by society to view and expect different behaviours for men and women, who like and respect women but because of their conditioning are judging women differently than men.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,495
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 11, 2015 9:10:33 GMT -5
When I got pregnant with Abby I was asked CONSTANTLY if I was going to stop working since "daycare is so expensive!" DH on the other hand was never once asked if HE was going to quit his job to save on daycare expenses. Guess what question he was asked? "Is your WIFE going to stop working?" I am sure the people asking the question would insist till they are blue in the face they aren't sexist. I also understand that it is a logical question to an extent b/c daycare is crazy expensive. The underlying bias was that it would be ME who quit since I am the mother and has been said here women are "wired" to want to stay home. Nobody ever stopped to consider that maybe it would make more sense for DH to stay home. It is an interesting case of how deep biases can go and you don't even realize you are doing it. It's one thing for my MIL or an aquaintence to have this bias, but it becomes a problem if the people I am looking to be employed by or I am currently employed by also think this way. I shouldn't be judged based on the assumption I will quit due to future daycare costs. It also shouldn't be assumed that my husband would NOT quit. His employer would be just as screwed as mine, yet that thought never occurs to anyone. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/idunno.gif)
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Nov 11, 2015 9:51:11 GMT -5
Throughout this thread - those masculine traits to get ahead keep being brought up - but unless they actually improve job performance - its just another source of bias. And guess what? Unless you are a car salesperson - those traits do not generally contribute to job performance. In fact, they sometimes are a hindrance. So - when we say that being aggressive or assertive is the missing key to get to parity. It really isn't. That is just another way to prioritize task-irrelevant typically masculine behaviors that do not contribute to a company's bottom line. They contribute to a man's paycheck. But even when women use them, they still get paid less than males - with the added label of pushy, bitchy, whatever. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/yeahthat.gif) ---This. When the Captain called it playing the game, I thought of wild animals that fight each other to determine who is the dominant male, or who strut their stuff to impress the females. It seems like this "game" is along those same lines, but WTF does that kind of thing even have to do with successful performance of most modern day jobs? Nothing! ETA: I want to thank the Captain for expanding on this concept. I had a vague idea what this "game" was before, but I got a much better understanding of it from your explanation.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,987
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Nov 11, 2015 10:03:24 GMT -5
I don't know why this thread is so bogged down with the kid and husband angle. Many women are not married, and don't have kids. Jennifer Lawrence has been highlighting this issues in hollywood. She is neither married nor has any children. Anyone should feel free to prioritize other aspects of their life over their 9-5 (or 6 or 7) jobs. If could be family, it could be that rock band, whatever. It is a red herring to keep inserting those into this conversation - which is not about work/life balance or family friendly jobs (not that those are not conversations to have). This is about women being passed over, about their credentials being under-evaluated, about the same actions and behaviors being seen as a positive for male and a negative for females. These are unconscious biases we have all been brought up with. With the exact same credentials - women are judged less capable and offered less money. When they negotiate for more money, they are seen as a problem. First of all - it's been demonstrated that modeling the behaviors that "get ahead" don't work as well for women. Second - unless those behaviors are related to job performance - they are completely irrelevant! Throughout this thread - those masculine traits to get ahead keep being brought up - but unless they actually improve job performance - its just another source of bias. And guess what? Unless you are a car salesperson - those traits do not generally contribute to job performance. In fact, they sometimes are a hindrance. So - when we say that being aggressive or assertive is the missing key to get to parity. It really isn't. That is just another way to prioritize task-irrelevant typically masculine behaviors that do not contribute to a company's bottom line. They contribute to a man's paycheck. But even when women use them, they still get paid less than males - with the added label of pushy, bitchy, whatever. I actually think the kid/work life balance issue is very relevant and important here. It is still a widespread assumption that most young women want to marry and procreate. So when an employer sees two equivalent candidates for a job - one male and one female, both engaged (not to each other) - they may take into account how much time they can anticipate each candidate taking off in their careers. If they are working with the assumption that women will likely have children, they may pass the female over for the male. Whether either of these candidates will have kids (and takes lots of time off for them) or not, the assumption is still there.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,370
|
Post by movingforward on Nov 11, 2015 10:47:11 GMT -5
There are lots of factors at play when it comes to gender in the workforce.
My boss is retiring at the end of 2016 and it very likely that her replacement will be either our CFO (who is male) or myself. The CFO and I have about the same education, both started with the company within a few months of one another, both are single with no children. The current President of our board is also male and will be head of the hiring committee next summer. Our CFO has befriended our President (this started back when he was President-Elect) and every time we have a board meeting he and the President go out drinking together and pal around until 4AM. He may or may not be doing this to get ahead. I have absolutely no idea but what I do know is that if I, as a female, went out drinking with the President of our board until 4AM it would be assumed that we were sleeping together. If I then ended up getting my boss's job after this type of behavior it would be assumed that I got it because I was sleeping with the President. So my only alternative is to do the best job I can do but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the CFO has an edge over me simply for this reason.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Nov 11, 2015 10:50:03 GMT -5
Have you talked to the President and told him you want that job, or asked him what steps you can take to get that job? Do you think the CFO has done this?
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,370
|
Post by movingforward on Nov 11, 2015 11:03:03 GMT -5
Have you talked to the President and told him you want that job, or asked him what steps you can take to get that job? Do you think the CFO has done this? Yes, the President knows I want the job and he knows I am taking additional steps necessary to prepare for advancement. All around it is kind of a weird situation. My boss asked me a couple of years ago (when she originally was planning to retire in 2015) if I was interested in the position. I told her I was. She told me at that time it would probably be between the CFO and me. She said they don't really want to bring anyone in from the outside. They would like to promote from within. All that is good... the other issue though is that the CFO is her son's best friend and she has known him since he was 3 years old. That coupled with the fact that he is now hanging around with the President until all hours of the evening kind of makes me feel like he naturally has an edge over me. Maybe he doesn't and it is all in my head ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/idunno.gif) Honestly, I like the CFO a lot. He is just as qualified as me for the job. I would be okay with reporting to him. I was actually kind of relieved when my boss pushed her retirement out until 2016 because this gives me a year to weigh my options. I have been thinking about seeing what else might be out there because there could be something better and there is no guarantee I am moving up at my current location. I like having that extra year to explore other options.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Nov 11, 2015 11:10:04 GMT -5
Have you talked to the President and told him you want that job, or asked him what steps you can take to get that job? Do you think the CFO has done this? Yes, the President knows I want the job and he knows I am taking additional steps necessary to prepare for advancement. All around it is kind of a weird situation. My boss asked me a couple of years ago (when she originally was planning to retire in 2015) if I was interested in the position. I told her I was. She told me at that time it would probably be between the CFO and me. She said they don't really want to bring anyone in from the outside. They would like to promote from within. All that is good... the other issue though is that the CFO is her son's best friend and she has known him since he was 3 years old. That coupled with the fact that he is now hanging around with the President until all hours of the evening kind of makes me feel like he naturally has an edge over me. Maybe he doesn't and it is all in my head ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/idunno.gif) Honestly, I like the CFO a lot. He is just as qualified as me for the job. I would be okay with reporting to him. I was actually kind of relieved when my boss pushed her retirement out until 2016 because this gives me a year to weigh my options. I have been thinking about seeing what else might be out there because there could be something better and there is no guarantee I am moving up at my current location. I like having that extra year explore other options. No I don't think it is necessarily in your head, most people would assume he may have a edge. Since you have taken all reasonable steps by alerting people that you would like the promotion and doing things to prepare for the advancement it seems like there isn't much else to do.
However, I wouldn't just assume if you don't get the promotion that it's because you are female. If the President was female and the CFO was female, this same situation could still be happening. They could be going out for drinks and not including you just because they don't like you for some random reason.
Again, I'm not trying to say bias doesn't exist but I think some people in your situation wouldn't even bother voicing their opinion about wanting the promotion, figuring it was obvious, and then wonder why they were passed over. Maybe being "vocal" is a male trait but I don't think of it that way. If I want something, I am going to try and get it.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,495
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 11, 2015 11:15:25 GMT -5
I think what moving is trying to say is that since the CFO and president are both male is that he has an extra opportunity to promote himself and push his advancement b/c it's not going to be looked upon as odd if he goes out drinking with him until all hours of the night.
The reverse would be true if it was a female president and moving was going out at all hours. It would look funny if her male counterpart were to be going out with a female president all night and rumors would start flying. Moving would have an added advantage over her male counterpart in this scenario.
In an ideal world both should be able to have a drink with an opposite sex president and not get clucked at.
That's the unconcious underlying bias. If you're seen hanging out regularly with an opposite sex superior you must be sleeping together. Then if you get promoted it's clearly b/c you are lovers.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Nov 11, 2015 11:25:33 GMT -5
I think what moving is trying to say is that since the CFO and president are both male is that he has an extra opportunity to promote himself and push his advancement b/c it's not going to be looked upon as odd if he goes out drinking with him until all hours of the night. The reverse would be true if it was a female president and moving was going out at all hours. It would look funny if her male counterpart were to be going out with a female president all night and rumors would start flying. Moving would have an added advantage over her male counterpart in this scenario. In an ideal world both should be able to have a drink with an opposite sex president and not get clucked at. That's the unconcious underlying bias. If you're seen hanging out regularly with an opposite sex work counterpart/superior you must be sleeping together. Then if you get promoted it's not b/c of your talents, it is not b/c you were a "go getter" who took any opportunity you could to plug yourself it is because clearly she/he is favoring his/her lover. This is one of those, it sucks but life isn't always fair kind of moments. Like you said if the president were female and moving was drinking with her, the other person maybe feel like moving has an advantage. It isn't ideal or fair but doesn't necessarily have anything to do with not getting the job because of male/female more just favorites.
Then the opposite extreme is the example siralynn gave where the pool is skewed female yet a bunch of males get hired. That situation is just blatant and needs intervention, someone take the names off those resumes and see what happens.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,370
|
Post by movingforward on Nov 11, 2015 11:27:53 GMT -5
And just for the record I DON'T WANT to go out drinking with our President until 4AM. We typically have all day meetings the next day that start at 8AM. My body and brain can't take that kind of abuse any longer. What typically ends up happening is that the board meets for dinner and drinks. Everyone leaves the bar by 11 PM or midnight because we have an early meeting but the President and CFO close the place down and (depending on the location) often find an after hours place to hang out. Perhaps that is another reason the CFO has an edge over me. He is 10 yrs younger and can hold his liquor better ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/smiley.png) .
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,495
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 11, 2015 11:39:41 GMT -5
I never said that it was an exclusively female or male situation.
The problem is that society assumes the only reason you could be out that late with your boss is you must be lovers if you're the opposite gender. If you get promoted that hurts your credibility in the eyes of others.
NEITHER sex should have to worry about losing their credibility if they have a drink with their opposite sex supervisor.
THAT is the problem that needs addressed. Why can't we seem to get past the idea that everyone is/wants to do each other? Why does a promotion of the opposite sex still come with conotations he/she "slept her way to the top?"
The infamous hollywood "casting couch" comes to mind as well.
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,012
|
Post by bean29 on Nov 11, 2015 12:25:21 GMT -5
And just for the record I DON'T WANT to go out drinking with our President until 4AM. We typically have all day meetings the next day that start at 8AM. My body and brain can't take that kind of abuse any longer. What typically ends up happening is that the board meets for dinner and drinks. Everyone leaves the bar by 11 PM or midnight because we have an early meeting but the President and CFO close the place down and (depending on the location) often find an after hours place to hang out. Perhaps that is another reason the CFO has an edge over me. He is 10 yrs younger and can hold his liquor better ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/smiley.png) . In my experience People Men that go out drinking until 4 am on weeknights generally are Alcoholics and their work is usually affected in some way, but they can get away with this for a long time and get promoted. If their drinking causes them to lose their job, the men in their social circle will help them get into another position.
DH had a friend from College that survived for years on this MO. He died recently from Kidney or Liver failure. He was 49. Pretty sure he was on SSDI at the end, but he had bounced from one CBO to another for years, and he was always in Management. When I worked with him we called him "The Golden Child" because no matter what he did, the Management looked past it like he was their child. Director had no Sons, VP was single, (DH described him as MENSA like intelligence, who was bi-polar and controlled the bi-polar with alcohol. DH says he could really drink a lot but all the alcohol just brought him down to the level of the rest of us).
If a Woman went out drinking to all hours with a Man, people would say she was having an affair with him, if she went out drinking with another woman until 4 am, they would say she was still having an affair.
DH claims some of his friends going out during the week are "Networking" and there is truly business going on. I cry BS. it has nothing little to do with work, and it is detrimental to their families. If the wives object they are "B!tch^s, and holding the guys back from success.
I am not saying that attending a cocktail party may not be beneficial, I have participated in these occasionally myself, but cocktails and networking should last an hour or two - not late into the night on a weeknight.
|
|