Skip to main content

From Connecticut Public Radio:

Women make up just under half of the American workforce, but for the first time in US history, they’re poised to surpass the 50% mark in the next few months.

The last 50 years have represented an educational and professional revolution for women. Females now earn 60% of the university degrees being earned at American universities. But hurdles for women at work remain—even for women at the top of their fields. In board rooms across the country, fewer than 13% of board members are women. And a female CEO is still only compensated at 85% of what her male counterpart earns.

Awareness Rises, but Women Still Lag in Pay NY Times, March 8, 2010

The findings, which were timed to coincide with the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day, follow the announcement Friday by the European Union of an initiative aimed at significantly narrowing the union’s average 18 percent gender wage gap, which has changed little in the past 15 years.

A study by the 27-member union last year estimated that closing the wage gap could lead to a potential increase of 15 percent to 45 percent in gross domestic product.

Gosh, good thing we have no need to boost our GDP.

A 2009 report by the International Labor Organization found an average 20 percent difference in pay for men and women employed full time in the Group of 20 largest developed and developing economies. Yet the World Economic Forum’s report found that 72 percent of the companies in its survey had no systems to track salary differences by gender.

Herminia Ibarra, a professor of leadership and organizational behavior at Insead, an international business school, and a co-author of the forum’s report, said of the findings, "Study after study shows that, in most countries and industries, women enter the workplace pipeline in representative numbers. Then, something fails to happen."

Getting Women Into Boardrooms, by Law NY Times, January 27, 2010

Arni Hole remembers the shock wave that went through Norway’s business community in 2002 when the country’s trade and industry minister, Ansgar Gabrielsen, proposed a law requiring that 40 percent of all company board members be women.

Many prominent business leaders dismissed the 2003 law as a political stunt and argued that Norway, with just 4.8 million people, did not have enough experienced women to meet the quota. One chief executive of a software company told the business newspaper Dagens Naeringsliv that companies would have to recruit "escort girls" to meet the target.

In the European Union, 9.7 percent of the board members at the top 300 companies were women in 2008, versus 8 percent in 2004, according to the European Professional Women’s Network. In the United States, roughly 15 percent of the board members of the Fortune 500 companies are women, while at the top of Asian companies, women remain scarce: In China and India, they hold roughly 5 percent of board seats, in Japan, just 1.4 percent.

Let's all say "neener neener neener" to China. At least we discriminate 10% less against women than those bigots! Yay us!

German Companies 'Know They Have Too Few Women' Der Spiegel, March 23, 2010

"I'll support it!" Deutsche Telekom CEO René Obermann said when [Thomas Sattelberger] his human resources officer put forward a bold proposal at a board meeting in Bonn two weeks ago: He wanted Deutsche Telekom to make a commitment to filling 30 percent of management positions with women by the end of 2015. The measure would affect roughly 10,000 jobs.

[Sattelberger] believes that many German companies are guilty of "self-deception." "They know that they have too few women. They convince themselves that they're doing a great deal. And if their efforts are unsuccessful, they set up mentoring and coaching programs. Then they pitifully complain that they have done everything they can. In reality, however, nothing has changed." He calls this "a subtle deception, coupled with a modern trade in indulgences."

That doesn't sound familiar at all, does it?

Most major corporations don't care. Allianz and Adidas, Bayer, Deutsche Bahn and BASF, all are opposed to a set quota, so as to avoid discrimination against men, as officials at consumer goods manufacturer Beiersdorf put it.

Well, you gotta admit they've got a point...we must protect the poor, poor persecuted men! I mean, I'm a man and I could never compete if women had a real shot at my job.

C'mon, how much commentary on this is even necessary?

Originally posted to leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 02:21 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cactusflinthead, imamish, randomfacts

    My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
    --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

    by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 02:21:28 PM PDT

  •  Norway is awesome because of this: (2+ / 0-)

    Descent into fjord territories

    Such a beautiful country.  Very expensive.  Wish I could go again soon.

  •  Serious question: (3+ / 0-)

    At what point--and I'm certainly not saying we're there yet--but at what point can differences in the workforce be attributed to differences in men's and women's general behavior and/or outlook rather than simple sexism?

    I ask because something like this Norway law, requiring 40% of boardrooms to be women, might simply fly in the face of the choices men and women make. If women in general are less likely to trade home-life for work-life (as some studies have indicated), who knows at what point we've found the "right" percentage of female executives?

    Again, obviously at 15% we haven't yet. But I don't think we can just assume it should be 50/50 any more than we should assume men and women will generally act the same way in any given situation.

    •  Good question (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zbbrox

      Totally serious answer: I don't know. But as you say, clearly 15% is ridiculous.

      My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
      --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

      by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 02:40:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Economic conditions (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leftist vegetarian patriot

      for the past 20 years or so have been such that an ever smaller group of women even had the opportunity to consider trading home-life for work-life. The number of voluntary stay at home housewives is becoming a very small group.

      I see no reason to suppose that the "right" percentage of female executives is anything other than the approximately 50% that make up the general population.

      •  You seem to have a very narrow definition... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        liberate

        ...of what constitutes trading home life for work life. Both my wife and I work--but I work a job where I often end up working 50-70 hours a week, while she works consistently 30 hours a week from home. Which one of us is more likely to end up an executive in our company?

        That's a stark and anecdotal example, of course. But suppose there is a broader tendency there. If women in general are more likely to value options like working from home, flexible hours, longer vacations, etc. then women in general are less likely to advance to executive positions.

        Maybe what we need to worry about is less the top-line numbers and more the specifics. It's more work, but I think it's ore sensible. That way we can differentiate between "jobs women don't do because they generally don't want to" and the cases of genuine discrimination--as in the sciences, where studies show women have to be essentially twice as productive in terms of research-output than men to get the same credit. That's an obvious area where discrimination is battering down on women, intentionally or not, and we need to figure out how to make changes. And, as I said, 15% is clearly not where we should be at, board-room-wise. But I'm not convinced simply attempting to legislate quotas in is going to get us the results we want.

        •  Obviously homes and families (0+ / 0-)

          require some amount of time and effort. Do you think that your wife would rather be scrubbing out the toilets, or has to do it because you'd rather be at work.

          •  Actually... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            liberate

            ...I scrub out the toilets. I also do the laundry and take out the trash, etc. I do a fair amount of the cooking (honestly couldn't tell you if it was more or less than 50% these days), and if my wife is busy with her dance classes or other obligations I'll even do "her job", which is the dishes.

            And I know for a fact that my wife would rather be at home than working more often. Hell, so would I. But economic reality means one of us needs to have a full-time job with benefits (especially if the other is going to be a free-lancer, as my wife is), and I'm taking the hit, thanks.

    •  At the risk of someone attacking me for being (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zbbrox

      "one of those oppressive men," some studies have suggested the wage gap may be largely due to:

      a) Seniority differences -- in an effort to increase the number of high-ranking women, women are often promoted sooner, meaning they occupy the same positions but are lower on the pay scale because they have less experience

      b) Job differences -- men occupy most of the extremely dangerous jobs that also often pay well to compensate (think about power line technicians, demolition engineers, etc.)

      c) Life differences -- women are more likely to leave work to spend time with their families, meaning they work fewer hours and years on average

      When you adjust for these three things (in the U.S. at least) the wage gap is virtually nonexistent.

      (-9.88, -8.87) Namaste.

      by liberate on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 02:57:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not really the attack dog sort (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Richard Lyon, zbbrox

        but I think a link or two would be nice, at least to an article. "Some studies" is the sort of thing that gets you in trouble over at Wikipedia for weasel wording.

        My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
        --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

        by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:00:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure thing. (2+ / 0-)

          I don't remember all the places I've read about this of course, but here's one from ABC news and another from CNN money. Should be enough to get you started.

          (-9.88, -8.87) Namaste.

          by liberate on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:04:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, the first link contains the paragraph below (0+ / 0-)

            Farrell combed through jobs data and found that higher-paying jobs are more likely to require longer commuting times, safety risks, frequent travel, long hours and other factors that, on his tests, led the men to stand while the women sat. Those jobs pay more because fewer people want to do them. It's not sexism. It's just supply and demand. In some fields, like office jobs -- finance for example -- women make as much or more than men.

            and that clearly does not match the data in the article, which was only secondarily about overall pay and primarily about female executives.

            My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
            --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

            by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:11:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Look, I'm not trying to start a war. I'm mainly (0+ / 0-)

              saying that, as zbbrox said, the data aren't as clear cut as "women make less than men, period, and it's because they're discriminated against."

              Very likely the truth is somewhere between "it's all about personal choices" and "it's all about discrimination." Hopefully it's moving towards the former of those, since that would be actual equality: If women could make as much as men, given the same position and experience, but perhaps didn't if they made different choices. (Equality is about the potential to be something in my mind, not the requirement to be it.)

              (-9.88, -8.87) Namaste.

              by liberate on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:13:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  And the second link (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              zbbrox

              now that I've read through it, appears to be a link I should have used in the diary.

              Whatever the breakout, there certainly are numerous studies that show discrimination -- however unconscious -- still exists. For instance:

              • A recent Cornell study found that female job applicants with children would be less likely to get hired, and if they do, would be paid a lower salary than other candidates, male and female. By contrast, male applicants with children would be offered a higher salary than non-fathers and other mothers.
              • A recent Carnegie Mellon study found that female job applicants who tried to negotiate a higher salary were less likely to be hired by male managers, while male applicants were not.

              Then there's the phenomenon of wages going down when more women move into a field.

              Take human resources, now a female-dominated profession. I asked Thornton if he thinks female human-resource managers today are paid as well as he and his male colleagues were 15 years ago. "Not at all," he said. He estimates that in inflation-adjusted terms they're paid about 20 percent less.

              Why? "That's the million-dollar question," he said. "There are many things at play. But we still have a long way to go to change unintentional discrimination."

              My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
              --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

              by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:25:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, I've read them both, that's how I knew to (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                leftist vegetarian patriot

                recommend them to you.

                My point stands: it's not simple. It's multiple factors. I'm getting tired of saying that.

                (-9.88, -8.87) Namaste.

                by liberate on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:27:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't know enough that I'd feel confident (0+ / 0-)

                  it's a good idea to propose a mandatory 50% quota. Actually, rather than quotas I'd rather see incentives in the tax code for companies that improve their numbers. Also, I am not claiming that there are not multiple factors that may be at work, but I think 13-15% representation in the boardroom is ridiculous on the face of it.

                  My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
                  --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

                  by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:41:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What would the 50% quota (or whatever) be based (0+ / 0-)

                    on? What if you have a business that would be naturally disproportionately unbalanced -- say, just randomly here and extreme to prove a point, a vastly successful public company that did nothing but review hardcore pornography (let's assume it would attract mostly men) or another that did nothing but produce first-hand accounts of breastfeeding (probably mostly women). How would you justify legislating quotas or penalizing these companies?

                    Forgive the stupid examples, but do you know where I'm getting at? (And yes, I'm playing a little bit of devil's advocate here. In my ideal world women and men would have perfectly equal shots at doing whatever, sensibility notwithstanding.)

                    (-9.88, -8.87) Namaste.

                    by liberate on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:54:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  To be honest, I'd been hoping that more people (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      liberate

                      would read the diary and do some of the heavy intellectual lifting, but in answer to your question my first instinct would be to make any quotas or incentives apply only to companies with a number of employees somewhere in the thousands. Most sufficiently large companies will either have multiple job classifications that offer advancement or will have an executive class that is largely divorced from the day to day work anyway.

                      My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
                      --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

                      by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 04:03:26 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Alas, I have no studies on-hand-- (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          leftist vegetarian patriot

          ---but my point isn't really to back him up, as to point out that there is significant disagreement on this issue. Some people (un-shockingly on the more male-rights side of things) have found that better controlling for hours worked and seniority, etc. have found that the wage gap disappears (and in some cases reverses!), but others (un-shockingly more on the activist feminist side) show large gaps remain.

          Though I think it can be safely assumed that the raw data usually used--i.e. the average woman's income compared to the average man's--simply doesn't tell the whole story. But if the wage gap by hours worked isn't 25%, it's only, (to throw a number out), 15%, clearly we still have work to do.

          •  And the data we collect don't do much but muddy (0+ / 0-)

            the water. Quoting that second link I gave:

            all the wage-gap ratio reflects is a comparison of the median earnings of all working women and men who log at least 35 hours a week on the job, any job

            So if you don't consider anything but "what's the median of 35+ hours a week incomes by gender," you don't really see whatever real patterns are there.

            Fun statistic: Women earn way more in the pornography industry than men. By an order of magnitude or two! (Yes, I know it's basically irrelevant, but it's still a good one to throw out there.)

            (-9.88, -8.87) Namaste.

            by liberate on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:10:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I'm all for equality, but I have to admit I feel (0+ / 0-)

    some concern when we blaze right by equality and towards inequality on the other side.

    60% of college degrees go towards women. Not 50% (equality), not even 51/52% (representative equality) -- 60%. Meanwhile, the trend continues down the school ladder (see, e.g., this book excerpt), which means that we'll see even more inequality in the future.

    And yet, you hear little to no outcry. Generally when people state the slanted statistic they even champion it as a good thing, as this diary tacitly does:

    The last 50 years have represented an educational and professional revolution for women. Females now earn 60% of the university degrees being earned at American universities. But hurdles for women at work remain

    People, this isn't equality, this is inequality. Why does no one seem to care? It's sad, really, to see people oppressed turn into oppressors.

    (-9.88, -8.87) Namaste.

    by liberate on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 02:54:18 PM PDT

    •  But those degrees don't translate (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CParis, dclawyer06

      into workplace achievement, either in promotion or pay, at least not as they would were they earned by men.

      "Study after study shows that, in most countries and industries, women enter the workplace pipeline in representative numbers. Then, something fails to happen."

      My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
      --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

      by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 02:56:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Even if you're right, that still doesn't address (0+ / 0-)

        what I'm talking about.

        Our K-12 school system is failing boys. Fewer and fewer boys are graduating college. The educated population is going to have a vast minority of men in the coming decades if we don't do something.

        How is this inequality acceptable?

        (-9.88, -8.87) Namaste.

        by liberate on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:01:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not to fear, we're already giving men preference (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eloise

          See here:

          NPR's Morning Edition aired a story in which the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is beginning an investigation into claims that colleges are favoring the admission of less qualified males over more qualified women. Today women earn about 60 percent of all bachelor's degrees. The concern is that some colleges are so worried about becoming overwhelmingly female that they are discriminating against qualified women and choosing less qualifed males. The story quotes an analyst who suggests that male students do worse academically when they attend schools whose student bodies are composed of more than two-thirds women. One Commission member notes that any such admissions policy would violate Title 9 which prohibits gender discrimination in college education programs.

          Is such discrmination happening? A few years back, a friend who teaches in a graduate political science department at a prominent university told me that the women who applied to his school's program were so much more qualified than the male applicants that if all applicants were selected solely on the basis of academic merit, no men would be admitted to the program. That would be fine with my friend except for the fact that highly qualified women will not attend a program that is all female. Thus this program actually engaged in what amounts to affirmative action for males in order to attract and keep highly qualified female students.

          My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
          --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

          by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:17:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What I'm taking away from your quote is that: (0+ / 0-)

            Today women earn about 60 percent of all bachelor's degrees.

            What I said before.

            A few years back, a friend who teaches in a graduate political science department at a prominent university told me that the women who applied to his school's program were so much more qualified than the male applicants that if all applicants were selected solely on the basis of academic merit, no men would be admitted to the program.

            Public schools are failing our boys, which I said before.

            That would be fine with my friend

            No one cares, as I said before.

            except for the fact that highly qualified women will not attend a program that is all female.

            Since it doesn't affect women, inequality is okay...

            Thus this program actually engaged in what amounts to affirmative action for males in order to attract and keep highly qualified female students.

            ...and apparently is in place not to remedy the lack of prepared men, but to keep women, i.e., the inequality wasn't actually seen as a problem, as I said before.

            (-9.88, -8.87) Namaste.

            by liberate on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:22:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Women are not being admitted (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leftist vegetarian patriot

      to college in preference over men. What this is about is that more an more men are deciding not to go to college.
      One needs to look at why that is happening. The women who do go are subject to the same economic constraints as the men.

      •  Wait, what? (0+ / 0-)

        Men are deciding not to go to college? Do you have anything to back this up?

        (-9.88, -8.87) Namaste.

        by liberate on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:07:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well "I've seen studies" (0+ / 0-)

          If that's a sufficient backing for your assertions, it should be good enough for mine.

          •  See above. I gave evidence. Your turn. (0+ / 0-)

            By the way, some civility would be appreciated. Thanks.

            (-9.88, -8.87) Namaste.

            by liberate on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:11:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is a two way street. n/t (0+ / 0-)
              •  So I will ask the question again. (0+ / 0-)

                What evidence do you have that men are choosing to enter college less and less?

                (-9.88, -8.87) Namaste.

                by liberate on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:14:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  See (0+ / 0-)

                  My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
                  --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

                  by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:18:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Don't see anything there indicating that men are (0+ / 0-)

                    choosing not to go to college.

                    (-9.88, -8.87) Namaste.

                    by liberate on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:22:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sorry, wasn't quite my point (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      liberate

                      If colleges ARE in fact admitting large numbers of men who are less ready because those colleges wish to avoid classes that are overwhelmingly female, then without a great deal of help a smaller percentage of those men are going to graduate. This is a point that has been made in the past by proponents and foes of affirmative action, the proponents arguing for the extra help and the foes arguing that it invalidates the entire concept.

                      My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
                      --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

                      by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:34:45 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I, understand what you were going for now. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        leftist vegetarian patriot

                        Sorry for not catching that earlier. It's a real problem. I guess what still bothers me is that people seem to forget what "equality" means. If you flipped it around and said "Men make up 60% of college students, look at the progress we've made!" I'm sure someone would (rightfully!) exclaim "But that's not equality!" But now that it's swung too far the other direction, the silence is deafening. At least around these parts.

                        (-9.88, -8.87) Namaste.

                        by liberate on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:36:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Linky (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  leftist vegetarian patriot

                  ns Colleges need a few good men

                  A quick Google on the string "why are men not going to college" comes up with a very long list of references. There are many different theories as to an explanation. However, the existence of the phenomenon seems to be strongly established.

                  •  I don't see anything about choosing, still. (0+ / 0-)

                    Quite to the contrary:

                    "We were surprised when it began in the early '90s," says Johnson. "But not anymore. It is disturbing on two levels, first in the implications for society and second because of the overall educational experience."

                    And then:

                    When some women hear that college administrators are trying to get more men onto campus, the rhetoric begins to fly. Feminists say women need to be encouraged to attend college, to graduate, to move into white-collar jobs. After all the work to gain an equal academic playing field for women, they ask, do you expect women to go backward?

                    Hold your fire, says Mortenson. The gender war on campus is over. Women won.

                    And then:

                    Don't hold your breath, say some experts. As long as girls are doing better in elementary, middle and high school than boys, they will continue to comprise a larger number of students on college campuses.

                    The only mention I see is towards the bottom, alluding to a lack of positive male role models (my point, again):

                    It's not hard to see why a growing number of boys and young men might think that way. After all, who are their role models?

                    "If it is not a sports figure, it is a movie action figure," Black says. "We need to look around for people to inspire our boys."

                    (-9.88, -8.87) Namaste.

                    by liberate on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:25:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Men are not enrolling in college (0+ / 0-)

                      despite the fact that college administrators are attempting to recruit more men. That situation results from either a choice not to attend or that fact that someone is holding a gun to their heads.

                      You really seem to be going out of your way to be a contentious nit picker. Go find someone else to play your games with.

                      •  Sorry, I'm not going to just go away because you (0+ / 0-)

                        don't like the uncomfortable truth.

                        Your own damn article clearly states that men are doing worse before college, slipping in college, and don't have good role models to encourage them to go to college. Nowhere does it say that the men are equally prepared and just decide not to go.

                        (-9.88, -8.87) Namaste.

                        by liberate on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:32:05 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

  •  machismo seems to be primary requirement for CEO (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    liberate

    All the senior executive types I've known or heard of seemed to embrace the cliches wholeheartedly: be completely oblivious to reality and believe instead that your mighty ubermensch will (or your employees' lack of it) is the cause of all things good and bad, and that bold and highly-visible but often shallow and ultimately self-defeating (for the company at least) moves is the path to success. The higher you rise in a company, the less important actual skills seem to become, to be replaced by "leadership" aka charisma and psychopathy - as if a CEOs only real job is to impress and intimidate - and those particular personality defects are much more common among the males of the species.

    Also, I've heard more than once from people who work in corporate environments of female coworkers who, when they committed to climbing the corporate ladder, started imitating the male senior management at their worst. They noticeably and deliberately dropped the "feminine" traits - multi-tasking, listening, consensus-building, "what do you need" supportiveness instead of "make it happen" sink-or-swim, emotionally aware, etc. - that made them personable and effective, and became utterly consumed by the drive to prove they can be just like the men.

    •  That's true. But in the spirit of not being (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Visceral

      sexist, how about

      They noticeably and deliberately dropped the "feminine" traits - multi-tasking, listening, consensus-building, "what do you need" supportiveness instead of "make it happen" sink-or-swim, emotionally aware, etc. - that made them personable and effective, and became utterly consumed by the drive to prove they can be just as aggressive.

      It's not supposed to be a "male trait" if being passive isn't a "female trait."

      (-9.88, -8.87) Namaste.

      by liberate on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:30:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  By the way, funny anecdote. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Visceral

      Where I work, many of the male executives are pushovers while their female counterparts are rather ruthless. Just goes to show you.

      (-9.88, -8.87) Namaste.

      by liberate on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:39:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site