Bull. In business, you have to convince the people who control promotions and hirings that you’re qualified for the job, and that’s not going to be a whole lot of people most of the time. In politics, you have to convince the voting public that you’re the right person, and that’s a much more difficult task.
So us women should just know our place and stick to the jobs we’re “more suited to”? Girls consistently out-perform boys throughout the education system, yet this is not reflected in the workplace. As for the examples you’ve given, there will always be trailblazing women who will smash barriers for us, just as there are in every under-represented group, thank God. But it shouldn’t be that hard - the barriers shouldn’t be there to be smashed in the first place. Sarah Palin is only the second women to ever stand for VP. Margaret Thatcher is still the only female Primer Minister we’ve ever had. Surely, if there were no glass ceiling, some other smart, talented woman would have come before them?
Anyway, I’m out now. I suspect arguing gender equality with Quartz is the very definition of “pointless”.
I’d say your OP didn’t prove anything but was really off-putting.
How many female presidents have there been? If the answer is still zero, this glass ceiling still exists. I think it’s that simple. The interplay between gender and politics and public perception is about as complicated as anything this side of M-theory, however. Hillary Clinton’s baggage definitely played a role in her loss. But what created that baggage? The public perception of her as a calculating, domineering harpy with a heart of stone played a factor and I think she is viewed more negatively than a male politician with a similar history would be. Would any other politician, male or female, have been accused of pretending to cry like she was? How much of the problem was her personality, how much was her last name, how much was her gender… there’s no way to conclusively measure this stuff, in my opinion. Female politicians on a national level are still new enough that they’re considered something of a novelty, and they get a bit more of the celebrity treatment than most male Senators and Governors do. I suppose that will even out to a larger extent over time.
Who’s qualified? Let’s say definitively “these women are qualified” and see if they get nominated a few years (4, 8, even 12) down the line.
Where else has the glass ceiling been, but in people’s minds? The glass ceiling is a metaphor that was powerful enough to seep into common usage against the pressure of an opposing idea: that women were just whining and saying they were vicitms of society when the fact was that they just weren’t up to the job.
From the beginning, there have been arguments that there is/was no such thing as a glass ceiling. Do you believe that there ever was a glass ceiling, anywhere? Just curious.
Rubbish.
I think there are two factors here: firstly the education system is slanted towards girls - just as it was slanted towards boys earlier. They’ve yet to find the right medium. Secondly, girls mature faster than boys.
Oh yes, women do tend to go off and have children. Taking time out for this puts them behind men, but it’s a choice women make. As do some men. I’m in a similar situation myself, having taken a year off to care for my aunt. I’m now looking at a £5K salary drop.
There have only been 3 PMs since, the firs being Thatcher’s designated successor, and the third was the heir apparent of the second for a decade. And I don’t recall any women in the Labour Party challenging Brown. They could have. And isn’t Harriet Harman deputy leader?
And there have been plenty of other female premiers - Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, and so on. Oh yes, an Australian woman has just been appointed Governor General - how about that?
There have. You just haven’t looked.
That’s the statement of a bigot. Your thesis is contradicted by the evidence. I see women succeeding in all fields. They have the opportunity, just as men do.
Do I understand you correctly, Quartz, to be arguing that the historical fact that women are underrepresented in certain fields means that women are demonstrably less suited to those jobs?
No. If a woman or a man is suitable for a job, then they should have the same opportunity. Equality of opportunity, not equality of result.
Given equal ability, shouldn’t equal opportunity lead to equality of result?
The numbers seem to suggest that most voters think the best person for the job is NEVER a woman. That’s what a glass ceiling is.
That’s neither here nor there–no one is disagreeing with that in principle. What we were discussing is the reason there’s a current imbalance in the male/female ratio in many professions.
Which I take to mean that you think there are no barriers to women in those fields in which the imbalance exists–no external barriers, at any rate. You suggest that the reason there’s an imbalance is that men are more suited to those jobs, while women are more suited to others, like nursing. Is that correct?
When a woman wins the Presidency itself, not a token running-mate slot, and when it happens with less childish misogyny on display than we saw this year from the Clinton haters, and when “I just wouldn’t vote for a woman” is as contemptible a statement as “I just wouldn’t vote for a colored boy”, then it will be reasonable to call the ceiling broken. But Palin means no more than Ferraro did, she’s just 24 years later.
The ceiling is deeply cracked, thanks to Clinton’s work, but remains intact.
No. I’m asking the question, not suggesting anything. A relative was a male nurse for a time FWIW.
Fine, but you’re denying that a glass ceiling even exists:
If the glass ceiling is only imagined by those held back by it, it follows that there is no external glass ceiling–meaning no pervasive attitude or systemic features that prevent women from achieving the same heights as men, in some fields, in the same numbers. It’s merely that women imagine barriers where none exist.
Do you think that the glass ceiling never existed, or doesn’t exist anymore?
How old are you? I ask that not as a putdown but as an inquiry into how much direct personal experience you have with the historical treatment of men versus women in employment (and other areas).
I for one am old enough to recall when the newspaper classified sections ran “Help Wanted - Male” and “Help Wanted - Female” sections, and the stark difference in opportunities offered. I also recall the gradual expansion of “first woman” entering historically male occupations and pursuits, and the huge brouhaha each time some female tried to muscle her way into traditionally male territory. I remember when BAA official Jock Semple in 1967 physically tackled the first woman to (semi-)officially run in the Boston Marathon.
I would suggest, if you ain’t been there, don’t go there.
Yeah, we may have the opportunity, and we may be successful, but believe you me, its really not easy. As a successful woman in her field, I’ll tell you this much, and this is borne out by the experience of my equally successful female colleagues:
-
We have to work a heck of a lot harder than our male colleagues to achieve the same level of recognition, not just historically, but even now.
-
Having time off to have kids is seen as a weakness and a sign of “not being commited to one’s career”
-
Its generally assumed by a lot of people that for couples in my field (and there are quite a few), its the male half of the couple that’s the brains behind the outfit and the woman “rides on his coattails”.
-
Futher to point 3, its assumed that the woman will be happy to move for her partner’s job, but that her partner need not be so happy to move for her job, i.e. her career is secondary. And I know a lot of good and highly successful women for whom this is true and they’ve had to face the “career or partner” choice, a lot more frequently than men have.
Of course, as a man, you’re not going to perceive the glass ceiling, and yes you’ve had female bosses, but they’ve been the ones that have managed to break through, and there are still talented and intelligent women who don’t get to break through (in my field this is known as the “leaky pipeline”, you start off with almost equal numbers of men and women in the field, but by the time they get to the level of permanent positions, the women have been all but pushed out. If there was equality of opportunity this would surely not be happening surely – the women have up until then proved themselves to be as good if not better than their male colleagues). You might see “women succeeding in all fields”, and yes, they do, but not without a lot of struggle and sacrifice to crack that glass ceiling.
Why should a business give women credit for taking time off to have kids? They’re in the business of making money, not children. As I noted earlier, I’m seeing this myself, as I’m returning to work after an absence. It’s not personal, it’s not sexist, it’s business.
If you’re saying that men don’t have to struggle or sacrifice to succeed, you couldn’t be more wrong. Very few people of either gender make it to the top.
I’m not talking about a drop in pay, I’m talking about getting a job in the first place. Are you asked “so, are you going to be wanting a family any time soon?” Probably not. I know women who have been asked that. That’s not business, that’s sexist.
And yet, disproportionately, they seem to be men. My boss (a woman) and I tried to name the top people in our field (of which she is ranked in the top 5 in Europe) a couple of months ago. With the exception of her and one other person, they were all men. Are you seriously telling me there’s no glass ceiling and its just because we’re less qualified? If there was no glass ceiling then surely the numbers should better reflect the gender distribution lower down the chain? It sure as hell doesn’t.
I thought I’d made it clear that I am currently in that position. Evidently not.
No. It’s business. It’s not personal. Why should I recruit someone who might disappear at short notice? The same thing is said about people who have too many jobs on their CV. It’s a business decision, not a personal one.
Maybe I’m abnormal because my brother was a scientist at the Clarendon, but just off the top of my head, there’s Heather Couper (former President of the BAA), Jocelyn Burnell (quasars), and Mrs Shoemaker (comets). That’s three, and I’m not in the field. And I learned about Hypatia at school.
I don’t believe there is one.
No, apart from ability, you also need the drive, desire, and determination to get the job. Or do you expect jobs to be given on a platter on a quota basis?
Many women succeed; more women don’t. Exactly the same can be said for men.
Sorry - are you saying that because you are and/or have been (fairly or unfairly) in a position subordinate to women, there is no glass ceiling? That’s a mighty big generalisation you’re wielding there.
Yes, many women have led countries - there’s an excellent list here (although they also include monarchs in with presidents, prime ministers, etc). I think, though, that the US remains a special case, and until and unless a woman gains the position of POTUS there is always going to be the perception that a woman can’t be POTUS.
I do think that Clinton gets a bit too much credit for cracking the ceiling; she is merely the latest of a long line of women politicians to take a crack at it and I do believe that it is thinning on its own over time. You want someone who made a good run at the ceiling, try Shirley Chisholm, the first black woman elected to Congress who managed to get 152 first-ballot votes at the 1972 Democratic National Convention. That’s a pretty good whack at the ceiling right there.
No, I’m saying that I’m looking for a job and am not currently in employment and my gap in employment is being held against me, just as if I were a woman returning to work after having children.
Ah, the perception of a glass ceiling is a different matter entirely. I don’t believe there is one, and I think people like Angua set themselves back by believing that there is one.