It was very hard for me to learn of the extent of racism present in American society, but I learned it from the SDMB. But that’s a red herring.
Umm… no. You’re going well beyond what I said.
What counts, to you, as “modern times”?
I may be going beyond what you intended. But that was what I got from what you said, and I don’t think I was interpreting what you were saying unreasonably.
And racism vis a vis sexism is not a red herring, and don’t think Britain is immune to it! Britain has fewer sub-Saharan Africans and little history of slavery; it makes things easier, but you’ve got a perfectly nice little history of racism all your own. Check out Vanity Fair for starters. Racism is quite comparable to sexism, except for the little matter that in your mind sexism is often justified (see above) and you can’t (or won’t) see that just maybe that gets extended to cases where it’s not.
The fact is, women are viewed differently from men straight across the board, even here on the boards. How many threads have we read that talk about the idea that men and women just don’t think the same way? The worst insults you can fling are all comparisons to woman - a sissy, a pussy, and above all, a c—. One of the highest compliments you can pay a woman is that she’s “one of the guys.” A girl who dreams of being a boy is a tom-girl. A boy who dreams of being a girl is sick. Even women don’t view women as highly as we view men. There’s just an automatic assumption that men are the norm, and women are somehow different, starting with the identification of women as a “minority,” when we actually constitute a majority of the voters here in the US.
Yes, individual women can work their way up the success ladder. But they have to have much more - whether it’s brains, brawn, beauty, luck, hard-work, or some other quality - they have to have an extra something to compete. Because there is a societal prejudice, not just among men, but among women as well, against women. And it’s not going to end soon. It will probably take centuries, if it ever ends.
Perhaps part of the answer is within your question – because we assume women who take care of the elderly or teach children are getting some sort of natural satisfaction out of their job, or that they’ve got a second income coming in and don’t need the money.
You’re quite right, whether another poster is assumed to be male by default or a female subject’s fuckability is questioned. It’s disappointing, to say the least.
I do.
I disagree.
So? The thread is about the alleged glass ceiling, not sexism. Britain had a rather bad reputation with regard to sexism.
And I take it it’s all better now? :dubious:
I agree with you that it is a socialization issue. Take my wife(please don’t!), she majored in psychology in undergrad and got a masters in clinical social work. She is now frustrated because there is no real career path to make more money than she does now. We have talked about it at length. She realizes her main motivations were she likes to help people and she always assumed whoever she ended up with would make enough money so her career choice would not matter. She grew up in the 70s and 80s, for reference.
This makes no sense. The glass ceiling is an artifact of sexism. To me, the only real question is whether there is still significant explicit sexism (deciding not to hire/promote a woman because she may have children) or it is just implicit sexism (we are socialized to expect different roles for men and women and put pressure on others to conform).
Thoroughly stomped.
ETA: there are always idiots, of course.
I disagree. Sexism is personal, whereas the alleged glass ceiling is institutional. And if it were purely sexist, why have women been able to succeed in the past?
Your entire argument is laughably flawed - there can be no glass ceiling, as some women have been able to succeed in the past.
Discrimination does not have to be absolute to exist. The disproportion in ratios between men and women is so absolutely clear, on so many counts - relative salaries, relative number of each gender in certain roles - that I’m gobsmacked that anyone can look at this issue and contest that not only is there no current prejudice against women reaching seniority in the workplace, but that there never was.
UK statistics:
Female prime ministers - 1 out of 53 (1.8%)
Female MP’s since 1918 - 291 out of 4659 (6%)
Women directors of FTSE100 companies - 11%
US statistics:
Female Presidents - 0%
Female board level staff in Fortune 500 companies - 14% (cite)
So, let me ask just how you explain this sort of gap? Do you really think that men are 7 times more likely to be good executives? You really think that men are 16 times more likely to be suitable as members of parliament? That no women in the US has ever been better suited to be president than any of the male candidates at that time?
Also, from a company point of view, your argument that it’s in a companies interest to discriminate against women as they might have babies is just woefully shortsighted. You want staff, especially senior level staff, as a long term resource. Losing a good member of staff for 6 months to a year is an inconvenience, but one that’s trivial compared to the benefits the company reaps over the longer term.
The line that told me gender-based discrimination still existed in Spain was, during one of my first interviews, being asked what did my boyfriend think about my getting a summer job.
What told me it still existed in the USA was, after a candidate for a tenure-track position with impeccable credentials gave a superb presentation and was able to answer every question posed to her (unlike all the other candidates), hearing one of the professors say he would give her the lowest possible amount of points in every single evaluation item because “wearing a pants suit is so unprofessional!” (this professor still remains the worst-dressed person I’ve ever met outside of the begging trades) and another professor (jeans and t-shirt) agreeing.
It’s been a while since both anecdotes, but claiming that expectations are the same for any person independently of their gender, age, accent, country of origin, country of nationality, religion, mannerisms and size is a self-invitation to the ostriches’ area down at the zoo.
Absolutely not true. For a small company, it’s a major expense. A larger company can absorb more of the costs, but they still have to employ more people - because some of the women will be off on maternity leave some of the time. More staff for the same income means less profit. The public sector just passes the cost on to the taxpayer, but then they pay less.
This is roundly contradicted by all the threads about the lack of company loyalty to staff. And then there are all the threads about beancounters and executives only looking to the next financial report.
It is, unfortunately, an unpleasant truth. But sexism has little to do with the alleged glass ceiling. Guess what? Men have to struggle to be employed and promoted too. They too get marked on their attire at interview. They too have to excel and impress their superiors. They too have to compete in office politics. But they don’t get to claim that they didn’t succeed because of a glass ceiling.
No, women have all that AND sexism to deal with. That’s the glass ceiling.
Let me reiterate: no one is claiming that men have it easy. No one. But there still exists in many places (and the City in particular is rife with it) a bias against women because they are women. Are you getting this yet? Yes, men have to deal with interviews, office politics and so forth but at no point do the difficulties they encounter have anything to do with their gender. Women have an additional hurdle to get over because there are a lot of men who think that women are inherently less capable.
And yes, some women succeed nonetheless. But as I’ve said previously, this is despite the barriers they’ve encountered, not because the barriers don’t exist. I don’t understand why you find this so difficult to grasp.
You might want to try checking your facts first. Funny thing is I am one of the bosses of a very small company, 130 staff worldwide. Maternity costs are negligent to the point of trivia. In the UK (similar rules exist in EU too) in the first 6 months, after reclaiming deductions from NI, cost to the employer is 4.5% of the monthly cost of the employee. After 6 months, it’s 0. In the US it’s even less of a cost - FMLA just allows for 12 weeks of unpaid leave, although employers can (at their discretion) offer paid maternity leave.
So there is no cost to me worth talking about through female staff taking maternity leave. Of course I do have to plan to have staff available for covering such things, but then again I also have to plan for staff cover for holidays, sickness, client visits, trips, yadda - all of which are far tricker to plan for than a fixed duration absence with several months warning.
No, it is not an unpleasant truth. It is an unpleasant claim, being made by you in defiance of all reasonable evidence given. How the hell can you dispute that women are at a disadvantage in the workplace when every figure given to you shows that they earn less on average, and are greatly outnumbered in senior positions? You’ve failed to respond at all to any of the figures I’ve posted above showing the disparity of role. Do you really think you can just glibly dismiss the facts of the workplace? Come on, why are female board staff outnumbered nearly 10 to 1 in the city? Why is the average pay of a woman working in IT in the UK 20% less than the average male pay? How many more examples do you need before you accept that there is a clear, unarguable gap between the status of men and women that can only be explained by a sexual divide?
Does that mean every bloke will succeed? No, no more than every woman will fail - it just means the odds are weighted much more in your favour if you’re male, no matter how you try to defend it.
Doesn’t it depend in what field as well. Previous posts have been about politics and business- but say being a jockey, there are less successful female jockeys. Until the last 20 years virtually no opportunities existed. However, even now, they aren’t all over the place which is a bit surprising given they are “generally” lighter.
However, it comes to such things as a lower centre of gravity. Those female jockeys who do succeed often have physiques rather than figures.
<Putting away the soapbox>
At 130 employees, I’d suggest you’re in the medium size range. I was thinking terms of very much smaller companies - 20 employees or less - so I apologise for not being more precise. Anyway, aren’t you forgetting the cost of recruiting a temporary replacement? Not only paying the agency, but also the disruption, the time in interviewing, training, getting the employee up to speed etc? As I’m sure you’re aware, these are all hidden costs, but costs that still have to be paid. And I’m sure your employees will be glad to hear you call 4.5% a trivial amount.
I have already covered that. In case you hadn’t spotted it, having left work some time ago and now seeking to return to it, I am faced with a significant drop in salary. It’s not sexist at all; it’s business. As mentioned upthread, those women who do not take time off for families see no pay disparity.
Seeing as we started with 3 people, I reckon I can talk with authority on the costs faced by very small companies too. If you are a very small company, you can actually recover 104.5% of your salary costs for maternity pay - i.e. the government pays you extra, to the tune of 27% of the annual salary cost of the person in question. I’d say that pretty much covers those hidden costs, wouldn’t you? And for a larger company it’s a non-issue - you need to have cover for staff anyway, for the factors mentioned above, so having to plan for a 6 month absence of someone when you have 3 months or more to prepare for it is just not even worth factoring in as a possible detriment when you’re interviewing candidates.
Sorry, are you claiming that only women who take time off for family are on a lower salary than their male counterparts? I’d love to see your cite for that…as the research I can [find](According to a survey published today women graduates are paid less than their male University classmates within three years of graduating.) states the opposite:
“According to a survey published today women graduates are paid less than their male University classmates within three years of graduating.”
Or do you reckon that the majority of female graduates are starting families within 3 years of graduation.
Also, I really do want some detailed reasoning for the difference in male/female ratios for all the occupations given above? Or are you saying that it’s family choices that are also holding back women in politics?
Linky no worky, fella. Nor should it, looking at what you’ve put in the URL.
Sorry, I’m stepping aside from this one. Too many seem to be mistaking this for misogyny.