So, exactly why do you think women are so seriously underrepresented at the higher levels of power (political and business)?
I’m not saying this is definitive, ruadh but it is what I see amongst many of my professional friends (mainly lawyers – which in the UK can lead to both business and political careers).
Work for five years:
The first 2 (or so) are about fully learning the ropes, building up an employers confidence in your abilities, building client confidence and networking in general. The following three years are about building your experience and practice.
You get pregnant:
Employer realises you won’t be around when the big cases start to come to court critical stages and so arrange your workload to handle stuff that won’t require you to be available – this often means less interesting, non-career building work. Less likely to meet new clients, etc. Baby comes, you take 6 months off work.
Male contemporary:
Did take those career building cases, did continue to develop a client base, further developed employer confidence and personal experience and abilities.
You go back to work.
In terms of your contemporary male colleague, you began to fall behind during the period of your pregnancy. You regressed during your 6 months off and took a couple of months to get back up to the speed you were at prior to the birth.
And the kicker:
Your male colleague hasn’t stagnated while you were pregnant, away, getting back up to your prior speed.
Conclusion:
You are 18 months - 2 years behind the male in your career development (the winding down while pregnant + 6 months off + getting back to your prior speed + his progression in the mean time). The hard fact is that a males earning ability for his company is significantly greater and this is reflected in his personal earnings and progress up the career ladder.
BTW, the majority of new mums work pro rata (3 or 4 days a week) after that and tend to stop working completely after the second baby.
After 8-10 years progression in their careers, I / we haven’t discerned any gender differences in the rate at which that group reaches Partnership if motherhood hasn’t intervened.
I believe it is something of a factual question whether it is in fact a zero-sum gain.
My gut is that it is not, for otherwise we would see something in the data to reflect this. My gut this is mostly urban legend, as well as unfair aspersion cast on minorities whenever they enter into competition with a body of folks who still deep down believe minorities, including women, are inferior.
However, we really need some substantive data to answer the question.
I submit that if there is in fact a zero-sum game and that if in fact working class white males are losing out to others due to affirmative action in any meaningful way, we should see elevated levels of unemployment over time, controlling for changes in the economy, as compared with other groups.
As far as I have ever seen, the contrary is true. White working class males do not suffer elevated levels of unemployment, rather they seem to continue to enjoy advantages, while minorities, above all black males continue to suffer rather elevated levels of unemployment (surely of course attributable to many causes, such as poor socialization). I suspect much “AA” complaints are really three things:
(a) displacement of fears of economic change, which have been running against the high school educated, onto minority groups – very common phenomena, globally.
(b) Fear of competition per se, nostalgia for closed club.
© underlying belief/sense that women/blacks are inferior, not really worthy, leading to an * a priori * position that black woman/man Z promoted to position X ** because ** of affirmative action. Surely of course this does happen, however, my personal experience is a large number of “unprejudiced” still have the knee-jerk “unqualified” reaction. Nor do I think this is truly dependant on AA as some writers would hold, but an independant hangover from the days of open prejudice. However that is difficult to analyze objectively. Nonetheless, with such objective evidence as blacks suffering from negative differential access to health care/diagnosis/treatment (per studies controlling for economic position) on the basis of their race etc. I believe this is a workable hypothesis.
I am of course taking an aggregate view, obviously there are cases of individuals losing out. That is going to be the case regardless.
What are the actual effects? Last time I was in NYC, it seemed to me the overwhelming majority of the force was white. Moreover, to the extent that the police force may be more effective if it is less “culturally distant” from the inhabitants --I always felt the long island living cops neither liked nor sympathized with city folk like myself-- is this a problem?
True, I see some problems with this. Of course, to what extent are the physical tests necessary? (If they are truly necessary then maybe we should force some of those fat male fucks assigned to the Slope to stop eating donuts and go to a damned gym.)
However, the black applicants largely are derived from schools whose teaching is, shall we say deficient? Ideally perhaps bonuses would be assigned to test-takers from poorly performing schools, in the aggregate. However, I don’t know if this might not be unduly complex. On the other hand, information technology should make this a more reasonable proposition.
Yeah, my experience in private universities has been the same in the past. Children of alums dense as blocks of stone.
True enough, and this will change I think, however, race remains of outsized importance in the States.
And I mourn…
Oh, that I should see the day when the History Channel (or Discovery Channel or The Learning Channel or any other device of learning, regardless of efficacy) is regarded as a white male thing.
The one thing we all, as humans, are good at, is learning. In every other respect we can be outdone. But not this one. And to think that something as precious as knowledge would be described in such a way brings me sadness.
To be fair, although I’ve only seen the History Channel a few times, it does seem to lean towards the adolescent boy’s idea of history – but I could be wrong about this.
Interesting analysis, L_C. Of course, the fact that men can have as many children as they like without suffering, career-wise, is another subject for discussion.
However, I don’t know how applicable the situation you’re describing is to the U.S. This part:
…absolutely does not fit in with my own experience and knowledge of professional American women, most of whom go back to work fulltime within a few months AT MOST (you have to remember the benefit situation is rather different over there), and very few of whom quit completely after their second child. So the impact of childbearing on women’s careers really shouldn’t be that great - it might put a woman on the slower lift to the top, but shouldn’t knock her off it completely. Something else must be going on there.
thedoorsrule;
kick ass! i’m with you, man. many don’t know where you’re coming from. Fuck 'em. Some understand.
and don’t you have the right to complain as much as anyone else?
**
In the examples I’m discussing, there are only so many bodies that can be admitted to a law school or police academy class. There may be a little bit of wiggle room, but not much.
**
That’s a bit of a non sequitur, I think, because just because a white guy isn’t admitted to the police force doesn’t mean he’s unemployable.
**
Doesn’t your exception swallow the rule? It seems that you implicitly assume that different unemployment rates must, to some degree, reflect racism in the hiring process. It might, certainly, but that’s only one of many explanations, the most direct of which is the one you cite: poor socialization. That, in turn, largely reflects familial breakdown compounded by horrendous educational systems.
Now, both of those factors may have initially resulted from racism. But it is, quite frankly, not the obligation of the job market to “make up” for the skills (social, intellectual and otherwise) an applicant lacks.
**
Totally agree.
**
Also very true. The examples I gave - law school and police - were, in fact, closed clubs at one time.
**
And true as well. The problem is that even though all three of these may impeach the motives of those who complain about AA, they’re not relevant to the ultimate issue: is the “thumb on the scale” worth it, once we realize that it isn’t the privileged who will pay?
…
**
Withholding judgment since I haven’t read the studies. Am, however, suspicious because of the complexity of the subject (what does “access” mean? How do you control for cultural factors - Tuskeegee, for example?) and the consequent high potential squishiness of the data.
**
Actually, my experience with the police is that they are no longer overwhelmingly white, although I’m sure that the don’t demographically reflect New York, either. I also agree with your point about suburban-dwelling cops (actually, they don’t usually live in LI - it’s too expensive on a cop salary - but up in Putnam and Rockland counties). I’ve always thought New York should build some nice housing for cops, teachers, etc. who can’t afford to live decently on their salaries. (Given the recent run-up in real estate prices, this has become even more urgently true.)
There’s no question that the costs of this AA program may be worth it, if it results in improved race relations between the police and the citizenry. However, that doesn’t mean we simply wish the costs away, or dismiss those who complain as mere crybabies.
True, true, but I was thinking in terms of over all gains vs losses for society. Narrowly constructed there is a zero-sum element of course.
I was addressing the issue of affirmative action having a negative effect on WM employment generally --or at least to working class WM, w/o specific reference to the police force. For any given specific career choice, I think we run into data problems. So, I think in order to answer AA questions, from an economic POV, we have to look at an aggregate.
No, I implicity assume that large differentials in hiring rates reflect non-economic societal barriers to that class, be it blacks, women etc. Some of those barriers may be ‘natural’ -e.g. insofar as London Calling’s example remains true for women. Others clearly are not, e.g. in re black males. That of course does raise the issue of how much of this is self-generated.
True, as noted above by implication. However, to the extent that horrendous educational systems also reflect prejudicial (esp by race) allocation of resources, this feeds back into the original observation.
Yes, and no. Affirm Action to my understanding of the law does not require such in the private sector, rather equal consideration, no? In re compensatory points to tests in the public sector, let us deal with that below. I also, however, return to the issue of global gains versus losses. We may see an increase in the pie if we reduce inefficient, uneconomic discriminatory practices which in fact reduce access to meritorious candidates. In a sense, thumb on the market scales to penalize discriminatory practices may help long term market forces.
Well, it all depends. To the extent that I believe that pressure to open up to candidates incorrectly penalized by sex/race and underlying racial/etc. discrimination (per my point © above) will open up to more genuine merit-based competition at this level, yes. I have a hard time believing that white males are really more qualified over all to build buildings, but they do seem to have an immense dominance in the building trade last time I was living in NYC (admittedly several years ago).
Overall, in terms of merit based competition, and given that judgements on merit are often highly subjective, it still seems to me that WM have undeserved advantages.
Quite hard data really, although the cultural ascept is difficult. I have to find the citations. On my laptop somewhere. In re the two studies I am thinking of in particular, they were studies of patterns of doctors’ treatment of … hmmm the detials escape me, well they were studies of how doctors prescribe, so we already control for non-seeking of treatment to an extent. Well, I shall have to locate the information in order to be precise.
True, but I don’t care for complaints that start from invalid and factually unsupportable suppositions such as “I can’t sue for discrimination” etc.
Personally, I am often uncomfortable with AA programs and until I was in the workplace, above all in more responsible positions, I was an opponent. However, gradually I came to sense far too many of my colleagues are still operating on prejudicial reasoning/judgement. From that, my disdain for anti-AA arguments has developed insofar as the data and personal experience suggest they are * often * hypocritical and unfounded.
Common, ruadh, either hijack your own post or don’t but don’t make a point and then claim it’s extraneous 
Isn’t it true that both men and women have three choices:
Women: Work or breed or combine work and breeding
Men: Catch the 7.06am train for 30 years or catch the 7.06 train for 30 years or catch……
Which gender choice (“choice” being the operative word) would you prefer ?
As regards the factors faced by American women in particular (as opposed to those in all other developed societies), I think there probably are several issues / dynamics at play – the unique pressures of corporate America and the societies uniquely limited parental support legislation immediately spring to mind. However, I also think we need a thread just to identify a valid ‘group’ within any homogenous society as the potential variables are so great. (I looked at a couple of PDF’s on this and it’s a minefield of sub-groups….Black, White, Asian, Hispanic family dynamics, lone, divorced, separated, financially supported parenting, definitions of ‘professional’, ‘career’, ‘full-time’ – hopeless in a message board environment)
I do agree more women than ever continue to work after child birth but I also think very many of those (former) career women pursue less demanding employment. The era of ‘superwoman’ might have been a 1980’s ideal but the reality now is that very few can or want to balance a highly demanding competitive career while at the same time ‘nurturing without guilt’ and playing catch-up with their male contemporaries.
If you question the general thrust of my observations I’d ask you to explain this: At my train station this morning in suburban middle class London (where, one assumes, married, professional / career orientated, parenting women would tend to live), a look along the platform at those making the dreaded journey into town at 8.00am revealed a ratio of at least 10:1 of men over the age of 35 ish compared with women over 35 ish. I actually think the ratio was higher (maybe 15 or 20:1) but lets use that.
Yes, it’s hardly a study observing strict scientific criteria but I ask: Why would that be – are they all cycling to their city careers ?
Skarecrow, you poor baby. You sound like a decent person who’s had it rough. I think all you were asking for initially was a hug. Whether or not you were, here it is: {{{{{Skarecrow}}}}}. Good luck raising that kid of yours.
{{{{Collunsbury}}}}, I think I’m in love with your mind. I love the way it works, all logical and stuff. [celestina fanning herself] I’ve met very few males whose genetic material I would want to preserve, and actually I haven’t met you, but yours is one of them. But I’ll bet some lady has already snapped you up. [sigh] May I be your virtual wife and have your virtual kids? Okay, I’ll stop being silly now.
inor & doorsrule, you both sound like you have some serious issues you need to work out, and perhaps getting together with other males–I’d say preferably males of different classes, ethnicities, races …–would be a good thing for you. You really need to see how difficult it is for other males. You may find that you have more in common than you realized. Now, I don’t know you well enough to call you racists, but from what you’ve posted you definitely sound as if you’re biased against and even threatened by minorities because that shit is so deeply engrained in American society and history it’s difficult to see past it. I suspect that you’re starting to realize that the traditional models that white males have used to build up their self-esteem: patriarchy, white male Affirmative Action, and prejudice against minorities, don’t apply to you now. The problem is how do you build your self-esteem then? How do you give yourself status if you don’t have the nice house, car, trophy wife, and professional job? How can you hold your head up and be proud of yourself if you see that minorities have an opportunity like Affirmative Action–it’s really debatable how well this opportunity serves them since the ones who seem to benefit the most from it are white females–that does not apply to you? You say that you are not responsible for the centuries of oppression that minorities have experienced in this country–doorsrule, you say you won’t pay reparations for slavery? Well of course you can’t pay reparations. There’s no way anyone can do that. It’d take a few centuries at the very least–but whether or not you lynched or raped a minority, you still benefit over the very real and all too often unacknowledged sweat, blood, and tears they shed to build the United States into the powerful country it is today. Out West in the 19th century Chinese workers on the railroad were worked to the point they couldn’t work anymore and then shot for their troubles. Everybody gets so caught up in the black-white issue, no one thinks of Native Americans who’ve gotten the worst deal. Today, there are nations or them who live on pockets of American land who are not considered American citizens. They live in abject poverty. Alcoholism and the suicide rate for Native Americans is disturbingly high on these reservations. Often black males and females were lynched during Reconstruction and the early part of the 20th century for doing better economically than some of their white neighbors, or for trying to exercise their right to vote–actually the KKK was started to prevent African Americans from voting–or for coming back from WWI, WWII, . . . having fought honorably and heroically for Americans’ right to freedom. Their economic, socio-political, and military success played havoc with the illogic of racism that asserts that non-white males and females are inferior to white males so in order to put things to rights, white males with their wives and children in tow would go out and have a lynching party. End of the problem of successful black males and females. Well, people can’t literally lynch minorities now, but figuratively they can by blaming them for things like Affirmative Action when white males can’t make it. I suspect that Affirmative Action has next to nothing to do with your success or lack thereof. I suspect that even if you had the jobs and money you want, you would still not be happy or consider yourself successful because the kind of happiness and success that really count don’t come from money or status IMHO. But I digress. Let me say it again. Even if you didn’t participate in a lynching or a rape of a minority, you still benefit from that injustice today. You can walk down the street and not have to worry about white women clutching their purses in fear that you will attempt to steal them. You don’t have to worry about driving down the road and expecting to be pulled over because of the very real racial profiling that the police do. You don’t have to worry about a highly flawed and arguably unjust judicial system that places disporportionately HIGH numbers of minority males in prison. Quit blaming minorities for your problems. They have more than enough problems of their own, the primary one being white males blaming minorities for existing and reminding them of a past rife with oppression and inhumanity against man that if they had any decency in them they at the very least should be ashamed of.
But, I think like Skarecrow in posting to this thread, you just wanted a hug too. Here it is: {{{inor}}} {{{doorsrule}}}.
Now, all of you children, quit squabbling.
Why exactly do you think it is that women have this “choice” but men don’t? Is it because men don’t want to stay home with the weans, or because the family can’t afford to sacrifice his wages, though it might be able to sacrifice hers?
But all this does is validate the point that it’s women who have to decide how to balance their careers and their families. Men don’t have to ask themselves “Can I work fulltime and still be a good parent?”, and men aren’t made to feel guilty when they simply assume the answer is “yes”.
To the extent that women do pursue less demanding employment after childbirth - and I want to stress here that a lot of women don’t, at least not voluntarily - it’s often done simply out of necessity, because Da isn’t going to take time off his job to bring Junior to the doctor when he’s got the sniffles. [sub]no Beckham jokes please[/sub]
I’m not questioning your observations, I’m just saying they don’t mesh with my own*. Most certainly I never observed on my rush-hour commutes a significant difference in the male:female over-35 ratio. I simply don’t think we’re talking about comparable situations, L_C.
[sub]*In the US, that is. Ireland of course is another kettle of fish entirely.[/sub]
Hmm, interesting. Answers no and yes.
One little thing to throw into the mix.
We shouln’t expect every profession, every business, or every economic sector to be a representative sample of the population at large.
For instance, over here in the US we see lots and lots of Korean-owned convenience stores. This isn’t a random fluctuation, it just happened that Koreans got into the business, which means it was easier for family members to get into the business…positive feedback.
Similarly, if we look at white ethnic groups we find that THEY aren’t represented evenly. There are family and cultural considerations that make people of certain groups preferential choose certain jobs over others.
So even if the goal is to eliminate unfair hiring practices we should not expect equal representation of all groups in all sectors.
Collounsbury, I realize it’s been a whirlwind courtship and all, but I’ve added you as my virtual mate to my sig.
I just knew Coll would turn out to be a tart…
Hey ruadh. Can we suspend this game of cyber table tennis until after the St Paddy’s weekend ? Have a wicked time in Madrid and we’ll call you from Amsterdope ! May your matador make missing the craic worth it !!
Prediction: Arsenal 1 Tottenham 2
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by London_Calling *
I just knew Coll would turn out to be a tart…
[/quote
Bother, you try living in a land of large baggy clothes and hijabs. Does funny things to ya. I catch myself contemplating various hijab styles and thinking, hey, that’s a sexy way to…
I assure you, its very disturbing.
Bah. (however, being risk averse, I do not profer my own prediction.)
Of course this in no way reflects on my virtual wife…
Oh {{{{{Coll}}}}}, I don’t know what to say. I’m sorry you’re having it a little rough over in Cairo, but if it’s any consolation, I’m not having much luck in the U.S. For some reason males are scared of woman who’s got a brain and is not afraid to use it. [sigh] I’m not a psycho, nor am I pushover, and I wouldn’t harm a fly. I’m glad you still respect me today, double standards being what they are. I hope you don’t regret becoming my virtual husband.
This has been one of the more interesting threads I’ve participated in. I had no idea when I clicked on it that I’d find what I did–white males complaining about having a rough time and looking for sympathy. Come to think of it, I’m not sure what I expected, but I certainly didn’t expect to get myself virtually married. I have been wanting to tell you for some time now that I do admire how your brain works so I’m glad I got to do that. 
And I hope in that rant/scolding I delivered I helped those guys get a little perspective on things. I certainly hope they will take my suggestion and start a multicultural group of males with whom they can talk about their feelings. I think that males have it rough because they aren’t socialized to express their feelings. They just have to act tough all the time. That’s bullshit.
Actually, I do find it interesting in a thread titled “the opposite of feminism,” where I have virtually propositioned and married you, that you the male and not I as the female have been labelled a “tart.” I thank you for your gallantry in defending my honor especially since we don’t know each other very well.
I look forward to developing a nice virtual marriage with you. {{{{{Coll}}}}}
My matador, eh? Well, if you ring in the middle of the night and I don’t pick up the phone …
It is a year ending in “1”, after all!