BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
MrsSpringsteen said:
FYM in general just certain posters though.
Transgendered Neuroscientist Saw Gender Bias Firsthand
- Thread starter MrsSpringsteen
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
FYM in general just certain posters though.
HeartlandGirl
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
MrsSpringsteen said:
Diamond, you've completely misread the whole article. There is no second seminar given by a man vs. a first seminar given by a woman. The person quoted was referring to Dr. Barres's work in general. And whlie there is a chance that Dr. Barres's research or 'work' improved over the timespan from being a woman to being a man, I have never heard a scientist remark about another scientist that their work had improved over time. It's either "good work" as a whole or "bad work" as a whole. The point of the article seems to be that Barbara Barres does subpar work compared to Ben Barres, which is quite strange to say because the same person is doing all the work. Therefore, perhaps people are viewing the same body of work through the lens of sexism.
The Chronicles of Higher Education has done a great job of documenting the struggles of women in academia. The proof of it is all right there for anyone willing to look. MrsS, I think you're right on with the massive egos and insecurities thing. The men in some of my workplaces have definitely done all they could to avoid being shown up by women, even in simple discussions of little professional relevance. And it can be so subtle, but it's always there. I tried to convince myself for a long time that surely intelligent men wouldn't act that way, but it has been my reality my entire professional life.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
well maybe this person represents the material better now that she changed her gender.
i dunno.
it's just all to confusing.
and sorry gina.
gbye im outta this thread.
dbs
i dunno.
it's just all to confusing.
and sorry gina.
gbye im outta this thread.
dbs
HeartlandGirl
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
diamond said:well maybe this person represents the material better now that she changed her gender.
i dunno.
it's just all to confusing.
A brilliant example of how the existence of sexism just does not compute for some people.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
OP
OP
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
HeartlandGirl said:
I hear you
If you are confused diamond perhaps it would have been better to admit that in the first place rather than say what you did to me in the way that you did. And maybe you could reread the article and give it some serious thought.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Gender bias in FYM........interesting. I think I've seen it.
OP
OP
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I thought you were outta this thread diamond
ooh, scary madface *shudder* That would be my whining Oprahlike shudder of course
ooh, scary madface *shudder* That would be my whining Oprahlike shudder of course
AliEnvy
Refugee
verte76 said:
Are you sure you saw it? Or was it just homophobia in disguise?
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
MrsSpringsteen said:
Re: Re: Transgendered Neuroscientist Saw Gender Bias Firsthand
I’ve given it a lot of thought and I think that it’s a bit more than massive egos and insecurities. In some branches of science (I can’t say all since I’ve only had contact with a limited number) there is a mostly unspoken view of science as elevated beyond the normal circles of society. To work in science is a privilege and one should give one’s all. A person who is too open about having other priorities such as maintaining a normal family life or cultivating a circle of friends will sometimes be looked down upon. It’s an illusion that we tend to cultivate because it’s nice to think that you are a bit special – and in small doses I suppose it’s quite innocent. I does pose a problem for women though. Because we are viewed as more dedicated to family and the more social pursuits in life we are viewed as being weaker and less able to dedicate ourselves with the single-mindedness that men supposedly are capable of. I’d like to think that we simply find different ways to work around the varied elements of our lives (picking up the kids and doing the laundry).
HeartlandGirl said:
I’ve given it a lot of thought and I think that it’s a bit more than massive egos and insecurities. In some branches of science (I can’t say all since I’ve only had contact with a limited number) there is a mostly unspoken view of science as elevated beyond the normal circles of society. To work in science is a privilege and one should give one’s all. A person who is too open about having other priorities such as maintaining a normal family life or cultivating a circle of friends will sometimes be looked down upon. It’s an illusion that we tend to cultivate because it’s nice to think that you are a bit special – and in small doses I suppose it’s quite innocent. I does pose a problem for women though. Because we are viewed as more dedicated to family and the more social pursuits in life we are viewed as being weaker and less able to dedicate ourselves with the single-mindedness that men supposedly are capable of. I’d like to think that we simply find different ways to work around the varied elements of our lives (picking up the kids and doing the laundry).
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
silja said:Is there still room at the end of the table? Let's start plotting taking over the whole thing
Come and join us. We'll order a magnum of champagne and plot.
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
OP
OP
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
By Marcella Bombardieri and Gareth Cook, Boston Globe Staff | July 15, 2006
Eleven MIT professors have accused a powerful colleague, a Nobel laureate, of interfering with the university's efforts to hire a rising female star in neuroscience.
The professors, in a letter to MIT's president, Susan Hockfield , accuse professor Susumu Tonegawa of intimidating Alla Karpova , ``a brilliant young scientist," saying that he would not mentor, interact, or collaborate with her if she took the job and that members of his research group would not work with her.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, they wrote in their June 30 letter, ``allowed a senior faculty member with great power and financial resources to behave in an uncivil, uncollegial, and possibly unethical manner toward a talented young scientist who deserves to be welcomed at MIT." They also wrote that because of Tonegawa's opposition, several other senior faculty members cautioned Karpova not to come to MIT.
She has since declined the job offer.
In response to the June 30 letter, six of Tonegawa's colleagues defended him in their own letter to Hockfield.
Tonegawa, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, is considered one of the world's top scientists, and also one of the most powerful. The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, which he oversees, received $50 million in 2002 to support research into Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, and other diseases. Despite his success, Tonegawa saw Karpova ``as a competitive threat to him," according to a June 27 letter from a Stanford professor to Hockfield. All three letters were obtained by the Globe. Karpova's job offer was made jointly by the McGovern Institute for Brain Research and the biology department, which would not have required her to work with Tonegawa.
The MIT professors who signed the letter are pressuring administrators to give Karpova a formal apology and to investigate the situation. ``We have damaged MIT's reputation as an institution that supports academic fairness for young faculty and jeopardized our ability to attract the best scientists to MIT," wrote the 11 professors, all women, and most involved in MIT committees on gender equity issues. Several of the professors could not be reached and one declined to comment.
Hockfield was traveling and unavailable for comment yesterday. MIT's provost is looking into the allegations, said Robert J. Silbey , the dean of science. In a statement provided by an MIT spokeswoman, the university said it cannot discuss hiring situations, but acts to address any concerns about unfairness in faculty hiring.
Silbey, however, said in an interview with the Globe that he believed Tonegawa's e-mails and conversations with Karpova were simply notification that he did not want to collaborate on research. The two have similar research interests. Karpova is just finishing a postdoctoral fellowship at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, and was interviewing for her first faculty job.
``Is he competitive? Yes." Silbey said of Tonegawa. ``What is he competitive for? To make Picower the best in the world. Does that get on other people's nerves? Yes."
The incident occurred a few months after an MIT professor raised concern in a faculty newsletter that the university has stalled in some of its efforts to hire outstanding women scientists and treat them equally. In 1999, MIT acknowledged a pervasive bias against women and promised to work to achieve equity in hiring, pay, and the overall treatment of women.
The tempest also adds to concerns about the future of MIT's efforts in neuroscience. Some professors say Tonegawa has already caused tension because he is overly competitive with any potential rival, including the McGovern Institute, which shares the same new neuroscience building at MIT.
MIT professor Tomaso Poggio said Tonegawa appears to want ``everything to be under his control."
``Most people would say that he is very smart and charming and a very difficult person to deal with. He is not a team player," said Poggio, a professor at the McGovern Institute.
On July 7, a week after letters criticizing Tonegawa were sent to Hockfield, a group of six MIT faculty, including two women, wrote to the president in defense of Tonegawa. The signers of the letter are all affiliated with the center that Tonegawa oversees. They wrote that Karpova asked Tonegawa whether he would collaborate with her, and he said that he would not.
``We feel that Susumu is being unfairly maligned, and we wish to express our strong support of him," they wrote. ``This is not a gender issue, and to portray it as such sets back the cause of women scientists."
The letter also says that punishing Susumu would have ``far-reaching negative consequences" and would endanger future funding for the institute Tonegawa oversees.
In an e-mail responding to a Globe request for comment, Karpova would not field questions about what occurred. ``I do believe that this problem has been sorted out for the present," she wrote.
She said she was accepting an offer to lead a research team at a lab called Janelia Farm in Virginia, recently established by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, ``and I am very excited about this unique opportunity."
Karpova declined the university's job offer in a June 24 e-mail to the science dean and other MIT officials, according to a copy included in a complaint to university officials from Stanford professor Ben A. Barres .
``I wanted very much to come to MIT," she wrote in the e-mail. ``However, the strong resistance to my recruitment by Dr. Tonegawa has convinced me that I could not develop my scientific career at MIT in the kind of a nurturing atmosphere that I and the young people joining my lab would need in order to succeed."
Karpova added that senior faculty at MIT warned her ``about the professional difficulties I would face at MIT in a situation where part of the community strongly felt that my research direction could potentially compete with their scientific interests."
Tonegawa was awarded the 1987 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for pioneering work on the genetics of the immune system. He then moved into neuroscience, and is particularly focused on studying memory.
Several scientists said Karpova is considered one of the most promising young neuroscientists. Her work ``has incredible potential for making big steps forward in our understanding of how the brain works," said Barres, when asked to comment on his letter to MIT. He wrote in the letter that the young scientist told him about her experiences at MIT during a visit to Stanford, which also was interested in hiring her.
Barres's letter also said that in addition to Tonegawa, Silbey, the science dean, advised Karpova not to come to MIT. Barres also wrote that Tonegawa told her ``if she came he would do his best to block her success, including blocking access to the animal facility that he claims to have control over."
Silbey said that's not true, and contended that he told Karpova he wanted her to come to MIT. He said the overlap of her research and Tonegawa's would make it important for her to establish her independence in order to win tenure.
Tonegawa's tone, in e-mails Silbey saw, ``wasn't at all threatening or unpleasant. It was in fact quite complimentary," the dean said.
Eleven MIT professors have accused a powerful colleague, a Nobel laureate, of interfering with the university's efforts to hire a rising female star in neuroscience.
The professors, in a letter to MIT's president, Susan Hockfield , accuse professor Susumu Tonegawa of intimidating Alla Karpova , ``a brilliant young scientist," saying that he would not mentor, interact, or collaborate with her if she took the job and that members of his research group would not work with her.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, they wrote in their June 30 letter, ``allowed a senior faculty member with great power and financial resources to behave in an uncivil, uncollegial, and possibly unethical manner toward a talented young scientist who deserves to be welcomed at MIT." They also wrote that because of Tonegawa's opposition, several other senior faculty members cautioned Karpova not to come to MIT.
She has since declined the job offer.
In response to the June 30 letter, six of Tonegawa's colleagues defended him in their own letter to Hockfield.
Tonegawa, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, is considered one of the world's top scientists, and also one of the most powerful. The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, which he oversees, received $50 million in 2002 to support research into Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, and other diseases. Despite his success, Tonegawa saw Karpova ``as a competitive threat to him," according to a June 27 letter from a Stanford professor to Hockfield. All three letters were obtained by the Globe. Karpova's job offer was made jointly by the McGovern Institute for Brain Research and the biology department, which would not have required her to work with Tonegawa.
The MIT professors who signed the letter are pressuring administrators to give Karpova a formal apology and to investigate the situation. ``We have damaged MIT's reputation as an institution that supports academic fairness for young faculty and jeopardized our ability to attract the best scientists to MIT," wrote the 11 professors, all women, and most involved in MIT committees on gender equity issues. Several of the professors could not be reached and one declined to comment.
Hockfield was traveling and unavailable for comment yesterday. MIT's provost is looking into the allegations, said Robert J. Silbey , the dean of science. In a statement provided by an MIT spokeswoman, the university said it cannot discuss hiring situations, but acts to address any concerns about unfairness in faculty hiring.
Silbey, however, said in an interview with the Globe that he believed Tonegawa's e-mails and conversations with Karpova were simply notification that he did not want to collaborate on research. The two have similar research interests. Karpova is just finishing a postdoctoral fellowship at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, and was interviewing for her first faculty job.
``Is he competitive? Yes." Silbey said of Tonegawa. ``What is he competitive for? To make Picower the best in the world. Does that get on other people's nerves? Yes."
The incident occurred a few months after an MIT professor raised concern in a faculty newsletter that the university has stalled in some of its efforts to hire outstanding women scientists and treat them equally. In 1999, MIT acknowledged a pervasive bias against women and promised to work to achieve equity in hiring, pay, and the overall treatment of women.
The tempest also adds to concerns about the future of MIT's efforts in neuroscience. Some professors say Tonegawa has already caused tension because he is overly competitive with any potential rival, including the McGovern Institute, which shares the same new neuroscience building at MIT.
MIT professor Tomaso Poggio said Tonegawa appears to want ``everything to be under his control."
``Most people would say that he is very smart and charming and a very difficult person to deal with. He is not a team player," said Poggio, a professor at the McGovern Institute.
On July 7, a week after letters criticizing Tonegawa were sent to Hockfield, a group of six MIT faculty, including two women, wrote to the president in defense of Tonegawa. The signers of the letter are all affiliated with the center that Tonegawa oversees. They wrote that Karpova asked Tonegawa whether he would collaborate with her, and he said that he would not.
``We feel that Susumu is being unfairly maligned, and we wish to express our strong support of him," they wrote. ``This is not a gender issue, and to portray it as such sets back the cause of women scientists."
The letter also says that punishing Susumu would have ``far-reaching negative consequences" and would endanger future funding for the institute Tonegawa oversees.
In an e-mail responding to a Globe request for comment, Karpova would not field questions about what occurred. ``I do believe that this problem has been sorted out for the present," she wrote.
She said she was accepting an offer to lead a research team at a lab called Janelia Farm in Virginia, recently established by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, ``and I am very excited about this unique opportunity."
Karpova declined the university's job offer in a June 24 e-mail to the science dean and other MIT officials, according to a copy included in a complaint to university officials from Stanford professor Ben A. Barres .
``I wanted very much to come to MIT," she wrote in the e-mail. ``However, the strong resistance to my recruitment by Dr. Tonegawa has convinced me that I could not develop my scientific career at MIT in the kind of a nurturing atmosphere that I and the young people joining my lab would need in order to succeed."
Karpova added that senior faculty at MIT warned her ``about the professional difficulties I would face at MIT in a situation where part of the community strongly felt that my research direction could potentially compete with their scientific interests."
Tonegawa was awarded the 1987 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for pioneering work on the genetics of the immune system. He then moved into neuroscience, and is particularly focused on studying memory.
Several scientists said Karpova is considered one of the most promising young neuroscientists. Her work ``has incredible potential for making big steps forward in our understanding of how the brain works," said Barres, when asked to comment on his letter to MIT. He wrote in the letter that the young scientist told him about her experiences at MIT during a visit to Stanford, which also was interested in hiring her.
Barres's letter also said that in addition to Tonegawa, Silbey, the science dean, advised Karpova not to come to MIT. Barres also wrote that Tonegawa told her ``if she came he would do his best to block her success, including blocking access to the animal facility that he claims to have control over."
Silbey said that's not true, and contended that he told Karpova he wanted her to come to MIT. He said the overlap of her research and Tonegawa's would make it important for her to establish her independence in order to win tenure.
Tonegawa's tone, in e-mails Silbey saw, ``wasn't at all threatening or unpleasant. It was in fact quite complimentary," the dean said.
OP
OP
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/departments/adultlearning/?article=womenpassingmen
Women now earn the majority of diplomas in fields men used to dominate--from biology to business--and have caught up in pursuit of law, medicine, and other advanced degrees.
Even with such enormous gains over the past 25 years, women are paid less than men in comparable jobs and lag in landing top positions on college campuses.
Women who work full time earn about 76 percent as much as men, according to the Institute of Women's Policy Research. Women are underrepresented in full-time faculty jobs, particularly in fields such as physical sciences, engineering, and math.
''We clearly have a long way to go,'' says Van Ummersen, vice president for the council's Center for Effective Leadership. She says some universities are replacing retiring professors, giving women a chance to move into tenured positions.
Women now earn the majority of diplomas in fields men used to dominate--from biology to business--and have caught up in pursuit of law, medicine, and other advanced degrees.
Even with such enormous gains over the past 25 years, women are paid less than men in comparable jobs and lag in landing top positions on college campuses.
Women who work full time earn about 76 percent as much as men, according to the Institute of Women's Policy Research. Women are underrepresented in full-time faculty jobs, particularly in fields such as physical sciences, engineering, and math.
''We clearly have a long way to go,'' says Van Ummersen, vice president for the council's Center for Effective Leadership. She says some universities are replacing retiring professors, giving women a chance to move into tenured positions.
HeartlandGirl
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
MrsSpringsteen said:
I clipped this out of a magazine about three years ago...
"Working women make 79.7¢ on the male dollar, down from 80.4¢ in 1983. That's already adjusting for maternity leave and other child-rearing factors. If such choices are not factored in, women make only 44¢ on the male dollar. Female professionals average $10,000 less than their male counterparts. Over a 40-year career, that difference (compounded 10% annually) costs each of them $4 million."
So if you're not having babies and taking maternity and child leave, you're really getting shafted.
AliEnvy
Refugee
HeartlandGirl said:
So if you're not having babies and taking maternity and child leave, you're really getting shafted.
Speaking of mat leave, my second mat leave in a few years is now over. I've been working contracts in between and during pregnancies to spare a company the commitment of having to replace me for a year of leave (we have the luxury of a year up here) and now I'm in a job search for something full-time etc...
An American head hunter called last week about a position in Toronto and I ended up having to defend why I've been off for a year since *technically* I could have chosen to go back to work sooner. Nice.
Pass the champagne.
Last edited:
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
silja said:
AliEnvy said:
Speaking of mat leave, my second mat leave in a few years is now over. I've been working contracts in between and during pregnancies to spare a company the commitment of having to replace me for a year of leave (we have the luxury of a year up here) and now I'm in a job search for something full-time etc...
An American head hunter called last week about a position in Toronto and I ended up having to defend why I've been off for a year since *technically* I could have chosen to go back to work sooner. Nice.
Pass the champagne.
Consider the champagne passed.
I'm fuming on your behalf.
OP
OP
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Another article with some additional info
http://www.healthday.com/view.cfm?id=533761
In his provocative essay, Does Gender Matter?, Ben Barres contends that it does -- that the attitude of others in the sciences changed toward him soon after he made the switch.
"The main difference that I have noticed is that people who don't know that I am transgendered treat me with much more respect," he writes. "I can even complete a whole sentence without being interrupted by a man."
That fundamental lack of respect for women is what Barres, 51, believes drives the relatively low representation of females in the world of science -- not any innate genetic inability.
For many girls, these stereotypes and stigmas may keep them from pursuing a career they might love and excel in, according to Barres. "From an early age, girls receive the messages that they are not good enough to do science subjects or will be less liked if they are good at it," he writes. "The messages come from many sources, including parents, friends, fellow students and, alas, teachers."
The essay resonated with Marianne LaFrance, a Yale professor of psychology and women's gender and sexuality studies. Her work has long focused on how being born male or female affects careers.
"The thing that's so terrific about this essay is precisely that he's a transgendered person," she said. LaFrance pointed out that Barbara and Ben Barres are exactly the same person -- in terms of their talent, creativity and intellect -- and yet Ben gets much more immediate respect from his peers than Barbara ever could.
"It raises lots of questions about just where is gender? It seems to be much more in the mind of the perceiver than it is in the person who's being perceived," LaFrance said.
http://www.healthday.com/view.cfm?id=533761
In his provocative essay, Does Gender Matter?, Ben Barres contends that it does -- that the attitude of others in the sciences changed toward him soon after he made the switch.
"The main difference that I have noticed is that people who don't know that I am transgendered treat me with much more respect," he writes. "I can even complete a whole sentence without being interrupted by a man."
That fundamental lack of respect for women is what Barres, 51, believes drives the relatively low representation of females in the world of science -- not any innate genetic inability.
For many girls, these stereotypes and stigmas may keep them from pursuing a career they might love and excel in, according to Barres. "From an early age, girls receive the messages that they are not good enough to do science subjects or will be less liked if they are good at it," he writes. "The messages come from many sources, including parents, friends, fellow students and, alas, teachers."
The essay resonated with Marianne LaFrance, a Yale professor of psychology and women's gender and sexuality studies. Her work has long focused on how being born male or female affects careers.
"The thing that's so terrific about this essay is precisely that he's a transgendered person," she said. LaFrance pointed out that Barbara and Ben Barres are exactly the same person -- in terms of their talent, creativity and intellect -- and yet Ben gets much more immediate respect from his peers than Barbara ever could.
"It raises lots of questions about just where is gender? It seems to be much more in the mind of the perceiver than it is in the person who's being perceived," LaFrance said.
AliEnvy said:
An American head hunter called last week about a position in Toronto and I ended up having to defend why I've been off for a year since *technically* I could have chosen to go back to work sooner. Nice.
Pass the champagne.
But is that an instance of male bias or is it a reflection of more and more women choosing NOT to have children? If that is the case, then is that woman technically not more valuable to the company than the one who decided to take 2 or 3 years off to have kids? Or how about the woman who was super ambitious and chose to return in 16 weeks only?
I think this is a more complicated issue because we now live in a world where women themselves feel differently. If say a lawyer who wanted to make partner only took 12 weeks off for mat leave, then she contributed more to the firm than the one who took 52 weeks off, financially speaking, no?
I'm in the scientific community and what goes on is still largely disgusting. The hoops we have to jump through are immense.
But mat leave is one of those more grey areas, at least from my POV.
AliEnvy
Refugee
anitram said:
It's straight up gender bias and in my experience long before my mat leaves, driven by both genders but especially by women without children. This head hunter happened to be male.
I worked contracts while pregnant so a company would not be under financial/benefits/future job obligation to me during my leaves and I would not have any professional pressure to return on a "career ambition" specific timetable.
With 10+ years of measured success before the leaves and during the contracts, does that make me more or less valuable to a future company compared to someone with comparable experience?
I do believe it's driven by women without children but frankly I am not sure they are out of turn.
Having children is a lifestyle choice. If you choose that and as a result you cannot work the same hours or you lose 2-3 years out of 15 due to maternity leaves and so on, then I am not sure there is a basis for complaint. The other woman chose not to take those 3 years off and contributed during that time, no?
Everyone makes sacrifices in life due to the decisions they made. People who choose to have families will have to make some career sacrifices if they want to be present and good parents. If that means that a person who decided to remain childless gets ahead before you or promoted before you or offered a new position before you, well to me I don't really see that as unfair.
Having children is a lifestyle choice. If you choose that and as a result you cannot work the same hours or you lose 2-3 years out of 15 due to maternity leaves and so on, then I am not sure there is a basis for complaint. The other woman chose not to take those 3 years off and contributed during that time, no?
Everyone makes sacrifices in life due to the decisions they made. People who choose to have families will have to make some career sacrifices if they want to be present and good parents. If that means that a person who decided to remain childless gets ahead before you or promoted before you or offered a new position before you, well to me I don't really see that as unfair.
AliEnvy
Refugee
anitram said:If that means that a person who decided to remain childless gets ahead before you or promoted before you or offered a new position before you, well to me I don't really see that as unfair.
When you support this position you then also end up supporting those same decisions on jobs, pay and promotions potentially going against any woman aged 20-45 (50% of the workforce) just by virtue of being a woman of childbearing age...whether she has children or not.
Social justice, equality and fairness aside, it doesn't make good business sense.
Connecting Corporate Performance and Gender Diversity
http://www.catalystwomen.org/files/exe/fpexe.pdf
Key findings are that companies with the highest representation of women in top management outperform those that have the lowest representation on ROE and TRS.
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
AliEnvy said:
Thank you for making this point. It infuriates me beyond belief that this is still argued about.
AliEnvy said:
But who is to say that the majority of those women aren't career women who either chose not to have children or chose to take minimal time off?
I can tell you with absolute certainty that within my generation, speaking about professional women, many, many if not most are deciding to either not have children at all or to not take the full year off. And I can tell you they are extremely hostile to the idea that a woman who takes the year off should be considered on the same level of seniority or even value to a company. This isn't coming from men, but from other women.
If a company is looking to promote two women, both of whom have been there for 10 years, but one took say 2 and a half years off to have kids while the other one took no time off except her allotted 3 weeks annually. And say the company decides that the childless woman has brought in more money, more clients, etc, and promotes her instead. I don't see why this is an unreasonable move. In many places today where either open or unspoken quotas exist (and they do, far more often than people realize), it is less and less "we will take a man over a woman of a childbearing age" and more and more "which of these women is more valuable to us." These quotas would not result in women losing top jobs, but may result in certain women being promoted over others.
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
Now it seems as though you're shifting it to something else. The woman who has a definite edge over the other due solely to performance is of course the most suitable for a promotion. To say that women who have children cannot compete because they take a year off or less per child is severely undermining the ability of women and specifically working mothers. Really, it is ridiculous and insulting and so wrong on so many levels. In all levels of professional and non professional working environments women are getting shafted. We got the childbearing organs and thus have to suffer whether we have children or not. Or so it seems. Forgive me for being rather angry about that.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Well, the plan is when my wife and I have kids, that I'll be the one to stop working for awhile. She's a school principal, and I'm a teacher.
I think if more men could/would take time off to raise their families this might help to level the playing field. But that concept barely seems to be on the radar. I also find it intersting that women just "automatically" take on a lot of the household chores when they get married. Of all the married couples we know, my wife and I are the only the couple where we share meal preparation duties. For everyone else, the wife does all the cooking. Personally, I think we benefit because we both get a break from cooking and we tend to eat tastier meals because of that rest. Likewise, I do laundry and dishes. She cleans the bathrooms, and cleans the floors.
I think if more men could/would take time off to raise their families this might help to level the playing field. But that concept barely seems to be on the radar. I also find it intersting that women just "automatically" take on a lot of the household chores when they get married. Of all the married couples we know, my wife and I are the only the couple where we share meal preparation duties. For everyone else, the wife does all the cooking. Personally, I think we benefit because we both get a break from cooking and we tend to eat tastier meals because of that rest. Likewise, I do laundry and dishes. She cleans the bathrooms, and cleans the floors.
Similar threads
