6 ms·

So if a woman can "survive" the business environment, she's more likely to become a CEO. To me that says: if she can survive through the bias/discrimination, s

So if a woman can "survive" the business environment, she's more likely to become a CEO. To me that says: if she can survive through the bias/discrimination, she's probably much more qualified than her male counterparts. That women are driven away by bias/discrimination is the true failing of our workplaces.

x1024 11y ago
Your logic involves quite a few jumps to conclusions that aren't remotely proven by the contents of the paper.
- zo1 11y ago
  Sorry, down-voted you by accident. Just so you know.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - wutbrodo 11y ago
    > How else can you explain the higher attrition rate Um, the very next sentences in the paragraph you just excerpted from? Not all of those are about discrimination.
- roymurdock 11y ago
  It is most implausible to suggest that giving birth and caring for young children is the predominant reason why female executive managers, who average 50 years old in our sample, quit. Other unobserved factors leading managers to attrit could include more un-pleasantness, indignities, and tougher unrewarding assignments at work, examples of factors that reduce the attraction of work without necessarily affecting productivity or human capital acquisition. Although this does not support the "more qualified" argument, the study was specifically tailored to control for attrition from pregnancy, and the authors conclude that they are not entirely sure why older female executives quit at a higher rate than comparable male executives. It's not unreasonable to assume that it could be due to "discrimination" in the form of indignities and unfair assignment of tough/menial work, as the authors suggest.
facepalm 11y ago
Whereas men don't need to survive, they are carried along by a wave of applause and cheering? That must be the reason almost every man ends up being CEO eventually, and women are stuck doing all the work.
- a3n 11y ago
  It's not too long ago that women wouldn't be promoted or considered for certain jobs, because they might get pregnant and leave. That was an all but accepted and admitted practice. There are certainly current results from those legacies, since people tend to hire people like themselves. And there probably are more than a few surviving neanderthals that still believe those practices should be followed. So yes, being a male, just like being white in the US, does give you certain current or legacy advantages.
  - facepalm 11y ago
    You make many claims that are not really validated. And what does "like themselves" even mean. People can be different or similar in many aspects, gender being just one of many. Is a man who hates math and loves football more like me than a woman who likes maths and hates football (I hate football and like maths)? Also, perhaps women getting pregnant was and is a real issue. There might be real risks and costs attached to companies. And you make the same mistake as the parent I replied to, looking at thing out of context: presumably there are jobs where women were less likely to be promoted, but at the same time you neglect that there are jobs where men are less likely to be promoted (or being hired to begin with). Overall, men don't get a free pass in society, otherwise there wouldn't be so many books and articles on career advice. It's not like "hey, you are white and male? - hired!". The context mistake is particularly easy to see in IT: because there are many more men than women in IT, for every woman who doesn't get promoted there are several men who don't get promoted. But only if a woman doesn't get promoted it makes headlines and she can sue for sexism.
    - vkou 11y ago
      Not to be too blunt, but you are supporting the parent's point about the existence of neanderthals who still believe that women are a bad idea, because they might get pregnant. You've just given legitimacy to that exact opinion! Real risk or not, it's the cost of doing business in America - it is illegal to discriminate against women on that basis.
josephdviviano 11y ago
To deny that women experience discrimination in the workplace would be pretty ignorant. This might not be true of every company, but it is a feature of many. It seems logical that a woman who reaches the highest levels of a corporate structure are going to be, on average, more resilient, driven, and/or intelligent, then their average male competitors when it comes time to make a promotion decision. Many others will be lost to attrition.
- CptJamesCook 11y ago
  It is men who are discriminated against in the workplace, and in life, not women. 95 out of every 100 workplace deaths are men. If you are looking for a reason women are paid less, look at this. The lowest paying majors are completely dominated by women: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/09/11/220748057/why-women-like-me-choose-lower-paying-jobs http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/09/11/220748057/why-w... In fact, equally qualified women are twice as likely to be hired as men: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/1...
  - josephdviviano 11y ago
    You can't calculate an average across all industries. That does not make any sense to do. As an example, men choose to work more dangerous jobs than women in industries that tend to pay higher (miners, oil rigs, etc). If you want to play fair, as this paper did, and consider a particular job type (highly paid executives), it would make sense to start calculating averages or percentages. I don't think this washington post article really proves anything about the discrimination women experience within the workplace, after getting hired. We do know that the gender balance is unequal in the STEM workforce, and for various reasons, some employers feel compelled to try to balance that ratio by hiring more women. However, this does not mean women experience greater upward mobility after entering the organization.
    - CptJamesCook 11y ago

x1024 11y ago

Your logic involves quite a few jumps to conclusions that aren't remotely proven by the contents of the paper.

zo1 11y ago
Sorry, down-voted you by accident. Just so you know.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- wutbrodo 11y ago
  > How else can you explain the higher attrition rate Um, the very next sentences in the paragraph you just excerpted from? Not all of those are about discrimination.
roymurdock 11y ago
It is most implausible to suggest that giving birth and caring for young children is the predominant reason why female executive managers, who average 50 years old in our sample, quit. Other unobserved factors leading managers to attrit could include more un-pleasantness, indignities, and tougher unrewarding assignments at work, examples of factors that reduce the attraction of work without necessarily affecting productivity or human capital acquisition. Although this does not support the "more qualified" argument, the study was specifically tailored to control for attrition from pregnancy, and the authors conclude that they are not entirely sure why older female executives quit at a higher rate than comparable male executives. It's not unreasonable to assume that it could be due to "discrimination" in the form of indignities and unfair assignment of tough/menial work, as the authors suggest.

facepalm 11y ago

Whereas men don't need to survive, they are carried along by a wave of applause and cheering? That must be the reason almost every man ends up being CEO eventually, and women are stuck doing all the work.

a3n 11y ago
It's not too long ago that women wouldn't be promoted or considered for certain jobs, because they might get pregnant and leave. That was an all but accepted and admitted practice. There are certainly current results from those legacies, since people tend to hire people like themselves. And there probably are more than a few surviving neanderthals that still believe those practices should be followed. So yes, being a male, just like being white in the US, does give you certain current or legacy advantages.
- facepalm 11y ago
  You make many claims that are not really validated. And what does "like themselves" even mean. People can be different or similar in many aspects, gender being just one of many. Is a man who hates math and loves football more like me than a woman who likes maths and hates football (I hate football and like maths)? Also, perhaps women getting pregnant was and is a real issue. There might be real risks and costs attached to companies. And you make the same mistake as the parent I replied to, looking at thing out of context: presumably there are jobs where women were less likely to be promoted, but at the same time you neglect that there are jobs where men are less likely to be promoted (or being hired to begin with). Overall, men don't get a free pass in society, otherwise there wouldn't be so many books and articles on career advice. It's not like "hey, you are white and male? - hired!". The context mistake is particularly easy to see in IT: because there are many more men than women in IT, for every woman who doesn't get promoted there are several men who don't get promoted. But only if a woman doesn't get promoted it makes headlines and she can sue for sexism.
  - vkou 11y ago
    Not to be too blunt, but you are supporting the parent's point about the existence of neanderthals who still believe that women are a bad idea, because they might get pregnant. You've just given legitimacy to that exact opinion! Real risk or not, it's the cost of doing business in America - it is illegal to discriminate against women on that basis.

josephdviviano 11y ago

To deny that women experience discrimination in the workplace would be pretty ignorant. This might not be true of every company, but it is a feature of many. It seems logical that a woman who reaches the highest levels of a corporate structure are going to be, on average, more resilient, driven, and/or intelligent, then their average male competitors when it comes time to make a promotion decision. Many others will be lost to attrition.

CptJamesCook 11y ago
It is men who are discriminated against in the workplace, and in life, not women. 95 out of every 100 workplace deaths are men. If you are looking for a reason women are paid less, look at this. The lowest paying majors are completely dominated by women: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/09/11/220748057/why-women-like-me-choose-lower-paying-jobs http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/09/11/220748057/why-w... In fact, equally qualified women are twice as likely to be hired as men: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/1...
- josephdviviano 11y ago
  You can't calculate an average across all industries. That does not make any sense to do. As an example, men choose to work more dangerous jobs than women in industries that tend to pay higher (miners, oil rigs, etc). If you want to play fair, as this paper did, and consider a particular job type (highly paid executives), it would make sense to start calculating averages or percentages. I don't think this washington post article really proves anything about the discrimination women experience within the workplace, after getting hired. We do know that the gender balance is unequal in the STEM workforce, and for various reasons, some employers feel compelled to try to balance that ratio by hiring more women. However, this does not mean women experience greater upward mobility after entering the organization.
  - CptJamesCook 11y ago