3 ms·
So, what's to keep somebody from uncharitably interpreting those results as "Women do better in industries once the importance and contributions of an individua
by angersock 10y ago
So, what's to keep somebody from uncharitably interpreting those results as "Women do better in industries once the importance and contributions of an individual worker become irrelevant"?
That seems a bit harsh.
- rayiner 10y agoBut the nature of the jobs hasn't changed. It's no less important for your pharmacist to give you the right medicine. What's changed is individual credit seeking and self promotion has been deemphasized. I've seen this first hand in the legal industry. Business generation has shifted from getting a call from your golf buddy to formally pitching your team/strategy/rates. Meanwhile, 30% of GCs and new partners are women. Not a coincidence.
- srssays 10y agoThe claim was that pharmacists aren't running their own businesses anymore. It's hard to spin that as a win for 'equality' if the profits have been redirected to the executives and shareholders of medium-sized chains and Walmart.
- gozur88 10y agoYeah. The way I read that is "Now that you can't make much money as a pharmacist, it's no longer attractive to men."
- sheepmullet 10y ago> But the nature of the jobs hasn't changed. I don't know if that's really true. A lot of pharmacist jobs are essentially retail sales roles.