4 ms·

> The claim that lack of female participation at the higher levels of the corporate food chain are due to discrimination without even talking about women droppi

> The claim that lack of female participation at the higher levels of the corporate food chain are due to discrimination without even talking about women dropping out of the workplace at a higher rate to have children (or any other conflicting points of view). Is that not a form of discrimination? Men have kids and still get promoted.

malvosenior 7y ago
If it's voluntary, it's not discrimination. Men have kids, but they don't quit their jobs to become stay at home dads at nearly the rate women do.
- Miner49er 7y ago
  Well there's a difference between having kids and staying at home. Even so, you can still point to the discrimination being traditional gender roles, where women are the ones who typically stay at home. Or even to the economy itself; we don't value raising kids as much as we value rising through the ranks of management at some cooperation.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    > Even so, you can still point to the discrimination being traditional gender roles, where women are the ones who typically stay at home. Or even to the economy itself; we don't value raising kids as much as we value rising through the ranks of management at some cooperation. Aren't these statements at odd with one another? When you value raising kids at or above office work, then it doesn't look like "discrimination" that women chose to stay at home to raise a family, it looks like a personal choice that's highly valued by many. I think being a CEO or being a grandparent can both be viewed as successful in our society, they shouldn't really be compared directly though.
    - Miner49er 7y ago
      > When you value raising kids at or above office work, then it doesn't look like "discrimination" that women chose to stay at home to raise a family, it looks like a personal choice that's highly valued by many. Yeah exactly, the problem goes away. You don't make money being a stay at home mom though, so maybe that's why we consider it a problem, IDK. I was just offering a couple of ways to look at it where it's still discriminatory. Not saying I agree with either. There has to be a reason somewhere that women aren't as represented in upper management, and when you find that reason you can call it discriminatory, if you think that being upper management is a desirable thing. If you don't then the discrimination isn't bad or you don't consider it discrimination, as you pointed out. Economically, being upper management is certainly good though. That's basically objective.
    - behringer 7y ago
      Also it's rather insulting to say that men progressing through their careers means they don't want to raise their children. I would say many, if not most, men rise strive for promotion for no other reason than to raise their children better...
      - Miner49er 7y ago
        I meant economically. We don't pay people to raise kids.
      - ghettoimp 7y ago
        Surely a man who is successful in his career can support his children in many ways. This is undoubtedly important to many men. But most men who strive for promotions surely have many reasons other than their children. Who doesn't want {appreciation, autonomy, status, money, ...} just for the sake of their own ego, identity, power, etc.?
- P_I_Staker 7y ago
  It's not completely voluntary. Men are discouraged from leaving the workforce, due to societal norms, and receive less time off or accommodations for raising kids.
kortilla 7y ago
I think you missed the key difference where men don’t nearly as frequently drop out of the workplace to have them.
usrusr 7y ago
> Is that not a form of discrimination? Men have kids and still get promoted. Worse than that, I fear that the old-fashioned stay-at-home wife and children is even an unspoken (and unconscious) promotion qualification in many organisations. Sometimes it's even semi-formalized: a glass ceiling for people who never lived abroad on a company project assignment, combined with an informal policy to not send unmarried people because they get too distracted by the locals. The result is higher ranks uniformly filled with people with spouses that don't have a career of their own that they can't easily shift abroad (or put on hold) for the duration of the assignment.

malvosenior 7y ago

If it's voluntary, it's not discrimination. Men have kids, but they don't quit their jobs to become stay at home dads at nearly the rate women do.

Miner49er 7y ago
Well there's a difference between having kids and staying at home. Even so, you can still point to the discrimination being traditional gender roles, where women are the ones who typically stay at home. Or even to the economy itself; we don't value raising kids as much as we value rising through the ranks of management at some cooperation.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  > Even so, you can still point to the discrimination being traditional gender roles, where women are the ones who typically stay at home. Or even to the economy itself; we don't value raising kids as much as we value rising through the ranks of management at some cooperation. Aren't these statements at odd with one another? When you value raising kids at or above office work, then it doesn't look like "discrimination" that women chose to stay at home to raise a family, it looks like a personal choice that's highly valued by many. I think being a CEO or being a grandparent can both be viewed as successful in our society, they shouldn't really be compared directly though.
  - Miner49er 7y ago
    > When you value raising kids at or above office work, then it doesn't look like "discrimination" that women chose to stay at home to raise a family, it looks like a personal choice that's highly valued by many. Yeah exactly, the problem goes away. You don't make money being a stay at home mom though, so maybe that's why we consider it a problem, IDK. I was just offering a couple of ways to look at it where it's still discriminatory. Not saying I agree with either. There has to be a reason somewhere that women aren't as represented in upper management, and when you find that reason you can call it discriminatory, if you think that being upper management is a desirable thing. If you don't then the discrimination isn't bad or you don't consider it discrimination, as you pointed out. Economically, being upper management is certainly good though. That's basically objective.
  - behringer 7y ago
    Also it's rather insulting to say that men progressing through their careers means they don't want to raise their children. I would say many, if not most, men rise strive for promotion for no other reason than to raise their children better...
    - Miner49er 7y ago
      I meant economically. We don't pay people to raise kids.
    - ghettoimp 7y ago
      Surely a man who is successful in his career can support his children in many ways. This is undoubtedly important to many men. But most men who strive for promotions surely have many reasons other than their children. Who doesn't want {appreciation, autonomy, status, money, ...} just for the sake of their own ego, identity, power, etc.?
P_I_Staker 7y ago
It's not completely voluntary. Men are discouraged from leaving the workforce, due to societal norms, and receive less time off or accommodations for raising kids.

kortilla 7y ago

I think you missed the key difference where men don’t nearly as frequently drop out of the workplace to have them.

usrusr 7y ago

> Is that not a form of discrimination? Men have kids and still get promoted. Worse than that, I fear that the old-fashioned stay-at-home wife and children is even an unspoken (and unconscious) promotion qualification in many organisations. Sometimes it's even semi-formalized: a glass ceiling for people who never lived abroad on a company project assignment, combined with an informal policy to not send unmarried people because they get too distracted by the locals. The result is higher ranks uniformly filled with people with spouses that don't have a career of their own that they can't easily shift abroad (or put on hold) for the duration of the assignment.