Female Executives and Gender Equality

[lostinacause]

I have heard a number of people who suggest that females are being discriminated against in the workplace. Turning to Most of the people in executive positions are in their fifties and sixties. This would mean that they acquired the necessary education for their position around 30 years ago. Given that this is the case there are more males who are qualified for these positions solely based on having the correct background. There have also been an increased number of females getting the proper educational background. Given this preamble I ask the question what situation best reflects gender equality in executive positions:
- Having the most qualified person get the job
- Having a proportional mix, based on the proportion of the people applying and qualified, of males and females getting the job.
- Having an equal number of men and women get the positions

Edit: Also, why does it best reflect gender equality?

[Horse with no Name]

1. So "some people" "suggest"

that women are discriminated against in the workplace?:eyes:
Do you have links for your suppositions that executives are in their 50-60's?:eyes:
You do know what was going on 30 years ago, don't you?

[lostinacause]

3. Sorry I did not want to say that there was a group that claimed to

be speaking for gender equality who looked at the raw percentages of executive females and said that there was something wrong with equality in the hiring of people into these roles. I wanted to get opinions while providing as little guidance as possible. This is not to say that there is not discrimination in the workforce but among executives given the push by certain companies to hire female executive it is ambiguous to me which gender is being discriminated against.

Do you really doubt that most executives are in there 50-60's.

Look at admissions statistics to universities, particularly in the areas of engineering and business, and you will see a dramatic shift in the demographics in the last thirty years.

[TygrBright]

2. So... is "Anumberof" People, any relation to this "Some People" guy...

...who seems to be the mole in the Dem/Lib ranks? You know, the one who feeds information on the super-secret Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy and Plan X and stuff, to the GOPpie pundits?

curiously,
Bright

[lostinacause]

4. As I said in the post above I was trying to be vague to reduce the degree

of framing that went into the question. Upon looking over the preamble again I realize I failed miserably.

[omega minimo]

5. People from

the Planet Anumberof.

[DURHAM D]

6. Women from the Planet Anumberof - those bleached

blonds with dark roots and oversized teeth in a crooked mouth ? Those "women"?

Can't wait until about a week from the midterms when they are allowed out of the house to appear on CNN, FOX and MSNBC to deliver their snarky repug messages.

[MuseRider]

7. Really?

"This is not to say that there is not discrimination in the workforce but among executives given the push by certain companies to hire female executive it is ambiguous to me which gender is being discriminated against." Add that line to this one, "Look at admissions statistics to universities, particularly in the areas of engineering and business, and you will see a dramatic shift in the demographics in the last thirty years." and I would say to you that I get your point and I think you are asking for a gender war. Seriously, I do not have the time or inclination to waste my breath (fingers or time) trying to prove that we women are worthy. I long ago decided that we women evolved and overcame the bondage years and it is everyone elses responsibility to come along with us or get out of our way.

Hmmm, just who is being discriminated against now? Hmmmmm?

[DURHAM D]

11. Muse Rider - I agree with you about where responsibility

resides. If anyone tries to engage me in a conversation of this type I always say "Its the 21st Century - You have not been paying attention and so you have missed the train and I am not going to be the one to stop and pick you up".


In other words, if you don't get it it is because you don't want to get it. Next.

P.S. I am just as dismissive about choice. I will not have a conversation with a man who is anti-choice. I just say - I don't discuss this with anyone who does not have a uterus. Get back with me when you have arranged to install one.

[SharonAnn]

15. Good for you! I feel the same. One of the things I say is "When

women are represented in leadership in percentages equal to their representation in the population, we'll talk."

I have some interesting , but short, discussion with Catholics since I'm no longer "practicing". I just say the same as the above. When they come back with some justification of why women should be excluded from the priesthood and leadership I just say "if you have to justify it that much, then you know it's wrong. What's right is obvious and doesn't need elaborate justifications."

Also, if they pull the "tradition" the Jesus only ordained men, I respond with "so they say, but we really don't know." In any case, his apostles were only Jewish, circumcised men. So if we follow "tradition", then those would be the only candidates for the priesthood.

[lostinacause]

24. If I wanted to start a gender war you would know it.

I wanted to get a general idea of the number of people who support the kind of statistical misrepresentation that certain groups use to have us believe that the current situation is much less equal then it is. It was an attempt to gauge the opinions of DU on this issue.

If I intended to debate the issue I would have read and sourced econometric data.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

8. Here are some thoughts

1. For any number of occupations, achieving an executive position is not the ultimate measure of success, through either personal aspiration or available career path. Unless by executive you mean a senior or supervisory position. But I take it you're talking about generic office workers who want to move from cubes to corner offices.

2. Education is only one requisite for career advancement. It doesn't even get you in the door. Professional experience, proven leadership skills and the ability to foster relationships that grow the company are far more important. These variables, and the gender differences in how they are developed, complicate your model to such a degree that further discussion is almost impossible, except to say

3. Most executives on TV shows are in their 50s and 60s. I have known many in their 40s, 30s and in a few cases even younger who hold positions of high executive authority.


Edited to clarify that executive power is not based on age. In fact, by the time one is over 50, one spends a good deal of time waiting for the ax to fall in favor of a younger, more energetic and lower-paid replacement.

[melnjones]

9. There are tons of statistics

that show gender inequality...I'm curious as to why you are focusing so narrowly here. There's more I want to post, but I'm tired so it will have to wait.

[Solo_in_MD]

10. You are going to have a hard time finding valid statistics to work with

At the level of seniority, apple to apple comparisons are very hard

At a working level, gender pay inequality seems to be waning and is gone in many areas. By this I mean teachers,nurses etc with the same experience make the same salary. The overall disparity is IMO an artifact of choices made in terms of career field and time taken away from the workforce for child rearing. Given the growing difference between men and women going to college, I expect the overall gap to narrow in the coming decade, as more women than men pursue higher education.

Final thought is that solid gender employment stats are not really available. Key items are not collected (no requirement to) and most of the stats that are out there are skewed by the collectors agenda.

[VelmaD]

12. how do you explain...

given the VAST changes in women's level of education and the opening of new career fields to women in the last 30 years that the gender gap in wages has not closed ONE BIT? Gender pay inequality hasn't waned one little bit.

There's plenty of evidence out there that even with the same experience and education women will still make less than men in the same job. Do your homework next time.

[Solo_in_MD]

13. Given the increasing use of standardized pay scales it has indeed waned

Teachers, nurses, gov jobs, union jobs, and the military to name a few. Commissioned sales would be another example. I don't know of a company out there that does the unequal pay thing anymore. Its too risky and its bad for business.

The overall numbers are meaningless since they fail to account for personal choices. For example:
liberal arts majors get about $32K after graduation, technical majors make around $50K. While there are more women than men in college and graduating, they are over represented in liberal arts, and under represented in technical field. The average male graduate does make more than the average female graduate, but its due to choice, not discrimination.

When you get into higher management ranks, it gets harder, since there are more intangibles. At the CEO level, everything is negotiated with the board/compensation committee.

Equal pay for equivalent work is a different matter, and seems to gone away for now, at least in the US.

[VelmaD]

14. Every statistic I've ever seen...

disagrees with your basic premise. So I'd like you to provide some actual proof. And not from a right-wing source.

But way to blame women. We just choose to make less money. :eyes: It could't possibly be that our patriarchal society chooses to pay less in fields that women go into. Or that any time women go into a field in large numbers...the pay in the field declines.

[SharonAnn]

16. Or that women's promotions take longer, that they're more educated

than their peers, or that they're givensmaller raises.

Been there, lived that. There are a million reasons an employer can find to pay less than they should. A million.

[OzarkDem]

18. Exactly - women's promotions take much, much longer

That's why you still don't see many women at the executive level.

[Solo_in_MD]

19. Pick any teachers contract as a starting point.

Your comment about women dominated fields being paid less is about equal pay for equivalent work, not equal pay for equal work. An example is elementary or preschool education. Men teachers make the same as women teachers in that area, and yes the pay is not comparable to what engineers make.

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

27. In education, it's more about speed of promotion than simple dollars.

It's been well documented that in elementary education especially, men and women make the same amount of money, BUT that it's assumed that women want to work in elementary education for its own sake, and that men are on the fast track toward being a principal. The "glass elevator" effect (opposite of glass ceiling) kicks in and men are much more likely to be promoted out of those positions into principal/administrative positions.

This happens all over female-dominated professions like teaching, nursing, and social work. In fields that start out relatively male-dominated and become more equal over time (like journalism), it's also been documented that the prestige of the field is considered to lessen and the average wage paid decreases as well.

(Edited to add that I know a preschool teacher who constantly had to fight with his supervisors because he didn't want to leave the classroom, and they would NOT stop pushing him to look toward administration. It started in his first year on the job.)

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/11/11135710/57118
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-7791(199208)39%3A3%3C253%3ATGEHAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E

[OzarkDem]

17. There is still a "glass ceiling" in the workplace for women

even though they are more than qualified to be executives, its still very difficult for them to get there in proportional numbers.

There have been enough women graduating from universities in the last 30 or 40 years with MBA's, law degrees, etc. to be working their way higher up the corporate ladder, but progress is still slow.

Many women have taken the option of starting their own businesses rather than wait in line in the corporate world. Its not as financially rewarding, but makes up for it in personal satisfaction.

[NewJeffCT]

20. That is true - but, it is slowly changing

It's not changing as fast as it should, but women are slowly making progress in the working world. I got out of college in 1989, and I can tell you that I've seen changes in the workplace. There were few women executives, and not many in the middle-management roles. There are now many more in those mid-management roles and, inevitably, more women will get into upper management. I'm sure if you look at statistics from the mid 80s and compare them to now, you will see that as well... I suspect we'll see even more progress over the next 20 years.

[OzarkDem]

21. I got out of college and into the corporate world in 1977

Once you got in as a management trainee you never went much higher than the first grade out of management training. Advancement didn't happen much at all back then. Its probably better now, but not nearly what we pioneers expected it would be at this point in time. The sad part is I'm seeing so many women approaching middle and retirement age now and they have little to show for it. With the end of pensions at so many companies, their retirement lifestyles are going to be far more meager than their male counterparts.

[NewJeffCT]

23. It's still far from perfect

and, not nearly as good as it should be. I'm just saying that it's better than it was back then. A good friend of my wife got into one of those management programs at United Technologies out of college. While she did very well for herself, and was well-liked, she knew there were certain areas of the company that were not good for women - Sikorsky and the other divisions that were heavily oriented towards the defense industry (which were dominated by military men)... so, she ended up leaving for a better opportunity at a company that is more flexible and more female friendly (the company just named a woman as its next CEO)

While I am all for national single-payer health care, and dislike health insurance companies as a whole, the insurance industry has been generally a very good place for women to work - Bill Clinton's original choice for Attorney General was Zoe Baird, the lead attorney for Aetna. While Janet Reno did an excellent job in the long run, would Baird have been able to help implement the Clinton Health Care plan in '93 or '94 because of her industry background?

[Nikia]

22. Except white men tend to paractice their own kind of affirmative action

The higher the position in the company, the more this is true. While some companies are doing a better job of including women and minorities, this is a fairly recent phenomenom, and some companies still do not make an effort. Most upper management positions in large companies are based on business and personal connections. When there is an outside search in which those hiring do not know any of the candidates, those candidates are already accomplisheed at other companies, often rising to the level that they have because of their connections. Many men, especially in their 50's and older, do not see women as their peers and do not help them as they help men who they perceive to be like them. Female business leaders, especially in male dominated industries, may not help younger women because they, often correctly, may see themselves as honorary males and that by helping younger women that they might be compromising their status with powerful men or that there are only a few token female spots so that every other woman is competition.
There is also the issue of how women are judged as employees. A woman is judged both as a woman and as a candidate for the position. If the ideal candidate has traditionally male characteristics, a woman who meets the characteristics might be excluded because she isn't "feminine" enough, but one who is "feminie" enough does not meet the characteristics of the ideal candidate. For some positions, there is an overlap but it makes expectations of a female candidate narrower than a male candidate with a similiar background. A woman might also have to be more assertive, for example, than a male candidate to be perceived as assertive enough because a man is assumed to be assertive while a woman is not.
For this reason, affirmative action is appropriate for qualified candidates at all levels to approach equal representation for the industry and company. I think that it is alright to do this slowly as to be fair to men to rather than practicing "reverse discrimination". For example, new hires could be 50/50 in gender rather than only hiring women for a couple years in order to achieve that balance.
As for the educational issue, I think that part of the issue is that women need to be more educated in order to make as much money as less educated men. Women with 4 year degress make less on average than men with 2 year degrees.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. Not Quite Sure What You're Getting At. I'll Say Though, That The Person

who is most qualified should ALWAYS get the job. I think the problem is that on an executive corporate level men have an absolute advantage in that area than women, even though oftentimes the woman is probably at least equally qualified if not moreso. That's one thing when it comes to gender discrimination that I'll absolutely defend, and that's the fact that as disgraceful of a concept as it is in this day and age, that women are still absolutely paid less than men for equal work or passed over for promotion more readily than a male counterpart, for no more reason than gender. In my experience, I've found that women are every single bit as good as men in executive or management positions and in many cases better. Yet there is definitely a skewed ratio of male to female management or executives, though it has gotten better in recent years. Even such, it still has a ways to go to be equal. The most competent and effective manager I've ever had was a woman. She was short, thin, sounded like minnie mouse when she spoke, and you'd think her to be timid. But she was in TOTAL control of our extremely hectic environment and no manager since has been able to keep up. I miss her as a boss, as it was nice to know I had a superior I could rely on and that actually knew what she was doing. Since then, it's been male boss after male boss in her position, and they've all been kicked out eventually because they just simply couldn't handle the fast pace and pressure. They're actually hiring that position again right now. I'm kinda hopin it's a woman again.

So anyway, after all that tylenol with codeine induced babble I wrote above, I'm not really sure where you were coming from with this thread. But I do know that the most qualified and effective candidate should always be considered priority, regardless of race or gender. But I also think many companies violate that spirit or are blind to the competencies of others solely because they aren't male golfers who could go out for a beer.

[lostinacause]

28. Good answer. I agree that golfing is far too critical in the success of

high potentials. However, I understand why it is so important. It is a good chance to network in a relaxed setting. I would expect that most females who are successfully pursuing those roles have taken up golfing.

[Nikia]

29. At some places, your former manager would never have gotten hired

Simply for being a small woman and having her voice. She would be disqualified because she would be judged as not able to command respect. Of course at other comapanies, a woman built like a football player with a deeper voice might not be hired because she would be judged negatively as a woman.
For most upper level positions, there is no such thing as an objective "most qualified". If a company offers a good salary and is seen as a decent place to work, they may have dozens of "qualified" candidates. More subjective characteristics come into play, which is where women lose because of the preconceived notions about how each gender should be and how the candidate for the position, which may have never been held by a female at that comapany, should be.

[Cleita]

26. Female executives are a recent phenomena in the last

century in our corporate boy dominated society. It doesn't mean that women haven't run their own businesses or been important parts of family businesses since Babylon.

Remember Mohammed's first wife was his boss, a widow who took over her husband's caravan business, who was twenty year's older than him and who married him and still ran the business.

Now the little corporate experience that I had in my early twenties back in the sixties showed me that most of the minor female executives we had, slept their way to their rather minor positions. Funny they used to take MBA male graduates right out of school then and give them positions that those poor women had to give out for. But even those ladies would tell you that if you didn't want to be a slave to the typewriter and calculator, you had to put out.

So I have to agree that a gender mix although it seems artificial at first is actually the best approach. If you don't, you end up with those who have always been in power remain in power and those who sleep with them.