Job Discussion Forums

[leeroy]

(What with the "Chinese women" thread raging over in the China forum, why not bring some of it over here?)

Although I don't have the exact statistics to hand, I think we all agree that men (on average) earn a lot more than women. Most top managerial positions are held by men, and even in the same jobs men tend to be paid more. Men rule the roost in the business world.

Why is this? Is it because men are simply more capable? This doesn't need much debate - in most jobs women and men have equal abilities. (In fact, most of my female bosses have been better than the male ones.) I won't get into listing generalised traits of women and men here - let's just leave it at "although men and women have differences, these do not render women "less capable" in the workplace".

The implied message here is simple. Men are b*stards - they oppress women in the workplace because they (falsely) believe they are superior. This makes a simple and attractive argument, it creates then demonises a suppressing enemy - evil male bosses, probably sitting in their boardrooms, smoking cigars and laughing about how stupid girls are...

But as much as some feminists might like that to be true, I have a feeling that (for the most part) it isn't. (And giving examples of exceptions doesn't change that!) The reason women are unequally represented in the workplace (and salaryplace) is more to do with economics...

I asked my father (a recently retired manager and employer for an finance firm) why most of the top-jobs and salaries went to men. Was it really because they were b*stards? Didn't they realise they were losing out on a very large chunk of a talented and educated human-resource pool? Idiots! His answer was simple, although perhaps not PC.

"Babies"

"Yes, it's true - women are often better employees than men (although office politics tends to occur with more oestrogen kicking around). But I've seen it time and time again, you have a female employee who gets pregnant. Then she'll say to her boss 'It's OK, I'm going to have the baby then come straight back to work' etc..., and that may well be her intention at the time. But a lot of hormones whizz around after having a kid, and (perhaps unsurprisingly) all of a sudden the baby becomes more important than the job. So, they leave, work part-time, or whatever.

Experienced bosses understand this - when choosing who to promote they'll tend to go for the guy because they feel more secure that he'll stay with the company for longer. Yes, it is sexual discrimination - but done for reasons of economics - not simple sexism. (Let's not forget maternity leave here too). Bosses usually have no personal grudge against women, they just want what's best for the company."

No-one can blame company bosses for making decisions which they believe are in their companies' best interests. It's a shame that, as an economic externality, women suffer as a result. Feminists would argue that this is a symptom of a wider cultural sexism. Society tells women that they have to look after the babies, and that men have to work.

But does society really say this? It's certainly still the majority trend here in the UK (although, it should be added, this type of family arrangement is slowly decreasing in number) - but is this a result of society telling its members what to do (a la Weber) or an obsersvation of members of society choosing what they want out of their own free-will (a la Foucault)?

Men and women should, I suppose, share childcare 50/50. But I suspect the reality of this is more difficult, it will generally be more attractive financially to have one partner working full-time (and one child-caring) than two partners working part-time and sharing childcare together.

The man=work, woman=housewife arrangement is by far the most popular worldwide. This certainly does imply that people see some benefits to it - most societies are structured around this kind of arrangement, and for all our posturing, so is The West really.

For men and women to share all professional and personal responsibilities equally some big changes need to occur at societal and cultural levels (and economic ones, as detailed above) - calling men b*stards, or "blaming" people is a dead-end road. How can society truly support a "sexually equal" environment, if indeed this is possible?

Oh yeah, and this is my OP. Mine! So I make the rules, and I say no arguments allowed. OK?

[thelmadatter]

I mostly agree with what Leeroy has to say on this subject. I never felt discriminated against or put down because I am a woman UNTIL I became a mother.

I disagree that it is SOLELY because of women's hormones that women make the sacrifices to raise babies. The structure of society fosters the man-work/woman-home scenario. My problem with feminists is that they do take the easy way out and demonize men. If they really want to improve the plight of women, they need to work for changes that make the "baby penalty" less for women.

Leeroy, your argument is probably stronger over why young women have trouble getting promoted (child bearing age) but I have to say that as an older woman, with a near-grown child and very unlikely to have another - getting passed over for a man is just as possible. Of course, the argument there "for the good of the company" is that the man has been in the workplace more consistently and has more experience...

The lousy thing is, motherhood for all the santimonious words thrown at it - is despised.

[guest of Japan]

I don't want to take anything away from the previous two arguments because they are completely valid, but I'd like to add cronyism to the mix.

Usually men have more relationships with men and women have more relationships with women. Because men currently occupy the power positions they are going to elevate those qualified people whom they know the best. Then the cycle continues. I think the same thing would happen in reverse if women held the majority of power positions, but that will have to remain just my theory for a while.

[Dr.J]

I think it's just tradition. Men have the power, they give it to other men. A man in power is the 'accepted' norm - just look at any movie even now, the boss is an older man, sometimes there's a token woman in a frumpy blouse, but it's mostly men. Go to societies like China and Japan and they are still patriarchal even on a small social scale.

However, it's worth pointing out that 'the boss' often has a wife or mother who exerts total control over his actions...so where does the real power lie? And what is power anyway?

[CountryClub]

I agree with Guest of Japan but maybe see it in a slightly less sinister way. Mentoring can play a huge role in helping people get promoted and learn the ropes but there definitely are social barriers to the current male power holders becoming buddy-buddy with young, up-and-coming women.

In regards to the issue of childbirth, Canada recently enacted a law granting one year maternity leave which is similar to many jurisdictions in Europe. One result has been a drastic increase in the number of men taking paternity leave. I have heard stats that support this but I can't remember the exact numbers. To throw some anecdotal evidence out there, 2 couples I am friends with have recently had babies and both fathers stayed home for the first year. In one case, she was a Medical Doctor and he was a teacher. In the other, he was a labourer and she was self-employed. In both cases it made financial sense for the man to stay home. More women than men still stay home but with this law there has been a marked decrease. I think this is an excellent example of how we can affect positive change. The original purpose of the law was to promote healthy early development in children but I suggest that it will also serve to empower women.

[khmerhit]

snore. Call me an old fogey, but, in the first few years of their lives, don't children receive more from their mothers than from their fathers? Call the PC Police, I don't care. They need the work.

[Capergirl]

Leeroy, you've come a long way from the "Asian women have nicer arses" days of yore.

Excellent posts on this thread and all valid points. I just want to add that things will not change much in the future unless we start giving men paternity leave...and make it mandatory. In fact, I believe that men and women should divide the time equally - with the mom staying home for six months and then the dad staying home for six months (maternity leave is one year in Canada). That would certainly level the playing field, wouldn't it? This is going on the assumption, of course, that there is a roughly equal number of parents and childless people of both genders. Unfortunately, the higher incidence of single parentage among women makes things uneven.

@khmerhit...OK, I'll bite. Children get something from both parents. When one parent is doing all the work, that parent has to do the work of both parents. Men can nurture their offspring just as well as women can, they just don't step up to the plate as often as they should, which is unfortunate.

[Roger]

All very true so far, so what can one add?
In China girls invariably want to raise a child or a couple of them. This is the no. 2 marriage reason. No. 1 is, of course, to be the liability of a male provider.
One would assume women here would love to be "emancipated", made "equal" with men. Doesn't seem to me in the majority of cases! Some girls do have higher ambitions - run a business, and a large minority among the succeed at this. But female teachers, female office staffers and salespeople don't seem to be interested in their occupations for a lifetime. They want to opt out, and into a cosy, well-maintained home.
Which doesn't mean they will all stay at home and run a household efficiently!
It's so convenient to "do business" from home. Or gamble.
Please, please, don't call the PC brigade - these are observations based on personal insights!
And many a man is happy to know his wife is no longer in the workforce. Maybe they derive some macho satisfaction from their conviction to be able to provide for more than themselves? Anyway, I happen to know some expats married to Chinese wives - the wives always fulltime householders! (Or the nasty female dragon that bosses a maid around).

[jud]

I would love to stay home and take care of the house.

The only problem is that my boyfriend would love to do the same.

Seriously gentlemen (?), hormonal changes??????!!!!!!

My sister is a corporate lawyer. Her husband was a math teacher, but they realized that the cost of a nanny would equal his salary. He's now a stay-at-home dad to their kids. Very happy, I might add.

My boss has small children and it certainly doesn't seem to have affected her ability to run a school.

There is absolutely no reason why a woman's salary, position, or opportunities should be any different than a man's. None. And absolutely no reason why men shouldn't be free to have paternity leave.

[khmerhit]

<"But we conclude that the best research finds
no harm to children who are cared for outside their families when their mothers work,especially when we consider chil-
dren whose mothers return to work when the child is over 1 year of age.>"

Well, Capers,--------ahem, according to this here re---search...... ---------------------- -------------------------it would seem that I can maintain my old fogey position on this question, so long as it's confined to the first year of motherhood . Even this very progressively PC study concedes that, within the first year, the mother has something to give that the father can't. At least I think that's what they say. Anyway....That's all I was saying really, I hope it's not too troglyditic.

[guest of Japan]

That doesn't seem to support your position very well. Basically that said, "We don't know because there are too many variables."

[khmerhit]

OK, Guest, but what about this?

[guest of Japan]

It says those negative effects can be offset by good quality care in the home. Certainly this could be done by the father.

If you base your argument around the benefits of breast feeding then I certainly couldn't argue that the father could do that. However, sensitivity, attentiveness, and nurturing characteristics can certainly be found in men. Perhaps traditions dictate your point of view rightly or wrongly.

I believe that every stuation is unique and that the best way to insure the happiness of everyone is to have the most amount of choices. If the man wants to be involved in the early life of his child he should have the choice of taking paternity leave. The value of early childhood paternal care is less understood because society has always dictated that the man has to secure the food and shelter. If the woman wishes to focus on her career then she should have the choice to follow that path. If she leads an unhappy life brought about because of limitations on her because of her sex then certainly this is going to impact the child. Obviously the mother and father have to work together to find the ideal situation for the child. People ought to have the most posssible amount of choices to create the best situation for the child.

[guty]

Liberated as I am and try as I might, my breast milk isnt as nutritional as my wifes

[Snoopy]

Has nobody ever worked in a language school in the UK or, even worse, done supply teaching here? I have suffered from several irrational bossy old bags. At least you want some straight talking.