For as long as we have people with attitudes like this one, women will always lag behind.
I am 25 and looking for a job…am I screwed?
I don’t think you can make a solid argument that an employer is better off hiring a woman who will incur that additional expense to a company vs. a man who won’t. I’m not talking about value to society because that’s insanely difficult to quantify, but on a case by case basis, is having to incur that inherent expense outweighed with benefits of diversity of having women in the workplace? I’d say not. BTW if somebody said men were inherently more valuble than women, can you imagine the level of angry people?
We have a pretty vast minority of women in my office (probably 80/20 men/women; pretty typical in oil and gas/finance), but the ones we do have are just as capable as the men, no more, no less. That is until they disappear for months at a time when they have a kid, as one of our analysts recently did. Having children is a choice, not a requirement.
How? Easy. He is saying even though a certain level of equality has been reached, they still don’t work equal jobs und don’t get equal pay. This has nothing to do with sexism since it is based on choices made freely. See my story about specialisations in my B-school above. I am not a sexist because I believe women are in no way inferior to men and they are capable of doing exactly the same jobs. But when I think of the girls who went to high school with me and the young women who went to business school with me, I can understand why there is a difference in pay. There were two girls I knew in high school, who I thought were the smartest and most promising students of the school, one became a teacher the other studied french literature and is working in a small publication company. Ok. Why not? Follow your dreams, right? Then in B-school in the first year there were 55% girls and 45% guys and I thought, wow look at this, aren’t we all very progressive. But most girls went into HR and marketing while the guys went into finance and accounting. The only girl I knew in finance, btw. a solid 7+, worked at a major bank for 2-3 years and left for the first baby, back then still talking about returning but she has since changed her mind looking forward to more kids. Actually, I wish more gals would go into finance. I don’t exactly enjoy this sausage fest. Can you force them? It is frustrating to see my female friends from university, to see all this talent and all this education pretty much wasted. But what can you do? Not get kids? Not really an option, is it?
Yes, it’s not a requirement. But it’s a choice that most people, both men and women, want to make. Women are just the ones who get punished for it in the workforce.
This ties to the comment I made yesterday in another thread, that men have it easier in life. Which FT promtly interpreted as me not beigh hot …
The “gender pay gap” has been thoroughly debunked. Here’s a nice summary on why income disparity still exists.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/
Actually I would even say it is a requirement, maybe not for individuals but for society, therefore I do welcome some measures that enable women to have a shot at both, family and career. Even though it might be costly in the short term, I believe the long term benefits are much greater. Switzerland is like the US, not very supportive in this regard, so if I ever have kids, I will probably return to my home country which is more similar to the swedish model with lots of free day care centers and paternity leave.
However, I wouldn’t say women get “punished” in the workforce. Can you blame a company for trying to reduce risks and costs? After all that is what companies should do, no?
One of my male managers took paternity leave twice in two years. I almost threw up.
Women obviously get hired, but the reality is that if there is a man being considered for the same position and you’re otherwise equal, he’s probably going to get the job. If you’re a superior candidate though, that will generally outweigh your pregnancy risk.
I would lose my job within a year if I exercised my legal right to paternity leave.
as long as u don’t get screwed, u will be fine.
My company allows men 1 week paid paternity leave, which they seem to take. My manager intends to when his kid comes in a couple months, and one of the other managers took his mainly as half days. It isn’t frowned upon here, but that goes along with our generous PTO allowance of 4 weeks + holidays.
My wife gave birth on Wednesday. I worked on Thursday and Friday.
And I got docked for eight hours of vacation for the Wednesday that I took off.
You can talk about “the intangible benefits of gender and cultural diversity in a societal context” all you want.
Tell that to the guy who’s struggling to make payroll because he’s paying the salaries of eight people, but only five are working. (The other three are on paid maternity leave.)
Then, the three come back to work after a year-long maternity leave, and put in their two week’s notice.
Did you even read the post? Or did you just not comprehend it?
Let me ask you this, Krnyc - A 22 year-old girl, freshly graduated with an engagement ring on her finger, walks into your office asking for a job. You know (because you learned the hard way) that over the next five years, she will only work for three. Yet you will pay her for five years.
Waiting behind her is a 22 year-old guy. You will pay him for five years, and he will work for five years.
Who do you hire? Be honest. But don’t be sexist.
Maybe companies should also realize that the long term benefits of a healthy society outweigh the short term costs of a decent maternity (and paternity, I am with you guys on that) leave…
That I guess brings up the argument whether the companies should be socially responsible or not…
Companies aren’t concerned with the long-term benefits of a healthy society. They’re worried about the bottom line.
This, IMHO, is a good thing.
It’s difficult for women to get high up and start having kids early. Even look at the newest face of feminism Sheryl Sandberg. It says she had kids at earliest 35 (source wikipedia where it says she got married in 2004 and started having kids). Do you think if she had those kids at 27 she would be as successful? Is that fair? Should she be boasting? She gave up her youth to have a career over being a MILF? Is that fulfilling? Would the women on this forum sacrifice any thoughts of family till 35 to be successful?
Edit: Says she’s 44 and her kids at 5 and 2. So she had her first kid at 39. That’s really old!
krnyc is not the mommy type. she has ice running through her veins.