It discusses the perceived phenomenon of the "glass ceiling" experienced by some groups such as women or minorities. In 1994 only two of the Fortune 1500 companies had female CEOs. The article seeks to examine the presence and influence of bias in executive talent. However, this article says that although the numbers reflect under representation of these groups in this sector, it is not necessarily attributable to company or hiring bias. Specifically that women themselves self- select out of the competition for a position, thus contributing to their under representation in executive positions. The article frames its argument in a very complex way, but in lamens terms their theory is as follows: productivity and leadership (desired executive qualities) are predicted by someone's level of intelligence, men and women mate with a partner of their equivalent intelligence level, also observed that women's participation in the work force declines as their spouse generates more income. (So basically saying that two people got together because they had similar intelligence thus executive potential, but when the husband reaches that executive level, instead of the equivalently intelligent woman doing the same, her participation in work decreases, thus withdrawing her from the potential for an executive level position.) So basically its saying that the women in the applicant pool are on average less intelligent because it is assumed their husbands are of equal intelligence and thus earning a lesser income which does not affect her level of participation in the workforce. The reasoning behind dropping out of the work force is related to career sacrifices for family or parental obligations. Conclusion: intelligent women are underrepresented in the labor force, however, those who are of high intelligence will often be unmarried without family, thus bias from above is not necessarily entirely culpable for the glass ceiling, in part the actions of women are. (this is a really radical conclusion...) The traits that make women excel in academic work (organization, diligence, ability to follow instructions) is not propelling them in the corporate ladder climb. What is rewarded rather is daringness, assertiveness and ability to self-promote, which men more typically demonstrate. 9.9% of women hold corporate officer jobs (non staff) "overseeing the business that earns money" compared to the 90.1 % of men that do. Reasoning: male executives reluctance to mentor women, women's exclusion from formal networks, bias against women for tougher roles, personal female struggles to balance work and family. What some cite as a major flaw is women's belief that their hardwork will be fairly rewarded, without self-promotion, which is not necessarily the case. In conclusion: women need mentors to navigate the corporate world that values traits that don't necessarily come easily or naturally to women. However, there is still a reluctance to trust women with the lifeblood of the company. Story of a random girls life, (im gonna just time line I guess?)
She had her first daughter and planned to take some time off afterward, but she couldn't do this because she and her husband would not be able to purchase a home. So she worked part-time, the firm seemed family friendly. However, part-time status affected her standing as an associate, her limited availability greatly affected her influence with in the biglaw company. She realized the long hours and last minute travel that accompanied law was alright as a 20 smething but not as a 30 something. She chose to maintain her limited hours during maternity leave, and returned on the expected date, unlike a similar coworker who was the highest earner and came back early from her leave, resuming the constant travel. To this author the promotion seemed to be more important to her work associate. Another associate not eligible for maternity leave chose to be in the office although her twins were born premature and had to stay in the hospital extensively. She became pregnant with her second child 6 weeks into returning to work (ew). During her second maternity leave she worked a great deal less. She came back to work again, it was more stressful, and it was obvious to those around her she was not into promotion. She decided that the burden of uninteresting work and her pride was too much. To accommodate her not working they had to move out of DC and the moved to cville while her husband lived at her parents house during the week and came home on weekends. She documented that the difference between her and her associates was the dependency of the family on their incomes, her family was not while the other women's families were. Honestly this article is irrelevant, its just about one woman's decision to choose family over her career... so whatever you take out of that go for it.
Basically the argument that there are no substantial tradeoffs involved in including women incombat roles are wrong. Inclusion of women in those roles results in a segment of the force that is physically weaker, more prone to injury (both physical and psychological),less physically aggressive, able to withstand less pain, less willing to take physical risks, less motivated to kill, less likely to be available to deploy when ordered to (partly, but not exclusively because of pregnancy), more expensive to recruit, and less likely to remain in the service even for the length of their initial contracts. Officers and NCOs must reassign physical tasks (or do them themselves) because women cannot get them done fast enough, if at all.
The fact that women, in general, are less effective warriors is only part of the problem. The more fundamental problem comes from the mixing of men and women in combat forces, which creates a variety of problems for reasons rooted in our evolutionary history. Women frequently are placed in units with men who do not trust the women with their lives and who do not bond with women the way that they do with other men.
1. Men's orientation toward achieving status and taking career risks to obtain top position and greater income. Women have a greater desire to be involved in their children's lives. These differences contribute to the 'glass ceiling' and gender gap in compensation.
2. Sex differences in risk taking, competitiveness, social orientation, and various cognitive abilities lead to sex differences in occupational interests and distributions.
3. Men score higher on occupational interest in realistic, investigative, and enterprising jobs. Women score higher on occupational interest in artistic and social jobs.
4. Women's representation in science field is lower overall than men's, but not in all areas. Women are more involved in social sciences like psychology and lowest in engineering.
5. Men and women integrate more in white collar jobs than blue collar jobs. Men are more present in blue collar jobs particularly b/c most of them are the realistic type (building etc.)
6. Blue collar jobs also typically require more strength so men are more suitable
7. Cultural differences do contribute to these occupational differences, but you can't ignore that biology also play a role
8. One central flaw in the purely social affect is that it fails to explain cross cultural differences, but the biosocial approach does stating that the distribution of men and women into social roles within a society, which have come from biological differences: men's greater size and women's childrearing and nursing***important fact
9. Talks about the typical androgen and testosterone differences in the sexes in prenatal stage
10. Psychological sex differences have an ancient history where the mind was sexually dimorphic, which is why it's that way today. Evolved preferences and behavioral predispositions along with social forces have driven men and women to follow different career paths***
Talks about the paycheck fairness bill, which would make it easier to file suits relating to sex based pay discrimination. Author does not support it because discrimination pays a little role in pay disparities and it would put ridiculous requirements on employers to correct gaps over which they have little control. Every $ men earn, women earn just .77. Reasons include differences in education, experience, and job tenure, which narrows the gap considerably. Young, childless, single urban women actually earn 8% more than male counterparts b/c more of them have college degrees. Pay gap may be a result of individual choices made by men and women. Women are more likely to leave the work force, take lower pay b/c they value benefits like family friendly environments. Bill would hold employers liable for the lingering effects of past discrimination when choices may have a lot to do with it. The Paycheck Fairness bill would set women against men, empower trial lawyers and activists, and perpetuate falsehoods about the status of women in the workplace and create havoc in the job market.