Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Women in Senior Management

Options
  • 19-09-2008 10:34am
    #1
    Stez Styx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17 ✭


    There are a lot of statistics about this thorny issue, but whichever ones you look at, they will tell you that there are much fewer women at senior management level than there are men.

    Many reasons for this have been advanced over the years, and a common thread runs through all of them - it is all men's fault.

    Now perhaps there was some truth in this in the past. Women were indeed not taken seriously in the workplace and were treated more as ornaments than as serious value adds, but this attitude is hardly prevalent any more.

    Consider the following: A man gets promoted to the C suite. His first instinct is to surround himself with his cronies, and reward the people who were loyal to him. Most of these turn out to be men, unsurprisingly.

    A women gets promoted to the same level. A Pandora's Box of vengeance against other women is opened. She sticks the knife in to the girl who had nicer shoes than her back when they were both starting off. She has another woman fired who looked her up and down the wrong way when she was getting into the lift six years before. Etc., etc., etc., At the end of the day, she surrounds herself with men, because she can't stand other women.

    The truth really is, nowadays, it is all women's fault.

    Is it any wonder that H.L. Mencken defined a misogynist as a man who hates women as much as they hate each other?


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Burial
    Registered Users Posts: 817 ✭✭✭Burial


    Stez Styx wrote: »
    There are a lot of statistics about this thorny issue, but whichever ones you look at, they will tell you that there are much fewer women at senior management level than there are men.

    Many reasons for this have been advanced over the years, and a common thread runs through all of them - it is all men's fault.

    Now perhaps there was some truth in this in the past. Women were indeed not taken seriously in the workplace and were treated more as ornaments than as serious value adds, but this attitude is hardly prevalent any more.

    Consider the following: A man gets promoted to the C suite. His first instinct is to surround himself with his cronies, and reward the people who were loyal to him. Most of these turn out to be men, unsurprisingly.

    A women gets promoted to the same level. A Pandora's Box of vengeance against other women is opened. She sticks the knife in to the girl who had nicer shoes than her back when they were both starting off. She has another woman fired who looked her up and down the wrong way when she was getting into the lift six years before. Etc., etc., etc., At the end of the day, she surrounds herself with men, because she can't stand other women.

    The truth really is, nowadays, it is all women's fault.

    Is it any wonder that H.L. Mencken defined a misogynist as a man who hates women as much as they hate each other?

    Ignoring your sexist post, here is my opinion on woman in management. I don't know enough about this, but here goes:

    This topic is annoying to me. I view woman and men both capable of doing their jobs properly and effeciently. Men have held higher positions in management and the more experienced people tend to be men due to this age old discrimination that has now changed, so of course they're going to be statistically higher! I hate when people say "omg company X has no women on the board. They are sexist." Thats just insane. Anyone who looks at life this way is sexist.

    In conclusion, men have the most experience in management and as such will be better candidates for the job.


  • Options
    #3
    damnyanks
    Registered Users Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭damnyanks


    Big companies are crazy to get women in to try and balance it out. Sadly when I've interviewed juniors the women who came through the recruit women event were quite frankly **** compared to the standard I'd expect through the usual process.

    Of course this isnt the case for all women but if companies are trying to fill the gap by hiring substandard employee's its going to make it more difficult for capable women as they will have that stigma attached.


  • Options
    #4
    Stez Styx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17 ✭Stez Styx


    Burial wrote: »
    Ignoring your sexist post, here is my opinion on woman in management. I don't know enough about this, but here goes:

    This topic is annoying to me. I view woman and men both capable of doing their jobs properly and effeciently. Men have held higher positions in management and the more experienced people tend to be men due to this age old discrimination that has now changed, so of course they're going to be statistically higher! I hate when people say "omg company X has no women on the board. They are sexist." Thats just insane. Anyone who looks at life this way is sexist.

    In conclusion, men have the most experience in management and as such will be better candidates for the job.

    This is the Catch 22 situation faced by every young person looking for their first job. Companies want people with experience, but how do you get experience unless someone takes a chance on you and gives you your start?

    Women need someone to give them the same chance. One would expect other women to give them to them, but they do not. And why? See above. Or pretend it is not there.


  • Options
    #5
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    TA re-reg folks.


  • Options
    #6
    kmick
    Registered Users Posts: 3,375 ✭✭✭kmick


    I once worked for a company who had a yearly womens day. All the women trooped off to a fancy hotel and we were left at work. Apart from being slightly bemused by the whole affair most of the men were delighted as a lot of the senior managers were women so we just all dossed for the day.

    One of the newer lads who rarely said a thing piped up and said we should spend the day "re-enforcing the glass ceiling". Maybe you had to be there but at the time it was hilarious.

    On the other hand I have always had senior managers who were women and found them to be great.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    LouOB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,181 ✭✭✭LouOB


    Dragan wrote: »
    TA re-reg folks.

    anyone have a silver bullet? wooden stake?
    something to throw?
    anything......


  • Options
    #8
    Madame Razz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,252 ✭✭✭✭Madame Razz


    Ha; I worked for a company where it was widely known and acknowledged that if you had a uterus you were of no purpose to the MD, hence all the women remained in the lower ranks. Maternity spoilt business you see....


  • Options
    #9
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    manukahoney wrote: »
    Ha; I worked for a company where it was widely known and acknowledged that if you had a uterus you were of no purpose to the MD, hence all the women remained in the lower ranks. Maternity spoilt business you see....

    That's widespread. I have friends who are med lab scientists in a private hospital, with lots of ex-classmates in hospitals around the country. Any (few and far between) permanent jobs that come up anywhere almost invariably go to male colleagues, and the girls are stuck on temporary contracts. This is even though 90% of the staff are female. Common knowledge that its because the hospital don't want to be replacing staff on maternity leave all the time, but very hard to prove.


  • Options
    #10
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    I know this will not be the popular view but personally I can absolutely see how maternity leave can have an extremely adverse affect on any business. I work in a very large mutlinational. Our male to female ratio is about 60 to 65% in favour of women.

    Things are generally in a constant state of turmoil because of people coming and going on maternity leave. Projects get dropped, handover is terrible, positions go left unfilled for weeks or months as they can be hard to fill depending on how specialist they are.

    When an employee walks out the door what leaves with them is a wealth of personal knowledge and experience and that can be incredibly hard to replace.

    Is is right? I'm honestly not sure. At the end of the day businesses are there to make money. The simply fact is that no employer in the world would touch me if i had a possible reason as to why i would be unable to work for up 9 to 12 months at a time.


  • Options
    #11
    g'em
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,819 ✭✭✭✭g'em


    Dragan wrote: »
    When an employee walks out the door what leaves with them is a wealth of personal knowledge and experience and that can be incredibly hard to replace.
    So why don't these huge international corporations have contingency plans in place? It's not like women getting pregnant is a modern day thing, we've always done and will continue to do it. If a person leaves there's no valid reason for a gap to be left behind in a knowledge base - why isn't there training to support relief staff? Why is there a common knowledge policy in place? Given that women will continue to get pregnant until the end of time these companies should be able to cater to that.
    Dragan wrote:
    At the end of the day businesses are there to make money.
    Discriminating against a large proportion of their work force won't help that goal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    fits
    Registered Users Posts: 13,283 ✭✭✭✭fits


    Yeah now the same is expected from both men and women in their jobs as was expected from men when the women were at home full time. This is fair on neither sex, nor on their children. A whole shift in attitudes needs to take place and the value of childbearing and rearing to society properly recognised. Neither sex should be punished for raising and looking after children imo.
    Hmm maybe if men had to take compulsory paternity leave for a similar length of time as their partners, things would even out. That may sound ridiculous, but somethings gotta give.


  • Options
    #13
    F.A.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 327 ✭✭F.A.


    While I can see Dragan's point, I would just like to point out that if paternity leave existed and was supported like maternity leave, these issues you describe can at least be more equally spread. I mean, it works quite well for Norway for example, not exactly one of the poorest countries around. I do, however, believe that if a woman wants to take maternity leave of at least 6 months and have a number of children, possible close in age, then her demanding the same treatment as a man* careerwise is a bit much. Nobody will deny that the woman also worked during the maternity leave - it's not a holiday - but in terms of work experience, she most certainly lost out.

    *If said man worked the same length of time PLUS the time the woman opted for maternity leave.


  • Options
    #14
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Dragan wrote: »
    I know this will not be the popular view but personally I can absolutely see how maternity leave can have an extremely adverse affect on any business. I work in a very large mutlinational. Our male to female ratio is about 60 to 65% in favour of women.

    Things are generally in a constant state of turmoil because of people coming and going on maternity leave. Projects get dropped, handover is terrible, positions go left unfilled for weeks or months as they can be hard to fill depending on how specialist they are.

    When an employee walks out the door what leaves with them is a wealth of personal knowledge and experience and that can be incredibly hard to replace.

    Is is right? I'm honestly not sure. At the end of the day businesses are there to make money. The simply fact is that no employer in the world would touch me if i had a possible reason as to why i would be unable to work for up 9 to 12 months at a time.

    Cos it NEVER happens that a man has to take time of due to health issues suddenly, at least maternity leave is expected and can be planned for rather then someone being in a car accident or breaking a leg.

    IF we had paternity leave then I bet there would be better systems in place as it standards there is not statatory paternity leave in this country.


  • Options
    #15
    LeperKing
    Registered Users Posts: 451 ✭✭LeperKing


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Cos it NEVER happens that a man has to take time of due to health issues suddenly, at least maternity leave is expected and can be planned for rather then someone being in a car accident or breaking a leg.

    Unless women are immune to car accidents and broken legs, what's your point?
    Thaedydal wrote: »
    IF we had paternity leave then I bet there would be better systems in place as it standards there is not statatory paternity leave in this country.
    Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.:(

    Thanks,
    LK.


  • Options
    #16
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    g'em wrote: »
    So why don't these huge international corporations have contingency plans in place?

    I don't know, i just work for one?
    If a person leaves there's no valid reason for a gap to be left behind in a knowledge base - why isn't there training to support relief staff?

    Of course there is, it's called personal experience. There is no way i could write a handover document that would detail all my knowledge of what i do and what i deal with on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The job is far too dynamic with far too many variables. I walked into this job without them and built them up over the course of 3 years. It would take anyone else time to do the same. And of course training is provided but once again that can only be done is systems, processes, businesses goals, targets , current project goals and timelines etc. Once again it would be the personal experience and savvy developed over time in a working environment that would be missing.

    Successful businesses do everything they can to limit staff turnover for these very reasons.
    Why is there a common knowledge policy in place?

    I think mean "why is there not"? Eh, i have no idea, mainly because you spend from the time you walk in the door till the time you leave working. As a company we have a massive database of information on process etc in place but the simple fact is a lot of these will be market specific, company specific, they still take time to read and learn and come to grips with.
    Given that women will continue to get pregnant until the end of time these companies should be able to cater to that.

    I absolutely agree, and this needs to sorted out by business, interested rights group and relevant government bodies.
    Discriminating against a large proportion of their work force won't help that goal.

    I don't believe i said that it did, or that i agreed with it as a practice. Do not mistake being able to see both sides of an argument for agreeing with either.


  • Options
    #17
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    If you want to end discrimination against women wrt maternity leave all you have to do is make paternity leave mandatory too.


  • Options
    #18
    St Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭St Bill


    Stez Styx wrote: »

    Is it any wonder that H.L. Mencken defined a misogynist as a man who hates women as much as they hate each other?

    Good to see you've come to terms with the fact that you're a misogynist.


    As you were.....


  • Options
    #19
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    LeperKing wrote: »
    Unless women are immune to car accidents and broken legs, what's your point?

    Cover for maternity leave is easier to sort then sick cover.

    LeperKing wrote: »
    Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.:(

    Thanks,
    LK.

    If men had proper paternity leave like in other countries then I am sure that a system of cover and communication would be found and put in place.


  • Options
    #20
    LolaLuv
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭LolaLuv


    brianthebard wrote: »
    If you want to end discrimination against women wrt maternity leave all you have to do is make paternity leave mandatory too.

    Is maternity leave mandatory in Ireland? Or do you mean it's mandatory that it be an option?


  • Options
    #21
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    PillyPen wrote: »
    Is maternity leave mandatory in Ireland? Or do you mean it's mandatory that it be an option?
    Under the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004 at least 2 weeks have to be taken before the end of the week of your baby's expected birth and at least 4 weeks after. You can decide how you would like to take the remaining weeks. Generally, employees take 2 weeks before the birth and the remaining weeks after. If you qualify for Maternity Benefit (see below) at least 2 and no more than 16 weeks must be taken before the end of the week the baby is due.

    From here

    I'm not sure if that means its absolutely mandatory that six weeks be taken, or if you ask for maternity leave that you have to take those six weeks and then whatever else you want. tbh what I really meant was to make paternity leave mandatory, at least for those six weeks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    LolaLuv
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭LolaLuv


    brianthebard wrote: »
    From here

    I'm not sure if that means its absolutely mandatory that six weeks be taken, or if you ask for maternity leave that you have to take those six weeks and then whatever else you want. tbh what I really meant was to make paternity leave mandatory, at least for those six weeks.

    Many women here choose to work up until the day they give birth. If a company forced me into maternity leave when I didn't want it then I'd be pissed.


  • Options
    #23
    NextSteps
    Registered Users Posts: 984 ✭✭✭NextSteps


    You could do a Sarah Palin, just push it out and go back to work 3 days later...


  • Options
    #24
    LolaLuv
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭LolaLuv


    UB wrote: »
    You could do a Sarah Palin, just push it out and go back to work 3 days later...

    Well, women should have the choice anyway. :D


  • Options
    #25
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    PillyPen wrote: »
    Many women here choose to work up until the day they give birth. If a company forced me into maternity leave when I didn't want it then I'd be pissed.

    Well it would be the state doing the forcing, and if it ends or reduces discrimination on the grounds of motherhood I think it should be considered. Also you have 8 and half months to plan what needs to be done before you leave work for a while.


  • Options
    #26
    LolaLuv
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭LolaLuv


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Well it would be the state doing the forcing, and if it ends or reduces discrimination on the grounds of motherhood I think it should be considered. Also you have 8 and half months to plan what needs to be done before you leave work for a while.

    Right, company wasn't what I meant, state it is. Still, how would that reduce discrimination? Some women like to work and would resent being told, basically, that they're in too delicate a position to be able to continue. That's government-sponsored patronization. You're right that the only way it's fair is to force it on men as well, but then you're screwing over 100% of the population instead of 50%. The best thing would be to make it mandatory for companies to offer both maternity and paternity leave, and allow each individual to decide whether or not to take it.


  • Options
    #27
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    PillyPen wrote: »
    Right, company wasn't what I meant, state it is. Still, how would that reduce discrimination? Some women like to work and would resent being told, basically, that they're in too delicate a position to be able to continue. That's government-sponsored patronization. You're right that the only way it's fair is to force it on men as well, but then you're screwing over 100% of the population instead of 50%. The best thing would be to make it mandatory for companies to offer both maternity and paternity leave, and allow each individual to decide whether or not to take it.

    But that still leaves pressure on the man not to take leave, or as little as possible, and does nothing to stop discrimination. If both men and women are required to take at least six weeks around the time of birth it means that there's no point in hiring or promoting a man over a woman because the man will still have to take leave if his partner gets pregant. Also from the couples point of view it means the father is given a real chance to bond with his child and partner. My sister's colleague had a baby earlier in the year with his partner, and took a half day the day of the birth and maybe had the next day off. That's it. How sh!t is that?
    Anyways, capitalism screws over 100% of the population, 100% of the time.


  • Options
    #28
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    PillyPen it is done for health reasons, there is a welfare payment and most companies will top that up to the full salary of the person going on maternity leave, it's just how we roll over here compared to the usa.

    The two weeks before hand is for insurance reasons also, but I know people who fudged their dates on their forums and worked up to a week beforehand.


  • Options
    #29
    LolaLuv
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭LolaLuv


    brianthebard wrote: »
    But that still leaves pressure on the man not to take leave, or as little as possible, and does nothing to stop discrimination. If both men and women are required to take at least six weeks around the time of birth it means that there's no point in hiring or promoting a man over a woman because the man will still have to take leave if his partner gets pregant. Also from the couples point of view it means the father is given a real chance to bond with his child and partner. My sister's colleague had a baby earlier in the year with his partner, and took a half day the day of the birth and maybe had the next day off. That's it. How sh!t is that?
    Anyways, capitalism screws over 100% of the population, 100% of the time.

    So let's just take choices away from women? That's ridiculous. Forcing 100% of women to take off for several weeks is a much greater offense than giving the entire population the choice. And the point of making it mandatory for companies to offer maternity leave is to make sure that people who take it will not be discriminated against just for taking it. If they are, sue the pants off the company.


  • Options
    #30
    LolaLuv
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭LolaLuv


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    PillyPen it is done for health reasons, there is a welfare payment and most companies will top that up to the full salary of the person going on maternity leave, it's just how we roll over here compared to the usa.

    The two weeks before hand is for insurance reasons also, but I know people who fudged their dates on their forums and worked up to a week beforehand.

    I guess I'm just so used to women working up until they give birth that I can't wrap my head around this. Ah well, culture shock is going to come at some point, why not before I ever set foot in Ireland?:pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    PillyPen wrote: »
    So let's just take choices away from women? That's ridiculous. Forcing 100% of women to take off for several weeks is a much greater offense than giving the entire population the choice. And the point of making it mandatory for companies to offer maternity leave is to make sure that people who take it will not be discriminated against just for taking it. If they are, sue the pants off the company.

    But the choice/chance of promotion is being taken from women because of pregnancy and not giving men a choice! The discrimination is coming from "giving" women a choice! Even though in the end its not a choice at all, because a pregnant woman has to take some time off, that's obvious. I don't get you, lets not give a couple the chance to enjoy their pregancy and new born, but we'll substitute it with the joys of working an extra week or two of a job they'll have for 40+ years, and probably won't get promoted from since as a woman, she's being discriminated against! I don't see how this is even an issue, if a woman feels that strongly about not losing time at beloved work because of a child why not get her tubes tied and be done with it???


    Interesting that the American thinks the answer lies in suing the company rather than giving the parents a better quality of life. :pac:


Advertisement