A Fishbarrel Fisking
I read my Alma Mater's newspaper from time to time. It's usually filled with fluff articles about student complaints and which band is going to be playing next. Occasionally, they'll talk about something substantive and per usual, they get the whole thing wrong.
Female CEOs recognized -- finally
Let's start with an absolute falsehood:
Does she really believe this? That there were only three officially sanctioned careers? She left out secretary for one and I'm fairly confident there have been female secretaries. I think there were nuns too but I could be wrong on that one. I've never heard of anyone starching socks but let's continue.
There's that word, "deserve". I find that many people stretch the definition of "deserve" beyond the breaking point. I "deserve" that which I've earned and no more. Small private liberal arts colleges have a significant number of overprivlidged kids who've never had to work for much if anything. (I speak from personal experience here.) It's not until you graduate do you smack into the brick wall that is real life. To my surprise upon graduation I did not find myself with a massive salary, a BMW, a slopeside condo, fabulous Manhattan apartment where I hosted parties for all my similarly wealthy, witty and upwardly mobile friends. I had somehow convinced myself that I "deserved" these things. My first job very quickly sent those flights of fancy into the wild blue yonder. To put it simply, it sucked and I was paid so poorly that Kathy Lee Gifford was asking our CEO for cost cutting advice. People in college are allowed to have silly ideas and flights of fancy. In a way, that's what college is for. To learn a bit about the world before you have to face it. Not to say that's adequate preparation but it helps to give you the knowledge to get started in a career.
What kind of recognition do these female CEOs "deserve"?
This kind? Or this kind?:
"The cases of CEOs such as HP's Fiorina, Mattel's Barad, Enron's Kenneth Lay and Adelphia's John Rigas whose performances ranged from incompetent to criminal are just the tip of the iceberg."
or this kind? Some of these women were promoted because they were women. There is a tremendous pressure to be politically correct when hiring. Having worked in HR in Fortune 100 companies, I've seen it first hand. I've seen employees clamoring in townhall meetings that we need to hire more "diverse" people in C-level positions despite the fact that there were already people in those jobs. I think some of the people honestly wanted to fire some of them for the sole purpose of putting in the "diverse" candidate.
Back to the article:
Ugh. Learn something rather than just spouting this tripe. She actually has this idea that men are knuckledragging boorish idiots who scream and yell to get their subordinates to do anything and women are timid little mice who are afraid to assert themselves. Spare me. I can't comment on this any further as it's just too silly.
Some women are one dimensional in their quest for power and money. So are some men. Nothing wrong with that, just don't bother yourself with kids if that's what you want.
Interesting that she "clearly" assumes that the husband is working and not at home with the kids. That's a rather patriarchal assumption. The bottom line is that unless one of you (husband or wife) is home raising the kids, you are neglecting them. Kids don't need education when they're under the age of 5 or 6, they need love. Not daycare, not school, they need to form emotional bonds with Mom and Dad. When my wife and I were first married, we decided that one of us would stay home with the kids. Later, when #1 Son was on the way we discussed which one of us that would be. Initially, it was going to be me. I was going to be Mr. Mom. Stay home, raise the kid(s) and maybe try my hand at writing professionally (stop laughing). However, my wife realized as the time drew near, she wouldn't be able to leave him and go to work at a job she really didn't care about. She wanted no more of the corporate world and said goodbye without a twinge of regret. Even today she says if she ever goes back to work, it won't be in a corporate setting. We've never regretted the decision. We earn far less than we would otherwise be making but I'd rather have one of us at home than to have stuff and things that I don't have time to enjoy anyway.
The author assumes that because there are afterschool programs that will function as a babysitter between school and the time when Mom gets home from work. Not so and nor should it be. Those activities are for the kids, not the parents. The kids need competative sports to learn how to play on a team, how to win, how to lose and sportsmanship. They should not be something to keep the kids occupied while Mom (or Dad) climbs the corporate ladder. She also assumes that because something is "free" there is no cost. She also assumes that "free" things are good things. A view I don't hold.
Emphasis mine. Women are more than half of graduates and less than half of the population. Does that mean nothing? Does it not speak to the great strides women have made in the last 30 years? She also falsely assumes that the function of education is to train you for a job. Wrong. Education is a good on it's own. Is there something wrong with being an educated stay at home Mom? Would you rather have an uneducated stay at home Mom? Who is going to better prepare their children for the future? The last sentence is very telling. Kids are important, but let's put them aside for the really important work like "utilization of knowledge". Apparently, raising kids does not require any knowledge to be used. You just sort of sit there and tend to their most basic physical needs.
Rather than citing any sort of resources she flatly asserts this to be true. It is, of course, nonsense. I took the 5 seconds necessary to google for the latest study. It's here. In short, it says that adjusted for education and experience, the difference is more like a $.06 gap. That is, women make 96 cents for every dollar than men make. The differences emerge because women work fewer hours per week, are likely to pass up promotions in favor of flexibility (or stability) and work less dangerous jobs (not many female miners, loggers, fisherman and the like). In fact, there's an article today that discusses this very topic.
This paragraph manages to insult a great number of people all at once. Women who raise kids today are "June Cleavers" meaning they are housebound domestic servants like a Stepford Wife. I assure you, that simply isn't happening. Stay at home parents are very busy people. She also manages to insult teacher and nurses who are apparently in the "wrong" professions. Well done.
Female CEOs recognized -- finally
Let's start with an absolute falsehood:
What they say is true: when our mothers were our age, they could go to school to become a teacher, a nurse or a mother -- and that's it. The June Cleavers of the 1950s are not a myth. Women truly did vacuum the house in pearls, make pot pies every night, and iron and starch every single sock that went through the laundry.
Does she really believe this? That there were only three officially sanctioned careers? She left out secretary for one and I'm fairly confident there have been female secretaries. I think there were nuns too but I could be wrong on that one. I've never heard of anyone starching socks but let's continue.
Let's fast forward half a century or so -- is it acceptable that it has taken this long for female CEOs to finally be recognized for their breakthroughs in the workplace? Fortune recently released its "50 Most Powerful Women" list and it is absolutely refreshing to see female CEOs finally getting what they deserve.
There's that word, "deserve". I find that many people stretch the definition of "deserve" beyond the breaking point. I "deserve" that which I've earned and no more. Small private liberal arts colleges have a significant number of overprivlidged kids who've never had to work for much if anything. (I speak from personal experience here.) It's not until you graduate do you smack into the brick wall that is real life. To my surprise upon graduation I did not find myself with a massive salary, a BMW, a slopeside condo, fabulous Manhattan apartment where I hosted parties for all my similarly wealthy, witty and upwardly mobile friends. I had somehow convinced myself that I "deserved" these things. My first job very quickly sent those flights of fancy into the wild blue yonder. To put it simply, it sucked and I was paid so poorly that Kathy Lee Gifford was asking our CEO for cost cutting advice. People in college are allowed to have silly ideas and flights of fancy. In a way, that's what college is for. To learn a bit about the world before you have to face it. Not to say that's adequate preparation but it helps to give you the knowledge to get started in a career.
What kind of recognition do these female CEOs "deserve"?
This kind? Or this kind?:
"The cases of CEOs such as HP's Fiorina, Mattel's Barad, Enron's Kenneth Lay and Adelphia's John Rigas whose performances ranged from incompetent to criminal are just the tip of the iceberg."
or this kind? Some of these women were promoted because they were women. There is a tremendous pressure to be politically correct when hiring. Having worked in HR in Fortune 100 companies, I've seen it first hand. I've seen employees clamoring in townhall meetings that we need to hire more "diverse" people in C-level positions despite the fact that there were already people in those jobs. I think some of the people honestly wanted to fire some of them for the sole purpose of putting in the "diverse" candidate.
Back to the article:
Even though things are improving in the context of equality in the corporate arena, women cannot completely call themselves equal. The "b-word" oftentimes may come into play when a woman tries to take a stronger role in her company and her aggressive nature may label her poorly, while a male counterpart may be seen as appropriately aggressive or maybe even admired for his convictions.
Ugh. Learn something rather than just spouting this tripe. She actually has this idea that men are knuckledragging boorish idiots who scream and yell to get their subordinates to do anything and women are timid little mice who are afraid to assert themselves. Spare me. I can't comment on this any further as it's just too silly.
Furthermore, along the lines of perspectives pertaining to powerful women, what if a woman has children at home? She will undoubtedly be perceived as one-dimensional in her quest for power or money
Some women are one dimensional in their quest for power and money. So are some men. Nothing wrong with that, just don't bother yourself with kids if that's what you want.
(Heaven forbid she be one-dimensional in the quest for accomplishment or equality in a male-dominated facet of society), or negligent of her children, since, clearly, her husband isn't home rearing children but out in the working world as well.
Interesting that she "clearly" assumes that the husband is working and not at home with the kids. That's a rather patriarchal assumption. The bottom line is that unless one of you (husband or wife) is home raising the kids, you are neglecting them. Kids don't need education when they're under the age of 5 or 6, they need love. Not daycare, not school, they need to form emotional bonds with Mom and Dad. When my wife and I were first married, we decided that one of us would stay home with the kids. Later, when #1 Son was on the way we discussed which one of us that would be. Initially, it was going to be me. I was going to be Mr. Mom. Stay home, raise the kid(s) and maybe try my hand at writing professionally (stop laughing). However, my wife realized as the time drew near, she wouldn't be able to leave him and go to work at a job she really didn't care about. She wanted no more of the corporate world and said goodbye without a twinge of regret. Even today she says if she ever goes back to work, it won't be in a corporate setting. We've never regretted the decision. We earn far less than we would otherwise be making but I'd rather have one of us at home than to have stuff and things that I don't have time to enjoy anyway.
With this in mind, it is easy to see that a very common obstacle facing a woman's success today is the flailing [sic?] education and child care system in the United States. After school programs, such as music lessons or sports, are prominent in some schools and nonexistent in others -- a fact that needs changing, for the sake of both children and mothers.
The author assumes that because there are afterschool programs that will function as a babysitter between school and the time when Mom gets home from work. Not so and nor should it be. Those activities are for the kids, not the parents. The kids need competative sports to learn how to play on a team, how to win, how to lose and sportsmanship. They should not be something to keep the kids occupied while Mom (or Dad) climbs the corporate ladder. She also assumes that because something is "free" there is no cost. She also assumes that "free" things are good things. A view I don't hold.
To push this issue even further, over half of college graduates every year are women. With college tuition and extraneous costs at an all-time, nauseating high, this in itself is an achievement that cannot be disputed, for any college graduate. With more women obtaining college degrees, it would be a shame to see those hard-fought educations wasted on mediocre jobs and confined to only domestic duties. Children are important to society, but so is the utilization of knowledge.
Emphasis mine. Women are more than half of graduates and less than half of the population. Does that mean nothing? Does it not speak to the great strides women have made in the last 30 years? She also falsely assumes that the function of education is to train you for a job. Wrong. Education is a good on it's own. Is there something wrong with being an educated stay at home Mom? Would you rather have an uneducated stay at home Mom? Who is going to better prepare their children for the future? The last sentence is very telling. Kids are important, but let's put them aside for the really important work like "utilization of knowledge". Apparently, raising kids does not require any knowledge to be used. You just sort of sit there and tend to their most basic physical needs.
Then, of course, is the perpetual issue of the pay gap. Even as recently as 2002, the pay gap widened even more, and men were still being consistently paid in greater sums than women, even if the same experience and skills were present.
Rather than citing any sort of resources she flatly asserts this to be true. It is, of course, nonsense. I took the 5 seconds necessary to google for the latest study. It's here. In short, it says that adjusted for education and experience, the difference is more like a $.06 gap. That is, women make 96 cents for every dollar than men make. The differences emerge because women work fewer hours per week, are likely to pass up promotions in favor of flexibility (or stability) and work less dangerous jobs (not many female miners, loggers, fisherman and the like). In fact, there's an article today that discusses this very topic.
One day, little girls, possibly raised by the June Cleavers of 2006, when asked what they want to be when they grow up, will not answer "nurse" or "teacher." With the success of other females in mind, they will aspire to fight the man in a different way.
This paragraph manages to insult a great number of people all at once. Women who raise kids today are "June Cleavers" meaning they are housebound domestic servants like a Stepford Wife. I assure you, that simply isn't happening. Stay at home parents are very busy people. She also manages to insult teacher and nurses who are apparently in the "wrong" professions. Well done.
Comments