Paradigm for Parity push for 50% women CEOs by 2030

[Draco-Onis]

Not entirely true, and I don't think anybody would argue not to work if your family cannot do single income.

It depends on where you live. You can easily live off of single income of around 50k a year back in my home town, but where I currently live that is just barely scraping by.

However feminists have demonized the role of motherhood in the quest for "female equality", and even today if a woman decides that she wants to be a housewife or a stay-at-home-mom, she is usually criticized and looked down upon because it is generally seen as less than.

Household incomes have stagnated to the point where single income is no longer possible, the median income for a family (2 working adults + kids) is 55K that is not enough to get by in most of the country. That was not done by feminists, that is just economic reality staying at home is a luxury only afforded to the rich.

[Cts53]

Household incomes have stagnated to the point where single income is no longer possible, the median income for a family (2 working adults + kids) is 55K that is not enough to get by in most of the country. That was not done by feminists, that is just economic reality staying at home is a luxury only afforded to the rich.

I'm not really talking about the economy though am i?

You seem to be getting rather confused. What I am talking about is how currently housewives and stay-at-home-moms are viewed, and how that has been shaped by feminists and their ideology.

Otherwise, why would anybody look down on a housewife if her husband makes enough for the family to be financially stable and secure? If it was solely just due to economical reasons, then honestly I don't think people would care all that much.

But in tv shows, movies, and in forums and chats and real world convos, housewives or stay-at-home-moms are looked down upon and made to feel bad simply because they don't "have a job". That is due to feminists, not due to the economy.

And yes, single income is still possible, I see it every day from back home and in my current job field. It's all about planning and prioritizing though. Obviously it is not possible in EVERY situation, but it is still possible. And no, I didn't grow up in the middle of nowhere. 55k would go a long way in the middle of nowhere.

Heck, me and my wife are single income, mine, and we do just fine.

[Fencers]

In my experience, most of the female execs I have worked for have been awful.

I am not sure why an inventive has to be enacted for this sort of thing. While I support equality in that citizens should have the same opportunities open to them; I do not see the need or reason as to why an effort has to be made beyond the default openness to opportunistic hiring and job offering.

But people shouldn't work anyway. Paying bills and dying is a slavery.

[Draco-Onis]

I'm not really talking about the economy though am i?

You seem to be getting rather confused. What I am talking about is how currently housewives and stay-at-home-moms are viewed, and how that has been shaped by feminists and their ideology.

Otherwise, why would anybody look down on a housewife if her husband makes enough for the family to be financially stable and secure? If it was solely just due to economical reasons, then honestly I don't think people would care all that much.

But in tv shows, movies, and in forums and chats and real world convos, housewives or stay-at-home-moms are looked down upon and made to feel bad simply because they don't "have a job". That is due to feminists, not due to the economy.

And yes, single income is still possible, I see it every day from back home and in my current job field. It's all about planning and prioritizing though. Obviously it is not possible in EVERY situation, but it is still possible. And no, I didn't grow up in the middle of nowhere. 55k would go a long way in the middle of nowhere.

Heck, me and my wife are single income, mine, and we do just fine.

The stereotype started because most people could no longer afford to live on a single income, therefore if you stay at home you are not doing your part for your family / looking out for your kids future. This is something that we as a society made the norm because of wage stagnation, you cannot blame this on feminists this belongs to all of us as a society. While we use family as campaign slogans we do nothing to support family values.

Yes some people do it in parts of the country but those people are a minority, with living expenses and the cost of private colleges most people can't afford it. Your anecdotal evidence is not representative of the entire country, you are scapegoating feminists and ignoring the reality.

[crewskater]

The stereotype started because most people could no longer afford to live on a single income, therefore if you stay at home you are not doing your part for your family / looking out for your kids future. This is something that we as a society made the norm because of wage stagnation, you cannot blame this on feminists this belongs to all of us as a society. While we use family as campaign slogans we do nothing to support family values.

Yes some people do it in parts of the country but those people are a minority, with living expenses and the cost of private colleges most people can't afford it. Your anecdotal evidence is not representative of the entire country, you are scapegoating feminists and ignoring the reality.

Where did you read that families can no longer live on one income? That's the first I've ever heard that and would like to read more about it.

[Cts53]

The stereotype started because most people could no longer afford to live on a single income, therefore if you stay at home you are not doing your part for your family / looking out for your kids future. This is something that we as a society made the norm because of wage stagnation, you cannot blame this on feminists this belongs to all of us as a society. While we use family as campaign slogans we do nothing to support family values.

Yes some people do it in parts of the country but those people are a minority, with living expenses and the cost of private colleges most people can't afford it. Your anecdotal evidence is not representative of the entire country, you are scapegoating feminists and ignoring the reality.

Why is there a need for private college? Community colleges are significantly cheaper, just saying.

Still, your not entirely correct. People were fine when the feminist movement started, and their entire slogan was to get women into the work force so they can become "independent" and "free from mens grip". Has the economy gone down-hill? Of course, however, our parents and grandparents did just fine on single-incomes. This really as become more-so an issue in todays culture.

I fail to see how staying at home = not doing your part for the family/kids.

I could go into why the argument of living expenses and college don't fully stand up to that argument, but thats not entirely the point of this thread and I would very much like to get back on point if that is fine with you.

Do you agree or disagree with the sentiments of the group pushing for a 50/50 split is higher corporate positions?

[Draco-Onis]

Why is there a need for private college? Community colleges are significantly cheaper, just saying.

People want the best for their kids, private college means better connections and higher chance for success not to mention the quality of education.

Still, your not entirely correct. People were fine when the feminist movement started, and their entire slogan was to get women into the work force so they can become "independent" and "free from mens grip". Has the economy gone down-hill? Of course, however, our parents and grandparents did just fine on single-incomes. This really as become more-so an issue in todays culture.

It's cause and effect feminism started due to women having to enter the workforce, the movement was not powerful enough to account for this huge change in society. I am sure you've heard that the minimum wage adjusted for inflation is $15/hour now imagine what the good jobs paid before then you can understand why this has happened.

I could go into why the argument of living expenses and college don't fully stand up to that argument, but thats not entirely the point of this thread and I would very much like to get back on point if that is fine with you.

Do you agree or disagree with the sentiments of the group pushing for a 50/50 split is higher corporate positions?

I agree with it simply because the workforce is already full of office politics and nepotism, people don't get jobs solely based on merit so I don't see how this is anymore egregious.

[Cts53]

I agree with it simply because the workforce is already full of office politics and nepotism, people don't get jobs solely based on merit so I don't see how this is anymore egregious.

Well I am glad that we are back on track. Honestly though I fail to see how those only have an adverse effect on women, seeing how they are fully capable of playing into, or even taking over, office politics. And Nepotism is not for men only. This however is basically the definition of gender discrimination by pushing for women even if there is a more highly qualified male for the position.

Personally, I dont see how this and those are related other than its just another way to deny some and allow others.

[petej0]

My sister works at an IT center at a major university. She is, arguably, the most qualified person at her job and she frequently works overtime (with pay) during busy times.

I think the key word in that sentence, was arguably.

She was recently passed over for a promotion for a male who had been working there for 5 months less than her and with overall less experience in IT.

Was she passed over or did the other guy who applied make a stronger case for the promotion to go to him?

When she first began her job, her boss was paying her less than all of the other male employees for the same position, but she spoke to HR and she received a raise.

Did she negotiate a lower starting salary then the male employees?

This stuff still happens whether you want to accept it or not.

I am sure there are sexist entities out there, but you cant claim it is a systemic problem. Just in your anecdote alone, without knowing any more then your side of the story, I highlighted three areas in which could account for your sisters experience.

The stereotype started because most people could no longer afford to live on a single income, therefore if you stay at home you are not doing your part for your family / looking out for your kids future. This is something that we as a society made the norm because of wage stagnation, you cannot blame this on feminists this belongs to all of us as a society. While we use family as campaign slogans we do nothing to support family values.

Yes some people do it in parts of the country but those people are a minority, with living expenses and the cost of private colleges most people can't afford it. Your anecdotal evidence is not representative of the entire country, you are scapegoating feminists and ignoring the reality.

30 years ago the typical family was lucky to own a car. Had a modest house, that was cheap to heat/cool and provide electricity for, a basic cable package and phone . They also either had family or a local teen that could baby sit a few times a week so the parents can enjoy a night out. Now most families have two or more cars, larger homes (and the insurance that comes with them) that are more expensive to heat/cool and provide electricity for. They now have pricey digital cable tv packages, internet, cell phones with data plans, and if they dont have family nearby they have to pay for ungodly pricey daycare for a kid that isnt going to school yet and when they are in school are paying out the ass for extra curricular activities for their kids. You cant possibly pay for all of todays "necessities" on a single income, wage stagnation or not.

[Cts53]

People want the best for their kids, private college means better connections and higher chance for success not to mention the quality of education.

Also wanted to mention real quick, not entirely sure if that last part is true anymore, as shown by the continued acts by students of Yale and Harvard. They tend to act like rotten children than people receiving a good education.

[Draco-Onis]

Well I am glad that we are back on track. Honestly though I fail to see how those only have an adverse effect on women, seeing how they are fully capable of playing into, or even taking over, office politics. And Nepotism is not for men only. This however is basically the definition of gender discrimination by pushing for women even if there is a more highly qualified male for the position.

Personally, I dont see how this and those are related other than its just another way to deny some and allow others.

The numbers don't lie unless you want to say women are disabled in some way that makes those numbers tilt so heavily towards men.

- - - Updated - - -

Also wanted to mention real quick, not entirely sure if that last part is true anymore, as shown by the continued acts by students of Yale and Harvard. They tend to act like rotten children than people receiving a good education.

They also have connections that make it very easy to be successful in life unless they are really really dumb.

[Cts53]

The numbers don't lie unless you want to say women are disabled in some way that makes those numbers tilt so heavily towards men.

Well you are also not taking into account many other factors such as, women might have no interest in these fields, potential women CEOS had children and decided to stay at home with them, etc.

Adding a quota to the percentage of CEOs will only bring down the quality of many businesses and does nothing to help other than in the name of "equality"

But its not really equality, its sex discrimination, where as men are put at an unfair disadvantage simply because they are men, and reversed for women.

People should be promoted based on qualifications, and that's it. The most qualified should get the job. Granted that is a perfect world scenario because of what you stated, however the proposed does nothing to get closer to that goal. It only further moves away from it.

I would say that if this was to be pushed and actually gain traction, it would essentially be a massive "over-correction" in terms of gender equality.

[cuafpr]

Not to play devil's advocate, but did she express interest in the promotion at all? As a manager, I would choose someone who had talked to me about the promotion, and had shown interest, if they meet the qualifications. He may have been qualified, just as she had, but if she didn't express any interest or asked about it, I would have assumed she had no interest in taking on more responsibility.

This... i'm up for review in Feb and i've been talking to my manager about a promotion to Level II for months, and ensuring i do what's needed to get it. 5 months less isn't a huge difference either, there could be other factors involved. Again in my current role there is a Level II but its already been decided he wont make manager because he doesn't know how to talk to people, esp C-level execs, ironically i've been praised for that. It even got me chosen over him for a trip for IT support b.c. i would be working direclty with VIPs. He has over 2-3 years with the company i was at maybe 6-7 months with the company at the time.

its not always so black and white.

Flip the coin even more, I was flat out told by a Lt. Col. (select) in the USAF she knew if not for being female she would not have been promted (even failed her most recent PT test)... so yeah. choosing based on gender or race is stupid 99% of the time.

[Draco-Onis]

Well you are also not taking into account many other factors such as, women might have no interest in these fields, potential women CEOS had children and decided to stay at home with them, etc.

Adding a quota to the percentage of CEOs will only bring down the quality of many businesses and does nothing to help other than in the name of "equality"

But its not really equality, its sex discrimination, where as men are put at an unfair disadvantage simply because they are men, and reversed for women.

People should be promoted based on qualifications, and that's it. The most qualified should get the job. Granted that is a perfect world scenario because of what you stated, however the proposed does nothing to get closer to that goal. It only further moves away from it.

I would say that if this was to be pushed and actually gain traction, it would essentially be a massive "over-correction" in terms of gender equality.

Even in fields where there is equal participation there is bias, from venture capitalist funding to management and pay. We have already established the fact that most women don't stay at home but there is irony in you bringing up children as a handicap towards success.

There are countless unqualified CEOs and bad management that do just fine because of the nature of their business or the fact that they take credit for qualified people doing their jobs. You can't change human nature but quotas will bring some semblance of equality, the premise that the most qualified person should get the job does not match with real life.

[THE Bigzoman]

IM GOING TO SAY SOMETHING AND THEN NOT RESPOND BECAUSE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO DISCUSS SOMETHING IN A PRODUCTIVE MANNER IF IT GOES AGAINST WHAT I BELIEVE.

That's what you just did. You basically said your peace, and said "fuck your responses". Way to go.

I was more taken aback by her hand waving of what was actually a damn good gesture for women in the workplace.

Obviously if corporations sign on to this initiative it means that the glass ceiling she speaks of will at least crack so they can hire more women.

Comes off like a spoiled brat really.

[Cts53]

Even in fields where there is equal participation there is bias, from venture capitalist funding to management and pay. We have already established the fact that most women don't stay at home but there is irony in you bringing up children as a handicap towards success.

There are countless unqualified CEOs and bad management that do just fine because of the nature of their business or the fact that they take credit for qualified people doing their jobs. You can't change human nature but quotas will bring some semblance of equality, the premise that the most qualified person should get the job does not match with real life.

Why is work the only measure of success? There are plenty of other forms of success out there, not just work. It all depends on the individual and what they perceive to be success.

Perhaps the women has been having issues with getting pregnant, and when she finally does, it is considered a success, one she might even hold above any success she has achieved in her job. You never know and simply blaming "office politics" as the reason is a cop-out.

No fact has been established that most women don't stay at home, unless you can provide me a link to the amount of married women who work full time to those who work only part-time or fully at home and the percentage of both groups.

Quotas are nothing more than over-corrections. Same with Affirmative Action. Essentially it is saying that women and minorities are too stupid on their own to achieve such heights, and need the extra boost in order to achieve it.

[Draco-Onis]

No fact has been established that most women don't stay at home, unless you can provide me a link to the amount of married women who work full time to those who work only part-time or fully at home and the percentage of both groups.

Quotas are nothing more than over-corrections. Same with Affirmative Action. Essentially it is saying that women and minorities are too stupid on their own to achieve such heights, and need the extra boost in order to achieve it.

According to the bureau of labor statistics the number of married women with children under the age of 15 who stay at home has been hovering between 23 - 30% since 1999 with only around 10% or so reporting to be happy with the situation. Also the age at which women have children is now around 34 - 35, quotas say nothing about intellect it is to balance ingrained imbalances in society.

In a perfect world nepotism and office politics would not exist but they do and they need to be balanced out somehow even if it is with an unfair system.

[Gemini Soul]

This is considered discrimination. Overlooking potential people to fill necessary roles because they aren't X sex. Sad to see our country going backwards.

Guess those who want this never heard of Affirmative Action. If they want more women as CEO that is fine, as long as they are the most qualified for the job or has the most potential to boost the business. Skipping over a more qualified male to hire a female just because shes a woman and not a man will end badly, even open them up to lawsuits over discrimination.

But in this day and age, its more about how big your wallet is, who you know, and how much ass you kiss/control.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah no. We don't need one privileged group getting all the top jobs.

Qualified /= privileged

You go into hospital to get complicated surgery done by their chief of surgery. Except this hospital hired a person who scored really low on their med school exams, came in low end of their class, and barely got thru their residency. You want that person to do complicated surgery on you because they got hired for being X race or Y gender, instead of someone who surpassed that person in every way and didn't get hired because of they were X or Y.

[Tennis]

Guess those who want this never heard of Affirmative Action. If they want more women as CEO that is fine, as long as they are the most qualified for the job or has the most potential to boost the business. Skipping over a more qualified male to hire a female just because shes a woman and not a man will end badly, even open them up to lawsuits over discrimination.

But in this day and age, its more about how big your wallet is, who you know, and how much ass you kiss/control.

- - - Updated - - -



Qualified /= privileged

You go into hospital to get complicated surgery done by their chief of surgery. Except this hospital hired a person who scored really low on their med school exams, came in low end of their class, and barely got thru their residency. You want that person to do complicated surgery on you because they got hired for being X race or Y gender, instead of someone who surpassed that person in every way and didn't get hired because of they were X or Y.

Lmao that doesn't happen. There is always a pool of qualified individuals for jobs.

[Darkeon]

Must be nice. Being coddled and given stuff for free just because of the Gender you are born with. Patriarchy my arse