Slashdot Mirror

There are more female doctors than males graduating these days: in the UK: http://www.gmc-uk.org/informat... (55% female) but not in the U.S.: http://www.gmc-uk.org/informat... (47.5% female) There is a similar story with accountants, except that there are more women than men in the U.S. as well http://www.catalyst.org/knowle...

Oh please. Carly Fiorina was a female CEO too, and look at the great job she did at HP.... oh wait. Now it's run by Meg Whitman... hmm, another bad example.

Well, there's also GM, run by Mary Barra... maybe that's not such a great example, considering the ignition switch problem.

Seriously, though, there's a bunch of female CEOs these days, as seen in this list. I can't say, however, that any of these companies are all that great.

I don't simply assume that, based on someone's skin color or gender, they've had things any easier or harder than myself.

Why would you? Why would any privileged class ever assume that anyone has it harder than them? That's part of the privilege: You don't have to think about it.

Think about Mitt Romney saying he's a member of the middle class. He just takes for granted that everybody's life is just like his, because being privileged is like the water he swims in - the air he breathes. Anyone else who doesn't achieve what he has is clearly just a moocher and doesn't want to work because look! he worked and he achieved and so he believes if he can do it, anyone can do it.

Let's bear in mind that this study is just one study, looking at a particular job (tenure track faculty in higher education) that is disappearing faster than the ice cubes in my drink on a hot day. And, at the end of the day, despite this 2:1 ratio that the study describes, women make up a minority of tenure track positions despite being a majority of students. And despite the fact that women are getting more PhDs than men. If you're a woman teaching higher ed, you are 50% less likely to have a tenure track position rather than a non-tenure track position. Again, despite the fact that women are getting more PhDs than men.

So, to summarize: It's mostly men who are giving out the PhDs. It's mostly men who are in tenure track positions and it's mostly men who comprise academic administrations.

http://www.catalyst.org/knowle...

So maybe, there is no "reverse discrimination" (as if such a thing could exist) shown in this study at all . Maybe it's just reverting to the mean.

> But in reality the actual pay difference is about 7%.

Depends on your definition of "reality."

If you mean after normalizing for a whole bunch of things, including profession, then yeah.
But that ignores the fact that women are pushed towards lower paying jobs in general. That's why you see things like nursing dominated by women, but actual doctors are nearly 50/50 (and just 20 years ago were more like 70/30). Or models being largely women while photographers are largely men. Corporate secretaries are largely women, corporate officers are largely men.

So yeah, if you factor out important factors, the difference isn't so bad.

The day when congress is 80%+ female and 95% of Fortune 1000 CEOs are women is the day the social injustice warriors get to step up and complain about being oppressed.

1) What the fuck is a "social injustice warrior"?
2) What does the gender of CEOs and congresscritters have to do with whether one gender or another has the right to complain about oppression? If we are all supposed to be treated equally, then their genders do not matter. Only if you are trying to disguise inequality as equality does the percentage of one gender vs another matter.

It is standard simpleton thinking to say things like "sexism is bad" or "racism is bad," etc. By themselves those things are basically character flaws to which we all have in varying degrees.

The problem is when those things are combined with power. The day when congress is 80%+ female and 95% of Fortune 1000 CEOs are women is the day the social injustice warriors get to step up and complain about being oppressed.

Women are roughly 50% of a populace and yet less than 5% of Fortune 500 company's CEOs are women.
http://www.catalyst.org/knowle...

I knew a power woman who always flaunted the same numbers as she was working up the ranks. When she started making a real headway in her career she bailed out and is now at home popping out and looking after an endless stream of babies while her husband has overtaken her in salary and career.

Is it because women want to take this path?
Is it because men can't take this path? (What's the level of maternity support men get in a typically working contract?)

Who knows, but in the principles of Root Cause Analysis you can't start at the end and work backwards in a linear way. You need to explore all possibilities on the way.

Why not any company gives some millions of dollars to stimulate boys to work at women dominated jobs?
Someone has a good explanation for this asymmetry?

Women-male dominated industries and occupations us and canada:
http://www.catalyst.org/knowle...

Contrast this with the legal field in which women and men are represented in equal numbers. The difference is that anyone who works in the legal profession is trained to understand why sexual harassment is wrong for both moral and legal reasons. You don't see women being objectified in legal conventions.

I work in the legal field, I'm male, and can assure you that you're wrong. Had you read *anything* about this you'd know that, but I suspect this is a case where you arrived at your conclusion first, then made up what you hope is reality to support it.

Since your opinion is based on inaccurate info, you need to reexamine your conclusions -- they are probably also inaccurate.

To clarify, no, women and men are not represented in equal numbers in the legal field. Bring yourself up to speed:

In 2011, women made up 31.9% of all lawyers. Women were 45.4% of associates in 2011. Women were 47.7% of summer associates in 2011. Given the same rate of change, Catalyst estimates that it will take more than a woman lawyer's lifetime to achieve equality.

There is a drastic difference between women and men at the highest levels in law firms. According to a recent survey of law firms, 11% of the largest law firms in the U.S. have no women on their governing committees, women partners constituted only 16% of those partners receiving credit for having $500,000 worth of business or more.

Only 23% of all federal judgeships were held by women, and only 27% of state judgeships were held by women. In one study of law school faculty, only 20.6% of law school deans were women. In a survey of the 50 best law firms for women, 10% of firm chairpersons were women, 12% of the firms had women managing partners, 19% of the equity partners were women, 28% of the nonequity partners were women, and 41% of the of-counsels were women.

What you have is almost-not-quote equal numbers of men and women in law school, but continued inequality in professional legal positions. Source = http://www.catalyst.org/publication/246/women-in-law-in-the-us