The Plight of Working Women, as Seen by the Woman in the Corner Office

But , in the law partner theory(if half of all entry applicants are female law school grads, half of all board members and leaders ought to be girls eventually. This is absurd. Men s\do not have children and , in our culture, will not remain at home or take leave time to spend several years both caring for and having more children. Women have a slightly different set of goals and agenda then do me. Alos, the law, regardless of how remunerative it may be, is often dull, more often it is cruel and mindless and it can drive normal men to tears. Think what a normal wome\an might feel about it. (I know of many men who prefered sanding floors and nailing roof shingles to the practice of law.) If women are not equally represented on boards, it might be because they are just smarter then men , who are stupid enough to ruin their posture and muscle tone sitting at desks all day.

I suspect that Lipman is optimistic when she says that most men in upper echelons of management want to find a way to make workplaces fair. No doubt most of them want a way to avoid discrimination lawsuits, but there seems to be a lot of evidence that men are especially likely to get to the upper echelons of management by behaving dysfunctionally to everyone, with the biggest reward being not money as such but a sense of power. Women, nonwhites and all groups who are widely discriminated against are in this context above all people over whom it's especially easy to wield power as opposed to the extra energy it takes to wield power over other white men. I have trouble imagining the sort of executive who screams, yells and throws things having a sincere, consistent desire to make the workplace more fair (yes I concede that there are exceptions).

Let's not forget appliances: ranges, fridges, vacuums, etc. there should be more women involved in their design, especially when it comes to cleaning and using these items.

I read James Damore’s article and I agreed with everything he said (although he could have worded things more sensitively). One of the hardest things, for career women as a whole, to overcome is the shame men feel about being lower status than women (in work, relationships, anything). I think this is because women have babies, and, when you think about it, that’s already a huge status making role (at least within the family). Men try to balance that by doing work that woman struggle with — whether it was a pre-historic hunter slaying big game, or a man going into trades like construction that demand literal heavy lifting. Or perhaps taking on business work so competitive, with such long hours, that it exhausts women. What I see happening around me is fewer women are reaching the top than in my mother’s era — it’s too competitive, too long hours. Yes, lots of women are doctors and lawyers now. But often the specialties that women choose are looked down upon by “men’s men.” The money today is in finance, IT, and consulting. Those are all male dominated. I don’t know what the solution is for women in the future — on anything: how to combine work with motherhood, how to work with men, even what makes women happy. I think Damore was closer to the hard truths (and truth can be helpful) than Lipman, who is peddling more of the same over-warmed insights.

How long have we heard that having more women in senior positions was good for corporations ? How long have women been educated alongside men ? And how long have most major corporations's boards and senior management remained primarily male and white ? The good of the corporation doesn't seem to be the biggest concern. Something else matters more to many men, especially the ambitious ones who make it to the top.

I don't know that we need another book explaining just how pervasive gender bias really is. So what if I know that I won't be shown the top job ads, now what? How do I see them? What I'd really like to see is a tactical cookbook for recognizing and countering acts of bias on the spot, preferably in clever yet effective ways that don't escalate to open conflict EXCEPT where absolutely necessary. Then, be forthright and own the outcome.

The reviewer suggest that we should "legislate equal pay." Instead, how about everyone should earn what they're worth to their employer.

I am a physician who purposely chose my job because of equality of pay. Unsurprisingly, the majority of my colleagues are of similar age, in the first 10 years following training. The tides of being spoken over, ignoring sexist comments, ignoring sexual advances, are changing as our male colleagues are growing up with more women in their training. More women in positions of power will help everyone. I am still amazed that some believe that women are given positions because they are women over men, yet women have to demonstrate success prior to being promoted as opposed to men who just have to hint at success to be promoted. Take a look at forums within the medical community, and it is readily apparent we have very far to go as a country.

Interesting photo. Any how would people react if a man came to work exposing that much flesh? We are either held to the same professional standards or we are not. That too, is a hallmark of equality.

studies will no longer show the effects of anything in one sex or race. all NIH funding now requires extensive documentation on how equal numbers of males and females will be included and how any differences between them will be interpreted, and the racial makeup of the study group and how it mirrors that of society. no deviations from these norms are acceptable. FDA approval of company-sponsored research requires the exact same documentation. so the ambien story is one that will never recurr as all medical research now requires that the study group exactly replicate the racial and sexual make up of society. This isn't just true of prmates, even rat research must include equal numbers of males and females. This is clearly a major step forward to ensure that women and all races receive the same treatment efficacy as white males.

A book by a woman, about women getting ahead in the workplace, that the reviewer (I assume a woman) rightly noted will probably be read mostly by women. The arguments... nothing really new. Why is this interesting? Well, the reviewer says the author cites studies. A LOT of studies. 50 pages worth! Of course, we know an awful lot of those studies were conducted by female researchers, to prove theories dreamed up by women in women’s studies departments. I overstate a bit, but really, we do have a problem in discussing gender. Our gender dialectic is, in reality, just a collection of vagina monologues. How many books about gender has the Times reviewed that were written by men? Oh, I know. Men don’t want to write those books. Just like women don’t want to do IT, I guess. Maybe we should encourage more men to talk about gender more, just like we encourage women to do IT. Maybe books about gender would be more interesting if men also wrote such books. Instead of a generation hearing the same arguments about how men are bad at a lot (Scared! Insecure! Selfish!) and women are good at everything- except being recognized for that goodness. Most men’s reality doesn’t reflect the privilege and power ascribed to them in these books. Most men watch the little boy inside them die a little more, every day, as they fight to provide for their wives and children. That we never hear about their struggles from their point of view is sad, and by now, just a bit boring. Sad.