Women 'still face glass ceiling'

[SpabSFW]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4133669.stm...The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) said women had made only marginal progress in filling more top jobs in public life and business in 2004.

Its research also found that about 20% of women faced dismissal or financial loss as a result of pregnancy.

The body called for a complete shake-up of government policies on the family.

...

Although women accounted for a higher share of all elected representatives, at 28% they still lag behind many of their European counterparts in terms of holding political office, the report said.

In terms of number of female members of Parliament, the United Kingdom ranks 14th out of 25 EU member states.

"There are plenty of talented women in business, politics and other areas of public life," said Jenny Watson, the EOC's deputy chair.

"Yet our decision makers remain overwhelmingly male."

Limited choices

The EOC said it was encouraged that more employers were embracing family-friendly working practices.

However, it believed too many organisations and businesses were still prone to sidelining mothers onto a so-called 'Mummy track' where career choices were much more limited.

The EOC said the government must develop a national family strategy to replace what it criticised as its current "piecemeal" approach to childcare and family issues.

"Without addressing women's responsibilities at home as well as work, we will continue to lose out on women's talent," added Mrs Watson.

"And ignoring the potential contribution that women can make will cost Britain dear in terms of productivity." ...

[Epicius]

Originally Posted by SpabSFW

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4133669.stm...The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) said women had made only marginal progress in filling more top jobs in public life and business in 2004.

Its research also found that about 20% of women faced dismissal or financial loss as a result of pregnancy.

The body called for a complete shake-up of government policies on the family.

...

Although women accounted for a higher share of all elected representatives, at 28% they still lag behind many of their European counterparts in terms of holding political office, the report said.

In terms of number of female members of Parliament, the United Kingdom ranks 14th out of 25 EU member states.

"There are plenty of talented women in business, politics and other areas of public life," said Jenny Watson, the EOC's deputy chair.

"Yet our decision makers remain overwhelmingly male."

Limited choices

The EOC said it was encouraged that more employers were embracing family-friendly working practices.

However, it believed too many organisations and businesses were still prone to sidelining mothers onto a so-called 'Mummy track' where career choices were much more limited.

The EOC said the government must develop a national family strategy to replace what it criticised as its current "piecemeal" approach to childcare and family issues.

"Without addressing women's responsibilities at home as well as work, we will continue to lose out on women's talent," added Mrs Watson.

"And ignoring the potential contribution that women can make will cost Britain dear in terms of productivity." ...

The glass ceiling exists for everybody, the question is are you willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get through it? This generally entails putting work before being with family. Men are traditionally more willing to do this and (at least over here) contracts of employment can be enforced against them, this is not the case with women who are able to ignore contracts and refuse to inconvenience themselves by doing their job.

[SpabSFW]

Whoa! Dude!

Ok, first of all, I'd tend to agree with a traditional sense of family that places one parent in the workplace and the other to take care of children (typically but not necessarily male working female at home). I'd even agree that to an extent it's biologically based; I believe women have a greater capacity to put others ahead of themselves and that there are rewards for that, mentally, emotionally and financially (with responsible men).

However, I think a job which requires anyone to not be able to fulfill family obligations bites and what needs to change is the workplace. It's shocking that you would say that women who ARE being responsible by having truly decent priorties 'aren't doing their jobs'.

Basically you seem to be making the point that being irresponsible to one's family is equal to a good work ethic. It's not. It's thinking like that that leads to higher social cost through increases in divorce and financial irresponsibility in the cases of divorce. Families shouldn't come last. In fact, they shouldn't come behind anything.

[eeper69]

Spab is always right

[flaming_liberal]

Originally Posted by Epicius

Men are traditionally more willing to do this and (at least over here) contracts of employment can be enforced against them, this is not the case with women who are able to ignore contracts and refuse to inconvenience themselves by doing their job.

I haven't read something that ridiculous since I read the op-ed about how Feminism killed chivalry.



And Spab is always right.

[Smashing Young Man]

Testosterone. That one word holds all the answers. Men are naturally more aggressive, which means they're naturally more competitive, which means they're more likely to go further in their career. Really, is it such mystery? So much is obvious, but the pseudo-intellectuals tend to obfuscate matters by overthinking everything.

[Epicius]

Originally Posted by flaming_liberal

I haven't read something that ridiculous since I read the op-ed about how Feminism killed chivalry.



And Spab is always right.

HAd you been over here you would have read about a woman who had signed a contract stating that she would be available to travel to any part of Europe for client liaison job, very well paid, sued her company for discrimination (and won) when she was penalised for refusing to travel because she wanted to go see her childs school play. Contract broken - no penalty enforceable for breach.

Every job consists of gravy and gristle you want to slurp the gravy you have to chew the gristle.

As for chivalry you claim to be my equal, why should I hold the door open for my equal

[flaming_liberal]

Originally Posted by Epicius

HAd you been over here you would have read about a woman who had signed a contract stating that she would be available to travel to any part of Europe for client liaison job, very well paid, sued her company for discrimination (and won) when she was penalised for refusing to travel because she wanted to go see her childs school play. Contract broken - no penalty enforceable for breach.

That's what I meant. That's ridiculous. I don't know all of the facts of the case, but if she sighed the contract, she should have tried to get something in it that would allow her some wiggle room. Same thing with a dad. Now if she's a single parent who needed to be there out of some other reason, but the company decided to be a dick, then I'd go the other way.

As for chivalry you claim to be my equal, why should I hold the door open for my equal

To acknowledge one as my equal, I accord certain privileges. Why should I be any less polite to my equals than I am to those who I consider my betters or those I deem less than myself?

[Epicius]

Originally Posted by SpabSFW

Whoa! Dude!

However, I think a job which requires anyone to not be able to fulfill family obligations bites and what needs to change is the workplace. It's shocking that you would say that women who ARE being responsible by having truly decent priorties 'aren't doing their jobs'.

Basically you seem to be making the point that being irresponsible to one's family is equal to a good work ethic. It's not. It's thinking like that that leads to higher social cost through increases in divorce and financial irresponsibility in the cases of divorce. Families shouldn't come last. In fact, they shouldn't come behind anything.

No what I am saying is that if I am the big boss of a company and I am appointing a top job I have to consider the basics. you want someone who will give the maximum to the company, if you are paying them £1,000,000 per year then you will want to get your moneys worth out of them, it is easier to do this with a man than a woman.

Like I said it is a life choice, and if you run the comapny do you want someone who will do their job and meet their familial responsibilites by putting cash in the bank or someone who will be missing if their kids have a cold, a school play or a football match.

[SpabSFW]

You grossly underestimate the value of good parenting, and what exactly it is responsible parents do.

The case you cited is likely to be an exception. However taking off from work because you have a sick child who cannot go to daycare is not the same as taking off for a school play. That would be more the norm, of why single parents miss work.

As to not extending courtesy to your fellow humans, male or female, by opening doors and the like, that is a personal choice, but the world is a much nicer place to be in when people are couteous to each other, male and female.

That is one thing I love about Texas. Our men and women are overwhelmingly considerate of each other in many ways.

[flaming_liberal]

Spab is right. 'nuff said.

[SpabSFW]

Actually I thought I was wong once, but I was mistaken.

[themistocles]

Well if good parenting means sacrificing professional advancement, then you have to weigh one against the other. This sounds more like a complaint against not having a perfect world. I think it would be more fair to compare women to men who have identical experience, competence, and qualifications. Does the commission consider this?

And how do you type a "pound" symbol on the computer? Alt-what?

[SpabSFW]

Offhand, I only know the codes for the fadas for Irish. LOL

I think you're right about making decision by priority, but it's true in the U.S. still (last stats I saw) that women make 70% of the male dollar for equivalent experience, education and job.

That's so not right.

[Epicius]

Originally Posted by flaming_liberal

That's what I meant. That's ridiculous. I don't know all of the facts of the case, but if she sighed the contract, she should have tried to get something in it that would allow her some wiggle room. Same thing with a dad. Now if she's a single parent who needed to be there out of some other reason, but the company decided to be a dick, then I'd go the other way.

I worked for the company. She got the job ahead of two male applicants, and the contract was a standard - this is what the job entails accept or forget it. She accepted and signed on the line. She was married by the way and her husband was a professional photographer who worked from home.

Originally Posted by flaming_liberal

Why should I be any less polite to my equals than I am to those who I consider my betters or those I deem less than myself?

I have no problem with politeness, but chivalry is nothing to do woth politeness, standing up in a crowded bus to allow the woman to sit is saying that the woman is less able to stand than you are. I will hold a door open if the person is on their way through immediately before or after me or burdened but why should I do what chivalry demands and hasten to a doorway to open it for a fit and healthy woman to walk through or hold the door open for as long as a woman is approaching it (from what ever duistance) with the intention of passing through it? Chivalry is based on the assumption that women are less able than men and they need assistance.

[flaming_liberal]

Originally Posted by Epicius

I worked for the company. She got the job ahead of two male applicants, and the contract was a standard - this is what the job entails accept or forget it. She accepted and signed on the line. She was married by the way and her husband was a professional photographer who worked from home.

Well, there is a Russian saying that comes to mind. Tough ****skies.

I have no problem with politeness, but chivalry is nothing to do woth politeness, standing up in a crowded bus to allow the woman to sit is saying that the woman is less able to stand than you are. I will hold a door open if the person is on their way through immediately before or after me or burdened but why should I do what chivalry demands and hasten to a doorway to open it for a fit and healthy woman to walk through or hold the door open for as long as a woman is approaching it (from what ever duistance) with the intention of passing through it? Chivalry is based on the assumption that women are less able than men and they need assistance.[/quote]
I disagree. I'm also a philogynist, so that's going to affect my opinion. I don't think that chivalry rests on the assumption that women are less capable. I think it works on the theory that as men, we should help the opposite sex. I believe that it is the right thing to do. It's not because women are not equal to men, it's just what should be done. If a woman is heading to the door, then as a man, you should open it for her. There's no reason to do it, except that you should do it. Plain and simple, that's it.

[Truth Teller]

Originally Posted by SpabSFW

Actually I thought I was wong once, but I was mistaken.

Heh-heh.

Look,men and women are wired differently,that has been scientifically proven [David Reimer case for only one example] and men and women know it and our dealings with each other.

BUT,those differences are not THAT sufficent in life and they mean even less when it comes to doing most jobs.

Spab is right.

[Patrician]

The glass ceiling does not exist. Men and women are very diffrant creatures with differant desires. Men are more aggressive and crave power and status more so than women. The "glass ceiling" is propaganda used to give women special benefits and rights.

[CowPunk]

No, if women had different desires, they wouldn't be complaining about a "glass ceiling." That discrimination exists is undeniable, although most of the pay differential isn't due to it.

And asking for exactly the same rights as men isn't asking for "special rights," whether or not you believe they have the same desires or abilities.

[Patrician]

Originally Posted by CowPunk

No, if women had different desires, they wouldn't be complaining about a "glass ceiling."

Some woman (probably mostly feminists and other vocal internest groups) are complaining. Women tend to major in humanities classes, men more conrete sciences. This explain a lot. Your ridiculous non sequitor reveals nothing but your irrationality.

That discrimination exists is undeniable,

I assume you mean "wide-spread" discrimination. I deny that. If there really were a "glass ceiling" and businesses could really hire women for considerably less, evil capitalits like myself would be hiring all women. I don't see that happening.

And asking for exactly the same rights as men isn't asking for "special rights," whether or not you believe they have the same desires or abilities.

Individual women already enjoy the same individual rights as men. What you desire are special group rights- such as affirmitive action or other special, unearned benefits.