Women and the glass ceiling

Remove all ads!

That's just no longer true and those days have been gone a long time, but again, although I know you mean well and don't wish to be offensive, you still are. You just don't get it yet. Your comments keep proving the "glass ceiling" theory over-and-over. The fact is, parents share roles now a days based on what works, because the state of child care is an absolute mess in this country (like many other basic services).

If you find a wife who is willing to go along with the old "Leave it to Beaver" days of the 1950s, then more power to you. The odds are you will more than likely find someone who expects you to share parenting "roles." And besides, both your wife and kids will respect you a lot more if you share roles. However, if your wife is willing to stay home with the kids, that's great and a nice situation if she is willing. Mrs. Chandos stayed home the first 18 months we had Abigail and I have to say I was glad to see her go back to work. She's a great mom, but being home affected her "state of mind" to such a degree that I hardly knew her (she says it was PP, but I'm not convinced).

Mrs. Chandos is a retail sales mgr and we used short term disability that allowed her to be off for 8 weeks after we had Nathan (who was a C baby). She was paid but not at her regular rate. I took FLA to stay home with Mrs Chandos and Nathan for as long as I could even after Mrs. Chandos went back to work. The first nanny we hired, so that I could go back to work, we had to let go after several months because items started disappearing around the house. The next one was great except that when someone else is raising your kids, they tend to pickup some habits one may not agree with in that particular nanny. It's a mess.

I have to say that I'm curious to see how parenting works out for all those who are giving advice, but don't have any kids yet.

 

OK, here's a scenario I've thought about for years.

Let's take two MBAs, one named Tina and the other named Ted. For those who are into gender-bending nomenclature, I'll make it clear that Tina is a female and Ted is a male. They are not married to each other.

Ted and Tina both graduated from the University of Wherever with 3.8 averages. They both were hired on the same day by Omnicorps. For 10 years, they had both climbed the corporate ladder at the exact same rate. They both earn the same amount of money as the other, and they both have the same kinds of responsibilities. With me so far?

OK, it's now 2006. Tina decides to have a baby, and chooses to take 9 months off starting in April to raise the baby. She's getting paid for that, and it's fine. Over those nine months, Ted continues to work for the company. His work generates profits for the company. He makes an impression on his supervisors during this time simply because he is at work and Tina is not. It is not his fault that she is at home.

It's now January 2007. A promotion for one is available. The management gives it to Ted. Tina is furious and calls the media, the ACLU, NOW, Oprah Winfrey, Rosie O'Donnell, and anyone else who will listen to her, claiming that she is the victim of discrimination and that Omnicorps has a sick, male chauvinist, woman hating, outdated culture.

Did they company promote Tom because they prefer males? Is this situation unfair? I don't think so!

 

LDK, your scenario is quite the work of fiction. It is never that clear cut. But for the sake of argument, let's say it does happen -- then obviously Ted has nine months more applicable experience and should get the job (Tina and her attorneys would realize this unless they are total morons). For your example I assumed Ted and Tina had only been working for a few years -- once you go beyond ten years employment, the length of the maternity leave should not be an issue (no one has identical credentials after five or so years).

So, in a semi-real world of unreasonable examples, the next promotion coming up would be the kicker. Now Bob has been working for one year less than Tina (he was in the following graduating class of University of Whatever with the exact same GPA -- they obviously don't have high standards at What-the-U). They both have equal performance, but Tina took a nine month (which is unusually long) leave of absence for her baby -- who should get the next promotion?


By the way, had Tina only taken the standard six to eight week maternity leave, she would have a case against the company for their promoting Ted over her. There would need to be clear cut reasons for Ted being promoted over Tina (and vice-versa) -- in a real world, these tangible differences exists, always.

 

I would be the biggest fool in the world if I were to sit here and deny the fact that injustices occur in the workplace. I believe in the reality of both the glass ceiling and the pink collar ghetto.

However, just because those injustices exist does not mean that every allegation made by a woman is a valid one, nor does it mean that ALL men or ALL businesses are guilty of discrimination. That's what bothers me. It also means that it is just as possible for a woman to be a <censored> worker as it is for a man to be one.

I have mentioned before some instances I have had dealing with raging psycho feminist <censored with prejudice!> and I didn't like it one bit, especially since I was trying to be pleasant, polite, and PC. It doesn't matter to these whores -- they don't let facts get in the way of their whining tirades about "prejudice". So I am really leery of such people. Once bitten twice shy.

 

The problem with the glass ceiling is that, as the name implies, made of glass and is thus invisible. Even to the people that is doing the "discriminating" they do not see what they do. There are always good reason for why the dude gets the bigger pay check or the promotion but why are those reasons there? That is the problem. I think most workplaces have moved away from the "good work toots *slap on the butt*" but there are still major problems. Childbirth of course being the main one, why do you think most of the developed world is facing a demographic crisis in the near future? Because women try to keep up with men and focus on their careers instead of giving birth as giving birth completely screws them over professionally. In your example LKD I would say that the company should count her maternity leave just as much as the dudes work and of course we need to encourage men to stay home and share the domestic work as much as possible. Then instead of Tina being gone 9 months she would be gone four and a half and Ted being gone four and a half with his child and then they are equal again. Now Ted would get the promotion because he plays badminton with the boss every Tuesday but that is another issue.

 

Really? Count her leave as time in work wise? No. Tenure wise as pertaining to company benefits, yes. A women who leaves a company for Maternity leaves does on her own volition. It's a choice she makes, not the company. It's a choice she makes knowing that doing so doesn't benefit the company. Of course the company should look at that as unfavorable when trying to promote. If they promote her and she does it again, it screws them over, why wouldn't they count that as a mark against her. Corporations thrive because people put the time and work in. Taking off for months at a time doesn't help the company, it only sets them back. You think that should be favorable for taking off? I don't see the logic in that Joaquin....

 

Apparently you're right! I figured it'd be about on par with managing one of the gift shops down at the beach here. When I started working there, the Manager had been out for several months (for lung surgery to remove cancer) and she didn't get back for several months later. The Asst. Manager basially became the Manager.

2 weeks for a c-section?! What's normal recovery time for that?

Actually, it is still true for the "traditional" role. Not "standard", but "traditional" yes. Even today, there are a lot more "soccer moms" than "soccer dads". Mind you, I'm not saying it's the only role, or even the right role, just traditional, and more likely to be seen these days than the opposite.

Also realize I'm not necessarily talking about a stay-at-home parent, either (though that's probably necessary for the first year or two), just the parent that dedicates more time and energy to family than to work.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I'm not talking about doing all the work. The father as the "bread winner" and nothing else is actually a fairly modern invention (past century or less). I'm talking about the one that stays home when the children are newborns, that is most likely to do the more time-consuming chores and, these days, most likely to ferry children to and from school, daycare (if employed), and various events/activities.

All in all, my wife and I decided early on that, when we have children, whoever has the least income is staying home. She may change her mind if that ends up being me (unlikely, but if this keeps up...) as she really loves kids. The actual job of parenting, though, must be divided, I agree. It's unlikely to be divided evenly, though.

I don't think LKD intended Tina and Ted to be married to each other. I think it was comparing a single, childless male employee to a married (or single for that matter), 'childed' female employee.

 

6 weeks. My wife just went through it. Both of our kids were c-sections. To go back to work after only 2 weeks is very stupid if you want to heal fully. C-sections require stomach muscle to be cut. Many women never get full usage of those muscles back and lose alot of the feeling in the nerves. That doesn't heal in 2 weeks. They should not be lifting anything heavier than a gallon of milk. If my wife's employer gave her a two weeks or lose your job option, she would be looking for new work 6 weeks later. She took the 6 weeks, plus 2 weeks of vacation time saved up.

 

NOG I thought I made it clear when I said Ted could stay home with *his* child not the child he had with Tina but I decided that there were no need for me to clarify that I had understood that Ted and Tina weren't together as it was not really relevent for my example whether they were or not.

Blades, I do believe maternity/paternity leave should not count against the person when promotions and payrises are considered. People need to breed, if they get punished for doing so they will not do it.

 

That still assumes that Ted has a child. Plus, this:

led me to believe you expected them to split the child rearing. After all, how else does Ted staying home with *his* child help Tina get back to work any sooner?

 

Because she would have a spouse that also took paternity leave? This is a theoretical example to make a point. Not a real life situation. The point is that if men start staying at home more women can stay home less and thus the playing field is levelled.

 

...
2 + 2 =
... carry the one...

Aha, ok, I get it now. Sorry.

I still think you're assuming Ted has a child of his own. If Ted is single and childless, even if Tina's husband did take half the time, it's just a 4.5 month difference in work rather than a 9 month difference. It's still there, and it still makes a difference.

Of course, in reality that's still an awefully idealized situation, but in reality this issue doesn't exist in a vaccuum and I'm sure most of those accused of sexism can come up with very good reasons to support their actions, be they legitimate reasons or not.

 

My point is that in many circles the accusation is all that is needed to screw the guy or company over.

The fact is that for whatever reason, Ted was there and did more work than Tina. Bottom line. I think that in many real world situations that holds true, if simply for the fact that if you are on maternity leave, you are NOT at work. It is not the business of the company to encourage social balance. It is the business of the company to make a profit. Now, an enlightened company will have generous maternity leave policies, because they will want a well trained and experienced worker back working for them and increasing their profitability. The phrase I have read in many collective agreements is something like this:

"The Employee will return to a position no less profitable than the one he/she left."

Which is fair -- you shouldn't get a demotion because you had a kid. But when it comes to PROMOTIONS, common sense tells me that the company will go for the employee who was there more.

And to weigh in on the whole child rearing thing, I know a lot of women who believe that they are better qualified to raise children merely as a result of their plumbing. I believe that that is absolute crap. But the insinuation that it is only men who hold the sexist view that women are better qualified to stay at home really gets my goat.

As for my example, it was merely to illustrate that there can be valid reasons for a woman to not get a promotion after giving birth. I also want to mention that Tina had her baby with her husband -- not with Ted. Hence my comment that it is not Ted's fault that she is not at work -- the resonsibility for that lies with Tina and her husband. I fail to see why Tina should be treated the same as Ted in terms of promotions given that she contributed 9 months less to the company than he did, all other things being equal. It's not Ted's fault that she had a baby or that she chose to spend 9 months with it. I'd say the same thing if Ted got sick for a year and Bonnie (a female with no kids) got the promotion -- it's not her fault that Ted got sick, but the cold hard fact is that she was there producing and gaining experience and he wasn't, even though the situation was beyond his control, it's still a fact that can't be ignored.

 

My wife has always claimed that I would make a terrible mother. My response has always been she would be a failure as a dad. Teen Snook agrees with both statements.

 

A but LKD, I actually hold the opinion that as things stand now the biggest hurdle to overcome to reach gender equality is the attitude of women. Men seems to generally have gotten the picture while the women, even though they want the classical "male" benefits (don't see how being forced to work your arse off for 40 years is much of a benefit) but are a bit reluctant to give up the classical "female" benefit. That is the thing with the gender struggle, it cuts both ways. If women wants to become equal in the public work life they have to accept that men must be equal in the private domestic life.

 

You'll get no argument from me that that is how it SHOULD happen, but I don't ever see it happening, sadly. Women in Western society have been trained to view men as useful idiots to be patronized and marginalized. I see this superior attitude in many of the women I work with. I am not for a second advocating a return to the 50s era of women being totally devalued, but I think that REAL equality in all spheres would be nice. But it's a pipe dream.

 

There should be leave for both parents, it's only fair after all. Women who argue they are being discriminated against because they have taken leave to have a child are forgetting a vital component: They're working for a company. If a mechanic gave you an option between two components in your car, one would work well all the time and not break for a long time or the other which will work fine as well but may break down at more regular intervals. You would pick the one that didn't need to take time out now and then - and quite frankly - parents do of either gender.

There is one more consideration though - a fair few companies EXPECT female workers to take maternity leave at some point - usually from past experiences or personal opinions on family life. If a woman changes her name from marriage it is more likely she will be passed over a near-future promotion. It's not necessarily malice, or even concsious, but I have known several organisations and company owners that concede when employing or promoting a staff member they consider how likely they are to leave for any extended time - this automatically pushes a lot of women down the queue. Often without the woman even being asked if she plans for a family - because the argument is it can easily just happen unplanned.

 

Hopefully, with paternity leave becoming more common, that will balance out. I mean, the woman has to take a certain amount of time off for the actual pregnancy (especially if things get complicated), but if the man is just as likely to take several months or a year off for raising an infant, it'll mean both genders face the same risks.

Of course, then we'll see what real statistics about staying home to raise the child come up (i.e. are women really more likely to do it than men).

 

A lot of women breast feed. That's something that my wife is definitely better qualified to do than me because of her plumbing. Honestly, in my case, it was much more practical for my wife to be the one who stayed home and I be the one who went to work, largely because of plumbing reasons.

 

Bingo! And we have a winnnnner!