In honor of International Women's Day (Mar. 8), I will post this:
Mar. 6, 2017 "Challenging the myth of women, work and children": Today I found this article by Jennifer Reynolds in the Globe and Mail:
Mar. 6, 2017 "Challenging the myth of women, work and children": Today I found this article by Jennifer Reynolds in the Globe and Mail:
Mothers are increasingly families’ most significant breadwinners, assuming the role in 30 per cent of Canadian households
JENNIFER REYNOLDS
Chief executive officer of Women in Capital Markets, Toronto
This week’s series of Leadership Labs is being published in conjunction with International Women’s Day.
Chief executive officer of Women in Capital Markets, Toronto
This week’s series of Leadership Labs is being published in conjunction with International Women’s Day.
Without doubt, the most commonly cited defence I hear from business leaders who have little or no gender diversity in their management teams is that there is simply no pipeline of talented women for the roles. The talented women that may have existed at more junior or mid-levels all went home to have babies and chose family over career.
It is time we finally debunk the myth that mothers are not working, or that if they are working that they do not have high career aspirations and the need to financially provide for their children.
Seventy-three per cent of mothers with children under the age of 16 in Canada are working. More important, women are increasingly the most significant, or sole breadwinners in their homes. In Canada, women are the primary breadwinner in 30 per cent of households.
In the United States, that number is 40 per cent. Not only are women working, but their success in their careers is critical to their family’s well-being and future.
Seventy-three per cent of mothers with children under the age of 16 in Canada are working. More important, women are increasingly the most significant, or sole breadwinners in their homes. In Canada, women are the primary breadwinner in 30 per cent of households.
In the United States, that number is 40 per cent. Not only are women working, but their success in their careers is critical to their family’s well-being and future.
One element that skews the perception of senior executives on women, work and children is their position in the top 1 per cent club, i.e., those with incomes in the top 1 per cent of the Canadian population. Senior executives are typically well compensated. They have the luxury of choosing to have a single income earner and one partner at home.
Chances are, most of their peers and friends have had that same experience. It is easy to assume that one’s own reality is representative of the majority, but senior leaders need to remind themselves that it is representative of only 1 per cent of the population.
Chances are, most of their peers and friends have had that same experience. It is easy to assume that one’s own reality is representative of the majority, but senior leaders need to remind themselves that it is representative of only 1 per cent of the population.
Women have invested heavily in their education for decades and have outnumbered male university graduates for 25 years. Women with university degrees also have similar labour participation rates to those of men, at about 75 per cent.
Furthermore, women with a bachelor’s degree or higher are more likely to live in a female breadwinner family than those with lower levels of education. Make no mistake, there is a vast pool of educated, talented women working in Canada and they do want, and need, to thrive in their careers.
Furthermore, women with a bachelor’s degree or higher are more likely to live in a female breadwinner family than those with lower levels of education. Make no mistake, there is a vast pool of educated, talented women working in Canada and they do want, and need, to thrive in their careers.
If you are a senior leader, challenge yourself to stop chalking up the lack of gender diversity on your executive team to women’s role as mothers.
1. Get to know the talented women you have at the junior and mid-levels in your company and understand their career aspirations. Typically, the executive suite has little impact on promotions at the junior- and mid-levels. You may be losing future leaders because you didn’t take the time to meet them and understand the value they bring to the organization.
2. If your company is losing women at the middle management level, don’t assume they simply went home to care for families. If your middle managers tell you that is the reason, challenge them. Typically, managers are really great at managing and promoting people just like themselves. Can your managers develop diverse talent? Are they comfortable managing women?
3. If you find your organization does very well on gender diversity at the junior and middle management level but not at the senior levels, take a look at the average tenure of men and women at each level in the organization.
Do women tend to stay in roles for longer and get promoted less quickly than men? If so, do you think these women really are less talented and deserving of promotion, or could the promotion system be biased toward the dominant group in leadership today?
Do women tend to stay in roles for longer and get promoted less quickly than men? If so, do you think these women really are less talented and deserving of promotion, or could the promotion system be biased toward the dominant group in leadership today?
Women want to have successful careers because they are educated and talented, and in the vast majority of Canadian households, because they are significant breadwinners. The fact that these women are not making it to senior leadership roles in Corporate Canada is not only a loss of talent for the executive suites; it is a loss of income and opportunity for those women and their families.
Clinging to this myth that mothers are not working and that women’s careers and income are not critical to their family’s wellbeing is a key barrier for women in the corporate world. It is time we leave that argument in the history books and start challenging our organizations to build inclusive cultures that allow both women and men to thrive in their careers.
If you are a senior leader, challenge yourself to stop chalking up the lack of gender diversity on your executive team to women’s role as mothers.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/mothers-day/challenging-the-myth-on-women-work-and-children/article34117441/
Mar. 24, 2019: There are 8 comments.
And the bottom line is that the more people in the work force, the better for business. More competition for jobs, lower salaries.
What is better for the country? Wilkinson and Pickett have shown conclusively that a better country to live in correlates with low income inequality (Income of top 20% divided by income of bottom 20%)..
What is better for the country? Wilkinson and Pickett have shown conclusively that a better country to live in correlates with low income inequality (Income of top 20% divided by income of bottom 20%)..
Is it too much to ask the GLOBE to publish articles and editorials on the advantages of low income inequality? Certainly by stressing the economy, the business community has done well, So we could expect an even better country in which to live if the Globe starts pitching low income inequality.
Everybody gains..
Earlier comments have covered many of the topics that may lead to gender disparities of income and career fulfillment. The questions woman must ask themselves early on in their career,"Are they willing to sacrifice time, i.e. having family, raising family, in order to climb the career ladder: less than 40 hour work week vs. 60+ hour work weeks (no family commitments in the latter).
Due to this decreased time investment, career development may stall. Projects with increasing corporate responsibilities will unlikely fall to the <40 achieving="" against="" barriers.="" be="" can="" compete="" constraints="" counterparts="" dates.="" disagree="" do="" employee="" equitably.="" execution="" family="" female.="" female="" have="" honest:="" hr="" i="" is="" legitimate="" less="" level="" likely.="" male="" management="" may="" nbsp="" need="" not="" often="" or="" other="" parental="" partner="" projects="" remember="" responsibilities.="" responsibilities="" same="" senior="" short="" shoulder="" span="" that="" there="" therefore="" these="" time="" to="" week="" who="" will="" with="" women="" work="">
I think it is time to debunk the ultimate gender myth that in order to be equal you have to be exactly the same. We certainly don't apply that to any area except the male/female divide. As a man it amazes me that sometimes woman are encouraged to demonstrate our worst behaviour in order to achieve equity with us.
Specifically, I refer to how some men abandon their families in order to climb the ladder. I have never ever met a man who later in life regretted caring for friends and family at the expense of corporate ladder climbing. But I have met many men haunted by regrets for losing their families in pursuit of status in the corporate world.
Woman, please don't follow us in this. Some men, sacrifice the wrong things due to a inadequate definition of success.
Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome has for far, far too long been conflated and intentionally obfuscated by those who want to score political points.
I think the most important myth to get rid of is that, somehow, we "can have it all". Seems the people who reach the top are the ones willing to sacrafice things like family life, leisure activities, vacations etc. to further their careers. Male or female, most of us don't think the trade-off is worth it. I'd prefer to have a life.
Too right, Terrence. I have been a junior executive for about 7 years now, and have absolutely no desire to go higher, since the next level involves frequent late hours and beavering away on weekends.
Work to live, not vice versa.
Work to live, not vice versa.
yup, male or female, also depends on the organization. There are just as many female organizations where men make no chance to make career....just as there are male dominated organizations. The first we apparently can't talk about...not only organizations...but also societal systems like the justice system, social etc. It is choices we make, quality of life...male or female we genderdize almost everything nowadays....
Absolutely no quibble with any of the arguments or figures put forth in this article.
But at the risk of sounding like a misogynist, there is one fact the author has overlooked. Women of childbearing age are much more likely to take parental leave than men. Some opt for a few more years of unpaid leave once the benefit runs out.
Many managers do not like to take the perceived risk of a key player being absent for one or more years. It is somewhat discriminatory, but it is reality. That perceived risk largely disappears once a woman is in her late 30s, but if she has been overlooked for promotion early in her career, she is at a disadvantage for climbing the corporate ladder.
Is it fair? Of course not. But it is reality.
But at the risk of sounding like a misogynist, there is one fact the author has overlooked. Women of childbearing age are much more likely to take parental leave than men. Some opt for a few more years of unpaid leave once the benefit runs out.
Many managers do not like to take the perceived risk of a key player being absent for one or more years. It is somewhat discriminatory, but it is reality. That perceived risk largely disappears once a woman is in her late 30s, but if she has been overlooked for promotion early in her career, she is at a disadvantage for climbing the corporate ladder.
Is it fair? Of course not. But it is reality.
Mar. 7, 2017 "Emma Watson faces photo backlash": Today I found this article by Travis M. Andrews in the Edmonton Journal. It's not a job article, but it is about feminism:
Emma Watson, best known for portraying Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter movies, has spent much of her off-screen time as a feminist advocate.
The young British actress and graduate of Brown University was appointed a United Nations women’s goodwill ambassador in July 2014, and served as an advocate for HeForShe, a program that hopes “to mobilize one billion men to accelerate the achievement of gender equality.”
She gave a memorable speech at the UN headquarters in New York to launch the campaign.
For years, Watson has arguably been one of Hollywood’s leading voices for feminism.
But now, thanks to a photo in Vanity Fair, some are calling her a hypocrite. The cover story, which focuses on her feminist views, came out as her new film, Beauty and the Beast, is about to hit theatres.
“I used to be scared of words like ‘feminism,’ ‘patriarchy,’ ‘imperialist.’ “But I’m not anymore,” Watson says in the piece.
The piece features photos taken by fashion photographer Tim Walker.
The shoot “felt incredibly artistic and I’ve been so creatively involved, and engaged with Tim, and I’m so thrilled about how interesting and beautiful the photographs were,” Watson told Reuters of the shoot.
In one photograph, Watson stands in a room with fur-covered walls.
In another, she is trapped in what appears to be a birdcage.
And in another, her breasts are loosely covered by a white crocheted capelet.
That led some people to dismiss her history of advocacy.
One popular British radio commentator, Julia Hartley-Brewer, tweeted a photograph of the Sun’s page 3, which reproduced the photo with the headline “Beauty & the breasts.” Hartley-Brewer tweeted this caption:
“Emma Watson: Feminism, feminism … gender wage gap … why oh why am I not taken seriously … feminism … oh, and here are my ( breasts)!”
The tweet was liked 4,500 times and retweeted more than 2,150 times, as of early Monday morning.
Other users fired similar barbs at the 26-year-old actress.
“Attention seeking hypocrite. acting like a slut and flashing her (breasts) is not what a real feminist does,” tweeted one.
“Is Actress and Feminist Emma Watson a Hypocrite for Going Topless in Vanity Fair?” asked the Hollywood Reporter’s Pret-a-Reporter.
“Did Emma Watson pose ‘topless’ because of the patriarchy or despite of it? I doubt she knows herself,” announced one particularly bold headline in the Independent.
Many referenced a 2014 interview Watson gave, in which she discussed Beyoncé’s sexually charged music videos.
Watson said: “I felt her message felt very conflicted in the sense that on the one hand she is putting herself in a category of a feminist, you know this very strong woman and she has that beautiful speech in one of her songs but then the camera, it felt very male, such a male voyeuristic experience of her.”
The criticism reached such intensity, Watson responded during an interview with Reuters on Sunday.
She said she mostly felt “quietly stunned.
“It just always reveals to me how many misconceptions and what a misunderstanding there is about what feminism is,” she said.
“Feminism is about giving women choice.
“Feminism is not a stick with which to beat other women. … It’s about freedom, it’s about liberation, it’s about equality.
“I really don’t know what my (breasts) have to do with it. It’s very confusing.”
She wasn’t short on defenders, either.
“If we belabour these attempts to essentialize feminism as a specific set of traits and behaviours, we’re going to trudge through an elliptical — not to mention deeply unproductive — conversation,” wrote Jezebel contributor Rachel Vorona Cote.
Feminist organizers and writer Gloria Steinem put it most bluntly in an interview with TMZ.
“Feminists can wear anything they f--ing want,” Steinem said, adding about those attacking Watson: “Perhaps they have an incomplete idea of who women are.”
My opinion: I thought the photo where he breasts "loosely covered by a white crocheted capelet" was way too sexual.
However, she is an adult. I want to quote from Britney Spears: "Is there anyone here who doesn't like feeling sexy?"
I'm not really a fan or Watson or Harry Potter. She really has no effect on my life.
No comments:
Post a Comment