Feminism

[Valmy]

I bet you will see it even out more in the future though. They are saying that in the younger demographics 20-30ish women are making more than men now.  That will probably translate to more women CEOs later just like how we now have sixty percent or so of college grads being female. Time will do it.

This absolutely.

[CountDeMoney]

Blame the radical feminists for tainting the movement/term.

But don't blame Rush Limbaugh for 20 years of using "Feminazi" or other irrational hyperboles or anything.

[CountDeMoney]

Boys are more likely than girls to be mentally retarded too. I don't know how much of a factor that is in the CEO world, but it has to be something. Probably not the amount that it is currently skewed.

[CountDeMoney]

My mother is in her 60s and when she was growing up she was told she could either be a nurse, a secretary, or a teacher

Don't worry, derspiess and others of his ilk will be telling his daughters that as well.

[derspiess]

I don't think most people who use the term to describe themselves think it means man-hater, spicy. Some, yes.

Yeah it is generally just a fight for gender equality which doesn't mean tearing men down - just improving things for everyone.

I'm of the opinion that we've achieved a general equality, and that promoting women's interests is pretty much necessarily going to negatively affect those of men.

But I guess my larger quibble is with the term itself, sort of what DG said.

[MadImmortalMan]

I have a problem with the word "feminist".  It implies a struggle for female supremacy, not equality.  I think that to emphasize the struggle for equality, a gender neutral word should be used, like "sexist".

Yes, that's how I feel, too, which is why I resist the use of the term. What I find sad is that most women do not want supremacy. They want to be on the save level playing field as the men. Sadly, too many honestly believe that we're there, when it's just not the case, which makes me wonder if the use of feminism is such a bad thing.

I think, defined the way you put it, the vast vast vast majority of people would call themselves feminist.

[Razgovory]

Blame the radical feminists for tainting the movement/term.

But don't blame Rush Limbaugh for 20 years of using "Feminazi" or other irrational hyperboles or anything.

Heh. I was thinking that as well.  Which came first, the reaction against Feminism or equal pay for women?

[derspiess]

My mother is in her 60s and when she was growing up she was told she could either be a nurse, a secretary, or a teacher

Don't worry, derspiess and others of his ilk will be telling his daughters that as well.

Well, I can't see myself actually encouraging her to enter a non-traditional career for a woman.  But on the other hand I can't see myself getting in the way if that's what she really wants.

[CountDeMoney]

Time will do it.

That's what the Founding Fathers thought about slavery, too: that slavery would disappear over time, discouraged by the natural maturation of the enlightened progressiveness of the nation.

And then, the cotton gin.

[Barrister]

Blame the radical feminists for tainting the movement/term.

But I just plain don't like the term.  It means you are promoting the interests of women-- implicitly at the expense of those of men.  I happen to believe we've achieved a sort of equality among the genders (some aspects of our society tend to favor women and others favor men, but overall I think it's more or less equal), so I see feminism as being anachronistic at best.

Yet, that's not true at all. Women are still passed over for promotions at an alarming rate. One of the things that this particular feminist talked about was that during a series of interviews with women in the news industry in 2010 (which is where Ms. Povich's focus was and is), women regularly get the lesser news stories, fewer "top" posts, etc. despite being equally as qualified as the men. The argument goes that they send men out because people are more comfortable discussing certain topics with them rather than women. Except that only seems to be the case on the kinds of stories that get the big headlines and the big paychecks.

Women are rarely chosen for top jobs in any company or industry. That's still very much the case, despite the vast number of them in middle management. Surely, by now, the numbers at the top would be more equal. It's been almost 50 years since the Equal Pay Act passed into law. Hell, I'd settle for even a quarter of them, yet it's still less than 10%. That, to me, doesn't show an equality of genders.

Before you go there, I'm not arguing for hiring a woman over a man simply because she has a vagina. I'm arguing that there are still plenty of men who refuse to hire a woman at all because of said vagina. There are men who refuse to promote women because they may take time off to have a child. There are men who refuse to even entertain the idea that a woman could - or should - have any of the top jobs because they are, after all, women.

I think you're wrong.

The income and "top job" disparities have greatly shrunken.  That they continue to exist is due to something you touch on - women taking themselves out of the work force to raise children.  Now I'm coming from a lawyer's perspective, but I've seen how female lawyers have their career damaged (not fatally, but damaged) by taking themselves out of the office for 12 months once or twice. 

[merithyn]

(Source)

This year's Fortune 500 has made history with the female 18.

The 2012 ranking of the 500 largest corporations in the United States includes a record 18 firms helmed by female CEOs, up from 12 companies in 2011.

The previous record for women-led companies in the Fortune 500 was set in 2009, and included 15 firms run by female executives. Just seven Fortune 500 companies had female CEOs in 2002 and 2003.

Though this year marks a new high for female CEOs, women still run just 3.6 percent of Fortune 500 companies. And one in 10 Fortune 500 corporations have no women on their boards, according to research by Catalyst, a non-profit organization that seeks to expand women's roles in the workplace.

Fortune executive editor Stephanie Mehta said she expects the ratio to continue its shift given the growing number of high-level female executives at U.S. corporations.

"The good news is that while we have 18 today, there's a pipeline of women coming into leadership positions that's very, very deep and very, very wide," Mehta said. "There are women sitting just below the CEO position at these Fortune 500 companies and many of them are poised to lead Fortune 500 companies when there are openings and movement."

Though Silicon Valley is often described as a boys' club where female CEOs are few and far between, the two largest Fortune 500 corporations run by women are both in the tech industry: Hewlett-Packard, which ranked 10th on Fortune's list and named Meg Whitman CEO last fall, and IBM, which ranked 19th and has been run by Ginni Rometty since January.

But don't expect to see parity between the sexes on the Fortune 500 anytime soon, cautions Mehta, who argues that an even ratio on the Fortune ranking should not be the benchmark for equality in the workplace.

"I don't think we'll get to 50/50 in the near future, but I'm not necessarily sure that that's the goal. Running a Fortune 500 company is just one of the options available to strong women in leadership positions," Mehta said. "We may see a growing number of women take the choice to become leaders in non-Fortune 500 companies. And when we have choices and when women are in control of their careers and decision making in their careers, that's true equality. It doesn't necessarily need to be measured in number like 50/50."

[garbon]

I'm of the opinion that we've achieved a general equality, and that promoting women's interests is pretty much necessarily going to negatively affect those of men.

But I guess my larger quibble is with the term itself, sort of what DG said.

Well for me the other bit really has to do with our gender roles that are still a bit confining.

[Barrister]

My mother is in her 60s and when she was growing up she was told she could either be a nurse, a secretary, or a teacher

Don't worry, derspiess and others of his ilk will be telling his daughters that as well.

Well, I can't see myself actually encouraging her to enter a non-traditional career for a woman.  But on the other hand I can't see myself getting in the way if that's what she really wants.

What's a "non-traditional career"?  Are you talking about heavy engine mechanic, or doctor?

[derspiess]

Blame the radical feminists for tainting the movement/term.

But don't blame Rush Limbaugh for 20 years of using "Feminazi" or other irrational hyperboles or anything.

Rush makes it a point to remind his listeners that he only uses that term for fringe feminists, and he doesn't have any problem with the "equal pay for equal work"-type feminists.  It's people like you who never listened to him but cherry-pick things out of context from secondary sources to make him out to be more irrational than he really is.

[derspiess]

My mother is in her 60s and when she was growing up she was told she could either be a nurse, a secretary, or a teacher

Don't worry, derspiess and others of his ilk will be telling his daughters that as well.

Well, I can't see myself actually encouraging her to enter a non-traditional career for a woman.  But on the other hand I can't see myself getting in the way if that's what she really wants.

What's a "non-traditional career"?  Are you talking about heavy engine mechanic, or doctor?

Yes.