35 replies to this topic

[Render]

Quote

The 400 largest companies headquartered in California, representing almost $3 trillion in shareholder value, still resemble a “boys’ club” with women filling fewer than 10 percent of top executive jobs, a University of California, Davis, study has found.
The Graduate School of Management’s eighth annual UC Davis Study of California Women Business Leaders — a yearly benchmark for the Golden State’s lack of progress in promoting women business leaders — paints a dismal picture for women in leadership during fiscal year 2011-2012. Some of the best known among these top companies, or the California 400, have no women leaders.
The survey is the only one of its kind to focus on gender equity in the boardrooms and executive suites of corporate California.
This year, for the first time, the survey also looked at ethnicity among the 85 Fortune 1000 companies in California, and only one company in this subset of businesses had an ethnic woman as the CEO. Furthermore, only 13 had any ethnic women directors.

http://www.news.ucda....lasso?id=10427

[Taun]

I didn't read the article (blocked at work)... are they saying the solution is to fire 51% of all "non-ethnic" male workers and managers and appoint some random ethnic women to their places?...

Of course they will have to run a quick survey to establish the exact ethnic, gender mix of that region of the country and go strictly by those guidlines... That shouldn't take too long a day or so...  And in the future no caucasian male should be allowed to apply for any job until all ethnic, gender quota's have been filled and the national committee for ethnic/gender balance in the work force approves their application...

Is that what they are saying?

All of the above was of course a bit sarcastic - and meant to be so... Seriously... What are they suggesting that corporations do? And how soon are they demanding that they do it?

[Render]

Okay, I seriously suggest you wait until you're home and can read the article. Instead of immediately let emotions get the better of you, because you are missing the point completely.

from the article:

Quote

“Companies today know they need to increase innovation,” said Marilyn Nagel, CEO of Watermark. “They need talent on top that is tuned into customer needs. They need directors and executives who are strong, capable, qualified leaders in every sense.
“However, while so many are bemoaning the lack of these qualities in candidates for their top positions — they are overlooking the women right in front of them who can deliver all of these qualities in spades,” Nagel added.

Edited by Render, 10 December 2012 - 12:07 PM.

[Taun]

My complaint is not with hiring women or 'ethnic' people... but my complaint is the implication that there must be quotas to reach 'perfect balance of gender and ethnicity'...

It can not be a free and equal society if there are quotas (IMO)... I've seen quota hiring and promotions before and have seen some pretty unprepared, unqualified people promoted or hired over others who were much better qualified by job performance and work history... Granted I've seen some 'quota hires' who worked out quite well, but I've seen more that didn't...

[Hasina]

What percentage of CEO's are competent at their jobs?

[Stellar]

They fill less than 10% of CEO positions? So what? Are we supposed to hire CEOs based on gender? Why is this even news?

[Lilly]

It's one thing if there aren't any qualified females for CEO positions...it's quite another thing if qualified females are being passed over simply because they are females. Personally, I suspect it's probably a combination of the two.

In the final analysis: It's still very much 'a man's world' in corporate America.

[Render]

Stellar, on 10 December 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

They fill less than 10% of CEO positions? So what? Are we supposed to hire CEOs based on gender? Why is this even news?

because of this:
from the article , once again:

Quote

“However, while so many are bemoaning the lack of these qualities in candidates for their top positions — they are overlooking the women right in front of them who can deliver all of these qualities in spades,” Nagel added.

and because of this well said post:

Lilly, on 10 December 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

It's one thing if there aren't any qualified females for CEO positions...it's quite another thing if qualified females are being passed over simply because they are females. Personally, I suspect it's probably a combination of the two.

In the final analysis: It's still very much 'a man's world' in corporate America.

[Stellar]

Quote

from the article , once again:

Quote

“However, while so many are bemoaning the lack of these qualities in candidates for their top positions — they are overlooking the women right in front of them who can deliver all of these qualities in spades,” Nagel added.

Says who? The reporter? The reporter knows all these women as good as their own bosses do? bull****. There's more to being in charge, being CEO than simply the degree you hold. If their bosses don't think these women have what it takes to fill the role of CEO then he should have no obligation or pressure to place them in the CEO position simply because they're women.

[tapirmusic]

Hmmm.....

In California the citizens have no control over how many Women CEO's there are?

But these same citizens do have control over how many Women Governors there are or have been.

Zero.

Bbbuttt.....Wait a minute?  Meg Whitman was a Woman CEO, and could have been the Governor.

Yet, what did California citizens do?  Elect another OLD WHITE MALE.

It's still very much a Man's world in the Democrat Stronghold known as Kalifornia.

* edited to add:

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by tapirmusic, 11 December 2012 - 12:02 AM.

[Myles]

But it is on it's way up.    I am not in favor of any quotas at all.  
Besides the obvious reason for mostly male CEO's (as someone said, it's a male dominated corporate world), I also think in some ways it is typical characteristics that drive this number.   Men accel better in some roles just as women accel better in others.  Men tend to be able to be ruthless in business a little better than most women (of course there are exceptions).    Women are much better in social services and teaching than most men because of their patience and understanding.   There are so many exceptions that it makes one wonder if any of what I say is true.   I believe it is.

[Render]

Stellar, on 11 December 2012 - 12:01 AM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Says who? The reporter? The reporter knows all these women as good as their own bosses do? bull****. There's more to being in charge, being CEO than simply the degree you hold. If their bosses don't think these women have what it takes to fill the role of CEO then he should have no obligation or pressure to place them in the CEO position simply because they're women.

You clearly have no insight in this, you just appear to be fearful for some reason because you're obviously letting emotions get the better of you. Interesting to see most males immediately jump up with anxiety and agression in this thread. Which is obviously a part of the problem.

Edited by Render, 11 December 2012 - 09:10 AM.

[Render]

tapirmusic, on 11 December 2012 - 12:01 AM, said:

Hmmm.....

In California the citizens have no control over how many Women CEO's there are?

But these same citizens do have control over how many Women Governors there are or have been.

Zero.

Bbbuttt.....Wait a minute?  Meg Whitman was a Woman CEO, and could have been the Governor.

Yet, what did California citizens do?  Elect another OLD WHITE MALE.

It's still very much a Man's world in the Democrat Stronghold known as Kalifornia.

* edited to add:

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So you say ppl should just elect a candidate because of the gender? That's stupid.
And this is in no way implied.
It is clear that many competent women are still being overlooked because of their gender. Those are completely different things.

If you still don't understand this you should get yourself a timemachine and go back to the 19th century.

[Render]

the fact that many immediately go wild at this study proves that the displayed mindset in this video is still very much alive

[Stellar]

Quote

You clearly have no insight in this,

Why? Because I disagree with you?

Quote

you just appear to be fearful for some reason because you're obviously letting emotions get the better of you. Interesting to see most males immediately jump up with anxiety and agression in this thread. Which is obviously a part of the problem.

No, the "problem" is people who believe that every job, every position must be staffed with 50% males or 50% females, and any deviation is simply sexist and must be "fixed". Why is this a problem? Because then people who arent fit for the job are chosen in order to meet some imaginary "quota". Thats why. Reality check: There are certain jobs that are more attractive to men than to women. Why? Not because of sex necessarily, but because of culture. As a result, there's more of a pool of men to chose from. Thats point number 1. Point number 2: It is possible, and may just happen, that out of a pool of 50 men and 50 women, more men are deemed suitable for a certain job than women. That's reality. It's not sexist. What's sexist is accusing others of sexism simply because 40 men and only 10 women were deemed suitable for a job.

Why don't we run another study? How about women in the infantry? I know first hand that there are vastly more men in the infantry here than women, despite there being the same amount of women "qualified" for the job as men in society. Is that also the result of sexism?