Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Render

Women fill fewer than 10% of the top CEO jobs

36 posts in this topic

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

Irrelevant. If thats what the customer prefers, then why should the CEO chose a replacement that can't provide that?

Please put in some effort and maybe read the article first. It's not about what the customer wants. It's about this biological thing inside of us that programs us to think a male sounding voice is better for jobs where ppl are in charge. Meaning, competence is again overlooked in this issue. And this could be an extra reason why this gender equality in the workspace issue is so challenging.

The connotation associated with incompetent is misleading. A woman can have the "qualifications" that make her "competent" but not have other attributes that are desirable for the position, making her "incompetent" in that aspect. Similarly, you can have a pool of qualified men yet none of them will be chosen because they dont have other necessary attributes.

You keep bolding and quoting that one line from the article. How on earth does the reporter know if they're "qualified" for the jobs? And I'm not talking about simply academic qualifications, I'm talking about all attributes? Does this reporter presume to know all of these females better than their own bosses do?

Qualfied, competent, ... man you can turn the words as much as you want, it doesn't change the fact that there still, in this day and age, is no equality in the workspace.

It's like your bending yourself over backwards just so you don't have to face facts. Like this just has to be condoned because "it's the way it is". I'd suggest you find a time machine and go back to the 19th century as well.

Lmfao. "Women are better at this" "Women are better at that" and yet you're complaining that more men were chosen to be CEOs because they may be "better" than women in that regard?

Ok. If you don't even get that i was commenting on the fact that the poster above wrote a bunch of terms that he and many others automatically link with being male and a CEO, then i can't help you.

Females have been given terms as well, as i was trying to point out. Went right over your head apparantly.

I don't see any reason to be guilty of anything here. Thats my point. There are imbalances between the sexes in certain jobs. That doesn't necessarily mean it's mans/society's fault for being sexist, nor does it mean that it should be fixed.

The fact that very abled women that are right for the job, any job, are being overlooked because of their gender just isn't right. Get with the times already. Not to mention the fact that in most parts of the world, if not all, women still make less money than men in the same position, for the exact same kind of work. That's not merely an imbalance, that's unjust.

Whoever is choosing someone to be CEO should be able to do so for any reason he'd like.

If a lot of ppl are dependent on a job at the company, the most fit person for the job should be chosen. The fact that many still second guess women in this is..well..passé.

But of course, it's very clear I won't be able to say anything to make you think on a higher level. So just leave it.

I just hope others who read this can understand the troubles with this and are able to actually think about it more thoroughly.

Edited by Render

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Whoever is choosing someone to be CEO should be able to do so for any reason he'd like.

Haha...I'd like to point out to you that you assume the person doing the hiring is a man. Which the general assumption is, because men hire men first and they would be in the position to do so. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha...I'd like to point out to you that you assume the person doing the hiring is a man. Which the general assumption is, because men hire men first and they would be in the position to do so. B)

Hahah. Well, according to the article, it's a safe assumption!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to save my reply to you until lunch when I'm on my laptop, but I just couldn't resist answering this part:

The fact that very abled women that are right for the job, any job, are being overlooked because of their gender just isn't right.

You don't know if they're right for the job. You don't know them. You and the article are simply assuming they are because they're women. That is what I'm against. You claim sexism, yet you're just as guilty of sexism.

Are you really presumptuous enough to believe that you know these women better than their own employers?

And news flash: choosing an employee of any sort is more than just picking someone with the right letters after his name and job experience. If that's all that it took, then interviews wouldn't ever be conducted. You hire a person for who they are and the traits they possess. If a retiring CEO believes that any successful CEO *must* be aggressive, then that is his right. If out of the pool of qualified applicants for the position, there's a man that's more aggressive than a woman, and the CEO chooses him as a replacement, there is nothing wrong or sexist about it. If the woman had been that aggressive or more, then he would have chose her.

You disagree on what personal traits are important? Fine. When you're hiring someone, you can pick whoever it is thy fits *your* image. But you are arrogant enough to try to tell these successful people what they should and shouldnt look for in an employee? Get out of here.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I believe the most competent person should be hired, I don't think anything should be done to push women into this postition. Quota's can force hiring a lesser competant person.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me cut through the fog and give you an analogy of what's going on here:

Let's say I'm looking to recruit 8 people to be soldiers. I believe that, aside from meeting the minimum qualifications, other traits I'm looking for is aggression and size. 16 people apply, 8 men and 8 women, and all of them meet the qualification standard. I hire 7 men and 1 woman. You would have me believe that I'm being sexist because out of a balanced pool of men and women, I chose more men than women? That's essentially what you're doing. Reality is, men in this society are, on average, bigger and more aggressive than females. If the females were bigger and more aggressive than the males, then I would have chosen the other way, 7 women and 1 man. Thats why your whole argument is wrong.

But that's not all, is it? You're not just claiming sexism because of the proportion of men vs women I hired. No no. You're claiming that I'm sexist because I believe that those traits (which more men in this society possess) are applicable to the job! So not only are you accusing me f being sexist, but you're also arrogant enough to tell me how to do my job, and what works and what doesn't.

That's exactly what you are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can women be CEO's from a kitchen?

JK :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It`s a boys club and the most influiencial female in history is a talk show host.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think on the whole women make the best rulers. Elizabeth the First and Katherine the Great stand out as examples of this. However they don't often get the chance, I think because men are more aggressive (with maybe Cleopatra an exception). The reason has to to with male egos causing wars and so on. Females get into wars too, but not anywhere near as much and pretty much in a more controlled and less egoistic way.

The same applies to having a female superior at work. You don't have to be concerned nearly as much about the KA that you have to engage in with male superiors. In fact, with women, such behavior is counterproductive. However, if women are ever to become the norm for leaders, it will require a sort of affirmative action to overcome male egos and agressiveness, and I don't see how that could ever happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think one has to look at in the last 40-50 years women have made leaps and bounds. Not to long ago a women in the so called work place was a sighn of a mans so called weakness. Its a failing economy since the mid sixty`s and on going that have forced women in the west to work to make a household buy enough milk and ps3 games for the kids lol

Oh Frank, No women on the planet has had more effect on women then Oprah ;) Cleopatra included.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.