Outraged Moms, Trashy Daughters

[asta]

Well, the title says it all:

 

Outraged Moms, Trashy Daughters

 

Talk about hitting the nail on the head.

 

(the "plus ca change, plus la meme chose" nail, I mean)

 

 

a

[Hockey Mom]

The article refers a lot to pop culture as being the culprit. We live in a society where 'Snookie' (or whatever her name is) is glorified, but any of the Dugger children are fodder for ridicule. While pop culture is a war that never ends wrt parents vs. children, I think parents too often give up the fight. Where are the parents while their kids are watching these programs? Who buys the trashy clothing for these kids? When did parents become such...wimps, in raising their children?

 

While I don't view myself as ultra-feminist, I have taught my DD not to be a doormat for anyone. To make her own path and never take no for an answer. WRT sex, I told her that she should only share her body with someone she loves. She should never allow her body to become a toilet for any man. I have taught her to take pride in how she looks, but being sexy comes from within, not based on what you are (or aren't wearing). She has never gravitated toward the 'trashy' attire, and fortunately, none of her friends have either.

 

I honestly think a lot of moms just give up the fight too soon. Does Snookie's mom have anything to say about her DD's behavior?

[Mejane]

Although the mother claims to be outraged, I wonder how much talk about feminism has actually occurred. The daughter seems ignorant of its true nature.

 

I was a tight-T-shirt and hip-hugging jeans wearer in the 70's, and my daughter is one now. Neither of us are twits, though. She knows all about the glass-ceiling, the ongoing fight to keep women's reproductive choices theirs, and how women suffer elsewhere in the world. There's no Gossip Girl or Bachelorette here, although plenty of her friends live on this stuff. I know their moms, too. Believe me, there's no talk of feminism going on in those homes, either. :glare:

[Impish]

Vonk recalls wearing satin hot pants when she was 15. “But it was a different time,†she says. “Back then there was at least equal premium put on intellect and what was in your head. It was the opposite of ‘Go out and please men.’ â€

:001_huh:

Really. Wearing hot pants and thinking that there was an equal premium on intellect? Seriously? Does she know the term 'oxymoron', or how about just 'ironic'?

 

What kills me about the article is that no value is put on parenting. It seems to be this big shrug onto 'its all the media's fault!', rather than, 'gee, is there something as a parent I might have/have not done?' How about, who buys the clothes, permits the shows, etc?

 

Or how about the idea that gee, maybe women are choosing not to participate in the corporate track as much as the older feminists assumed would? Perhaps, just perhaps, the numbers reflected in the article is also part of women choosing to be at home, having a family, raising (and gasp! even homeschooling) their children as opposed to running for government or becoming CEO.

 

That an article on feminism is based upon a) looks b) media c) career numbers simply underscores how shallow and ridiculous it is. It doesn't look at the idea that women are free to choose what suits them...not what someone tells them they HAVE to be. Which was, I believe, what feminism was supposed to be about.

[holdoll]

Vonk recalls wearing satin hot pants when she was 15. “But it was a different time,†she says. “Back then there was at least equal premium put on intellect and what was in your head. It was the opposite of ‘Go out and please men.’ â€

:001_huh:

Really. Wearing hot pants and thinking that there was an equal premium on intellect? Seriously? Does she know the term 'oxymoron', or how about just 'ironic'?

 

What kills me about the article is that no value is put on parenting. It seems to be this big shrug onto 'its all the media's fault!', rather than, 'gee, is there something as a parent I might have/have not done?' How about, who buys the clothes, permits the shows, etc?

 

Or how about the idea that gee, maybe women are choosing not to participate in the corporate track as much as the older feminists assumed would? Perhaps, just perhaps, the numbers reflected in the article is also part of women choosing to be at home, having a family, raising (and gasp! even homeschooling) their children as opposed to running for government or becoming CEO.

 

That an article on feminism is based upon a) looks b) media c) career numbers simply underscores how shallow and ridiculous it is. It doesn't look at the idea that women are free to choose what suits them...not what someone tells them they HAVE to be. Which was, I believe, what feminism was supposed to be about.

 

Here! Here!:iagree:

[hillfarm]

Jennifer Pozner, the director of Women In Media & News in New York City, whose book Reality Bites Back: The Troubling Truth About Guilty Pleasure TV, is to be published in November, “They’ve concocted a world in which women have no choices and they don’t even want choices.â€

IMO, these women forgot that the price of freedom (or feminism) is eternal vigilance. As each media insult rolls through, what can they say they have done to combat its influence both on a societal level and within their own homes? Am I the only one that noticed that a mother in the article with a PhD in education accidentally forgot to teach her dd about feminism?

 

 

Unfortunately I fear that the modern fallout of the feminist movement might be that young women demand the right to make some very poor choices without any censure. And of course there are hoardes of vultures (media, retailers and desperate males) standing by to enjoy the consequences of all that bad judgement. Sadly, no one took the time to teach these young women that freedom comes at a very high price and actions have consequences.

[Perry]

Am I the only one that noticed that a mother in the article with a PhD in education accidentally forgot to teach her dd about feminism?

 

I didn't get that impression at all.

 

I wish my kids adopted all the values that we've modeled and that they've been taught. Unfortunately it hasn't worked out that way.

[asta]

Jennifer Pozner, the director of Women In Media & News in New York City, whose book Reality Bites Back: The Troubling Truth About Guilty Pleasure TV, is to be published in November, “They’ve concocted a world in which women have no choices and they don’t even want choices.”

 

IMO, these women forgot that the price of freedom (or feminism) is eternal vigilance. As each media insult rolls through, what can they say they have done to combat its influence both on a societal level and within their own homes? Am I the only one that noticed that a mother in the article with a PhD in education accidentally forgot to teach her dd about feminism?

 

 

Unfortunately I fear that the modern fallout of the feminist movement might be that young women demand the right to make some very poor choices without any censure. And of course there are hoardes of vultures (media, retailers and desperate males) standing by to enjoy the consequences of all that bad judgement. Sadly, no one took the time to teach these young women that freedom comes at a very high price and actions have consequences.

 

No, I caught that.

 

It was as if she gave it a kind of half hearted attempt, but couldn't be bothered to grab the girl by the shoulders, rip out the iPod headphones and say LISTEN TO ME - I'M the parent!

 

Now, I don't believe that kids should be carbon copies of their parents (and in many cases, I'm quite glad they are not), but I also see an incredible amount of abrogation of responsibility going on in regards to child rearing. Frankly, I find it rather annoying that my (well behaved, well mannered, decent) kid has to slog through these skanks.

 

Yes, I said skanks.

 

 

a

[holdoll]

Frankly, I find it rather annoying that my (well behaved, well mannered, decent) kid has to slog through these skanks.

 

Yes, I said skanks.

 

 

a

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[BigMamaBird]

Vonk recalls wearing satin hot pants when she was 15. “But it was a different time,†she says. “Back then there was at least equal premium put on intellect and what was in your head. It was the opposite of ‘Go out and please men.’ â€

:001_huh:

Really. Wearing hot pants and thinking that there was an equal premium on intellect? Seriously? Does she know the term 'oxymoron', or how about just 'ironic'?

 

What kills me about the article is that no value is put on parenting. It seems to be this big shrug onto 'its all the media's fault!', rather than, 'gee, is there something as a parent I might have/have not done?' How about, who buys the clothes, permits the shows, etc?

 

Or how about the idea that gee, maybe women are choosing not to participate in the corporate track as much as the older feminists assumed would? Perhaps, just perhaps, the numbers reflected in the article is also part of women choosing to be at home, having a family, raising (and gasp! even homeschooling) their children as opposed to running for government or becoming CEO.

 

That an article on feminism is based upon a) looks b) media c) career numbers simply underscores how shallow and ridiculous it is. It doesn't look at the idea that women are free to choose what suits them...not what someone tells them they HAVE to be. Which was, I believe, what feminism was supposed to be about.

 

 

:hurray::hurray:Bravo!:hurray::hurray:

[Rebecca VA]

I was a teen during the 1970s and remember hot pants very well. Women dressed to be sexy because they wanted sexual experiences for themselves. Trying to please men wasn't necessarily a goal -- the hot pants were there to shock older people and to assert the wearer's identity as someone available for "a good time." It was a very selfish time which bore bad fruit which lingers to this day. Many posters here are children of divorce or other unnecessary family disasters, which stemmed from people wanting to have lots of sexual experiences with lots of people. We've all seen women in their 50s and 60s who are coarse and worn from wild living. Men learned in their youth to be fixated on sex -- back then they were hot and wild, and today they're considered dirty old men. Ick.

 

But at the same time, it was sort of an intellectual time. People were delving into the world of ideas -- bad ideas mostly, like communism and such, but they were hoping to change the world. Lots of poetry was written, there was gorgeous music everywhere, and people spent years in college and graduate school hashing out (OK, that's a pun) philosophy and social change. Again, bad fruit.

 

Obviously, not everyone did these things, but that was the general trend of society back then. It was more idealistic (though the ideas were pretty bad) rather than materialistic. I understand where "hot pants mama" is coming from, but I'm afraid she didn't learn much about good parenting along the way.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Rebecca VA

[Impish]

My mother got married in a white hotpants outfit. Her first wedding, anyways. Tres classy, Mom :glare:

 

I'm one of 'those' daughters...I grew up listening to my rabidly feminist mother deride everything...yet she herself was a SAHM, never worked full time, had a career, etc. Who completely rejected it as a valuable choice...but then slammed me for daring to go to college. Demanded that I fulfill HER dreams, but vicious if I had any of my own. Never stood on her own, yet the idea that I might choose marriage and family over becoming a Dr or lawyer...A horror not to be considered. Even now I still hear about what a waste my intellect is, how I should have been so much more than what I am.

 

Feminism, then, is something that makes me flinch. It strikes me as being self cannibalizing, demanding that women follow its goals of career and $, rather than truly seeking to empower women in choosing what is right for them.

 

No person should be hostage to another, be it trapped in marriage or circumstance. Feminism seems to demand exchanging one set of shackles for another..."We now what you want! We're your sisters! We have a uterus in common! Trust us to know whats right for you!" Just as ridiculous as the idea that all women, by dint of possessing a uterus, should reproduce regularly and have no concern greater than what stain remover works best on diaper leaks.

 

Feminism has done more to damage the family unit than anything before it, imo. Under the guise of empowering women, its attempted to strip away the value of being a wife and mother, viewing it as a 'those who can't' situation at best.

[asta]

Impish, I agree with you.

 

Mark your calendar: I think this is a first for us. ;)

 

 

a

[pdalley]

My mother got married in a white hotpants outfit. Her first wedding, anyways. Tres classy, Mom :glare:

 

I'm one of 'those' daughters...I grew up listening to my rabidly feminist mother deride everything...yet she herself was a SAHM, never worked full time, had a career, etc. Who completely rejected it as a valuable choice...but then slammed me for daring to go to college. Demanded that I fulfill HER dreams, but vicious if I had any of my own. Never stood on her own, yet the idea that I might choose marriage and family over becoming a Dr or lawyer...A horror not to be considered. Even now I still hear about what a waste my intellect is, how I should have been so much more than what I am.

 

Feminism, then, is something that makes me flinch. It strikes me as being self cannibalizing, demanding that women follow its goals of career and $, rather than truly seeking to empower women in choosing what is right for them.

 

No person should be hostage to another, be it trapped in marriage or circumstance. Feminism seems to demand exchanging one set of shackles for another..."We now what you want! We're your sisters! We have a uterus in common! Trust us to know whats right for you!" Just as ridiculous as the idea that all women, by dint of possessing a uterus, should reproduce regularly and have no concern greater than what stain remover works best on diaper leaks.

 

Feminism has done more to damage the family unit than anything before it, imo. Under the guise of empowering women, its attempted to strip away the value of being a wife and mother, viewing it as a 'those who can't' situation at best.

 

:iagree:

 

We could have had the same mother except mine had to work because she was a single mother (thanks to my abusive alcoholic father). She's come around a lot now - agreeing that homeschooling and being a SAHM were the best choices for my family - but I heard the same rants you did growing up. As a result I flinch when I hear the word 'feminism'.

[Murphy101]

Impish. You tell it girlfriend!:D

:iagree:

[MamaT]

Impish, you expressed my thoughts more eloquently than I ever could. Good job!

[Bostonian]

She knows all about the glass-ceiling

 

"Glass ceiling" is a meaningless term invented by feminists to explain disparities in certain professions, when they cannot point to any specific discriminatory practices. Since the ceiling is "glass", we can't see it, but it must be there. What a convenient, non-falsifiable theory. Maybe not as many women as men lust after the title of CEO and are willing to sacrifice everything to pursue it.

[nrg]

Well said, Impish! I thought it then, and I hold to it now. Extreme emotionality and self-interest destined to take down families, balance, and rationality...

[Mejane]

"Glass ceiling" is a meaningless term invented by feminists to explain disparities in certain professions, when they cannot point to any specific discriminatory practices.

 

So glad to hear no such discrimination exists. Really. What a relief.

[Mejane]

Feminism, then, is something that makes me flinch. It strikes me as being self cannibalizing, demanding that women follow its goals of career and $, rather than truly seeking to empower women in choosing what is right for them.

 

 

 

I think you may be painting feminists with the same broad brush you accuse them of wielding. Some of the more rabid fems may not see being a homemaker as a valid choice, but many would. I consider myself a feminist, and I certainly do. I am one, after all. :001_smile:

Edited August 12, 2010 by Mejane

[LG Gone Wild]

I was a teen during the 1970s and remember hot pants very well. Women dressed to be sexy because they wanted sexual experiences for themselves. Trying to please men wasn't necessarily a goal -- the hot pants were there to shock older people and to assert the wearer's identity as someone available for "a good time." It was a very selfish time which bore bad fruit which lingers to this day. Many posters here are children of divorce or other unnecessary family disasters, which stemmed from people wanting to have lots of sexual experiences with lots of people. We've all seen women in their 50s and 60s who are coarse and worn from wild living. Men learned in their youth to be fixated on sex -- back then they were hot and wild, and today they're considered dirty old men. Ick.

 

But at the same time, it was sort of an intellectual time. People were delving into the world of ideas -- bad ideas mostly, like communism and such, but they were hoping to change the world. Lots of poetry was written, there was gorgeous music everywhere, and people spent years in college and graduate school hashing out (OK, that's a pun) philosophy and social change. Again, bad fruit.

 

Obviously, not everyone did these things, but that was the general trend of society back then. It was more idealistic (though the ideas were pretty bad) rather than materialistic. I understand where "hot pants mama" is coming from, but I'm afraid she didn't learn much about good parenting along the way.

 

:cheers2:

[spradlin02]

"Glass ceiling" is a meaningless term invented by feminists to explain disparities in certain professions...

 

Wow. That's got to be the funniest thing I've read all day. :lol:

[SproutMamaK]

So glad to hear no such discrimination exists. Really. What a relief.

 

:lol::lol:

[Firefly]

I think you may be painting feminists with the same broad brush you accuse them of wielding. Some of the more rabid fems may not see being a homemaker as a valid choice, but many would. I consider myself a feminist, and I certainly do. I am one, after all. :001_smile:

 

:iagree: I am, too!

[Barb_]

"Glass ceiling" is a meaningless term invented by feminists to explain disparities in certain professions, when they cannot point to any specific discriminatory practices. Since the ceiling is "glass", we can't see it, but it must be there. What a convenient, non-falsifiable theory. Maybe not as many women as men lust after the title of CEO and are willing to sacrifice everything to pursue it.

 

Actually, the glass part is more like a window keeping a woman in her place while allowing her to see where she could go if the barrier wasn't in her way. Of course we can all see it. It's glass; it isn't invisible.

 

Barb

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

If a man took a 4-5 years off to raise his children, I wonder if he would find this ceiling too?

 

If a man told his boss that he had to stay home with a sick child or take time off to take the child to doctors rather than make an important deadline, I wonder if he would find this ceiling too?

 

Would a man feel comfortable asking his coworkers to cover for him (complete his work) so he could attend to the needs of his children?

 

I've had friends who ask ME to watch/pick up their kids so they can stay late at work. They don't ask their husbands because they don't want to put their husbands' jobs at risk by having them leave early to get the kids.

 

I wonder if there are statistics comparing the salaries of men and women who work continuously for 25 years to those who step out of the workforce to take care of family. Does anyone have a link?

[Barb_]

If a man told his boss that he had to stay home with a sick child or take time off to take the child to doctors rather than make an important deadline' date=' I wonder if he would find this ceiling too?

 

Would a man feel comfortable asking his coworkers to cover for him (complete his work) so he could attend to the needs of his children? [/quote']

 

My husband got fired last April for essentially this. The official reason was, "not a team player."

 

Barb

[spradlin02]

If a man took a 4-5 years off to raise his children' date=' I wonder if he would find this ceiling too?[/quote']

I'll get back to you on that one.

[Murphy101]

My husband got fired last April for essentially this. The official reason was, "not a team player."

 

Barb

 

 

Yep. Been there and done that.:glare:

[KidsHappen]

I appreciate my mother more and more all the time. She was a SAHM and she never had any desire to be anything else. This was back when the feminist movement was just gathering steam but lots of women were still SAHM. She made sure that I knew it was a viable option and she supported me when I made that choice. I have tried to do the same for my dds and my oldest is following in my footsteps. She quit her job to stay home and raise her son. She knows that I fully support her and that her choice is a worthwhile one. I don't see my third dd ever having children but I will absolutely support her choices just as much.

 

I do worry about the sexualization of young girls though. So far I haven't had to deal with that but with my youngest two in PS, I am way more concerned. This will be a whole new parenting gaunlet that I will have to navigate.

[Mejane]

 

I wonder if there are statistics comparing the salaries of men and women who work continuously for 25 years to those who step out of the workforce to take care of family. Does anyone have a link?

 

Here is one that claims salaries are uneven even after other such factors have been accounted for:

 

http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug07/women.aspx

Edited August 12, 2010 by Mejane

[Xuzi]

RE: the glass ceiling

 

I don't remember who published the article, but I recall reading something about a year or so ago saying that some of the wage inequality is our own doing. Basically, men are more willing to negotiate their wages when being hired on for a job, or when being offered a promotion, etc. whereas women are more likely to take whatever the company lays on the table, or at least not try to negotiate for as high a wage increase as a man might, and since most automatic raises (like cost-of-living raises) are based on percentages of your *current* income, the man's raise will automatically be larger than the woman's.

 

I'll see if I can ma-google that article up.

[justamouse]

I don't think the younger girls understand that they AREN'T as equal. I have this discussion with my daughters and their friends all. the. time. They think there's no more work to do, but there's a metric ton.

 

what was the FIRST bill Obama signed into law? Lilly Ledbetter. in freaking 2010, it's a law that women get equal pay.

 

I don't know what it's like to have daughters like the ones portrayed int he articles, so I'm not going to judge as to what kind of parenting raised them. What I WILL say is that every day there is an opportunity to talk about WHY feminist action is still needed. From fundamental patriarchy to pop culture, it's there every day.

[Rosie_0801]

I think you may be painting feminists with the same broad brush you accuse them of wielding. Some of the more rabid fems may not see being a homemaker as a valid choice, but many would. I consider myself a feminist, and I certainly do. I am one, after all. :001_smile:

 

:iagree: I'm no expert on feminist history, but from my understanding, first and third wave feminism are preaching VERY different things to the rabid second wave feminists. Who can really disagree with "You can have it all, but not all at the same time?" The problem I think most of you have with feminism is the media warped that to "You can have it all, and you d**** well better, RIGHT NOW. And if you don't, and don't do a d**** good job of it, you are LAZY (and lots of other bad words.)"

 

You can be a feminist without being a rabid second wave feminist. And most of you appear to believe the same things as those who do identify as feminists believe.

 

Now, these "skanks" (to use Asta's description,) if they're going to be the fourth wave feminists, :ack2: I will understand perfectly if my dd refuses to identify as a feminist.

 

Rosie

[SproutMamaK]

I think, in very broad terms, that the problem is one of emphasis. Women have spent so long digging in our heels (rightfully so) and stating, "If I want to work full-time, I should be able to work full-time, and at the same pay that a man of similar qualification would receive." "I should be able to make the choice between wearing a bikini or a burkha." "I have the right to live in on my own, pay my own way, and be respected as an independent adult." All of those are true and worthwhile things to fight for. The problem is, all of the emphasis has been placed on what we should be able to do, what rights we should have, and how much power truly lies in the hands of a woman. Often, no one bothers to teach young women about the very real consequences that come with these decisions. We've so pushed the agenda of our rights as women that many young women today assume that they assume those rights come with no consequences or responsibilities. They (and I say "they" in general since I'm still a young woman myself) either chose to believe there are no consequences to those choices (eg, 'when I'm a CEO and decide I want kids, I'm sure I'll find someway to squeeze both into my life without too much stress - I'm a woman, I'm awesome enough) or choose to not think about those consequences until it's too late.

 

It's a parent's role to teach their children about those consequences, but many parents now are so caught up teaching their children about options and all the wonderful choices they have and how great their life can be, that the can't be bothered to teach the other (more negative) side of the coin. Especially since, after all, teaching the negative side of the coin is a downer, and even more so when you see your children for 2 hours a day.

 

To be fair, I think this is applies to young men as well as women. Watch Jersey Shore (or don't and pretend you did - it's exactly what you imagine ;) )- the problem that plague young women are almost identical in young men, down to trying to use sex to make themselves feel powerful.

[AuntPol]

Well I don't know about glass ceilings but we have a business with male and female employees. Both men have families, one is a single dad. Of the two women, one is married with kids and the other is single.

 

The Men come in early almost every day and stay late often.

The women are often late for work and never ever work late unless it is required.

 

The men often skip lunch

The women never do.

 

The women take a lot more personal days than the men.

The women are more expensive to insure by a big margin.

 

The women cry poverty and ask for huge raises on an ongoing basis. We do 6 month reviews but they are asking for 20% raises every 3 months. The men have never asked for a raise.

 

The women are often found sleeping, play around on the computer, etc on the job a lot more often than the men. They stand around and talk a lot more.

 

 

The women don't get written up for poor performance as often as the men despite doing more poorly because they cry when they do and the co-owner who is their direct manager can't handle it and feels sorry for them.

 

We make signficantly more money off of our male employees than we do our female employees.

 

Over the past 6 years, we lose females at a faster rate. They quit to get married, have children, move to another state because of husband/boyfriend, decide to work for financee's husbands one only one was fired. She was fired for not showing up for work, not calling in for several days later (supposedly at a funeral out of state). It was only a few weeks before that she got drunk at employee function, assaulted my husband when he took her keys and called a cab, grabbed the keys from him and run over his foot, and then called our biggest client to come and get her. The other owners gave a reprieve the first time since it was an after hours event. The men have only quit because they got better paying jobs.

 

And BTW, I know SAHD's who have taken major pay deductions/lower level jobs after staying home a few years.

 

 

Now this is all personal observation but I have noticed that in our company and in the Marines, males tend to work harder than females. I know there are exceptions. I worked my butt off in Marines. I had to because the other females made my job twice as hard. I also knew some slacker males. The part I disagreed with was their gender was not the excuse. They got the benefit of the doubt when they showed up, where it would be assumed a female would be crappy walking in.

[Murphy101]

Again been there doing that same as aunt pol

 

My dh gets so frustrated sometimes.

[Mejane]

Aunt Pol, that is disturbing to read. I can't imagine why those women would perform so poorly overall. :confused:

 

My husband works with a large number of people of both sexes. He often says the women work harder than the men. In a "man's world" (power generation), they seem to have much to prove.

[Impish]

Impish, I agree with you.

 

Mark your calendar: I think this is a first for us. ;)

 

 

a

Nah, its happened before :D

I think you may be painting feminists with the same broad brush you accuse them of wielding. Some of the more rabid fems may not see being a homemaker as a valid choice, but many would. I consider myself a feminist, and I certainly do. I am one, after all. :001_smile:

I suppose I should have used the qualifier 'ime' then. Ime, men think my being at home and raising children is a laudable goal. Women who have careers have acted as though I betrayed the 'sisterhood'.

[Mejane]

I suppose I should have used the qualifier 'ime' then. Ime, men think my being at home and raising children is a laudable goal. Women who have careers have acted as though I betrayed the 'sisterhood'.

 

That stinks. It must be awful to be so threatened by another's choices.

[Dandelion]

OP: interesting article...

 

Re: the glass ceiling, I do think it definitely still exists, although progress is (slowly) being made. You only have to look around at the top corporations to see that they're still predominantly being headed up by male leadership. And no, I don't think that's because there are no women who are willing, able and qualified to take the top jobs.

 

I worked in corporate America for 20 years, before deciding to stay home and homeschool (in January 2009). The last 10 of those years, I worked for Intel Corporation. Intel is arguably the #1 semiconductor company in the world and is consistently ranked in the "100 Best Places to Work" list that Fortune Magazine puts out every year. They have fantastic diversity programs that include a strong emphasis on hiring and promoting women. Their work/life balance programs and workplace flexibility (especially for mothers) are outstanding as far as I'm concerned. Some of the larger sites even have onsite daycare. So if any company should have removed the glass ceiling by now, it would be a company like Intel...

 

Even though Intel (to its great credit) is making concerted efforts to level out the playing field and promote more women into the top ranks, when you look at the VP level and above, those positions are still mostly held by men. I worked with many, many super-talented women at Intel and there are plenty of women at that company with the education, background, drive, work ethic and dedication to succeed at the very top. And yet, out of the many top-level positions, only a handful were held by women. I saw this disparity personally as the only female manager on an otherwise all-male staff. One caveat: I never felt that my gender was holding me back in any way - and I know for a fact I was compensated equally to my male peers - but I did see evidence of the glass ceiling all around me.

 

I think what it boils down to is that even though our government and individual companies have tops-down programs that call for gender parity in employment and advancement opportunities, the execution of those programs rests with individual managers and decision makers. And depending on the industry and/or type of position, there are still a lot of preconceived notions at play about the capability of women to be successful in those positions. I'm sure the fact that more women stay home to raise children than men also plays into this on some level - after a certain age, there is likely a lower % of women in the workforce (so you should see that reflected in leadership positions - although that doesn't come close to explaining the size of the gender representation gap as well as compensation gap that still exists).

[Rosie_0801]

]Women who have careers have acted as though I betrayed the 'sisterhood'.[/b]

 

I don't suppose people stop long enough to think about whether they have good reasons for playing the game. And I think those that do have a hard time figuring out what reasons are good and which aren't. It's quite tricky, and it is better for the status quo to avoid the thinking it all the way through and merely make nasty comments to people doing things differently.

 

It seems these women have forgotten that feminism is not a one issue movement. There's a lot more to it than whether or not we work outside the home. But maybe they don't know that.

 

That was unnecessarily wordy. What I really meant was b*gg*r 'em. :tongue_smilie:

 

Rosie

[asta]

Well I don't know about glass ceilings but we have a business with male and female employees. Both men have families, one is a single dad. Of the two women, one is married with kids and the other is single.

 

The Men come in early almost every day and stay late often.

The women are often late for work and never ever work late unless it is required.

 

The men often skip lunch

The women never do.

 

The women take a lot more personal days than the men.

The women are more expensive to insure by a big margin.

 

The women cry poverty and ask for huge raises on an ongoing basis. We do 6 month reviews but they are asking for 20% raises every 3 months. The men have never asked for a raise.

 

The women are often found sleeping, play around on the computer, etc on the job a lot more often than the men. They stand around and talk a lot more.

 

 

The women don't get written up for poor performance as often as the men despite doing more poorly because they cry when they do and the co-owner who is their direct manager can't handle it and feels sorry for them.

 

We make signficantly more money off of our male employees than we do our female employees.

 

Over the past 6 years, we lose females at a faster rate. They quit to get married, have children, move to another state because of husband/boyfriend, decide to work for financee's husbands one only one was fired. She was fired for not showing up for work, not calling in for several days later (supposedly at a funeral out of state). It was only a few weeks before that she got drunk at employee function, assaulted my husband when he took her keys and called a cab, grabbed the keys from him and run over his foot, and then called our biggest client to come and get her. The other owners gave a reprieve the first time since it was an after hours event. The men have only quit because they got better paying jobs.

 

And BTW, I know SAHD's who have taken major pay deductions/lower level jobs after staying home a few years.

 

 

Now this is all personal observation but I have noticed that in our company and in the Marines, males tend to work harder than females. I know there are exceptions. I worked my butt off in Marines. I had to because the other females made my job twice as hard. I also knew some slacker males. The part I disagreed with was their gender was not the excuse. They got the benefit of the doubt when they showed up, where it would be assumed a female would be crappy walking in.

 

I hate to say it, but this is why I hate working with women.

 

I hate the crying.

 

I hate the gossip.

 

I hate the "poor me".

 

I hate the playing of the "gender card" to get someone else to do the job.

 

I worked my @ss off in the military. I got nothing but cr@p for it. You know who got the kudos? The women who were willing to suck up (literally -ewww & figuratively) to the surrounding men. I did my job in the private sector (working through lunches and abandoning (yes! abandoning!) my kid at daycare because my b!tch of a boss had. to. have. it. NOW!

 

And then one day kid got a fever that wouldn't break. Even with anti-biotics, it would. not. break. I had no more sick leave. No more vacation days. I was staying at a crappy hotel because my husband had transferred ahead of me. My boss wanted me to find "sick child care".

 

I reassessed my life.

 

Here I am.

 

 

asta

[delaney]

Asta I totally hear what you are saying about working with women. I have NO CLUE where I stand on this issue.

I firmly feel that schools need male principals. Why? Because there are too many women in the field and they are able to distance themselves and not be drawn in to the gossip, friendships, emotions...all the stuff that comes with large groups of women in one school. Doesn't that sound bad? I guess so but it comes with years of running a daycare and dealing with that fine line I couldn't cross with the staff, the complaining, whining, gossip.....ridiculous. I worked for male principals and really enjoyed it.

I also firmly believe that girls should receive higher education to be "career" moms but then I feel very torn about the merits of being an excellent homemaker. It has taken me to the age of 41 to see that it very much is a hard and worthwhile career that is undervalued and not appreciated.

Lastly I hate what society has done to young girls. I cringe that my oldest even knows who Snookie is and laughs about her antics. How much shielding should I do? What a warped world we live in that this stuff sells entertainment! Some days I just want to put my girls in a bubble.

Sigh. Sorry for rambling...only one cup of coffee so far today:tongue_smilie:

[Murphy101]

I feel the same way.

 

What really cracks me up is how women will insinuate getting an education is a waste. I love learning and taking classes when I can. You know, in my spare time.:tongue_smilie:

 

Want to know what I hear the most and only from other women, even college professors?

"What's the point if you're just going to have babies and stay home?"

 

Yeah. Right. Because the best thing for families and our country is to have all the ignorant people make the babies and stay home raising kids?:001_huh:

[Lizzie in Ma]

Vonk recalls wearing satin hot pants when she was 15. “But it was a different time,†she says. “Back then there was at least equal premium put on intellect and what was in your head. It was the opposite of ‘Go out and please men.’ â€

:001_huh:

Really. Wearing hot pants and thinking that there was an equal premium on intellect? Seriously? Does she know the term 'oxymoron', or how about just 'ironic'?

 

What kills me about the article is that no value is put on parenting. It seems to be this big shrug onto 'its all the media's fault!', rather than, 'gee, is there something as a parent I might have/have not done?' How about, who buys the clothes, permits the shows, etc?

 

Or how about the idea that gee, maybe women are choosing not to participate in the corporate track as much as the older feminists assumed would? Perhaps, just perhaps, the numbers reflected in the article is also part of women choosing to be at home, having a family, raising (and gasp! even homeschooling) their children as opposed to running for government or becoming CEO.

 

That an article on feminism is based upon a) looks b) media c) career numbers simply underscores how shallow and ridiculous it is. It doesn't look at the idea that women are free to choose what suits them...not what someone tells them they HAVE to be. Which was, I believe, what feminism was supposed to be about.

 

Well said. :iagree::iagree:

[Mejane]

Want to know what I hear the most and only from other women, even college professors?

"What's the point if you're just going to have babies and stay home?"

 

 

 

I'm fifty years old, and no one has ever said this to my face.

[Hockey Mom]

I hate to say it, but this is why I hate working with women.

 

I hate the crying.

 

I hate the gossip.

 

I hate the "poor me".

 

I hate the playing of the "gender card" to get someone else to do the job.

I worked my @ss off in the military. I got nothing but cr@p for it. You know who got the kudos? The women who were willing to suck up (literally -ewww & figuratively) to the surrounding men. I did my job in the private sector (working through lunches and abandoning (yes! abandoning!) my kid at daycare because my b!tch of a boss had. to. have. it. NOW!

 

And then one day kid got a fever that wouldn't break. Even with anti-biotics, it would. not. break. I had no more sick leave. No more vacation days. I was staying at a crappy hotel because my husband had transferred ahead of me. My boss wanted me to find "sick child care".

 

I reassessed my life.

 

Here I am.

 

 

asta

 

I agree with the bolded!

 

It just occurred to me that I have never had a male boss in all of my years working. I started working when I was 15.

 

1. Chinese restaurant - female owner/female manager

2. Preschool - female director/female regional manager

3. IT Company - female owner/female supervisor (and then I became the supervisor)

4. Self Employed

 

Perhaps it was because females were the ones hiring/firing, but the women I worked with all had very similar feelings toward the typical "gossipy, crying, gender-card playing women" that I do. I think as a result, we received a lot of respect from the men we worked with too.

 

Since we've owned our own business, I have noticed a trend over the past 10 years (especially with young women) where the work ethic is diminishing. They expect to be paid what we would pay our long-time employees, but don't want to put in the hours or the work that it takes to get to that pay scale.

 

One of our clients was telling us that he sees the same thing happening in his business (he's an attorney). He even had one young woman who had her DAD call in for her whenever she was sick (which was trending on Fridays only). When he fired her, the girl's DAD called him and read him the riot act. This woman was in her early 20s!

 

So I tend to not think of this as a 'feminist' issue, but rather a failure of parents to teach proper work ethics to their children. We tell our girls that they can be anything they want to be, but we don't equip them with the proper skills to attain those goals. We've enabled and spoiled our children.

[Hockey Mom]

I feel the same way.

 

What really cracks me up is how women will insinuate getting an education is a waste. I love learning and taking classes when I can. You know, in my spare time.:tongue_smilie:

 

Want to know what I hear the most and only from other women, even college professors?

"What's the point if you're just going to have babies and stay home?"

 

Yeah. Right. Because the best thing for families and our country is to have all the ignorant people make the babies and stay home raising kids?:001_huh:

 

Wow. The point of feminism was to give us the CHOICE. I'm surprised they don't get that.

[Mejane]

I hate to say it, but this is why I hate working with women.

 

 

asta

 

Wellll... I don't consider women who suck up literally and/or figuratively to be feminists, but there are many women who do work their *sses off. You said it yourself. You were one. I was one. I've worked with many others. My previous boss was one of the brightest, most driven, hardest-working people I've ever known, even after having twins.

 

People here seem to be pointing fingers at the women they worked with who treated their job as a hobby or social club, not something of which a feminist would approve. I think a feminist would tell them to stay at home where they're happy and quit making the rest of us look bad. :D

 

There are many men who are lazy, just-there-for-the-paycheck employees, too. As I said in a previous post, my husband works with them everyday. Oh, and they whine and gossip, too. Do they ever! :001_rolleyes: