Who runs the world?

[Carrie12345]

I had an experience this morning that I have to share.

I interviewed for a volunteer board position and I’m pretty excited about it. The two men interviewing me were very nice. I was told that the board, currently 15 people, is nicely diverse. The only group they’re low on is men.

I choked down my temptation to quote RBG.

And then I reread the list of board members. There are five super masculine names. (Think Robert or Benjamin, not something like Chris.). At least ONE THIRD of the members are men, and they’re considering that low.

Now I’m kind of wishing I had gone all RBG about it.

 

[El...]

Girls!! 

[EKS]

If you're looking for a gender balance of something close to 50:50, it seems to me that one third men would indicate being low on men.  Unless, of course, it's a three person board.  If a 15 person board is 5 men and 10 women, there are twice as many women as men.  That's a pretty big discrepancy.  Meaning that his statement that they are low on men is accurate.

So what am I missing?

Edited January 29, 2022 by EKS

[Carrie12345]

6 minutes ago, EKS said:

If you're looking for a gender balance of something close to 50:50, it seems to me that one third men would indicate being low on men.  Unless, of course, it's a three person board.  If a 15 person board is 5 men and 10 women, there are twice as many women as men.  That's a pretty big discrepancy.  Meaning that is statement that they are low on men is accurate.

So what am I missing?

How many organizations go around fretting about being low on women?

[Melissa Louise]

On the one hand, I'm up for at least two millennia of women dominating culture, just to balance out the last two thousand years. 

On the other hand, 33% male is an under-representation. 

My better angel says yes, when males form only a third of a particular workforce, they are under represented. 

(I bet they are at parity or over-represented the higher up the ladder you go, though. This is what happens in education - males under-repped at the bottom - aides, early childhood, elementary teachers, then %  rises to be very well repped at 'higher' levels of teaching, governance and policy). 

 

[Farrar]

In a world where the vast majority of boards of things have well under a third women, then I don't consider a board with a third men underrepresented on the whole. And really, I don't see the goal as trying to somehow achieve a 50:50 balance. For one thing, that ignores people who don't identify as either. But beyond that, you can't create a board that is somehow a perfect representation of the world or the community around you along every single front. It's just not possible. The real goal should be to create a board where different voices with perspectives can be heard. A board with a third men is a place where male voices can almost certainly get heard. So unless women have always dominated this board or the world in general and boards in general (which we know is not the case) then it's fine. Better than. No one needs to go man recruiting for this board.

[BlsdMama]

17 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

How many organizations go around fretting about being low on women?

My husbands company. Any company that is taking government contracts is constantly seeking minority gender/color/sexuality and actively seeking to promote. Aerospace industry interest you?

[Frances]

2 minutes ago, BlsdMama said:

My husbands company. Any company that is taking government contracts is constantly seeking minority gender/color/sexuality and actively seeking to promote. Aerospace industry interest you?

I don’t think this is entirely true. I trust that your husband’s company is doing exactly as you say. But I know a double minority who owns a business and much of his business is derived from government contracts. He has to hide the one minority status he can because otherwise he is afraid most or all of his private contracts would disappear and he also might lose some workers. It’s a much more blue collar industry than aerospace, so likely an apples to oranges comparison. But I just wanted to point out that not ALL companies taking government contracts are constantly seeking minority gender/color/sexuality and actively seeking to promote. Again, I don’t doubt at all what you are saying about your husband’s company or even the aerospace industry as a whole.
 

And for what it’s worth, as a government worker, it’s not at all unusual for me to be the only woman in a meeting.

 

[TechWife]

What is the makeup of the organization the board leads and/or serves? If more than 1/3 of them are men, then men are under-represented. 

[Carrie12345]

8 minutes ago, Farrar said:

In a world where the vast majority of boards of things have well under a third women, then I don't consider a board with a third men underrepresented on the whole. And really, I don't see the goal as trying to somehow achieve a 50:50 balance. For one thing, that ignores people who don't identify as either. But beyond that, you can't create a board that is somehow a perfect representation of the world or the community around you along every single front. It's just not possible. The real goal should be to create a board where different voices with perspectives can be heard. A board with a third men is a place where male voices can almost certainly get heard. So unless women have always dominated this board or the world in general and boards in general (which we know is not the case) then it's fine. Better than. No one needs to go man recruiting for this board.

Exactly. 
The brief topic of diversity was clearly in reference to more than just gender, and I wonder what that actually looks like, or is expected to look like. Are there “enough” black people as proportionate to the population, or is one considered adequate for the purpose of broadened perspective? Does it account for the population served, or the population of the overall community? It obviously can’t be 50% black, 50% Hispanic, 50% white, and 50% of our 4th, 5th etc. populations. So I am left wondering what they’re basing their view on. 
 

For the record, the people served are primarily women and children, and the field is female dominated. Which should never mean men should be dissuaded from participating.  I was still caught off guard by the idea if there EVER not being enough men, lol.

I wonder if I was supposed to be scouting more men for our homeschool org board. 😉 

[Carrie12345]

8 minutes ago, Frances said:

I don’t think this is entirely true. I trust that your husband’s company is doing exactly as you say. But I know a double minority who owns a business and much of his business is derived from government contracts. He has to hide the one minority status he can because otherwise he is afraid most or all of his private contracts would disappear and he also might lose some workers. It’s a much more blue collar industry than aerospace, so likely an apples to oranges comparison. But I just wanted to point out that not ALL companies taking government contracts are constantly seeking minority gender/color/sexuality and actively seeking to promote. Again, I don’t doubt at all what you are saying about your husband’s company or even the aerospace industry as a whole.
 

And for what it’s worth, as a government worker, it’s not at all unusual for me to be the only woman in a meeting.

 

My husband’s business isn’t primarily government, but they have some big government contracts. They have 1 female in a non-admin position. Nation wide. 

[Carrie12345]

Adding just for extra, our general population for children is a white minority. (Still majority adults until more die off.) So if things need to be proportionate, they probably shouldn’t vote me in with my female whiteness. 🙂 

[Forget-Me-Not]

“The Queen, the Vatican, the Gettys, the Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he went t*ts up.”

Seriously though, that would have surprised me too (the comment, not the idea of women being more prevalent on a board that serves women and children). I’m not sure what I’d make of that. Especially where it was two *men* doing the interviewing. Who really holds the decision making power? 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Forget-Me-Not

[Melissa Louise]

It was probably a really crap 'joke'. Yeah, didn't miss the blokes were doing the interviewing. 

 

[Catwoman]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

How many organizations go around fretting about being low on women?

Were they fretting about it, though, or did one of the guys make the comment as part of the overall conversation and leave it at that?

I can see how someone might have just been making conversation, and not have been particularly serious about actually caring exactly how many men were on the board.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Catwoman
Were and we’re are not the same word. Thanks for nothing, autocorrect

[Carrie12345]

4 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

Were they fretting about it, though, or did one of the guys make the comment as part of the overall conversation and leave it at that?

I can see how someone might have just been making conversation, and not have been particularly serious about actually caring exactly how many men were on the board.

Oh, fretting was definitely my exaggeration!

[EKS]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

How many organizations go around fretting about being low on women?

You're kidding, right?

[Carrie12345]

7 minutes ago, EKS said:

You're kidding, right?

Not one bit.   
I’m not being obtuse here; I’m aware that some organizations want more women and some organizations want better PR.  
But I’m confident that there aren’t more than 1/3 of organizations working hard and effectively to enable 50.8% female representation. (Or whatever today’s number is.)

[Farrar]

I think these days, a lot of organizations actually do fret about a lack of diversity along a number of different lines on boards. But that doesn't necessarily mean they do anything about it. My mother recently left a board in part because it was all white. She brought up issues around equity and felt like they needed to be considering non-white issues and voices. So they were like, great, we'll put YOU in charge of that. And she was like, are you kidding me? Because she's an old white lady. And they were like, we really care about this issue. And she was like, obviously you don't if you think I can somehow fix it. You need to recruit more. But that was too hard, I guess. So basically awareness and worry don't always lead to action.

[Melissa Louise]

Female parity is very last decade.

I have no problem believing only 'backwards' companies are still thinking about how many women they've got on board 

Racial and gender identity parity is where the progressive firms are at. 

Everyone else is probably a. doing nothing about female representation at all or b. thinking down-chain female representation is enough. 

Personally, I think a 66% female board for a women and children focused org is maybe on the low side 🙂 Ditch the blokes and make sure the board represents non-white women, poor women, gay women and disabled women, as well as white and/or wealthy women. 

I'd feel the same about a prostate cancer board. Ditch the ladies, get a diverse group of men. 

 

[Carrie12345]

7 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I think these days, a lot of organizations actually do fret about a lack of diversity along a number of different lines on boards. But that doesn't necessarily mean they do anything about it. My mother recently left a board in part because it was all white. She brought up issues around equity and felt like they needed to be considering non-white issues and voices. So they were like, great, we'll put YOU in charge of that. And she was like, are you kidding me? Because she's an old white lady. And they were like, we really care about this issue. And she was like, obviously you don't if you think I can somehow fix it. You need to recruit more. But that was too hard, I guess. So basically awareness and worry don't always lead to action.

Yes!  We all know there’s an issue. If we were all fixing that, we wouldn’t have an issue.  But we have an issue. 😵‍💫

[Faith-manor]

The Marx Brothers. The Marx Brothers are running the planet.

[BlsdMama]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

My husband’s business isn’t primarily government, but they have some big government contracts. They have 1 female in a non-admin position. Nation wide. 

I wonder how they get away with it. His company is always actively recruiting, but it tends to be a white dominated industry and male dominated industry because it’sa field that white males tend to gravitate towards and subsequently seek degrees in the field. However, they would like to see a more diverse upper management… it’s not well represented. But is it lack of promotion or that many women do not aggressively pursue a driven work focus at that level? 

[BeachGal]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

Not one bit.   
I’m not being obtuse here; I’m aware that some organizations want more women and some organizations want better PR.  
But I’m confident that there aren’t more than 1/3 of organizations working hard and effectively to enable 50.8% female representation. (Or whatever today’s number is.)

My youngest son works for a trading firm, a market maker. They desperately want women to apply for positions but need mathematicians, physicists, computer science majors but can't get many to even apply. The salaries and benefits are great, it's super casual, women are mentored by female partners as well, to make sure any concerns are addressed. It is very high pressured though so traders have to handle that, too. (Random drug testing, too.) They are getting qualified women but they are from other countries. My son is mentoring a young woman originally from Jamaica who is fabulous. They have some coming from Africa this year, too.

*****

My husband worked for the federal government for decades and had to meet quotas. Most of the people were very qualified or hard workers which was sometimes more valuable. His department was very diverse.

[Lady Florida.]

My husband just retired from 40 years in the space industry. He's always worked for government contractors and was able to get rehired with each company that got the new contract. In every single company and every area of industry he worked in it's definitely been male dominated. In forty years he's not only seen few women but has seen few of those few women advance as far as the men, all things being equal. Anecdotal, yes but the issue is pretty well known here on the Space Coast of Florida.

[Clarita]

 I worked in a male dominated industry. I have been recruited before by a company just on the basis of being female. Like after hearing about the job I said "I'm not really a good candidate for that" and the response was "Would you still be interested though, we'll train you." So, yes companies are fretting about recruiting women. I'm not sure how far people want companies to go to make sure their workforce is diverse enough.

 

[SKL]

Not only do I agree that 33% means men are underrepresented, I also think that it's unfortunate that men tend to be underrepresented in much of the nonprofit industry.  Depending on the specific type of nonprofit, there is not often a logical reason why men shouldn't have as much interest and value to add.  For example, in the literacy organization I was active in, it was almost all women doing the active work and the real leadership.  The men involved were doing it for their resume, and tended to be the "no people" lest we women get over excited about helping kids read better.  In contrast, the people most in need of literacy services tend to be male.  So I think it's worth giving that some thought.

[Frances]

4 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

I wonder how they get away with it. His company is always actively recruiting, but it tends to be a white dominated industry and male dominated industry because it’sa field that white males tend to gravitate towards and subsequently seek degrees in the field. However, they would like to see a more diverse upper management… it’s not well represented. But is it lack of promotion or that many women do not aggressively pursue a driven work focus at that level? 

Having worked in male dominated fields my entire career and received male dominated graduate degrees, there are often structural reasons why women choose not to pursue upper management. For me at least, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a driven work focus. I think you are coming at this from a very male dominated perspective which is understandable since everything you hear about it is filtered through your husband and his experience in the industry.

[Frances]

3 hours ago, BeachGal said:

My youngest son works for a trading firm, a market maker. They desperately want women to apply for positions but need mathematicians, physicists, computer science majors but can't get many to even apply. The salaries and benefits are great, it's super casual, women are mentored by female partners as well, to make sure any concerns are addressed. It is very high pressured though so traders have to handle that, too. (Random drug testing, too.) They are getting qualified women but they are from other countries. My son is mentoring a young woman originally from Jamaica who is fabulous. They have some coming from Africa this year, too.

*****

My husband worked for the federal government for decades and had to meet quotas. Most of the people were very qualified or hard workers which was sometimes more valuable. His department was very diverse.

Simply because a women is a mentor does not mean they are a good mentor. Some of the worst job related experiences I had involved other woman in my very male dominated careers. On the other hand, I’ve had some great male mentors. 
 

And I can tell you from experience that the last thing a women in a male dominated career wants to hear is that they are being hired primarily because they are a woman. Even if not said directly, there are lots of ways this information is conveyed.

As far as handling high pressure and drug testing, statistically I’d be surprised if women are not generally better on both fronts.

[Frances]

15 minutes ago, Clarita said:

 I worked in a male dominated industry. I have been recruited before by a company just on the basis of being female. Like after hearing about the job I said "I'm not really a good candidate for that" and the response was "Would you still be interested though, we'll train you." So, yes companies are fretting about recruiting women. I'm not sure how far people want companies to go to make sure their workforce is diverse enough.

 

It’s been proven over and over in research that women tend to underestimate their abilities and therefore generally under apply and it is the opposite for men. So saying they would train you just makes sense. 

[Clarita]

1 minute ago, Frances said:

So saying they would train you just makes sense.

Well I mean I did not have the right major and emphasis for that job; it was not an underestimation of my abilities and we both knew that.  

[Frances]

3 hours ago, Clarita said:

Well I mean I did not have the right major and emphasis for that job; it was not an underestimation of my abilities and we both knew that.  

But it has been proven in research that it is very often the case that a woman will not apply unless she meets all qualifications and men will often apply when they meet few qualifications. 
 

Anyway, I wouldn’t be interested in working anywhere that was primarily interested in my being there because I was a woman. So if that’s the approach companies are taking, no wonder it isn’t working.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Frances

[Laura Corin]

2 hours ago, Frances said:

But it has been proven in research that it very is often the case that a woman will not apply unless she meets all qualifications and men will often apply when they meet few qualifications. 
 

This is certainly my experience on hiring boards, and my male boss commented on it. In every batch of applicants,  around 20 percent are men who only very vaguely meet some of the criteria but who are sure they could do the job. We've never had an equivalent application from a woman.

[Carrie12345]

7 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

I wonder how they get away with it. His company is always actively recruiting, but it tends to be a white dominated industry and male dominated industry because it’sa field that white males tend to gravitate towards and subsequently seek degrees in the field. However, they would like to see a more diverse upper management… it’s not well represented. But is it lack of promotion or that many women do not aggressively pursue a driven work focus at that level? 

There are two big barriers in his field. Not entirely insurmountable, but they cut the female pool dramatically.
1. The hours and the travel.  My husband would not have been able to have this career if he had been responsible for half of our childcare.  He wouldn’t have been able to perform the duties. Any parent could make it work with a partner who has a daycare friendly schedule or stays home, and is willing/able to take on ALL family responsibilities at any time, frequently, and sometimes for months at a time.  Statistically, men take on that role less frequently than women. And, for the time being, most adults have kids.
2. The field is usually entered after experience in the wider industry. In many cases, that involves some hard manual labor.  Which many women are perfectly capable of, but are statistically less likely to pursue. As his field evolves, that direct experience is becoming less required, but it was the main way of finding candidates for almost a decade. So, around 10 years ago, dh started, about 10 years after beginning as a temp laborer.

Their current 1 female person was an owner who came from an executive position, and her role was never in operations. And I think she may have been near retirement age already when creating the company!
A new male employee quit the other day. Recently widowed, he wasn’t able to juggle this particular job and single parenting. The company tried to keep him, but they aren’t in a position to offer evening, overnight, or weekend childcare. (Well, any childcare at all. It isn’t like everyone goes to an office where a daycare room can be set up.) 

I don’t see what could be done to fix those issues. A raise in pay doesn’t make it easier to find someone who can take your kids for 3-9 weeks. And I don’t feel like marketing hot, dirty, disaster work to high school girls would be very effective.  I do think that, as the field evolves, and as fewer women have kids, there might be a small shift. But then what will they do with their dogs and their plants? 😉 

None of my kids of any gender want to join their dad. They’ve seen enough to run away from it.

[BlsdMama]

7 hours ago, Frances said:

Having worked in male dominated fields my entire career and received male dominated graduate degrees, there are often structural reasons why women choose not to pursue upper management. For me at least, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a driven work focus. I think you are coming at this from a very male dominated perspective which is understandable since everything you hear about it is filtered through your husband and his experience in the industry.

Totally possible - the thought occurred to me while in the midst of writing it. 😉  However, let's say that 10% of a given workforce is actually gifted (by natural ability or by choosing to hone the talents that lend itself well to leading people) in leadership, it will significantly reduce women in upper leadershership in areas that are primarily male.

So, look at this quote:
In 2019, women made up 54% of all workers in the US but only 12% of STEM employees, according to the Census report. By 2021, women made up 56% of all the workforce and the STEM proportion had grown to 32%. By contrast, men made up 44% of all U.S. workers but 68% of all engineering employees.

Because it takes time and experience to work through the ranks, that 12% is very relevant.  If you have 10:100 workers in a field, it would follow you'd have 1:10 in upper leadership.  Taken further, you then reduce the numbers further when you take a percentage of the original 10% out of the running because women do the lion share of child care and absence due to birth/childcare has the potential to breed resentment (and I won't argue that it's wrong) but exists.  Further, the psychology of leadership essentially states there are statuses that lend themselves to promotion and age is a relevant factor, especially among women  (also wrong) but if a woman should not focusedly (is that even an adverb) pursue promotions from a relatively young age post graduation, perception is that she hits her prime before her male counterpart (which is crap, btw.)  But these are all perspectives that come into play in promotions.  We'd love to believe the best (wo)man for the job gets promoted but psychology plays an incredible part in this -more than we are willing to recognize.  I would love to hear, however, the structural reasons.  Workforce development is an odd interest for a stay at home mom, but more recently I've taken a few courses in leadership and the psychology of leadership.  One particular professor absolutely lit me up over it so I'd love to hear your insight because mine is so incredibly limited to theory rather than real life application so it's worth maybe .02 and that won't even get you a crappy cup of coffee. 😉

[lmrich]

3 minutes ago, BlsdMama said:

Totally possible - the thought occurred to me while in the midst of writing it. 😉  However, let's say that 10% of a given workforce is actually gifted (by natural ability or by choosing to hone the talents that lend itself well to leading people) in leadership, it will significantly reduce women in upper leadershership in areas that are primarily male.

So, look at this quote:
In 2019, women made up 54% of all workers in the US but only 12% of STEM employees, according to the Census report. By 2021, women made up 56% of all the workforce and the STEM proportion had grown to 32%. By contrast, men made up 44% of all U.S. workers but 68% of all engineering employees.

😉

Just to note this trend... I teach a STEM class and the first year I taught it (5 years ago) - all boys, then the next year 1 girl. Now I have 5 girls and 10 boys. Hoping next year it will be an even split. 

[BeachGal]

9 hours ago, Frances said:

Simply because a women is a mentor does not mean they are a good mentor. Some of the worst job related experiences I had involved other woman in my very male dominated careers. On the other hand, I’ve had some great male mentors. 
 

And I can tell you from experience that the last thing a women in a male dominated career wants to hear is that they are being hired primarily because they are a woman. Even if not said directly, there are lots of ways this information is conveyed.

As far as handling high pressure and drug testing, statistically I’d be surprised if women are not generally better on both fronts.

Conversely, because she is a woman does not mean she is a bad mentor, either. She is there to listen, empathize and help guide them. I agree that men can be excellent mentors also. The women are mentored by other male traders as well. My son is mentoring a woman.

Here in the US, fewer females go into the STEM fields so the pool of applicants tends to be smaller. From what we have observed as a family involved with math circles, clubs, extracurricular activities and camps, this starts in the younger years. Our daughter, an engineer, participated in math extracurriculars but she was usually the only girl. Our youngest went to a free weekend math class/lecture, open to anyone, taught by Paul Sally at UChicago and there was only one girl. Ds has a math degree and had no women in any of his math classes from sophomore year on up.

Regarding high pressure, the women traders at my son’s firm actually have a difficult time dealing with stress. Of the five women hired as traders his first year — all very qualified — four quit or moved to non-trading positions and the reason they cited was that trading was too stressful. My son was friends with all of them.

Edited January 29, 2022 by BeachGal

[BeachGal]

1 hour ago, lmrich said:

Just to note this trend... I teach a STEM class and the first year I taught it (5 years ago) - all boys, then the next year 1 girl. Now I have 5 girls and 10 boys. Hoping next year it will be an even split. 

What did you do to get the girls?

[BeachGal]

6 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

This is certainly my experience on hiring boards, and my male boss commented on it. In every batch of applicants,  around 20 percent are men who only very vaguely meet some of the criteria but who are sure they could do the job. We've never had an equivalent application from a woman.

What are these positions? Are they STEM fields?

[BeachGal]

10 hours ago, Frances said:

Having worked in male dominated fields my entire career and received male dominated graduate degrees, there are often structural reasons why women choose not to pursue upper management. For me at least, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a driven work focus. I think you are coming at this from a very male dominated perspective which is understandable since everything you hear about it is filtered through your husband and his experience in the industry.

Out of curiosity, what are the structural reasons why women do not pursue upper management?

[TravelingChris]

16 hours ago, Farrar said:

In a world where the vast majority of boards of things have well under a third women, then I don't consider a board with a third men underrepresented on the whole. And really, I don't see the goal as trying to somehow achieve a 50:50 balance. For one thing, that ignores people who don't identify as either. But beyond that, you can't create a board that is somehow a perfect representation of the world or the community around you along every single front. It's just not possible. The real goal should be to create a board where different voices with perspectives can be heard. A board with a third men is a place where male voices can almost certainly get heard. So unless women have always dominated this board or the world in general and boards in general (which we know is not the case) then it's fine. Better than. No one needs to go man recruiting for this board.

I don't know who exactly I was listening to but I know it was a black male, quoting his mother- who would have lived in Jim Crow era and I remember that from the accent, he was from the south, but his third statement his momma made was about diversity of views.

The only valuable DEI type training My dh took was where the trainer had people answer questions like what type music is your favorite, what activities do you enjoy, etc.  That was because it turned out that no one was like their stereotype.

As to whether 5 men on a board of 15 is too little, I think on local charities that is very common to have more women, depending on the charity. My dh is on the board of 2 - one military related and one astronomy related- both are heavily male not  because they want it that way--- these are boards where tgey are begging fir others to take their placzme. The third board he is still on is heavily female and that is the board of a retreat community but he should have been off two years ago.  Afain, begging for board members 

[TravelingChris]

16 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

My husbands company. Any company that is taking government contracts is constantly seeking minority gender/color/sexuality and actively seeking to promote. Aerospace industry interest you?

Same here, related field.  Défense and space interest you?

[Farrar]

In terms of women and mentorship and so forth, one thing that can happen to women who are in heavily male-dominated areas is that they see other women as their biggest competitors. That's because when there are only a few women, it can be hard to push back on the sense that there's a few "woman slots" on a board, in a company, in a field. Therefore, if you have one, then other women are a threat to that. Internalized patriarchy (many times that we're unaware of) is totally a thing.

And in terms of women in STEM fields, there's a real divide emerging. In the last couple of decades, number of women have increasingly started to overtake men in many biological and earth/environmental science fields. There are more women now training to be doctors, for example. Women are absolutely dominate in a few STEM fields now. Of course, sometimes old white dudes are still dominate at the top because these are demographic shifts that haven't caught up to the top yet. But it's changing and faster than some people realize in terms of young people graduating in these fields.

[iamonlyone]

16 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

How many organizations go around fretting about being low on women?

I'm just responding to this bit, to add to the the conversation from another (less prestigious) industry. Our son is a retail store manager, and his store was sorely understaffed when he took over. He went five months without a key under manager because the district manager said he could only hire a woman, and there were no female applicants who met the minimum requirements set by the national company. One four-week stretch, he worked 70 hour weeks with no days off. He was finally able to hire by visiting other stores and sharing the merits of the position to women working at those stores and asking them to apply.

But I do agree that I'm sure there are a range of recruitment efforts across businesses and industries from intense to none.

[Laura Corin]

39 minutes ago, BeachGal said:

What are these positions? Are they STEM fields?

No, but the conversation had moved on to research on male and female application norms in general. 

These are administrative positions with specific requirements of three years of previous administrative experience. 

[Lady Florida.]

17 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

 

I choked down my temptation to quote RBG.

Now I’m kind of wishing I had gone all RBG about it.

 

Getting back to this, for centuries we didn't worry that there were no women in certain areas but now we're worrying there are no (or not enough) men?

If anyone doesn't know what Carrie meant by the above, here you go -

“WHEN I’M SOMETIMES ASKED ‘WHEN WILL THERE BE ENOUGH [WOMEN ON THE SUPREME COURT]?’ AND I SAY ‘WHEN THERE ARE NINE,’ PEOPLE ARE SHOCKED. BUT THERE’D BEEN NINE MEN, AND NOBODY’S EVER RAISED A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.”

[Carrie12345]

Just so my own actual view doesn’t get misinterpreted… I don’t think it’s necessary for EVERY industry, organization, or what have you to aim for equal number genders.   

I do think representation is more important in some areas than in others.  
I do think biases should be eliminated in all sectors. 
I don’t think women should be pushed into fields for the sake of increasing women in a field, but that it is important to examine why they’re not and make sure it isn’t due to stupid biases.
For example, I don’t think it’s important to achieve 50% female firefighters. But any female should have just as good a chance of becoming one as any equally capable male.  I’ve never wanted to be one, and wouldn’t want it pushed on me because we “need” more women.

I never wanted to go into medicine either, but I see more reasons to encourage balanced numbers in that area. (Like I’m more comfortable discussing certain things with a female caregiver and Dh prefers to have male ones. We both have to settle from time to time.)

 

[BeachGal]

6 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

No, but the conversation had moved on to research on male and female application norms in general. 

These are administrative positions with specific requirements of three years of previous administrative experience. 

But your experience does not mean that it can be applied to all areas. It suggests that men are to some degree more deceitful. Maybe? If there are studies showing this to be true, I'd be interested in seeing them.

[BusyMom5]

I think that men and women often have different priorities,  even when in college.  My DD went in very serious about getting into stocks and finance- think Goldman Sachs, investment firms, Wall Street.  After looking more into that field and specific careers, she doesn't like what goes with it- the hours, the high pressure and stress, lack of flexibility.   She had a few other career interests,  and finds them to be much more flexible, better work life balance, with good pay- currently thinking MIS/CIS.  She still wants the finance degree bc it is a big interest (and she says she may work in FinTech), but she doesn't like a lot of the industry.   I'm not sure what degrees she will end up with, she's a bright kid with a lot of interests!

I think sometimes we look at industries and think women should be better represented... but at the same time women are looking at the industry and find it a poor fit for their personal goals.  I imagine an old boys club opening up and allowing women, and the women are saying they don't want to go into that smelly old club- gross!  There are better clubs to join that fit their needs better.

I'll go ahead and post a few things my DD has decided she needs in a career:

Flexibility- work from home or work part time when she has young children

PTO and other benefits

Ability to work in lots of different areas of the country/world- smaller towns, big cities, and abroad,  bc she says she may want to change her scenery as she ages and changes to different periods of life.  Abroad or big city after graduation,  then working into a smaller firm as she gets older and wants a family.  This may be backwards from male thinking, when you start small and move up. 

We should not use male made metrics when determining success or the how "good" a job is.  

[SKL]

In part, the lack of women in STEM management still goes back to the disinterest of girls in STEM.

I am fairly well wired for engineering, but it never sounded interesting to me when I was young.  (Nor did tax, for that matter [I've been in tax since I was 25].)  I chose not to take chemistry and physics in high school for multiple reasons, one being that the teacher was a guy who didn't look like a fun teacher ... and I knew zero female friends or relatives who had ever taken those courses.  I did learn computer programing in a summer program, but it never excited me like it did my brother.

My girls have had female science teachers and there are far more girls in STEM now ... you pretty much have to take chemistry and phyisics if you plan to attend college, I think.  One of my girls is kind of a natural for engineering, but she currently wants to go into business.  She declines all opportunities to stretch herself in science education.  My other kid is interested in biology, but she struggles with math.  Only one of their female friends ever seemed interested in STEM, and she's decided to pursue fine arts instead.  So I dunno, but I wouldn't be surprised if the gender gap in STEM leadership continues a long time.