Who runs the world?

[Frances]

3 hours 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.

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. 😉

I think some of the numbers in your quote, not linked, must be wrong. I’m finding nothing that shows a 20% increase in female STEM workers from 2019 to 2021.

And much of what you are describing is exactly as I stated, structural reasons, not a lack of women aggressively focused on work.

[BlsdMama]

1 hour ago, Farrar said:

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.

Yes. And studies have shown women are more likely than men to be even more critical of a female leader than a man. We expect leaders to be about the “we.” We expect women to be about “ya’all.” Women are expected to never further selves. A man taking time off for a family event is good work life balance and he is showing a strong good. characteristic.  A woman taking time off to go to a family event is perceived as poor prioritization. An aggressive man is a strong leader. An aggressive female is a bitch. This is perception and studies have born it out time again. Whereas we (generally) accept male shortfalls in soft skills we expect women to use kind words and punctuate with exclamation marks. It is unjust stereotypes. There are exceptions. My husband has been told to develop his soft skills at work over the years and he really has gotten good at, “How will this be ‘heard’ over written communication?” Things really ARE changing as expectations are being raised and new bars being set and old ways (and leaders) are replaced/upgraded. It’s just never fast. 

Edited January 29, 2022 by BlsdMama

[Frances]

49 minutes ago, BeachGal said:

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.

Entire books have been written on it. Lots more besides this with a quick search.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/05/the-confidence-gap/359815/

[BeachGal]

6 minutes ago, Frances said:

Entire books have been written on it. Lots more besides this with a quick search.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/05/the-confidence-gap/359815/

The article you linked discusses women and their lack of confidence in themselves even when they're successful. I don't doubt the books have been written, but what are some of the titles? My daughter might be interested in them.

[BlsdMama]

17 minutes ago, Frances said:

I think some of the numbers in your quote, not linked, must be wrong. I’m finding nothing that shows a 20% increase in female STEM workers from 2019 to 2021.

And much of what you are describing is exactly as I stated, structural reasons, not a lack of women aggressively focused on work.

You could be right. I’ll check the source in a bit and link. 
 

As an aside, my niece earned her degree in an engineering field (I think mechanical) and her MBA about 3-4 years ago. She’s now expecting and taking classes to become a math teacher. At the beginning of heart college career she considered both fields. However, they’re expecting a new little one and the flexibility of teaching is so important to her. I think she made a great and difficult choice; one I deeply respect. I do believe woman’s created characteristic/strength, broadly applying, is nurturing. Unless industries become more balanced between work and life, I’m uncertain 50/50 balances will ever be achievable. Changes like this will need to be far more holistic than just get women into STEM fields, hire them, promote them. 

Edited January 29, 2022 by BlsdMama

[Frances]

15 minutes ago, SKL said:

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.

The lack of women in upper management is not limited to STEM fields, although it may be more pronounced there.

And interestingly, there used to be a much higher percentage of women in computer programming. I think you and I came of age during a pretty good time for women.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/magazine/women-coding-computer-programming.html

[Frances]

2 minutes ago, BeachGal said:

The article you linked discusses women and their lack of confidence in themselves even when they're successful. I don't doubt the books have been written, but what are some of the titles? My daughter might be interested in them.

The article discusses both books and articles on the subject. I’m sure a quick search of the authors and books mentioned in the linked article would turn up even more. I’m trying to understand if you are truly curious or doubting that there is a whole body of research out there on this subject? 

[BeachGal]

This is from January 2021:

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/01/women-making-gains-in-stem-occupations-but-still-underrepresented.html

Quote

In 1970, women made up 38% of all U.S. workers and 8% of STEM workers. By 2019, the STEM proportion had increased to 27% and women made up 48% of all workers.

 

[Frances]

I will admit that I might be using the term “structural reasons” to cover a broader array of things than some others in the discussion. I’m likely too broadly applying it to things external to individual women themselves.

[SKL]

Just now, Frances said:

The lack of women in upper management is not limited to STEM fields, although it may be more pronounced there.

Just FTR I built my career in a male-dominated field (public accounting) and I could go on and on about why I didn't end up in top management.  It's not a simple answer.  The "old boys' network" is part of it, but not for the reason people think.  Men, especially those past a certain age, tend to be set in their ways, and that includes how they judge up-and-comings.  If you don't discuss basketball a certain way, if you don't cuss and joke and drink a certain way, you aren't going to be the partners' favorite person.  It's not that he doesn't want to promote women.

There are also personal issues.  Like it or not, I do believe some of it is in-born in women, on average.  I didn't enjoy certain things, I didn't see myself doing certain things, I didn't have the mental energy for certain things that the rising leaders did.

I did OK, I was making $200K when I quit in 2007, and I was one step down from the highest position I could have achieved with my experience and education.  Technically I could have made partner, but I didn't want to be the kind of person I'd have to be.  Not because the partners were all bad people.  Like I said, it's complex.

[Frances]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Just FTR I built my career in a male-dominated field (public accounting) and I could go on and on about why I didn't end up in top management.  It's not a simple answer.  The "old boys' network" is part of it, but not for the reason people think.  Men, especially those past a certain age, tend to be set in their ways, and that includes how they judge up-and-comings.  If you don't discuss basketball a certain way, if you don't cuss and joke and drink a certain way, you aren't going to be the partners' favorite person.  It's not that he doesn't want to promote women.

There are also personal issues.  Like it or not, I do believe some of it is in-born in women, on average.  I didn't enjoy certain things, I didn't see myself doing certain things, I didn't have the mental energy for certain things that the rising leaders did.

I did OK, I was making $200K when I quit in 2007, and I was one step down from the highest position I could have achieved with my experience and education.  Technically I could have made partner, but I didn't want to be the kind of person I'd have to be.  Not because the partners were all bad people.  Like I said, it's complex.

Of course it’s complex, hence the body of research on the subject.

[Laura Corin]

1 hour ago, BeachGal said:

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.

These are the kinds of studies

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/women-aggressive-men-applying-jobs-hired-frequently-linkedin/story?id=61531741

[BeachGal]

2 minutes ago, Frances said:

The article discusses both books and articles on the subject. I’m sure a quick search of the authors and books mentioned in the linked article would turn up even more. I’m trying to understand if you are truly curious or doubting that there is a whole body of research out there on this subject? 

I am not doubting that there is a whole body of research. I have a daughter in engineering who was just promoted and she and I like to read about these subjects. You are the one making assertions and I'd like to know what books you think are worth reading.

[Frances]

Just now, BeachGal said:

I am not doubting that there is a whole body of research. I have a daughter in engineering who was just promoted and she and I like to read about these subjects. You are the one making assertions and I'd like to know what books you think are worth reading.

I haven’t read them because I’ve lived it my entire college and professional career. To me it’s as obvious as the observation that the sun rises each morning and sets each night. So I don’t know which books are worth reading. Maybe read reviews of them and decide? The ones in the article I linked would be a good starting point I would think. @Laura Corinalso linked an article that references several authors, books, and articles.

[BlsdMama]

18 minutes ago, SKL said:

Just FTR I built my career in a male-dominated field (public accounting) and I could go on and on about why I didn't end up in top management.  It's not a simple answer.  The "old boys' network" is part of it, but not for the reason people think.  Men, especially those past a certain age, tend to be set in their ways, and that includes how they judge up-and-comings.  If you don't discuss basketball a certain way, if you don't cuss and joke and drink a certain way, you aren't going to be the partners' favorite person.  It's not that he doesn't want to promote women.

There are also personal issues.  Like it or not, I do believe some of it is in-born in women, on average.  I didn't enjoy certain things, I didn't see myself doing certain things, I didn't have the mental energy for certain things that the rising leaders did.

I did OK, I was making $200K when I quit in 2007, and I was one step down from the highest position I could have achieved with my experience and education.  Technically I could have made partner, but I didn't want to be the kind of person I'd have to be.  Not because the partners were all bad people.  Like I said, it's complex.

You know another consideration is networking. Guys are likely to go grab lunch, go out after work. Two guys going out to lunch? Dude lunch. A guy and a woman going out to lunch? Levels of complexity. A man mentoring a man and the Junior gets promoted? No one bats an eye. Older man mentors woman, woman becomes upwardly mobile? Fodder for office gossip. I think the mentoring scenario is becoming more common and folks realize it’s really about equipping the up and coming leaders, but - added complexity. 

[BeachGal]

1 minute ago, Frances said:

I haven’t read them because I’ve lived it my entire college and professional career. To me it’s as obvious as the observation that the sun rises each morning and sets each night. So I don’t know which books are worth reading. Maybe read reviews of them and decide? The ones in the article I linked would be a good starting point I would think. @Laura Corinalso linked an article that references several authors, books, and articles.

It is not a man's fault if a woman feels this way, or is it?

Also because you lived it doesn't mean you can then extrapolate your experience to all.

Confidence plays a role but so does risk-taking. Studies have found that women are less likely to take risks and that could be a factor as well. It could very well be one of the reasons why women at my son's trading firm tend to leave and this is what I was discussing in my earlier posts. The job entails a lot of risk-taking and those who have left do mention that they didn't like the stress from that.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9564127/

This is also discussed in the book The Psychology of Gender but my daughter, who lives in San Francisco, has it.

[Frances]

9 minutes ago, BeachGal said:

It is not a man's fault if a woman feels this way, or is it?

Also because you lived it doesn't mean you can then extrapolate your experience to all.

Confidence plays a role but so does risk-taking. Studies have found that women are less likely to take risks and that could be a factor as well. It could very well be one of the reasons why women at my son's trading firm tend to leave and this is what I was discussing in my earlier posts. The job entails a lot of risk-taking and those who have left do mention that they didn't like the stress from that.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9564127/

This is also discussed in the book The Psychology of Gender but my daughter, who lives in San Francisco, has it.

I’m not extrapolating my experience to all. I’m saying that when I read an article about it that references research it very much resonates with me because I have lived it for almost 40 years. Therefore, I have no interest in or need to read a book about it. 
 

Did I say it was a man’s fault if a woman feels this way? I’m guessing it’s more complicated and multi-faceted than that. Those with an interest in understanding it more deeply could likely learn more by reading relevant books, articles, and research studies.

[Frances]

22 minutes ago, BlsdMama said:

You know another consideration is networking. Guys are likely to go grab lunch, go out after work. Two guys going out to lunch? Dude lunch. A guy and a woman going out to lunch? Levels of complexity. A man mentoring a man and the Junior gets promoted? No one bats an eye. Older man mentors woman, woman becomes upwardly mobile? Fodder for office gossip. I think the mentoring scenario is becoming more common and folks realize it’s really about equipping the up and coming leaders, but - added complexity. 

And don’t forget golfing. My husband has an aunt who is the CEO of a healthcare system in CA. She doesn’t golf, but her retired husband does. So she told us that when she overhears golfing plans being discussed by a group of her male peers, she gets them invited and he golfs while she goes along to network. He is definitely her biggest advocate and he is the one that shares the stories with us of some of the astounding sexism she has faced over the many years of her career. She never talks about it.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Frances

[Lady Florida.]

43 minutes ago, SKL said:

Just FTR I built my career in a male-dominated field (public accounting) and I could go on and on about why I didn't end up in top management.  It's not a simple answer.  The "old boys' network" is part of it, but not for the reason people think.  Men, especially those past a certain age, tend to be set in their ways, and that includes how they judge up-and-comings.  If you don't discuss basketball a certain way, if you don't cuss and joke and drink a certain way, you aren't going to be the partners' favorite person.  It's not that he doesn't want to promote women.

 

To be fair, this applies to men as well. Dh is not a sports fan and you'd never find him at the proverbial water cooler discussing last night's game. You wouldn't find him golfing with the boss. As a result of not being "one of the boys" he had to work harder to get promotions over the years. Once they knew what he could do it was no longer an issue but he did have to clear the hurdles first. I'm not in any way comparing this to women who have more hurdles to jump, just saying the good ole boy network can affect men positively or negatively too.

[Moonhawk]

7 minutes ago, Frances said:

And don’t forget golfing. My husband has an aunt who is the CEO of a healthcare system in CA. She doesn’t golf, but her retired husband does. So she told us that when she overhears golfing plans being discussed by a group of her male peers, she gets them invited and he golfs while she goes along to network. He is definitely her biggest advocate and he is the one that shares the stories with us of some of the astounding sexism she has faced over the many years of her career. She never talks about it.

My friend in junior high/high school learned to golf for this exact reason. Or, more accurately, her parents enrolled her in golf lessons. My friend enjoyed playing volleyball so I didn't understand why another sport. When I asked my friend, "Why golf? Why not volleyball lessons or something?" Her mom answered from the kitchen, "Because volleyball gets you into a sorority, but golf gets you into a corner office."

Anyway, I've been thinking about that a lot recently as my kids get older, and if I should get my kids to take a year of golf before college. Even just knowing what the clubs are and basic etiquette seems to be a life skill if you are planning to go certain routes.

[lmrich]

3 hours ago, BeachGal said:

What did you do to get the girls?

Nothing different - I think the girls are feeling more comfortable to take it and/or their parents are seeing more value in it. 

[BeachGal]

1 minute ago, lmrich said:

Nothing different - I think the girls are feeling more comfortable to take it and/or their parents are seeing more value in it. 

Well, that is a hopeful sign.

[SKL]

Yes, I do think it's a good idea to have our girls know something about golf.  And to be pretty well versed in the popularly covered sports also.  It doesn't matter whether you're interested in that or not, you need to be able to talk about it up to a point.

And there is a small advantage women have - we tend to be better able to chat up female clients, so as more women fill the management roles in other companies, there is more value for women consultants etc.  When I used to meet up with women tax directors etc., we could discuss books, kids, public education, and various other things that guys weren't used to discussing in that setting.  But most tax directors were still men ... probably still are.

[BeachGal]

1 hour ago, BlsdMama said:

You know another consideration is networking. Guys are likely to go grab lunch, go out after work. Two guys going out to lunch? Dude lunch. A guy and a woman going out to lunch? Levels of complexity. A man mentoring a man and the Junior gets promoted? No one bats an eye. Older man mentors woman, woman becomes upwardly mobile? Fodder for office gossip. I think the mentoring scenario is becoming more common and folks realize it’s really about equipping the up and coming leaders, but - added complexity. 

Mentoring teaches the areas of a job that aren't taught in school. It's to help newer employees navigate and learn the intricacies particular to the company. My daughter was just promoted to an executive position at her engineering firm and she is going to be mentored for about two years to help her learn all the details of her new position. She has a lot to learn.

All of my kids socialize with both men and women from their firms but they also work at places that encourage it and set up activities so it happens. For example, my youngest has zoom happy hour every Friday. Everyone grabs a favorite drink, doesn't have to be alcohol, and discusses whatever. Doesn't have to be work. My other kids go out to eat with co-workers, do volunteer work together such as tutoring, hike, bike, camp, etc.

The only golf networking I know of are for those bringing in new business or old geezers trying to find jobs for their children and grandchildren. It doesn't seem to be popular at my kids' firms.

 

[Bootsie]

21 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

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

I think more and more are.  It really depends upon the organization and the industry.  I recall when Swanee Hunt was appointed US Ambassador to Austria she told her staff that she would attend meetings only if at least 1/3 of the people in the room were women.  

I have recently served as the president of a non-profit board.  We had 13 board members, two of us are female.  The other female recently resigned from the board due to increased professional and family responsibilities.  I hadn't even really thought about the fact that I am the only remaining female on the board, but this is a board in an area that is so traditionally male that with 2/13 being female, females were over-represented on the board relative to the profession although substantially under-represented in relation to society's population.

[EKS]

5 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

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 can assure you that there are fire departments who are falling all over themselves to hire capable women.  I don't know if this is the norm everywhere, but it sure is around here.

[Melissa Louise]

The fly in the ointment is the conundrum that the more equal the society, the more women chose not to go into traditionally male fields/patterns of work.

I have ideas for what the answers are; they involve recognising the maternity choice/penalty in material ways. 

[BlsdMama]

2 hours ago, BeachGal said:

Mentoring teaches the areas of a job that aren't taught in school. It's to help newer employees navigate and learn the intricacies particular to the company. My daughter was just promoted to an executive position at her engineering firm and she is going to be mentored for about two years to help her learn all the details of her new position. She has a lot to learn.

 

 

Just for the sake of clarity, mentoring is used far more than just those new to their positions. Mentoring is a way to coach someone to the next level or to help them acquire additional knowledge in an area that will complement their current role or intended career goals. For example, many engineers or program managers don’t work in an engineering form, but in manufacturing where there are so many areas interacting that the more knowledge you attain the more you accomplish logistically at reaching your goals. My husband has worked in logistics, production manager, master planning, scheduling, and on the manufacturing floor at various times over his career. Currently he’s a supportability engineer (which really isn’t an engineer at all) but having significant background helps him “work the problem” so to speak. He’s mentored a couple times in his career to gain insight or essentially be coached and it is value added, but definitely not just for newbies. 😉 

[madteaparty]

21 hours ago, EKS said:

You're kidding, right?

This was my very first reaction too.

To the OP, he is correct. 

[KSera]

21 hours 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.)

I feel like the RBG point (quoted by Lady Florida below) has been lost in this discussion. Yes, it’s definitely very common for companies to work hard to recruit and hire female candidates to ensure more diversity in their workforce. But what I think is being missed is that it’s considered “diversity” to hire *some* women, and rarely is there an aim to make sure at least 50% of the workforce is female in traditionally male industries. The aim is just to increase representation. Which in the case of the board the OP mentions, would be the corollary. In a traditionally female non profit sector, they have achieved 1/3 of the board being male. That would be considered pretty normal and even *good* for female representation in many traditionally male industries. 

6 hours ago, Lady Florida. said:

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.”

 

2 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I think more and more are.  It really depends upon the organization and the industry.  I recall when Swanee Hunt was appointed US Ambassador to Austria she told her staff that she would attend meetings only if at least 1/3 of the people in the room were women.  

I have recently served as the president of a non-profit board.  We had 13 board members, two of us are female.  The other female recently resigned from the board due to increased professional and family responsibilities.  I hadn't even really thought about the fact that I am the only remaining female on the board, but this is a board in an area that is so traditionally male that with 2/13 being female, females were over-represented on the board relative to the profession although substantially under-represented in relation to society's population.

So in that case, it seems to you that 2/13 female representation is appropriate or even an over representation. But it sounds like most in this thread consider any board being only 1/3 male is an under representation problem. 

[BeachGal]

33 minutes ago, BlsdMama said:

Just for the sake of clarity, mentoring is used far more than just those new to their positions. Mentoring is a way to coach someone to the next level or to help them acquire additional knowledge in an area that will complement their current role or intended career goals. For example, many engineers or program managers don’t work in an engineering form, but in manufacturing where there are so many areas interacting that the more knowledge you attain the more you accomplish logistically at reaching your goals. My husband has worked in logistics, production manager, master planning, scheduling, and on the manufacturing floor at various times over his career. Currently he’s a supportability engineer (which really isn’t an engineer at all) but having significant background helps him “work the problem” so to speak. He’s mentored a couple times in his career to gain insight or essentially be coached and it is value added, but definitely not just for newbies. 😉 

Sure, it’s sometimes offered in those circumstances. My daughter is being mentored for her new position at the company where she has worked for a few years. Many firms do offer something to new hires as well.

[Carrie12345]

47 minutes ago, EKS said:

I can assure you that there are fire departments who are falling all over themselves to hire capable women.  I don't know if this is the norm everywhere, but it sure is around here.

But you’re quoting my personal feelings about a 50% goal. Which I stated in order to separate my position from my reaction to an isolated comment.

Here, female *volunteer firefighters are embraced. Paid, in the surrounding cities, is very hard to get into for anyone due to so few openings. My dd has been “cut” from the hiring process before males with less training, and despite the extra points she gets for being female. I can’t say there weren’t better qualified men, but less qualified men did at least get further.

But the idea of a 50% goal is ridiculous to me.

I think it’s beneficial to have men in childcare centers, but we don’t push for an even split there. Why not?

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, Carrie12345 said:

 

I think it’s beneficial to have men in childcare centers, but we don’t push for an even split there. Why not?

Because you'd have to pay them more to attract them into the industry, and people don't want to pay early childhood educators and teachers more. 

There are PLENTY of men making $ in the early childhood and care profession, btw. Just as academics, owners, investors, managers. At the top. 

[Carrie12345]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

Because you'd have to pay them more to attract them into the industry, and people don't want to pay early childhood educators and teachers more. 

There are PLENTY of men making $ in the early childhood and care profession, btw. Just as academics, owners, investors, managers. At the top. 

Agreed. I don’t think that’s the entirety of it, but it’s a significant factor. 
I also think fewer males are drawn to the act of caring for six to eight 2yos for 6-12 hours and then going home to perform household needs.

As a women experienced in childcare, I once looked into opening an irregular-hours childcare center to address local needs. I am legally unable to due to my lack of advanced degree. Even if I were to hire highly educated people to serve upper level roles. I cannot own that business.    
I found that interesting. 

[EKS]

2 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

Here, female *volunteer firefighters are embraced. Paid, in the surrounding cities, is very hard to get into for anyone due to so few openings. My dd has been “cut” from the hiring process before males with less training, and despite the extra points she gets for being female.

Here both volunteer and career female firefighters are highly sought after.  That said, for the career positions, it all comes down to numbers (and in the end, an interview with the chief).  If a female doesn't have the numbers (which include her points for being female), she doesn't advance.  If this is how it is with the departments your daughter has dealt with, I'm not sure what the problem is.

[BakersDozen]

11 hours ago, Lady Florida. said:

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.”

I'm not sure that "we" didn't worry about no women in certain areas. Often the voices of "we" were not heard or acknowledged, but over the years systems/jobs were challenged and changed.

The quote makes me cringe (I know, I'm treading on hallowed ground here!). Even as a kid I remember people raising questions about the number of women on the SCOTUS. So the quote seems a blanket statement which is not very accurate or fair. And as much as I'd love to go into that particular topic of women/men and the SCOTUS, I won't so as to not step into anything political. 😉

[Roadrunner]

Who cares.
My race - green. My gender - other. 🙄

[Carrie12345]

6 hours ago, BakersDozen said:

I'm not sure that "we" didn't worry about no women in certain areas. Often the voices of "we" were not heard or acknowledged, but over the years systems/jobs were challenged and changed.

The quote makes me cringe (I know, I'm treading on hallowed ground here!). Even as a kid I remember people raising questions about the number of women on the SCOTUS. So the quote seems a blanket statement which is not very accurate or fair. And as much as I'd love to go into that particular topic of women/men and the SCOTUS, I won't so as to not step into anything political. 😉

I don’t know about you, but I was a kid from 1977 to 1995. I suspect the narrative I was surrounded by is a lot different than that of the first 200 or so years!

Systems have definitely been challenged and changed, and should continue to, eternally. The year 2222 is unlikely to have the same systemic needs as we do. I hope they’re faster at adaptation than their ancestors.