Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Women Only Professorships
Options
Comments
-
-
but on this report for 2017, Ireland seem to have almost 50% female scientists and engineers, which is pretty good - https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/4187653/9451024/Women_in_science_MSs/87daf6ba-33b5-4455-9a2b-dbb979e38dcc?t=1548852611502
should I assume many of these are non-nationals such as myself ?
It's probably part of it, but how science and engineering are defined would also be a factor. Nursing generally requires a Bachelor of Science degree, which counts as a STEM qualification, and Ireland has an unusually high number of nurses per capita.
Other biology-related disciplines are also disproportionately female, though to a lesser extent, and computer programming, the occupation that's the poster-boy for male domination of STEM, is a much smaller niche of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics than its high profile would imply.0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 49074
It's probably part of it, but how science and engineering are defined would also be a factor. Nursing generally requires a Bachelor of Science degree, which counts as a STEM qualification, and Ireland has an unusually high number of nurses per capita.
Other biology-related disciplines are also disproportionately female, though to a lesser extent, and computer programming, the occupation that's the poster-boy for male domination of STEM, is a much smaller niche of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics than its high profile would imply.
I'd extend computer programming to the whole of IT to be honest.
I work in a team of 40 plus and an overall internal department of over 200.
In my team of 40 there are two women both of whom are quite senior.
In the team of 200 it's about 19% women
At a senior level it's about 5%
Those stats can be replicated across most IT organisations in my experience
So you could ask why are almost 20% of IT staff female but only 5% of senior staff are?
And is that replicated across STEM? Ie 50% of engineers are women, but only 12.5% of senior engineers are female?
And if that's the case what's the cause? For me it's not purely the workplace, its social and cultural as well
On the flip side I was the only female candidate out of five for my current role.
In a previous role six of the men who reported to me had applied for my role.0 -
beside that, I would also look into family patterns for gender roles, or role models ...That may be so, but I firmly believe the reason is quite simply.....choice
my personal explanation for this is that ... senior executive roles have been assigned 15/20 years ago, and the holders have not retired yet. refreshing those roles is quite a slow process: nowadays I think multinationals have directives to include female staff when they look for replacements.So you could ask why are almost 20% of IT staff female but only 5% of senior staff are?0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 49074
my personal explanation for this is that ... senior executive roles have been assigned 15/20 years ago, and the holders have not retired yet. refreshing those roles is quite a slow process: nowadays I think multinationals have directives to include female staff when they look for replacements.
Not my experience at all in my current organisation in two years there have been significant changes at senior levels due to relocation, retirement and restructuring. Most people in senior roles get moved every two to three years, again something I've seen in multiple organisations also
Now you could say I've been lucky but in 25 years I've had over ten different roles in different organisations as well as working as a consultant for at least double that amount.
It could be that I have no children and that helped me as I was free to work insane hours and travel for weeks when needed
It could be that I had parents who encouraged to strive to achieve without gender blinkers
It could be I was encouraged in school where I went to a convent and had to go to the boys school to do honours maths.
It could be I'm one of those women with high levels of testosterone
It could be that I work in a niche area with qualifications few other people in Ireland
Or that I'm simply great at my job and a good networker, last job I applied for cold was 10 years ago I've had three since
This is kind of my point0 -
Advertisement
-
And if that's the case what's the cause? For me it's not purely the workplace, its social and cultural as well
Indeed this is a big aspect of it, not just from a female perspective but also a male.
From a male perspective societally you are trained to be the breadwinner and earn as much as you possibly can. its also a way to have a little control/status some men (and even a few women) who have not allot else going on devote themselves to roles/companies and work every hour under the sun.
This underlines why i am probably most against the likes of positive discrimination as it does nothing from a wider societal perspective, its like a sticky plaster while we let the rest go to crap.0 -
paleoperson wrote: »Partly because they're not one of the good old boys in the old boys club maybe? Partly because they're not good enough?
I'm not one of the good old boys either, only a tiny percentage of people are, and occasionally women are. Go after them, not the rest of men. Nothing at that level of management makes sense anyway, none of those people are worth their salaries, they're all doing favours for each other and it's all a big scam on the rest of us. Why aren't people from farming backgrounds equally represented at those positions? Why aren't people from the travelling community equally represented at those positions? At the lower levels of honest respectable careers women have equal or better opportunities.
My last management position before I became a lecturer, had an employee count of just over 600 people, all being highly talented, and headhunted. It was a specialist financial management firm relating to credit control, liquidations, and legal processing for bad debts. Extremely profitable area for this particular business.
There were three majority shareholders. Two men and one woman. The seven directors were an almost even split of males and females, but honestly, there wasn't much difference between the males and females in behavior. They were highly competitive, no nonsense, money/status orientated people, in at 6 am, and leaving at 10 pm. They're a different breed entirely.
And then there's the rest of the managers who are more "normal". Still highly competitive, head in the game, aggressive towards other departments, highly territorial, and it was all encouraged to be that way. The vast majority were male. In my time there five female managers quit due to the burn out, just as I did eventually.
The point is that whenever you see people asking why there aren't females in upper management for corporate positions, they fail to recognise what's involved in working in that area. I didn't have the natural aggression and ambition for it, and I barely managed to get into the lower echelon of upper management in a private firm. Highly competitive position, but I still burned out because I wasn't as career focused as my colleagues.
There is simply so little appreciation for the "sacrifices" that those who pursue upper management make to enable them to live in such a manner. Virtually every friend (former colleagues or friends I met through business events) I have in upper corporate positions, is single, divorced or in a childless marriage. A minority have stay at home wives, but nothing similar with the husbands. But... people expect a greater amount of women to enter such positions, but the expectation is that these women will still be able to have children and a family. There's very little acknowledgement of the cost in stress and time, that such positions require...
It's the reason I get a little annoyed at claims that women in upper corporate positions are underrepresented. Everyone is underrepresented in upper positions. Not due to gender, but due to ability, and temperament. Extremely few of the guys I worked with over the years have made it past mid-level management. Fewer women still. But that's due to their choices in life, and that they're not willing to live the life that is required for such positions.
Personally, i find that those pushing for women in these positions, are expecting a free ride to the top, and a different set of standards for behavior once they get there. And I find it sickening. It's a massive middle finger to everyone else who has clawed their way from the bottom, putting in the research, the time, the networking, the late nights, the missed birthdays, the holidays cut short, the nights being woken at 4 am to match time differences, etc etc etc.
It really bothers me, because I still haven't heard any decent arguments that show that such initiatives are actually encouraging equality. Or that they're based in the realities of the work required for such positions. Instead, it's about entitlement based on gender. Females are entitled to be represented in equal (or more) numbers. (Since gender quotas rarely stop once parity has been reached, instead, shifting to the view that more women in a position is better, than what went previously)0 -
People want fairness... fairness doesn’t mean that if tomorrow I’m hiring 6 translators I hire 3/3. No. Fairness means i hire the BEST 6 candidates, no matter what gender, what nationality or race, what religion, what age.... the 6 BEST candidates.
I don’t owe females or female candidates a thing. I owe our customers, current staff and management to hire the best qualified and appropriate candidates. That could be 4 males and 2 females or 4 females and 2 males or any combination of the 6.0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 49074
[Deleted User] wrote: »
The point is that whenever you see people asking why there aren't females in upper management for corporate positions, they fail to recognise what's involved in working in that area. I didn't have the natural aggression and ambition for it, and I barely managed to get into the lower echelon of upper management in a private firm. Highly competitive position, but I still burned out because I wasn't as career focused as my colleagues.
There is simply so little appreciation for the "sacrifices" that those who pursue upper management make to enable them to live in such a manner. Virtually every friend (former colleagues or friends I met through business events) I have in upper corporate positions, is single, divorced or in a childless marriage. A minority have stay at home wives, but nothing similar with the husbands. But... people expect a greater amount of women to enter such positions, but the expectation is that these women will still be able to have children and a family. There's very little acknowledgement of the cost in stress and time, that such positions require...
This is a great post and I agree with an awful lot of it. It's very easy to look at people in senior positions and want to be them without understanding what it takes to get there be you male or female0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »The greatest obstacle to women progressing is other women, women who had to walk accross hot coals to get where they are in tge past when institutional sexism was actually an issue routinely pull the ladder up and refuse to promote women.
There might be something in that.. A colleague of mine who works under our female CEO was adamant she wouldn't hire a female as deputy. 'Queen bee' syndrome...
I don't agree with positive discrimination but it's a cycle & it's not going away until there's enough pushback or until a future generation gets sense & realises how self-defeating this approach is...0 -
Advertisement
-
This is a great post and I agree with an awful lot of it. It's very easy to look at people in senior positions and want to be them without understanding what it takes to get there be you male or female
I have worked with a current VP of a blue chip company who ended up getting divorced because of his career ambitions, another guy trying to get to VP level had a heart attack on the job (he survived) as he was working 60+ hours a week.
On the female side, one colleague going for a directorship position ended up having a very late miscarriage. Now i know there are many other things that could have caused it but she used to log on during her timezone (Asia) and log out after i had done a working day in Europe.
Add on to that the higher you go up the totem pole the more expendable you become and the more cut throat you have to be to keep relevant.0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 49074
I have worked with a current VP of a blue chip company who ended up getting divorced because of his career ambitions, another guy trying to get to VP level had a heart attack on the job (he survived) as he was working 60+ hours a week.
On the female side, one colleague going for a directorship position ended up having a very late miscarriage. Now i know there are many other things that could have caused it but she used to log on during her timezone (Asia) and log out after i had done a working day in Europe.
Add on to that the higher you go up the totem pole the more expendable you become and the more cut throat you have to be to keep relevant.
Yup understood. Not many people seem aware of that level of commitment tbh
If these new professors get hired will they publish enough to keep current or will other commitments stop them?0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »I did argue for the woman to be hired, and I was outnumbered. I did talk to HR, and I'm also running some sessions on bias in hiring procedures, which everyone is happy to participate in. As I've said all along, this isn't conscious discrimination. I wouldn't work with people like that. It's unconscious bias, and we're working on addressing it.
So to clarify, the company that turned away a more qualified female in stead of an under-qualified male is the same company that hired you and then promoted you 18 months later?
Why would they hire & promote you if they were against women?lainey_d_123 wrote: »I absolutely loved programming as a kid ... I decided to move into tech finally...and I still get plenty of stupid comments about being a 'diversity hire' from men who weren't even born yet when I was starting programming.
One other thing, you've programmed since you were a kid, have loved it and are now back in the field. Would you say it's your passion or one of your passions?0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »My last management position before I became a lecturer, had an employee count of just over 600 people, all being highly talented, and headhunted. It was a specialist financial management firm relating to credit control, liquidations, and legal processing for bad debts. Extremely profitable area for this particular business.
There were three majority shareholders. Two men and one woman. The seven directors were an almost even split of males and females, but honestly, there wasn't much difference between the males and females in behavior. They were highly competitive, no nonsense, money/status orientated people, in at 6 am, and leaving at 10 pm. They're a different breed entirely.
And then there's the rest of the managers who are more "normal". Still highly competitive, head in the game, aggressive towards other departments, highly territorial, and it was all encouraged to be that way. The vast majority were male. In my time there five female managers quit due to the burn out, just as I did eventually.
The point is that whenever you see people asking why there aren't females in upper management for corporate positions, they fail to recognise what's involved in working in that area. I didn't have the natural aggression and ambition for it, and I barely managed to get into the lower echelon of upper management in a private firm. Highly competitive position, but I still burned out because I wasn't as career focused as my colleagues.
There is simply so little appreciation for the "sacrifices" that those who pursue upper management make to enable them to live in such a manner. Virtually every friend (former colleagues or friends I met through business events) I have in upper corporate positions, is single, divorced or in a childless marriage. A minority have stay at home wives, but nothing similar with the husbands. But... people expect a greater amount of women to enter such positions, but the expectation is that these women will still be able to have children and a family. There's very little acknowledgement of the cost in stress and time, that such positions require...
It's the reason I get a little annoyed at claims that women in upper corporate positions are underrepresented. Everyone is underrepresented in upper positions. Not due to gender, but due to ability, and temperament. Extremely few of the guys I worked with over the years have made it past mid-level management. Fewer women still. But that's due to their choices in life, and that they're not willing to live the life that is required for such positions.
Personally, i find that those pushing for women in these positions, are expecting a free ride to the top, and a different set of standards for behavior once they get there. And I find it sickening. It's a massive middle finger to everyone else who has clawed their way from the bottom, putting in the research, the time, the networking, the late nights, the missed birthdays, the holidays cut short, the nights being woken at 4 am to match time differences, etc etc etc.
It really bothers me, because I still haven't heard any decent arguments that show that such initiatives are actually encouraging equality. Or that they're based in the realities of the work required for such positions. Instead, it's about entitlement based on gender. Females are entitled to be represented in equal (or more) numbers. (Since gender quotas rarely stop once parity has been reached, instead, shifting to the view that more women in a position is better, than what went previously)
This is a cracking post and it hits the nail on the head. While I don’t doubt that discrimination exists, certain people with an agenda want everyone to believe that there is a cabal of tyrannical men hell bent on oppressing women. In reality, senior positions (especially private sector) are incredibly challenging and quite simply not everyone is up to the task. Most women aren’t capable of being CEO’s. Most men aren’t capable of being CEO’s. Its not a conspiracy.
There is a huge push the last few years towards the whole “you can do anything if you set your mind to it” attitude and IMO this is selling young people a pup. All this #girlboss BS. “CEO” of their blog. Its nonsense and it does nobody any favours to trivialise the difficulty of senior positions because there is very little at the top except long hours, difficult decisions, and a solitary existence.
Ironically this tread all started with Mary Mitchell O’Connor - a living embodiment of what happens when someone (male or female) gets promoted beyond their capability. In 2020 we all need to worry a little more about the quality of the people we have in senior positions and a lot less about what they have between their legs.0 -
As you can see from my earlier posts, I think this is a disgraceful political stunt but I realise on reflection that there is one way in which I may be proved wrong.
If these new posts attract top-class women scientists who have no connections in Ireland, they could have beneficial effects in disrupting a cosy scheme for insiders and raising standards in our universities.
Much more likely, however, is that these jobs will go to women insiders in areas like media studies and social science where they will keep doing the same job but for much more money and no boss to keep them busy.0 -
You mean discriminate on the grounds of gender... To stop discriminating on the grounds of gender. Because discriminating on the grounds of gender is wrong, except when it's right.
So you are possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that you undeniably do or do not know what it shouldn't probably be, if that indeed was what is isn't.
TL;DL Blatant sexism, complete bullsh't, total farce,.and nonsense.0 -
Not my experience at all in my current organisation in two years there have been significant changes at senior levels due to relocation, retirement and restructuring. Most people in senior roles get moved every two to three years, again something I've seen in multiple organisations also
Now you could say I've been lucky but in 25 years I've had over ten different roles in different organisations as well as working as a consultant for at least double that amount.
It could be that I have no children and that helped me as I was free to work insane hours and travel for weeks when needed
It could be that I had parents who encouraged to strive to achieve without gender blinkers
It could be I was encouraged in school where I went to a convent and had to go to the boys school to do honours maths.
It could be I'm one of those women with high levels of testosterone
It could be that I work in a niche area with qualifications few other people in Ireland
Or that I'm simply great at my job and a good networker, last job I applied for cold was 10 years ago I've had three since
This is kind of my point
are you suggesting ppl also get demoted when they get relocated/moved ? e.g. would they access inferior roles, lower pay/benefits ? my experience is that ppl don't get demoted, but there is a rotation factor applicable to a core group of ppl in senior mgt roles as they were 15 years ago ...that was the point I was trying to make.
I've mixed opinions about this subject actually: on one side, creating new roles like this and labeling them as for women can only be a disruption that is meant to send a message, yes.
But then, in a way, same as klaz was hinting at - certain opportunism of the younger generation that wants it easy does irritate me when I have to deal with it. So now I am interested in finding out if these roles turn out to be for 45+, or would they only be filled by 30+ year old women: imo ageism in the workplace is worse for women than pay gap is (and I would refer to an eurostat report for pay gap numbers - link)
PS: ppl that are career driven should not be called lucky, there is always hard work involved. yes, social or family life is affected (e.g. I have only 1 child = 1 maternity leave in 20 years, and the continuous support of my husband for those crazy hours); I think how our household sees gender roles is a good example for my daughter to grow up in, and that is for her benefit.0 -
I've mixed opinions about this subject actually: on one side, creating new roles like this and labeling them as for women can only be a disruption that is meant to send a message, yes.
Yes, but relistically speaking what is the message being sent? That women have priority over men. If this case was taken on it's own without any consideration for other changes in society and other "equality" initiatives, then I could possibly get on board.
The reality though is that the much higher graduation rate of females, the gender quotas, the criticisms of males in upper positions, the claims of hiring discrimination (but little actual evidence of such), the addition of programs even though the law is already more favorable to females than males in the workplace.... etc.
Roughly 15-20 years ago, we had full legal equality in the workplace. Good fair and non-biased laws were in place to protect the rights of both males and females. Anti-harassment laws protected both genders, and society was gradually moving away from the more traditional stereotyping of either gender.
However, that wasn't a quick enough change. More laws were introduced to elevate the needs of women above that of their male counterparts. Harassment laws were introduced to further protect females, and push males into little cubby holes of acceptable behavior.
Now, we have, in many industries, a toxic work environment where males of all levels of authority are afraid of being alone with a female co-worker. Coaching of lower level staff in preparation of promotions to upper positions has essentially dried up because older males are afraid of being accused of discrimination should a female fail a review after coaching periods. Everyone is scared ****less at the power and reach of HR, which is populated by mostly females. An oversight committee with extremely few males involved, and they're typically the more gentle and less assertive of the species.
The point is that this initiative comes at a time when society, and equality organisations have already been pushing female rights for over two decades, well beyond what should be considered fair rights. This isn't about encouraging females to apply for such roles. This is about further widening the divide between the genders in the workplace, to further decrease the presence of males in positions of authority or decision making positions.But then, in a way, same as klaz was hinting at - certain opportunism of the younger generation that wants it easy does irritate me when I have to deal with it. So now I am interested in finding out if these roles turn out to be for 45+, or would they only be filled by 30+ year old women: imo ageism in the workplace is worse for women than pay gap is (and I would refer to an eurostat report for pay gap numbers -
Depends on the industry. Ageism that is. In management higher ages is seen as a benefit due to the experience and networking connections that they bring with them. I know managers still working at 70 and they destroy their competition who are in their 30's.
There is definitely ageism in many industries, and sectors. But I seriously don't like the way people sweep the whole range of employment and decide it exists everywhere for the same reasons. Females luck out because they often choose to have a family, and therefore are seen as being less than committed to their careers. The same perception exists for males who spend similar amount of time with their families rather than focusing on their career. It's not a stigma based on gender. It's based on life choices... and real experience that comes from doing the work (rather than academic or learned 'experience').
The problem is that these issues are dumbed down taking away the details. Experience in incredibly important in Business roles. Knowing the right people and having a deep or respectful relationship with them is also incredibly important. It's less important in other industries which require a different set of skills.
We need to move away from the simplistic appraisal of problems that has begun to become established in our societies. I see it any time I return to Europe to lecture. The students no longer seek to understand the wider picture, instead, they drop important details, and seek white washed explanations from the books, which they barely understand in the first place. It's only in Economics, and Technical accounting that I still see the ability to understand the complexities of problems, and to appreciate the patterns. In most other subjects, students (and many lecturers) are looking for the easy answers. The ones that require the least amount of work to convey, and typically, are too broad in scope to ever be accurate as a definition or explanation.0 -
This is a cracking post and it hits the nail on the head. While I don’t doubt that discrimination exists, certain people with an agenda want everyone to believe that there is a cabal of tyrannical men hell bent on oppressing women. In reality, senior positions (especially private sector) are incredibly challenging and quite simply not everyone is up to the task. Most women aren’t capable of being CEO’s. Most men aren’t capable of being CEO’s. Its not a conspiracy.
Well.. I kinda disagree here. There is a cabal. It's just made up of both genders already. Being at the top is a club of sorts. You need the money, connections/relationships, and sometimes, trust, to be admitted. It's an extremely difficult proposition to enter such a society... and they are a different society. I'm not talking about the rich. These people values are very different than simply concerning themselves with money.
But yes, senior positions are not for those with any lack of ambition, and determination. It takes decades of hard work, networking, boot licking, and sacrifice. It's not for everyone...
But that's the reason why feminists push for it. Feminism is based around marxist doctrine, and marxism/socialism both want to destroy elitist constructs, allowing everyone access. The reasons why those elitist constructs exist doesn't matter. The reality is that such constructs are needed for business and other industries to perform effectively and remain competitive, but both socialism/marxism are very weak in appreciating (and applying) effective economic constructs themselves.
Those pushing for senior management to be cracked open, are smoking the pipe dream of equality for everyone without any appreciation for why those positions exist in the first place. It doesn't matter to them because they're not the ones seeking those positions. Instead, they're pushing for other people to fill them, and they won't ever be held responsible when the system crashes... Instead, they can move on to the next step of their crusade for equality for all.
YUP, I've become extremely cynical over the last decade. I wasn't always like this but the changes I've seen over the last two decades, have made me doubt the sincerity and sanity of those who push so hard for female rights.There is a huge push the last few years towards the whole “you can do anything if you set your mind to it” attitude and IMO this is selling young people a pup. All this #girlboss BS. “CEO” of their blog. Its nonsense and it does nobody any favours to trivialise the difficulty of senior positions because there is very little at the top except long hours, difficult decisions, and a solitary existence.
Ironically this tread all started with Mary Mitchell O’Connor - a living embodiment of what happens when someone (male or female) gets promoted beyond their capability. In 2020 we all need to worry a little more about the quality of the people we have in senior positions and a lot less about what they have between their legs.
Actually, I agree with the idea that you can do anything you put your mind to. You can. I did. BUT. There's been a decrease in encouraging self-discipline in people with regards to their life choices, and the pushing that everyone is entitled to something while taking away entitlements from those who came before.
Encouraging people to succeed is always a good thing. Limiting people is not. Females should seek the upper positions, if that is what they, themselves, want... but I'm seeing extremely little sign from students that is what they want. Most female students I've had, simply want a mid-level job, with a reasonable salary and the ability to spend time with their children as they grow up. Their expectations are moderate. It's pretty much the same with the male students too.
I do encourage all my students to reach for the stars, but I also warn them that they need the discipline to maintain their focus when everything goes to ****. They tend to laugh when I admit to crying in my apartment due to the stress and mistakes I made while learning to be a manager, because they have no comprehension of what such ambition costs. That is what is lacking in this drive for women to succeed. Preparing them for the challenges ahead, rather than simply seeking to remove the challenges entirely.0 -
Why are there so few Professors of Education for example? Why do less women get picked for senior management jobs? I would have preferred this initiative to focus on getting women around the table for senior management discussions within higher education than in handing out professor posts, but maybe that will happen later in the process.
Because fewer go for the positions. Last year there was the usual articles about fewer women getting professorships and it turned out fewer were applying.
It's seen across most fields. We need more female politicians? Why? Just because. Look at election results and women had the same success rate as men in the Dail in 2007. So the electorate isn't the problem. So it's decided that the problem must be the parties make it harder for women to run. But then you see that women are even more underrepresented as independents than as party candidates. So clearly it's not the parties who prevent women from running. Oh well, let's have a 30% quota anyway.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Encouraging people to succeed is always a good thing. Limiting people is not. Females should seek the upper positions, if that is what they, themselves, want... but I'm seeing extremely little sign from students that is what they want. Most female students I've had, simply want a mid-level job, with a reasonable salary and the ability to spend time with their children as they grow up. Their expectations are moderate. It's pretty much the same with the male students too.
That has been my experience, too. I seem to encounter more younger people these days with relatively moderate ambitions — they want a job that allows them to have a mortgage and a car and a couple of kids, but they also want "work-life balance." They are big fans of ideas like a 4-day week and a 6-hour working day. If they're passionate about something, it's likely to be some social crusade rather than a career.
While building Microsoft, Bill Gates worked up to 18 hours a day, often falling asleep at his desk before waking up to do it all over again. Elon Musk works 80 to 90 hours a week. But that kind of relentless, single-minded drive to get to the top seems to be on the wane, which is a bit of an issue because somebody has to build and lead the companies of the future, and you can't do that while working 24 hours a week.0 -
Leroy Huge Technologist wrote: »That has been my experience, too. I seem to encounter more younger people these days with relatively moderate ambitions — they want a job that allows them to have a mortgage and a car and a couple of kids, but they also want "work-life balance." They are big fans of ideas like a 4-day week and a 6-hour working day. If they're passionate about something, it's likely to be some social crusade rather than a career.
While building Microsoft, Bill Gates worked up to 18 hours a day, often falling asleep at his desk before waking up to do it all over again. Elon Musk works 80 to 90 hours a week. But that kind of relentless, single-minded drive to get to the top seems to be on the wane, which is a bit of an issue because somebody has to build and lead the companies of the future, and you can't do that while working 24 hours a week.
Seems like a stretch to say it's on the wane. Guess what, the future Bill Gates and Elon Musks are around, you just haven't heard of them because they're the future. Had you heard of Musk when he was 25? How many people had heard of Bill Gates when he was 25? What about the other guys who founded PayPal/eBay and the rest? Plenty of them worked hard and stepped back.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Seems like a stretch to say it's on the wane. Guess what, the future Bill Gates and Elon Musks are around, you just haven't heard of them because they're the future. Had you heard of Musk when he was 25? How many people had heard of Bill Gates when he was 25? What about the other guys who founded PayPal/eBay and the rest? Plenty of them worked hard and stepped back.
I think he means it in relation to the general perception about achieving success. Take the American dream for example. A hundred years ago, there was the definite belief in the land of opportunity, but the expectation that hard work and a little bit of luck was involved. There was also the awareness that there would be many failures along the way.
Nowadays, the American dream still exists, but many people are claiming it no longer does. Why? Because they're talking about what they're entitled to having. They're talking about cutting away the hard work, and not accepting the many failures on the road to success. instant gratification, and instant success (or at least within a much smaller timeframe) is now the expectation, and that's why so many people become disillusioned with the "american dream" concept.
Social values have changed. There's less appreciation for the hard work, and commitment needed to achieve the success at the top. Instead, there's the expectation that such positions should be just as easy/difficult as the lower spectrum, with considerably less effort and commitment needed to achieve it.
Expectations have shifted. We're entitled now to be happy and successful. We're entitled to having a well paid job, a healthy lifestyle, and a comfortable lifestyle. Entitlements based outside of the realities of real life, but there's the expectation that reality should be changed to fit those expectations. Any deviation to that expectation is a sign of resistance to modernization and discrimination.0 -
Kind of on topic for some of the past few posts on discussion. The author of this article doesn't really seem to get that to get ahead within a job you must be willing to sacrifice as much as they sacrifice to have a family.
Flexible working hours on paper is great but it brings with it a whole host of problems. I have many work colleagues in the states and guess what happens there? 5-6 weeks paid maternity leave and then straight back to work, allot of my colleagues are given the flexible working hours that work around family but they also are back at it nearly straight away.
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/lorraine-courtney-nine-to-five-is-a-tired-format-until-mums-have-flexibility-the-salary-gap-will-remain-38839954.html0 -
Well here we have to be specific, a hundred years ago or when Gates was in college? Or when Musk was starting out?Deleted User wrote: »I think he means it in relation to the general perception about achieving success. Take the American dream for example. A hundred years ago, there was the definite belief in the land of opportunity, but the expectation that hard work and a little bit of luck was involved. There was also the awareness that there would be many failures along the way.
Really? Is there not a possibility that the US being the least socially mobile country in the developed world might have something to do with it?Nowadays, the American dream still exists, but many people are claiming it no longer does. Why? Because they're talking about what they're entitled to having. They're talking about cutting away the hard work, and not accepting the many failures on the road to success. instant gratification, and instant success (or at least within a much smaller timeframe) is now the expectation, and that's why so many people become disillusioned with the "american dream" concept.
Is there? I'm far more used to someone in their 60s or 70s refer to someone as a "hungry bastard". Though I have started using it myself. :pac:Social values have changed. There's less appreciation for the hard work, and commitment needed to achieve the success at the top. Instead, there's the expectation that such positions should be just as easy/difficult as the lower spectrum, with considerably less effort and commitment needed to achieve it.
What do you mean by "entitled" exactly? People always wanted a job that could provide them with a certain level of comfort. Amazingly when people worked 7 days a week most would prefer 6. When it was 6 most preferred 5. When it was 12 hour shifts people preferred 10 hours. Then they preferred 8. Now that both parents are expected to work people prefer at least one parent to have some flexibility to look after the kids at times. That's not entitlement, that's more work being done than 30 years ago.Expectations have shifted. We're entitled now to be happy and successful. We're entitled to having a well paid job, a healthy lifestyle, and a comfortable lifestyle. Entitlements based outside of the realities of real life, but there's the expectation that reality should be changed to fit those expectations. Any deviation to that expectation is a sign of resistance to modernization and discrimination.0 -
Flexible working hours on paper is great but it brings with it a whole host of problems. I have many work colleagues in the states and guess what happens there? 5-6 weeks paid maternity leave and then straight back to work, allot of my colleagues are given the flexible working hours that work around family but they also are back at it nearly straight away.
No maternity cover and no annual leave don't follow from flexible working arrangements, they preceded the modern flexitime-type arrangements.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »No maternity cover and no annual leave don't follow from flexible working arrangements, they preceded the modern flexitime-type arrangements.
They do but the American model is very focused on career and I was using it as an example of what that takes to get to.
There are only 24 hours in a day so it has to come out of somewhere.
Additionally I suppose right now I know for my company at least when it comes to downsizing the first cut loose are those on remote working.0 -
Kind of on topic for some of the past few posts on discussion. The author of this article doesn't really seem to get that to get ahead within a job you must be willing to sacrifice as much as they sacrifice to have a family.
Flexible working hours on paper is great but it brings with it a whole host of problems. I have many work colleagues in the states and guess what happens there? 5-6 weeks paid maternity leave and then straight back to work, allot of my colleagues are given the flexible working hours that work around family but they also are back at it nearly straight away.
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/lorraine-courtney-nine-to-five-is-a-tired-format-until-mums-have-flexibility-the-salary-gap-will-remain-38839954.html
but seems aligned with another paper from 2014 I posted here - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=112109231#post112109231
and that paper was focused on situation in US.0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »Because it's a cycle. If certain education paths are careers are hugely male dominated, young girls and women are given the message 'this isn't for me'. I've always been a giant computer nerd but was massively put off by being the only girl in the class in secondary. My teacher even openly dissuaded me from doing a comp sci degree because of how isolating it would be, surrounded by only male students and taught by all male professors. It's intimidating and annoying. I wanted to learn, not have to listen to stupid comments and faux compliments about how I was good at coding 'for a girl' when I was the best student in the class.
It's also a well known fact that there is massive bias in hiring in that people tend to hire people who are like themselves. This is not only gendered - it also manifests in things like class/background/accent, but in certain professions, an all-male interview panel means it's highly likely that they'll choose a new hire who is just like them because they'll 'fit in' better, regardless of which candidate is actually more competent. I went through a number of software developer interviews fairly recently (in the last 18 months) and was rejected from more than one for not being a 'cultural fit'. They might as well have come out and said it's because I'm a woman. I got through all the technical challenges just fine and I interviewed well. I just knew when I saw the office full of men with beards in black T shirts that I was never going to get the job, and lo and behold I was right.
But lainey, this isn’t necessarily a male thing. In my first graduate job, my boss told me that some dude and I got the same score in the interview and the tie-breaker was that it was thought that I’d fit into the all-female team better.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Well here we have to be specific, a hundred years ago or when Gates was in college? Or when Musk was starting out?
Except that I talked about a shift in perceptions about the steps or process towards gaining success. It's about a change in perception over the last thirty to forty years.Really? Is there not a possibility that the US being the least socially mobile country in the developed world might have something to do with it?
I suspect India is far less socially mobile than the US.. You might want to think about perspective here. (ahh I missed the developed world... err... Russia I suspect is worse]
The US was/is extremely good for entrepreneurs. It used to be far better a place for them, but it's digressed somewhat due to tax and other regulations. It's still a great country for those who want to develop/create a business.
And you're jumping goalposts.Is there? I'm far more used to someone in their 60s or 70s refer to someone as a "hungry bastard". Though I have started using it myself. :pac:
Except, of course, I have no idea why you said it in relation to the quoted piece.What do you mean by "entitled" exactly? People always wanted a job that could provide them with a certain level of comfort. Amazingly when people worked 7 days a week most would prefer 6. When it was 6 most preferred 5. When it was 12 hour shifts people preferred 10 hours. Then they preferred 8. Now that both parents are expected to work people prefer at least one parent to have some flexibility to look after the kids at times. That's not entitlement, that's more work being done than 30 years ago.
It's pretty obvious what I mean by entitlement... considering you shifted it to "wanted".. It's a fairly common discussion piece that people feel entitled to certain benefits which people from other generations didn't consider themselves entitled to, but were rather the fruits of their hard work. I don't really feel like spelling out the obvious here.
Which I suppose in a way, proves my point about people wanting things simplified. Thanks!
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement