Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Women in leading positions: They can if they wanto to, or? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi, I am studying business and would like to make a carreer in the future. But I have the impression it is quite hard. There are much more men at my university. I do not understand why? Do you have similar impressions? Can a women be good boss?
    Looking forward to hear you opinion.
    Selma
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Well nationwide there is actually more women in university to men.

    I think women can make good bosses, my previous and current are both female and were both very high up in their respective firms.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    Women can be good bosses but the issue is that not many women are bosses because employers know that once they get pregnant, things won't be the same again.

    The only way woman can be guaranteed a high position as in being a boss or manager is by self employment.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blackstarr)
    Women can be good bosses but the issue is that not many women are bosses because employers know that once they get pregnant, things won't be the same again.

    The only way woman can be guaranteed a high position as in being a boss or manager is by self employment.
    Or they could stop marrying men that mainly earn and work more than them.
    That way, being the main wage earnr these women would be under pressure to stop off for the minimum amount of time after having the baby and the bosses won't be worried about "things not being the same again"
    They will be fully dedicated to their careers the way that men are and would be as attractive to bosses as valued employees as men are.
    It's all in their own hands.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blackstarr)
    Women can be good bosses but the issue is that not many women are bosses because employers know that once they get pregnant, things won't be the same again.

    The only way woman can be guaranteed a high position as in being a boss or manager is by self employment.
    This is a very false statement and is an indication that many don't fully understand the structure of corporations. Discrimination is definitely present; however, to assume that the only way women can become successful is by self-employment is false.

    When an individual is hired, he/she is usually associated with a 'risk factor'. This means that there is always a risk associated with the person leaving at an early stage in their time there and therefore the corporation losing money on training and compensation. A question many employers ask is "Will she take maternity leave and not come back?" If she doesn't return, this is a massive cost that a corporation needs to take on and according to https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-128.pdf, "one in five women quit their job before or shortly after the birth of their child in 2006-2008". Therefore, why should a man who has taken no gaps or quit his job be passed for promotion simply because he's up against a woman? In its essence, that is discrimination and goes against the whole idea.

    I am against not providing female employees with sufficient maternity leave, especially as women should not have to choose career or family. But at the same time, I do not think it's right that a male be passed over for promotion simply because they want to have a more diverse management team. As a shareholder in many companies, I want the best return on my investment; I don't care if the person giving me this increased return is a man or a woman.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by caravaggio2)
    Or they could stop marrying men that mainly earn and work more than them.
    That way, being the main wage earnr these women would be under pressure to stop off for the minimum amount of time after having the baby and the bosses won't be worried about "things not being the same again"
    They will be fully dedicated to their careers the way that men are and would be as attractive to bosses as valued employees as men are.
    It's all in their own hands.
    Yes, but some woman want children.

    You have to consider all the factors.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by WokSz)
    This is a very false statement and is an indication that many don't fully understand the structure of corporations. Discrimination is definitely present; however, to assume that the only way women can become successful is by self-employment is false.

    When an individual is hired, he/she is usually associated with a 'risk factor'. This means that there is always a risk associated with the person leaving at an early stage in their time there and therefore the corporation losing money on training and compensation. A question many employers ask is "Will she take maternity leave and not come back?" If she doesn't return, this is a massive cost that a corporation needs to take on and according to https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-128.pdf, "one in five women quit their job before or shortly after the birth of their child in 2006-2008". Therefore, why should a man who has taken no gaps or quit his job be passed for promotion simply because he's up against a woman? In its essence, that is discrimination and goes against the whole idea.

    I am against not providing female employees with sufficient maternity leave, especially as women should not have to choose career or family. But at the same time, I do not think it's right that a male be passed over for promotion simply because they want to have a more diverse management team. As a shareholder in many companies, I want the best return on my investment; I don't care if the person giving me this increased return is a man or a woman.

    Firstly, I was not assuming, what I stated is merely true.

    Most companies have male bosses and its harder for women to be promoted especially once they are married because the employers knows that they will have to pay her maternity leave and on top of that get a replacement which means he will have to pay double the cost.

    You hardly see female politicians and when you look at investment banks, probably 1 woman out of all the banks will be at the highest position.

    We still live in a somewhat patriarchal society.

    Being a sole trader, you would have no manager and earn your own salary.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    My mom has worked her way up to being Managing Director in every company she has been employed by since she had me. (telecommunications outsourcing and manufacturing hydraulics - all quite male dominated industries)

    I think it's completely possible for anybody as long as you're motivated, driven and successful in what you do. The only point I would think about that applies to everyone is to get to this level it takes years of experience and learning so you'd probably not get there until you're of a certain age.

    i.e. I don't reckon there are many managing directors @ 25 (Unless you're self employed of course)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blackstarr)
    Firstly, I was not assuming, what I stated is merely true.
    You're missing the point. You're stating that women don't get to the top simply because of gender bias. If that is the case and a wage gap exists, companies will outright pay them less, save costs and therefore hire more women. All in all, an illogical conclusion.

    (Original post by Blackstarr)
    Most companies have male bosses and its harder for women to be promoted especially once they are married because the employers knows that they will have to pay her maternity leave and on top of that get a replacement which means he will have to pay double the cost.
    Again, not entirely true. Your statement assumes that male bosses have a bias based on gender. This is once again oversimplified and presumptuous. You're right that questions may be raised at times (e.g. if a female employee is around the age the majority of women get pregnant). But the problem isn't necessarily that women take the maternity leave it's that statistically the number of them returning is low. The added cost is not in the short-term issue but in the long-term. Senior hiring decisions are not taken simply because a woman took a few months off; it's that her experience contains an employment gap that spans years. This is a significant detriment to their career progression.

    (Original post by Blackstarr)
    You hardly see female politicians and when you look at investment banks, probably 1 woman out of all the banks will be at the highest position.
    Again, highly presumptuous. I'll use the example of Investment banks as it's one I have personally worked in. Like most companies, IBs are driven by increasing shareholder value. But cost-cutting is often the first strategy that they employ when trying to improve profits (more so than many F500s). Yet, under your theory Banks are openly discriminating against women simply because of their gender. But if women are paid less, why are they not being hired to more senior roles? I'm not going to come to conclusions on this, as it's irrelevant, but your assumptions are far too simplistic (as, unfortunately, the majority of people who favour this line of argument seem to be). Simply looking at Linkedin and concluding that not enough women are in senior positions is not a valid way of debating this and quite honestly, it's not constructive. The reasons behind this are far more relevant.

    (Original post by Blackstarr)
    We still live in a somewhat patriarchal society.
    Granted but that does not mean that organisations are discriminating against women simply because of their gender.

    (Original post by Blackstarr)
    Being a sole trader, you would have no manager and earn your own salary.
    Once again, I do not entirely agree with this but it's beyond the scope of the OP's points.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blackstarr)
    Yes, but some woman want children.

    You have to consider all the factors.
    I'm sorry, you miss my point.
    There's no reason why they can't have kids.
    O P says employers worry about women not being as committed and things not being the same once they have children.
    The main reason they think this way is becausei n their experience (generally) women take on the main childcare responsibilities. This means they often want to change their hours,they need time off for sickley kids, etc
    What's the overriding reason women take on this role? (Not counting the ones very happy to do it) financial reasons.
    This happens because the man is most often the main breadwinner and he is most often the main breadwinner because of the very common practice of hypergamy.
    If women weren't so keen (as a group) to marry good earners, most often earning more than them, then the men could be the ones going part time/doing sick duties etc.
    It is all in the hands of the women themselves.
    Marry men financially below you, then you be the main earner and you will be in a position to let them ( your partner ) be the one to ask for child friendly hours and the roles will be reversed .
    You will be able to do all the extra hours, go away to the confrences, do the late nights to meet the deadlines and show the commitment that men do now.
    Then managers will see you as committed as men despite you having kids and will invest in you like they do in men.
    Some how I can't see women doing this though.😟
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by WokSz)
    You're missing the point. You're stating that women don't get to the top simply because of gender bias. If that is the case and a wage gap exists, companies will outright pay them less, save costs and therefore hire more women. All in all, an illogical conclusion.



    Again, not entirely true. Your statement assumes that male bosses have a bias based on gender. This is once again oversimplified and presumptuous. You're right that questions may be raised at times (e.g. if a female employee is around the age the majority of women get pregnant). But the problem isn't necessarily that women take the maternity leave it's that statistically the number of them returning is low. The added cost is not in the short-term issue but in the long-term. Senior hiring decisions are not taken simply because a woman took a few months off; it's that her experience contains an employment gap that spans years. This is a significant detriment to their career progression.

    Again, highly presumptuous. I'll use the example of Investment banks as it's one I have personally worked in. Like most companies, IBs are driven by increasing shareholder value. But cost-cutting is often the first strategy that they employ when trying to improve profits (more so than many F500s). Yet, under your theory Banks are openly discriminating against women simply because of their gender. But if women are paid less, why are they not being hired to more senior roles? I'm not going to come to conclusions on this, as it's irrelevant, but your assumptions are far too simplistic (as, unfortunately, the majority of people who favour this line of argument seem to be). Simply looking at Linkedin and concluding that not enough women are in senior positions is not a valid way of debating this and quite honestly, it's not constructive. The reasons behind this are far more relevant.



    Granted but that does not mean that organisations are discriminating against women simply because of their gender.



    Once again, I do not entirely agree with this but it's beyond the scope of the OP's points.

    If you say so.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by caravaggio2)
    I'm sorry, you miss my point.
    There's no reason why they can't have kids.
    O P says employers worry about women not being as committed and things not being the same once they have children.
    The main reason they think this way is becausei n their experience (generally) women take on the main childcare responsibilities. This means they often want to change their hours,they need time off for sickley kids, etc
    What's the overriding reason women take on this role? (Not counting the ones very happy to do it) financial reasons.
    This happens because the man is most often the main breadwinner and he is most often the main breadwinner because of the very common practice of hypergamy.
    If women weren't so keen (as a group) to marry good earners, most often earning more than them, then the men could be the ones going part time/doing sick duties etc.
    It is all in the hands of the women themselves.
    Marry men financially below you, then you be the main earner and you will be in a position to let them ( your partner ) be the one to ask for child friendly hours and the roles will be reversed .
    You will be able to do all the extra hours, go away to the confrences, do the late nights to meet the deadlines and show the commitment that men do now.
    Then managers will see you as committed as men despite you having kids and will invest in you like they do in men.
    Some how I can't see women doing this though.😟
    That is my point, women are not taken seriously when they get pregnant as things won't be the same again.

    I am sure I have stated this in this thread before.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blackstarr)
    That is my point, women are not taken seriously when they get pregnant as things won't be the same again.

    I am sure I have stated this in this thread before.
    Yes , it's unfortunate isn't it, but their ( the employers) experience is thats what happens. For a great many women , Kids come along and the job takes a back seat.
    But here's the good news, the answer is in the hands of women themselves as I've said.
    They can be the main wage earners if they choose to and the men can be the primary care giver.
    Knock the hypergamy on the head and that will surely follow.😊
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by caravaggio2)
    Yes , it's unfortunate isn't it, but their ( the employers) experience is thats what happens. For a great many women , Kids come along and the job takes a back seat.
    But here's the good news, the answer is in the hands of women themselves as I've said.
    They can be the main wage earners if they choose to and the men can be the primary care giver.
    Knock the hypergamy on the head and that will surely follow.😊
    Yeah, I guess so.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "Kids come along and the job takes a back seat." - I think thats the problem, that we still think in these predjudices. I think women should be more selfconfident. here I found an article about a women who is mother while making a career...

    http://www.hhl.de/blog/en/embracing-advancement/
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 9, 2015
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.