This article on FortWayne.com by Kansas City Star and Knight Ridder columnist Rhonda Chriss Lokeman brings up some good discussion points, some of them not what you might expect.
Things have changed, some good and some bad. There is still a sorority of suffering sisters with knots on their heads from hitting the glass ceiling or bruises in their ribs from being pushed out of the way by other women.
My initial reaction is: welcome to the world of business! I and a lot of other men could show you our scars as well. I lost a 15 year career simply because I wasn't in the leadership "inner circle" when a corporate buyout happened. Stuff happens.
Now, lest you think I'm insensitive, let's think this through.
In most big businesses, not only are women stalled by corporate cultures that work against them, but also by the demands of their jobs.
Women can't have it all. It takes some women years of shrinks, booze, backstabbing and honorary citizenship in Prozac Nation to figure it out.
I can verify that. Someone I dearly care about just left a company after over a decade of doing everything for the CEO while he spent most of his time at his second and third homes. And this company managed finances for "high net worth individuals". If you weren't worth, say $25M, they wouldn't work with you. This talented woman managed the assets of a man worth nearly a billion dollars. This classy woman got all the phone calls while the CEO was gone, and she was not rewarded at the same scale as other men in her office. She finally requested that this situation be corrected, and the CEO's response was to agree, but he refused to put anything in writing. Needless to say, another company saw her value, and offered her a position at twice the salary she was making.
The CEO is telling his clients who are shocked this woman is no longer working for him that he "couldn't match the signing bonus" she got. Hogwash. Most of you make in a month what her "bonus" was.
Her husband is convinced that because she didn't use the same bathroom as the boys she would never get ahead in this CEO's company or paradigm.
All that to say; sure there are grievous inequities. But let me ask you this.
Women can't have it all. It takes some women years of shrinks, booze, backstabbing and honorary citizenship in Prozac Nation to figure it out.
Do you really think that a man would fare any better trying to "have it all"? Fat chance. No one is capable of of "having it all" without sacrificing their health, their performance, or their family. It's a red herring that woman can't have it all. No one can.
Women who try to give 100 percent to the job and 100 percent to raising families ultimately get burned out - or burned - in each place.
I'm convinced it does a disservice to both men and women to make gender the only issue.
In real estate it's "location, location, location". In business it should be, "market forces, market forces, market forces". If you don't like company's hiring or advancement policies, make some noise. If a business feels that changing those elements causing them trouble is good for business, most of them will do it. The ones that don't, won't. And then you can vote with your feet or your checkbook.
Comment Preview