With the rise of Nancy Pelosi to the third-highest office in the United States, several discussions sprang up. The focus is on why there are not more women holding C-level positions. Statements are made that hearken the age-old myths about women's being flickering personalities in the workforce compared with the assumed constancy of their male counterparts. There are the usual objections to putting women into positions of responsibility or hiring them for such. Those objections focus on the child bearing and child rearing functions that usually befall women. More objections arise in relation to absence from the office for delivery of the child.
Recently a group of university women had an informal discussion about the factors that vitiate their opportunities for having a meaningful impact in their chosen fields. They discussed the traditional argument about how they are supposed to leave the workforce for several years in order to bear and raise children. They considered the objections they will face if they accede to the brainwashing -- that they will no longer be in touch with current practices nor be aware of current trends and changes that occurred during their absence. They considered how to overcome that and the complementary objections. One pondered whether it's actually worthwhile to pursue a career given how many objections women will encounter compared with men.
They considered how women are discouraged from being in a laboratory and therefore do not earn the lab hours needed to reach their objectives. They also discussed the clever tricks the male students use to make it appear they are working harder than their female classmates.
The other matter the group of women considered is how women are not equally compensated for similar or the same work. In December 2002, I discussed the ComputerWorld study the found a large discrepancy between IT professional men's and women's compensation and number of hours worked. A 2005 study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the discrepancy had essentially not been ameliorated. Women working full time had a median weekly income of $585 compared with their male counterparts' $722. The median weekly income for women in management, professional, and related occupations in 2005 was $937 compared with that of men at $1,113.
The discussion group weighed the fact that girls and women are discouraged from studying and becoming an integral part of the sciences and the universe of computing, as well as their being made to feel inadequate in those areas. Ms. Foundation's initial Take Our Daughters to Work Day (that as of 2002 became gender inclusive) was intended to help girls overcome exactly those barriers that created the imbalance in so many work arenas. There are now many women in all facets of the computing industry. In medicine, the number is also extremely close to 50/50.
Go to a medical clinic and you're more likely to find a female, compared with a male, doctor. In the computing industry, the pay difference is more than the national average of 20 percent less than the male's salary. However, women gain something more than just the dollars (although dollars is the currency that manages financial obligations). They get satisfaction from finding the solution, doing the better job, putting in longer hours for better results. As the group of young women asked, is it worth it?
Those who raise the gender objection because of child bearing and rearing speak of the period of pregnancy as a time when a woman will deliver inadequate performance. They object that the maternity leave (six weeks, sometimes less) will be business time lost, as well as lost revenues due to compensating for the absence with contract workers. Allow me to pose the idea that a maternity leave can be planned and accommodations made for it. What of the employee who suddenly has a heart attack (due to overwork?) and is hospitalized, then put on leave for a protracted period? Let's say the employee is a man. The absence will be longer. Apparently we should view the man's absence in the same way (if all things are measured equally). We should see that he returns to the workforce after recovery with less value because he's not networked with other professionals. He has not maintained his industry knowledge nor technical expertise. And it will take an enormous amount of time for him to re-orient himself to the environment. Using this one example seems to help us see the flaws in the gender and child rearing/bearing argument.
The concern about women's erratic presence in the workforce is proffered as the basis for hiring a man instead or promoting a man. Little consideration is given to the fact that the resistance to promote women is cited as the primary reason many ultimately opt out of the traditional work culture. Even after they have proved themselves time and time again, they go unrewarded with promotion and corresponding compensation. The only alternative they see for attaining their goals is to leave their employers and start their own businesses, thereby becoming the greatest loss the employer could suffer. These women become not only their former employers' competitors; they are competitors who have insider information about strategies, personalities, corporate organizational chart, department cultures, and other cardinal intelligence.
A person's brain doesn't stop working when they've been put on "time out" because of having a child or having surgery on a limb or body part. It is entirely possible to continue to read. If they are a professional, we have so much adaptive technology that it's nearly impossible to not write and publish. Likewise, adaptive technology allows us to speak and communicate. Even if there is an injury that impairs a person's ability to speak, they can still (during recovery period) produce a webinar. And networking can occur via online contact. If the person is a professional, they will not lose their skills because of a temporary absence. The objections are not legitimate.
