TED Conversations

Neil Greco

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

The "Glass Ceiling" Will Reverse with Women on Top and Men on the Bottom.

In many ways, thankfully, Women are not only moving to Change the Effects of the Glass ceiling; I think they have already re-defined it; and at some point will smash it and. . . ultimately Men will experience a new Glass Ceiling of their own to contend with.

My rationale is that I think women are much more empowered now to reach their potential and have the drive and are working very hard to dispell the notion men were better or worth more compensation in the workplace, etc. I hope that curve continues. Women around the world are changing economies, etc. by becoming more succesful and taking on roles of leadership, being entrapenural, etc.

I think a primary reason or factor in the Flip of the Glass Ceiling will be that women are much more relational and better communicators in general as in comparrison to the male need to remain in a patriarchal mindset were being relational and communicating were (and I believe still are) not valued by men. The man makes decisions, expects to have them acted out, etc. I think men as a whole will not move towards the more succesful leadership style of women due to historical cultural roles and exprectations were a man 'not appear weak" etc.. For a man to stop and talk, etc. is (in my opinion) viewed as weakness by other men who view this as an opportunity to act and move up the ladder.. (my last one ->), etc.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 23 2011: I believe a woman deserves to have equal opportunities in career circles.

    You're bandying about some pretty big stereotypes in there, though.
    • thumb
      Jun 23 2011: You sure about that? Can you tell me if a woman is earning as much as a male in a similar position? I don't think we're done yet as far as equality. However, my opinion is Women will keep up their momentum towards equality (which has been an injustice for them) and not stop but keep going until they surpass men. I think it would be poetic justice.
      • thumb
        Jun 23 2011: There is definitely still plenty of room for equality. It's a recent news point in New Zealand. I think it depends more on the productivity of the individual than the gender.

        I'm a teacher by day and we all get paid the same (too little!) and it is dependent on qualification and experience (years in the job) rather than anything else, so I don't have a lot of knowledge about the private sector - which, as I understand it, is where this issue is most notable.

        By stereotypes, I mean that you seem to paint women in a more positive light than men and I believe we are all as bad/good as each other.
        • thumb
          Jun 24 2011: Scott, being a teacher, have you noticed the difference in males in the past decade in regards to their drive and ambition, social skills and plain old "wonderment"? There is a problem here in the states that I had not noticed when I taught in Serbia. What is is like there??

          (and see my post below if you want more info about what I am talking about)

        • thumb
          Jun 25 2011: Scott,

          I'm not sure about New Zealand's pay policies.

          But in the US professions in public sector and/or with organized labor advocates, including military and K-12 public educators, provide pay-equity that does not always translate to private sector.

          And I'd have to see some really robust data to agree with you that non-regulated pay-inequietes are due in any significant measure to productivity.

      • thumb
        Jun 24 2011: Neil, to me this is an important topic.

        However even thoughI do think your subject heading is correct, I am not too sure about all of your reasons. I think it is due to what is happening to our American males and the it first came to the limelight in 2003 with observations as found in this article http://smartpei.typepad.com/our_kids_their_future/2003/12/what_is_happeni.html and when after it came out, it was discovered that across the board, there were more women in college than men. And being a teacher, I had noticed the decline in drive even before this, but it really hit me when I witnessed that at my daughter's Senior Honors night, when those who had made honor roll and high honor roll were recognized, there were only 6 boys out of over 50 students; yet, when they brought up those who had made over 1200 on the SAT all were male sans one female! AND were they going to college? I found out later that only half due to their grades, and to me that is a travesty.

        We are failing our boys in a way...but too, they are failing themseves and what came out a few years ago is that same question is being asked by authors (http://www.generationnext.com.au/blog/?p=1366), and parents (https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=147409548658386&comments ; http://joanigeltman.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-is-happening-to-our-boys.html ), and teachers like me who ask them point blank what their 5-10 year goals are and many say don't have any, and employers like my brother who could not find any Am. men to fill engineering positons and had to go overseas.

        But it is more than this as it bothers me when I watch my local news on weekends (which isn't prime time), and there are NO male anchors at all! Females are doing news, weather and sports, and I am agog for this tells me not a lot of men are going into this field. The same thng is at my bank; all women except the manager.

        Neil, the "glass ceiling" has reversed, and the men are not just at the bottom, they have almost disappeared.
        • thumb
          Jun 24 2011: Linda do you think it is possible to teach to both sexes equally at the same time. I not talking about going back to when we segregated boys from girls, but instead find a way to acknowledge differences. If you haven't checked out Ali Carr-Chellman speech on this you should,

        • thumb
          Jun 24 2011: Hi Linda,

          I think we are witnessing the effects of the rise of feminism.

          I did a paper once at uni (for what that's worth) that stated that masculinity has traditionally been defined by what is NOT feminine. Given that women are gaining equality across the social spectrum (I know there is still some work to be done here), the line differentiating the masculine from the feminine is blurring and disappearing.

          What's left for men to claim as their own?

          Traditional male traits are no longer valued in modern society. Many male attributes, once considered worthwhile, are cast in a negative light.

          Protectiveness often seems perceived as jealousy;

          The man's traditional role as breadwinner is fast disappearing and yet women are still considered more emotional and nurturing than men;

          Physical strength and aggression no longer has a legitimate place beyond the sports-field;

          Even ridiculous fallacies like 'multi-tasking' seem to present women as superior.

          Boys have few decent role-models presented by a stupid and sensationalist mass media.

          Last but not least, there are still way too few men in teaching roles.

          We will find a way through this, but in my country, 'girl-power' has been banged on about for a good 30 years now.

          This was a necessary thing at the time, but now we need to do the same for boys who, by the same movement, have been labelled too physical, disruptive and unable to focus.
      • thumb
        Jul 4 2011: "Can you tell me if a woman is earning as much as a male in a similar position?"

        I've taken a closer look at many studies that were featured in German news media, and they were all faked ridiculously. A quite harmless way is to disregard overtime, for example. Another one consists in comparing the income in dependence of the official qualification, no matter whether one works as a Chief Developers for Google or is driving taxis. Currently our media uncovers the scandal that our female National Football players don't get the same payment as the males "for the same work". What the media doesn't say is that the quality of our Women Football players is so bad that they even lose against teenage teams - regularly! And those don't only get no money for their exercise hobby, but have to *pay* for training.

        So if there is a gap in the payment, how come that all the studies I examined needed to be forged? And I am not talking about invented numbers, I only took a short glance at the admitted methods. That doesn't even come close to the issue of confusing correlation with causation, which would be the next fundamental fallacy that these studies are committing. In other words: Even the most fervent, educated and well-financed "exposers" of supposed sex discrimination in payment are convinced that they cannot conduct actual studies. Better proof isn't possible without relocating funds to non-prejudiced researchers.

        And please, don't take my word for it. Check it for yourself. The next time you read the tale of the income gap, check the study that is cited. What criteria were used to form the groups for comparison? Which confounding variables were accounted for and how were they controlled? If someone succeeds in finding a study that a statistician in first semester wouldn't be able to tear apart and which gets presented in the German "quality" news media, please send me a link. I haven't encountered a single such case in my life...
      • thumb
        Jul 5 2011: "Can't answer your question unless you cite the studies you claim are "forged." "

        Sure you can. Search for a prominent article from a online or offline German newspaper or news magazine that is generally considered to be "high quality" (Zeit, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Spiegel Online...) dealing with the supposed income gap. Then look up the study cited. Then examine the used methods. And then wonder why it needed to be forged.

        In the last ten years, the awareness for such forgery has increased. That is why I prefer Spiegel Online by the way, because they have the largest, most active and most convenient comment function. Sometimes the newspaper even points out the flaws of the study cited itself, sparing me the few minutes I would have needed to find that out myself. For example, a simple Google search for "spiegel frauen einkommen" leads to an article from 2010 that titles "Income gap between men and women increases". However, the article surprisingly states that "the numbers don't allow conclusion regarding the difference in pay between men and women who have the same job, a similar function and according degrees". Probably only because it was part of the official press release. So this study doesn't even seem to *try* to make claims that it can't defend.

        And yet the gap is named "latent discrimination" in the article, and the EU Commissioner for Justice and Basic Rights, Viviane Reding, called it "inacceptable", demanded "more ambition" and announced fast measures. Typical socialist ideology according to which a person's pay should not be dependent of his profession or performance, in particular if that person owns a vagina...

        I have yet to see a study by the Federal Office for Statistics where other influences that were not accounted for are at least named. The best I ever got is that they admitted that such influences exist. That is honest and respectable, but only half of the way, because such a general disclaimer can't save much worse stats either.
        • thumb
          Jul 6 2011: Ray,

          Can you provide links to some of the many studies you've looked at that support your claim they are faked?

      • thumb
        Jul 5 2011: So how to do it right? Conduct a scientific study that takes all relevant aspects into account. That means:

        - Don't ignore degree, profession, job experience, position in the company, job tenure, part-time vs. full-time, collective bargaining coverage, working hours, company size and geographical location among others. A few studies of this quality do exist, at least at first glance.
        - Especially don't forget relevant personality characteristics influencing pay negotiations, something that I have never seen being accounted for in any study ever.
        - Use statistical methods to form groups out of the data, instead of applying preconceived categories. This is not only avoided regarding gender issues, but in many social studies in general, rendering a large part of them pseudo-scientifical.
        - ????
        - PROFIT!!!

        To the present day, not a single such study has never been conducted, no matter the amount of money, decades of research, numbers of universities involved et cetera. And the task is not impossible! So one should consider the possibility that this business is nothing more than an ideologically motivated hunt for a non-existing phantom...either that, or the phantom exists, but the people who are interested in examining it rationally don't. I don't know what would be worse.
      • thumb
        Jul 6 2011: @ Andrea

        Yes, I can name you faked studies. When I google for "verdienst männer frauen", my first result is an article from 2007 that leads to the website http://www.frauenlohnspiegel.de . It cites a "study" by a "research institute" by the Confederation of German Trade Unions. One that has so many methodical errors that I don't even know where to start. The most blatant flaw is that it is a non-representantive online-survey, which alone renders it completely useless. But what's worse is that I can basically type in any crap I like to in order to influence the statistics ("Vielen Dank für Ihre Mühe und Ihre Zeit. Ihre Daten sind nun erfasst und werden in den künftigen Lohn- und Gehalt Spiegel einbezogen.") I was even able to fill it out twice!

        And from this data they conclude: ""Zum Teil werden Frauen schlechter bezahlt, weil sie Frauen sind", fasst WSI-Experte Dr. Reinhard Bispinck die WSI-Analyse zusammen." They don't even try to explain how this conclusion follows from their collected "facts". Only once they address statistical issues, and there they write "Es handelt sich nicht um eine repräsentative Befragung. Die große Zahl von Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmern gewährleistet jedoch verlässliche Orientierungsgrößen." An actual statistician would *never* say such a thing! The Literary Digest believed exactly the same once, a mistake they would never recover from because their electoral predictions where lightyears away from reality. And that was in frakking 1936!

        You are free to take a closer look at that "study", I just wrote down what I found and figured out within a few minutes.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.