|
|
Latest Column:
Stopping
the Meltdown
What Beltway Republicans Need To Do
..........
CaliforniaRepublic.org
opinon in
Reagan country
..........
..........
Jon
Fleischman’s
FlashReport
The premier source for
California political news
..........
Michael
Ramirez
editorial cartoon
@Investor's
Business
Daily
..........
Do
your part to do right by our troops.
They did the right thing for you.
Donate Today
..........
 ..........
..........
tOR Talk Radio
Contributor Sites
Laura
Ingraham
Hugh
Hewitt
Eric
Hogue
Sharon
Hughes
Frank
Pastore
[Radio Home]
..........
|
|
 Glass
Ceiling Anniversary
Barrier or choice?...
[Sally C. Pipes] 9/13/05
Summer may
have been vacation time for many but it proved busy for those
who run think tanks. It was so busy that a key milestone slipped
by me – the 10-year anniversary of the "glass ceiling." This
term was coined by The Wall Street Journal to describe the
barriers that supposedly prevent women from rising to the very
top of the corporate world.
This ceiling
proved sufficiently agitating to the federal government that
it convened a Glass Ceiling Commission,
whose recommendations
emerged in 1995. The Commission found what one would expect – the
glass ceiling denied untold numbers of qualified women from the
executive ranks. More specifically, women had 45.7 percent of
the jobs in America and more than half of the nation’s
master’s degrees, yet 95 percent of senior managers were
men. In addition, women who did make it to senior management
level were earning only 68 percent of the going rate for their
male counterparts.
Ten years
later, according to The Economist, the percentage of women
in the work force is up to 46.5, but
only eight percent
of the top managers are female. The Economist also says that
women now average 72 percent of the earnings of their male colleagues.
The prestigious publication also looked at Japan and Britain,
where they found progress of a sort, though "glacially slow," and
concluded: "The glass-ceiling phenomenon is proving peculiarly
persistent. The top of the corporate ladder remains stubbornly
male, and the few women who reach it are paid significantly less
than the men they join there."
The magazine
faults blatant exclusion from informal networks, the pervasive
stereotyping of women's capacity for
leadership,
and a lack of role models. Only after running through this common
litany does The Economist raise the issue we have often discussed
in this column – the choices women make.
"Many women need to take time off during their careers," says
the publication. It cites evidence that, in America, more women
with children under the age of one are taking time off from work
than they did some years ago. Further, more and more women, "when
they are on the cusp of the higher echelon," are withdrawing
to care for elderly parents or deciding that the stress and long
hours associated with the executive suite are not really what
they want.
Indeed, personal
differences, effort, and choice explain a great deal more than
invisible barriers. As we recently
noted in this
column, some of the nation’s brightest and most successful
women, including the woman with the highest IQ in the world,
have chosen to say home for periods of time to care for their
children.
The Economist noted the various "diversity" measures
by companies but it seems clear that statistical disparities
will persist, as they do everywhere. It remains to be seen how
agitation about a glass ceiling helps women get to the top. And
when they do rise, they should not credit any Glass Ceiling Commission
with helping them get there. They also need to perform.
Women should not get top jobs, or retain them, simply because
of gender. We should both keep the job market free of quotas
and deal with legitimate discrimination whenever it occurs. We
should also let women make their own choices, regardless of whether
we happen to agree with them. tRO
copyright
2005 Pacific Research Institute
§
|
|
|
