×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Sheryl Sandberg and Technology's Female Leaders

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the breaking-the-glass-ceiling dept.

Facebook 181

AlistairCharlton writes "While the rest of the world continues to see men dominating, the technology industry seems set to change that. I investigate how Sheryl Sandberg, Marissa Mayer, Meg Whitman and Joanna Shields are paving the way for the rest of the business community. From the article: 'A glance at the male/female split of world leaders (178/17), Fortune 500 CEOs (96 percent/four percent) and FTSE 100 board seats (85 percent/15 percent) reveals there is a huge imbalance between the sexes, but in technology change is underway - and Sandberg is at the very forefront of it. Along with Meg Whitman, Marissa Mayer and Joanna Shields of HP, Yahoo and London's Tech City respectively, Sandberg represents a shift in what was not so long ago an all-male industry.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

When women can be despised... (4, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 years ago | (#43141515)

for being sociopathic, greedy CEOs and politicians, only then will we have equality.

Re:When women can be despised... (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 2 years ago | (#43141671)

There are plenty of women that I despise for being sociopathic and greedy as it is. More so with men. But what's this "when" crap? Just call it out like it is. Don't be a coward about it! Grow a pair and speak your mind freely!

Re:When women can be despised... (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#43142579)

That is the dumbest thing I've heard all day, how'd confronting those women in your life go for you?

never been married? (1)

charnov (183495) | about 2 years ago | (#43142075)

So... you've never been married, then?

Re:never been married? (2)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#43142477)

You must be new here. :)

Re:When women can be despised... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142161)

I see you haven't met Carly Fiorina.

No matter.. being a white knight still won't get you laid, douche.

Re:When women can be despised... (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#43142203)

They already are? Who is more hated than Nancy Pelosi? Who is more dangerous than Janet Napolitano? Who has fucked up more than Carly Fiorina?

Re:When women can be despised... (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#43142563)

We also need a few good sexual harassment scandals.

Re:When women can be despised... (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | about 2 years ago | (#43142577)

Looking for something that isn't there. Women are and always have been large contributors to the tech world. They just normally operate behind the scenes--on the same hand most men operate behind the scenes.

Carly (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43141523)

Don't forget Carly Fiorina and her contributions to making HP and Compaq the successful companies they are today.

Re:Carly (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 2 years ago | (#43141701)

There's no reason to extrapolate one woman to all women. But yes, Carly was bad.

Re:Carly (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142239)

Why not? Women do that to men all the time.

Re:Carly (4, Insightful)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 2 years ago | (#43142207)

Carly wasn't bad because she's a woman, or because she's a self-absorbed sociopath who only saw HP as a big money pot from which she could extract a personal fortune (regardless of the costs to the company or its employees), she was actively incompetent at running a technology company due to a lack of experience with, or any interest in, high technology. Her education was in liberal arts, and then several extended business degrees. That's pretty much a formula for failure in almost any industry, but particularly so in the tech industry. She was just a female version of John Scully's disastrous run at Apple without Scully's good luck at joining at the right time.

Re:Carly (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 2 years ago | (#43142459)

Carly wasn't bad because she's a woman, or because she's a self-absorbed sociopath who only saw HP as a big money pot from which she could extract a personal fortune (regardless of the costs to the company or its employees), ...

I thought that was part of the typical CEO job-description. Perhaps just typical on Wall Street then...

Re:Carly (1)

operagost (62405) | about 2 years ago | (#43142849)

Compaq was acquired by HP well before she became CEO.

I don't consider the HP example a good one. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43141525)

She's practically an argument against letting women be in charge of anything outside of a kitchen. And not one of those fancy restaurant kitchens.

But I'll be fair, the rest of HP's CEOs lately haven't been much better.

Re:I don't consider the HP example a good one. (4, Funny)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 years ago | (#43141551)

I'm betting Carly can't make a good sandwich ether.

Re:I don't consider the HP example a good one. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43141871)

Maybe a decade ago and after enough beer...

Re:I don't consider the HP example a good one. (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#43141979)

I'm betting Carly can't make a good sandwich ether.

...and I bet when she was three she dreamt she could save Mario from Donkey Kong. Like that could ever happen!... Oh, wait...

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/345409 [digitaljournal.com]

Parent is right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43141711)

She's practically an argument against letting women be in charge of anything outside of a kitchen. And not one of those fancy restaurant kitchens.

But I'll be fair, the rest of HP's CEOs lately haven't been much better.

Yeah. She was a micro manager.

Once during an interview, the interviewer said in an accusatory tone, "It's been said that you didn't pay attention to day to day activities."

She responded with, "I did." and so forth defending herself with examples on how she was there looking over day to day activities of the business.

That was the WRONG answer. CEOs are supposed to be big picture people - long term strategy: understand the markets, the industry, the economy - NOT day to day happening in the business. The President and underlings worry about day to day activities.

So yes, she belonged in the kitchen making sammiches and getting beers.

Feminism (0, Troll)

rhyder128k (1051042) | about 2 years ago | (#43141531)

Job such as teaching is female dominated = women's brains have evolved to be better at certain things.

Negative role such as being in prison is male dominated = men's brains are different.

Positive role such as winning sole custody of one's children is female dominated = women will always be better are certain things.

Job is male dominated = men and women are equals.

It's femilogical, and you're being sexist if you don't agree.

Re:Feminism (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43141605)

Teaching is female dominated because male teachers are automatically assumed to be pedophiles.

Re:Feminism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43141657)

Teaching is female dominated because men can get a less crappy job than teaching.

Re:Feminism (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#43141695)

Which only reinforces the GP point.

Re:Feminism (-1, Troll)

Elbereth (58257) | about 2 years ago | (#43141623)

Thank you for starting us off with a whiny, misogynist rant. Now that that's taken care of, maybe we can move on to discussing the more important topics.

Re:Feminism (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 years ago | (#43141683)

Your one of rhyder's sock puppets! Why else would someone come along to reinforce his concluding line?

Re:Feminism (-1, Flamebait)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#43141685)

He started with a very lucid and logical complaint about misandry, but I reckon that it should be hard for you to realize you are a misandrist bitch.

Re:Feminism (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142013)

"Misogynist"

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Feminism (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43141673)

Job such as teaching is female dominated = women's brains have evolved to be better at certain things.

Negative role such as being in prison is male dominated = men's brains are different.

Positive role such as winning sole custody of one's children is female dominated = women will always be better are certain things.

Job is male dominated = men and women are equals.

It's femilogical, and you're being sexist if you don't agree.

Exactly. What this article seems to be preaching is "equal outcome", as opposed to "equal opportunity". In the U.S. and other western countries, women have the same *opportunity* as men to dominate in these fields. Opportunity is different than outcome. We don't "need" to have a perfect 50% men/women split in industries. We "need" to have the same opportunity available for both sexes.

Each gender is typically going to trend towards certain professions, and that is perfectly fine. The genders may be equal, bu they are certainly not interchangeable, as much as the P.C. cops would like you to believe. Your example of the education industry is valid.

Re:Feminism (4, Insightful)

Crimey McBiggles (705157) | about 2 years ago | (#43141851)

It's not sexist to disagree with a poorly worded argument.

Re:Feminism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142593)

Marge Schott was one of the best owners in the NFL.

Women in technology (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43141561)

Are these women attractive? How many uglies are in the lineup?

Food for thought. When women are being given a free pass for being pretty despite an availability of more qualified males, they allow themselves to be cheapened like never before.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Women in technology (1)

hackula (2596247) | about 2 years ago | (#43142861)

How are the women responsible ("allowing themselves to be cheapened") when it is men making bone-headed (pun intended) decisions?

flimsy article thrown together (5, Insightful)

EjectButton (618561) | about 2 years ago | (#43141569)

Surprising that this article praises the disaster that is Meg Whitman, and completely omits Ginni Rometty the current CEO of IBM who has worked everywhere within the company over 30 years and has CS and EE degrees.

Re:flimsy article thrown together (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43141627)

Surprising that this article praises the disaster that is Meg Whitman, and completely omits Ginni Rometty the current CEO of IBM who has worked everywhere within the company over 30 years and has CS and EE degrees.

Anything with women in it must be better than if it has men. Holds true for movies, car show rooms and now corporate board meetings.

Women are better than men. Better educated, better social skills and better at multitasking. Generally better. Can a man have babies? See. Women are better. Men consume more resources, even more food, and behave worse. Most killers are men. Wars are fought by men. See. Men are really animals, like the Swedish feminist Ireen von Wachenfeldt stated on national television.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBtKxYKQI_8 [youtube.com]

Re:flimsy article thrown together (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142609)

Feminists.... the bane of human reproduction.

Also Xerox (4, Interesting)

alispguru (72689) | about 2 years ago | (#43141707)

... which has had all female CEOs since 2001.

Xerox is not as exciting as HP, but its CEOs have not done large, showy reorganizations that destroyed once-proud solid engineering traditions, so there's that.

Re:Also Xerox (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142391)

... which has had all female CEOs since 2001.

Xerox is not as exciting as HP, but its CEOs have not done large, showy reorganizations that destroyed once-proud solid engineering traditions, so there's that.

Um, what? You really don't know what you're talking about do you... Ursula Burns took over Xerox and then took a wreaking ball straight to engineering.

Ursula Burns sold off large portions of engineering based in the USA to HCL [theoutsourceblog.com] , an Indian outsourcing company, then proceeded to dismantle or outsource everything related to product engineering.

But hey, at least she's hiring call center employees [13wham.com] to replace the engineering positions that have been moved to India.

Ursula Burns is the number one most hated CEO [businessinsider.com] in the tech industry. I wonder why?

Re:Also Xerox (3, Insightful)

EvilSuggestions (582414) | about 2 years ago | (#43142425)

Speaking as someone who was IRIF'ed during a large, showy reorganization at Xerox, I beg to differ:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228947/Xerox_s_outsourcing_one_year_later_layoffs [computerworld.com]
And that move definitely destroyed the once-proud solid engineering traditions of the Phaser printer org that Xerox acquired from Tektronix. Used to be an amazing group of innovative engineers there, and now just a burnt out husk remains.

Re:flimsy article thrown together (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43141749)

Add Ursula Burns [wikipedia.org] (CEO of Xerox) who comes from a disadvantaged background and has two science degrees.

Re:flimsy article thrown together (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43141773)

Bingo. Yet another dumb piece written by a professional grievance-mongerer.

Progressives have an essentially theological belief that all men and women were Created with equal souls, and that any disparity in positions of prestige or any other kind of unequal outcome is clear evidence of discrimination. After 40 years of trying to cajole women into entering STEM fields, a reasonable person would have long ago decided to let people choose for themselves.

There are some women, like the CEO of IBM, who are probably insulted by how everyone implicitly suspects them of being affirmative action hires. As a mathematician, I know who the mathematicians are and who the affirmative action beneficiaries are in my community. If I know, they have to know it too.

The author of this piece probably wants more explicit government-granted preferences for women-owned and minority-owned businesses, because nothing says 'economic efficiency' quite like government-enforced bigotry.

Re:flimsy article thrown together (2)

hedwards (940851) | about 2 years ago | (#43142395)

You make it sound like becoming CEO has anything to do with talent and ability. If you take a look at the people who have managed to get the job, often times it's a matter of whom they know rather than what they know.

And the cajoling is working, when I was getting my degree in the Natural sciences my classes were roughly 2/3 women in all cases.

Re:flimsy article thrown together (5, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#43141805)

completely omits Ginni Rometty the current CEO of IBM who has worked everywhere within the company over 30 years and has CS and EE degrees.

Maybe because she spends her time running the company, instead of grandstanding about herself in the media . . . ?

Carol Barth (2)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#43142463)

Carol Barth did well running Autodesk. Not so well at Yahoo, but that was Yahoo's problem. Nobody else has been able to turn around Yahoo either.

Medical Doctors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43141891)

I prefer women medical doctors - and I'm a guy.

Women seem to listen more, understand more and I have had better outcomes with them.

Yeah, I have no data to back up my claims. It's just my experience.

Although, I once had an embarrassing moment when the female physician was checking my genitals. Trying to integrate x^2 + y^3 + ln(z) dxdydz doesn't work, btw. She was quite certain that I don't need Viagra.

Re:Medical Doctors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142773)

So what you are really telling us you suck at math and have no self control?

Re:flimsy article thrown together (5, Insightful)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about 2 years ago | (#43141947)

I think there are two types of CEO and it's not really about gender.

One of them knows a lot about the business because they worked their way up in the company and will follow an evolutionary path. Maybe their skills are a bit out of date by the time they get to the top, but at least they had skills once.

The other is someone who has worked in management jobs in a lot of companies doing a lot of different stuff, getting to be CEO via a series of jumped ships - each one higher than the last but each one was in a completely different business area. They'll follow a completely unpredictable and revolutionary path with a high chance of failure because they don't really know anything about the concrete business area - they've only really worked in it as CEO and if you're CEO you're right axiomatically when you say anything. They do however know a lot about business in the abstract - megatrends like outsourcing vs insourcing for example. They are probably very, very intelligent and persuasive too - you need to be if you can talk people into giving you the keys to their billion dollar company.

I think there's a need for both types of people in an organisation but you're kidding yourself if you think hiring someone who knows nothing about the business as CEO means they will beat the odds - i.e. outperform the evolutionary alternative.

It has happened of course, but I think people overestimate the probability of it. But then again most share holders are terrible gamblers who always think they can beat the odds. So it's not that surprising that boards made up of shareholders hire type II CEOs and screw the company. Then again maybe they knew that the evolutionary approach wasn't good enough to keep the company going too. That's probably true of most household name companies - an evolutionary approach means they will fade away in a couple of decades.

Re:flimsy article thrown together (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142513)

I see that they completely omit Marisa Mayer's whole "sleeping with the founder/CEO" part.

As long as women keep getting ahead in powerful positions by sleeping with their bosses, there will always be a little bit of a dissenting "meh" about it.

Also, congratulations women -- we've been running companies for fucking thousands of years. Let me pull out the party hats because you're starting to get your shit together after all this time.

News at 11: Rest of us "Don't Give a Fuck" (2)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 2 years ago | (#43141601)

The rest of us just don't care about the gender of who successfully runs a company.

Only when they unsuccessfully run it does someone get their panties in a knot by playing some imaginary gender card.

The majority "Don't give a fuck." I don't see too many men (or women) complaining that only women can give birth.

Re:News at 11: Rest of us "Don't Give a Fuck" (2)

XanC (644172) | about 2 years ago | (#43141659)

I don't see too many men (or women) complaining that only women can give birth.

Oh yes they do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c [youtube.com]

Re:News at 11: Rest of us "Don't Give a Fuck" (1)

fbobraga (1612783) | about 2 years ago | (#43141795)

+1 Informative

Re:News at 11: Rest of us "Don't Give a Fuck" (1)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#43141723)

Eh, it does matter though. People tend to hire and promote people like themselves, and when you look at companies that have women in senior positions they also tend to have more women all through the career path including more hires in the first place. So women have a better chance of being hired and getting promotions at a company run by a woman.

Re:News at 11: Rest of us "Don't Give a Fuck" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43141827)

If you are correct, then the obvious corollary is men at those companies have a worse chance of being hired and getting promotions at a company run by a woman.

It is certain that women are under-represented but if the goal of hiring women is to hire more women, that's not a worthy cause. The goal should be to treat men and women equally, and that's a completely different thing. Focusing on gender means men and women aren't being treated equally. Let's focus instead on qualifications, period. If more men have them than women, it's right that there is a gender bias. It means, if there is a problem, the problem isn't with the hiring. The problem is either with the qualification system (i.e. the qualifications themselves are wrong or the method for becoming qualified is flawed) or there is simply an innate difference in the desire between men and women for the position (which means there isn't even a problem).

Re:News at 11: Rest of us "Don't Give a Fuck" (3, Informative)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#43142073)

'Worthy' is a highly subjective concept. Right now, people are not being treated equally, and men with the same qualifications and performance have a better chance of being hired and promoted then women. Even at companies that have women in senior positions men STILL have better chances then their female counterparts.

So yes, I do consider hiring more women to be a worthy cause because right now there are systemic problems that result in fairly poor representation of women in tech.

Yes, I agree that the goal should be to treat men and women equally, but we are a long way from that and it makes a rather poor argument for why we should not be trying to improve things.

And unfortunately, the 'innate' argument is just complete and utter bunk, yet it keeps getting trotted out as a rationalization for discrimination.

Re:News at 11: Rest of us "Don't Give a Fuck" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142261)

Even at companies that have women in senior positions men STILL have better chances then their female counterparts.

CITE?

So yes, I do consider hiring more women to be a worthy cause because right now there are systemic problems that result in fairly poor representation of women in tech.

Really? There are as many women entering technical majors, with similiar inclinations to the geeks that they're competing against to work 'off hours'?

Didn't think so, you disingenouous motherfucker.

Screw you and your politically progressive ideology, prole. We're all about the meritocracy in tech. Women do not, nor have they ever had, the goods to deliver.

Re:News at 11: Rest of us "Don't Give a Fuck" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142723)

We're all about the meritocracy in tech. Women do not, nor have they ever had, the goods to deliver.

Nor have they ever had?

Sorry, programmers and CS grads used to be 40% women in the 70s.

If you want to say that women were smart enough to get out of the industry before it turned to shit, go ahead, but Grace Hopper would rip you a new asshole.

Re:News at 11: Rest of us "Don't Give a Fuck" (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 2 years ago | (#43141949)

"imaginary gender card"? You need to build up the nerve for the first time in your life to talk to a woman in IT and see what she thinks about that.

Re:News at 11: Rest of us "Don't Give a Fuck" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142359)

It's all about on the job performance. I've seen females promoted well beyond their ability with alarming regularity, even more so than men.

The whole 'shaming' and 'bet you don't have the balls to do this' ruse is old. I destroy white knights like you on the job on a regular basis.

Re:News at 11: Rest of us "Don't Give a Fuck" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142089)

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Re:News at 11: Rest of us "Don't Give a Fuck" (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#43142549)

I'm a bit tired of everything having to be celebrated when it's "the first time . . . . for a woman" to do something. I suppose it still even being remotely worth commenting on when it happens is sort of the point, though.

At any rate, I've had the fortune to work with some fucking amazing women in my career. Not as a CEO or anything, yet, but as managers and colleagues and they have earned everything they've achieved and then some. If anything, stories about successful women just sort of tire me, because I've been in a career where they have been fairly plentiful and rather excellent, so it feels like "business as usual", as far as I'm concerned.

Re:News at 11: Rest of us "Don't Give a Fuck" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142661)

I'm jealous. I've not really even had the opportunity to work with amazing people, period. Most of my immediate peers, male or female, are pretty genuinely underwhelming.

Have rich parents, marry well, hire maids. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43141641)

You go girl. Best known for her groundbreaking leadership on which project again? Don't be afraid to be bossy. Buy my book.

This is what class war looks like. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43141669)

As opposed to blacks, Asians, or other minorities in those positions; we should focus on women, because white women are surely more oppressed than them.

Need I point out that the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action has been white women.

These are not Women In Tech (4, Insightful)

databeast (19718) | about 2 years ago | (#43141677)

Female executives for a company that just happens to be in tech, doesn't count to women in tech, just women in business.

Re:These are not Women In Tech (3, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#43142135)

That's not really true, and it shows the dangers of lumping people together. An example of the difference:

- Marissa Mayer has a B.S. and M.S., with honors, from Stanford specializing in artificial intelligence. That's where she met Larry and Sergei, and became Google employee #20 as an engineer. It's safe to say that if you put her down in front of a bash prompt with some broken code she'd show you that she is in fact quite capable technically. So I'd consider her a woman in tech, and a highly successful one at that.

- Meg Whitman has no technical skills whatsoever, and is the exemplar of the myth that it's possible to run an organization well when you have no clue what your people are doing. Her career start was as a brand manager for Proctor & Gamble, then management consulting, and as far as I can tell she's never held a job where her primary responsibility was to actually make a product or sell a product. To give you an idea, at the beginning of her time at eBay, the website crashed, so Whitman's first goal was to create a new executive team.

Re:These are not Women In Tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142591)

But, unlike Marissa Mayer, I don't know that it's general knowledge that Meg Whitman ever slept with her boss.

Re:These are not Women In Tech (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 years ago | (#43142797)

Is it Larry or Sergei that calls his dick 'bash prompt'?

Re:These are not Women In Tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142181)

Yup, as usual.

shift.... (1)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#43141681)

Let us not forget though that tech used to have a larger female representation then it does today. So when we are back to the ratio we had in the 80s and push beyond that, THEN we can start patting ourselves on the back.

Re:shift.... (3, Insightful)

englishknnigits (1568303) | about 2 years ago | (#43141833)

How about pat ourselves on the back when we feel there is equal opportunity and stop caring about ratios (outcome)? Equal opportunity != equal outcome.

Re:shift.... (1, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#43141985)

Actually, equal opportunity, spread out across a large industry, should have pretty equal outcome. The poor ratio is a good indicator that access is not equal.

Re:shift.... (2)

englishknnigits (1568303) | about 2 years ago | (#43142199)

What basis in reality do you have to support that claim? Female and male interests are not identically distributed so why would the outcomes be identical? Do you think that the ratio of men and women that buy/wear dresses will be the same as long as there is equal opportunity for men and women to buy dresses?

I would agree that an unequal ratio is sufficient reason to ask the question if there is actually equal opportunity but it doesn't mean there isn't equal opportunity.

Re:shift.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142617)

Probably not. On the other hand, *maybe* . . . if you factor out things like birth, staying at home and raising children, economic backgrounds, social backgrounds, and countless other factors. By this logic, since nothing is barring men from being nail salon workers, exactly 50% of those positions should be filled by men. (Well, 46%, because women make up 54% of the population).

Oh, and that's another thing -- when your gender makes up 54% of the population, you don't get to act like a minority.

Re:shift.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142615)

On NPR this morning Sheryl Sandberg discussed a study (IIRC) wherein the authors found that as male managers gain power, they are perceived by men and women as being more likable, whereas when female managers gained power they were seen as less likable by men and by women.

So you're right, it's not the ratios we need to fix. It's the underlying societal dysfunction that is driving the ratio inequality that we need to fix.

Re:shift.... (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 years ago | (#43142829)

NEVER accept anything produced by a sociologist at face value.

They just don't get the whole 'scientific method' thing.

Want to change society? (1)

Ossifer (703813) | about 2 years ago | (#43141763)

Work bottom-up, don't approach it top-down.

But are they more responsible? (2)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#43141781)

Just having female leaders is worthless if those leaders aren't any more responsible than the male leaders who preceded them. It's about responsible leadership not male to female ratios.

Re:But are they more responsible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43141907)

Haha, were you born yesterday?

Look up affirmative action.

Elizabeth Sthal.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43141809)

Now there's a good looker in those IBM ads im seeing on the right hand side of slashdot..

Really now IBM? That is the best looking Female engineer you have to sell your products? Jesus you guys need to have lunch with Bob Parsons - Minus the cocaine of course.

Re:Elizabeth Sthal.. (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#43141863)

I thought that was Sean White. My bad....

Re:Elizabeth Sthal.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142743)

Women bring a different dynamic to the workplace (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 2 years ago | (#43141831)

Really not trying to be sexist here which is the first problem. It's really difficult to address the difficulties pertaining to male vs. female co-workers/bosses when the core issues are so deeply ingrained in the differences which make it sexist.

I think I just gave myself a migrain.

Re:Women bring a different dynamic to the workplac (1)

Piata (927858) | about 2 years ago | (#43142041)

I got a migrain just trying to figure out what you were not trying to say while simultaneously trying to say something.

Marissa Mayer (2)

Torp (199297) | about 2 years ago | (#43141895)

Of "you can work 200 hour weeks if you sleep under your desk" (while at google) and more recently "no more telecommute" (at yahoo) fame?
Is that someone to be praised, regardless of gender?
I think she belongs on the "stay away form wherever she works" list.

Re:Marissa Mayer (3, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 2 years ago | (#43141969)

Waaah, MM took away work-at-home so now she's the new evil IT emperor?

Re:Marissa Mayer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142211)

Maybe not evil, just stupid. The work-at-home problem at Yahoo was caused by bad management. She'd rather punish employees who didn't abuse the system and may cause good workers to jump ship because it seems simpler revoke work-at-home than to deal with bad management that caused the problems in the first place.

Re:Marissa Mayer (1)

lobiusmoop (305328) | about 2 years ago | (#43142467)

Oh, the hypocrisy. [nbcnews.com]

Re:Marissa Mayer (1)

Torp (199297) | about 2 years ago | (#43142739)

Mmm that I didn't know. I thought she was still sleeping under her desk and doing 200 hour weeks while pregnant...

female slashdotters? (2)

illestov (945762) | about 2 years ago | (#43141951)

perhaps we could see what the females on slashdot think? *crickets*

Re:female slashdotters? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142045)

right, because there's no reason the "females" on slashdot might choose to skip reading the comments on this article.

Re:female slashdotters? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142275)

Why would they be reading the comments when they should be standing barefoot and pregnant in front of the oven making their owners (husbands) sandwiches?

A good woman knows her place is not in the office, but rather at home, raising the children and taking care of the house. Women just aren't as capable as men in pretty much every aspect.

Let this play out... (3, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | about 2 years ago | (#43142077)

A significant amount of the smart, talented women I know despise working for other women because female managers can be awful to women in a way that many men cannot even dream of treating female subordinates. Even in college, I saw some of this as one female professor was known to be utterly ruthless to female students who slacked off to a degree she almost never, ever dished out to her male students.

So I look forward to this trend with amusement because it very well may lay the foundation for an implosion of female involvement in our fields. And then the cycle will repeat itself...

color me sexist, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142129)

a woman taking over a company created by a man won't really be seen as dominating. Domination is seen when you create something game changing and steer the industry in a certain direction, not when you take over a healthy company and keep it that way or attempt to rescue a dying one.

Women will be seen in the same light as men once they create something like microsoft, google, or facebook to name a few and canive their way to the top.

NPR Morning Edition - Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (3, Informative)

elistan (578864) | about 2 years ago | (#43142217)

This morning on Morning Edition [npr.org] NPR broadcast a talk with Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg. (Probably because Sandberg has a new book out on the subject.) I thought it was quite interesting.

Re:NPR Morning Edition - Facebook COO Sheryl Sandb (2)

slew (2918) | about 2 years ago | (#43142637)

This morning on Morning Edition [npr.org] NPR broadcast a talk with Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg. (Probably because Sandberg has a new book out on the subject.) I thought it was quite interesting.

On the other hand this book also got Gloria Allred on the warpath to bash the book. Ms Allred's claim is that 'Lean In' (the title of Ms Sandberg's book) is a thinly veiled attempt to blame women for their own predicament. The basic premise of the book (I haven't read it yet), appears to be that women are not self-confident enough and that career choices for women are often about compromise, some of which are compromises that male colleagues do not have to make.

Instead, Ms Allred (in numerous radio interviews) appears to claim that the proper role of women who achieve in the workplace should be to encourage the enlistment of collective bargining (e.g., unions), to eliminate compromises and to help all women to achieve rather than to promote more self-confidence among women (since women are chided for being self-confident in the work place) and allow women make any career/family choices since they should be able to have it all.

An interesting spin on Ms Sandberg's book. One wonders if she meant that women should be submitting themselves to the male-dominated union power structure rather than promote their own accomplishments individually? I'm not sure if that's exactly how that's supposed to work out... Anyhoo... To each their own politics...

Re:NPR Morning Edition - Facebook COO Sheryl Sandb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142671)

Sheryl Sandberg. Proving the truth that if you have a successful family member, you can glom onto them and somehow be considered a successful pioneer for sheer luck.

she sounded arrogant on 60 Minutes (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 2 years ago | (#43142255)

But CEOs/COOs are not really that humble.

Women are evil bosses... (1)

lucm (889690) | about 2 years ago | (#43142645)

... as shown in the Showtime documentary "House of lies".

Ex-CFO has interesting point for men & women (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#43142815)

This was in the Sunday NYTimes Magazine. As I get older (not old...older) it surprises me how our society automatically makes assumptions about what it means to be successfull and how those assumptions always seem to glorify to work. Work, work, work, work. For beings with limited lifespans it seems like such a waste of time and energy.

"Is There Life After Work?"
  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/is-there-life-after-work.html?_r=0

Erin Callan is the former chief financial officer of Lehman Brothers
(she was forced out before they went bankrupt...)

Erin Callan (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | about 2 years ago | (#43142819)

Former CFO of Lehman Brothers is now crying over the loss of her marriage and lack of a family. Oh, boo hoo. Psychotic, the lot of them.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?