I shouldn’t be shocked, but I still am. You might think having a gifted wife would help these men understand the barriers women face, but no, stereotypes and blind spots can still persist.
5 Likes
I really didn’t hold it against that guy, and I was honestly glad he was so direct with me about speaking his mind. I wondered at the time if maybe all the professors were thinking something like that, but didn’t say it!
He was a great, brilliant professor and I was glad to work for him as a TA.
The problem wasn’t with the specific professor, but with a culture that:
- associates a desire to “help people” with women’s “maternal instinct”
- categorizes “helping people” as lower in status
- categorizes work as being about “helping special needs people” if it has anything to do with human differences
- distinguishes these things from “real science”
And it’s also problematic when there are so few women in a group that you really stick out like a sore thumb and everything about you gets associated with “being a woman.” There were really very, very few women in that department at that time.
12 Likes
We know a ton of couples where both spouses are super accomplished (PhDs etc.), but the husbands’ behaviors are pretty regressive. They consider themselves liberal and most would be really defensive if you pointed out their sexist behaviors. It’s like they think just because they vote a certain way and their wives are highly educated, it somehow makes them immune or absolves their sexist behaviors.
In our experience, the couples that manage to avoid this are usually proactive and self-critical in trying to snuff this out in their relationships. That is certainly what my spouse and I have done over the decades. The cultural sexism is quite insidious and it creeps in all over the place (hint, a lot of it starts at home).
7 Likes
“I am not ____ist / prejudiced against ____ , because I have a ____ friend that I respect. My friend is very smart / accomplished / etc., especially considering that they are a ____.”
Apparently it gets better when men have school age daughters though? Being a father to school-aged daughter 'makes men less sexist' | Gender | The Guardian
3 Likes
There’s a really great comic, if folks haven’t seen it, that touches on some of these ideas — the uneven distribution of labor even in hetero couples where the guy thinks he’s “available” — You Should’ve Asked. As a guy who thinks he helps more than he actually does, it’s … humbling.
8 Likes
Several thoughts when reading this:
- saying it doesn’t make it so
- actions speak louder than words
- empty virtue signaling is tiresome…waving a flag doesn’t make you patriotic; holding a Bible doesn’t make one Christian
Edited to add: while instances like the one ColdWombat shared, can be criticized, I guess it takes baby steps to change ingrained cultural views. Hopefully the husband continues to evolve. 
1 Like
Deleted, because question was answered later.
Here’s one data point from a software professional who was part of a very early wave of female CS graduates.
First, a little background: I was introduced to computing in high school via a class in very rudimentary punch cards ( I think we actually colored in circles on strips of paper to write our programs). My career goal prior to this class was to be a math/home economics teacher.
In choosing a college to attend, I chose the one that had a separate computer science department. I was one of a few women in most of my courses. In my junior/senior years, I took several engineering classes (computer hardware focused), where I was the only woman (or perhaps there were two of us). In hindsight, one transition that I think was challenging for my classmates (and myself), and the course structure, was moving from a concept that one needed to “do your own work, don’t cheat”, to the more collaborative teamwork model that I see some glimmers of in elementary education today. I graduated with degrees in both computer science and math. And went on to complete a certificate in telecommunications engineering.
In the field, I experienced several dichotomies. At one position, there was a coworker (male) who was to present a redesign of a subsystem I was responsible for. They scheduled (and missed) two meetings with me prior to the group presentation. I heard the material for the first time in the group presentation. I ended up being labeled (figuratively, of course) “not a team player”, because I was unable to provide constructive feedback on the spot. When brought up to upper management, I was brushed off. Of note, this was a subsystem that I had been hired on to rewrite on a new to them operating system. This initially involved me taking all kinds of input as to “how” to write this, and translating that into a simple chart that we all could talk about “what” the subsystem needed to do.
At another, I was valued for my ability to act as an interface between two departments, where the leads would not communicate with each other; but, downgraded for sharing an interesting detail of a bit of code I had discovered (trying to collaborate being perceived as asking for help on a simple task). Two sides of the same coin.
I know I brought a different perspective to the teams I worked with. I recall a meeting where a teammate and I were hashing out an idea, at what seemed like a foot above the rest of the attendees, resulting in a better model. This exchange, unfortunately, failed to produce positive repercussions for future interactions with this particular teammate.
In the context of promoting and hiring “yourself”, or someone who looks like you, there were occasions where I benefited from “looking like” someone’s daughter.
At some point, along with other changes in my personal life, I left the field. A sad point for me is that I really enjoyed the work, and know I brought value to the teams I worked on. And I think the organizations that mis-valued my contributions, lost out on valuable perspectives and contributions. I still, to this day, apply skills learned to volunteer work, and in my personal life. And have to be observant for someone trying to “mansplain” something to me.
19 Likes
I really appreciate you sharing your story on this thread. Thank you!
8 Likes
There is no such thing as free. You just want businesses, including some very small businesses to pay for this. To be competitive in the market, these businesses would avoid hiring young women.
The only way this works is if this becomes an entitlement paid for through taxes.
2 Likes
And taxes aren’t free.
Ask any large employer in France, Sweden, etc. the lengths they go to NOT to hire someone.
Or some businesses would stay at exactly 24 employees, even though they may otherwise choose to become slightly larger.
Employer-provided medical insurance also creates incentives for illegal discrimination due to differing costs based on employee characteristics that are illegal to discriminate based on (age over 40 and sex / gender). See https://healthcostinstitute.org/images/easyblog_articles/134/Age-Curve-Study_0.pdf
Is that due to mostly to taxes, or the legal difficulty of dismissing an employee in some countries?
3 Likes
Yes and yes. Agree with you that staying below the limit would be a huge incentive-- just look at the number of companies in the US now who classify as many employees as they can as part-time even when there would be efficiencies in having those roles fulltime. Keeping people below the health insurance/other benefits ceiling is a huge incentive for some businesses.
2 Likes
My career is in what was originally a male-dominated field. It is no longer that way. However, it is still true that women have fewer opportunities to take over lead positions. Some observations:
-
Women still take on the majority of child-care (and senior-care) responsibilities. I’m not sure whether by tradition or choice, but it still affects how superiors rate their “commitment”, if taking more time off than male colleagues. As also mentioned, child care is very expensive. Even back in the “dark ages” (80’s), the cost of daycare was nearly the same as my paycheck, and choices were limited. We decided it was better for me to work part-time. Of course, that also has long-term career consequences.
-
The paths to higher positions are often outside of the firm work schedule: golf outings, sports venues, drinks “with the guys”. Here is where office politics is often shared, and relationships fostered. During my tenure, it was hard to be invited to these types of events. It could be awkward if male superiors invited the few female employees to join them for dinner or a golf game, for instance. It is changing as women slowly take leadership positions – but still very slowly.
-
“Women Don’t Ask” (great book) . I was brought up in a culture that women were supportive. I treated work that way. It was a long time before I learned that I needed to promote myself more, and ask for the choice jobs or the deserved salary increases.
9 Likes
I think businesses would lose the cost of child care but would earn it back in ability to hire the best employees&their not having to stay home with a sick child. Indirectly, it’d have a big impact on demography hence growing a potential customer base (which is shrinking) and it’d be easy to benefit from earned media.
Or it could all be subsidized by taxes.
Or there could be various inventives.
Things simply cannot remain the same, resulting in young women foregoing having more than one child or any child at all, and women who chose to have a child or two getting stalled in their careers, having to stay at home or go part-time. What a waste of talent and potential.
2 Likes
The reality is that the cost and availability of safe childcare is much more problematic for low income women trying to get off public assistance, vs. the “OMG, I’m getting stalled in my career as a lawyer because I have to take sick days when my child is ill”.
The policy issues around who we subsidize, who we punish for having babies, why some states think it’s a good idea to punish working mothers by making it economically unattractive to work- this is a bigger question than just “should businesses pay for daycare”.
12 Likes
I’m not sure what child care takes away the need for a parent to stay home with a sick child. Our daycare when the kids were young didn’t allow sick children. Schools don’t want them there either.
All parents face issues when children get sick. Some have relatives that can help out. My wife and I would generally take turns handling sick days.
3 Likes
Yes, that’s why I said all businesses. I was actually thinking of fast food places& retail.
I agree it’s a bigger question but something has to be done soon.
(Some daycares have a sort of sick bay, but not all. But the key point is that “relying on relatives”, isn’t a solution.)
One part of the IRA I liked was that to get funds there has to be a daycare on site or a plan to cover daycare (the reason being that childcare was/is a major block to -working class- women returning to or entering the workforce.)
I’m not a policy maker 
but “child care” is an emergency at all levels (business, demography, gender relations/equality…) and thus is my answer to this question
women-18-35-where-does-our-society-still-need-to-make-changes-improvements
2 Likes
Lots of chain fast food places are franchises which employ fewer than 25 people, and lots of independent fast food places also employ fewer than 25 people.
Also, many of the lower pay jobs are where employees are easily replaceable and where productivity does not differ much between the best and average employees, so employers tend to be less interested in offering benefits like child care to retain employees generally or the best employees in particular.
As a practical matter, an unfunded mandate on employers would likely result in significant variation in the quality of the benefit (similar to the employer mandate for health care insurance), or employers trying to avoid being covered under it (e.g. staying under the threshold number of employees), or employers covertly practicing illegal discrimination to minimize the cost of the benefit. As another poster mentioned above, being a tax funded government program would work better in avoiding these problems.
2 Likes
This is an area where I think we need to think outside of the box. If we have public K-12 education, and some places have public pre-k4 education, then why can’t we have public daycares? Yes, it will increase taxes, but it’s also a societal good. More people will be able to enter the workforce because they will dependable childcare.
Putting the onus on employers creates perverse incentives. Same thing is true for healthcare. There is often a lack of innovation and entrepreneurship because a family needs to keep their insurance…which is employer-based. Having daycare be employer-based just increases the power of employers over employees and prevents people from accessing options that are outside of that framework.
7 Likes