A post for Olivia H and Luxury Daphne, and anyone else who cared to ask

[WTF]

Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

Men and women both engaged in the same occupation for the same employer working the same hours but earning different incomes has nothing to do with supply and demand.

.

Let us look at this...

Say a male prostitute and a female prostitute work for the same agency, will not supply and demand drive what each can charge?

Before you say that is not relevant , remember what kind of board we are posting on and my exact point to Olivia about men making less than women in certain fields.

That was my point about people like Olivia crying about men keeping women down.


http://www.swifteconomics.com/2009/0...-the-wage-gap/

What we need to recognize is that having the same job, (or the same type of job, as these statistics are often based on), does not infer that one does the “same work” and should be paid equally. For example, there is a much greater demand for business professors than history professors, so business professors will be paid more. Furthermore, the longer someone’s had a job, the more they will usually get paid. And obviously, the more hours they put in, the more they will get paid. And when the position is paid by commission, any discrimination that occurs would be by the consumer, not the business-homosapiens who employ them.
Once we recognize these things, we can start to come to grips with what is actually happening. First, we cannot assume that men and women have the same career aspirations in the aggregate. Second, we have to look at what happens when men and women get married, namely, we must investigate the marital asymmetry hypothesis.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by WTF

For those of you feminist that are willing to actually read what is happening and not what you think is happening which is to say we male chauvinists pigs are trying to hold you down , except to play hide the weenie a couple of times per week. I offer up the simple article below.
http://www.swifteconomics.com/2009/0...-the-wage-gap/
The marital asymmetry hypothesis and specifically, child rearing, seems to be of huge importance here. And luckily, there is an easy way to test the importance of it; namely compare the wages of never-married women to that of never-married men. In 1982, never-married women earned 91% of what never-married men did. (12) In 1971, never-married-women in their thirties earned slightly more than never-married men (13). Today, among men and women living alone from the age of 21-35, there is no wage gap. (14) Among college-educated men and women between 40 and 64 who have never married, men made an average of $40,000 a year and women made an average of $47,000! (15)

For over 20 years I have been involved in a number of cases looking at this issue. I've done statistical analysis for a number of gender-equality-inequality issues that congress was very interested in. My small organization works hard at keeping a reputation for neutrality (very difficult to do in the DC playground), and both sides of the aisle specifically requested that work from us.

In EVERY case, once the "other factors" were accounted for, there was essentially no economic bias really in either direction. Child raising was a factor that drove down women's income/position/grade as a whole. Poorer grades/recognition in school drove down men's income/position/grade as a whole. The biggest one that some people always want to ignore is experience--quantity and QUALITY of the experience. But when you compare not only apples to apples, but McIntosh apples to McIntosh apples there was no discernable difference to a statistically significant level, but women's income, etc., tends to run slightly higher in white collar jobs (men in blue collar jobs), though not enough to prove the hypothesis.

The one issue we have never been able to definitively answer is why certain people got the "good quality" initial experience to begin with. First, it is hard to get good causal data. You want to essentially find out how a CEO started on the path to get to be a CEO. Much of that happened decades ago and the "source documents", i.e. the people that selected them for that assignment, are not reachable (often dead). Personnel records are essentially useless, as is the individual's own guess about why THEY were selected to be Mail Room Supervisor. It does seem that in a number of cases there was gender bias in an individual selection--but in favor of the women as often as the men. Again, no statistical confirmation that it leans either was in the aggregate.

There are unquestionably biases in promotions and salaries. But gender doe snot seem to be one of them that is systemic. Race a little. Religion more so (non-Christians get the short end). Other issues much more: going to the "right" school/church. Being a relative of a known/well regarded person (not nepotism since it typically was not relative hiring relative, but more the "Fred is a good worked, so Sally probably has the same genes/traits", or in some situations a "bonus" to Fred by hiring his cousin.

Making valid comparisons to identify the true bias or lack thereof is damn difficult. And people perceive far, far more category biases than seem to actually exist. People are loath to think that THEY might have warts or flaws, and someone might be deemed better for a promotion. It is less damaging to the ego to tell themselves it was some systemic bias, whether it was or not. Otherwise they might have to look inward for the reason. I have a person who works for me in that state of denial. He did not get any of the last five open promotion positions over the past six years. I have told him (1) he needs to get his advanced academic degree because the other candidates typically have them, (2) he needs to show more diversity in skills by taking on some different types of projects and doing them well. comparing six years ago until now he (1) has not gone back to school, even for a single course, and (2) still resists and project outside his comfort zone. Needless to say I suspect he will not be competitive next time either--and he will protest that selection as well.

Mark Twain (or Disraeli, depending which version of the pedigree you believe) was right about many applications of statistics.

[Eccie Addict]

You guys really hate moderators don't cha lol.

[Still Looking]

Originally Posted by Eccie Addict

You guys really hate moderators don't cha lol.

Only the bad ones!

[Eccie Addict]

Yeah but SL good or bad the mod they are still supposed to check the posts. The posts in this thread make me tired man!! lol

[TexasGator]

You don't get paid enough to read all the posts, EA. This ain't chat! Did they forget to tell you in modtard school to sit back and wait for some tard to hit the RTM.

Reading anything over 5-6 sentences requires hazardous duty pay - bc we both know JaD ain't giving up his parking spot, nor his refrigerated fanny pack.

[WTF]

Do female mods get paid less than males?



These gals want pay equity but would shit their pants if you were to suggest they all make the exact same pay as their male counterparts or even that a street walker is worth the same amount as they charge!

[the cute papi]

Treated like second class citizens? Its not like you don't have the natural rights everyone else has. Go take a trip to India, they won't give a fuck about you

[Guest050715-1]

Old-T, I would have to see hard evidence to support your assertion that thirty to forty years ago (That's how far back you'd have to go to trace a 50 to 60 year old CEO's career.) the bias to promotion was to women.

To address "quality" experience I'd like to reference a recent NYT article about Harvard's Business School. The bias is so slanted towards males, that even the female profs are discriminated against by their grad students. Class participation is a significant portion of a student's grade. The bias Is so strong against female students, Harvard has inserted stenographers in every class to guarantee fair, sex based participation. So, I'm sorry, I'm not buying your "research" or statistical analysis.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Old-T, I would have to see hard evidence to support your assertion that thirty to forty years ago (That's how far back you'd have to go to trace a 50 to 60 year old CEO's career.) the bias to promotion was to women.

To address "quality" experience I'd like to reference a recent NYT article about Harvard's Business School. The bias is so slanted towards males, that even the female profs are discriminated against by their grad students. Class participation is a significant portion of a student's grade. The bias Is so strong against female students, Harvard has inserted stenographers in every class to guarantee fair, sex based participation. So, I'm sorry, I'm not buying your "research" or statistical analysis.

Olivia,

I would like to reply to two of your points.

First off, I acknowledged that getting source quality information on today’s CEOs back 30 and 40 years ago is very difficult. Most of it is oral history reported by people who were directly involved—thus somewhat suspect in completeness and accuracy. I acknowledged that in my previous post.

However what the limited information we were able to collect supported exactly what I said (but it was not statistically significant, only suggestive). In the 70s and 80s there were biases—in both directions. Some companies were very much still in the Good Ol’Boy era, but there were also some—mostly smaller to mid size firms but also a few large ones—that were very much seeking out the best young women to feed into their “senior management track”. These second group would definitely pass over a male to get to the “right” woman. There was a problem, however, in the follow-through.

While some of these women stayed in the fast lane, many withdrew for family related reasons. Not always to have children, but sometimes to get married and “support” the husband. A number of those we interviewed said it was their choice to not stay in the high pressure track—that they did not value the paycheck & power enough to commit to the level that corporations expected. As best as we could tell, those corporate expectations were the same for the men and the women.

We certainly had women who did not accept the data—certainly some congresswomen were not happy with it. But we could defend all of it to the point they reluctantly accepted it—with the caveat that it was a flawed sample (though other than the sample size they were hard pressed to identify what was supposedly flawed with it). Given how hard they looked—and how vehemently they didn’t want to accept our results—I feel confident you would not find any warts that they couldn’t find. By the late 80s we were getting hints of a shift—that more and more women were willing to sell their souls to climb the ladder just as the hyper type-A men have been for centuries. It is possible that in 20 years the statistics will show differently, but when we isolated the data on man and women who chose to stay on the high pressure track, the results were similar in aggregate--though it did vary by region (women generally fared worse in the south) and by industry (in some men were advantaged, in others women were).

One of the hardest issues we had to adjudicate how to count was the use of sexual favors by women. Most the time it was very difficult to distinguish decades later in individual cases whether women were pressured into sex or whether they initiated the use of sex to get an advantage. We found some clear cases of both, but many were unclear. That is another area where a study in 2030 will likely show very different results—it is quite clear that today many young career women actively push themselves sexually on higher-ups not because they feel pressured to do so by the bosses, but because they are afraid their female competitors are doing so and they don’t want to be at a disadvantage. It is also a growing trend to have sex with the boss’s boss a few levels up, keep some incriminating evidence—anything from e-mails to used condoms—and then make implied threats of sexual harassment against the seniors. What surprised us was the number of young women who saw nothing wrong with it and were shocked to be told such things might be seen as blackmail by LE. They truly seemed not to have comprehended.

As to your second point, I cannot comment about Harvard or other academic situations. The analyses we did were focused on government (mostly federal but some state/local) and business. But I will say the whole aspect what you describe there sounds more like bias towards the most vocal more than anything else. That is always a problem when class participation is a huge part of grades. Are the stenographic records truly showing what you think they are showing? Do they protect the more thoughtful, quiet men as well as the less vocal women? How in the world do you determine “fair, sex based participation”? I’m not sure I even comprehend the phrase.

Obviously you can believe what you wish. And obviously there have been many women who have truly been discriminated against because they are women. But for the people who are willing to sell themselves body and soul to the corporations and aspire to the corner offices on the 50th floor, everything we found says the corporation cares most about how much profit you can generate, not what sex you are. Ruthlessness and 80 hour weeks are valued and rewarded. As a class, there seem to be fewer soul-less sleep deprived ruthless women than men. Personally, I think that is a complement towards women.

[WTF]

Old-T you are wasting your time. Feminist are not interested in the truth, they are interested in power. Kinda like Al Sharpton. What folks do not understand is that business cares about green. Green has no sex nor race.

[Guest050715-1]

First off, where I don’t think you are lying, I also haven’t seen any of your data. The bit about women sleeping their way to glass ceiling is absolute bullshit. Again, I'm not saying you are lying, I'm saying your bias is to believe that. Also, most of your data for the rise of today’s CEO’s is antidotal which is fine, but what CEO’s and companies are you talking about. Because without the data and study conclusions or at the very least an abstract we have no way of knowing the veracity of the study and its conclusions. We have no way of knowing who commissioned the work. We have no way of knowing who paid for the work. We have no way of knowing which bulldog congresswomen tried to no avail no less refute your study conclusions that aren't backed up with empirical data. And therefore we have no way of demonstrating biases of all the parties - including the subjects interviewed thirty and forty years later - based on the aforementioned.

Originally Posted by Old-T

Olivia,

I would like to reply to two of your points.

First off, I acknowledged that getting source quality information on today’s CEOs back 30 and 40 years ago is very difficult. Most of it is oral history reported by people who were directly involved—thus somewhat suspect in completeness and accuracy. I acknowledged that in my previous post.

Secondly, given you’ve been condescending throughout the discussions of the word whore by saying you were, how did you put it, embarrassed for Daphne and me yet, as I pointed out, there you still were long after you had declared the topic, in your view, dead and embarrassing to those participating, so you will pardon me if I don’t think your antidotal evidence and conclusion thereof might have been the smallest bit biased in and of itself.

Your above comment is just slightly less condescending than your comments in the whore threads, though, I did acknowledge your caveat. I have reposted my comment below to make it easier to follow.

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Old-T, I would have to see hard evidence to support your assertion that thirty to forty years ago (That's how far back you'd have to go to trace a 50 to 60 year old CEO's career.) the bias to promotion was to women.

Originally Posted by Old-T

However what the limited information we were able to collect supported exactly what I said (but it was not statistically significant, only suggestive). In the 70s and 80s there were biases—in both directions

Secondly, based on my antidotal evidence, I do not believe that you can demonstrate with your suggestive, antidotal evidence that during the 70’s or 80’s there was a bias towards promoting women. You go on to say yourself, when you’re not blaming the victim for not promoting the way you do in the following statement, that the late 80’s was when promotion of women in governmental and large cap business BEGAN. Though I know you realize that half of all the jobs in the United States are SMALL BUSINESS jobs. I find it difficult to believe that you interviewed management in many mid-cap and any small cap or small businesses. There are only so many hours in a day after all, but in the interest in being open-minded, what percentage of your study was mid-cap, small cap and mom and pop business?

Originally Posted by Old-T

By the late 80s we were getting hints of a shift—that more and more women were willing to sell their souls to climb the ladder just as the hyper type-A men have been for centuries. It is possible that in 20 years the statistics will show differently, but when we isolated the data on man and women who chose to stay on the high pressure track, the results were similar in aggregate--though it did vary by region (women generally fared worse in the south) and by industry (in some men were advantaged, in others women were).

What this means is, if women’s willingness to accept the sacrifices to climb the ladder BEGAN in the late 80’s, then it wasn’t until at least the mid and probably the late 90’s when women being adequately represented in management positions.

I do agree with you that in the VERY late 80’s that there was a shift in female thinking as evidenced by the hard data, not antidotal evidence, in the hyper type-A, ladder climbing females. However, I would not say, and if you disagree, I’d like to see that actual data, refusing to stick to the ladder climbing track vs the mommy track is the main reason women weren’t promoted.

Also, since your evidence is antidotal, you should have supported your hypothesis with actual, hard data like lifespans of women are decreasing and why. I would also think good data like the curve on females in above the line management positions and the corresponding data. You are also discounting the glass ceiling data, poverty statistics that places single women with children the poorest segment of American society and hard data that puts women dollar for dollar for the vast majority of the jobs in America overall, not just management and professional positions and industries like the oil business that have significant staffing challenges for experienced and inexperienced alike, that puts women at seventy cents on the dollar.

Originally Posted by Old-T

One of the hardest issues we had to adjudicate how to count was the use of sexual favors by women. Most the time it was very difficult to distinguish decades later in individual cases whether women were pressured into sex or whether they initiated the use of sex to get an advantage. We found some clear cases of both, but many were unclear.

And here you lost any credibility you may have had with your alleged study. You are being plain out being obnoxious. Condescending doesn’t even cover your arrogant attitudes. Sexual favors don’t promote women to anything but office manager and extra harassment – get real. Do you honestly think that all the sexual harassment laws were put into place because the fifty percent like you’re alleging of all office related sexual relations in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s were initiated by the women?

Originally Posted by Old-T

That is another area where a study in 2030 will likely show very different results—it is quite clear that today many young career women actively push themselves sexually on higher-ups not because they feel pressured to do so by the bosses, but because they are afraid their female competitors are doing so and they don’t want to be at a disadvantage. It is also a growing trend to have sex with the boss’s boss a few levels up, keep some incriminating evidence—anything from e-mails to used condoms—and then make implied threats of sexual harassment against the seniors. What surprised us was the number of young women who saw nothing wrong with it and were shocked to be told such things might be seen as blackmail by LE. They truly seemed not to have comprehended.

What evidence do you have to support this allegation? I mean other than Monica Lewinski?

Originally Posted by Old-T

As to your second point, I cannot comment about Harvard or other academic situations. The analyses we did were focused on government (mostly federal but some state/local) and business. But I will say the whole aspect what you describe there sounds more like bias towards the most vocal more than anything else. That is always a problem when class participation is a huge part of grades.

No, I do not believe Harvard would go to such lengths and expense just to corral the vocal. Also, you have never been a woman trying to intimidate entitled, alpha type males. Believe me, it’s not as easy as it is even for women like me.

Originally Posted by Old-T

Are the stenographic records truly showing what you think they are showing? Do they protect the more thoughtful, quiet men as well as the less vocal women? How in the world do you determine “fair, sex based participation”? I’m not sure I even comprehend the phrase.

Read for yourself. Here’s an expert that answers your question.

“And yet even the deans pointed out that the experiment had brought unintended consequences and brand new issues. The grade gap had vaporized so fast that no one could quite say how it had happened. The interventions had prompted some students to revolt, wearing “Unapologetic” T-shirts to lacerate Ms. Frei for what they called intrusive social engineering. Twenty-seven-year-olds felt like they were “back in kindergarten or first grade,” said Sri Batchu, one of the graduating men.”

Link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/education/harvard-case-study-
gender-equity.html?pagewanted=all&_r= 0

Originally Posted by Old-T

Obviously you can believe what you wish.

All you’ve done is say a bunch of unsubstantiated things. Produce the study, who funded it along with the congresswomen that you backed down with astute study of antidotal evidence and I might consider what you’ve said.

Originally Posted by Old-T

And obviously there have been many women who have truly been discriminated against because they are women. But for the people who are willing to sell themselves body and soul to the corporations and aspire to the corner offices on the 50th floor, everything we found says the corporation cares most about how much profit you can generate, not what sex you are. Ruthlessness and 80 hour weeks are valued and rewarded. As a class, there seem to be fewer soul-less sleep deprived ruthless women than men. Personally, I think that is a complement towards women.

And finally, you are talking about the upwardly mobile and professional classes of women. Not everyone – even men – are in those sub-classes of the economy. The middle and lower incomes and women in skilled labor. I’m not saying we haven’t come a long way baby since, but these advances are mainly in the upper management and professional classes and mid to large cap companies and government jobs. The bell curve for advancement and equal pay is at the very highest end of the spectrum not where the majority of working women are.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by the cute papi

Treated like second class citizens? Its not like you don't have the natural rights everyone else has. Go take a trip to India, they won't give a fuck about you

I have traveled in the third world, and what you are talking about is a completely different topic. Enjoy the debate or don't, but don't try to infer that just because there are poor in India women's rights issues are meaningless.

[Old-T]

That is quite a reply you posted. Unfortunately you seem to have read into it a lot that i never said. I don't have time to fully reply to you misstatements but i will try to do so later.

For now i will give you a very abreviated reply:

1. You seem to be confusing "condescending" with "disagrees with you". I can indeed be condescending, and my posts were not even close to doing so.

2. Yes, part of these studies were anecdotal, so what? I clearly said that was our fallback FOR THE SEVERAL DECADE OLD PARTS because hard data was not available. We certainly used data where we had it.

3. No, I will not give you a copy. It is not mine to give. As with almost everything on any anonymous website this is info and opinions, not a refereed journal. As I said, you are perfectly free to ignore it if it doesn't fit your worldview.

4. You are grossly extrapolating findings well beyond where they are logically sound, and you are criticizing the analysis we did before you even allow me to reply to some of your questions. That doesn't sound like the basis for a good conversation.

[=OliviaHoward;1054896790]First off, where I don’t think you are lying, I also haven’t seen any of your data. The bit about women sleeping their way to glass ceiling is absolute bullshit. Again, I'm not saying you are lying, I'm saying your bias is to believe that. Also, most of your data for the rise of today’s CEO’s is antidotal which is fine, but what CEO’s and companies are you talking about. Because without the data and study conclusions or at the very least an abstract we have no way of knowing the veracity of the study and its conclusions. We have no way of knowing who commissioned the work. We have no way of knowing who paid for the work. We have no way of knowing which bulldog congresswomen tried to no avail no less refute your study conclusions that aren't backed up with empirical data. And therefore we have no way of demonstrating biases of all the parties - including the subjects interviewed thirty and forty years later - based on the aforementioned.


Secondly, given you’ve been condescending throughout the discussions of the word whore by saying you were, how did you put it, embarrassed for Daphne and me yet, as I pointed out, there you still were long after you had declared the topic, in your view, dead and embarrassing to those participating, so you will pardon me if I don’t think your antidotal evidence and conclusion thereof might have been the smallest bit biased in and of itself.

Your above comment is just slightly less condescending than your comments in the whore threads, though, I did acknowledge your caveat. I have reposted my comment below to make it easier to follow.


Secondly, based on my antidotal evidence, I do not believe that you can demonstrate with your suggestive, antidotal evidence that during the 70’s or 80’s there was a bias towards promoting women. You go on to say yourself, when you’re not blaming the victim for not promoting the way you do in the following statement, that the late 80’s was when promotion of women in governmental and large cap business BEGAN. Though I know you realize that half of all the jobs in the United States are SMALL BUSINESS jobs. I find it difficult to believe that you interviewed management in many mid-cap and any small cap or small businesses. There are only so many hours in a day after all, but in the interest in being open-minded, what percentage of your study was mid-cap, small cap and mom and pop business?


What this means is, if women’s willingness to accept the sacrifices to climb the ladder BEGAN in the late 80’s, then it wasn’t until at least the mid and probably the late 90’s when women being adequately represented in management positions.

I do agree with you that in the VERY late 80’s that there was a shift in female thinking as evidenced by the hard data, not antidotal evidence, in the hyper type-A, ladder climbing females. However, I would not say, and if you disagree, I’d like to see that actual data, refusing to stick to the ladder climbing track vs the mommy track is the main reason women weren’t promoted.

Also, since your evidence is antidotal, you should have supported your hypothesis with actual, hard data like lifespans of women are decreasing and why. I would also think good data like the curve on females in above the line management positions and the corresponding data. You are also discounting the glass ceiling data, poverty statistics that places single women with children the poorest segment of American society and hard data that puts women dollar for dollar for the vast majority of the jobs in America overall, not just management and professional positions and industries like the oil business that have significant staffing challenges for experienced and inexperienced alike, that puts women at seventy cents on the dollar.

And here you lost any credibility you may have had with your alleged study. You are being plain out being obnoxious. Condescending doesn’t even cover your arrogant attitudes. Sexual favors don’t promote women to anything but office manager and extra harassment – get real. Do you honestly think that all the sexual harassment laws were put into place because the fifty percent like you’re alleging of all office related sexual relations in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s were initiated by the women?

What evidence do you have to support this allegation? I mean other than Monica Lewinski?

No, I do not believe Harvard would go to such lengths and expense just to corral the vocal. Also, you have never been a woman trying to intimidate entitled, alpha type males. Believe me, it’s not as easy as it is even for women like me.

Read for yourself. Here’s an expert that answers your question.

“And yet even the deans pointed out that the experiment had brought unintended consequences and brand new issues. The grade gap had vaporized so fast that no one could quite say how it had happened. The interventions had prompted some students to revolt, wearing “Unapologetic” T-shirts to lacerate Ms. Frei for what they called intrusive social engineering. Twenty-seven-year-olds felt like they were “back in kindergarten or first grade,” said Sri Batchu, one of the graduating men.”

Link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/education/harvard-case-study-
gender-equity.html?pagewanted=all&_r= 0


All you’ve done is say a bunch of unsubstantiated things. Produce the study, who funded it along with the congresswomen that you backed down with astute study of antidotal evidence and I might consider what you’ve said.

And finally, you are talking about the upwardly mobile and professional classes of women. Not everyone – even men – are in those sub-classes of the economy. The middle and lower incomes and women in skilled labor. I’m not saying we haven’t come a long way baby since, but these advances are mainly in the upper management and professional classes and mid to large cap companies and government jobs. The bell curve for advancement and equal pay is at the very highest end of the spectrum not where the majority of working women are.[/QUOTE]

[Old-T]

First, an apology (and warning) to the mods; this one really IS long. Grab a cup of coffee if you wish. I intended that it would be shorter, but the more I read Olivia's comments the more difficult it was to ignore them. I guess I am just a sensitive old guy and when someone trashes the work we did just because--it seems--they don't like the findings, I tend to get a bit defensive. If this was the Political board I could just throw out a few more colorful descriptors, ignore the facts, and be done with it quicker

So again, I apologize. If we ever cross paths I owe you a beer or a coffee--your choice. Let me know. EA, since you have already suffered, I will buy you two.
=======================

First off, where I don’t think you are lying, I also haven’t seen any of your data. The bit about women sleeping their way to glass ceiling is absolute bullshit.
No, it is not. Their recollections may or may not have been slightly mistaken because of the time that passed, but the source was generally from the women themselves. Of course they did not say sex was the only factor—and I am certain it was not—but THEY were the ones who told us it was part of their toolkit. I am not say “all” women by any means, but a significant number (I don’t have the data in front of me). Additionally, while some of the details may or may not have been accurate—and while they may not be correct in how much the sex was a factor in getting the right project—we certainly assessed that they were accurate in whether or not they had sex, and whether or not they did so with an intent to better their careers.

Again, I'm not saying you are lying, I'm saying your bias is to believe that.
The full stories they told were definitely believable, and where we could they tended to correlate with hard data (who was working for whom, when, projects, etc.). It was never “I’ll have sex with you in exchange for becoming a VP”. No, it was generally women who were already competitive for moving up but used sex as a way to get inside information (their equivalent of the male-only golf clubs if you will), or to break ties with other candidates (including other women at times) and make sure they got the plum project/assignment. After that they still had to produce good work—but yes, many of them said sex was one part of the formula for them. ESPECIALLY if they thought another female in the running had already done so.

Obviously the men who we interviewed were more reluctant to admit they gave any benefit, even a subjective one, in exchange for sex. But they admitted “it was done”, and “they knew others in the business” who did, etc.

We were not paid based upon what we found. We had no reason to produce a biased study. We existed—and continue to exist—because of our unbiased rep. That is worth far more to our existence and bottom line than a sensational report.

Also, most of your data for the rise of today’s CEO’s is antidotal which is fine, but what CEO’s and companies are you talking about.
You are not serious, are you? The data was a double blind as far as the analysts knowing whose data was whose. We eventually knew some of the organizations/companies in some cases, but never the individuals. By the time we got it the personal identifying data was eliminated except for some demographic data we obviously needed. The data managers didn’t know the individuals, and didn’t know the analysts. And if I did know I would be incredibly stupid to identify any of them, even tangentially.

Because without the data and study conclusions or at the very least an abstract we have no way of knowing the veracity of the study and its conclusions.
True. As is almost every statement on here about almost any topic.


We have no way of knowing who commissioned the work. We have no way of knowing who paid for the work.
True again. But it was not one piece of work. Commissioning offices included congressional organizations, executive branch offices, and some think tanks (left, right, and middle). That’s all I will say.


We have no way of knowing which bulldog congresswomen tried to no avail no less refute your study conclusions that aren't backed up with empirical data. And therefore we have no way of demonstrating biases of all the parties - including the subjects interviewed thirty and forty years later - based on the aforementioned.
True again. Exactly as I implied in my original post. Interviewing anyone about something subjective that happened 30 ago is always fraught with large error bars. But there was no other source data to address WHY certain people did/did not wind up on certain tracks. Do you have a better source? I guarantee you that using named interviews instead of anonymous ones would get you far less reliable data on these topics.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
Olivia,

I would like to reply to two of your points.

First off, I acknowledged that getting source quality information on today’s CEOs back 30 and 40 years ago is very difficult. Most of it is oral history reported by people who were directly involved—thus somewhat suspect in completeness and accuracy. I acknowledged that in my previous post.

Secondly, given you’ve been condescending throughout the discussions of the word whore by saying you were, how did you put it, embarrassed for Daphne and me yet, as I pointed out, there you still were long after you had declared the topic, in your view, dead and embarrassing to those participating, so you will pardon me if I don’t think your antidotal evidence and conclusion thereof might have been the smallest bit biased in and of itself.
Sorry, now you are just being silly. I pointed out that the thread had run its course. That the last two hundred or so posts were no longer even talking about the topic. I was far from alone recognizing that. Eventually even the mods had to admit it was cooked far beyond well done. I didn’t attack anyone—OK, maybe a couple light jabs at Daphne--until it became reduxium ad nausium. I actually agreed with your points on that thread if you recall. So please quit the BS about how the fact that I can recognize dead horse flesh has anything to do with being biased on this topic.


Your above comment is just slightly less condescending than your comments in the whore threads, though, I did acknowledge your caveat. I have reposted my comment below to make it easier to follow.
Condescending? Where? The comment you are claiming is condescending IS LARGELY SAYING THE SAME THING YOU ARE!!!!!! Please go back and read it. I state at least twice in there that there are risks using oral histories from 30 years back. WHO IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE CONDESCENDING TO??? Please identify.


Quote:
Originally Posted by OliviaHoward
Old-T, I would have to see hard evidence to support your assertion that thirty to forty years ago (That's how far back you'd have to go to trace a 50 to 60 year old CEO's career.) the bias to promotion was to women.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
However what the limited information we were able to collect supported exactly what I said (but it was not statistically significant, only suggestive). In the 70s and 80s there were biases—in both directions

Secondly, based on my antidotal evidence, I do not believe that you can demonstrate with your suggestive, antidotal evidence that during the 70’s or 80’s there was a bias towards promoting women. You go on to say yourself, when you’re not blaming the victim for not promoting the way you do in the following statement,
I “blame the victim”??????? I don’t see that I said anyone was a victim, and I didn’t blame anyone for anything. I strictly stated what we found. One of the banes of a researcher is no matter what we find, the first defense for anyone who disagrees with what we uncovered is to attack us. I have an archeologist friend who says the same thing—they get accused of being vile, evil people when they uncover a bronze pot where someone thinks it should not have been. I understand what he means.


that the late 80’s was when promotion of women in governmental and large cap business BEGAN.
No, that is not true. Everything we found showed it started in the early 80s. It did not reach large numbers until later, it did not reach the highest levels (since there is a somewhat necessary step progression) unto later, and it CERTAINLY didn’t start in all industries/areas until later—but the seeds were planted before the late 80s.

Though I know you realize that half of all the jobs in the United States are SMALL BUSINESS jobs. I find it difficult to believe that you interviewed management in many mid-cap and any small cap or small businesses. There are only so many hours in a day after all, but in the interest in being open-minded, what percentage of your study was mid-cap, small cap and mom and pop business?
I’m not sure where I claimed that the studies were universally applicable. You are correct, there are lots of small M&P businesses, and we didn’t look at many of them. We were mostly looking at federal government organizations, some state and local, and large to upper-mid sized companies receiving substantial government funds. I don’t recall claiming anything else. There were some smaller companies, but few. And that invalidates our findings how? The seeds we found in the early 80s tended to be associated with some companies deciding they needed to appeal more to women, or they needed to find more pools of high performers, or they were getting increased revenue from gov’t or other sources if they could show they had more women managers. The mind-set change among the women started later in the decade (or at least that is when we saw significant evidence of it), but some of the companies were lead turning that and more aggressively trying to find/attract appropriate women to put on the executive track.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
By the late 80s we were getting hints of a shift—that more and more women were willing to sell their souls to climb the ladder just as the hyper type-A men have been for centuries. It is possible that in 20 years the statistics will show differently, but when we isolated the data on man and women who chose to stay on the high pressure track, the results were similar in aggregate--though it did vary by region (women generally fared worse in the south) and by industry (in some men were advantaged, in others women were).

What this means is, if women’s willingness to accept the sacrifices to climb the ladder BEGAN in the late 80’s, then it wasn’t until at least the mid and probably the late 90’s when women being adequately represented in management positions.
Correct, sort of. The cases we looked at it said it was really a bit slower than that--more the late ‘90s to mid ‘00s.

I do agree with you that in the VERY late 80’s that there was a shift in female thinking as evidenced by the hard data, not antidotal evidence, in the hyper type-A, ladder climbing females. However, I would not say, and if you disagree, I’d like to see that actual data, refusing to stick to the ladder climbing track vs the mommy track is the main reason women weren’t promoted.
This is the biggest over reaching you are making. We did not intend to look for “what is the biggest reason women weren’t promoted”. We looked at “if all other things are equal, are women and men promoted to the senior levels at roughly equal rates”. Not the same question. What we found was that in the vast majority other studies—often done by organizations that DO have an inherent bias—compared groups where NOT everything else was equal. We had to try and isolate a whole slew of things that many people want to ignore, but which in fact matter a lot. Education level, school granting the degree, grades, field of study (technical vs non-technical being the primary one), willingness to relocate (women were hurt by being less willing to relocate—in some companies that was a very significant factor), breadth of assignments, and a lot more. When those were normalized and those factors were removed as best as we could remove them, I will say it again, we found no statistical difference. You may not want to accept it, but yes, going on the mommy track is a serious anchor to that kind of career advancement. The daddy track is not. And until biology changes so men can incubate the fetus I doubt that will change.


Also, since your evidence is antidotal, you should have supported your hypothesis with actual, hard data like lifespans of women are decreasing and why.
We did, where it was available. In many cases we found little if any data to show WHY one person was promoted over another 20 or 30 years ago. That is exactly why we went to the interviews as a major data source. I am a mathematician—interviews are never my first choice of data types. I suspect similar work done in 10 years will have more relevant data to use in place of anecdotes, and more still in 20 yrs. (EXCEPT for one very troubling trend: the increase in discrimination scrutiny is causing many companies to keep LESS data. Less data means less data that can be subpoenaed.)


I would also think good data like the curve on females in above the line management positions and the corresponding data. You are also discounting the glass ceiling data,
Not at all—most the glass ceiling data is discounting real differentiators other than gender—and then claiming it is gender. If, for example, fewer women go into technical degrees, and tech degrees correlate to better performance, then that results in a “disproportionate” number of men getting the choice jobs according to some. That is completely false reasoning—if you want to claim STEM degrees are biased against women you can try to make that argument, but data will likely show that no matter how hard universities try they cannot find/bribe/cajole/kidnap women to major in STEM degrees in large numbers. Any bias that exists is long before the young adults enter the workforce, and is likely family centered. It was certainly earlier than we looked in the analysis. If you want to do something truly productive, get on the bandwagon to drastically strengthen family involvement in education, along with revamping education in the K-5th arena. Women, minorities, ANYONE falling behind by 5th grade is likely doomed economically. Most businesses don’t feel it is their responsibility to make amends for that. Sorry, it is so blatantly obvious to anyone who wants to see it, but instead people want to scream about inequities 10 years later. The triage has already been done by then—THAT was the major message from all the work we did, but it is not politically sexy to get on that bandwagon.


poverty statistics that places single women with children the poorest segment of American society
True, but not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand. I think you may have your cause and effect backwards. This is more related to my comment immediately above. Single women tend to have less time to work with their kids on homework, etc., thus the kids tend to do worse in school, which leads to poorer jobs, which leads to more poverty. Agree. I emphatically agree. But it has nothing at all to do with whether a comparably qualified woman is or is not disadvantaged against a similarly qualified man.


and hard data that puts women dollar for dollar for the vast majority of the jobs in America overall, not just management and professional positions and industries like the oil business that have significant staffing challenges for experienced and inexperienced alike, that puts women at seventy cents on the dollar.
Again, you are WAY oversimplifying—thus missing the whole point of what I had posted. Just comparing “men” and “women” is fallacious. What you say may be true, but until it is broken down to account for all the other significant NON-gender variables it means nothing. If it still holds after that, then you have a valid point. In my organization everyone—male or female—who does the same job with the same experience gets the same pay. But we have been attacked by several feminist groups because overall the men make more than the women. The fact that the average age of the men is about 10 years older—and 10 years more relevant experience—than the women is something they wish to ignore. Compared age-to-age, or age-to-promotion, or time in the organization to promotion, the women are paid and advance more quickly. Sorry, women make 70% on the dollar may be true, but the overly generalized statement says nothing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
One of the hardest issues we had to adjudicate how to count was the use of sexual favors by women. Most the time it was very difficult to distinguish decades later in individual cases whether women were pressured into sex or whether they initiated the use of sex to get an advantage. We found some clear cases of both, but many were unclear.

And here you lost any credibility you may have had with your alleged study. You are being plain out being obnoxious. Condescending doesn’t even cover your arrogant attitudes. Sexual favors don’t promote women to anything but office manager and extra harassment – get real. Do you honestly think that all the sexual harassment laws were put into place because the fifty percent like you’re alleging of all office related sexual relations in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s were initiated by the women?
Your statement is not backed up by the statements of the women we talked with. Sorry. It may well be true for you or those you know—I won’t challenge that. But it was not what we were told. Because the sunset wasn’t as pretty as you wanted it to be, don’t blame the photographer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
That is another area where a study in 2030 will likely show very different results—it is quite clear that today many young career women actively push themselves sexually on higher-ups not because they feel pressured to do so by the bosses, but because they are afraid their female competitors are doing so and they don’t want to be at a disadvantage. It is also a growing trend to have sex with the boss’s boss a few levels up, keep some incriminating evidence—anything from e-mails to used condoms—and then make implied threats of sexual harassment against the seniors. What surprised us was the number of young women who saw nothing wrong with it and were shocked to be told such things might be seen as blackmail by LE. They truly seemed not to have comprehended.

What evidence do you have to support this allegation? I mean other than Monica Lewinski?
Again, mostly the interviews we did with women. And in this case, some men who were on the receiving end of the threats. The younger women we talked too overwhelmingly said they would strongly consider having sex with a person in their company as a way to climb the ladder. And they were not talking about climbing to the head of the steno pool. It was chilling to “old guys” like me just how unemotional they seemed to be about it—it came across as matter of fact as “Of course I’d do it—it isn’t any different than going to a marketing seminar.” Again, don’t confuse the fact that I am reporting it with whether I agree with it or not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
As to your second point, I cannot comment about Harvard or other academic situations. The analyses we did were focused on government (mostly federal but some state/local) and business. But I will say the whole aspect what you describe there sounds more like bias towards the most vocal more than anything else. That is always a problem when class participation is a huge part of grades.

No, I do not believe Harvard would go to such lengths and expense just to corral the vocal. Also, you have never been a woman trying to intimidate entitled, alpha type males. Believe me, it’s not as easy as it is even for women like me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
Are the stenographic records truly showing what you think they are showing? Do they protect the more thoughtful, quiet men as well as the less vocal women? How in the world do you determine “fair, sex based participation”? I’m not sure I even comprehend the phrase.

Read for yourself. Here’s an expert that answers your question.

“And yet even the deans pointed out that the experiment had brought unintended consequences and brand new issues. The grade gap had vaporized so fast that no one could quite say how it had happened. The interventions had prompted some students to revolt, wearing “Unapologetic” T-shirts to lacerate Ms. Frei for what they called intrusive social engineering. Twenty-seven-year-olds felt like they were “back in kindergarten or first grade,” said Sri Batchu, one of the graduating men.”

Link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/education/harvard-case-study-
gender-equity.html?pagewanted=all&_r= 0
OK, I accept your word on that. As I said, we didn’t look at universities so I don’t have an informed opinion one way or the other. All I did was ask you some questions—and I don’t see where your quote addresses them. What it does say is there are some significant interpersonal problems going on at Harvard—which doesn’t surprise me at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
Obviously you can believe what you wish.

All you’ve done is say a bunch of unsubstantiated things. Produce the study, who funded it along with the congresswomen that you backed down with astute study of antidotal evidence and I might consider what you’ve said.
Nope. See comments above. I don’t feel like committing professional suicide today, thank you for asking.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
And obviously there have been many women who have truly been discriminated against because they are women. But for the people who are willing to sell themselves body and soul to the corporations and aspire to the corner offices on the 50th floor, everything we found says the corporation cares most about how much profit you can generate, not what sex you are. Ruthlessness and 80 hour weeks are valued and rewarded. As a class, there seem to be fewer soul-less sleep deprived ruthless women than men. Personally, I think that is a complement towards women.

And finally, you are talking about the upwardly mobile and professional classes of women.
Yes, that was the group we were focused on. I never said otherwise.


Not everyone – even men – are in those sub-classes of the economy. The middle and lower incomes and women in skilled labor. I’m not saying we haven’t come a long way baby since, but these advances are mainly in the upper management and professional classes and mid to large cap companies and government jobs. The bell curve for advancement and equal pay is at the very highest end of the spectrum
Yes, that was the group we were focused on. I never said otherwise.


not where the majority of working women are.
Since that was not the group the studies focused on, I can’t say one way or the other. But one would hope than as more women climb to the top, they take better care of the rest of the women. I’m not saying it is so, BUT IF THEY DON’T, THEN MAYBE IT IS NOT MALE ON FEMALE BIAS, IS IT? Maybe it is the bias of the “Haves” vs the “Have Nots”, independent of gender. Ask yourself, “if there are more women on the top rungs, why aren’t they ‘fixing the problem’ for the women below them?” Maybe, just maybe, it’s because the issue is much more complex than just gender. Which is all I’ve been saying all along.