Steve:

After reading the first few paragraphs, I started thinking, "Damn -- I know men who fit into those same categories." And then you wrote exactly what I was thinking. I've met every one of those same types of people -- men and women -- and concur completely with your observations. Whenever I see the results of a study or survey like this, the first thing I want to know is who funded it? You've connected the dots quite nicely in your last paragraph.

Will

Will:

I'm always shocked by how much play and press these surveys get . . . whether it's a survey funded by a PR association that proves the value of PR, or something like this.

This one has already been written about in several news outlets, including Workforce Week, where I saw it . . . . a publication for HR folks.

Steve C.

There are only two "workplace issues that pertain to women," that truly affect only women (that I can think of, to be honest):

1) Breastfeeding and the time/space/etc. thereof
and
2) the well-researched wage differences, where women regularly make less than men for the same work.

And can either of these be solved by only one gender? No.

My comment would have been identical to Will's so I'll just add that the reason these ridiculous "studies" get play is because they offer simplistic but impressive-sounding "results" and have those "grabby headlines"

I'll also second the importance of paying attention to who's done the study. I do the same with websites. When I get a link to an interesting sounding article, the first thing I do is click on the "About Us" section before I go any further in case it from someone like, you know, Fox News or something. Then I can skip it and go on with my life.

I once did some research on the wage gap and when describing
it to a friend, all the work I did was immediately dismissed by him
because of my association with The National Organization for Women.

He said, "well, you're looking for a wage gap. I wonder what the
results would be if a *real* organization did the study."

Seriously? I'm LOOKING for a wage gap? And, what "real" organization
would he be referring to? Does this mean we shouldn't trust a study
that, say, NAACP does on racial profiling?

I don't know anything about Catalyst, but as someone who spends a
lot of time doing non-profit work on top of my regular paying corporate job,
I will say that my life would be much easier and happier if
there wasn't a need to do the non-profit work. We are not doing this
type of work for our health or because we're a bunch of man-hating dykes
(quote from my ex-husband).

To answer your last question, Steve, the future of Catalyst would be to
close down, have a huge party, and MOVE ON! The employees there would
be millionaire top executives running around with no shirt on and
grabbing men's asses.

Seriously, though...I think you're trivializing the big picture issue of
gender inequality in the workplace. It's legitimate to devalue a study
or survey if it's not done right or if there's evidence of bias, just make
sure you're not doing it for other reasons (say, based on gender or racial
stereotypes).

Furthermore, I think it's important to note that Catalyst's mission is to
study workplace issues PERTAINING TO women. This does not mean issues
pertaining to ONLY women. There is a difference.

Hi kbosch,

While I respect both Catalyst (though I know little about them) and your non-profit work, I still believe that an organization specifically focused on looking at issues "pertaining to women" is simply too narrow. Though I am a woman, I don't live or work in a world "pertaining to women" so I don't want to approach my work, or any other aspect of my life taking that as the focus.

Don't misunderstand me, I believe job discrimination should be punished, and I think equal pay for equal work should be the case, but in my experience too many women want concessions that are not reasonable in a business environment BECAUSE they're women - they want to be able to go back to a job with no loss of status or salary, for example after choosing to take several years off to raise children. Before the world jumps on my head - I don't hate children or their mothers - I think having children is very important, but it is a choice and all choices have results. One of the results of becoming a full-time parent is your employability is negatively impacted. That is a reality of business and I don't think special provisions should be made by a business for one person's choice. And before anyone asks, I absolutely would feel the same way if I had chosen to have children.

I believe the sooner women begin to behave simply as an "employee" rather than a "woman employee" the sooner the world will begin to treat us that way. There will always be ignorant idiots who think women should be barefoot and pregnant, but all the studies in the world won't change them anyway, no matter who fields them. We have to change ourselves because that's really all we can control.

(Hey! Steve, this should get a "lively" conversation going hey? No need to thank me!)

I agree, Kristen. While I don't deny the existence of gender inequality and discrimination, nor diminish the importance of irradicating both, I do think cottage industries have evolved around both the gender and race issues, and both industries do as much to keep the issues alive as to convince us that they're working to irradicate them.

I think it's fine to research and set out the facts (wage discrepancies, ratios of male/female employees vs male/female executives, etc.). But I think more of substance is done by individuals and organizations simply working to change themselves without the construct of labels than by trying to argue subjective measures as above. Want to be seen as a woman employee? Refer to yourself as such, but don't be surprised if you're treated differently -- you asked to be treated differently by creating the pretentious label.

Steve,

I agree that the study might be suspect, especially when you consider the title. Studies should be designed and executed to find the truth, regardless what it is, rather than support an apparently already established opinion by trying to further legitimize the opinion through the study.

Regardless of the study outcome, women do have impediments within the corporate workplace that men normally do not face. But the same rules of the corporate game apply to women, as they do to men. Men encounter the same obstacles and bias as most women, but it is disguised as something else. Kristen said it best when she said: “I believe the sooner women begin to behave simply as an "employee" rather than a "woman employee" the sooner the world will begin to treat us that way.”

However, many smart women are selecting another work path that is proving to be very successful for them and much more women and mother friendly. They are starting their own businesses. They craft their businesses to suit their own personal visions, their own personal passions, their own personal priorities, and that allow them to create and operate under the work conditions that are best for them. In other words, they design and set their own conditions and their own rules for success, and then follow them on their terms.

We have seen a significant number of women start and operate their own businesses, AND succeed, BECAUSE they did it THEIR way. So, if the corporate game is not what a woman wants to play, she can play her own game and start her own business.

Can't we all just treat each others as equals? No, we can't.

We all have biases that depend on our own experience. For men, we are either "real men" or wimps. For women, they are either motherly or power-bitches.

Of course this is ridiculous! Our culture defines men and women that way, but no indivdual man or woman fits so easily into any construct as simple as that. Women (all the ones you don't know) ARE perceived as either Donna Reed or Hilary Clinton. Not completely, but it is very easy to pick which one most applies within 2 minutes.

The vast majority of CEOs are white, male AND taller on average than the population (read Blink?). That doesn't make them better CEOs, but it does assure that they will be percieved as strong, competent leaders.

It is incredibly important that we are reminded that, even though our streotypes and perceptions are incorrect, they still affect who we trust with our money, who we want to work for, and which data to believe.

Of course the data from Catalyst is skewed Steve, what kind of women must be conducting these surveys? Bitches.

Halelujah, J Boyle.

Kristen, interesting your comment "looking at issues pertaining to women is simply too narrow." Since when is studying half the population of the world being too narrow? And how would you propose that studies are performed if there’s not an actual focus? Isn’t that the point of a study (control groups, etc)?

And what is this idea about “acting as a woman employee”? Are you kidding? I have been trying for my entire career to be treated like a “regular” employee. Many times it has worked, others not, but the bottom line is – no matter how much I change my behavior, the fact that I’m a woman is not highlighted by me, but rather by others (maybe the tall white guys pointed out by J Boyle). Furthermore, being told that I should go start a business so that I can have a “women and mother friendly” environment of my own is a bunch of shit. Why the hell shouldn’t I be able to have a woman and mother friendly environment right here in corporate America?!? This is NOT asking for special treatment, just equal treatment.

The fact that women are the baby producers is not the only explanation for differences in the workplace. Sure, if you (man or woman) take a year off, for whatever reason, you are automatically placing yourself behind the pack for status or salary. But this argument does not even come close to explaining the wage gap issue. I urge you to browse www.pay-equity.com – where the data is based on census data (hard data vs. surveys or polling).

Kbosch - first I don't discount, nor do I diminish your experiences. They are yours, and as valid as anyone else's. However, my experiences don't match yours. When I behave as an employee, I get treated that way, not as a woman employee.

Second, you took my comment out of context in quoting it, and by so doing changed it to something misleading. The full statement I made was: I still believe that an organization specifically focused on looking at issues "pertaining to women" is simply too narrow. Note I said "specifically focused" which was really the key thing.

I agree that a study has to have a question to answer or an issue to study, but the way that study was presented, as stated by Bill in a way wich appeared to: "support an apparently already established opinion by trying to further legitimize the opinion through the study." suggested a predispostion to an intended answer, and this is not my understanding of the accepted scientific method.

The other thing you said which I simply can't agree with was: "Why the hell shouldn’t I be able to have a woman and mother friendly environment right here in corporate America?!? This is NOT asking for special treatment, just equal treatment." In fact this is special treatment because a business is not created or run with the objective of meeting the personal needs of its employees, but rather to make a profit to continue to stay in business and provide employment for all the employees. Doing that requires that the employees meet certain expectations.

If your personal situation does not allow you to meet the requirements of a job, that's unfortunate, but it is not and should not be the responsibility of the company to change for your convenience. In fact, doing so would be discrimination against those who do NOT have children, and who would be unlikely to get the same accommodations for their personal needs. Again I go back to every choice has a result, and the person who makes the choice has to accept that result whether positive or negative.

I also agree that wage disparity is a real issue. I just don't believe that studies like this one are very likely to have any real impact on changing or improving the issue.

Kbosch - first I don't discount, nor do I diminish your experiences. They are yours, and as valid as anyone else's. However, my experiences don't match yours. When I behave as an employee, I get treated that way, not as a woman employee.

Second, you took my comment out of context in quoting it, and by so doing changed it to something misleading. The full statement I made was: I still believe that an organization specifically focused on looking at issues "pertaining to women" is simply too narrow. Note I said "specifically focused" which was really the key thing.

I agree that a study has to have a question to answer or an issue to study, but the way that study was presented, as stated by Bill in a way wich appeared to: "support an apparently already established opinion by trying to further legitimize the opinion through the study." suggested a predispostion to an intended answer, and this is not my understanding of the accepted scientific method.

The other thing you said which I simply can't agree with was: "Why the hell shouldn’t I be able to have a woman and mother friendly environment right here in corporate America?!? This is NOT asking for special treatment, just equal treatment." In fact this is special treatment because a business is not created or run with the objective of meeting the personal needs of its employees, but rather to make a profit to continue to stay in business and provide employment for all the employees. Doing that requires that the employees meet certain expectations.

If your personal situation does not allow you to meet the requirements of a job, that's unfortunate, but it is not and should not be the responsibility of the company to change for your convenience. In fact, doing so would be discrimination against those who do NOT have children, and who would be unlikely to get the same accommodations for their personal needs. Again I go back to every choice has a result, and the person who makes the choice has to accept that result whether positive or negative.

I also agree that wage disparity is a real issue. I just don't believe that studies like this one are very likely to have any real impact on changing or improving the issue.

Just as an aside, I found it interesting that the only name-calling comments (albeit implicitly ascribed to those of us disputing your perspectives) came from the people who are advocating change and better behaviour. That suggests a defensiveness that people will see and react to, and it unfortunately won't encourage others to support what is a truly legitimate cause.

I've been digesting something for two days now and I see that nobody else has had the balls to challenge it, so I will: "Does this mean we shouldn't trust a study that, say, NAACP does on racial profiling?"

Yes, k bosch, that's exactly what it means. If the same study is undertaken by an independent think tank or university, it would have far more credibility. If Bayer funds a study on aspirin, I'm not going to even take the time to read it because I probably already know the outcome.

Your example is a bad one. Nobody wanted to challenge you on that because to do so might make them appear racist, which would in turn give you more ammunition to throw at us. Shame on you.

Will

Will Daniel,

Will you marry me?

Will you?

Some selling points:

* I actually do hate mothers and children. (But would happily change my ways for you.)

*I have no breasts to feed my young. So were we to breed, the point of breastfeeding/rearing in corporate America would be moot.

* I love your balls.

This post brings up a tough subject for me...and I apologize for the shitstorm I'm about to perpetuate...

While I think the study is, at best, biased and at worst - ridiculously documented and presented, it brings up a very valid point. The discrimination against women in the workplace.

Does anyone else feel like it has to do with the TYPE of job you have? And I'm not talking pay - because that's a moot point, women are paid lower than men in most every job position. I'm talking about perception.

As a geek - I have to fight tooth and nail for even the smallest inkling of credibility. When I go to shows or classes, I'm typically the only woman there (well, maybe not shows, but definitely classes). When I open my mouth to speak, the looks of shock and horror on the faces of my male counterparts always amazes me. When I show up at trade shows, people assume I'm a corporate suit, but when I start talking the talk, especially being an open-source security minded geek, people don't believe me. Not only that, they actually TEST me to see if I'm making it up. They would never do this to a man. Asshats.

Suki, I'm already married, but it's nice to know someone loves my balls. That made my day, even if your true identity is who I think it is.

Will

["Does this mean we shouldn't trust a study that, say, NAACP does on racial profiling?"
If the same study is undertaken by an independent think tank or university, it would have far more credibility.]

Of course you shouldn't trust any study implicitly, but don't dimiss the results. We are mostly saying that we AGREE with the results but that we don't want to hear about women's issues from a women's group or race issues from a racial group. That is why conservative or liberal opinions come from "think tanks". Whose think tank? Which university? Brigham Young? An historically Black College? Pat Robertson's Regent University? All of these surveys and studies start out with funding from somewhere and an hypothesis and develop questions to determine if they are true.

When they say something interesting, the conclusions should be further investigated, not dimissed or accepted out of hand.

When technical answers come from women, when race answers come from anybody in the south or when ethical issues are addressed by politicians, most of us look for "independent" verifications. "Okay lady, thanks for the advise on my car, but can I speak with your husband?"

Frankly, when the white guy tells you what he thinks about anything as important as gender stereotypes, you should question him too.

Perhaps this Catalyst survey will inspire other studies. Probably not. We all know the conclusions are correct and nobody is going to waste their money studying the obvious.

Shame on me, huh? Who sounds like a mother now? I don’t recall doing any name-calling or eliciting any racist comments. Or, for that matter, trying to encourage support for any causes. I was merely trying to give a perspective of someone who works tirelessly on real issues for real women in the real world.

And your comment that you are merely “advocating change and better behavior” is interesting. Seems to me that you are advocating that women need to suck it up and change their behavior to act like men. After all, us women are entering a man’s world, and so we need to play the man’s game. Is that what you mean?

For the record, I am not a mother. But I have witnessed a lot of them - my mother growing up and peers through the course of my career – who have managed to have their children and play the corporate game at the same time. Somehow they make it, and I’ve never heard a single complaint from any of them. NOT ONE. In fact, they are almost militant in making sure not to complain for fear of giving a reason for being laid off or missing a promotion. So I would be curious to know what women you all are talking about.

Funny thing is, and I don’t believe I have to point this out in 2007, we don’t talk about their husbands also having children and playing the corporate game, do we? If you want to go on about how corporations are for profit and all that matters is the bottom line, blah blah blah – then go ahead. My MBA education has given me enough training on how to increase revenues and have positive NPVs, so you won’t tell me anything I don’t already know.

Here’s my point: there IS more to surviving as a company than the bottom line. Companies that have decent healthcare programs, or that have progressive diversity policies, or that even have a damn company softball team – these companies DO BETTER. I happen to work at one and I see a difference. So my point is, you can have a mother friendly, or let’s say “parent friendly” workplace by simply saying “we care about our employees and their lives.” It doesn’t cost a dime and it doesn’t isolate anyone and it is NOT asking for special treatment.

J Boyle, I knew when I wrote that think tank/university thing someone would have a comment on it just like yours. That's why I threw in the Bayer example as a the best way to illustrate my point. I actually agree with what you wrote about think tanks and universities.

Will

Should I say something about your balls now?

Back off my babe's balls, Boyle.

It's been a damn long time since my balls were the topic of this much conversation. I think I like it.

Will

ooooooooh, fight! fight! fight! fight!

Will - how does it feel to have people fighting over your balls on a Friday - I think that sets up a pretty good weekend!

And Kristen, not to bring up a whole different ball of wax, but scientific method is just that: there is a hypothesis, testing/research, results presented, and then, at last a conclusion from those results. (Having just done two major science fair presentations with my children - one on which paper towel is the best, the other on light effect on plants) - I know this to be true. :)

There is no study or cause for study without a hypothesis. And a hypothesis is a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument or debate.

That being said, I completely agree with you, to an extent. It is not the corporate responsibility to tend to the personal lives of it's employees - BUT - those companies that are are better for it. Telecommuters, corporate daycare, shifts in the common workday (people working 3-11 rather than the typical 8-5), employing more part-timers...these are all corporate realities. There can still be expectations, but the expectations are changing, and I think for the better.

And kbosch, the fact that you know those "who have managed to have their children and play the corporate game at the same time. Somehow they make it, and I’ve never heard a single complaint from any of them. NOT ONE." and back it up with the fact that they would not voice their fears because they thought they would be laid off or passed up? It's contradictory and proves the point even more.

The fact that you bring the male counterparts into the equation isn't even a factor. Yes there are working dads out there - but the reality is that the women bear the lion's share of the family responsibility. Even the most helpful dad's, which are rare, don't even think one iota about their household in a day...they are not planning meals, carpools, organizing play groups, thinking about the laundry, the dry cleaning, paying the bills, picking up prescriptions, making and meeting doctor's appointments, parent-teacher conferences...they're just not.

Preparing for the flame war from all of you over-and-above dads...you are the exception, not the rule.

I am happy to read your blog about women in IT. I would like you to have the facts about women in IT tho - they represent only 26.2% according to the US Labor Bureau.
http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,1397,2106559,00.asp
Yes, COBOL was written by Admiral Grace Hopper and good code is gender-free - but the statistics, even in IT, support the fact that women only dominate in nursing and teaching. Gotta keeps the facts clear so we can make a bit of headway.
Thanks,
woman in IT

Rebecca - don't get me wrong, I think all those great workplace advancements are wonderful, laudable, and I would love to have as many of them as I could get in a company. We agree (I think?) that you just can't expect to get them ONLY because you have children.

I still think that a study with a title like the one this has demonstrates a pre-disposition to a result (at best) and a bias (at worst).

But regardless, it has been as I predicted a lively discussion and I have enjoyed it and learned from everyone's comments (perhaps a little more than we REALLY needed to know about Will's balls, but hey, you never know when that sort of intel may come in handy!), What more could you ask for from Steve C's blog!

Kristen - we are on the same page, m'dear...

Rebecca-

It appears to you, too, have fallen into the stereotype trap: You stated, "Even the most helpful dad's, which are rare, don't even think one iota about their household in a day...they are not planning meals, carpools, organizing play groups, thinking about the laundry, the dry cleaning, paying the bills, picking up prescriptions, making and meeting doctor's appointments, parent-teacher conferences...they're just not."

I am one of those "most helpful dad's." I cook, do most of the laundry (because my wife really dislikes doing it), more often than not pick-up prescriptions, often take my kids to the doctor, generally know all of the appointments (swimming lessons, school activities, etc.). Am I typical? Probably not, but my point is if we shouldn't be stereotyping working mothers, we should not be stereotyping working dad's either.

On the rest of the topics, I don't think employers should provide special treatment to either working mom's or dad's. But, by creating an environment that the parent knows is family-friendly, it makes the workplace better. Likewise, by having activities that all employees can participate in, whether they have a family or not, also makes for a better workplace. It shouldn't be better treatment for one type of worker, but a employee-friendly environment that makes it better for most, if not all employees.

Mark, not only are you not typical, you're practically a myth...I've heard about husbands like you...but never met one in the flesh. Kudos to you.

Just to make things even MORE interesting -- if that's possible...

I'm a single dad. Divorced for five years now, running my own business, working out of my home, which allows me to be home most of the time for my two sons. I do all the cooking, all the laundry, most of the cleaning (the guys have their jobs to do), all of the grocery shopping (actually did that and the cooking when married too), all of the consoling in the middle of the night when tummy aches and nightmares strike. Like Mark, I know I'm not typical. And that's the point.

Steve's whole point is that there is no "typical" any more. Why stereotype roles in 21st century America? And why make such stereotypes the basis for a study?

Yes, there are plenty of cases of gender discrimination in the workplace. And racial discrimination. And religious discrimination. And just some flat-out sucky bosses who don't deserve to be in decision-making positions but are anyway. Injustices are not likely to go away anytime soon. Life is rarely fair.

Rather than snipe at one another and draw conclusions about people based on blog comments, how about let's remind ourselves what public relations is really all about -- building relationships based on mutual understanding for mutual benefit. Steve's excellent blog entry gave some folks a chance to blow off some steam, but the real value is in how it causes us to look inside ourselves and consider the prejudices and stereotypes that lurk there.

I've been experimenting with a different way of thinking lately. When something pisses me off, I try not to dwell on why this has happened to me, or why it has happened at all. Instead, I try to consider, what is my response to this situation teaching me about myself? Because in the end, that's all I can really do anything about.

Wow . . . here's a good lesson learned:

Don't post a meaty topic the day before having to teach a two-day seminar, attend a two-day little league tournament!! The discussion is already complete, and I never got to take part.

But I certainly wasn't needed, either. What a great thread.

Thanks, everyone.

Steve C.