Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Did the article say (or speculate) why this happens??
    
    I say this as a woman who is 34 1/2 now....which I don't view as
    being "over the hill" at all, and I don't suppose I'll feel much
    differently about it when I turn 35 next spring (I look and feel
    about the same as I did when I first came to DEC 11 1/2 years ago
    - sometimes a problem in that people I no longer recognize that
    I haven't seen in years bump into me at IDECUS or someplace, and
    THEY all recognize ME...embarrassing if I can't place THEM!).
    
    I do sort of feel that women sometimes get "stuck" somewhere along
    the line, career-wise, though it is often pretty hard to tell whether
    this happens due to poor management, lack of ability, or a preference
    for male employees above a certain level.  I spent seven years as
    a senior engineer, which is a very long time in this company unless
    your management has no intention of ever allowing you more responsibility,
    and I would probably be one now (finally earned a promotion a few
    months back) still and for as I long as I stayed here at DEC, if I still
    worked for the same group I worked for seven years ago.  However,
    I'm not saying that my side-tracked career was all my fault or all
    my manager's fault, for all those years - who can tell?  But it
    did set me back by several years from the men I went to college
    with, and the men I worked with when I first came to this company.
    Not that I particularly want to go into management, either, but
    not all of those men I think of as my 'former coworkers' are managers
    today, either.
    
    Sometimes we talk as if engineering were a "magical" career field
    where everyone makes an enormous salary and drives a BMW (for whoever
    said this myth most recently: it will be some years before I make
    that kind of salary, if I ever do, and I drive a 7 1/2-year-old
    Chevy) and where women are unusually valued - except for those of
    us who actually ARE engineers, who often say the same thing about
    marketing people (I know I have!).  Must be a case of "the grass
    is always greener".

    Re .1, I think what constitutes an "enormous salary" is open to
    interpretation.  For example, in this day and age a salary of say
    $30K a year is hardly considered "enormous".  But, a person earning
    $30K a year can certainly live at a much higher standard of living
    than a person making say $18K a year.  
    
    Re .0, I wonder if management (maybe both male & female) are prejudiced
    against "older" or middle-aged women, than against "older" men.
     And, also women seem to be thought of as older sooner than men
    do.  Maybe something to do with the fact that women can't have children
    after a certain age, but men can.  Or the fact that older men can
    marry younger women and older women can usually (and that only
    recently) have flings with younger men.  Maybe some of this carries
    over into the thinking of the business world.  Maybe women over
    40 who haven't already "made it" are viewed by management as older
    housewife types who probably couldn't do anything much anyway or
    if they could, they would've already.  
    
    Lorna
    

    The article didn't give reasons - I wish it had.
    
    Some of my own thoughts are:
    
    it takes longer for a woman to porve herself still and she 
    must do it again in each new situation instead of her "rep"
    or title/position confering power.
    
    the time out factor-I still think upper management has the
    attitude "Well she will have kids and leave". Say you are 23
    just graduated with a Masters and reasonable time for first
    couple of jobs and moves that's around 6-8 years and boom
    you are at the so called biological clock downside.
    
    I think the largely male orientated management can still only
    woman in traditional sterotypes-available,wife,mother etc.
    I think it may be more age discrimination due to the sense of
    women being over the hill when reporductive time is over. The old
    a man with grey hair is distinguished-a woman with grey hair is
    old syndrome.
    
    BTW I have observed too many times (here and at other companies)
    that women spend longer in grade before moving up.
    

    The FORTUNE CEO poll rated women's chances at being CEO
    as follows::
    
    POOR 40%
    FAIR 40%
    GOOD 20%
    

    re .4:
    
    What do those figures mean?
    
    40% of the women in the workforce have a POOR chance of becoming
    CEO?
    
    Women at 40% of the companies in America have a POOR chance of becoming
    CEO?
    
    Honestly, I have absolutely no idea how to read those results, as
    presented. Could you please include FORTUNE's explanation of the
    poll?
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    100 CEO's of Fortune 500 and Serive 500 companies were surveyed
    as to their opinions on questions. Fortune says "methodology
    used makes the results  reliable and projectable meaning
    they are as valid as if all 1000 CEO'S were surveyed."
    
    The question was "What are the  chances of a woman becoming
    CEO of yur companyby the year 2000?"
    
    I take that to mean in the Fortune 500 and Serivce 500 there
    is only a 20% likelyhood  of a woman CEO.
    
    BTW the whole aritcle used the male pronoun and masculine
    refernces throughout.
    

    re .6:
    
    Thanks, that was quick.
    
    > I take that to mean in the Fortune 500 and Serivce 500 there
    > is only a 20% likelyhood  of a woman CEO.
      
    I don't think so. All it means is that 20% of the CEO's _THINK_ that 
    women have a GOOD chance of becoming a CEO. I have difficulty translating
    that _opinion_ into actual chances.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    I would feel better if there was also a second question : How many
    changes of CEO do you expect by the year 2000?  We're only 22(+) years
    away from 2000 and there may be a limited number of chances for anyone
    to be a CEO before then.  I'm sure that many of the CEOs have someone
    specific in mind to replace them (mostly males), and this is probably
    what they were thinking of when they answered the question. 
    
    I would love to see if the current CEOs thought that there was a 50/50
    chance of a woman filling a future CEO opening, or having an even
    chance at being selected as CEO of an equivalent company.  On second
    thought, maybe I wouldn't want to know... 
    
    			Barbara b.