Misconceptions over family-work conflict hurting women
That thud you may have heard recently is the sound of women continuing to hit their heads on that invisible glass ceiling, according to recent research from the University of Illinois.
One key factor: Too many managers, regardless of gender, believe women have more family-work conflict than men
And this belief, mistaken though it is, leads supervisors to take a negative view of female employees' suitability for promotion and salary increases, maintains Jenny Hoobler, the professor who headed up the study.
The researchers also found that the more children a woman has, the more family-work conflict bosses perceived. Managers also associate a woman’s responsibility for elder care with higher incidence of family-work conflict, the researchers say.
All this leads Hoobler and her team to observe that the misconceptions supporting the glass ceiling today are much more subtle, multifaceted, and deeply embedded than they once were.“Today women encounter biases so rooted in systems that they may not even be noticed until they’re eradicated,” she says.
To see how deep these perceptions can go, try playing Gender Bias Bingo, an exercise developed by the Center for Work Life Law at the University of California.
Your playing card consists of nine boxes aligned in three rows and columns, with each box describing forms of gender bias, such as hitting a “Maternal Wall” based on unfair expectations of mothers, or “Double Binds” when women are urged to behave like men but then criticized when they do.
Tell us: Do you feel that work-life balance issues hold women back? Are things worse, thanks to the downturn?
By Gordon Powers, MSN Money
Posted by: SP | Nov 20, 2021 8:24:04 AM
Some might say this is becoming less & less of an issue as more companies "offshore" production thus allowing both parents to be shut totally out of work. For those that do manage to have jobs our societies unwillingness to provide adequate provisions for children & parents reinforces the glass ceiling even for those deciding not to have children (but still wanting someone elses' children to provide for their military protection and to provide them with care in their old age).
The glass ceiling 'issue' is not the problem, it is the symptom.
Parents work 50 weeks a year, schools run ~39 weeks a year. Employers don't want to offer flex time or work from home, Doctors office hours are 10AM - 4:30PM (no evening call outs). Elderly people want to buy urban houses next to schools for the good public transportation, housing values & property tax rates that don't punish non-parents living there & then complain when their children/grand children are 'killing the environment' by commuting for hours or 'clogging up the streets in front of their houses dropping the kids off at school'.
As long as we are lumbered with corrupt representative democracy forcing politicians to pander to the elderly who have time to vote we will be stuck with immigration as our future's crutch and a nice thick glass ceiling. Enjoy it, because there is no indication there will ever be any change.
Posted by: Don | Nov 20, 2021 12:38:28 PM
I agree with SP to a point but It is very difficult to dictate to people where to live. What happens when your childern grow up. You are telling me you woud have no problem with beiing forced to move...regardless of any reason other than age of your childern? Regardless of your financial situation? Would you compensate if people were forced to sell when market values were low?
Where would they be alowed to live? What age would you require people to move? . When their childern reach 18? When they are out of post secondary education?
If your child quits school at 17 do you have to move out? How about people who home school? Why should they live near schools? If you choose not to live near a school when you have childern Should property taxes punish you for not living where you should?
Secondly....there is no one that stops you from voting in this country. You can go to polling stations...you can pre-vote if you need to. I have never missed voting regardless of my age or the age of my childern. I have taken them with me if need be as I feel it is important to have my say. This is a cope out for people who cant be bothered.
If all these people who can not be inconvienced by voting actually made the fffort and showed up the outcome might be different. You can not blame those who do for what you dont bother with.
Sorry ,although I can understand your frustration this is just not well thought out.
Posted by: SP | Nov 21, 2021 12:01:28 PM
When I refer to voting I am not just talking about the 1x every 4 years when you put your 'x' in the box (that sadly has little effect on policy). I am talking about parking your backside in your MP's office, marching in the street with your little picket signs, visiting Ottawa, organizing fundraisers and writing letters, you know "vote:a formal expression of opinion or choice". THAT takes time that the average tax payer doesn't have.
As for location of residence; simple option have higher taxes closer to schools and rebates to parents of children. That way if people without children wish to live near schools they pay a bit more. Trust me, older people are willing to jump through massive hoops even if it only gets them a slightly better room on a cruise ship, an upgrade on their yearly snowbird flight's to Florida or a 0.0002% improvement on their chequing account. From the elderly homeowners near schools that I know it might only take a difference of $100/year to change their opinion of their house location).
You ask do I think "Should property taxes punish you for not living where you should?"
YES ! ! If you choose to build a house in a floodplain, on the edge of a subsiding cliff or fire zone everyone else's tax dollars are spent trying to bail your a$$ out of a situation you put yourself into.
So you see, it's not frustration, it's logic.
BTW... Where on your ballot paper is the selection for Queen or Senator?
Posted by: gan0n | Nov 23, 2021 1:26:26 PM
seriously? taxing people who dont have children but who live near schools?
i just got married this year and bought a house near a school we plan to send our children to. but alas, we dont have children at this exact moment. should we get punished for not having children right away? what kind of logic is that? so we should live downtown in a high rise condo where it is impossible to have children and pets until the glorious day i pop a child out of my vag...the glorious day we will finally be allowed to grace the houses near schools?
Posted by: gan0n | Nov 23, 2021 1:30:26 PM
btw, we are already being taxed to fund the education your crappy little kids are getting. its called property tax.
Posted by: No kids | Nov 25, 2021 1:31:55 PM
I live near a school and have no kids. my wife and I moved there because we liked the location and the house. We do pay extra taxes as we pay the school tax with our property taxes yet have no kids who go to school. We also do not get the child tax credits, the baby bonus checks that people with kids get or the GST rebate. So I think we pay plenty of extra taxes already. Plus we are more environmentaly friendly as we are not bringing more people in to the world to pollute. So take your kids and ram them!
Posted by: Don | Nov 25, 2021 4:30:47 PM
So logic says if you are not of child bearing years (even if you have had and raised childern) you should be deemed a second class citizen and have your decisions and options limited for the benefit of people with childern? Parents now get more than what I was given when I had school agel childern. I am at the end of the baby boomer generation and belong to the "pay generation". The benefits given to the parents at the beginning of the" boomer generation" were cut due to budgetary restraints. By the time I had childern and we had little to no help. Now everyone gets at least $100.00 for childern under 6 regardless of income.
As far as taxes, even though I do not have childern in school anymore, I do believe it is to the benefit of all in this country to have our general population educated. This is what keeps out standard of living where it is. I do however feel I am contributing my fair share already.
Posted by: Christie | Nov 25, 2021 7:51:30 PM
I'm sorry, but you can't ignore the needs of 50%+ of your society and have it work out well.
The feminist ideals of the 1960's appear to have been lost to a indolent, chauvinist patriarchy.
ut sementem feceris ita metes