#ceo gap

It’s funny, but have you ever noticed “empowered” feminists have a complete inability to take any responsibility for their own failures and are always looking for a (male) scapegoat? Case in point, feminists insist women don’t progress to CEO roles because of “sexism” and “patriarchal oprression.” The truth is far different. ...

A new report on women and leadership by financial-services company KPMG presents a somewhat counterintuitive finding: As women advance in their careers, they become less inclined to take professional risks.

KPMG surveyed a total of 2,012 professional, college-educated women in the US. Results showed that 45% of women with fewer than five years of experience said they were open to taking big risks to further their career, compared to 37% of women with at least 15 years of experience. 

 it's likely because senior-level women have more to lose. Many senior-level women have families to take care of; they may be planning for retirement; and they may have established themselves at a particular organization.

When women do take risks, according to the report, it's typically with the goal of earning more, as opposed to getting a title bump. 

Feminists purposefully confuse Biological Inequity with Sexist Inequality to advance their agenda. The former is a fact of anatomy that cannot be changed, while the latter is a fault in morality that presumably can. Feminists, who despise the unchangeable biological inequity caused by being born with a uterus, are always trying to find a work around to this. It invariably involves punishing men for sexist inequality, though that’s not the real issue at all.

Case in point, the adverse career effects of maternity leave on women.

Women have no choice, due to biological inequity, to take time away from work pre and post childbirth which affects career advancement - if you’re not working then you’re not advancing.  Men have no such biological obligation, but not because of sexist inequality as feminists pretend. So what’s the feminist answer? Punish men equally out of vindictiveness and force them to take paternity leave too. In short, equal career failure for everyone.

Today Time columnist Belinda Luscombe wrote Why Women Need to Fight for Paternity Leave that pretty much sums this attitude up:

Guys have it so easy. They can pee anywhere. They get to have kids without having their internal organs dislodged for a few months. A day or so after their baby is born they can rock back up to work and bask in the high fives and dadly glory.

And, as study after study has shown, once back, they get to ascend the corporate ladder more fluidly and frequently than women. More women graduate from college. More women make it through graduate school. Just about equal numbers of men and women go into the workforce. But more guys get to the executive suites at more companies.

Maddening.

So you’d think the last thing women should worry about is paternity leave. Haven’t we got burdens enough of our own?

But, in a neat twist of fate, if women want more leadership positions, it turns out they need to agitate for guys.

A study just released by the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that countries with mandatory maternal leave did not have more women on those countries’ corporate boards. However, countries with more generous paternity leave did.

Why does paternity leave make such a difference? The study’s authors suggest it could be because if men don’t get the time away from work, then their wives have to stay home to look after the kids.

Duh. Somebody has to stay home to look after the kids.

If you read any business websites, invariably at least once a week you will find an article where a feminist throws an outraged tirade over the “CEO Gap.” Feminists insist women are no different than men, that any perceived differences are just “gender stereotypes,” and because men seek promotions to become business execs women want the same thing.

Quite simply, these feminist positions are fraud, fraud and more fraud.

Bloomberg cites a Harvard research study that shows the CEO Gap has less to do with “sexism” as feminists pretend to keep women outraged than rational decisions women make due to real differences between the genders that are not stereotypes:

Women are underrepresented in leadership positions for plenty of reasons: They’re stereotyped as being less competent than men, they aren’t as aggressive, and there’s a perception that they can’t lead and raise a family at the same time. Now, research from Harvard Business School adds yet another reason to the list: Women aren’t in leadership positions because they just don’t want the jobs as much as men do.

The paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), incorporates nine studies conducted on various high-achieving groups. Combined, the research indicates that women value power less than men, and the studies try to explain the phenomenon.

In one of the studies, conducted on 650 recent MBA graduates, researchers had participants rank their current position in their industry, their ideal position, and the highest position they could realistically attain. Women had no doubt they could “realistically attain” the same level of success as men, but they listed lower ideal positions.

Another one of the studies helps explain that finding, by suggesting women have more negative associations with power than men do. “Women expect more stress, burden, conflicts, and difficult trade-offs to accompany high-level positions,” said Alison Wood Brooks, a co-author of the paper and an assistant professor of business administration at Harvard.

Feminists always paint gender gaps as a product of “patriarchal oppression” where women are victims. What they don’t do is ever stop to consider that women aren’t victims, but rational decision makers who do what’s right for them - even if it doesn’t fit with Feminist Doctrine.

I saw the above titled article on Forbes website reading the business news this morning and gave it a click. The crux of the article is this:

Despite the retail sector being driven by the purchasing power of women, there are still relatively few in the top jobs at apparel and consumer goods companies.

The problem with this type of logic is it assumes “If A is true then B must be true.” In the context of this article, it translates to “If women are good at shopping women must be good at selling.” To anyone with more than a pea brain, it is obvious these are two very different skill sets.

This in no way means women cannot be good at selling or even be great CEOs. It just means the logic is flawed. There are lots of reasons women pursue CEO positions at a lower rate than men and they have nothing to do with “patriarchal oppression.” 

Namely, many women who attain such lofty positions admit there are huge sacrifices - sacrifices feminists on their CEO Gap outrage refuse to even acknowledge, let alone admit are credible and significant.