Trying to find an article- what school girls are told vs real world

[Worldgonecrazy]

Hi vipers

I read an article a few weeks ago discussing the message girls get in schools - you can do anything - you can be anything - don’t let being a woman hold you back. Then the reality when they grow up, they become invisible, belittled, passed over for promotion and find that sexism and misogyny will affect their careers and home lives, and this has an effect on women’s mental and physical health.

As the beliefs they received at school are so strong, women then blame themselves for their failure to achieve (because you can do anything you set your mind to) rather than blaming the society around them and the myriad of ways the world favours their male peers.

Can anyone recall the article? Or hopefully kept a link?

Don't know what world you live in. I worked in a university, and the women there were basically untouchable. They were also prioritised for promotion to make the university look good.

Christ, I work in a university and it’s more sexist than most other workplaces I’ve been in, and there are plenty of academics on here who can tell you the same. Women are basically used for teaching fodder and hardly ever promoted.

@greasyshoes suddenly reminds me of an entire evening I had at a dinner a couple of years ago, with three male professorial colleagues who all complained bitterly and at length that the only senior women in the department were only there because they had slept with someone to get there and were all incompetent. The ratio of male to female professors in our department at the time was 8:1. I had to sit in silence the whole dinner while this went on.

OP, I would like to see that article. I agree - I never really encountered really direct sexism until I was in the workplace. Then oodles of it and it was a shock. Even more of a shock was that it gets worse not better as you get older. It was especially a shock to realise that men hide or mask a lot of the sexism when you’re young and vaguely fuckable, but the mask drops abruptly as soon as you’re not.

I feel more depressed about it now than I ever did when I was younger, because it’s so predictably visible across my age group where the effect on women of falling behind due to ingrained structural sexism is more and more evident. Friends and colleagues you know to be smarter and more capable than their male peers being passed over; couples who you know were equal in their twenties now depressingly unequal where the man’s career has forged ahead even if the woman is cleverer or more talented. And it isn’t all just about having children either, though that’s part of it. It’s seeing men get mentored and offered opportunities women don’t get, and also crucially not having to do the drudge work that women often get given. It’s seeing how differently you get treated for the same work compared to a male colleague. All of it.

@greasyshoes

Don't know what world you live in. I worked in a university, and the women there were basically untouchable. They were also prioritised for promotion to make the university look good.

She probably lives in the world where, even though women make up about 45% of academics, only 22% of professors and a similar percentage of vice chancellors.

If this is the reality of universities prioritising women for promotion, they really aren’t very good at it.

I don’t know about that particular article but I remember Samira Ahmed talking about speaking to girls/young women about how girls are taught or tend naturally to try and be good and diligent and do what they’re told to, which is great for passing exams and school/university but then not as useful out in the real world. Does anyone else remember this?

@greasyshoes

Don't know what world you live in. I worked in a university, and the women there were basically untouchable. They were also prioritised for promotion to make the university look good.

That's brilliant. A university that has 50% women or more in all positions all the way up? And mediocre men are passed up for promotion. Great. Which is it?

Or... just guessing, they are quite shit at that which is why they have to try to hang on to the ones they have because they'll look even shitter.

She probably lives in the world where, even though women make up about 45% of academics, only 22% of professors and a similar percentage of vice chancellors.

The percentage of female professors and vice chancellors used to be a lot smaller. A percentage is a ratio. An increasing percentage indicates women are being promoted more frequently than men.

That's brilliant. A university that has 50% women or more in all positions all the way up? And mediocre men are passed up for promotion. Great. Which is it?

Two of the women who made their way into senior roles were flat-out incompetent. It's not exactly a glowing success story.

@greasyshoes

She probably lives in the world where, even though women make up about 45% of academics, only 22% of professors and a similar percentage of vice chancellors.

The percentage of female professors and vice chancellors used to be a lot smaller. A percentage is a ratio. An increasing percentage indicates women are being promoted more frequently than men.

An increasing percentage does not mean women are now being promoted more frequently than men. It simply indicates they are being promoted more frequently than they were in the past.

If this is indicative of your analytical prowess, it doesn't lend your initial observation much credence.

@Worldgonecrazy

Sounds like a great article & one I’d like to show to my DD!

@greasyshoes

That's brilliant. A university that has 50% women or more in all positions all the way up? And mediocre men are passed up for promotion. Great. Which is it?

Two of the women who made their way into senior roles were flat-out incompetent. It's not exactly a glowing success story.

The question was - Which university were you at where 50% or more of all positions on the way up are helds by women?

There are plenty of incompetent men in senior roles, so it should be no surprise, if half the leadership are women, that a couple of them are also not quite up to the job. Would be a much higher competency rate than most enterprises.

Number theory
"An increasing percentage does not mean women are now being promoted more frequently than men. It simply indicates they are being promoted more frequently than they were in the past."

Exactly this

I'm with you on the reality of what happens to a lot of women out in the real world OP, but as a teacher I don't recognise this idea that a strong message of having it all and being whatever you want is hammered specifically into girls at school. I'm not sure in what context that would be taught - I can't imagine standing in front of a mixed class directing that message oy to the female members of the class. Students are encouraged to be ambitious, plan for their futures, make the most of their abilities etc, but that's all students, not specifically girls.

I agree with @SwissBall though. Girls' early upbringing and socialisation does sometimes mean that the most successful girls in school are also the more docile and compliant ones, who may prove to be less sharp-elbowed and forthright in the workplace.

I also think it's naïve to think that teenagers really set much store by what teachers tell them about real life and the real world. Their parents and the internet are a much stronger influence in terms of expectations, values and attitudes.

The question was - Which university were you at where 50% or more of all positions on the way up are helds by women?

First, I will not name the university. As I previously worked in an academic environment, I don't want to write anything that may make me identifiable.

Second, I never said that women at this university, or department, held 50% of senior positions. I said they were prioritised for promotion, meaning they are promoted more frequently than men. You will be familiar with the Athena SWAN charter, which incentivises universities to prioritise women for promotion to senior positions.

There are plenty of incompetent men in senior roles, so it should be no surprise, if half the leadership are women, that a couple of them are also not quite up to the job. Would be a much higher competency rate than most enterprises.

I agree, but the problem with creating an incentive to promote people from a specific demographic increases the risk that incompetents are going to slip through the net. I saw some truly wonderful women being promoted and they completely deserved it, but also women who did not deserve it.

One co-worker, who has since left the academic realm, had the unfortunate experience of working with several weak, dominating, and controlling female academics, and said to me in frustration that "all female academics are the same." Before you cry misogyny, this co-worker was a woman.

@greasyshoes

The question was - Which university were you at where 50% or more of all positions on the way up are helds by women?

First, I will not name the university. As I previously worked in an academic environment, I don't want to write anything that may make me identifiable.

Second, I never said that women at this university, or department, held 50% of senior positions. I said they were prioritised for promotion, meaning they are promoted more frequently than men. You will be familiar with the Athena SWAN charter, which incentivises universities to prioritise women for promotion to senior positions.

There are plenty of incompetent men in senior roles, so it should be no surprise, if half the leadership are women, that a couple of them are also not quite up to the job. Would be a much higher competency rate than most enterprises.

I agree, but the problem with creating an incentive to promote people from a specific demographic increases the risk that incompetents are going to slip through the net. I saw some truly wonderful women being promoted and they completely deserved it, but also women who did not deserve it.

One co-worker, who has since left the academic realm, had the unfortunate experience of working with several weak, dominating, and controlling female academics, and said to me in frustration that "all female academics are the same." Before you cry misogyny, this co-worker was a woman.

Would be interested in seeing details on any British university that has promoted more women than men into professor or higher roles in the last few years.

We already have plenty of incentives to promote men. And societal wide preference for the white male demographic has seen less competent men promoted over more competent women and given them more opportunities for growth time and time again. Senior positions across our society are littered with men who advanced over more able women because of both explicit and unconscious bias.

OP sorry for derailing your thread by engaging in pointless back and forth.

I’ve looked through a few past threads and can’t see anything about an article like that on here. And I don’t recall anything similar recently. Can you give any more details that might jog people’s memories?

Would be interested in seeing details on any British university that has promoted more women than men into professor or higher roles in the last few years.

Any British university which has increased its % of female senior academics has been moving more women into senior roles than men. I believe it's also one of the criteria for an athena SWAN award, so look at any department or university which has one of those awards.

We already have plenty of incentives to promote men.

Like what?

@greasyshoes

Would be interested in seeing details on any British university that has promoted more women than men into professor or higher roles in the last few years.

Any British university which has increased its % of female senior academics has been moving more women into senior roles than men. I believe it's also one of the criteria for an athena SWAN award, so look at any department or university which has one of those awards.

We already have plenty of incentives to promote men.

Like what?

Your maths is poor, greasy. This stuff is basic percentages. Let me show you why your statement is false by using an example with straightforward numbers:

A university has a thousand professors. 780 are men and 220 women. That's 22% female, 78% male.

10% of the men and 10% of the women leave so the university now has 702 men and 198 women, still 22% female and 78% male.

So 100 people have left and the university now has 100 spots to fill.

You contend that if they increase their percentage of female professors above 22% they must have hired more women than men.

Here's what's far more likely to happen:

University hires 40 women and 60 men. There are now 762 men, and 238 women.

So their percentage of female professors increases (to almost 24%) and their percentage of male professors decreases (to just over 76%). But they still hired 50% more men than women.

The reality is that to increase the percentage of women they just have to promote a slightly higher percentage of women than they did in the past. It doesn't have to be more women than men unless they are raising the bar from a ratio that is already 50:50 or better.

So can you link to any university that has actually promoted more women than men in the last few years?

don’t let being a woman hold you back

I'm confused as to why anyone would present the message like this in the first place!
I was born in the 80s. When I went to school I didn't have any concept that boys were supposed to be better than girls. My experience was that the highest achievers in all our subjects were girls!
Someone telling me "don't let being a woman hold you back" would plant the idea that it should hold me back in some way.

OK, I take your point. It was a senior moment, unfortunately. But the point remains that if the % of women is increasing in a university, they are at least promoting more women than they did previously.

So can you link to any university that has actually promoted more women than men in the last few years?

Department I worked in made a point of promoting lots of women. But anyway, there are other factors to consider. Fewer women enter academia to begin with (probably because women are less likely to have the narcissistic and sociopathic traits commonly found in academics) meaning the pool of women at the bottom is smaller, and there are fewer women to promote.

@greasyshoes

OK, I take your point. It was a senior moment, unfortunately. But the point remains that if the % of women is increasing in a university, they are at least promoting more women than they did previously.

So can you link to any university that has actually promoted more women than men in the last few years?

Department I worked in made a point of promoting lots of women. But anyway, there are other factors to consider. Fewer women enter academia to begin with (probably because women are less likely to have the narcissistic and sociopathic traits commonly found in academics) meaning the pool of women at the bottom is smaller, and there are fewer women to promote.

Even 10 years ago women were getting 45% of PhDs. I don't know what the figures in the UK are today, but women have been getting the majority of PhDs in the US for a few years now. The idea that women don't want to go into academia or that promotions reflect the percentage of women coming through the pipeline doesn't really hold up.

You propose it's down to traits that aren't as common in women than men yet aren't a job requirement. Do you not realise that what you are saying there is that it's down to systemic discrimination? And exactly why some people think formal efforts to promote women are needed?

Whilst I understand the frustration I think the messaging is important - and not just for girls.

DP and I both work in minimum wage jobs in a vocation; we also have our own business and we only work the MW jobs because we love it - not because we need to. We have been discussing a lot recently about how sad it is that many who we work with (who dont do it by choice and are unhappy) dont believe they can earn anymore, do anything else, etc.

As a young woman I saw the world might be unjust to me. I write 'might' because I wasn't yet sure - early 20s and still without children. So I set up our business. I wasn't going to wait around to find out. I wouldn't have done that if I hadn't grown up believing I could achieve anything I want.

I am not so sure what the key factor in believing that view was but I think a combination of class (seeing wealth & success), parents, education, stubbornness and ego.

So in summary I think its an important message; and I think we should emphasise the 'taking control of your own success' even more. They need to teach basic business & entrepreneurship starting in secondary.

Even 10 years ago women were getting 45% of PhDs. I don't know what the figures in the UK are today, but women have been getting the majority of PhDs in the US for a few years now. The idea that women don't want to go into academia or that promotions reflect the percentage of women coming through the pipeline doesn't really hold up.

Getting a PhD and academia are two different things. The majority of PhDs do not enter careers in academia, nor do they ever have plans to work in academia. Indeed, the number of jobs in academia is very low compared to the number of people with a PhD.

When I talked about women coming through the pipeline, I was referring to entry-level academia (lecturer level, for example). Far fewer women become lecturers to begin with.

You propose it's down to traits that aren't as common in women than men yet aren't a job requirement. Do you not realise that what you are saying there is that it's down to systemic discrimination?

I didn't say it's down to discrimination. I said that perhaps fewer women apply for academia jobs in the first place because of personal traits and characteristics which mean that they do not find a career in academia appealing. Most academics are narcissists and sociopaths. The majority of women (and also, the majority of men!) do not find that kind of working environment appealing.

@greasyshoes

Even 10 years ago women were getting 45% of PhDs. I don't know what the figures in the UK are today, but women have been getting the majority of PhDs in the US for a few years now. The idea that women don't want to go into academia or that promotions reflect the percentage of women coming through the pipeline doesn't really hold up.

Getting a PhD and academia are two different things. The majority of PhDs do not enter careers in academia, nor do they ever have plans to work in academia. Indeed, the number of jobs in academia is very low compared to the number of people with a PhD.

When I talked about women coming through the pipeline, I was referring to entry-level academia (lecturer level, for example). Far fewer women become lecturers to begin with.

You propose it's down to traits that aren't as common in women than men yet aren't a job requirement. Do you not realise that what you are saying there is that it's down to systemic discrimination?

I didn't say it's down to discrimination. I said that perhaps fewer women apply for academia jobs in the first place because of personal traits and characteristics which mean that they do not find a career in academia appealing. Most academics are narcissists and sociopaths. The majority of women (and also, the majority of men!) do not find that kind of working environment appealing.

According to research by HESA 8 years ago women made up 45% of all academic staff in the UK HE sector, not just PhD candidates. And the data seems to show that they have been pursuing academic careers in large numbers for decades. They just haven’t been promoted to senior roles much.

Most academics being narcissists and sociopaths would prove that people without those traits don’t find the job appealing. It simply means that those who have been successful have had those traits. There could be several explanations for that - if it is indeed the case that lots of academics are narcissists and sociopaths and not simply your projection because you don’t like the academics you worked with. And since women have, as shown above, been pursuing academic careers in large numbers for a long time, they either suffer from narcissism and sociopathy in nearly similar numbers, or they like academia despite not having those traits.

Most academics being narcissists and sociopaths would not* prove that people without those traits don’t find the job appealing.