quote:

---

EXETER, England (Reuters) - Women are increasingly breaking though the glass ceiling to get seats on company boards but only to find themselves teetering on the edge of the glass cliff, a leading psychologist said on Monday.

Alex Haslam said research showed women were often only appointed to senior managerial jobs in firms that were in trouble -- and even then to precarious positions -- and that once business picked up again, the gender doors closed once more.

"Women are breaking through the glass ceiling ... but the jobs are often a poisoned chalice," the Professor of Social Psychology at Exeter University, told reporters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Oh pleeeeeze!!! I don't know of *anybody* who blames that fiasco on anyone but who deserves it— Brian Mulroney.

---

I do. A couple of right-wing students I taught several years ago told me that the demise of the Fed. PCs was due entirely to Kim Campbell, that she single-handedly brought them to their sorry state. They of course heard this from mommy and daddy. I was so flabbergasted that I couldn't even argue. ("What, you're saying the sun is purple???!? Gaaah, spltt, fer chrissakes JUST LOOK AT IT!!!")

I am amused, however, by the fact that I had a sex change since I joined rabble. I kind of wish that I had been informed.

Must have been aliens.

Faith wrote:

quote:

---

I found the 'but men are battered and abused too and why aren't we doing anything for the poor dears' just a little too typical of a male in denial of gender inequity .

---

How unbelievably galling for you to post such a sarcastic statement about family violence. Would you say the same thing about a child who needed help? Would you say the same thing about a victim of elder abuse? If you actually take the time to READ what I had been posting about family violence, my position has been clear from the outset - it impacts everyone. The lack of programs and services for men is appalling and the fact that people like yourself don't even want to talk about the very prospect that family violence is not an issue that is exclusive to women tells me that you are in denial about the very nature of family violence.

It is an expression of power - nothing more and nothing less. Men, women, children, the aged, the mentally and physically challenged - ALL are exposed to it and ALL deserve universal access to programs and services that will help them.

For you to deny the existence or downplay the impact of family violence on other groups Faith, makes you an abuser as well.

If you care to debate this issue with me - you don't have a ghost of a chance but I encourage you to contact me privately.

[ 22 September 2004: Message edited by: sillygoil ]

quote:

---

I think that any woman who breaks that glass ceiling must bear responsibility for her new role - an interesting thing about a corporation when it folds - the finger of blame is pointed at everyone, regardless of gender. The CEO still gets a chunk of cash and management including female management become unemployed.
If you want to break the ceiling, go nuts - but be mindful that if things don't work you are going to get blamed, man OR woman.

---

So, what exactly does this mean? I'd hate to misinterpret. From my reading, it can be taken to mean that if women do manage to break the glass ceiling, they have to take their lumps. Okay, fair enough. But if you read the article this thread has started out with, perhaps there are some implications you're missing, ie: Women are allowed to break the glass ceiling more often on sinking ships than elsewhere, and then DO take their lumps for situations set in motion before they entered that position. What is blamed is not just the individual and her abilities, but the fact of her sex comes into play, which is rarely, if ever, the case with a male CEO.

Your comment could be construed to mean that if women break the glass ceiling, they deserve to get burned.

You really need to leave that red cape at home, sillygoil.

[ 22 September 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]

quote:

---

So, what exactly does this mean? I'd hate to misinterpret. From my reading, it can be taken to mean that if women do manage to break the glass ceiling, they have to take their lumps. Okay, fair enough. But if you read the article this thread has started out with, perhaps there are some implications you're missing, ie: Women are allowed to break the glass ceiling more often on sinking ships than elsewhere, and then DO take their lumps for situations set in motion before they entered that position. What is blamed is not just the individual and her abilities, but the fact of her sex comes into play, which is rarely, if ever, the case with a male CEO.

Your comment could be construed to mean that if women break the glass ceiling, they deserve to get burned.

You really need to leave that red cape at home, sillygoil.

---

First off, it's not a cape - it's a cowl. Secondly, if a woman breaks the glass ceiling on a sinking ship, it's going to sink anyway - god willing she will have been able to recognize that it was sinking in the first place and would have taken measures to cover her butt.

And when was the last time you heard business failure was partly attributable to the ownership of a penis? I ask that in all candour, as ownership of a uterus and a pair of breasts is often brought up in the case of business failure involving a female CEO: ie: The little lady couldn't handle it, yadda yadda yadda.

quote:

---

First off, it's not a cape - it's a cowl.

---

Regardless what you want to call it, you might want to stop flapping it at people. They're liable to write you off as a troll. Apparently, some already have.

[ 22 September 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]

quote:

---

People get set up to take the fall sometimes -- what the article is proposing is that it is happening to women much more than men. It is also suggesting that opportunities for women who want to break the glass ceiling are much riskier than they are for men, and that this is unequal.

---

And my point is that if a woman is able to break the glass ceiling, presumably she would have the wherewithall to recognize that a certain degree of risk is involved if she aspires to be a CEO or on a corporate board. The risks are identical whether male or female - I am challening the very notion that somehow being held responsible for the failings of a company that now become evident once she has broken that glass ceiling somehow makes that woman a victim? That's just crazy.

At what point is a woman prepared to accept the risk associated with having broken through the glass ceiling. Unless she is utterly daft, presumably she would be aware of some of the goings-on of that company as she rose in the organization.

How can it be unequal to be held liable for the failings of a corporate entity when a person knows full well what the risks are.

Anyway, it could be that women, while viewed as essentially competent to navigate a company through a crisis, are still considered as expendible, and are therefore a better choice when it comes to a situation where things could go either way. Sort of like, "if she can fix it, great...f she can't, better her than us" mentality.

There's also this curious tradition of women having to clean up, to deal with the consequences of crises created by men. Armed conflict is an excellent example where the crisis is created almost exclusively by men, yet the most significant damage, collateral damage, is borne by women, and the children and elderly people they care for. Women have also been charged with the defense of the home turf while the menfolk have been off killing each other, looting, raping and pillaging along the way. In many, if not most of the world, women are still held responsible for being sexually assaulted, are held responsible for the emotional damage inflicted upon her children when a man abandons his family or is abusive. "Well, she should have left him," or "She drove him out", etc.

quote:

---

And my point is that if a woman is able to break the glass ceiling, presumably she would have the wherewithall to recognize that a certain degree of risk is involved if she aspires to be a CEO or on a corporate board.

---

That's not being disputed, either by the posters or by the article in question. Certainly, a degree of risk is involved for any person seeking such a position.

quote:

---

The risks are identical whether male or female - I am challening the very notion that somehow being held responsible for the failings of a company that now become evident once she has broken that glass ceiling somehow makes that woman a victim? That's just crazy.

---

There's where the dispute comes in. The proportion of high-risk positions, according to the article, offered to women are higher than those offered to men. I don't know if that claim is supported completely, but it is evident to me that you're missing the point.

I don't like seeing women cry victim or attempt to avoid responsibility for their situations, either. However, your original post implies that if women do aspire to top positions, they deserve to get burned more often than their male counterparts.

quote:

---

At what point is a woman prepared to accept the risk associated with having broken through the glass ceiling. Unless she is utterly daft, presumably she would be aware of some of the goings-on of that company as she rose in the organization.

How can it be unequal to be held liable for the failings of a corporate entity when a person knows full well what the risks are.

---

I don't know that daftness is the point. I've worked in organizations where what happens at the top levels isn't transparent. I can imagine that if there's hinky business going on, that isn't going to be widely shared, nor is there necessarily going to information about coming trouble readily apparent to anyone outside the very top levels. I've seen managers who move into a screwed up position find out after the fact that there's big trouble that was carefully covered and find themselves totally hosed -- both sexes.

[ 22 September 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]