Something else is not quite sitting right with me either. This has to do with the intentions of the types of jobs reported on in the news.
Time and Newsweek magazines are fraught with stories about fatcat embezzling CEOs. They discuss at length the obscene exorbitant salaries that CEOs receive. There is Enron, there is Viacom, ad nauseum. These CEOs have not earned a penny of this salary. So we know that bearing the title "CEO" is not automatically worthy of commendation.
But what, if a woman is an embezzling CEO, that is suddenly okay? If a woman does it, it is suddenly a harbinger of happiness and tidings of good fortune for generations to come?
I think most people are astute enough to be aware that it is the foot soldiers of a company doing the actual work. The lower level employees, secretaries, etc. are the ones actually running the company. They are the ones building the products, arranging meetings, making phone calls, taking messages, etc. The higher up someone moves in the stratification, the less substantial and genuine work they do.
Yet women's magazines are trying to tell us it is an outrage that more women are not promoted to higher-level managerial positions. They try to give sermons about how women should be more aggressive in the boardroom.
I've seen a few comparison lists and T-charts that compare *exactly* the kind of salaries that a woman would make at typical businesses/corporations. These are as compared with a man who works a similar job at a similar sized company, has similar authoritative and supervisory position in the hierarchy of the rank and file (if applicable). The man has similar job duties and responsibilities, similar background experience, similar education and "training."
But here's the thing. What is this "work" they are doing that is so damn important? Let us look at the actual nature of the job. So we've established that the foot soldiers are doing the "work" as it were. So frakin what? Mega corporations. It's just administrative, bureaucratic crap. It's not like it's actually important.
It does not have any noteworthy, significant, positive contributions to society. There is no notable, commendable impact on society. It's just paper pushing. Corporate office crap. Standing around the water cooler chatting about yesterday's episode of "Buffy the vampire slayer." There is no actual skill involved.
These are all in essence crap jobs that clog up the economy airwaves. So even though these are mere auxiliary window-dressing jobs in the first place, people are supposed to be outraged that women are not being ushered in with open welcoming arms into the upper echelons of the crapp company.
This might possibly be a reason it has never bothered me that there are not more women CEOs. Guffaw. CEO of what exactly? A multinational mega-corporation that advertises and goads people into buying crap they don't need, using money they don't have?
Perhaps this is just the arrogant scientist facet of me talking, but... Re: the glass ceiling. And I know a sizable population of feminists do mention girls entering math and science in the same breath that they mention administrative corporate stuff. But they are not the same thing, not even close.
Boardroom meetings, managerial crap, job promotions, climbing up the corporate ladder, the "rat race" as they say. Here's the thing. All this 'managerial' stuff is fake anyway. It is fake when men do it, and it is fake when women do it.
So what is the point in aiming for that, having that as a goal to set in one's sights, when all it does is suck you deeper into the muck and mire of junk? Or actually, not deeper, but rather further up the tornado of useless jobs that do nothing but clog up the economy?
Time and Newsweek magazines are fraught with stories about fatcat embezzling CEOs. They discuss at length the obscene exorbitant salaries that CEOs receive. There is Enron, there is Viacom, ad nauseum. These CEOs have not earned a penny of this salary. So we know that bearing the title "CEO" is not automatically worthy of commendation.
But what, if a woman is an embezzling CEO, that is suddenly okay? If a woman does it, it is suddenly a harbinger of happiness and tidings of good fortune for generations to come?
I think most people are astute enough to be aware that it is the foot soldiers of a company doing the actual work. The lower level employees, secretaries, etc. are the ones actually running the company. They are the ones building the products, arranging meetings, making phone calls, taking messages, etc. The higher up someone moves in the stratification, the less substantial and genuine work they do.
Yet women's magazines are trying to tell us it is an outrage that more women are not promoted to higher-level managerial positions. They try to give sermons about how women should be more aggressive in the boardroom.
I've seen a few comparison lists and T-charts that compare *exactly* the kind of salaries that a woman would make at typical businesses/corporations. These are as compared with a man who works a similar job at a similar sized company, has similar authoritative and supervisory position in the hierarchy of the rank and file (if applicable). The man has similar job duties and responsibilities, similar background experience, similar education and "training."
But here's the thing. What is this "work" they are doing that is so damn important? Let us look at the actual nature of the job. So we've established that the foot soldiers are doing the "work" as it were. So frakin what? Mega corporations. It's just administrative, bureaucratic crap. It's not like it's actually important.
It does not have any noteworthy, significant, positive contributions to society. There is no notable, commendable impact on society. It's just paper pushing. Corporate office crap. Standing around the water cooler chatting about yesterday's episode of "Buffy the vampire slayer." There is no actual skill involved.
These are all in essence crap jobs that clog up the economy airwaves. So even though these are mere auxiliary window-dressing jobs in the first place, people are supposed to be outraged that women are not being ushered in with open welcoming arms into the upper echelons of the crapp company.
This might possibly be a reason it has never bothered me that there are not more women CEOs. Guffaw. CEO of what exactly? A multinational mega-corporation that advertises and goads people into buying crap they don't need, using money they don't have?
Perhaps this is just the arrogant scientist facet of me talking, but... Re: the glass ceiling. And I know a sizable population of feminists do mention girls entering math and science in the same breath that they mention administrative corporate stuff. But they are not the same thing, not even close.
Boardroom meetings, managerial crap, job promotions, climbing up the corporate ladder, the "rat race" as they say. Here's the thing. All this 'managerial' stuff is fake anyway. It is fake when men do it, and it is fake when women do it.
So what is the point in aiming for that, having that as a goal to set in one's sights, when all it does is suck you deeper into the muck and mire of junk? Or actually, not deeper, but rather further up the tornado of useless jobs that do nothing but clog up the economy?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment