Sheryl Sandberg and Technology's Female Leaders 181
AlistairCharlton writes "While the rest of the world continues to see men dominating, the technology industry seems set to change that. I investigate how Sheryl Sandberg, Marissa Mayer, Meg Whitman and Joanna Shields are paving the way for the rest of the business community. From the article: 'A glance at the male/female split of world leaders (178/17), Fortune 500 CEOs (96 percent/four percent) and FTSE 100 board seats (85 percent/15 percent) reveals there is a huge imbalance between the sexes, but in technology change is underway - and Sandberg is at the very forefront of it. Along with Meg Whitman, Marissa Mayer and Joanna Shields of HP, Yahoo and London's Tech City respectively, Sandberg represents a shift in what was not so long ago an all-male industry.'"
Re:Feminism (Score:3, Informative)
Teaching is female dominated because male teachers are automatically assumed to be pedophiles.
Re:Feminism (Score:3, Informative)
Job such as teaching is female dominated = women's brains have evolved to be better at certain things.
Negative role such as being in prison is male dominated = men's brains are different.
Positive role such as winning sole custody of one's children is female dominated = women will always be better are certain things.
Job is male dominated = men and women are equals.
It's femilogical, and you're being sexist if you don't agree.
Exactly. What this article seems to be preaching is "equal outcome", as opposed to "equal opportunity". In the U.S. and other western countries, women have the same *opportunity* as men to dominate in these fields. Opportunity is different than outcome. We don't "need" to have a perfect 50% men/women split in industries. We "need" to have the same opportunity available for both sexes.
Each gender is typically going to trend towards certain professions, and that is perfectly fine. The genders may be equal, bu they are certainly not interchangeable, as much as the P.C. cops would like you to believe. Your example of the education industry is valid.
Re:News at 11: Rest of us "Don't Give a Fuck" (Score:4, Informative)
So yes, I do consider hiring more women to be a worthy cause because right now there are systemic problems that result in fairly poor representation of women in tech.
Yes, I agree that the goal should be to treat men and women equally, but we are a long way from that and it makes a rather poor argument for why we should not be trying to improve things.
And unfortunately, the 'innate' argument is just complete and utter bunk, yet it keeps getting trotted out as a rationalization for discrimination.
NPR Morning Edition - Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Carly (Score:1, Informative)
Why not? Women do that to men all the time.
Re:Also Xerox (Score:4, Informative)
... which has had all female CEOs since 2001.
Xerox is not as exciting as HP, but its CEOs have not done large, showy reorganizations that destroyed once-proud solid engineering traditions, so there's that.
Um, what? You really don't know what you're talking about do you... Ursula Burns took over Xerox and then took a wreaking ball straight to engineering.
Ursula Burns sold off large portions of engineering based in the USA to HCL [theoutsourceblog.com], an Indian outsourcing company, then proceeded to dismantle or outsource everything related to product engineering.
But hey, at least she's hiring call center employees [13wham.com] to replace the engineering positions that have been moved to India.
Ursula Burns is the number one most hated CEO [businessinsider.com] in the tech industry. I wonder why?