OT: "I assume you will admit that three times as many women are participating"
Could be. But instead of speaking about "excluding
factors", you may want to think in terms of "including
factors".
Do you happen to know what happen to the birth rate
in the "participating" category?
How about quality of health of the newborns? Or
neglected children?
How about escalation in school shootings?
Explosion of prison population, elderly homes?
Maybe it is because many of women "are participating"
in wrong activities?
There are social roles in a society. Many of them
are gender-based, want you or don't. The job of CEO
requires serious dedication, 20++ years of education, and
long overtime hours. I guess most women elect not to
waste their best years on all this unnatural activities.
That's why the percentage is so low. More, because
of _equal_ abilities, a businesswomen who elected to
perform her natural reproductive duties and has to
take some time off, will be (statistically) always
behind any equally qualified men, just because of
time. Very simple.
"Is promotion opportunity, at the high end, equal for men and women? I don't think so"
And you are right. And not only at "high end" but at
any end. In the tough business environment as in the US,
which requires minute-per-minute attention, who do you
think the business will promote, a pretty woman in
her best reproductive age, with very high risk for
maternity leave and other child care duties, or a
a _equally_ qualified men, without much of this burdens?
In closing, I really do not understand why some
women here are offended by all this order of nature.
They must be fairy unhappy in their lives. Sorry. |
