Leadership's Future: Women Will Run The World
by Miki SaxonThat’s right, guys, you are obsolescent whether you realize it or not.
At least, that’s the conclusion that seems to be offered on a post at Bizzy Women, based in part on job loss stats from Peter Coy’s 2008 Business Week article and also quotes heavily from Harvard psychologist Dan Kindlon’s Alpha Girls
Granted that women gained 300,000 jobs between November, 2007 and April, 2008 while men lost nearly 700,000, but the stats aren’t straight across.
“Simply put, men have the misfortune of being concentrated in the two sectors that are doing the worst: manufacturing and construction. Women are concentrated in sectors that are still growing, such as education and health care. … Manufacturing is over 70% male and construction is about 88% male. Meanwhile the growing education and health services sector is 77% female. The government sector, which has remained strong, is 57% female. The securities business, which is filled with high-paying jobs, is likely to be the next sector to get whacked—and more than 60% of its workers are men.”
Securities was more than whacked, it was decimated.
The problem I have with the idea that “The new economy is largely dominated by young women who have unique skills, not by men who have been taught to follow the rules.”
Unfortunately, the jobs being created are mostly in health and education areas—not the most lucrative positions. And as Coy points out, “the “female” economy can’t stay strong for long if the “male” economy weakens too much.”
The great majority of families need both incomes to thrive and, in many cases, it takes both to just survive.
Yes, more women than men are attending college, but perhaps that’s because more resources have been poured into developing women; that isn’t bad, but it does screw the numbers. (This is especially obvious when you look at the differences between black girls and boys.)
These predictions also assume that men can’t/won’t change, current and future generations of males will be the same and experience will play no role over the next 20 or so years, which I find ridiculous.
But the biggest problem I have with the idea that women will rule is the same problem I’ve had for decades as minority groups, whether designated by gender, race, sexual orientation or whatever, have improved their situation.
Not the improvement, I’m all for that, but the desire to dominate.
When I was living in San Francisco I knew from personal experience that the most disenfranchised group in terms of political power, social services, educational help or general assistance were middle age, white, single, straight females.
Sadly, I find that equality isn’t the driving force—”do unto others as they did unto us” is.
Your comments—priceless
Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL
Image credit: fakhar on sxc.hu
August 26th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Nice up-ending of the stats. I like to think about “equivalency” versus “equality” when discussing diversity – rather than measure dollar for dollar and hour for hour, we might be better off determining when work is equal but different and therefore valuing our respective differences more – and yes, the Golden Rule should always be a guide.
August 26th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Hi Karen, I’ve always said that stats are like the Bible, they can be spun to support diametrically opposed views.
I’m not sure how you would apply “equivalency” to a Wall Street banker and a teacher, except that one is overpaid and the other under!