Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

throwww.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 108 posts

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#21

Post by erikj54 »

russell wrote: post #11

I recall reading about a similar prejudice in the promotion of men. In the case of men it's height not prettiness. EDIT: simonsarris beat me by 3 minutes wit better data, so I'll throw in another data point. In the past 25 presidential elections the taller or tying candidate won 19 times. Before that it is more even, perhaps because it was harder to see the differences.

This is true. There is indeed a biological explanation for many of these behaviours. We are programmed to believe that tall men would infer strong mating partners, or someone to avoid in the case of a male.

For females, it is quite similar. Women who possess certain qualities appear more attractive and we generally look more favourably upon them in society.

This problem is indeed real, but it is perhaps more subconscious then we wish to believe.

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#22

Post by gyom »

To me, the main point has to do with the unseen consequences / victims. It's similar to situations where the government creates winners in an industry, where people applaud the act of job creations, but nobody sees the lost opportunities elsewhere because they are not easily identifiable.

>In reality, she was not qualified for the job. Literally hundreds of other women had applied, many of whom would have been more competent. The real injustice was not hiring one of them in the first place.

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#23

Post by Pwnguinz »

nvr219 wrote: post #10

If you do a google image search for "pictures of fortune 500 ceos" you will see that most of the women coming up are just as ugly as the men. I think this has more to do with the industry attracting people who are ugly on the inside and by the time they get to the top they just say "fuck it" and let their monstrousness show.

What in the bloody heck are you talking about?

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#24

Post by wmf »

kvb wrote: post #13
simonsarris wrote: post #7

I'm slightly apprehensive (terrified) about commenting on this topic or any relating to gender/race because it seems like the bar for public crucifixion is somewhat low, even to those who just want to add data or other side-points to a discussion. Anyway, and I apologize in advance if I derail the topic, but I think there's a semi important distinction to qualify this discussion, because I do think the discussion app…

Of course it's also possible that height and attractiveness are correlated with competence (e.g. because healthy diets as children influence all three attributes), in which case we'd expect to see more tall/attractive people promoted even in a meritocracy (though perhaps not to the observed degree).

In the developed world I would hope that virtually everyone has good enough health/nutrition and thus variation in height and appearance is due more to genetics.

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#25

Post by _mulder_ »

k_kelly wrote: post #5

Here are the female CEO's of the fortune 500. Meg Whitman, HP (#10) Virginia Rometty, IBM (#19) Patricia A. Woertz, Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) (#28) Indra K. Nooyi, PepsiCo, Inc. (#41) Irene B. Rosenfeld, Mondelez International Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed Martin (#58) Ellen J. Kullman, DuPont (#72) Phebe Novakovic, General Dynamics (#92) Carol M. Meyrowitz, The TJX Companies, Inc. (#125) Ursula M. Burns, Xero…

With image links so you can judge for yourself whether the conclusions of the article hold true or not.

Personally I don't think so. Whilst I wouldn't describe any of these hugely succesful women as unattractive, I think they would compare to the attractiveness ratings of male CEOs (also a bit above average).

Meg Whitman, HP (#10) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Meg+Whitman&tbm=isch

Virginia Rometty, IBM (#19) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Virginia+Rometty&tbm=i...

Patricia A. Woertz, Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) (#28) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Patricia+A+Woertz&tbm=...

Indra K. Nooyi, PepsiCo, Inc. (#41) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Indra+K+Nooyi&tbm=isch

Irene B. Rosenfeld, Mondelez International https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Irene+B+Rosenfeld&tbm=...

Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed Martin (#58) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Marillyn+Hewson&tbm=is...

Ellen J. Kullman, DuPont (#72) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Ellen+J+Kullman&tbm=is...

Phebe Novakovic, General Dynamics (#92) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Phebe+Novakovic&tbm=is...

Carol M. Meyrowitz, The TJX Companies, Inc. (#125) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Carol+M+Meyrowitz&tbm=...

Ursula M. Burns, Xerox Corporation (#127) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Ursula+M+Burns&tbm=isc...

Sheri S. McCoy, Avon Products Inc. (#234) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sheri+S+McCoy&tbm=isch

Deanna M. Mulligan, Guardian (#250) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Deanna+M+Mulligan&tbm=...

Debra L. Reed, Sempra Energy (#266) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Debra+L+Reed&tbm=isch

Denise M. Morrison, Campbell Soup (#334) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Denise+M+Morrison&tbm=...

Ilene Gordon, Ingredion Incorproated (#390) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Ilene+Gordon&tbm=isch

Heather Bresch, Mylan (#396) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Heather+Bresch&tbm=isc...

Kathleen M. Mazzarella, Graybar Electric (#451) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Kathleen+M+Mazzarella&...

Mary Agnes (Maggie) Wilderotter, Frontier Communications (#464) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Mary+Wilderotter&tbm=i...

Gracia C. Martore, Gannett (#465) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Gracia+C+Martore&tbm=i...

Marissa Mayer, Yahoo (#483) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Marissa+Mayer&tbm=isch

Beth E. Mooney, KeyCorp (#499) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Beth+E+Mooney&tbm=isch

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#26

Post by Zarathust »

I haven't had a long career but I've heard quite a few times "Hey, we'll have a girl onboard!". My initial concern is usually, I'll admit (is she cute?) but I don't like to look like an asshole so I ask "Is she good?". Almost everytime, someone tells me that "it doesn't matter".

So yes, the article is right, some women get hired for their looks regardless of what they do.

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#27

Post by randren »

clavalle wrote: post #4

So the theory presented here is: = Attractive women are disproportionately hired and promoted. Many of these attractive women are not intelligent enough for upper management therefore there is a limit to how high these women reach in an organization. At the same time, less attractive women languish in the lower rungs, far below their intellectual potential. Furthermore, this phenomena does not affect men because they…

I agree with the synopsis of the presented theory. I also agree that it would be prejudicial to assume that attractive women are less intelligent and capable than their less attractive counterparts. However, I don't see how that assumption is baked into the theory.

Even if, on average, the more-attractive candidates were more intelligent and capable (purely for the sake of the argument), the theory presented seems to support the notion that, despite the hypothetical averages, there would still be a pool of less attractive, highly-qualified candidates held back. It seems to me that, if that were true, they would, under the presented theory, be replaced by attractive candidates who in fact do not qualify for upper management.

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#28

Post by wmf »

Pwnguinz wrote: post #23
nvr219 wrote: post #10

If you do a google image search for "pictures of fortune 500 ceos" you will see that most of the women coming up are just as ugly as the men. I think this has more to do with the industry attracting people who are ugly on the inside and by the time they get to the top they just say "fuck it" and let their monstrousness show.

What in the bloody heck are you talking about?

Sounds like a 19th-century-style theory linking sociopathy with unattractiveness. Might as well throw in some phrenology while he's at it.

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#29

Post by john_b »

Interestingly, I just spoke with a colleague yesterday who admitted (without shame) that he recently campaigned (successfully) to have an attractive female hired into his group. I asked him about her qualifications, and he said she seemed capable, but not exceptional. He stressed that, at least to him, her appearance outweighted her abilities.

Incidents like this make me wonder if some sort of anonymous interviewing could be implemented in certain industries, and whether the benefits associated with mitigating prejudices would outweigh the intangible benefits associated with getting to know someone as a whole person during the hiring process.

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#30

Post by stan_rogers »

sosuke wrote: post #2

The author mentioned only two top females Marissa Mayer and Belinda Stronach. How about the very successful Chanda Zaveri we just had a post about? http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130126/jsp/calcutta/story_164... I'm not saying looks don't affect interviews, I think they do, but I'd like to see a little more investigation and a little less assumption.

Not entirely sure that Belinda Stronach fits, either -- having Frank for a father was a bit of a hand up, I'd think.
Post reply on HN