Wow, some these comments are horrible, embarrassing and seem to all be by men.
Please remember not every female wants to be in the home, there really are women
that would like to choose something different or additional. I have been a
successful mother, executive and church leader for the past 20 years. Guess
what, my kids are not failing because I work. They have the most amazing
magical life, celebrating everything, and learning to work hard. They are
successful, and my husband and I are so extremely happy because we have a family
combination that works for us. Please remember that there is NOT one type of
family dynamic in this world, all families look different, and YES, some do
include women in a high management role. To the person who
wouldn’t hire a business run by a female, really, wow. Just because a
mother works too, does not mean their family is falling apart. These comments
remind me why I left Utah to raise my family and yes, work. Now to
focus on the article. Although upsetting to see the study results of this
article it tells a lot. We need girls to watch and learn from female managers
to know, they can have that option too, if they so choose.
I am a white, single male. And this article was great! I look forward to working
side-by-side with women who inexorably came up in careers where they were
shunned, overlooked for promotion, and left out to dry by their peers. People
who by choice or circumstances challenged the stasis quo, not to uproot the
family but improve it. Pioneers. Stigmas, biases, and chicanery to the contrary
are evidence of a fear stemming from apathy, misunderstanding, and fatous
ignorance. I encourage the reader to review cases Reed v. Reed, Frontiero v.
Richardson, Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, and Duren v. Missouri.
I'm not surprised at the comments, but I am irritated. I didn't see
any criticism in this article for stay at home moms, or moms who put family over
career, did you? Gender inequality remains a problem, despite
progress. This is still largely a man's world. More needs to be done, and I
applaud these folks for what they are doing.
To pretend that there is no meaningful difference between a man and woman, a
girl and a boy, a mother and a father, a brother and a sister, is a lie,
absurd.Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners. -
Because we have each been given different gifts and talents, we have different
roles to play. People need the opportunity to do what vocation they want and
partners, husbands and wives, get to determine what is best for them.
I would venture to say that we have more Women CEOs per capita than most places.
These articles just need to consider a stay at home Mom as a CEO of her own
company and we come out smelling like roses.Ridiculous that they are
trying to pressure anybody away from their own choice. I admire a
Mom that stays home to raise her kids, especially during the early years. She
is a true leader. Most noble "profession" there is.
"It has seemed odd to me that women on welfare have the most
children?"Not strange at all.If you subsidize a
behavior, then you'll get more of it.
I'm LDS but the comments on this thread are flat out embarrassing.It's not as simple as more women "choosing" traditional male
careers - many of them want to but they're forced out by gender
discrimination and sexual abuse. That's why we need to "force" more
women into these fields, so they have other women to lean on.
Everyone wants more for their group. It is always going to be that way until we
have "true equality". That's what we should be working for.
Nothing else is going to work. Merit is what we should be all working for.
Nothing special for anyone.
More women in leadership positions would validate Susan Madsen. She
"needs" other women to succeed so her "project" will be
successful or rather she will be looked on as being successful. Forcing STEM
onto our young ladies and having classes for girls only somehow seems to be the
wrong approach. We should include all...isn't that what Susan Madsen
I became a victim when the push for women to break through glass ceilings became
the talking point of the political correctness crowd. Despite my years of
education, training and experience, promotion was given to less qualified women
to satisfy the demand of gender equality. How do I know they were less
qualified? I trained many of them who were promoted over me. Even after their
promotion, I still had to guide them on how to do their jobs. Promotion should
be merit based, not gender driven. Any woman who is qualified for a job should
have the same opportunity to compete for that job. Sometimes, the job is given
based on great interviews not great qualification on the CVs. Given a job based
on gender is wrong. Of course, there are few exceptions.
This complaint about shortage of women "leaders" in Utah is the
culmination of decades of feminist nonsense.There is nothing wrong
with women being leaders, and we should all admire those who are successful.
Remember Carly Fiornia as head of Hewlett Packard, Condaleeza Rice's many
accomplishments, Nikki Haley, a woman of color who rose from abject poverty to
be Governor of South Carolina and UN Ambassador, Lady Margaret Thatcher, one of
the UK's finest Prime Ministers, Meg Whitman who founded eBay. All
wonderful role models in traditionally male dominated fields.However, feminists and this article ignore the even more important job inside
the home, that of bearing, nurturing and educating children. Utah women excel
at that job, and our state's high marriage rate, low crime, high literacy,
strong work ethic, religious values, self reliance and general good citizenship
are among the best in the nation. Their children are the future of the family,
the state and the country.Conversely, areas which devalue the
importance of the mothering job are horrible.Keep up the good work,
Utah women, the most important job is in the home, not the business world.
Why does everything have to be mandated to be "equal."And it
is always complaining about things that society deems important, but not other
way around.If we truly wanted equality then maybe there should be
articles complaining about how few women are in prison compared to men.
instead of focusing on making minorities and women in more positions. how
about filling those positions without looking at the candidates gender or
I went to the Air show with my family at Hill this year and in one of the
hangars they had a booth for STEM careers, trying to encourage women and girls
to become interested in these fields. My oldest son and I watched as the rest
of my children went to the various activities and we soon noticed something.
Despite the focus and materials on appealing to Woman almost all of the
children and young adults around the booth interested in what they had to offer
were MALE. My oldest son is also in a coding class summer program which was
offered to all who wished to apply at various locations across the Wasatch. He
has a few classmates who are rabidly femanist and have complained about the
lack of woman in these fields yet there is not one girl in his class and only a
few in the extended classes from what he can tell because they have to
colaborate with other groups. I also work in one of these fields and in my
office of about 30 only 3 or 4 are female. I am not trying to say anything
other than let men and woman make the choice themselves and acknowlege that
with some exception we have bilogical differences,interests & needs that
may not meet the secularist mantra
I don't want to invest in a company run by a woman trying to do everything,
including giving her children all the attention they need and deserve.I want a CEO of a company to be focused on making me money.No one
can do it all, at least not well. In life there are choices to be made.
"We need to do better"...means forcing more women into roles they may
not want. Since when was social engineering superior to agency of having women
do what they want? There's only one magic number and that is the number
"1", which means each woman, 1 at a time, decides what they want to do,
not some survey based upon someone else's private agenda. I doubt this
article is really news...it is more editorial in nature so should be located in
the "opinion" section of the newspaper.For those who think
I'm bias, I've seen both the good and the bad of women in the work
force so there is no secret ingredient that guarantees success from being one
gender or the other. And absolutely nothing says there is some minimum
percentage that is acceptable or required.
Thanks Tumbleweed.My thoughts exactly when reading this headline.The few enormously successful business women I know have obviously less
than successful relationships with their children--and those children have many
troubling issues. Devotion and so much time and care to their
businesses came at a painful price...."NO other success can
compensate for failure in the home."
If women have decided to have other priorities in life other than spending all
the time it takes to be a top corporate leader, is that really a problem?If so why?
Amen Tumbleweed! Perhaps all the turmoil in our society today is due to the
moms being out of the home. Maybe, if moms stayed home with their children and
taught them correct principles and values, school shootings and the like would
diminish. There is no greater influence in the world than a righteous mother.
Thank you Tumbleweed for your thoughts. These great women would have wonderful
children too. Which is more important career or family? Some can have both.
It has seemed odd to me that women on welfare have the most children?
While business may not be doing well with regards to female leaders, Higher
Education is certainly having a strong trend in that direction. In the past four
years, women have taken the president roles at UVU, the U, USU, and SLCC.
Further, BYU's Marriott school appointed their first female dean ever.
What we really need, IMHO, is far more women not trying to compete with men in
business, but more getting married (& generally younger than most are now),
giving birth to & raising many more children.Women in the US
since 1970 have been having children at a sub replacement rate on average. No
wonder our nation has struggled mightily in the last decade plus, economically.
There is insufficient demand in the marketplace.One huge indicator
is that today there are fewer children who are 5 years old in the US than there
were during the Kennedy administration, when the total population of the United
States was much lower than it is now. There are even fewer children living in
homes with 2 parents than there was during the Kennedy administration.Even among Latter Day Saints, the birth rate has dropped like a rock! Today,
for every 5 babies born per capita to Mormon families worldwide in 1982, there
is less than 1 born now! That should give any member of the LDS Church great
pause as to the direction we have gone & continue to go!If we
had had as many babies born per capita in 2017 as in 1982, there would have been
well over 1/2 million. Instead, there were only 106,771!!!
My baby sister and single and a mining engineer with an MBA. I know her
struggles and trying to get work at times it's been challenging for her.
As the brother of 6 sisters, and the father of 7 daughters, I'm
extremely aware about how capable women are vs men.But I would fully
agree with Tumbleweed. If women choose to be good wives and mothers in their
homes, having and raising more children, that too is a position of great
leadership.In fact, I would assert it is a position requiring
greater leadership than doing so in either business or in politics. Juggling the
many responsibilities a married wife and mother has at home, in my eyes, is no
small feat.My mother raised 8 children quite successfully. Among her
8 children, 7 of whom are married, there's never been not only no divorces,
but no consideration of divorce.My wife and I have 9 children, the
7th of whom just got married last Friday. So far, we've had no divorce
among our children.My parents 41 grandchildren, there have been only
4 divorces.My in-laws had 12 children. Their 2 oldest children had
several divorces between them. But, among the other 10, none. And very few among
grandchildren. That's leadership!
Some of us women--perhaps many--just aren't that interested. We're
already managers and co-managers in our homes and with our children and in our
communities, even if we're under-recognized. Some of us prioritize our
lives and our timetables differently. Some of us are busy exercising our
priestesshood while our children are young. This is not to say we don't
have long-term dreams, goals, or ambitions, or that we don't continue to
further our education in the seasons of our lives, but we believe and take
seriously the adage "No success can compensate for failure in the home.
If a woman chooses to stay at home and raise her children, great. If she chooses
to get or create a job, and works hard and becomes the CEO of her work, great.
It's her choice. The writer of this article seems to think being a
stay at home mom isn't noble. Raising children is amazing, and difficult.
Why does anyone think it's bad for a woman to choose to stay at home and
raise her children. These same people that think a woman isn't smart enough
to choose to stay home, think that same woman is brilliant if she chooses an
abortion. Ah, progress.
Why "do we have to do better" to increase the number of women leaders?
Hasn't the breakdown of the traditional family unit, where the father works
to provide for the family and the mother stays home and properly nurtures the
children, negatively affected our society enough? Isn't the most ideal
home situation for children having a full-time mom? Why put more pressure on
women to be "super moms" who must become leaders of industry and
politics while juggling the difficult full-time role of wife and mother? How
about we "do better" by recognizing the priceless contribution of
dedicated full-time moms?