Was big business the real winner in the equality of the sexes?

Question

My old employer used to have a smart remark that he used to make to people asking about women's rights and employing women in the workplace (I am a promoter of women's rights). He said " Men and women should have the right to be exploited equally". It usually got a few snickers, but knowing the guy's mean spirit he was actually speaking from his heart. This makers me wonder, was "Corporate America" the real winner of equal rights.

Thanks for all the great opinions. I'm quite amazed at how completely different people's positions are on this issue. Very intriguing!!!!

Answer 1

The changing face of the workforce in the past handful of decades greatly illustrates women's demands wherever they go. Big business got the short end of the stick in this deal.

Allow me to elaborate. For the most part, when a man accepts a job, he adapts to the role he's given. If it's hard work, he'll work hard (or quit). If it's stressful, he'll deal with the stress (or quit). Etc.

Women, on the other hand, demand the environment to change to suit them. Benefits like maternity leave, on-site daycare, "flex-time," et al, did not exist until women entered the work force en masse. You could argue that this is a good thing, because it forces businesses to pay more attention to the needs of their employees.

But you could also make a hell of a case for saying this was what has caused labor costs to skyrocket, making us uncompetitive in foreign markets where it's much cheaper to manufacture goods. The only aspect of American business that kept us ahead was innovation, but now we're even starting to lag there as well.

Regardless, it's obvious that corporate America got the shaft.

Answer 2

The women’s movement was a CEOs dream come true. Big business (a.k.a. Money) runs this country, especially political decisions. If the women’s movement wouldn’t have benefited industry, it would have been ignored.
When the women’s movement marched on Washington and made their voices heard, the ones that were really listening were the large corporations. Remember, this took place during the 60s and 70s for the most part, and the number of women with a college degree in any business related field was minimal, so business didn’t see new managers or executives. They knew the vast majority of the women entering the workforce would be inexperienced blue-collar workers, so to them it meant a new, almost unlimited source of cheap, unskilled labor.
More workers and a dual income household meant lower wages and less benefits had to be offered, making a dual-income household the norm, and now the necessity in most cases, rather than the exception.
Individual wages and the value of the dollar no longer had to maintain a balance against the cost of living, which is why the average blue-collar wage today is not much higher than it was ten years ago, but the cost of living has increased dramatically (I don’t have the current percentages).
Combine this with what silverside and Slappy_McStretchNutssaid, and you get a good idea of the whole picture.
I hate to burst any political activist’s bubble, but by the time your cause reaches Capital Hill, if it doesn’t benefit big business, it’s not going to matter. Look at the environmental issues vs. business loopholes if you need some examples.

Answer 3

Yes. Although the women's movement had some effect on moving women into the work force, the main motivator was the real (e.g. adjusted for inflation) decline in male wages, especially blue collar wages, over the past 30 years or so. The only reason household incomes increased over this time is because more persons in the family entered paid employment. However, it also means that two-income households have bid up the cost of suburban housing with decent schools as well. Twenty years ago, women wanted out of the house and wanted more options. Increasingly, it looks like businesses locked the door behind you. Now, except for women with very high earning husbands, you can't afford to stay home for any length of time. That option has been eliminated for most families. But at the same time, employers resist paid family leave, paid maternity leave, and subsidized daycare, as if the workforce was still mostly men with stay-at-home wives who took care of all those issues. In addition, those women who did stay at home and sacrificed their careers to do are increasingly vulnerable during a divorce. Everybody expects these women to get up to speed right away, and alimony is withering away. So if you aren't working, you will be impoverished should lose your husband. Financial dependency seems to be frowned on by both men and women these days, and you will get no sympathy from anyone.

Answer 4

No, because often they promote women based on their sex appeal not their business abilities, and it sets the more able ones back, they are not paid equal to men. And then there is the reverse situation, where women run management of a small company or branch, and they retaliate by sexual harassment of male employees and discriminating in favor of women over men in promotions, scheduling, etc. I guess what I'm saying is, the matter has really not been "equalized", just "reversed" in some cases, this makes companies less effective, competitive, and lowers moral, results in a high turnover rate so they constantly are training new people.

Answer 5

Wow. This is a GREAT question. One of the few I've seen that shows a highly critical level of thinking. And, one, I hate to say, I haven't ever thought about. But I would have to say the answer is, yes. I was talking to my husband about something similar, just yesterday. We were discussing the "wage gap" issue, and whether it was fact or fiction. The debate is that the numbers that demonstrate a "wage gap" are skewed, because they quantify the total wages earned over the LIFETIME of employed individuals, not "wage for wage" for equally qualified individuals. Therefore, the numbers are "off" because women "inevitably" (ostensibly) take more time off for child birth, and child care, etc. (This is the argument I've heard made, at any rate.) The research I've done suggests this is not the case, they are comparing "apples to apples," equally educated and qualified individuals, (men to women.) So I asked my husband, who is a regional director and hires male and female employees for his company all the time, and is in a position to know what men compared to women make, with equal job qualifications. He admitted intentionally "low balling" the women, not because he viewed them as not having the same job potential, but because he knew they "would take it." AND that women often "low ball" themselves. He always asks the prospective employee what they would "take" in terms of salary, and women almost always quote a much lower figure than the men. So, of course, being a smart business man, that's what he offers. He also said that eight times out of ten, the men will come back and negotiate the offer, whereas women almost always never do. So, in his company he knows, for a fact, that, apples to apples, men make more than women. Of course, this is all anecdotal evidence, but I am willing to bet that it is indicative of companies all over the country. So, yes, I would say corporate America has benefited greatly from being inundated with a group of workers that will willingly do the same job for less. I know that I have been guilty of doing this, myself (and I consider myself a feminist!). And, in the end, women only have themselves to blame.
And I LOVE "Willy's" answer! (It made me chuckle.) But hey, what can I say, I love "sleeping with the enemy!" (The aforementioned husband, of course.) Of course, "real" feminists don't consider men the "enemy." Only the batsh!t crazy ones (in my opinion.)

Answer 6

you're in elementary words giving examples of ways women persons are unfair to adult males and they are not even maximum excellent examples. human beings like you're only one reason that is so troublesome to have equality of the sexes, because some each and anybody is actual keen to have a reason to dislike the option sex...no matter if or not they ought to make up the reason.

Answer 7

Corporate America LOST it's edge when it forced equality. It was BS and was a cause for inflation in America. You cannot mandate in a free market economy. Bad bad bad.

Answer 8

Willys cynical thought for the fugging day;

To the feminists; how do you expect to win the battle of the sexes when 90+% of your team is sleeping with the enemy?

Answer 9

Big business indeed won the equality lottery, because they doubled their pool of talented, hard working people to draw from. In fact, some would say they MORE than doubled it!