One of the most persistent — and pernicious — lies peddled by contemporary feminism is the notion of the “Glass Ceiling” (the GC). In its essence, this is a theory whereby the noted differential in number between men and women at the top of organizational hierarchies in businesses is attributed to sexism and structural discrimination against women as a sex in favor of men. This theory is often trotted out as evidence of “continuing sexist discrimination against women”, and in support of the idea that feminism has achieved only very little, and that further massive changes are required before society will even begin to reach the outer outskirts of some facsimile of the fabled “equality” which feminists try to deceive others into believing to be their “goal”.
As with many feminist myths, the notion of the GC has insinuated itself into the popular culture through the rigid enforcement of “political correctness”, a Marxist technique of social bullying designed to silence dissenting opinion. Because of this, many people seem reflexively to believe it, thereby buying into a worldview which sees the corporate environment as steeped in misogynistic sexism and laden with male-created hard obstacles designed to oppress women as a class economically, and disempower them systematically. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.
The reality is that most corporate office environments are overwhelmingly female friendly, to the degree that in many segments women are in majorities, if not strong majorities, in terms of the percentage of the total workforce. The main exception to this are the technical fields, which remain largely male — something that feminists are, of course, quite irate about. Yet it is true that while women often are extremely well represented in the workforce as a whole, they are quite outnumbered by men at the top of the hierarchy, the part of the workforce that feminists have always cared about the most, because they are obsessed with power.
Why then is there this discrepancy between men and women at the top of the hierarchy? Isn’t it clear that there must be some sexist bias here, given how many women there are at lower levels, and how competent they can be?
No, not at all. The reason why women are outnumbered by men at the top of the organization is due primarily to lifestyle choices made by most (it is important to note, as we shall see, not all) women. How does this happen? Let’s take a look.
Rising to the top of a business organization is an endeavor that takes a tremendous amount of ambition and drive, coupled with a great deal of time and effort — something facilitated by a life largely arranged around achieving and maintaining this goal. There are many long hours to be worked, social networking to be achieved both during and after business hours, trips to make, people to meet and manage, and, quite often, geographical relocation several times in the course of a lifetime. All of these elements interfere, substantially, with one’s life outside of work and profession.
“Traditionally”, the way men have typically done this is by marrying women who were good mates, in terms of supporting them in their career effort, and managing, often without a whole lot of assistance from the husband, the many affairs of the family. This is not, contra Betty Friedan, a life akin to that of a concentration camp inmate, at least not for many women who marry such men. It is, rather, a division of labor whereby one person focuses primarily on the acquisition of wealth for the couple and family, while the other focuses primarily on the task of managing the family in other respects. The idea being that, given the tremendous time and effort it takes to rise to the top of a competitive corporate hierarchy, it makes sense, if a couple wishes to maximize the chances of the money provider to reach that pinnacle, to divide labor so as to allow for the time in which that effort may be directed. This used to be the common pattern for all marriages, but it is no longer the case, and that is probably a great thing for most men. But for the men at the very top of the hierarchy, most of their marriages are rather traditional in the sense that there is a division of labor, de facto, even if post-feminist terms are used to describe it. This does not mean that the wives in question are trophies who are either uneducated or incapable of getting ahead professionally — this is typically not the case today. However, for couples where one person is not only doing well professionally but rising to the top of a competitive hierarchy, the division of labor is a very consistent theme in these marriages, at least during the period from the time that children arrive until they are well on their way.
What happens to this picture when the sexes are reversed? Well, that’s the source of the complaints about the GC. Essentially, many of the most hard-driving and ambitious women — the ones who really have the drive, energy and desire to get to the top of the hierarchy — are not interested in having a husband play the role, for them, of the wife outlined above. What we find is that this particular kind of woman is not attracted to, and does not want to be married to, a man who would be happy playing the role of supporting actor for her starring role — in other words, the mirror image of what we see the top-of-the-organizational-pyramid men doing. Instead, they typically want to marry men of equal (or better) caliber, as follows from the general thrust of hypergamy, particularly in women who, themselves, place such a high value on drive and ambition.
So, what we find is that these women often (again not all — that is an important caveat) do marry very driven men. And that’s where the mayhem starts. Often there is quite a bit of talk about “equality” and so on early in the marriage, but once the children arrive, that word needs to be fleshed out, in terms of brass-tacks-how-are-we-going-to-run-this-family type issues, well beyond the empty platitudes of that feminist studies course the woman took in college. This is particularly the case for marriages of this socioeconomic segment, as they often come in the 30s, when both husband and wife are quite entrenched in a critical career-building mode. What happens is that the couple needs to make choices, and sometimes hard ones, when they get to this point.
This isn’t rocket science, and there aren’t really that many options. Essentially the couple can choose between: (1) father stays home with children, wife ramps up career, (2) mother stays home with children, husband ramps up career, (3) both mother and father share child-care related issues (perhaps one taking morning duty and another evening duty) and, with use of a caregiver, try to juggle work and family, and (4) mother and father both focus on career and largely outsource parenting type roles to older relatives and paid caregivers. Of course, the breakdown of how many couples make each one of these choices is not even. Most couples make either choice (2) or choice (3). Let’s take a closer look at them.
Choice (2) involves the mother staying home, for at least a time, at the cost of her career, to be the primary caregiver for the children for a number of years. It is often supposed that this choice is made by the couple for reasons of patriarchal sexism, and that the men concerned here force it on their wives. This is balderdash, particularly when it comes to the socio-economic slice we are discussing here: highly empowered, ambitious, driven women — women who are not going to have anything “forced” on them by anyone, least of all their husbands. The reality is that in most of these cases the choice is made either because (1) the husband already earns more money (again not typically due to “sexist wage disparities designed to keep women trapped in domestic slavery by encouraging couples to make this choice”, but rather due to the same hypergamy we discussed above — namely that this slice of women tends to marry men who are at least slightly older than themselves, which often translates to an economic advantage for the man) or (2) the wife wants to be with the children and does not want to either “juggle” (she feels frustrated that she doesn’t have the time she would like to mold the kids, especially when they are young) or outsource (she feels guilt at doing so). Now some feminists would claim that these feelings of frustration and guilt which can fuel a couple’s decision for the mother to remain at home with the children are themselves memes created by men and inserted into the culture to perpetuate female domestic slavery and solidify male control of the top of the hierarchy — but, again, we’re not dealing with wallflower women here. These women are the most highly-educated, most self-aware and driven in the bunch. Suffice to say that when they decide that they are feeling frustrated or guilty about their child care arrangements, they are not talking guff, or being manipulated by men. These are, after all, the power “Grrrls” of their generation.
Couples who make choice (3) are often rather harried, but can actually be quite happy couples. The impact of choice (3), however, is that both careers suffer somewhat, and that neither husband nor wife has the time required to relentlessly compete with others in the hierarchy who are in arrangements (2) or, to a lesser extent, (1). So these couples have a workable arrangement, but one which also impedes on the ability of either of them to get to the very top of the hierarchy — at least during that period in their lives when others of their age level are making their driving laps in that race. This can be a great arrangement for couples who want an equalist relationship, but it goes without saying that the women who are in such relationships are not impeded from advancing due to some supposed GC any more than their husbands are.
What happens next? Well, the women in arrangements (2) and (3) tend to find that, once the kids are old enough to fend for themselves and their time is freed up (either from the massive juggling exercise or from full-time parenting), that upon returning full-bore to the race for power at work they are quite behind roughly same-age colleagues, often men (due to the prevalence of arrangement (2)), when they return from the workforce. These colleagues have, of course, been working hard for the past several years in a much less restrained way (as compared with women in category (3) arrangements). It stands to reason that they would be ahead, given their greater input into the race for advancement. But, rather than acknowledge this, many women revert to the misandry they learned in feminist studies, and blame men for the consequences of the life decisions they have made years earlier — first the choice to marry a man who had a good deal of drive and velocity himself (and probably made more money than she did), and second the desire to scale back her career either partially (to juggle) or fully (to be a full-time parent for a time). Women re-entering the full-bore workforce find that they can be quite behind, and reflexively blame sexism, when in fact they are simply experiencing the consequences of their own decisions.
What to do about this? Well, first, I don’t think we need to acknowledge at all that a sex disparity at the top of the hierarchy is, in itself, a “problem” that needs to be addressed. The current situation is based on competition, as it should be. However, for women who really do wish to compete effectively, more attention should be given to the choice of men whom they wish to marry, in light of the impact this can have downstream. Women who have their heart set on being the CEO of a large Fortune 200 company should marry men who are willing and capable of playing a supportive role in her drive to the top — and should sacrifice their hypergamy in order to do so. In addition, women who make that choice should also be prepared to hand off the child-care responsibility to their supportive husbands, and not feel frustrated, guilty, or “displaced and disempowered as mothers” in doing so. This may sound difficult, but some women manage to achieve it. More women could do so if they were willing to make life choice trade-offs based on priorities as to what exactly they want out of their lives in the long run — and the answer to that question, in order to be workable, simply cannot be “I want it all”.
No, as long as women keep trying to “have it all” — that is, the hypergamous, driven husband, the time with the children they desire, and the CEO job for themselves — they will reap a bitter harvest, and blaming men for the consequences of these choices is just not on, ladies. It is deeply dishonest, and a shameful attempt to deflect blame to men for the consequences of your own decisions. Woman up, make some choices, realize that choices have consequences, and live with the consequences of the life choices you make. You’ll find that not only does the imaginary GC disappear (for women who arrange their lives primarily to compete), but you’ll also find that your lives are more satisfying, and less frustrating, than many of you feel today.
