Gothamist: The Glaser Conundrum, Continued

Clint

Thu, 21 Dec 2006 06:59:54 -0500

Nobody's ignoring all the categories of women you mention. But in the end, the number of women who fall into those categories is less -- somewhat -- than the number of men who are able to devote full time to their career. Assuming equal average aptitude and talent, if you start with a smaller number of women who choose to concentrate solely on their careers, you're going to end up with fewer superstars. There are certainly other factors, but this is one of them. I suggest that everybody go back, calm down, focus, and read the question and Glaser's answer to the question asked.

janelle

Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:07:52 -0500

nobody's really talking about that maybe women just aren't as interested in putting up with jumping through all the hoops and putting up with all the BS that gets you to 'celebrity' designer status. i know we all want to think your work is enough to stand on its own, but let's face it, there's a lot more to it than that. not being so ego-driven as men could have something to do with why there are fewer female superstars.

dhex

Sun, 10 Dec 2006 02:19:11 -0500

it may be inefficient for people with advanced degrees to raise children (presumably they don't generally have a masters in babyology) but individual choice is a messy, messy thing.

anomalous

Sat, 09 Dec 2006 22:20:04 -0500

So what's your answer, don't believe? Don't let women into graduate programs? You make it sound as if it is an easy choice for women to drop out of the workplace when they have a child. In fact, it is often an agonizing choice. It is true that it is inefficient to have women go to grad school and then leave the workplace. The National Academy of Sciences has recently published a series of reports on how women are leaving the sciences as their careers advance. I'm as frustrated as Gothamist at the "either/or" mindset that your comment typifies. I can't speak to the law or business fields, but in the sciences we as a society need all the bright people we can get. Solving the problem involves more than just making it more acceptable for women to move in and out of the workplace without becoming second-class employees. It is telling that you wrote "I don't want my child’s first steps witnessed by the nanny." as it doesn't even occur to you that the father could also move in and out of the workplace to raise their child. Until we as a society value the contributions of both mother and father to the raising of children and to the workplace this problem isn't going to be solved.

two words of the star

Sat, 09 Dec 2006 15:47:38 -0500

Bonnie Fuller. but who am I to judge, it appears female CEO's ruin corps as much as male CEO's.

don't believe in modern love

Sat, 09 Dec 2006 15:39:34 -0500

This comment also brings up a structural problem in higher education. Half or more of grad school students are women. In the Law, Medicine and the hard science the women that come out of those professional schools are very likely to be half time doctors and lawyers and Engineers. Society dumps a lot of resources into individuals that become housewives with JD's MBA's & MD's. This is not only inefficient, but also keeps out qualified (male) candidates that would be full time doctors, lawyers, ect. Male professionals work until they retire. End of story. Women move in and out of the workforce at their leisure and expect the same treatment as men. This would be a step above equality. I, personally, am not going to marry a woman on the partner track at a firm. I don't want my child’s first steps witnessed by the nanny. Additionally, I'd work 80hrs a week with peace of mind if I knew that my wife was there for our children and our family. That, however, is no longer likely. Marriage has ceased to be a partnership that produces children. It has become a monument to self gratification. O brave new world.

Mela

Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:47:58 -0500

I am not really surprised. Milton Glaser is 77 years old or something. Its just a different generation. My dad who is about to be 76 would probably say the same thing. Can't teach an old dog new tricks :(

Tom

Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:26:36 -0500

Nanny's and Childcare are fine substitutes if you feel your child is a commodity. If you don't have time for a child, or if your career is more important to you than having a child, don't have one.