Women are in short supply in Minnesot...

Women are in short supply in Minnesota's corporate boardrooms

There are 24 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Mar 2, 2009, titled Women are in short supply in Minnesota's corporate boardrooms. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

Looks like several of Minnesota's biggest companies might need a makeover: a little more lipstick and a little less, um, Old Spice.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
NO MAYOR COLEMAN

Saint Paul, MN

#1 Mar 2, 2009
Want a seat on the board of directors? Earn it. Work like a man!

Most women want a magic carpet ride to the board room.
Jake

Minneapolis, MN

#2 Mar 3, 2009
Diversity for the sake of diversity does not work. I watched Xerox self destruct in the 80ís as a leader in diversity. The company that invented the xerographic process is now reselling Japanese copiers. This country has paid a heavy price for trying to be chic.
Bah Humbug

Minneapolis, MN

#3 Mar 3, 2009
The social aspect of board membership gets in the way of diversity. The board is a "Boys club" whether its fishing trips, stopping for a drink after the meetings, country club activities, etc. A lone woman in the "Group" is an impediment. Everyone has to watch their language, refrain from telling certain jokes, and field questions from their slightly jealous wives.
OK_OK

Saint Paul, MN

#4 Mar 3, 2009
Without getting too vitriolic--these are private companies. They can hire and fire anyone they want.
If a woman, man, or chimp are the right person for the job, they will get it. As far as I can see, most companies WANT to make money. If a company is has incompetents working at the top, it will eventually fail.
There is no role for anyone, ANYONE, outside of a company to make management decisions for that company. That's what stockholders are for.
Tired

United States

#5 Mar 3, 2009
I worked at a company for most of my career, that had mostly female department heads. I attended meetings on at least three occassions where a female 'manager' managed to break out in tears. It seems that they are usually 'over aggressive' trying to prove themselves, they cry like a first grader or they are more concerned about 'fashion' then the quality of work.
Butt Heads

Saint Paul, MN

#6 Mar 3, 2009
We have Nancy Pelosi in a very high position. Are you sure you want more? Not sexist here, but let's be real, if you want the job, earn it. Aren't woman graduating in greater numbers than men? And woman seem to be having the Title 9 program basically cutting funding for men's programs to promote woman's sports. And when was the last time you had a "Bring your son to work day?". Get it yet, it's a perverse attempt to make men, especially white men, become non existent, expect to pay taxes.
Lilly Bedwetter

Minneapolis, MN

#7 Mar 3, 2009
I'm gonna sue someone...in about 20 years.
TWO MAN BACKUP

Eau Claire, WI

#8 Mar 3, 2009
Behind every successful female are 2 or more hard working men, either working for a 2/3 less money to pay the females "equivalents" share or paying alimony child support. And children are to be supported "EQUALLY" by both parents, not the man paying alimony, very thinly, disguised as child support.
RJJ

Saint Paul, MN

#9 Mar 3, 2009
You wouldn't know it where I work.
Bob the Bilderberg

Saint Paul, MN

#11 Mar 3, 2009
I don't doubt that a bunch of college girls from Wellesley or St. Kates who's only work experience is waitressing at the local Perkins, would come to these conclusions.

My experience is that women are more than fairly represented in upper management in corporate America.
Choices

Saint Paul, MN

#12 Mar 3, 2009
Not a bad overview of the condition but, and I say this with all seriousness, is it a problem?

In our society, woman tend to conceive babies better than men, give birth better than men, nurse better than men, and in my experience, care for children's day-to-day needs better than men. If ~80-90% of women end up having children - they make a choice to not pursue a business career as diligently. Any choice to take time off like this would slow a career path, man or woman.

What they DID choose to the most important "business' our society, any society, has at hand and that is bringing up the next generation. So what the article could have been titled and expanded upon was:

Women are in short supply in the boardroom because they are electing to participate in a much more important choice, that of raising humans.

It's what matters folks.

The disregard of the most important task we have at hand is glaring.
MadeInAmerica

Saint Paul, MN

#13 Mar 3, 2009
Good luck, ladies. Where I work, if you have children and need family time over corporate time... you aren't in the running. That have tried, burn out by 3 years and leave.
Krazi

Saint Paul, MN

#14 Mar 3, 2009
Plerase lady. Take you oppressed victim mentality somewhere else. It really outdated......
Get a Grip

Saint Paul, MN

#15 Mar 3, 2009
Wow I'm shocked. An anti-male article written by a woman with a a hyphenated last name. You hardly ever see that, can you believe it?

“Don't Say Like Dat”

Since: May 08

Jerusalem

#16 Mar 3, 2009
in my country the women tend to the goat herds and babies
Danno

Minneapolis, MN

#17 Mar 3, 2009
Bob the Bilderberg wrote:
I don't doubt that a bunch of college girls from Wellesley or St. Kates who's only work experience is waitressing at the local Perkins, would come to these conclusions.
My experience is that women are more than fairly represented in upper management in corporate America.
Couldn't agree more. Those two particular schools actually thrive on inequalities as means to self-promote their "agendas." I would never want my daughter to go there - it's all us against them, we're victims, and men are bad. They are not helping.

BTW - It's hypocritical for this paper to chime in on the plight of women and slander them (for being women) when they are seeking high office and aren't their candidate of choice (e.g. Hilary, Sarah).
pierce

Saint Paul, MN

#18 Mar 3, 2009
Whatever - the corporate *and* political landscape is going to look very different (and a lot more female) in the next 20-30 years.

Women make up a solid majority of recent college grads and grad school grads (wish there was a less redundant way to say that...). It goes all the way down to highschool - honors classes are dominated by girls, and valedictorians and saludatorians are female more often than not.

For the generation currently of the age to be in charge of corporations, men are still a majority in the qualified applicant pool, but that pool is going to skew heavily towards female as the boomers retire and today's 30 and 20 somethings climb the ladders.
Shocked

Minneapolis, MN

#19 Mar 5, 2009
I'm speechless... I don't even know WHERE to begin.

Women don't want a carpet ride. And we ARE earning it. We are in the workforce in equal #s, are graduating (all levels) at higher rates, and working just as hard, yet still not represented in the higher ranks. We continue to shoulder the burden of household/childcare responsibilities AND work! Over 75% of households today are dual income households. If these are hard fact, why aren't women more represented in the higher levels?

I don't think anyone is saying this is intentional. I believe in almost all cases it's unconscious things people do based on cultural norms and an individuals blind spots. For example, some managers never even offer women with small children stretch assignments as they think they are too busy with their family life and need to be home with the kids. They "think" they are doing these women a favor, and instead they are limiting the development opportunities needed to advance, in turn holding them back.
tammy

Minneapolis, MN

#20 Mar 5, 2009
Shocked wrote:
I'm speechless... I don't even know WHERE to begin.
Women don't want a carpet ride. And we ARE earning it. We are in the workforce in equal #s, are graduating (all levels) at higher rates, and working just as hard, yet still not represented in the higher ranks. We continue to shoulder the burden of household/childcare responsibilities AND work! Over 75% of households today are dual income households. If these are hard fact, why aren't women more represented in the higher levels?
I don't think anyone is saying this is intentional. I believe in almost all cases it's unconscious things people do based on cultural norms and an individuals blind spots. For example, some managers never even offer women with small children stretch assignments as they think they are too busy with their family life and need to be home with the kids. They "think" they are doing these women a favor, and instead they are limiting the development opportunities needed to advance, in turn holding them back.
I'm sorry but you are being too logical. Prepare for these haters to start calling you a l e s bian.

Since: Aug 08

Saint Paul, MN

#21 Mar 5, 2009
Would a lesbian board member be close enough?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Scientific Instruments Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Danaher Corporation (DHR) Insider William King ... Jul '17 jasondjh 1
Kitchen For Sale In Glasgow Area UK (Oct '16) Oct '16 Anonymous 1
News OSI Systems's Sell Rating Reaffirmed at Benchma... (Dec '13) Jan '16 Human 35
News Microvision, Inc. (MVIS) Coverage Initiated at ... (Dec '15) Dec '15 emanresu 1
Simisometer (Jan '13) Aug '15 DC from LA 2
News EARTHQUAKES: University of Oklahoma developed q... (Jun '15) Jun '15 great 1
News 3D Systems: Weighing The Bankruptcy Risk (Mar '15) May '15 SuriJohn 2
More from around the web