Alix Stuart, CFO Magazine
June 1, 2007
In response to Frank's question, we welcome all views at CFO.
We did delete two comments, both from the same author. While Frank is correct that the comments were not obscene, the author chose an obscene pun as a pen name which clearly violated our publicly stated comment guidelines.
It was clear the author had taken some time to craft his comments, and he may not have realized that the obscene registration name he entered would appear on his post. Therefore, I wrote to him, explained why we had deleted his comment, and offered him the opportunity to repost. I even sent him copies of both of his own comments for his convenience in reposting. So far, we have seen no response.
This seemed to us to be a fair approach, but to avoid suggestions such as Frank's that we deleted the comments because of their content, I have since reposted the comments below myself, with the author's pen name redacted.
Readers are reminded that their posts will display their chosen registration name, that all comments are carefully monitored, and that, as clearly noted on our comment page, we reserve the right to remove any comment that is commercial, off-topic, or in poor taste.
Tim Reason
Editorial Director, CFO.com
Posted by Tim Reason | Jun 21, 2007 7:08 AM ET
Editor's Note: As explained in our comment above, this comment was deleted earlier, not because of its content, but because the author chose an obscene pen name. We have restored it, minus the pen name, in response to suggestions that we deleted it because of its content. We remind readers that the registration name they choose appears with their comments.
Sadly, comments that contradict the politically correct thought police have been deleted. Does CFO really imagine their isn't another point of view on the topic of diversity?
For an articulate discusion of why the "pay gap" exists, see Warren Farrell's book "Why men earn more". The choices we make in life have consequences. The 25 riskiest jobs in the world (as evidenced by workplace fatalities) are almost exclusively male(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). There is a straight progression along gender lines between safe jobs and hazardous jobs - the more hazardous it is, the more male it is (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings). Men work over 90% of the overtime in the U.S., and commute far longer. Other factors impacting earnings and career progress are whether or not people:
1. Work in hard sciences (computer science, engineering, etc)
2. Work in field that is hazardous ? for at least 2 years.
3. Work in an exposure profession (exposed to wind/rain/snow) for at least 2 years.
4. Work in field where they cannot psychologically check out at the end of the day (e.g., a corporate attorney can?t check out at 5PM but a librarian can).
5. Work in a field that is less fulfilling than one they would choose if they won the lottery
6. Work in a field requiring you to take considerable financial and emotional risks, such as commission sales or venture capital, as opposed to a bank teller.
7. Work the worst shifts in the worst hours in your profession.
8. Work in fields requiring constant updating such as law or engineering, as opposed to a French language scholar.
9. Work in a sub-field of your profession that exhibits many of the characteristics above, such as a cardiac physician as opposed to a physician, or a nurse-anesthetist vs a nurse.
10. Work more than 40 hours a week
11. Work more than 60 hours a week
12. Have more than 20 years experience in your current occupation
13. Have more than 10 years uninterrupted experience with your current employer.
14. Worked 51-52 weeks last year (i.e., took less than 2 weeks vacation).
15. Was absent less than 2 days last year
16. Commute more than 25 miles round-trip daily
17. Live in a city you do not wish to live in because your job requires you to be there.
18. Travel more than 5 days a month
19. Have a VP-level job working in a bottom-line operating position (i.e., sales, marketing, finance, not HR, legal etc)
20. Work with a company with 1,000 or more employers and your responsibility is national ? e.g., a national buyer for Nordstroms as opposed to a local buyer.
21. Paid on commission.
Men earn more money than women because they make more sacrifices to make money, not because of "discrimination." Diversity programs are institutionalized reverse discrimmination. 25 years ago, a U.S. President (Ronald Reagan) held this view. Today, such a view isn't even allowed to be published by the CFO thought police. 1984, anyone?
Author's pen name deleted.
Posted by Tim Reason | Jun 21, 2007 7:00 AM ET
Editor's Note: As explained in our comment above, this comment was deleted earlier, not because of its content, but because the author chose an obscene pen name. We have restored it, minus the pen name, in response to suggestions that we deleted it because of its content. We remind readers that the registration name they choose appears with their comments.
CFO Magazine joins the Politically Corrected Brigade
It not the least bit surprising to me that women, the "minority" that just happens to be a majority, has used it's strength in numbers to achieve greater success at the "diversity" game than smaller groups. It's not remarkable to me how many women in finance their are - I see "quota queens" at every "politically corrected" Fortune 500 company, including many of the gals you mention in your article. Glass ceiling? Try "Glass Elevator" for most of these gals. What's more remarkable is how many qualified men were passed over so these companies could crow to "Working Woman" Magazine "See! See! We have 14% Female executives! No matter how incompetent they might be!"
How about an article on the female entrepreneurs, the female Bill Gates, the girl Warren Buffets? Not so many of them, eh? What. A. Shock. Despite the protestations of the "Difference Deniers", men and women are NOT identical. Men tend to work more hours, commute longer, take greater risks, and this is why men, on average, tend to earn more, achieve more, etc. As Angry Harry (you haven't read him? You should) said:
?It is men who have produced the greatest works in all of the arts - literature, poetry, music, paintings, sculptures, films, plays, architecture etc.
It is men who have progressed our understanding in just about all areas to do with science, engineering and medicine - astronomy, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, geology, cosmology, mathematics, economics, geography, climatology, aeronautics, pharmacology, surgery, computer hardware, software etc.
It is men who have built the houses, the bridges, the roads, the railways, the dams, the factories, the ships, the canals, the monuments, the airports, the churches, the offices, the tunnels, the engines, the industrial machinery etc.
It is men mostly who have laboured in the factories, the furnaces, the sewers, the mines etc etc etc.
It is men who have, rightly or wrongly, fought the wars, fought the crimes, fought the elements, fought the odds etc.
Indeed, it is men who have invented, discovered and done nearly everything that has ever been invented, discovered and done.?
Sorry, the game's up. Men aren't just bending over and taking it any more. The days of femi-fascists commandeering the politcally correct machinery to get jobs and money they didn't earn and don't deserve is fast coming to an end. CFO would do well to consider this and not simply parrot trite, sordid falsehoods by Oprah-acolytes who earn seven figures yet still claim "Boo Hoo - we're so oppressed!".
Posted by Tim Reason | Jun 21, 2007 6:58 AM ET
I've noticed several comments that offer contrary opinions have been deleted. These comments haven't been profane and certainly weren't as offensive as the "White boy" comment that's posted here.
One wonders if CFO has an agenda here, and if that agenda includes purging all thought and opinion that doesn't "toe the line" on liberal diversity. For the record, there are legitimate, well-intended opinions that hold that any sort of discrimmination - including reverse discrimmination - is not admirable.
Posted by Frank Reich | Jun 20, 2007 10:10 PM ET
I graduated with an accounting degree 30 years ago and currently I am a CPA and CFE. The same issues that were problems 30 years ago, are problems now: the lack of diversity in the work place. For too long, companies and hiring individuals cling to the notion that the pool of viable candidates is too small so the status quo remains in effect. If diversity was truly a priority, then the companies would use every means necessary to reach minorities such as through partnerships with historically black colleges, minority business associations, or establishing in-house programs to groom in-house talent. This country has too many talented individuals who could contribute to the business community not only as rank and file employees but leaders as well; the business community has to decide they want to harvest this talent and make a commitment for the long-term for the effort to bear fruit.
Posted by Rhenechia Jones | Jun 19, 2007 5:01 PM ET
My opinion is based on experience working for two fortune 100 companies where it is very difficult to break the barriers and move up the ladder specially in midwest based companies. Midwest does value social bonding, are conservative and family oriented compared to other part of US and hence are not liberal in promoting the people of color.It is not about how intelligent or how educated you are but how much socially connected you are for upward mobility. It is human nature to bond with their own kind, and white executives are no different. I believe the midwestern companies need to borrow some of the philosophies being adapted at Coca Cola, Pepsi Co and other East and West coast organizations for greater inclusion of people of color.
Posted by arshad firoz | Jun 19, 2007 1:03 AM ET
Although this is a great representation of the facts and circumstances, we never really move forward with the core issues involved.
Remember minorities are in the position, in the profession, that women faced 20 years ago.
Male minorities who move through the process will eventually face less issues to fast track than women continue to face even today.
Women, including minority women will continue to face the same core issues well into the future because few men and women really understand how to work together, balance their differences and focus on their strengths.
I am hopeful that if we continue to discuss these subjects openly, we may make progress. Talented women are graduating and working in the ranks of the accounting profession every day.
The glass ceiling is still well in place as can be seen by reviewing the lists, in CFO Magazine, of the CFOs ON THE MOVE; 14 CFOs named, possibly 1 female, not sure, the name was Francis, culd be a man.
So, the future is not yet written, but our trend analysis shows such little progress, if it was a stock chart, I wouldn't be buying anytime soon!
Posted by Diane Dutton | Jun 17, 2007 2:01 PM ET
This article correctly links minorities? scarce presence to their underrepresentation in college accounting and business programs. It also notes that minorities have traditionally had few role models encouraging them to study business.
But while corporate America and universities can?t quickly create millions of minority role models in business they can create many role models in another key spot of high visibility, influence, and impact: the front of the classroom.
Business school faculties have historically been nearly barren of minorities. Since 1994, The PhD Project has partnered with corporations and academia to change that. We have nearly tripled the number of minority faculty, from 294 to 858, by marketing the appeal of a career in the professorate.
The increase is making a difference. Recently, 92% of all U.S. graduate and undergraduate students we surveyed said they believe that minority professors are positively impacting the education of minority students.
The article points corporations toward changing the landscape by supporting, recruiting, and providing scholarships for minority business students. This is true, and worthy, but it?s also a zero-sum game: until we expand the pool of minority students, we?re all fighting for the same limited supply of talent. The game won?t change until minority students see more good reasons ? such as faculty members who look like them -- to study business. By diversifying the front of the classroom, we are diversifying the rest of the classroom ? and, in turn, the executive suites of tomorrow.
Bernard J Milano
President, The PhD Project
Posted by Bernard Milano | Jun 11, 2007 4:50 PM ET
This article is a complete reflection of the reality of corporate America.
First and foremost it becomes apparent that women are extricated and lumped into two groups, white women and minority women. It is amazing for me to walk down streets and take public transportation side by side with so many different people from so many different cultural backgrounds, and yet walk into a board room and see only one group majorly represented, male or female.
It is true that there is the insinuation that standards had to be lowered to allow the token quota minority to be filled. As insulting as that is for those of us who do work very hard and are equally as gifted as our white counterparts, it is even more disparaging that the obvious racist thread that has kept us out for such as long time is the same one that continues to weave the false notion that we are less than in the fabric of the workplace. To say that there is a comfort level between the white male and female coworker is an understatement. As difficult as it is to read, I thank the writer honestly voicing what we all have known to be true. However the more accurate commentary would be that the good old boys club that ran corporate America for so long would rather keep a company as white as possible for as long as possible.
The beauty of our country is that in welcoming diverse people, we have enriched our own culture. But I suspect that while we can't get past an ethnic background or a specific gender, we will never be able to really see and appreciate true potential, which ironically enough is niether colored in white, nor reserved only for the white. Real corporate rise and opportunity apparently or transparently enough is still sipping from segrated fountains and allowing an "acceptable" few to enter in enough to bypass excessive criticism.
Posted by maribel danta | Jun 5, 2007 6:08 PM ET
Copyright 2012 © CFO Acquisitions LLC. All rights reserved Privacy Policy Site Map
