The Pink Ceiling: Workplaces Rigged against Early and Mid-Career Men

This is partially to inform but also vent at how rigged modern workplaces are against young men. In my (33M) final year working in the university system I realised how far we have tipped the scales towards favouring women. Part of the reason I quit was I came across information regarding promotion statistics for lecturer, senior lecturer and associate professors in my faculty of science and engineering— men had a 30% chance of promotion within a given cycle while women had 100%. That's right. 100%.

In the past, the figure hovered over 50% for both men and women. This bias (along with other reasons) resulted in a mini exodus in the faculty of early to mid-career male academics into industry. But after speaking with young guys in industry working for larger companies (we are looking at those ASX 200 companies with strong emphasis on ESG points), these discriminatory policies are almost universally adopted to get women into future leadership positions at the expense of men. I don't blame the women for taking advantage of such a rigged system, how could you? But, this young male demoralization will lead to some severe societal consequences.

Honestly, if the game is so rigged, why play it? I don't see these practices disappearing or even lessening in the near future so I'm working for a small company now. But, I aim on founding my own sole-tradership to avoid this whole gender political circus.

So, if your son is entering the workforce in the next 10 years what would you tell them?

Play the game and claim female status?
Recommend they just put up with the discriminatory practices?
Work for smaller companies?

===== Edit ====
Let's clarify a few things because it appears that a trend of name calling and preconceived notions have set root. Typical OzBargain groupthink. I'll clarify the main topics here:

You are making excuses about your own ability, you are terrible at your job.

You can believe I'm incompetent if you want, I won't lose sleep over this.

Look at the official statistics

I've seen the internal statistics at my university. Yes what I'm presenting anecdotal, but that hard ceiling that all young men would encounter at that institution exists whether you shove a booklet in my face or not.

You are an Incel, you are whining like a woman, you are not a man, you are a misogynist, you're an Andrew Tate fan, you are a "gardener" (do you think gardeners are stupid?), you are a liar etc…

Given the reaction here, most people either don't care that I uncovered obvious institutional discrimination or have resorted to name calling. Even if I were an incel or a misogynist or god forbid, an Andrew Tate fan, that is irrelevant. I'm looking out for young guys who have are now on the end of a long line of affirmative actions. Looking out for my son— your sons… It's this societal response which is why so many young men out there are just giving up. Going NEET, going 'incel', going MGTOW, MRA whatever the latest trend is— these movements are destroying men here in this country.

You hate women.

I don't know how this became a preconceived notion— to stand up for young men, instantly means you hate women. Sure.

You don't know how statistics work, was there only one woman.

I should have been clearer. There was a sample size of around 40 women and about 60 men.

Comments

        • I wouldn’t worry about your hindsight, it’s seems your decision not to speak was probably the wise one. Why be that person? You might make some peer and lower level comrades, but it wouldn’t be well received by leadership and therefore put you at a disadvantage. I suspect comments like this in his own workplace have been detrimental to OPs career, moreso than his gender.

          Remember the CEO said “exactly the same in every way” this is the important part, they have to differentiate based on something, and they have a strategy to have more women leadership role, which probably speaks more to what they are trying to do with workplace culture than the individual candidates. If there is as many women in leadership as men, the majority female workforce working under then may feel more supported and have a vision to work towards leadership themselves - this is overall positive for everyone, including men, who also still, have male leaders.

      • -1

        Diversity doesn't mean "MALE" and "FEMLE" it goes beyond that and if you only think that two gender decides diversity then you also killed definition of "Diversity" .. !

    • +3

      Not good. In this case, i.e., two applicants of equal merits, they should draw lots.

      • or 'Rock paper scissors' - best of 3

      • People forget that businesses are for profit and make make decisions around strategy that support that. If they think more female leaders will deliver the workplace culture they are aiming for, and the candidates are in all other ways equal, the company can take into account the overall workforce strategy.

    • +11

      I work in a bank as well, and observe the same thing as well
      A colleague recently told me that he interviewed a male candidate and everyone was happy with him
      However, was told not to make an offer because senior management needed a female to make up the team's gender diversity target
      I think targets like these are insulting, particularly to female. You may be a strong candidate but the policy makes you no different from other average females.

      • +5

        The worst part is everyone in the hiring team and potentially the other employees know this. Then they know that the new hire is a diversity hire.

      • +1

        Yes but how would you achieve diversity without targets though? We have an inherent bias to hire people who look and think like us. And this isn't limited to gender. The banking division I worked at was 90% white whilst the same division at our competitor was like 80% Asian. Both European banks in Australia.

        Without targets you would just subconsciously keep hiring the same people. Plus it has been shown that diverse teams are smarter and perform better so even if the female wasn't the best candidate for the role, she might have made the best candidate for the team.

        • +3

          Heaven forbid that people actually get a job based on you know, skills. experience and attitude. It doesn't matter what colour, creed or flavour you are, if you don't show the skills you shouldn't be hired. I want the engineers designing the planes I fly in or the surgeons operating on me to have the skills, not the right quota tick a box.

          I had management try strong arm me into a diversity hire that was no where near as qualified but ticked the right 'management gets their bonus' box. Thing is, once hired it would have fallen on my team and I to carry this person AND be a position down. It's even worse than not hiring someone. Needless to say I refused and hired the non blessed person who fit in well, but my manager and I never had a good relationship after that.

          Those that push this agenda rarely have to live with the consequences.

        • Good point…
          I don’t have an answer….
          But I guess if the candidate you interviewed ticked all the boxes then that’s sufficient grounds for offer to be made?

      • Literally equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.

  • +19

    SlavOz, is that you?

      • +4

        Any bargains?

      • +13

        I love the "hey I have shocking original takes that challenge society" types that use terminally online Redditspeak like "NPCs" in their wording. Saves everyone a lot of valuable time. (Except the poster, I guess, but I did use the word valuable)

        Kind of like rekttrading (there's another blast from the past) talking to us with the good morning/"Feds want you to use fiat" style YouTube cryptobro speak. What's that rekt, you have a hot take on Biden's war in the Ukraine and why that's make our fuel prices go up? How surprising

        • +2

          That is a blast from the past. What happened to all those accs, any way? Where's the lore I missed?

      • +13

        I think if you're going round calling other people "NPC's" there might be other reasons why you are not being promoted.

    • +1

      @Caped Baldy you read my mind.

  • +3

    You whinge like a woman so I’m now confused on your post

    • +7

      I'm confused about why you would make a sexist comment like that?

  • +3

    The Pink Ceiling …

    Have you seen Barbie (movie)?

    • +2

      No.

      • +2

        The Pink Ceiling

        Reminds me of this interesting article that I read earlier today.

      • +5

        What's your account details? I'll pay for you to watch it. Ryan Gosling is some fine eye candy.

        • +3

          Love me some baby goose.

          • @brendanm: You watched Barbie yet, Brendan?

            Cracker of a movie, it's right up there on my favourites list. I was quite surprised.

            • +1

              @ThithLord: Yeah went and saw it a few weeks ago, I'm straight onto anything with Ryan Gosling 😂. Was a pretty decent film, my favourite part was the Ken's dance battle.

            • -1

              @ThithLord: it's a foul misandrist movie, propaganda shoved down our throat

              • -1

                @subwoofer: If you think it's misandrist you're clearly a bloke that takes themselves far too seriously.

  • +18

    You probably didn’t know the WGEA kept stats that were so thorough about exactly what you were claiming.
    You can just ask the mods to close the thread and go think up a new post.

    • +2

      Shut it down!

      If WGEA actually published their full dataset, I'd believe it more. But it's hardly transparent.

      Go speak to young men and find out how these so called 'gender targets' are applied in practice.

      • +6

        You can see the reports from most of the respondents on their ASX releases. The companies report the number of staff in different roles according to gender.
        It isn’t a mystery, or something the WGEA doctors. Here is an example:
        https://www.tpgtelecom.com.au/sites/default/files/2021-02/VH…

        You keep pretending to have uncovered a massive conspiracy, of women being dramatically preferenced for promotion, but the stats say you have got it completely reversed in almost every industry.

        If your so called ‘gender targets’ are having the effect you claim, why are the statistics so opposed to what you are claiming.

        Or to put it another way, have you got any evidence besides your feelpinion about what you are claiming, or an explanation of why the application of these gender targets is not resulting in women being promoted?

      • +4

        Anecdotes are always better than actual research and statistics.

    • +2

      WGEA are trash, marginally better than Tony Abbot Minister of Women

      Got trashed in the senate by right wing nutters because they couldnt explain their claims

  • +7

    these discriminatory policies are almost universally adopted to get women into future leadership positions at the expense of men.

    And your source is some young guys you spoke to? As another young guy, I can say this is not the case at my workplace. Not saying discrimination doesn't exist but there's no one here that would think it's 30% vs 100% for men vs women chance at promotion.

    If that really is the reality at your university, I agree that's not fair. But there isn't anything to suggest that's the norm. Also can you state which uni this is? I have a number of friends in academia

    • -3

      Western Australia. Definitely not going to name the university because they go after whistle-blowers legally. The source was a confidential report meant for the head of teaching and learning. My supervisor at the time took up their interim role for a few weeks. Hence why I had access to the report. Wasn't impressed.

      But the stuff I've heard come out of the university deserves a royal commission.

      Look up sex trafficking + Australian University Students into google news and you will know what I mean.

      • +10

        You're not whistle blowing when you drop a convo like this onto a shopping forum.
        Time & place.

      • +1

        Curtin then? I don't think any of the others have a faculty with science and engineering named together

    • +1

      I work in academia (management). Most of the female senior managers work 3 or 4 day weeks and then purchase an additional 2 weeks of annual leave every year. Around 85 days of leave a year out of the roughly 245 weekdays each year. Productivity is terrible.

  • +6

    If you can't compete with someone that on average takes a few years off full-time work mid career then perhaps the system isn't the issue.

    • So you're an advocate of discrimination then… OK…

      • +18

        I'm an advocate of there's more to life than commenting on Ozbargain every 2 minutes.

        • +1

          ..more to life than commenting on Ozbargain every 2 min

          BLASPHAME! that's a paddlin
          (due to ongoing inflation, all paddlins have been upgraded to lapidations)
          if you're holding any eneloops, you may fling them now!

  • +4

    Also at play in teaching. Both sex and age are driving factors in promotion. If you're a young woman (sub 30), chances are youll make it into leadership quicker and regardless of more qualified people in the mix, especially older graduates of both sexes.

    And they wonder why there's an average of 80% female teachers in the industry and they cannot attract men for love nor money.

    • +4

      That's because the money is shit for the actual work no matter how great you think it is.

      • +1

        I think youll find most teachers agree with you 🤔

        • I know a couple so fairly confident in my opinion on that.

    • +1

      Even if it weren't a hard job with mediocre pay, it will never be gender balanced because men just don't want to do it, which is a shame because it can't be good to have kids spend 100% of their time until age 12 around almost exclusively women.

      I remember my brother had a (female) teacher in year 1 or 2 who didn't know any of the boys names, payed them no attention, and deliberately kept them at a lower reading level than they were capable of.

  • +8

    I can see where you're coming from OP. But I'm also a beneficiary of this trend so I won't be joining you.

    my faculty of science and engineering— men had a 30% chance of promotion within a given cycle while women had 100%. That's right. 100%.

    I know you're in academia but I was in the engineering industry for a few years although not as an engineer. It's harder on average to get decent female grads over males numbers wise. There's just of less them. And then from my observations in a Tier 1 and 2 firm, majority of mid-level female employees end up having kids and obviously taking maternity leave. That's lost project experience time right there for them. However, I reported to a fair few women in that industry and while personality wise, they were all over the place, their competency overall was unreal. You can't fake it in engineering regardless of gender though since most candidates have to be subject matter experts.

    I don't blame the women for taking advantage of such a rigged system, how could you?

    So my wife is in an extremely senior expat IT role. She's also our age OP and not white. CV wise, she's amazing. She's the sort of candidate companies want - ticks all the diversity and gender equality boxes while being ridiculously experienced and qualified. She's basically a unicorn. But her issue is that positive discrimination only goes so far. She'll get the promotion over the average male but she's still stuck reporting to an entrenched yet experienced class of older white male execs despite the fact that she literally switched countries. It's a rigged system. Most of us plebs won't win.

    Play the game and claim female status?

    Just get over it.

    Recommend they just put up with the discriminatory practices?

    In your case, you left. So well done.

    Work for smaller companies?

    Small companies are fine if you fit in and are willing to do more varied work for less pay.

  • +30

    Geez I ran out of negs on this thread pretty quick

    • -5

      You need a Pro account.

      It's a good investment…

  • +11

    I recommend that you write a letter to the opinion pages of The Tele or the Herald Sun.

    Also, perhaps surprisingly for an alleged employee of the "university system" (gardener?), you appear to have a fundamental misapprehension about how statistics work. I mean, women had a 100% chance of promotion out of a sample size of what, one?

    • Gardener? Good joke, all the unis outsource that nowdays

      • +2

        Outworkers, subcontractors, agency staff, people who work at the campus coffee shop, and anyone else working in and around a university is in the "university system".

        The fact that someone is not directly employed is irrelevant to the system in which they work. Frankly, it seems that hardly anyone is directly employed by anyone anymore.

        Anyhow, the point was to comment on OP's use of a deliberately ambiguous term to describe their employment arrangements, a strategy often used to let people think that their job is something with a high perceived status such as an academic, and not something with low perceived status like data entry clerk.

        Frankly, it was odd phrasing. In my experience, someone with genuine experience working in and around universities would typically describe it as the university or tertiary education sector.

  • +1

    So, if your son is entering the workforce in the next 10 years what would you tell them?

    To become self-employed and gain control of your destiny.

    Flip the bird to those that want to control you….

  • +5

    Going by that statistic, why would a business hire a woman if they only had to give 30% of men promotions?

    • +1

      Because at some companies there are metrics on getting women into senior management roles. And there just aren't enough women in some fields with enough experience to meet these metrics. Hence fast tracked and prioritised promotions.

  • +3

    Honestly, if the game is so rigged, why play it?

    It is rigged, and the current push for "diversity" isn't so much about course-correcting, as it is a flogging to people perceived as "privileged", an act of vengeance for inherited grievances. I say perceived, because when people slam "rich white men" they never say "jews" despite jewish people being over-represented among the wealth and leadership class (globally). We don't talk about that though, because that's nazi shit, we mainly focus on anglo "old white men". We also ignore the fact the majority of "white men" never had much power or status, we're talking about a tiny ruling class, but we don't let the details derail our righteous indignation.

    All that said, there are vast populations who have been mired in hopeless poverty for a long time, regardless of their gender of ethnicity, and many of the cultures that formed among those people reject capitalistic or "democratic" notions because they've seen it as a rigged game the whole time. Ever heard of the hikkis? Kudos for joining the herd.

    • -8

      The pile on is far from over. When Albo's Voice succeeds, the ALP will confiscate all of the land and wealth owned by whites and redistribute it back to the aboriginal people to atone for 'white man sins'.

      Democracy + capitalism is inherently progressive; progressivism is hatred of males, Caucasians, Christians, heterosexuals, cisgenders, blue collar workers, and the poor (progressives are all priviledged wealthy people with white collar backgrounds). Progressives never create anything of value; they just tear things down. Why work when you can shake down White people for "free stuff"?

      • +3

        I'm confident that your comments are incorrect.

      • +1

        Democracy + capitalism is inherently progressive

        so, communist dictatorship is more you preference.
        Interesting.

      • +2

        I'd offer you a tissue but it's two ply and I'm worried you might hurt yourself

      • +4

        Skynews has joined the conversation.

  • +4

    Just side step all of this nonsense and create your own business. Youre a man after all.

    • All well and good untill you have 100 employees… then you are forced to play their game.

      • Not necessarily. Coinbase laid down the law with their employees. The wokies decided to leave and take a severance package and were probably not missed by anyone.

  • -1

    Looks like I need to identify as a female so that I can get a promotion…..there PR stats all filled.

    • +8

      Reading that sentence, there may be other things you should be working on to attain a promotion

  • +7

    I reckon there is worse to come. Wait till the quotas for the loud minority groups start kicking in.

    • +5

      Agreed. I've noticed my employer has in the last 12 months started tracking stats on things like indigenous, gender, sexual preference, nationality, etc etc etc. People have now started adding their pronouns in their email signatures too.

      • +1

        "Do you reckon we're giving everybody a fair go?"
        "Dunno. Let's track stuff and see what the data tell us"
        "Good idea, everybody loves facts and evidence"

        You: /visible terror

        • Terror? Or delight? I can now openly identify as a woman and force my female colleagues to watch me shower, shave my privates and get changed in front of them. If they complain I will tell them they have no right to be offended and force them go to counseling :D

    • +26

      You've never actually worked with a woman in a senior role before, have you?

    • +18

      I'd want a CEO who understands what work/life balance is, and hires staff competent enough to nip problems in the bud so they don't become a crisis.

      Workers who put in 70hrs/week for a company that will replace them at a moment's notice can (sometimes) be their own worst enemy. Those 70hrs tell the company they don't need to hire more workers because the existing ones are "happy" burning themselves out.

      Yes, there are companies that treat workers like slaves and are rife with bad management. Why should we accept that as "normal" in this day and age?

    • +5

      There wouldn't be a "coming crisis" if the CEO was doing their job properly.

    • +4

      Since when have CEOs done any work?

    • +2

      Look at you pretending to know what a CEO does and how much they work

  • As a proud queer I'm angry yr trying to steal pink from us. You know how hard it is to hang onto one colour, as well as the rainbow,clean up unicorn poop and control the children….

    Anyway
    To address the claims, perhaps this is the case at your institution
    My guess at the higher end places I've worked in the past is that men in STEM are three to four times more likely to occupy higher places. I'd be hard pressed to think of a woman in charge of a research centre.

    What you may be getting confused with is the sage program to help women progress in those fields. Higher ed has also had a more progressive approach to hiring than broader industry so you're going to see more women. Again though I'd look at the bigger picture.

    If you could provide evidence through peer reviewed studies and university policies, I'd be happy to review the evidence.

  • +9

    People disagreeing with you are ignoring the FACTS

    Many tech companies that I know, and you'll know their names, have MANDATES to prefer more women than men. So what happens come interview time? Yep. They hire based on gender rather than skill. With at least one example they are having major talent issues now where they've hired poorly skilled women into the roles instead of men and the skilled men (and women) are leaving because of it.

    • +4

      Yep, i've experienced this. There are often conflicting/contradictory statements given such as

      all job postings must have x% female candidates interviewed, and we will preferentially hire women where possible.
      target is x% female in dept y by 202x
      oh don't worry, we're only hiring the best candidate for a given role, women won't be given an unfair preference

      Not all of these can be true given the candidate pool - either it's just lip service or they are discriminating and not hiring the best candidate.

      But it's not just tech - ESG targets may not be advertised as much lately, but it's still big business and pushed from the top down across many industries.

    • +8

      It is a known FACTS that if you capitalise the word FACTS, it does, indeed, mean that you are FACTually correct

    • +2

      I wasn't convinced but the random SHOUTING got me over the line

  • +2

    You forgot the important option.
    Getting a life

  • +19

    Hi, maybe we worked at the same university!

    I saw a similar presentation, however the message was that women are more likely to wait before going for promotion and therefore are more likely to succeed. Our success rates for females are higher than for males. Despite that, more males are promoted overall and especially once you look at higher levels.

    • +6

      That is interesting. OP misunderstood the presentation, and now thinks it is gender holding them back.
      I have seen similar things elsewhere, with the outcome that women only apply to a role if they 100% meet all the criteria and experience, while many men will “have a punt” even if they don’t have all the boxes ticked.

      • +3

        I've seen this mentioned before as well but in terms of job advertisements. Women are likely to only apply if they meet all the requirements whereas men would happily apply if they met only half of the requirements.
        Often the employee is only looking for half of the requirements anyway.

    • -2

      That's the same messaging at my university. I never believed it because promotion is always a drawn out difficult process where you have to skip the next promotion round before applying again (so two years between applications!). Nobody in their right mind with long term prospects would want to rush it. Mainly, I was shocked to see it at 100% though for women and so low for men. They were going through a strong "Gender and Diversity" integration program at the time. So I suspect they had a very heavy handed weighting on gender that year because they 'wanted to increase women at the professor role'. And, as they put it, they could only get 'women in the higher roles, if early career women were accelerated'. Yes, there is that imbalance at the higher levels >professor, but the scales have been flipped too hard at the lower levels to address it.

      As a result I have seen multiple women go from associate lecturer to senior lecturer in two years which I've never seen men doing. Maybe they were deserving, but I was never with the provost when they made that decision.

      Whatever it is, I wasn't alone in identifying this as a real problem for young guys.

  • +17

    men had a 30% chance of promotion within a given cycle while women had 100%

    These aren't statistics.
    If 1 woman applies and gets promoted, and if 90 men apply for promotion, but only 30 get promoted, there's your 100% of women and 30% of men "statistic".
    But this is not evidence of favouritism to one gender or another (certainly not the way you're arguing anyway) and the fact you seem to think it's valid doesn't exactly generate a whole lotta confidence that you're promotion material!

    I'm not even doubting that there is favouritism, there may well be and quite probably is to a limited extent. Just that the "evidence" you allege to have provided is nothing of the sort.

    If there is favouritism, it's most likely going to be a tipping point decision between 2 evenly qualified candidates, not dragging someone unqualified over the line ahead of preferred candidates.
    Hell at my workplace we recently hired one person over the other cause the other had the same first name as a recently passed colleague! Insanity if you look at it from an outsider's perspective, but logical from an insider's one.

  • +8

    I've found a conspiracy about why I'm not as successful as I would like to be

    Stop daydreaming about the Roman Empire and get back to work

  • +6

    No one ever complains that sewer workers, bricklayers, firefighters, deep sea fishermen have huge underrepresentation of women. Funny that its only ever the "good"/"safe" jobs that we have to get to parity on - board members, politicians, senior managers in tech etc….

    • +12

      That's because there are already plenty of low-level jobs where females are overrepresented. It's called a glass ceiling not a glass box.

      If all the cashier girls at McDonalds started protesting because all the store managers were guys would their protest be invalid because they're not also protesting to be fry cooks? Such a dumb argument.

      • +2

        Ah, so we're all up in arms and legalized discrimination so that the top 3% of women can have it as good as the top 3% of men. What a noble cause.

        • +1

          You're a bit of a dumb dumb if you think a senior position puts you in the top 3%

          • -1

            @Cheaplikethebird: If that senior position allows you to pay off a house in Australia it most certainly does. Heck, to be in the top 10% you need less than 200,000 AUD net worth

            • @SpainKing: Maybe the top 10% of wage earners. Average household net worth was $1.4m in '21-'22. Average household net worth of the top 20% was $3.2m.

              Also we're talking any sort of promotion from entry-level roles here.

              • @Cheaplikethebird: No, top 10% worldwide

                "To be among the top 10 percent worldwide, you don't even need six figures: A net worth of $93,170 will do it."

                "And even if you have just $4,210 to your name, you're still richer than half of the world's residents.While the bottom half of adults collectively owns less than 1 percent of total wealth, the richest decile (top 10 percent of adults) owns 85 percent of global wealth, and the top percentile alone accounts for almost half of all household wealth (47 percent)."

                Addressing worldwide poverty with the fervour gender inequality rallies would be more of a fruitful endeavour, though it's good to see progress in any domain and if women want to work, let them. I just don't get why people would want to dedicate so much of their life to work if they weren't obligated to and could stay home raising your children. As a man I'd prefer that

                As nowhere prior in this thread mentioned we were exclusively talking about Australia's top 3% what I said was correct. It's strange to exclude over 80% of people when calculating the top 3% just because we're proportionally rich and lucky. ~50% of those people are women so helping those developing nations would do far more good for women (and men 😫) than discriminatory hiring practices. If ssfps had instead written "Australia's top 3% of women can be as well off as the top 3% of men" or some variant thereof, I'd concede the point, but being a middle-class Australian already puts you in the top 10% worldwide.

                To worry about the top 1% of the the top 10% it feels like we're missing the forest for the trees ,though I admit it's important to contextualise data and focus on what's going on in your own country too (put your oxygen mask on before you focus on others etc.) In this respect I think homelessness and drug addiction are more important issue to focus on than workplace gender diversity. It would improve the lives of the people it helped many times more than Barbara getting a phat promotion to senior management for being born/identifying as the right gender

                Excuse the long rant but I was working through my thoughts and had over 20 standard drinks last night so couldn't be as succinct as I'd like. As that one guy once said "If I had more time I would have written a shorter letter." Hope it was coherent

Login or Join to leave a comment