The Washington Post
By Daniel de Vise
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 11, 2010
The tenure system of academia is uniquely incompatible with the biological clocks of working women, according to a new study, one of the first to examine the persistent "leak" of talented women from the pipeline that For women intent on becoming both scholars and mothers, the timing of the tenure track could not be worse. The average female doctorate is awarded at 34, an age when many college-educated women are starting families. Tenure, a defining moment in a professor's career, is decided roughly seven years later, just as the parenting window is closing.
Researchers from Barnard College in New York interviewed 21 women, all striving to be supermoms at the most demanding time in their careers. Many of the women portrayed their work and family lives in irreconcilable conflict. One mother described working in "survival mode," just doing "the things that I can to not be kicked out." Another said she was no longer being invited to career-building speaking gigs. A third faced the hard truth that she was "never going to be one of those superstars." produces professors.
Full Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/10/AR2010071002610.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead
Showing posts with label working mothers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label working mothers. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Sex Stereotyping Claim of Working Mother
Workforce Management Online
May 2009
Employers are cautioned that job decisions that are based on assumptions that a woman, because she is a woman, will neglect her job responsibilities because of childcare responsibilities can be evidence of sex discrimination.
By James E. Hall, Mark T. Kobata and Marty Denis
Laurie Chadwick, a working mother of an 11-year-old son and 6-year-old triplets, worked in the Maine office of health insurer WellPoint Inc. as a recovery specialist II. In 2006, Chadwick applied for promotion to "recovery specialist lead’’ or "team lead,’’ a management position, but was passed over for that promotion.
Chadwick sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Maine Human Rights Act. Chadwick’s Title VII claim was based on three comments relating to her family responsibilities, including comments made by her supervisor that "you have a lot on your plate’’ and "if [the three interviewers] were in your position, they would feel overwhelmed.’’
WellPoint defended its denial of the promotion on the basis that mothers with young children neglect the duties of their job due to child care obligations.
The district court dismissed Chadwick’s claims on summary judgment, finding that sex bias could not be shown in the promotion because Chadwick’s supervisor did not expressly state "that Chadwick’s sex was the basis for her assumption that Chadwick would not be able to handle the demands of work and home.’’
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/26/40/11/index.php
May 2009
Employers are cautioned that job decisions that are based on assumptions that a woman, because she is a woman, will neglect her job responsibilities because of childcare responsibilities can be evidence of sex discrimination.
By James E. Hall, Mark T. Kobata and Marty Denis
Laurie Chadwick, a working mother of an 11-year-old son and 6-year-old triplets, worked in the Maine office of health insurer WellPoint Inc. as a recovery specialist II. In 2006, Chadwick applied for promotion to "recovery specialist lead’’ or "team lead,’’ a management position, but was passed over for that promotion.
Chadwick sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Maine Human Rights Act. Chadwick’s Title VII claim was based on three comments relating to her family responsibilities, including comments made by her supervisor that "you have a lot on your plate’’ and "if [the three interviewers] were in your position, they would feel overwhelmed.’’
WellPoint defended its denial of the promotion on the basis that mothers with young children neglect the duties of their job due to child care obligations.
The district court dismissed Chadwick’s claims on summary judgment, finding that sex bias could not be shown in the promotion because Chadwick’s supervisor did not expressly state "that Chadwick’s sex was the basis for her assumption that Chadwick would not be able to handle the demands of work and home.’’
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/26/40/11/index.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)