Women Are Fleeing IT Jobs 578
Lucas123 writes "An alarming number of women are currently abandoning IT jobs that require workers to be on-call at all hours, according to a story in Computerworld. One study cited in the article states that by 2012, 40% of women now working in IT will leave for careers with more flexible hours. 'I think women in that regard are at a real disadvantage,' said Dot Brunette, network and storage manager at Meijer Inc., a Grand Rapids, Mich.-based retailer and a 30-year IT veteran. She noted that companies can fail to attract female workers, or see them leave key IT jobs, because they fail to provide day care at work, or work-at-home options for someone who leaves to have a child.'"
I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought we were supposed to have sexual equality, not special treatment for women.
I'm not female, but (Score:5, Insightful)
You ask me, women are fleeing IT because they're SMARTER.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Disadvantage? What disadvantage?..... (Score:4, Insightful)
And FWIW, I got an assoc and had a couple calls for a networking tech positions.... part-time hours, and on call at times--like evenings and weekends.
Ummm,,,,,, no thanks.
Stuck trying to live off an $8/hr job with no way to even well consider a second job? Nope, forget it.
I never did get a tech job. It was kinda a bummer at the time, but nowadays I don't worry about it that much.
~
I thought IT workers can telecommute to work? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of it this way... What if an IT department didn't have women's bathrooms, because it was designed back when only men held IT jobs. So the job "requires" women to go to a different building to use the bathroom. If a women quits because she finds that annoying, it is literally correct to say that she isn't willing to accept the conditions of the job. But obviously no one would defend that situation.
Back to reality... If it's the case that IT work schedules and conditions happen to have been designed by guys who didn't mind being on call, and the company could change its conditions to make it possible for women (or any employee who's a primary caregiver for kids) to have the job and be effective, then they should change. That's not special treatment for women. That's putting an end to arbitrary conditions that create, in effect, special treatment for young, single men. (Because I'd say that not having to compete with women for your job constitutes special treatment.)
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should people who don't have kids be expected to work extra hard to cover for the pampering of people who do have kids?
Look, you're hired to do a job. If you can't or won't do it, find a different job... there are plenty of people who are willing to do the job that they're hired for.
So I don't see what the problem is.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
The on-call constraint isn't arbitrary and so you, in essence, wasted a perfectly good analogy making a point that's functionally useless. You are correct that IF on-call was an arbitrary constraint it should be removed and your analogy is nice but it's not arbitrary and so the IF statement may as well be If(false) consider removing the constraint.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
That must be why nursing is dominated by young men.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should any company let their servers go down for hours because people with kids refuse to be on call to fix them?
It's really that simple: someone has to be on-call to fix things that break if you're providing 24/7 coverage. It's a part of the job that people are hired for. If they can't do their job, they should find another one, not try to offload the work they're paid to do onto others.
I don't get why anyone thinks that people should be able to arbitrarily refuse to do the job they're hired to do, and then complain about it.
Re:I thought IT workers can telecommute to work? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, this whole topic is predicated on the belief that there are no single fathers out there trying to raise their kids. Fewer of them to be sure, but they are out there.
Re:I thought IT workers can telecommute to work? (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened to all those jobs in which you can work at home with?
Companies realised that if people can work from home, it's cheaper if those homes happen to be located in India.
News Flash! (Score:5, Insightful)
You do not see a whole lot of women in the construction business either. Not stereotyping but women don't fight for jobs they don't care anything about. I would LOVE to see at least 50% women mixed in at every job stratum but face it..there are some jobs women don't give a shit about and would rather fight for other lucrative positions.
I don't see an overwhelming majority of women fight for selective service either for that matter.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, whoever heard of men working long, inflexible hours? They get to go home early because they have penises, right?
Seriously, if women are quitting the IT industry because of discrimination, that's one thing. But leaving because they don't want long, inflexible hours? Tough. Men have to put up with it. Why shouldn't women?
Re:I thought IT workers can telecommute to work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Some parents don't admit to the value of their own kids. They act like their offspring are a handicap and not a blessing.
The reason childless folks earn more is because they pay the price in loneliness - in childlessness.
Unless you are going to invite coworkers to spend time with your kids and appreciate them, don't whine that others have it easy or "don't understand" your needs.
Re:I'm not female, but (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll always be very interested in technology, but as far as my career goes, it's just not worth it anymore.
Re:This is a good thing! (Score:2, Insightful)
I have worked with women in IT who were dedicated, technically adept, and most importantly, customer-focused. Mind you, this was at a nuclear power plant, which is a machine that is continuously operating for up to two years, and this places some serious demand for IT support (yes, it was/is an MS-based house, but that's another issue). Approaching it from a cultural standpoint, operators (mostly male) are required to have the utmost confidence that they can handle the beast at all times, and this often manifested itself as massive chips on shoulders, and demands of flawless execution on just about anything. Having women in IT 'gentled' the testosterone-charged atmosphere, and that helped just getting the job done. In comparison, the IT departments at other plants in the fleet were male-dominated, and for some reason were a lot less effective. Could have been a competence issue - but IMHO, it was cultural.
Finally, regarding the quest for a prospective partner: I believe it unwise to date someone at work. Think in terms of consequences if things go awry.
Re:I'm not female, but (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's be honest. It is much more socially acceptable for women to "choose family over work" or simply be dependent on family for sustenance. They have more freedom to turn down a job that they don't like. With the state of the economy in this country, men are more desperate for work, and therefore have less leverage to change the shitty conditions they work in.
Maybe it's because Women are Smarter than Men (Score:5, Insightful)
"Pursuing science as a career seems so irrational that one wonders why any young American would do it. Yet we do find some young Americans starting out in the sciences and they are mostly men... A lot more men than women choose to do seemingly irrational things such as become petty criminals, fly homebuilt helicopters, play video games, and keep tropical fish as pets (98 percent of the attendees at the American Cichlid Association convention that I last attended were male). Should we be surprised that it is mostly men who spend 10 years banging their heads against an equation-filled blackboard in hopes of landing a $35,000/year post-doc job?
Having been both a student and teacher at MIT, my personal explanation for men going into science is the following:
1. young men strive to achieve high status among their peer group
2. men tend to lack perspective and are unable to step back and ask the question "is this peer group worth impressing?"
It is the guys with the poorest social skills who are least likely to talk to adults and find out what the salary and working conditions are like in different occupations. It is mostly guys with rather poor social skills whom one meets in the university science halls...
What about women? Don't they want to impress their peers? Yes, but they are more discriminating about choosing those peers. I've taught a fair number of women students in electrical engineering and computer science classes over the years. I can give you a list of the ones who had the best heads on their shoulders and were the most thoughtful about planning out the rest of their lives. Their names are on files in my "medical school recommendations" directory."
- Women in Science [greenspun.com]
Re:Women Belong In The Kitchen (Score:5, Insightful)
Try to be philosophical about it. Other cultures will rise.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I hope they choose that they want women in the workforce, and implement better work conditions to do it. While I do telecommute, I have turned down several gigs that would have paid noticeably more, so that I can be at home with my child. I will not, though, agree that the reason women are leaving is because they are at a disadvantage. Saying women are leaving IT because they are at a disadvantage is like saying that billionaires are not working at McDonalds because they are at a disadvantage. Those poor, poor billionaires, loosing out to those McDonalds jobs because of the unfair work environment.
It's not restricted to women (Score:4, Insightful)
A number of my friends with children are looking to get out of the drudgery of abandoning their families for 60% of their waking hours.
These are the people working a 55 hour week in a "9 to 5" job, with an hour of commuting each way. They are typically engineers or other professionals working in jobs where technology companies demand that the product be in the market yesterday. Their (ex) colleagues have been "downsized" and the company is too tight to employ replacements or there just aren't the qualified people out there. Consequently they are each doing one and a half jobs. Flexible hours policy is "We don't mind what hours you work as long as the job gets done", which translates to "55 hours".
These friends are figuring out that they are missing out on being part of their family growing up while earning 2-3 time the average wage. Often they are concluding that they are better to move to a part time job, earn a little above an average wage and be part of the family growing up. If the change requires a change of employer or profession then they are prepared to do it. When pushed the better employers realise that they are better to have a part time expert than no expert.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
If you've conditioned your workplace to disinterest women, you've effectively reduced your hiring pool by 50%. That's not a problem right now, but during the next industry crunch you'd f***ed. People management and staff retention is a strategic goal, not a tactical problem...too bad most of the industry right now is being managed quarter-by-quarter.
Re:This is a good thing! (Score:1, Insightful)
I ended up taking up the slack, doing loads of extra hours and re-working these two women's code and as a result suffered a severe case of burnout.
I now make a point of not working on any programming projects where there are a significant number of women involved. It's simply not worth sacrificing my health for.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not on call 24/7 because I chose a job that doesn't require it. If I had I would either put up with it or quit for something I liked better.
It's not just IT people who have tough time requirements, btw - where I work, many on the business side have to endure punishing travel schedules. They tend to be younger, single men just like the 3am server-crisis guys.
That said, there's a lot I wish I could change about the "No Girlz Allowed" clubhouse mentality of the IT profession but creating more resentment towards women due to special treatment isn't the way to do that.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Men are as free to leave as anyone else. Women are just doing it more.
Thank you (Score:1, Insightful)
One just has to find the job with a more flexible schedule... It's a bit harder to find, but there are some out there.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but men have children too. Is that the scapegoat?
I'm getting mixed messages here. Women demand to become an equal part of the IT industry (the latest in a series of 'boys' clubs') so in they come. Now they're leaving because of the nature of the beast? IT == global == 24/7 requirements. Somebody has to keep the servers running, and somebody has to make the sandwiches.
Here's an idea; let's make a new set of rules. You get hired based on your experience, qualifications, knowledge, education, and willingness to come to an accord as to the working conditions and requirements. Period. Forget the pigmentation of your skin, the tone of your accent, or the makeup of your chromosomes. If you're not cut out for the job - leave.
Is this still news? Better still - why is this still news?!?
Re:I thought IT workers can telecommute to work? (Score:1, Insightful)
you're not obligated to "riding their asses" if you understood that shit will break, not matter how good the employee.
also, and in conclusion, fuck off.
Re:Women Belong In The Kitchen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Firstly the childfree do not generally get paid more than their benefit sponging, continually "nipping out early", "kiddie sick day" taking co-workers.
Secondly most childfree are that way by choice, are not lonely and have no desire to have anything to do with other peoples kids.
The reason most childfree people are childfree is because they were smarter earlier and able to comprehend the needs and difficulties of child-rearing, weighed it against the benefits and decided voluntarily to have nothing to do with it.
The only thing we want from parents is that we don't have to carry the burden of their problems and mistakes. (Oh, and that they keep the squalling disease ridden fleshloaves away from us).
Careerist women get hit the hardest. (Score:5, Insightful)
Although I don't necessary agree with many of your premises, nor your conclusion, I do agree with that particular statement (well, not the generalization that all women today are necessarily "constantly demanding and taking," and I think the tone is a bit strident -- did you just get out of a bad divorce or something?).
I think the people who get screwed worse than just about anyone, under our current system, are the women who really want to compete on a level playing field; either they get hobbled, or they get tossed crutches they don't need and don't want (and which cause them to be discriminated against).
An easy example of this is with child-care policies at work. Some workplaces have very biased policies surrounding parenting; they have maternity leave without any corresponding paternity or adoption leave, etc. What this does is make women, in general, much less attractive employees to lower and middle management. If you're taking on someone into a management or competitive career track (think junior partners in big law firms), who are you going to pick: the male employee, who's going to work his ass off, and then work his ass off some more, or the female employee, who's going to work her ass off, but then quite possibly go take six or nine months off to have a kid, and then only want to come back on a reduced schedule? It's a no-brainer, and this is why there's a culture of discrimination in many of those workplaces.
The people who this really hurts, though, are the women who aren't interested in having children, and aren't going to ever exercise their maternity leave, and are going to work the same 60-hour weeks for as many years as their male counterpart would, and not expect any quarter on account of sex. They really get hosed, because they get discriminated against without any good reason, due the cultural stereotype that all women want to be nurturing mother-figures, when there are definitely women out there who have zero interest in it.
I've met a lot of aggressive, careerist women in my life, and a whole lot of them are pretty bitter that they always get pigeonholed in the "so when are you going to get pregnant?" box. Conversely, I've met a few men who are pretty clearly looking to be primary caregivers and bitter about the flack they get for asking for child-care and leave, or for not being as aggressively career-oriented as others around them. So it cuts both ways.
I think there are really two fair solutions: you can make all policies gender-neutral, and encourage male employees to take the same sort of leave, when they're adopting or their partner is pregnant, that a female employee would take for a pregnancy, so that in hiring or placing people, managers can't just assume that "male employee = no leave" and "female employee = leave" (although if you have more female employees taking leave, then you'll still have discrimination). Or, you pick some sort of well-known, performance-based metric to do your advancement/firing based on, tell people they can take as much leave as they want, whenever they want, but if their performance suffers too badly, they'll get canned, and let the pieces fall where they may. Since I think the latter plan is probably illegal in the U.S. and other "pro-family" countries, I think we're stuck with the former.
Re:I don't get it (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe from the parents, but from the kids you want their social security, and more and more their universal health care.
Being childless gets you far more benefits than having children (as your quip about being smarter points out). And those benefits multiply as you reach old age and depend more and more on the taxes of those children you hated to pay for you.
Face it, all things considered, you are a free loader.
Dear god, why do we keep worrying about this. (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact is that IT isn't "easy". It's the same reason you don't see many female stock traders (there's some, but not many). The simple fact is there's a commitment to the industry that must be made. Not just the time to learn the trade but when they understand there's late nights and long hours, as well as the dreaded crunch. I see "old timers" (5-10 years) in the game industry who just say "I can't do this any more". Imagine not only being in the industry that long but also dealing with the biological clock.
That doesn't mean IT shouldn't have woman, that just means that instead of worrying about how to attract women to the industry ask "do women want to be in the industry?" The answer seems to be no. Why are we trying to force women into roles they don't want? Or is there something in the industry that doesn't attract normal people but the people in the industry are already accepting of it, if so identifying that would be worthy, but this big question "how do we get more female programmers" isn't helping anyone.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
I will say that the sad part is when Mr. and Mrs. Career decide that they want to start Raising a Family now as the next thing on their checklist at age 45, and they can't handle rambunctious youngsters (which they don't have the energy to handle) and have gotten so used to everything being about themselves... or, worse, when they try to live vicariously through their kids and pressure them into doing umpteen billion things, instead of letting them choose their life...
My parents married young, while my dad was in graduate school, and we didn't even have enough money to afford the subway. We made use of the community garden, and my mother did some baking out of our apartment to help support us. I helped pat the dough when I was, like, 2 or 3... my first word was "hot", since the oven was, well, hot... and if you asked them, or anyone of their five kids, if they would have traded away one child for a slightly richer lifestyle, or even just waited another five years or so for something similar, well... No. It wouldn't be worth it. The love in a family can truly be greater more than all the riches in the world. They regret they didn't get married even a little earlier.
I don't know anyone who regrets having had children. I know they exist, though, and this makes me sad.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, smarter until they turn old, lonely and empty - seeking solace in finding the perfect toy for their cats, the best clothes for their dogs or some other trivial pursuit with utmost seriousness.
You'll reach that age one day too.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
The message I'm getting in all these posts is something like this:
IT jobs treat people like shit. Women don't stay in the jobs because they don't put with up being treated like shit. Men say the women don't belong because they're not willing to be treated like shit - like they themselves are.
So I ask... why should anyone put up with being treated like shit?
It makes me so happy that I got into the company I'm currently working for. It's a fortune 500 company and everyone works their asses off. But people come and go when they need to/want to. People are always going to the gym to work out or going to volunteer for charities or meeting each other for coffee/beer in one of the several cafes on "campus". The company is always having large after-work parties, even bringing in bands like Dave Matthews; and they always have interesting guest speakers who are eminent in their fields, such as Peter Senge. It's so awesome to work for a company that really values me and wants me to be happy in my work and my home life.
That said, I've never worked harder in my life - and I really enjoy it! If you (collectively) don't work for a company that values you, your happiness, and your well-being, you should try it sometime.
Re:I do get it (Score:1, Insightful)
You? By yourself? Enjoy your very long vacation, they'll find someone else.
Now, if everyone were to get together, and all of us demand that 24x7 on call has to stop, that might turn heads.
If only someone had a way to get everyone together... what would we call that?
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Most localities in the US require this because as a society we value women having babies (even if she was drunk) more than we value men having drunken ski parties. How else are we, as a society, going to stave off those hoards of immigrants?
But as an employer I'm making a bad business decision if I let understanding and sympathy interfere with choosing a candidate with greater dedication and availability.
Maybe in the short term. But in the long term, having a business full of people who are happy with their work and home lives has much greater benefits. I find if you treat people well that they are more dedicated. Creating an environment where people are treated well and accommodated well tends to lead to a very happy and productive work force. It's rarely about just on individual - you need a whole company of people to do what you do (or why did you hire them) - and you should want them to not be in conflicts over work and home. Sometimes its inevitable, but as a manager you should be trying to prevent it when possible, not encourage a work culture around sacrificing everything for the company.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
"Seriously, if black people are quitting the IT industry because of discrimination, that's one thing. But leaving because they don't want to be called nappy-headed hos? Tough. Spics have to put up with it. Why shouldn't black people."
Would it help if I used other racial slurs to illustrate the problem with your statement?
These kinds of working conditions should not be acceptable to ANYONE. We're not living in 18th century coal mining towns. Progress is about standards of living. My ultimate legacy will be my biological offspring, and anything I happen to create which is of importance to others. While my creations might be forgotten or destroyed, it's unlikely that my DNA will come to a sad end if I raise my children right.
If you want to work long, shitty hours for someone who'll replace you in a heartbeat, feel free. I'm going to work whatever job lets me live a life. If the job is something I like and believe in, I'll work to support it as fully as I can around that. However, there are boundaries. Work smarter, not harder. I find that works better than the "dig up, stupid" approach of throwing more work at people.
Re:I thought IT workers can telecommute to work? (Score:5, Insightful)
First thing I thought: Men are easy to trick into thinking, "I work sixty hours a week for a wage that barely supports my lower-middle-class lifestyle, but I'm AWESOME! I'm a Perl NINJA!"
How many IT guys work crappy jobs for crappy pay because the work makes them feel smart and powerful? The only women I can think of who do similar things are models, who work a crappy job for crappy pay for similar delusions of status.
What's the problem again? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's only alarming if the number is zero
And what's with everyone trying to encourage women to move into IT, when:
1) Most women aren't interested in the first place
2) The jobs aren't valued highly by Management and tend to get outsourced.
3) The jobs aren't that _wonderful_ in terms of pay, security etc. (They're ok if you actually like IT stuff a lot, but see 1) )
4) An "alarming number" are moving out.
From the article:
"I had a 14-year-old daughter that I didn't want to leave alone at 3 a.m.,".
Oh wow, an alarming number of women have got their priorities right?
Compare this with:
"I have to babysit these flaky 24/7 app servers at 3 am"
It better be something like a wonderful charity's donation server at say "tsunami time" for you to have a greater chance of being proud of doing that at the end of your life, when you choose to do that instead of being able to have normal hours and thus spend more time with your kids (and try to brainwash them before MTV etc do).
Whereas if it's just to make a bunch of Machiavellian rich guys richer and more powerful, you better know what you are doing and why.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
They aren't because they are finding other options. Men could also, but there's almost a macho image (well, as macho as it gets in IT, anyway) around working long hours and being on call.
I think I can translate this article: "Women prefer being at home with their families to being poked with a sharp stick; Men aren't as smart. Video at 11."
Re:Women Belong In The Kitchen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Women Belong In The Kitchen (Score:4, Insightful)
Case examples (which I've encountered on a monthly-to-weekly basis since around the time I hit that puberty thing: Men muttering (or bellowing) ZOMG WILL YOU LOOK AT THAT ASS?! or otherwise spluttering when some moderately pleasant whatever walks past. I'm a guy, and I find that shit disgusting. Stop it. Women getting pissy and grumpy and muttering (or bellowing) WELL I GUESS CHIVALRY IS DEAD, ISN'T IT?! when you don't hold the door for them, give up your place in line for them, or otherwise bend over backwards for them? You wanted equality, you got it. You can't have it both ways, lady.
Aside, I think anyone who wants to be in the kitchen belongs in the kitchen. A good friend of mine is a far better house-husband (a "mister mom" if you will) than his wife ever was - he's a far better cook, he's much better with the kids, and he likes doing it. And his wife happens to be a far better wal-mart manager than he ever would be. Marxism on a micro-scale.
A few thousand years on and society is still in the zits-and-rat turd mustache part of puberty. If we're still acting like this in a thousand years, then we definitely have a problem.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
What's better for lonely old people, pets or the internet? I don't know. But I hope they still have Slashdot in 30 years, when I am a retired lonely old person (I don't like cleaning litter boxes, and barring hell freezing over, I will be childless and unmarried).
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, fuck you. You're consuming more resources because you've bred, so YOU get to pay for it.
Re:Women Belong In The Kitchen (Score:5, Insightful)
That's very rarely true on a literal basis. Any "interchangeable" jobs are usually hourly, and every cog in the machine gets paid the same thing.
If you're working on salary, then there's rarely such a thing as the "same position" despite lots of folks having the same title -- and salary is negotiable. For a multitude of reasons (some historically sexist, others not), men do tend to negotiate more and harder over salary.
Much like car prices offered to women buyers (which have been studied quite extensively as it's much easier to isolate than salaries), there's a lot of chicken and egg going on in terms of where the fault lies -- do women accept worse offers in negotiations because they're conditioned to or feel they have no choice, or do worse offers get made and stood by simply because negotiators know women will more frequently accept them?
Re:I thought IT workers can telecommute to work? (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason they give you money to do a job is that it is a JOB, not "happy fun day". If you feel treated unfairly, be so capable that you can move on.
As for women or anyone else bailing out of IT, those that stay should understand that their competition is leaving. The more people that do what you do, the less what you do is worth.
As an employee, I'd rather be so rare and valuable that I have my employer by the short hairs. To hell with idealism. If I'm maintaining ANYTHING, I want to be the sole source of info on the system, document as little as possible, and generally rule the roost since no one else knows how. I'm friendly, have good social skills, humor the boss, etc. but it's all about me.
Re:holy shit, you're retarded (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that there's nothing idiotic about it -- it's the entire point of the article!
Companies want more women. Women want X. Companies who want women have to offer X. If you disagree with X, feel free, but that doesn't make the article or comment any less accurate.
But maybe they're on to something here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, yeah, "global economy means new requirements for business", "give the client their value's worth", etc... bullshit.
America has one of the most -if not the most- unhealthy work ethic in world. The IT and web-tech fields reign as king among the most grueling professional jobs out there. When I was working contracts for several years, the vast majority of the companies burn out their employees within two years. I worked with a lot of permanent employees getting paid 45K a year in the Detroit area to work 14-16 hours a day M-F and at least 20 hours over the weekend with no overtime pay. And this was for a web design firm. For myself and most of the people I've worked with, no amount of perks can account for giving your life to your company. Loyalty is one thing; indentured servitude is quite another.
Re:Women Belong In The Kitchen (Score:4, Insightful)
The Forbes U.S. Top Ten:
Bill Gates
Warren Buffet
Sheldon Adelson (casino gaming)
Paul Allen
Michael Dell
The Walmart heirs
This is fundamentally a list of first and second generation entrepreneurial capitalists. The money isn't in the technology , it's in marketing the technology.
Re:Women Belong In The Kitchen (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: But maybe they're on to something here... (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with you. I'm a single childless woman who would not want to work exorbitant hours or be constantly on-call. I'm not sure why men would be any more willing unless they're desperate for money. As it happens, my job sort of does require me to be constantly on-call, but because the part of the system I maintain is fairly small and non-critical in the short term, I seldom have to do anything on weekends or after hours.
IMO, modern American society is a failure in terms of work ethic. As society progresses, people should be working less for more money and more leisure, not the other way around.