Charlie Rose

outtanames999  06/29/2010 03:17 PM Report

Wow is Claire Shipman insufferable or what?

esantoro  06/07/2009 08:16 PM Report

I'd like to know how many women in positions of some influence have risen to such positions without the coattails of a husband or a father who arrived at his position through either social connections or by a narrow-minded focus on climbing the career ladder, both of which are masculine-oriented methods. I ask this because if these two women have benefited from such methods, they are attempting to bite the hand that feeds it, which is fine, but usually amounts to very little change in the log run, just temporary diversion and entertainment.

Kay and Shipman cite Capital One, Best Buy, Wal-mart, among other companies with rising productivity attributable to more women in management. I don't know the specifics about these companies, but it would be interesting to investigate their practices: Income gap, health care, etc.

balder  06/07/2009 06:13 PM Report

The problem i have with the propaganda to these career women are that it is basically selfserving and egoistic.

They have cherry picked the the studies that serve their aim, which is to gain more money and power. And they excpect everyone to listen to their own narcissism.

They paint a rosy picture of women as collaborative and not as back stabbing.

They want everyone be adjust to their selfish needs. Katty Kay complain she hasnt got a perfect life, even with two kids and a career. Who cares if she doesnt have a perfect life. I certainly dont, but I dont get a chance to complain about it on TV.

Katty Key wants to have controll on the hours she works. But the point is that business pays more salary for people who are willing to lose controll of their time. Hence, if Katty Kay wants controll on time, she should accept less pay.

One last point: it really tells it all when Kays husband is the real work horse in the relationship. He needs to earn the money, so that Kay can afford to have time with the kids. He has accepted to have a less fullfilling job, with more unpredictability and less controll of time, in order to pay her life style.

My question is: Kho controlls the money the husband earn in kays relationship? My guess thats is Mrs Kay.

So she spends the money he earns because he has accepted a job that make hime lose the controll of his time. Yet, she want better pay yet still have controll. That is reversed discrimination!

We see in lover skilled work that women are risk averse as well. They take less physical risk. So they dont work in coal mines, as fishermen, as pilots, as electricians and as farmers. Tehy dont have to expose themselves to bad weather in their work place. Yet, somehow the extra risk men takes should not result in a higher salary?

Women also rarely specialize in jobs that require working alone (with machines).

Mrs Kay and Claire should acccept the same working conditions as men. They should not get better pay than men that have the same controll of their time on their work. If they want high pay, they should work hard in jobs with a unpredictable time schedule.

And if career and money is extremely important to them, their husband should be at home raising the kids.

But dont expect society to compromise in order to fullfill their needs. Let their husband be their slave and fullfill their needs. If they want him to make money, order him to have career. If they want career, order him to stay at home.

esantoro  06/07/2009 04:36 PM Report

Another thing. I don't see where these two journalists have done anything to strengthen the integrity of journalism. Their coverage of events amounts to be a subdued sensationalism, which in mainstream journalism ostensibly passes for real journalism. I would say that they have their positions not for journalistic integrity but because advertisers like them for one reason or another and because they sell a certain sense of acceptability.

I don't really know the type of work their husbands do, but a quick internet search seems to show that they are at work a few rings above journalism in consultancy positions designed to improve market share of whatever for corporations.

Though these two speak about change, they ironically seem to be part of a strange closed-off self-referencing information/propaganda cycle that deliberately shuts itself off to deeper, wider-ranging analysis. It's a system that needs a certain amount of acceptable dissent and superficial critical discussion. These two easily work within those limits of acceptability. They are of the new breed of "Yes Women." Ironically, the technique they adopt and inhabit in the larger picture works against the integrity of the family of which they speak so fondly.

The following 2008 talk by Shipman shows the limits of which I speak. The first ten minutes made me think I've got her all wrong, but then the rest of the talk fell into the predictable parameters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axIQKVx8r_8

When all is said and done, she is an apologist for the status quo regurgitating what we all already know. Her analysis stays on the surface of things, while appearing to be critical of the issues.

I think Kay comes out a bit better.

There's an interesting dialogue on the women and work issue going on over at _The Huffington Post_. And it's nice to see Shipman and Kay taking part in that dialogue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/claire-shipman-and-katty-kay/does-bad-economic-news-eq_b_197188.html

missviolin  06/07/2009 01:09 AM Report

Post-feminist? (Wow!) I am surprised that both of these women--women I admire--consider these ideas new. The ideas are age old feminist/humanist issues we have been grappling with, and changing, for decades--indeed throughout time. The idea that women are trying to be men is old, and worn. Please look to the many women --and men-- who have been changing the workplace for a long time. Maybe you could write a book about the changes people have already instituted? You two are women with many advantages, and frankly, you sound very narcissitic and petty. Why not write about Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, or Toni Morrison and how their careers developed? There are many examples of women, whom you fail to acknowledge, that have paved the way, for your very priveleged lifestyles.

esantoro  06/05/2009 07:29 PM Report

There are many men out there who favor a better balance between work and family, but they know that if they act upon those desires their financial worth will decline, as will their correlative fall in status. Women are also socialized to value in men the very narrowly defined work ethic that these women are criticizing and think needs to change. Does this mean that men will begin to be valued for more than their financial worth? The biology of sexual reproduction may be the thing we are being oblivious to here.

As women participate in the work force to the same extent as men do and deal with the same types of stresses, their lifespan also moves closer to that of men. I welcome anyone to push for better working environments, but I see the system changing women (if it hasn't already), not the other way around. These two women seem to be arguing that a more holistic work environment could actually lead to more productivity. The main reason I don't see it happening is that most businesses rely on redundancy and inefficiency to keep the financial mechanisms churning. HP used to make great printers that lasted 10 years or more. In today's business environment that creates real and perceived obsolescence, that former business model is a losing proposition. The ethics of this fairly new business model clashes against anything holistic.

If these women are arguing that a feminine approach to managing is better than a masculine one, I may agree with them, but modern hyper-capitalism does not and has its own dictates.

Are we also going to see a trend of women marrying down the economic scale and not up? Or are we going to see the diminution of certain higher echelon work roles as more women begin to occupy them? Perhaps more power will gravitate towards the people who pull the levers of financial investment and machinations and away from positions related to the creation of real, tangible things. I think this has already happened to a large extent.

Here's a YouTube link to a woman's perspective on how to get ahead in the corporate world, and it doesn't seem like anything has changed. I call it "Mammary Glen Ross":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGo9Kdf3WuE

Gustav  06/05/2009 11:20 AM Report

Oh god... America is so behind when it comes equality between men and women compared to Scandinavia... This is actually painful to watch:(

tartufe  06/04/2009 06:26 PM Report

Off topic. But Hillary's female so maybe not completely.

If she didn't have Obama's approval to demand that China publish names of those involved in the Tianamen(sp?), she should be summarily fired.

China's the biggest purchaser of our treasury bills. Interest going up, which diminishes their holdings. Geithner jawboning to increase the value of their currency? A one-two punch of fools loose without their keepers.

They both should be released to the full-time speech-making circuit, a la Bill et al.

JTKempIII  06/04/2009 03:55 PM Report

Wow, Charlie. You really did it this time - you got two of my favorite journalists on your show at the same time! These women are awesome! Here, I dedicate two poems to them from "Living Lyrics" at http://www.viewniverse.net

First, to honor their courage for living their lyrics:

living lyrics

our lives are living lyrics

we sing in subtle songs,

some whisper-soft like moonlight,

some summer sunshine strong,

some mystic as the morning haze

on marshy meadow dawns,

some shaky as the quaking legs

of naked newborn fawns…

but we have to sing our lyrics…

regardless of the pan or praise

our friends and critics give,

we have to live our lyrics

or die before we live.

go out and live your lyrics

as fully as you can;

your songs for you have waited

since time’s first songs began…

we have to sing our lyrics…

regardless of the pan or praise

our friends and critics give,

we have to live our lyrics

or die before we live.

our lives are living lyrics…

jtkiii

© 2009 JT Kemp III. All rights reserved.

Second, to honor them as mothers:

the well

as she sat in her bra upon our bed

cross-legged with a book,

i saw again the young coed

who caused my second look,

who saved me from my selfish self

that midnight long ago

at a bus stop in los angeles.

how little did i know…

she’s reading harry potter now

like every little girl

who dreams of love and mystery

and magic in the world,

who’s ageless in her innocence,

who’s beauty’s pantomime,

who makes her man feel lucky just

to watch her grow through time…

i’ve watched her bear our children

and read to them each night

and tuck them snugly into bed

with full-face pure delight.

i’ve seen her find forgiveness

i never did deserve

and stand behind my foolish dreams

with stable steely nerve…

this woman, mother, lover, child

and fountain of my truth

is everything i dreamed that life

could bring me in my youth.

in short, i’ve lived in heaven

although earth can be a hell

and given less than i’ve received

from her full loving well…

jtkiii

© 2009 JT Kemp III. All rights reserved.

tartufe  06/04/2009 02:12 PM Report

Is egregious greed sexually neutral? I wonder? Would like to see a tally of the women CEO bankers that succumbed to the leveraged subprime greed. With a few years of role-reversal, I'm bettin their feminine soft-edge would give way to a cat clawing blood-letting. Their claim to a broader(?) mgt style would fade with time and competition. Disingenuous!

Ask Sarah Palin. A porker is a porker, lipstick or no.

In fact her ambition says (said) it all.

REMant  06/04/2009 02:05 PM Report

These ladies (and Charlie, it seems) are fooling themselves. I'd argue that men are more conflicted about this than women, but you have to go back a number of years to see it. Since the corporate world was made by the growth of mercantilist mkt society, destroying independent family enterprise in the process, and since it was the domestic enthusiasm of women like Catharine Beecher which largely championed it, the problem of women finding more time for families, is one of their own making. Tocqueville captured it well in its incipiency. It is not by chance that it was women who suffered from hysterical status anxiety in Victorian times, and men from neurasthenia. When women look at this, they ought to be seeing the fix they've put both of them in. But instead they externalize it and blame the men. It is not, however, that a return to yeomanry is necessarily the answer, but flex schedules are a movement for more independence for both women and men. So were job-sharing, job enrichment, reduced work week, and the like in the 70's. Instead because of the last half century's monetary and fiscal policies, increased industrial concentration, and feminism, etc, ppl have to work longer hours for less real gain than ever and that, in turn, has a tendency to increase population, which, of course will exacerbate the whole family thing. Birth rates increase when ppl grow poorer and I can't think of any reason why we should be again as obsessed with children and families as they were more than a century ago, if we were not slipping backwards.