There is a high price to pay for success…

@Susan, you make some excellent points, and thanks for the clarification on my use of the word dominant vs. dominated – you’re exactly right. I’d really like to explore your comment about the fact that women’s place in business is determined more by society maintaining the structure than the actual characteristics of women. I remember awhile back that a friend mentioned a study (I’ll have to ask her exactly which) showing that since women entered the work force en masse, the work week has increased in hours and the workplace has increased in competitiveness. According to her, the connection seemed to be that once women showed up on the scene, men raised the bar to make it that much more difficult for them to succeed. It all may be just a big conspiracy theory, but an interesting thought.

@Kami, I agree with your reasoning, in particular the last re: too high a price to pay for success. It seems to me – and I have no research on this, just a personal observation like you – that women hold family and quality of life at a higher value than becoming the top dog in their industry. Men seem more willing to sacrifice the majority of their waking hours to work. I wonder if this is also tied to our US culture that in many ways promotes a crippling work ethic – hence the instances of death and health problems caused by too much time spent at a desk or computer.

@Nancy, first off, such a pleasure to hear from Chris’ mom on the discussion. Thanks for joining in. What you say is true. If you are a smart woman with something to say – and attractive by any means – many men do flock to such a winning combination. I also completely agree with you about the strength and endurance question. It’s hard to wholeheartedly devote yourself to working when you would rather be forming meaningful relationships and enjoying your life as a whole. I admire the women mentors in my life who are able to achieve the work/life balance while making a difference in their field.

@mike: Thanks for dropping by, buddy. The Girls in Tech event was closed to men–but it’s also a pet topic of Marie’s, so I let her run with it.

I find Sarah’s interview dynamic in this interview to be a lot different than the majority I’ve seen, which are, of course, with men. It’s sad that a lot of what people see online to be “Sarah”–and perhaps the way people portray her– is not the person I’ve experienced in real life. Is this because it is woman to woman, and Marie’s questions may have been different? I admit, had I drafted questions for Sarah, they would have been different. I’m glad Marie’s interview helps flesh out Sarah as a person, and not so much the she-devil I feel she has been portrayed as.

@Susan: the difference between “dominant” vs “dominated” is very important.

@Kami: Valuable insight — always a pleasure

And, that’s my mom, ladies and gentlemen–someone I do admire for teaching me to accept diversity.

So, back to basics. Women, if you want the money and power that men have, follow Sarah’s example. But, of course, you still have to do your homework and have something to add to the conversation.

And now, I have a question. If we encouraged young girls in techno fields, would they actually want to do the work? I excelled at science and math and quit taking them as soon as I could. Maybe each of us could encourage one promising young girl and things would change?

You remind me that it is probably time to update my study. As you know, I have been thinking about this for some time, and last year’s study was the second, I had done one the year before.

It was interesting to hear what Sarah had to say, but I think that it really is a combination of things, and not just our lack of aggression. Which, by the way, is something that is called by different names if we exercise it

I think it is a combination of factors:

1) While women in PR/marketing represent the majority, they don’t represent the majority at management level

2) Women do indeed (sometimes) drop out for a period to have kids

3) Men tend to link to other men and gravitate toward the ideas of other men, women do this less and link more broadly (no research on this, just an observation)

4) I think you can rise to the top, but it is hard and it requires a price that some women may just not be willing to pay. Look at the guys dying too young and having health problems because of their singular devotion to work. Or those dealing with trolls and other detractors that say horrific things.

These are just a few thoughts upfront, but I am open to hearing others.

It is all about power, and the fundamental power structure of the US is *still* mostly male, mostly white. Why? At the core, I think it is because people feel more comfortable working with people *like them* and far too many make that a very tight definition that excludes more than it includes. Most of the other reasons oft trotted out — women “slow-track” to raise kids, they don’t have the same “killer instincts,” etc etc– are justifications for maintaining the comfortable power structure.

BTW, marketing and PR are female *dominant*professions — there are more women than men in those functions — but they are by no means female *dominated* professions. With a few very notable exceptions, the heads of the big agencies are men. And so are their top execs.

Mike, sorry I couldn’t be Chris for you today. The panel was women-only and thus, Chris was barred from attending. It was a last-minute decision on my part to bring a Flip with me and film; I’m glad I did! I also interviewed Jory Des Jardins from Blogher while there. That’ll be up in a few weeks.

Very interesting stuff, though. Thanks for this.

As for top finance jobs in places like VC, the top 20 MBA programs are also typically 20% female.

When I was in engineering school, I thought that the women could handle the math, but they hated the environment and teaching style which was all about weeding people out.