Ihe metaphors of the glass ceiling misrepresent the place of women in the world of work. Men, clumped together in places of power, in reality totally obscure the light – even if, today, some glimmers of the sky are finally filtering thanks to changes in the female executive population and quotas. And let’s talk about concrete walls instead, because, except in the digital professions, nothing changes: out of 87 families of professions, only 13 can be considered as mixed, that is to say comprising 40% of a given sex. . The image of two elevators seems more appropriate to me. The men’s is modern, fast and well-oiled; that of women is gripped by an evil that gnaws and jams the cogs at all levels, sexism.
And it’s on the highest floor that things get stuck the most, that of governance: a space occupied by the “men of the 6e floor”, to parody the title of Philippe Le Guay’s film Women of 6e stage (2011) – we are operating here a renewal of the sociology of buildings, since this space was formerly reserved for domestic staff. The very load of the women’s elevator differs over the years: now, at 30, the children go up and, at 50, the elderly parents, whom they have to take care of.
Whatever the sectors, women are eclipsed over the floors: if there are 50% of women in a work organization, there are only 35% of women senior executives and 15% of executives. I’opting out, that is to say the fact of leaving by renouncing positions of power, reinforces this phenomenon and shows that women want to play another game: not only to earn a living, but to value human capital and be citizens of the world. This talent drain must raise questions about our governance model.
Obligatory passage
So what to do? Keep the current model but make it more inclusive for women, thanks to quotas, attention to gender bias in formal and informal career management procedures? Tackling ordinary sexism in business? Of course, this is essential, but still insufficient. The only way out: to create new contractual links, both in the couple and in professional circles.
Indeed, matrimonial regimes are contracts relating to money, but never to time, which is nevertheless a fundamental resource. Money is on the men’s side and time on the women’s side: one is worth something, and the law interferes; the other is worth nothing, and the law does not touch it, because it appears to come under the domain of the gift, of gratuity, as a feminine resource that has no price.
You have 59.59% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.