Talk:Glass ceiling/Archive 1

Archive 1

Glass cliff

Why is "glass cliff" a separate entry? It's derivative of glass ceiling. If that is a separate entry, shouldn't "celluloid ceiling," etc. be too? Yyyikes 01:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)yyyyikes

Keep it

I think that it is fine by itself for now. I don't think that it needs to be changed. swat671

While the term "glass ceiling" can be used towards individuals of ethnic descent as racial discrimination, the term is most widely recognized for its hinderance of women excelling in the business world. In today's society you can see a huge differernce in where women could not get a loan unless there was a male co-signer, to where the market of women owned business is growing 2x faster than any other industry.

I think that this wikipedia article is great because it brings this issue to the attention of everyone however l want to add more information about how this issue is being attacked through lobbying, public policy, women owned firms, and acts such as the HR 5050 of 1980. I would appreciate anyone's help in this matter. I would like to put this information under breaking through the glass ceiling or even start a new heading. Check back within the next few days, hopefully I will have this information up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginahansen (talk • contribs) 12:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitional adjustment

I don't doubt that the term "glass ceiling" originally applied primarily to women, but the last few times I have heard it, it included other types of discrimination. So I tried to make the first paragraph a lot more general. Revert at will. Uranographer 13:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The term "glass ceiling" was in use by female managers and female engineers at Hewlett-Packard circa 1979. -- Kate

Would it be possible to generalize the definition of "glass ceiling" to make its usage less exclusive to just discrimination against women? I've heard it used in the context of racial discrimination in the workplace as well. So although the historical origins of the word and primary usage may be related to gender, I think a broader definition or at least some mention of other relevant populations that the term applies to would be useful. --Drenched 00:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah for my part i've heard this term used in the context of all kinds of discrimination, not just exclusive to women. Walk0nwalls 01:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC

Note the article says "The extension to other groups, such as racial or ethnic minorities, is usually made with direct or indirect reference to gender." Even this is tenuous because there are no references to uses outside of gender. Gender is the reference for this concept, as the original category; others are derivative. Let's see some examples or references before expanding this aspect. Yyyikes 23:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sonny's Blues (short story) published in 1957 (almost 30 years before the Wall Street Journal article) has a reference to the glass ceiling when talking about race. The line is in the 5th paragraph and it says "and their heads bumped abruptly against the low ceiling of their actual possibilities." SMBriscoe

Was there any reference to it being a GLASS ceiling in Sonny's blues ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.241.136 (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism?

Shouldn't the article factor in criticism of the concept, such as statistics supporting the frequent decision by women to focus on family over career, or the biological realities of pregnancy and childbirth that limit the time women dedicate to demanding positions in which they are typically less represented? (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4208/is_19950325/ai_n10190358) "Glass ceiling" requires an unjust external disrcimination against a woman's success, and there is no empirical data presented that the lack of representation is purely a result of discrimination, and can't be explained in other ways. A glass ceiling isn't accepted universally as the cause of gender disparity, so I think the article should reflect that fact. Here, the "choice theory" is represented in the pay gap article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_pay_for_women#The_.22Choice.22_Theory—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.13.190 (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is in the nature of language that terms, though once having a precise meaning, become modified, distorted, broadened in their application. I would like to suggest that it would be interesting for this Wiki entry to reflect the original meaning and application of this term. Why would a glass ceiling SPECIFICALLY act as a barrier to women? If the ceiling is glass, then one can see through it to the people above. If this were a barrier that one can see through but not get through, it would apply to both genders. The reason why it was specific to women was because, for modesty's sake, women would not want to walk on a glass floor underwhich there were others looking up - do I need to be more precise? Is it worth making the origins of the words clear in the Wiki entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.241.136 (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article address the concept from a more neutral position. Very few counter-examples are given and there is a strong bias throughout. It does not go in to the different ways in which this concept may not (or may) have manifested itself. The arguements are one sided and hamper the ability to form an open-minded opinion on the topic. This manifests itself primarily in te lack of critisism as stated above. It would be useful for individuals representing either side to be able to see a more broad approach towards the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.187.27 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Surpassing the Glass Ceiling"

This seems like it is mostly hearsay and opinions. Furthermore, it provides little information that isn't already in the article. It should either be heavily rewritten or removed. 24.125.65.172 (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Surpassing the Glass Ceiling"

This needs to be NPOV'd or removed. Random IP saying, yes I know. However, it seems to be based mostly on right-wing and conservative opinion, with little actual facts. 122.57.190.162 (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Section "Sexism and glass ceiling effects - The gender wage gap"

I think the section "Sexism and glass ceiling effects - The gender wage gap" needs to be reorganized because it is very confusing. The title of the section tells me that I am to expect something about the connection between the gender pay gap and the glass ceiling but the larger part of the section deals with very different aspects of the glass ceiling. At least two paragraphs examine the Possible causes of the glass ceiling effect (i.e., passages about bias in favor of white man as found by Hekman et al., stereotyping, etc.) rather than its connection to the pay gap. Does anyone have suggestions? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

I would like to request a rewrite of this article. Currently it focuses heavily on discrimination against women. It would be more neutral and correct if all references to women (and minority groups) were replaced with references to victims of discrimination in general. It is relevant to the topic that members of all races, sexes, preferences, etc. encounter the glass ceiling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.172.176 (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

But is that how the concept is used? Nearly every reference I recall seeing referred to women, and usually with relation to white-collar work. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Most reliable sources examine the glass ceiling in relation to the gender pay gap and, thus, the focus is almost always on women. The term glass ceiling was created specifically to describe the phenomenon that women reach positions of seniority much slower than men, all things being equal. It is much more difficult to find the term "glass ceiling" being mentioned in connection to white and non-white pay gaps. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Last paragrpaph of the section "Definitions"

The glass ceiling continues to exist although there are no explicit obstacles keeping women and minorities from acquiring advanced job positions – there are no advertisements that specifically say “no minorities hired at this establishment”, nor are there any formal orders that say “minorities are not qualified” (equal employment opportunity laws forbid this kind of discrimination) – but they do lie beneath the surface.[8] When a company exercises this type of discrimination they typically look for the most plausible explanation they can find to justify their decision. Most often this is done by citing qualities that are highly subjective or by retrospectively emphasizing/de-emphasizing specific criteria that gives the chosen candidate the edge. The "glass ceiling" is distinguished from formal barriers to advancement, such as education or experience requirements. Mainly this invisible barrier seems to exist in more of the developing countries, in whose businesses this effect is highly "visible".

I think that the paragraph is misplaced in the section "Definitions" (previously titles "Overview").

• First of all, the claim that the glass ceiling continues to exist does not belong in a definitions section (or an overview section) and should be articulated and then substantiated by research in later sections.
• I think the language and phrasing of the section can and should be more neutral.
• The description of the ways that companies try to justify discriminatory practices is obviously misplaced in the definitions or overview section.
• The second to last sentence (The glass ceiling is distinguished...) is self-evident and goes without saying.
• The last sentence needs sources, many sources. It could be used as an introductory sentence about international research, provided that the research really finds that the glass ceiling is more prevalent in "more of the developing countries."

My suggestion: Delete paragraph and post it here on the discussion page. When reorganization of the article is complete, reinsert parts of the paragraph where they fit. Yes or no? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Corrections for thought

I am thinking about rewriting parts of this article to meet the Wiki requirements of it not sounding like an essay. With all the problems in the page already, such as a need for rewrite, I want to know if adding a specific section on just women would be ok. I know that some people think it is already too much about women and not enough about others that are being discriminated so that is why I propose a separate section. I do not want to make it more of a feminist perspective but I am trying to show the historical background on the metaphor of the glass ceiling is for women specifically. With a few additions through out hopefully it will be something that is thought of as more a women’s equality and human rights perspective. Another addition I would like to include is the worldwide perspective of the glass ceiling. Are there any suggestions or comments to help me out? Anything that is not included, or I have not talked about, that I should include or add? Clwilson91 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Your contributions will be very much appreciated:) The glass ceiling is predominantly mentioned in the larger framework of the gender pay gap. This might be the case because women are a larger group than blacks, for instance. So in my opinion you don't have to worry that another section about women will give undue weight to your points. A worldwide perspective is also a great idea. Just be bold and if there are problems, I (and other editors) will help out. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added those specific WikiProjects because I feel like the page will be able to get some more help if it is associated with them. If you have any ideas for other projects that should be joined feel free. Clwilson91 (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if that will help. In my experience, the best way to go about rewriting an article is to do the research yourself instead of hoping that the very few and very busy editors who are affiliated with those projects will start immersing themselves in research on the glass ceiling. I hope I'm wrong though. I can help and I will as soon as I can. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to just jump in. Even interested people are unlikely to do a lot of work on a subject they don't know too much about. If you are reading, or have access to, good sources, you're the one... User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

So I went through and added some minor changes. I added a few paragraphs here and there as well as 2 new sections. I also changed the name of HIstory to Glass Ceiling in the U.S. because it is only talking about the history in the U.S. and since I added a section on Glass Ceiling in Developing Countries I thought I should distinguish the difference. If you have any more suggestions on what else needs to be changed or corrections on what I just added that would be greatly appreciated. Also that you for your support through my process. Clwilson91 (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Quality

write up is over board. should narrow to actual facts not option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.26.162.162 (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This article reads like it was written by feminists. Just saying. Beam 05:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes and it is, it is written by feminists, FOR feminists, so that they can whinge about how they can't compete with men. If women worked a 60 hour week in a physical job it wouldn't be a problem, but they don't, they get a nice easy office job sitting down for 4 hours a day and call it hard work! And they wonder why they get paid less?? What's the bet I get branded as a woman-hater by some backward fem-hag? Trumpy (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Lost your bet! I'm an old fart... User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

And what do you do for a living, Trumpy? Just thought I'd mention that most of those in easy office jobs where I work are men. But everyone at Wikipedia appreciates the time you manage to take out of your 60-hours-a-week backbreaking labour to post complaints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everwinter (talk • contribs) 07:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Maternity Leave

A big portion of the gap in wages between men and women is the fact that women receive maternity leave while men do not. Being forced to pay a person for not working for a number of years means that businesses just reduce the wage by whatever % of time they expect the employee to not work due to maternity leave over the course of the average (whatever year) employment duration. This has to be mentioned somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.127.201 (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Most bias article I have ever seen

There is no mention of any criticism of the concept, ie more men work full time so there may be a greater potential for them to earn more, instead the pay gap is put down solely to "male oppression", without a doubt one of the most bias articles on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.124.141 (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Biased

Almost the entire article is biased and treats the 'glass ceiling' as fact rather than an idea or theory. As mentioned before it does not discuss the probable reasons for the gender gap e.g. pregnancy, suitability etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwesternhog (talk • contribs) 03:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not hard to find sources. It has been observed for years that executives at the top of major firms often had secretaries who had a much better command of the job, and were paid much less, and had absolutely no chance of being promoted into an executive job. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The observance that there are more men then women occupying the top echelon of business and government is not in contention, only the reasons for this discrepancy. Feminist worldview depicts these differences as the sole result of sex discrimination and thus defined the "glass ceiling". Other world views do not agree with this conclusion, thus the article fails to meet NPOV. CaffOMHW (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Malarkey. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! But obviously the world view that woman are, in general, much less rational and much less capable than men at almost everything is a hard one to state, even though it's observably true by anyone who isn't blinded by political correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The notion that women are less rational and less capable than men is an exaggeration and generalization. However, there are physical and emotional differences in women that make certain careers naturally difficult for them. Moreover, there is a biological push for mothers to spend more time with children and as a result they frequently choose less-demanding careers. The old-fashioned social idea that women belong in the house is just that- an old-fashioned social idea. Presently it has little to do with gender disparities in certain careers.

My massive deletions

Please talk about it before readding the material wholesale. Yes, most of it was sourced. But no, most of it made no sense or was not actually germane to the topic. I think it was mostly pasted in from random term papers because of the MLA inline citation style. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate and agree with your clean ups to the article. What I don't agree with is your taking it personally and guarding the article as if you have the final authoritative say on the matter. Also, there is more than a little editorializing still left in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"Let the edit war begin"

In regard to this diff, here are the issues:

Metaphorical or what?

This:

In [[economics]], the '''glass ceiling''' is "the unseen, yet unbreakable barrier that keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements."<ref name="DOL2">Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. [http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/ceiling2.pdf ''Solid Investments: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital''.] Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, November 1995, p. 4.</ref>

was replaced by this:

In [[economics]], the '''glass ceiling''' is metaphorical reference to a supposed barrier that keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications.<ref name="DOL2">Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. [http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/ceiling2.pdf ''Solid Investments: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital''.] Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, November 1995, p. 4.</ref>

The problem I see here is that the first version has a quote cited to a reliable source. The second version keeps a lot of the quote, drops the quote marks, and adds the term "metaphorical" although that is not supported by the source it is cited to. Furthermore, the fact that the phrase is metaphorical is irrelevant. All words are metaphorical, and the fact that they are doesn't relate to the question of whether or not they refer to anything real. Additionally, it's called a metaphor in the next sentence so this is repetitive.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

My problem with that quote is that it adopts the narrative of stating it as an undisputed fact. Even if that statement is from an external source, it's clearly editorializing to call something "unbreakable" when it isn't and the whole sentence is pure hyperbole. Also, using it as the opening sentence, without establishing any context, is akin to restating and reinforcing it. In reality, it's merely one perspective, not "THE" perspective.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk • contribs)

The thing is that the lead paragraph is meant to summarize the body of the article. The article itself talks about the meaning of the phrase. There's a definition of it in the article so there should be a definition in the lead. How would it sound if we did this:

In [[economics]], a '''glass ceiling''' is an "unseen, yet unbreakable barrier that keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements."<ref name="DOL2">Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. [http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/ceiling2.pdf ''Solid Investments: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital''.] Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, November 1995, p. 4.</ref>

The use of the indefinite articles would not make claims that it exists, as in e.g. "a unicorn has but a single horn," and then the paragraph below which gives criteria for the existence of a glass ceiling would leave the question open as to whether or not it exists.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Are said to prevent

This: "These barriers prevent large numbers of women" was replaced by "These barriers are said to prevent women." This is weasel-wording and is not supported by the source it's left cited to.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

My problem with the wording here is that it implies that "these barriers" are well-defined or well-understood or in any case real. The word "barrier" implies an external locus of control. There is another perspective on this issue that would assert "barrier" is an inappropriate word, since it's not proven (nor can it be) that whole thing is not just a rationalisation, hysteria or due an ACTUAL and real difference in ability across demographics.

I think it's fine to use words like "barrier" to clarify the meaning of the metaphor or as an allusion to the concept but it's not entirely impartial to say "These barriers prevent large numbers of women from ...". Citation or not, it could at least be stated by making reference to the citation instead of stating it boldly as fact and then simply saying "here is a single citation for PROOF!".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk • contribs)

I disagree with you here that the sentence as it stands implies that. The first sentence of this section says "David Cotter and colleagues defined four distinctive characteristics that must be met to conclude that a glass ceiling exists." Then follows the definition of "glass ceiling." The definition includes the existence of a barrier. If there's no barrier then there's no glass ceiling, so the existence of it in reality is not germane to the sentence you want to modify.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, fair points. Perhaps my edits were a little hasty. I'm still not convinced that the article fairly represents the various points of view or makes it clear that the inline quotations aren't gospel though. I know that should be implied by the fact they're quotations but the opening sentence just launches into the quote, with nothing more than quote marks and a citation for context. Surely the citation from which it's taken should be mentioned inline too -- otherwise why not just write an article full of quotes and citations and let people go link-hopping for the full context?

I'm not defending the neutrality of the article. It could use a lot more work, there's no question. You're also right about the lead sentence and the quote. That's not ideal. The quote should go somewhere in the body and a lead sentence should be written from scratch. I just think that what we have there now is better than what you wanted to put it, not that what we have now is especially good.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No proof

This was added without a source: "However, there is no substantive proof to show that this gap is due to discrimination or not due to other market forces." Without source and attribution this is editorializing and I think it should go.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, you got me on that one. I was trying to add some balance to what seems like a biased article, but you're right, that edit in particular was shameless editorializing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Origin

I seem to recall that in C. Chaplin's movie "The Dictator" a glass ceiling is mentioned to look up the women's dresses in the ballroom above...

I do not know if this has any relevance, but I do believe it should be looked in to... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.36.239.13 (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Motherhood

It seems strange that this article doesn't manage to even mention motherhood, even though all of the recent studies indicate that it is specifically motherhood, rather than womanhood, that produces the strongest negative effect on a career. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It also seems strange that the escape into the "homemaker" is not mentioned. How often do women find a man with money and quit? How many years do they actually spend on the job? The graph is misleading as it does not address time on the job, or the actual type of job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.234.183 (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Addition

Hey just letting yall know that I want to update the statistics on this to put up more recent ones and I also am going to add some stuff about the glass ceiling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khoff17 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Europe / Anglosphere tag

Can anyone flesh out the concerns with the "Europe / Anglosphere bias" tag that's been on this page since Feb? I don't see it covered here in the talk page and I'm not sure if it refers to a legitimate concern or not. Thanks. Jm3 (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, I added a section on the glass escalator as well as some information on gender pay gap. Edits and advice welcome! Khoff17 (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a run-on sentence in this article

@TheMacDaniel: In one of your edits to this page, you added a sentence that appears to be missing a period. Can you correct this sentence so that it can be understood? Jarble (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Response to "who?"

After the mention of the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, someone inserted "[who?]." That question is answered several paragraphs below, where it is discussed as "part of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1991." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikanon86 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Baert's comment on this article

Dr. Baert has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

I believe this is a great page. I really like the attention for newer frameworks like the glass escalator and the sticky floor. These items, however, might deserve their own page.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Baert has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Baert, Stijn & De Pauw, Ann-Sophie & Deschacht, Nick, 2014. "Do Employer Preferences Contribute to Sticky Floors?," IZA Discussion Papers 8447, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Glass Ceiling Index

I noticed that the section about the glass ceiling index contains some brief information about the results of the index such as the top and bottom ranked countries but not much else. I would like to add a graph of the results to flesh out the results of the survey. Thoughts? AKAnthony (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I found the graph I want to add, however I can't use it because I didn't create it. That being said, the image itself is still cleared to be shared. How do I prove that the image is free to be shared? AKAnthony (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not an expert in terms of working with images, but you may find Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and Wikipedia:Use rationale examples helpful. Is the image on Wikimedia Commons or does it need to be uploaded? Perhaps you can link it here for other editors to review; they may be of more assistance than I am. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Middle Management Sources

I'm looking to flesh out the information on this page related to women in middle management and perceived barriers to career advancement. The following scholarly articles discuss sex discrimination at the executive levels of management, the perceived hindrances that motherhood brings to working women, principles of organization that create intrinsic barriers for career advancement for women, and the perception of career paths by women in middle management. I hope these resources help introduce information about how problems in middle management contribute to the glass ceiling. AKAnthony (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Frozen Middle Heading Contribution

Hi all,

I'm planning on adding a section on the concept of the "Frozen Middle" to this article. The addition of a heading devoted to this topic would greatly improve the reader’s understanding of the glass ceiling as well as a leading theory for its existence. The frozen middle remains a theory, however considerable research exists to support it so its addition to this article not only fleshes out the reader’s understanding of the article topic but provides critical insight into reasons for the glass ceiling’s existence. the following is a draft of my contribution. Feel free to offer advice on how to edit it to better follow Wikipedia's standards.

Similar to the sticky floor, the frozen middle describes the phenomenon of women’s progress up the corporate ladder slowing, if not halting, in the ranks of middle management. While the concept of the frozen middle has existed before it was given a name, the term was popularized by a Harvard Business Review article titled Middle Management Excellence. The phrase did not originally refer explicitly to women, however the growing proportion of women to men in the workforce has influenced the phrase to apply to women at a greater degree than in the past. The 1996 study “A Study of the Career Development and Aspirations of Women in Middle Management" posits that social structures and networks within businesses that favor “good old boys” and norms of masculinity exist based on the perceptions of women surveyed. According to the study, women who did not exhibit stereotypical masculine traits and interpersonal communication tendencies are at an inherent disadvantage compared to their male peers. Furthermore, as the ratio of men to women increases in the upper levels of management, women’s access to female mentors who could advise them on ways to navigate office politics is limited. AKAnthony (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Citations to Add

I am planning on adding the following citations:

• Sandberg, Sheryl (2013). Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0385349947.
• Burns, Dasha. "What Jennifer Lawrence reveals about women, equal pay". CNN. Retrieved 2016-10-26.
• Janssen, Simon, Simone Tuor Sartore, and Uschi Backes-Gellner. "Discriminatory Social Attitudes and Varying Gender Pay Gaps within Firms." ILR Review 69.1 (2016): 253-79. Business Source Complete. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.
• Misra, Joya, and Eiko Strader. "Gender Pay Equity in Advanced Countries: The Role of Parenthood and Policies." Journal of International Affairs 67.1 (2013): 27. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.
• Reporter, Lydia O'Connor; Post, The Huffington (2016-04-12). "The Wage Gap: Terrible For All Women, Even Worse For Women Of Color". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2016-10-26.M.nie (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

DicDef, stolen from www.m-w.com. Delete unless expanded -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, rewritten version is good -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:52, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: Clearly unacceptable as it stands, with its proud statement of copyviolation. Can't decide if it could become an article. Would any article that would arise essentially be an extended etymology? --bodnotbod 23:52, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia:Copyright problems -- Cyrius|&#9998 01:01, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
• I fixed it up. Should be a decent stub now. -- VV 02:00, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

• comment: As a new person, I can't help think it's still a dic.def. but now with added links. I think it's a good thing to define, but perhaps the 'glass ceiling' thing should just be a part of the articles you've helpfully linked to? I'll see what others have to say.--bodnotbod 02:56, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

• V's cleanup looks fine. Keep. Alcarillo 02:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. We shouldn't create artificial barriers preventing this now fine stub from becoming a full article. TB 08:29, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the fixed version. Andris 05:02, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the new version. --VTEX 05:26, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
• keep, of course. Does anybody bother trying to edit these articles, or is it just the practice to VfD anytime one's blood pressure increases while reading the encyclopedia?SimBot2 17:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
• I found some information on the article in which the term was coined: "Hymowitz, C. & Schellhardt, T.D. The glass-ceiling: Why women can't seem to break the invisible barrier that blocks them from top jobs . The Wall Street Journal, 24 March 1986." The two authors are Carol Hymowitz and Timothy Schellhardt. I've included the full information here in case you want to change the way I've added it to the article Nathan J. Yoder 08:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Statistics were copied from 'Feminism' and are now marked as neutrality disputed in that article. I'm not sure if it is a good idea to copy it rather than using the existing link since the any changes will have to be manually added like this.
• I removed the reference to "officially" in the opening sentence, because this is a vague non-reference. I don't think there is an "official" glass ceiling, though the Glass Ceiling Commission came close I suppose.(Yyyikes 00:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC))
• I removed the "worldwide stats," since they were about % of women in parliament, and Glass Ceiling usually refers to management or other occupations, not elected positions (see text in this entry, which doesn't mention elected positions)(Yyyikes 14:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)).
• Speaking of elected positions, let's not forget Nancy Pelosi's political Marble Ceiling. --fiberglassdolphin 23:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• I deleted the word "a" from "These "Invisible Barriers" function as a metaphors to describe the extra circumstances that women undergo, usually when trying to advance within areas of their careers and often while trying to advance within their lives outside of their work spaces." To improve the grammar. Bees319 (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Perceptions Influence Glass Ceiling

I would like to add how other people's perceptions of women impact the career path of women. Women are expected to be proficient at emotional management and nurturing so take on careers or are assigned tasks that require empathy.

These are the sources I would like to use to support my claim. Source 1: Tolich, M., & Briar, C. (1999). Just Checking It Out: Exploring the Significance of Informal Gender Divisions Amongst American Supermarket Employees. Gender, Work and Organization, 6(3), 129-133. doi:10.1111/1468-0432.00076

Source 2: David J. Alworth. 2010. “Supermarket Sociology.” New Literary History 41 (2): 301–327. doi:10.1353/nlh.2010.0014.

Source 3: American Association of University Women. 2016. Barriers and Bias: The Status of Women in Leadership.

KaitlynJ (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Kaitlyn Jauregui

Merger proposal

Proposing that any usable content from The Glass Escalator be merged into the appropriate section of Glass ceiling, where a category already exists. This doesn't look to me to be notable enough on its own for an article yet, but there is enough coverage to include in the related subject. The content that is merged would need to be carefully considered as the current article reads to me more like a university term paper than an encyclopedia article TonyBallioni (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Opppose on the grounds that the summary/main format seems to work here. Klbrain (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Second-generation gender bias

Second-generation gender bias does not seem to describe a form of gender bias sufficiently unique to merit its own article. It appears to just be a rehash of the glass ceiling, with a small number of citations terming it otherwise. Ethanpet113 (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose They are two different things. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per The Vintage Feminist. Ethanpet113, please stop adding these inappropriate tags. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

where is the cricitism section... this article is based on a political topic, i.e. opinions, not facts. so not having a criticism section itself is political — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.118.184.159 (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Canvass ceiling is a fresh neologism

I just now removed mention of the term "canvass ceiling".

See talk page for refugee employment where the material on canvass ceiling in that page was relocated to talk page for discussion. — MaxEnt 21:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

One score and sixteen years ago ... when cute little animated GIFs with yellow jackhammers festooned the information superhighway

I just removed the following text from the main article:

Women in most corporations encompass below five percent of board of directors and corporate officer positions.

References

Most corporations where? America, it turns out. Oh, and look, the source for this statistical bon mot of egregious injustice dates back to 1994. What's not to like? — MaxEnt 21:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)