Skip to main content

Of Feminism, Conception, and Some Reality

Image
By
Indira Krishnamurthy Nooyi (from Tamil Nadu, India) is the chairman and chief executive officer of PepsiCo, the world`s fourth-largest food and beverage company.  According to Forbes magazine`s 2007 poll, Ms. Nooyi is the fifth most powerful woman in the world. She has been named the #1 Most Powerful Woman in Business in 2006 & 2007 by Fortune magazine [source].

Nooyi was born in Southern India, and went on to obtain degrees in chemistry, physics and math and master`s degrees from Calcutta`s Indian Institute of Management and Yale University. She came to the U.S. from India in 1978. Prior to joining PepsiCo in 1994, Nooyi did stints at the Boston Consulting Group and Motorola. "Being a woman, being foreign-born, you`ve got to be smarter than anyone else," she has said [source].

This week's reading portrayed a picture of women, primarily in the organization structure and analyzed the reasons why women feel [they are] oppressed. From a feminist lens we see why women are neglected, subordinated, marginalized, and abused in the work place. With many relevant examples we see the working conditions, ways of abuse, language as tools of oppression and maintaining dominance. Most of us probably know about the situation in western companies during the middle of the last century, where women employees were expected to provide sexual favors to their bosses as "after lunch quickies." But domination continues, and in more and more different and 'creative forms nowadays. And yet we read about female CEOs from other parts of the world. One example is that of Indira K. Nooyi above. But there is more.

Indian women may not have proportionate representation in companies, but they are better off than women elsewhere. Eleven percent of 240 large companies - Indian-owned as well as multinational, private as well as state-owned - have women CEOs, according to a study carried out by executive search firm EMA Partners. In comparison, only three percent of the Fortune 500 companies have women CEOs [source].

Are these CEOs in their positions without hard work? Have they not been subjected to work place issues as mentioned and propagated by feminist theorists? Why are there more CEOs in eastern countries than western one? Do these questions force more questions about what is there difference (if any) in the practices of organizations in those two geographical locations? 
Let us talk more about this.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

By RK
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into ...
6 comments
Read more

Echoing Malcom

By Saqib
Reading Malcolm X's speeches, it is clear that he points to a historical trend in the process of obtaining independence from tyranny. In other words, history shows that people must be committed to overhauling the system and prepared to sacrifice for a great cause. The trouble comes in overcoming the anesthetization of the natural impulse that people have to change their surroundings. I feel that this is incredibly difficult in the modern world when entire industries have been created for the sole purpose of distraction and self-indulgence. Has that impulse changed? Is it still there? Sometimes I think that when people become so self-absorbed and ignorant of rampant injustice, they will only react when its too late. For instance, there have always been economic disparities but public anger only sets in when their houses are foreclosed and savings wiped out. Revolution then becomes the last refuge of the hopeless. Is there any point to calling for revolution when the only precursor t...
2 comments
Read more