If it's voluntary, it's not discrimination. Men have kids, but they don't quit their jobs to become stay at home dads at nearly the rate women do.
Even so, you can still point to the discrimination being traditional gender roles, where women are the ones who typically stay at home. Or even to the economy itself; we don't value raising kids as much as we value rising through the ranks of management at some cooperation.
Aren't these statements at odd with one another? When you value raising kids at or above office work, then it doesn't look like "discrimination" that women chose to stay at home to raise a family, it looks like a personal choice that's highly valued by many. I think being a CEO or being a grandparent can both be viewed as successful in our society, they shouldn't really be compared directly though.
Yeah exactly, the problem goes away. You don't make money being a stay at home mom though, so maybe that's why we consider it a problem, IDK.
I was just offering a couple of ways to look at it where it's still discriminatory. Not saying I agree with either. There has to be a reason somewhere that women aren't as represented in upper management, and when you find that reason you can call it discriminatory, if you think that being upper management is a desirable thing. If you don't then the discrimination isn't bad or you don't consider it discrimination, as you pointed out. Economically, being upper management is certainly good though. That's basically objective.
But most men who strive for promotions surely have many reasons other than their children. Who doesn't want {appreciation, autonomy, status, money, ...} just for the sake of their own ego, identity, power, etc.?