Posts
Recent research shows that there is gender bias in the playwriting arena. "There is discrimination against female playwrights in the theatre community," said Emily Glassberg Sands, who initiated this new research. Research also finds a shortage of good scripts written by women.
Sands, a Princeton economics student, conducted three separate studies on gender bias in theatre. The first examined the playwrights themselves. Results revealed that there were twice as many male playwrights as female playwrights, and that men produced more plays.
The second study looked at artistic directors and literary managers. Sand sent identical scripts to artistic directors and literary managers nationwide to determine if there was a difference in the number of ratings submitted with men's names vs. women. Yes, results of the study found that women's scripts received lower ratings.
The third study was Broadway. It was found that women write less than one in eight Broadway shows.
For more information to include more results of this study, please visit The New York Times and see the full article on "Rethinking Gender Bias in Theater" at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/theater/24play.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1279973420-wZ9DIaN5kKF/nMqiFeXOpQ.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
July Is Women's Motorcycle Month
July is a time to celebrate Women's Motorcycle Month. This traditionally male-dominated passion, is being enjoyed by more women. According to recent statistics, "one of every 10 motorcycle owners is a women." The Ohio Department of Transportation reports that "the number of women motorcycle riders is increasing at a higher rate than the number of male riders - 28 percent versus 7 percent."
Today's women motorcycle riders are also more educated. Recent data shows that one-third of the current generation's women motorcycle riders have college degrees, and are more likely to hold a managerial or professional job than their male counterparts. Some famous women motorcycle riders are: Elizabeth Taylor, Courtney Cox, Angelina Jolie, KD Lang, Queen Latifa, Cher, and Lauren Hutton.
Today's women motorcycle riders are also more educated. Recent data shows that one-third of the current generation's women motorcycle riders have college degrees, and are more likely to hold a managerial or professional job than their male counterparts. Some famous women motorcycle riders are: Elizabeth Taylor, Courtney Cox, Angelina Jolie, KD Lang, Queen Latifa, Cher, and Lauren Hutton.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
My Revolution From Within
I read famous women's activist, Gloria Steinem's book, Revolution From Within, as the supplement to my final paper. To say the least it was the perfect ending to my journey though this course. This book in many ways is a self-help guide to finding your inner-self -- a task that is not easy to do. I am sure that you have thought about who you are and what you stand for, but that as Gloria explains is just the beginning of self discovery.
I’m not talking about just our roles or social identities. We all identify ourselves as a friend, brother/sister, employee, boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife, partner, father/mother, son/daughter, all at the same time, but these are just an aspect of who we really are (these are often roles we play because we have been socialized to do so, but maybe they are not the true us). In essences, what I learned as I raced through the pages of her book, is that these identities don’t represent who we fundamentally are inside. Our inner-self is who we really are on the inside.
To know your inner self is to know your purpose, your values, your visions, your motivations, your goals and your beliefs without having society tell you what all of those things should be. Not as what you have been told by others, but what you have discovered for yourself. Knowing your inner self requires a high level of introspection and self-awareness, which Gloria humbly displays in this book -- this is her journey and a pathway for others to use as a guide on their own journey.
This knowing of self has a deep connection with feminism. It actually is one of the most fundamental parts of the feminist movement, which often is not discussed. Women must understand their strenghts/weakness in conjunction with understanding how society views these same characteristics , behaviors, etc... These may not directly conform with what YOU represent. What I think was the most profound thing I walked away with from this book is that I am the owner of my own life and I need to live my life for myself. A life that is defined by me, not what is defined by our society. This is going to take A LOT of work, but I am excited to make the journey just as Gloria Steinem unveiled in her book, Revolution From Within.
I’m not talking about just our roles or social identities. We all identify ourselves as a friend, brother/sister, employee, boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife, partner, father/mother, son/daughter, all at the same time, but these are just an aspect of who we really are (these are often roles we play because we have been socialized to do so, but maybe they are not the true us). In essences, what I learned as I raced through the pages of her book, is that these identities don’t represent who we fundamentally are inside. Our inner-self is who we really are on the inside.
To know your inner self is to know your purpose, your values, your visions, your motivations, your goals and your beliefs without having society tell you what all of those things should be. Not as what you have been told by others, but what you have discovered for yourself. Knowing your inner self requires a high level of introspection and self-awareness, which Gloria humbly displays in this book -- this is her journey and a pathway for others to use as a guide on their own journey.
This knowing of self has a deep connection with feminism. It actually is one of the most fundamental parts of the feminist movement, which often is not discussed. Women must understand their strenghts/weakness in conjunction with understanding how society views these same characteristics , behaviors, etc... These may not directly conform with what YOU represent. What I think was the most profound thing I walked away with from this book is that I am the owner of my own life and I need to live my life for myself. A life that is defined by me, not what is defined by our society. This is going to take A LOT of work, but I am excited to make the journey just as Gloria Steinem unveiled in her book, Revolution From Within.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Tokens
"That incident taught me that even if you are a token, you have an important function to fulfill. Many times since, when I have been the only African American or the only woman in a situation, I have spoken up for greater representation. But I have always first made a point of contributing my thinking to the work at hand. The value of a group is that each member brings the benefit of his or her life experience. If you hold back, not only is the group deprived, but you have lost an opportunity to contribute." - Dr. Dorothy Height
For my final paper, I read the book Open Wide The Freedom Gates by Dr. Dorothy Height. While I found the entire book insightful and encouraging this passage in particular stood out to me the most and I wanted to share it with everyone. I think this passage sums up what we have been talking about in class. Often in class we said that we did not necessarily feel comfortable standing up in particular situations because of our age or because of our position at work or we did not see the discrimination against women. However, in many ways I think we are all tokens. We may be the only woman or man, the only person of our particular race or sexuality, the only southerner, westerner, or northerner. And yet it is because of our "token" qualities that we have certain ideas, certain ideologies, or certain points of view. So, instead of hiding behind our "token qualities" as a reason for not speaking up we should embrace Dr. Height's suggestion and share our thoughts, experiences, and suggestions. I believe that it is only by sharing these parts of ourselves that we can truly begin to get to know one another and create the kind of change that we want to see.
For my final paper, I read the book Open Wide The Freedom Gates by Dr. Dorothy Height. While I found the entire book insightful and encouraging this passage in particular stood out to me the most and I wanted to share it with everyone. I think this passage sums up what we have been talking about in class. Often in class we said that we did not necessarily feel comfortable standing up in particular situations because of our age or because of our position at work or we did not see the discrimination against women. However, in many ways I think we are all tokens. We may be the only woman or man, the only person of our particular race or sexuality, the only southerner, westerner, or northerner. And yet it is because of our "token" qualities that we have certain ideas, certain ideologies, or certain points of view. So, instead of hiding behind our "token qualities" as a reason for not speaking up we should embrace Dr. Height's suggestion and share our thoughts, experiences, and suggestions. I believe that it is only by sharing these parts of ourselves that we can truly begin to get to know one another and create the kind of change that we want to see.
Wear a Pink Sari and Carry a Big Stick
The article "Wear a Pink Sari and Carry a Big Stick" posted on Slate.com is completely different from any topic we discussed in class. This article examines women's gangs that are rising in India to combat corruption in government and to defend women against injustices. The particular gang in the article was founded and is led by a 40-year-old woman named Sampat Pal Devi. According to the article, the gang started in 2006 as a way for women to look out for victims of domestic violence. When the gang would find out that a woman was a victim of domestic violence they would arrive at the house and demand that the husband stop the abuse. If the abuse continued, the gang of women would return to the house with bamboo sticks and "'persuade'" (as the article states) the husband to stop. Today, Sampat Pal Devi has a huge following of nearly 20,000 women and similar groups are cropping up around India. Some of these groups are even more violent and one group even killed a serial rapist and murderer after the courts failed to convict him.
Honestly, I was shocked to read this article. You do not often read about all-women gangs or groups of women resorting to violence. We talked a lot in class about how more women in leadership roles would create more positive change in the public and private sector. We talked about women being seen traditionally as collaborators and communicators. We did not talk about women who used weapons and fear to get their message across. In a heavily patriarchal society like India could women have brought about this sort of change without violence? Or do the men in power only respond to these women as a legitimate force because they can relate to the methods they are using? Is it taking women so long to rise to power in the United States because they are not using the methods traditionally used by men?
As a woman, I completely understand why these women are banning together and fighting corruption and injustice in India. However, I completely disagree with their methods. What is this teaching future generations? That force and fear is the only way to create change? Their continued methods of force and fear only seem to perpetuate the problem whereas by fighting this corruption and injustice in a peaceful manner could break the cycle.
Honestly, I was shocked to read this article. You do not often read about all-women gangs or groups of women resorting to violence. We talked a lot in class about how more women in leadership roles would create more positive change in the public and private sector. We talked about women being seen traditionally as collaborators and communicators. We did not talk about women who used weapons and fear to get their message across. In a heavily patriarchal society like India could women have brought about this sort of change without violence? Or do the men in power only respond to these women as a legitimate force because they can relate to the methods they are using? Is it taking women so long to rise to power in the United States because they are not using the methods traditionally used by men?
As a woman, I completely understand why these women are banning together and fighting corruption and injustice in India. However, I completely disagree with their methods. What is this teaching future generations? That force and fear is the only way to create change? Their continued methods of force and fear only seem to perpetuate the problem whereas by fighting this corruption and injustice in a peaceful manner could break the cycle.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Are companies tipping the scale to choose men for their jobs?
When we were debating the Paternity Leave Law in Ecuador a fact came into the light. Private and public companies were tipping the scale to choose men for their jobs. Why?? Because having men in office was easier for companies. They didn’t have to pay them for maternity leave and breast-feeding. They did not have to worry if they get pregnant in any case.
Passing the law in Ecuador gave us a better family environment in any job, but also took a little bit of weight out of women’s scale.
When I read in Tarr - Whelan’s book about the “mommified”, that example came to my mind, but also, I shocked when I read this passage:
“Among peoples ages 27-33 that have never had children, women’s earnings approach 98% of men’s. Many women will hit the glass ceiling but many more will crash into the maternal wall. Ellen Goodman is right. Young women are closing the wage gap, but only until they have children”.
Is this true? If it is, can we change it?
My husband and I want to have children, but we want the family - work balance also. I think we will be able to do it, but this could happen only if we break the myths and change the bias. Can we do it? I think so. I found comforting ideas in this book that make me think that is not only a desire to do it. I think it is also our obligation to the new generation that is coming.
Will the Dodd-Frank Bill Change the Number of Women in the Boardroom?
While I haven't had a chance to read the full text of the Dodd-Frank Bill which is set to pass in the Senate later on this afternoon -- it sounds like it may contain some interesting and promising elements for the future of women and minorities around the Board room tables in America.
The bill calls for the creation of an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion -- below is the blurb in the House Summary of the Bill:
"NEW OFFICES OF MINORITY AND WOMEN INCLUSION
At federal banking and securities regulatory agencies, the bill establishes an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion that will, among other things, address employment and contracting diversity matters. The offices will coordinate technical assistance to minority-owned and women-owned businesses and seek diversity in the workforce of the regulators."
You can read more of the summary: http://financialservices.house.gov/Key_Issues/Financial_Regulatory_Reform/comprehensive_summary.pdf
While I don't see anything that specifically indicates that quotas will be implemented -- a few different news sources are saying that is the direction the bill is going in.
For example, the BBC posted an article about Women in the Board Room in the UK and a new report released about new statistics and it mentions that quotas are in the works here. You can read that article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10648355
I have to say, I was pretty skeptical that quotas would ever gain traction at any level of politics, governance or leadership in the U.S. when this class started -- but it seems as though it really may be happening.
What do you all think of this? Anyone heard any thing else about it?
The bill calls for the creation of an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion -- below is the blurb in the House Summary of the Bill:
"NEW OFFICES OF MINORITY AND WOMEN INCLUSION
At federal banking and securities regulatory agencies, the bill establishes an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion that will, among other things, address employment and contracting diversity matters. The offices will coordinate technical assistance to minority-owned and women-owned businesses and seek diversity in the workforce of the regulators."
You can read more of the summary: http://financialservices.house.gov/Key_Issues/Financial_Regulatory_Reform/comprehensive_summary.pdf
While I don't see anything that specifically indicates that quotas will be implemented -- a few different news sources are saying that is the direction the bill is going in.
For example, the BBC posted an article about Women in the Board Room in the UK and a new report released about new statistics and it mentions that quotas are in the works here. You can read that article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10648355
I have to say, I was pretty skeptical that quotas would ever gain traction at any level of politics, governance or leadership in the U.S. when this class started -- but it seems as though it really may be happening.
What do you all think of this? Anyone heard any thing else about it?
Madeleine Albright's Collection of Brooches on Exhibit at the Smithsonian Castle
View the extrordinarily impressive exhibit titled: "Read My Pins: The Madeleine Albright Collection." There are 300 pins on display at the Smithsonian Castle worn by the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (1993-97) and U.S. secretary of state (1997-2001).
The pins are grouped by theme in 19 glass cases: flowers, bugs, flags, animals, etc. Highlights in the collection include "glass shards" to signify the glass ceiling Albright broke through to become the first female secretary of state, "an angel" commemorating the victims of bombings at U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, and "a bee" that Albright wore to Middle East peace negotiations. Another brooch of note includes one that incorporates a piece of the Berlin Wall.
There is no doubt that there is the power of a pin, but it's not always easy to determine what each pin means. Messages can indeed lie within a brooch. In a recent article, Albright points out that "without intending it, I found that jewlry had become part of my personal diplomatic arsenal. Former President George H.W. Bush had been known for saying 'Read my lips.' I began urging colleagues and reporters to 'Read my pins.'" It's noted that Albright's pin's often served as conversation starters as well as bridge builders.
For more information about the exhibit, visit www.si.edu/exhibitions/read-my-pins. The Collection of Brooches are on display through October 11, 2010. Albright also has an accompanying book named "Read My Pins: Stories From a Diplomat's Jewel Box."
The pins are grouped by theme in 19 glass cases: flowers, bugs, flags, animals, etc. Highlights in the collection include "glass shards" to signify the glass ceiling Albright broke through to become the first female secretary of state, "an angel" commemorating the victims of bombings at U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, and "a bee" that Albright wore to Middle East peace negotiations. Another brooch of note includes one that incorporates a piece of the Berlin Wall.
There is no doubt that there is the power of a pin, but it's not always easy to determine what each pin means. Messages can indeed lie within a brooch. In a recent article, Albright points out that "without intending it, I found that jewlry had become part of my personal diplomatic arsenal. Former President George H.W. Bush had been known for saying 'Read my lips.' I began urging colleagues and reporters to 'Read my pins.'" It's noted that Albright's pin's often served as conversation starters as well as bridge builders.
For more information about the exhibit, visit www.si.edu/exhibitions/read-my-pins. The Collection of Brooches are on display through October 11, 2010. Albright also has an accompanying book named "Read My Pins: Stories From a Diplomat's Jewel Box."
Film Director Kathryn Bigelow Makes History
Kathryn Bigelow recently made history when she became the first woman to win the Best Director Oscar. Bigelow's movie, "The Hurt Locker," also won Best Picture and Best Screenplay. "It's a moment of a lifetime," says Bigelow. According to critics, Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker" is the best war movie made in years. It's also ironic that it was up against Bigelow's ex-husbands movie, "Avatar." Both "The Hurt Locker" and sci-fi movie "Avatar" had nine nominations."The Hurt Locker" won six Oscars.
On July 11, 2010, "60 Minutes" on CBS aired a special broadcast interview with Bigelow. In the interview, Bigelow stated "There's really no difference between what I do and what a male filmmaker might do. I mean we all try to make our days, we all try to give the best performances we can, we try to make our budget, we try to make the best movie we possibly can. So in that sense it's very similar. On the other hand, I think the journey for women, no matter what venue it is - politics, business, film - it's a long journey," she said.
Bigelow makes it clear that she hates being considered a "female" director. Ex-husband James Cameron points out that "It's an irresistible story to finally be able to award the first directing Ocscar to a woman. I'm sure Kathryn will be ambivalent about this because she'll be of a mind that, wait a minute, I want to win for the work, I don't want to win because I'm a woman."
Leslie Stahl, reporter for "60 Minutes" remarked "I don't know anybody who has seen this movie who says, 'I can't believe a woman directed this movie.' The violence, the 'machoness.'" Jeremy Renner, actor who plays Sgt. James in "The Hurt Locker" responds, "What does having a set of ovaries have to do with directing the film? It's through her eyes that she sees. Not through her mammaries or anything else that defines her as a women."
"The Hurt Locker" was shot almost entirely in Jordan, a portion of it in a Palestinian refugee camp. The movie is Bigelow's eighth movie and she is 58 years old. Cameron notes, "the idea of war and conflict fascinates Bigelow. And so it's something that's out there in the world that she's trying to understand. I think she also takes pride in the fact that she can outgun the guys, you know. That just in pure technique, just pure game, she's got more game than most of the male directors out there."
On July 11, 2010, "60 Minutes" on CBS aired a special broadcast interview with Bigelow. In the interview, Bigelow stated "There's really no difference between what I do and what a male filmmaker might do. I mean we all try to make our days, we all try to give the best performances we can, we try to make our budget, we try to make the best movie we possibly can. So in that sense it's very similar. On the other hand, I think the journey for women, no matter what venue it is - politics, business, film - it's a long journey," she said.
Bigelow makes it clear that she hates being considered a "female" director. Ex-husband James Cameron points out that "It's an irresistible story to finally be able to award the first directing Ocscar to a woman. I'm sure Kathryn will be ambivalent about this because she'll be of a mind that, wait a minute, I want to win for the work, I don't want to win because I'm a woman."
Leslie Stahl, reporter for "60 Minutes" remarked "I don't know anybody who has seen this movie who says, 'I can't believe a woman directed this movie.' The violence, the 'machoness.'" Jeremy Renner, actor who plays Sgt. James in "The Hurt Locker" responds, "What does having a set of ovaries have to do with directing the film? It's through her eyes that she sees. Not through her mammaries or anything else that defines her as a women."
"The Hurt Locker" was shot almost entirely in Jordan, a portion of it in a Palestinian refugee camp. The movie is Bigelow's eighth movie and she is 58 years old. Cameron notes, "the idea of war and conflict fascinates Bigelow. And so it's something that's out there in the world that she's trying to understand. I think she also takes pride in the fact that she can outgun the guys, you know. That just in pure technique, just pure game, she's got more game than most of the male directors out there."
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Does the Generation Difference Actually Exist?
Today someone forwarded me a recently released report from the Berger-Marks foundation on generational differences amongst women in the labor movement. The report documents the findings from a conference of women union organizers and members. Apparently their has been a fairly large rift amongst different generations of women in unions, stemming from differences of judgment, expectation and perception. One of the main findings of the report was that for these women their were certain outside forces that made them distinctly different from one another -- I think the best example of this came when they asked the women participating in the conference the following: "When you graduated from high school, what were your expectations of yourself?"
The differences were very interesting, the "U35" or under 35 years old group came up with the following list:
Career driven, College, marriage, then kids, Balance work and home, Do your own thing, Have it all by mid-20s (old by 30)
The over 35 group came up with the following:
Be the opposite of our mothers, Be intellectual, Get a job, Be successful, Be self-sufficient Go, go, go–but where?
Despite these great differences, the women at the conference ended up coming up with a tangible plan for how to solve many of the problems unique to women in the labor movement that was inclusive of all generations. What this report ended up reminding me of was Delegate Dumais' assertion that it was not necessarily an issue of generation that really stuck out as the main difference between everyone: She emphasized the idea that Maryland has a citizen's legislature and that every single person brings a personal history with them, which I don't think was to say that generational differences do not exist but rather that they do not factor into every individual in the same way. As simple of an answer as that may have seemed, I know that all too often I get caught up in the idea of generational differences without thinking about the fact that generation means different things to different people.
Maybe it is possible that in specific instances generational differences are very significant, like in the example of the Labor movement -- but I think one of the most important lessons to take from this is not just to isolate differences -- but to build coalitions based on our diversity of opinions.
If you are interested in looking at the report in more detail you can find it here:
http://www.bergermarks.org/resources/SteppingUpSteppingBack.pdf
The differences were very interesting, the "U35" or under 35 years old group came up with the following list:
Career driven, College, marriage, then kids, Balance work and home, Do your own thing, Have it all by mid-20s (old by 30)
The over 35 group came up with the following:
Be the opposite of our mothers, Be intellectual, Get a job, Be successful, Be self-sufficient Go, go, go–but where?
Despite these great differences, the women at the conference ended up coming up with a tangible plan for how to solve many of the problems unique to women in the labor movement that was inclusive of all generations. What this report ended up reminding me of was Delegate Dumais' assertion that it was not necessarily an issue of generation that really stuck out as the main difference between everyone: She emphasized the idea that Maryland has a citizen's legislature and that every single person brings a personal history with them, which I don't think was to say that generational differences do not exist but rather that they do not factor into every individual in the same way. As simple of an answer as that may have seemed, I know that all too often I get caught up in the idea of generational differences without thinking about the fact that generation means different things to different people.
Maybe it is possible that in specific instances generational differences are very significant, like in the example of the Labor movement -- but I think one of the most important lessons to take from this is not just to isolate differences -- but to build coalitions based on our diversity of opinions.
If you are interested in looking at the report in more detail you can find it here:
http://www.bergermarks.org/resources/SteppingUpSteppingBack.pdf
Jobs in which women make more than men
I came across this article during my daily search of HuffPo and wanted to share it. Unfortunately the link to the DoL website didn't work for me so I was unable to see what their findings had to offer. But I thought this small article/photographs were interesting because, in each of the fields that women earned more than men, I was not surprised (except perhaps with science technicians). These are domestic jobs in which women have always dominated. The article claims that this is because women are in "lower paying industries." If only I could access the website, I'd like to see what the disparity is between women and men in higher paying industries, such as engineers.
The few statistics mentioned were fascinating - younger women in their 20s see less of a wage gap than women in their 30s/40s. I assume that it is because as they are first entering the workforce, women and men are viewed as equals in terms of hiring; yet once they move up the ranks, their qualifications and job preferences change and potentially place them in different positions than men. Any other reasons that you think this may be the case?
The few statistics mentioned were fascinating - younger women in their 20s see less of a wage gap than women in their 30s/40s. I assume that it is because as they are first entering the workforce, women and men are viewed as equals in terms of hiring; yet once they move up the ranks, their qualifications and job preferences change and potentially place them in different positions than men. Any other reasons that you think this may be the case?
Will Women Save the Economy?
The Washington Post has a great article this morning about a study that was released that shows that women and minority business owners were booming before the recession began. A few of the interesting points the article brings up include the fact that by 2007 "minorities owned one in five small U.S. businesses, and women owned almost one in three." and that "The largest numerical increase in the five-year span was in businesses owned by women, up 1.3 million, to a total of 7.8 million. That represented a 20 percent increase."
The article touches a little on the impact of the recession but mostly highlights the great advances made before hand. I wonder if we will find that the struggling economy will have discouraged or encouraged this trend of women starting more businesses. I have very little knowledge of the inner workings of business but I can see how an argument can be made that the recession would allow more women to start their own businesses, however at the same time it could discourage women from leaving a secure job they already have to pursue a dream. In some ways this ties into the point that Ilana made in her post about how women are less likely to fight the wage gap during a time when even having a job is an accomplishment.
Obviously the faltering economy impacts everyone -- but it sounds like an obstacle like this may be providing women a greater opportunity for success. The article points out that "In an era when such high-profile female business executives as Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman have entered politics, an increasing share of U.S. businesses are run by women. A study published last year by the Guardian Life Small Business Research Institute projected that small businesses run by women will create one-third of all new jobs."
So it seems like the numbers for women business owners in the future are getting increasingly more optimistic. If women really will be owners of 1/3 of the jobs opportunities and if the 30% Solution that Linda Tarr-Whelan describes and relies on really works than the potential for change in the future of the business world seems abundant. And what about having business women running for office? Will that increase the numbers? I think everything we have discussed and read in class points to yes. Tarr-Whelan's point about the sales from women owned businesses sales making up the equivalent of the GDP of China -- than maybe it really is true that more women owned businesses could save or at least jump start the economy.
One more side note that was included in the article which reminded me of a class discussion we had about women in construction -- the article points out that "More women are starting firms in nontraditional fields; they own about 11 percent of construction firms, for instance." Essentially it seems like the tide of change is definitely approaching.
See the article in the title of the post for more details.
The article touches a little on the impact of the recession but mostly highlights the great advances made before hand. I wonder if we will find that the struggling economy will have discouraged or encouraged this trend of women starting more businesses. I have very little knowledge of the inner workings of business but I can see how an argument can be made that the recession would allow more women to start their own businesses, however at the same time it could discourage women from leaving a secure job they already have to pursue a dream. In some ways this ties into the point that Ilana made in her post about how women are less likely to fight the wage gap during a time when even having a job is an accomplishment.
Obviously the faltering economy impacts everyone -- but it sounds like an obstacle like this may be providing women a greater opportunity for success. The article points out that "In an era when such high-profile female business executives as Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman have entered politics, an increasing share of U.S. businesses are run by women. A study published last year by the Guardian Life Small Business Research Institute projected that small businesses run by women will create one-third of all new jobs."
So it seems like the numbers for women business owners in the future are getting increasingly more optimistic. If women really will be owners of 1/3 of the jobs opportunities and if the 30% Solution that Linda Tarr-Whelan describes and relies on really works than the potential for change in the future of the business world seems abundant. And what about having business women running for office? Will that increase the numbers? I think everything we have discussed and read in class points to yes. Tarr-Whelan's point about the sales from women owned businesses sales making up the equivalent of the GDP of China -- than maybe it really is true that more women owned businesses could save or at least jump start the economy.
One more side note that was included in the article which reminded me of a class discussion we had about women in construction -- the article points out that "More women are starting firms in nontraditional fields; they own about 11 percent of construction firms, for instance." Essentially it seems like the tide of change is definitely approaching.
See the article in the title of the post for more details.
Sarah Palin: Will She, or Won't She?
This is a really interesting and in-depth analysis of Sarah Palin, and whether or not she is going to put her hat in the ring for the 2012 Presidential Race. Covering her media strategy, organization, endorsements, and the risks, the article takes an honest look at the realities, challenges and benefits to a Palin 2012 ticket.
Perhaps the quote that most stood out to me was at the very end...
“Losing hurts her brand,” said Democratic new media consultant Kombiz Lavasany. “A perpetual draft movement is better.”I am not sure that I agree with this. The Palin brand is all about fighting the man, and fighting him despite the fact that the man will likely win. Additionally, I am not convinced that the larger goal of the Palin brand is politics. Her book sales, tour and media appearances help to bolster her public brand- without even a mention or relation to public office.
So? What do you think? Will she, or won't she?
Perhaps the quote that most stood out to me was at the very end...
“Losing hurts her brand,” said Democratic new media consultant Kombiz Lavasany. “A perpetual draft movement is better.”I am not sure that I agree with this. The Palin brand is all about fighting the man, and fighting him despite the fact that the man will likely win. Additionally, I am not convinced that the larger goal of the Palin brand is politics. Her book sales, tour and media appearances help to bolster her public brand- without even a mention or relation to public office.
So? What do you think? Will she, or won't she?
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
More on the pay gap
Once women reach the almost impossible goal of becoming parter at a law firm, they are still paid an average of $66,000 less than their male counterparts. Sure, when you are making upwards of $1 million, that is not going to have a noticeable impact on your quality of life, but it is an injustice nonetheless.
I disagree with most of what the author recommends as possible solutions. He says the following: "Women, and men of conscience, need to bitch and moan and agitate and force change upon a system that resists. Clients need to start punishing law firms who support gender inequality. New associates need to proactively avoid firms that are committed to maintaining the old boys network. And successful female partners need to branch out and start building their own firms so that in a generation Alpha & Ladies LLP can compete with the Cravaths and Skaddens of the world."
This is all lovely IN THEORY, but is not really realistic and will take way too long. First, anyone who has a job now is not going to bitch or moan about anything. They are going to be eternally grateful that they are employed at the moment, and put their heads down. Along the same lines, new associates are going to take jobs wherever they can get them, so there is zero hope of any boycott. Third, branching out on your own is tremendously difficult, and cannot be the solution. For an all female firm to compete with the Cravaths of the world, will take decades, if not more. What I do agree with the author about is that clients hold the power. If the General Counsel of a Fortune 500 company demands that the company’s matters are staffed by women, etc., then this will force the firms’ hand because they cannot endanger hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue. Law firms and lawyers generally are nothing without clients: they do not want to lose their clients and will do things within reason (which this certainly is) to assure that their clients are happy.
It is truly unbelievable that this pay inequality still occurs. I never experienced it as an associate because our pay was set lockstep by class year, and quite obviously I didn’t make it to the partner level by the time i left big-firm life. I am sure however that this problem is not unique to partnership, and undoubtedly goes on where pay is not automatically set by your class year, such as at mid-size and smaller firms. Once women reach the almost impossible goal of becoming parter at a law firm, they are still paid an average of $66,000 less than their male counterparts. Sure, when you are making upwards of $1 million, that is not going to have a noticeable impact on your quality of life, but it is an injustice nonetheless.
I disagree with most of what the author of the post recommends as possible solutions. He says the following: "Women, and men of conscience, need to bitch and moan and agitate and force change upon a system that resists. Clients need to start punishing law firms who support gender inequality. New associates need to proactively avoid firms that are committed to maintaining the old boys network. And successful female partners need to branch out and start building their own firms so that in a generation Alpha & Ladies LLP can compete with the Cravaths and Skaddens of the world."
This is all lovely IN THEORY, but is not really realistic and will take decades to attain. First, anyone who has a job now is not going to bitch or moan about anything. They are going to be eternally grateful that they are employed at the moment. Along the same lines, new associates are going to take jobs wherever they can get them, so there is zero hope of any boycott. Third, branching out on your own is tremendously difficult, and cannot be the solution. For an all female firm to compete with Cravath, will take decades, if not more. What I do agree with the author about is that clients hold the power. If the General Counsel of a Fortune 500 company demands that the company’s matters are staffed by women, etc., then this will force the firms’ hand. Law firms and lawyers generally are nothing without clients: they do not want to lose their clients and will do things within reason (which this certainly is) to assure that their clients are happy.
It is truly unbelievable that this pay inequality still occurs. I never experienced it as an associate because our pay was set lockstep by class year, and quite obviously I didn’t make it to the partner level by the time i left big-firm life. I am sure however that this problem is not unique to partnership, and undoubtedly goes on where pay is not automatically set by your class year, such as at mid-size and smaller firms.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Women Lead The Way book
Just wanted to post some thoughts on Linda Tarr-Whelan's book. Overall I thought it was a very good read although she did bloviate quite a bit, in spite of which she made some saliant and interesting points about how the times are changing and what trends look to be sculpting the future. Most of all I like her discussion on the win-win mindset that does seem to be a bit more prevalent in a female leadership style (did she study Steven Covey's, "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" here?). I liked most of all her chapter on "Lifting as we climb" and I believe this win-win mindest and lifting as we climb applies to all people and transcends gender in leadership to the whole population. Her quoting of that African proverb was great, which bears repeating here, "If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together." I think that really sums it all up. What better way to say it?
It was also interesting seeing some of the statistics she cites in the book for example that men barely make up a majority of the work force now and that in the future white males will only account for 15% of the new entrants in the work force. The other trends we've studied in this course put all this in a neat framework to understand, especially when coupled with other statistics on how many men compared to women are pursuing education and advanced degrees.
Her emphasis on the female leadership trait of collaboration, consensus and communication I think is generally more correct than not, it isn't to say men cannot be this way or that women cannot; but I would agree that it seems more common among females than males.
Some of her data and facts I'd like to see contrasted to other data. For example, her info on her home state of South Carolina and the terrible rates of social and health problems, economic problems there, etc and so forth are compelling, however, she assigns a lot of this to the fact that that particular state has few women in leadership positions, and I would like to see that compared with other states social/economic problems and compared with how many or what percent of women are in leadership roles or not. It would be interesting to see if it has as much to do with lack of female leadership roles as it does the legacy of other economic, demographic, education, financial and on and on kinds of trends and factors rather than solely gender leadership.
It was also interesting seeing some of the statistics she cites in the book for example that men barely make up a majority of the work force now and that in the future white males will only account for 15% of the new entrants in the work force. The other trends we've studied in this course put all this in a neat framework to understand, especially when coupled with other statistics on how many men compared to women are pursuing education and advanced degrees.
Her emphasis on the female leadership trait of collaboration, consensus and communication I think is generally more correct than not, it isn't to say men cannot be this way or that women cannot; but I would agree that it seems more common among females than males.
Some of her data and facts I'd like to see contrasted to other data. For example, her info on her home state of South Carolina and the terrible rates of social and health problems, economic problems there, etc and so forth are compelling, however, she assigns a lot of this to the fact that that particular state has few women in leadership positions, and I would like to see that compared with other states social/economic problems and compared with how many or what percent of women are in leadership roles or not. It would be interesting to see if it has as much to do with lack of female leadership roles as it does the legacy of other economic, demographic, education, financial and on and on kinds of trends and factors rather than solely gender leadership.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Apropos to our class discussion w/our guest
A very interesting and insightful discussion in class last night w/our guest, and timely too, here's another example that just happened in the news today:
A North Carolina pastor was relieved of his duties as an honorary chaplain of the state house of representatives after he closed a prayer by invoking the name of Jesus.
“I got fired,” said Ron Baity, pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem. He had been invited to lead prayer for an entire week but his tenure was cut short when he refused to remove the name Jesus from his invocation.
Baity’s troubles began during the week of May 31. He said a House clerk asked to see his prayer. The invocation including prayers for our military, state lawmakers and a petition to God asking him to bless North Carolina.”
“When I handed it to the lady, I watched her eyes and they immediately went right to the bottom of the page and the word Jesus,” he told FOX News Radio. “She said ‘We would prefer that you not use the name Jesus. We have some people here that can be offended.’”
When Baity protested, she brought the matter to the attention of House Speaker
Joe Hackney.
A North Carolina pastor was relieved of his duties as an honorary chaplain of the state house of representatives after he closed a prayer by invoking the name of Jesus.
“I got fired,” said Ron Baity, pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem. He had been invited to lead prayer for an entire week but his tenure was cut short when he refused to remove the name Jesus from his invocation.
Baity’s troubles began during the week of May 31. He said a House clerk asked to see his prayer. The invocation including prayers for our military, state lawmakers and a petition to God asking him to bless North Carolina.”
“When I handed it to the lady, I watched her eyes and they immediately went right to the bottom of the page and the word Jesus,” he told FOX News Radio. “She said ‘We would prefer that you not use the name Jesus. We have some people here that can be offended.’”
When Baity protested, she brought the matter to the attention of House Speaker
Joe Hackney.
New Palin ad
Please click on the title to find the link to the ad.
Sarah Palin's PAC released a video of her talking about a "mom awakening" in the past year and half; how Washington better watch out for all of the "mama grizzlies"; and trying to rally the troops for the 2010 elections. It is very Palin-esqe, in that it is not fancy and very down-to-earth. She is clearly trying to appeal to Joe-Mom.
I think this is an interesting approach for Palin. I wonder why she has decided to make this type of ad. Why is she reaching out to mothers specifically, as opposed to women in general? On FoxNews today, I saw a statistic that mothers make up approximately 20% of the voters in this country. Pretty sizable, indeed. But I don't think that tells the whole story.
Another issue: Is this the first time that a political ad has been so focused on mothers? None come to my mind. For example, the Willie Horton ad was directed more scaring the heck out of parents generally, as opposed to mothers specifically. Can you all think of any examples that I am missing?
Thursday, July 8, 2010
More Women = More LGBT Candidates?
A few weeks back Sharon wrote the following question on the board:
"Will the focus on appearance such as hair, clothes, etc. become less significant & less of an focus for the press as more lesbians run for office?"
I think the majority of us agreed that a person's sexual orientation would not change the way the media treated them - but then Sharon brought up the case of Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. I knew that I could not recall any coverage of Tammy Baldwin's appearance -- but thought I would check it out in some detail. Now I know this is not entirely scientific - but on an anecdotal level, it was pretty interesting.
First I decided to do a few Google searches: "Tammy Baldwin is wearing", "Tammy Baldwin appearance", "Tammy Baldwin clothes" and a few other iterations... I came up with no coverage relevant to her appearance. I opened it up and searched "Tammy Baldwin lesbian" but found not a single obvious reference to her appearance at all. I decided to take it a little more academic and pooled together some terms in with her name in LexisNexis searching for the past five years -- I found no article that mentioned her appearance in a positive, negative, sexual or any way. Granted -- my research methods for this were not incredibly sound, but I spent over an hour looking through articles and couldn't find a thing. On the one hand, I found this sort of heartening -- she was being examined for her standing not her appearance. But how interesting to think that the press has really spent so much time attacking other female figures for not looking feminine enough or looking like a lesbian, and then when we actually have a lesbian in an elected office the press won't touch her appearance.
I think some of this may be a function of the fact that despite the gains in openly LGBT candidates and elected officials, they still represent a small percentage of the current governing body -- far smaller than even women, and so therefore the press does not have a uniform means of covering them. This got me thinking about a few other things as well -- since more and more people who were minorities in elected office are making gains -- when one group makes more gains, does that mean that other groups will as well? Or, phrased another way, does more women in office mean more LGBT candidates too?
In the picture posted at the top of the post which I got from the Rutgers Center for American Women in Politics (http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/) you see states ranked by color for the amount of women they have in their state legislatures.
In addition to this I found a site that has all of the Out officials listed by state:
http://www.glli.org/out_officials
By clicking through all of the states here you can see that on the whole it appears as though states that have more women in office have more openly LGBT candidates. Now I am not saying that this is concrete evidence or anything -- but I think it is interesting to look at some of these trends. I wonder if as women really do make more gains, if more LGBT candidates will make it into office and then if after that appearance will not be as much of an issue. Again, not the most scientifically supported claim, but an interesting thing to look at nonetheless.
Networks for Women?
Both Emily and Wendy wrote very thoughtful and reflective posts this week which I think require some extra consideration. They both raised some crucial questions for our consideration:
- Have the authors of these books stood up for a reason?
- What does a woman have to stand up for?
- Why do some women make it to the top and others cannot?
On the surface I think it may seem as though these questions are only related through our course discussions, but if you dig deeper I think they are all interconnected in an important way. Specifically I think that one of the main issues and obstacles that women face is the lack of a good culturally condoned outlet for communicating. We talked about this before hand in class when we discussed women trying to get into "men's clubs" but I think it is actually something slightly different than that. While exclusive clubs do function to communicate and share vital ideas they are not necessarily resources of support.
To address Wendy's question about the authors of the books we read, I realized that none of the books we've read have addressed in too much specific detail if the author or subject had something that they felt they had to step up for, we kind of see how different events and experiences lead to their decision to lead or to pursue leadership careers - but, correct me if I am wrong, but none of the books really addressed why they felt they had to stand up, just how it came to be that they were there. I think the reason that has not been explained in any of the books is because it is not an easy thing to communicate. It is not natural to say "I chose to lead because I felt strongly about something" - or is that the wrong way of looking at things?
With Wendy's second question I decided to look back through my notes from class and back in May we discussed Five Reasons Women Make Better Candidates from Phil Van Treusen. At the time when we first discussed that idea I was not sure if I personally believed that their was something inherently biologically different about women that made us better leaders or more effective candidates, I just assumed it was something based more on how women are raised. I think since that class my opinion has really changed, I think now that their are tangible differences in the way that women naturally lead, as evidenced by all of the reading and discussion from class -- so what is their to stand up for? I think the encouragement of a diversity of approaches. I think every woman should feel empowered by the fact that they have that different biologically determined perspective.
So, when finally looking at Emily's very poignant question - I started to think about these things all together. I think Emily was spot on in saying that some women reach it to the top because they are able to balance life and work and goals and needs, but in addition to that I think that is a skill that has not really been integrated into everyone's upbringing. If only their were some way to educate every young girl to recognize their own capacity - if only their were some way to share tips on those balances to everyone.
I wonder if an early education leadership program would do the job? Or would creating actual networks for women to share and communicate help. I am a part of one such network here in D.C., but it is mainly focused on people who share my personal political beliefs (the Women's Information Network). That network functions as a sort of e-mail list serve with group meetings and different interest based networks - all designed to give women an outlet and a network of connections here in D.C. Do you all think something like that could work for all women and not just those who share similar political beliefs? I am leaning towards yes, but I wonder what the first steps could be.
- Have the authors of these books stood up for a reason?
- What does a woman have to stand up for?
- Why do some women make it to the top and others cannot?
On the surface I think it may seem as though these questions are only related through our course discussions, but if you dig deeper I think they are all interconnected in an important way. Specifically I think that one of the main issues and obstacles that women face is the lack of a good culturally condoned outlet for communicating. We talked about this before hand in class when we discussed women trying to get into "men's clubs" but I think it is actually something slightly different than that. While exclusive clubs do function to communicate and share vital ideas they are not necessarily resources of support.
To address Wendy's question about the authors of the books we read, I realized that none of the books we've read have addressed in too much specific detail if the author or subject had something that they felt they had to step up for, we kind of see how different events and experiences lead to their decision to lead or to pursue leadership careers - but, correct me if I am wrong, but none of the books really addressed why they felt they had to stand up, just how it came to be that they were there. I think the reason that has not been explained in any of the books is because it is not an easy thing to communicate. It is not natural to say "I chose to lead because I felt strongly about something" - or is that the wrong way of looking at things?
With Wendy's second question I decided to look back through my notes from class and back in May we discussed Five Reasons Women Make Better Candidates from Phil Van Treusen. At the time when we first discussed that idea I was not sure if I personally believed that their was something inherently biologically different about women that made us better leaders or more effective candidates, I just assumed it was something based more on how women are raised. I think since that class my opinion has really changed, I think now that their are tangible differences in the way that women naturally lead, as evidenced by all of the reading and discussion from class -- so what is their to stand up for? I think the encouragement of a diversity of approaches. I think every woman should feel empowered by the fact that they have that different biologically determined perspective.
So, when finally looking at Emily's very poignant question - I started to think about these things all together. I think Emily was spot on in saying that some women reach it to the top because they are able to balance life and work and goals and needs, but in addition to that I think that is a skill that has not really been integrated into everyone's upbringing. If only their were some way to educate every young girl to recognize their own capacity - if only their were some way to share tips on those balances to everyone.
I wonder if an early education leadership program would do the job? Or would creating actual networks for women to share and communicate help. I am a part of one such network here in D.C., but it is mainly focused on people who share my personal political beliefs (the Women's Information Network). That network functions as a sort of e-mail list serve with group meetings and different interest based networks - all designed to give women an outlet and a network of connections here in D.C. Do you all think something like that could work for all women and not just those who share similar political beliefs? I am leaning towards yes, but I wonder what the first steps could be.
First Female Secretary of Commerce Dies at 89
Juanita M. Kreps, a Duke University economist and administrator who became the first woman to serve as U.S. secretary of Commerce, died on July 5, 2010 in Durham, N.C., after a lengthy illness, as reported in a Duke University press release.
Kreps served as Commerce secretary from 1977 to 1979 during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. She is credited for directing the Commerce Department toward a more active role in promoting international trade. Further, she initiated a historic trade agreement between the United States and China in 1979.
Other than teaching economics at Duke, Kreps also was dean of the Women's College and assistant provost, from 1969 to 1972. In 1973, she was named vice president of the university.
Kreps was born on Jan. 11, 1921, in Lynch, Ky. Educational acheivements include a bachelor's degree from Berea College in Kentucky in 1942 and her master's degree (1944) and doctorate (1948) in economics from Duke.
Her funeral will be held on July 9, 2010 in Durham. Survivors include a daughter, a son and four grandchildren.
Kreps served as Commerce secretary from 1977 to 1979 during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. She is credited for directing the Commerce Department toward a more active role in promoting international trade. Further, she initiated a historic trade agreement between the United States and China in 1979.
Other than teaching economics at Duke, Kreps also was dean of the Women's College and assistant provost, from 1969 to 1972. In 1973, she was named vice president of the university.
Kreps was born on Jan. 11, 1921, in Lynch, Ky. Educational acheivements include a bachelor's degree from Berea College in Kentucky in 1942 and her master's degree (1944) and doctorate (1948) in economics from Duke.
Her funeral will be held on July 9, 2010 in Durham. Survivors include a daughter, a son and four grandchildren.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)