Year of the Woman Part 2? Not So Much.

There are many adjectives that could be used to describe the results of the 2010 election.  It was historic in a number of ways but not so much from a gender standpoint.  There were women running for re-election who lost, those who won, and newcomers who were elected… some of those women were white and some of those women were women of color.  A few women in high profile races in senatorial and gubernatorial races lost, particularly on the Republican side of the political aisle.  The pundits can spin the results but the bottomline is what is important in the final analysis and the bottomline is this:

In 2011 there will be 17 women in the U.S. Senate, unchanged from 2010.  There will be 70 women in the House of Representatives in 2011, down from 73 in 2010.  There will be six women governors, down from a high of nine in 2007.  The good news is the increased number of women candidates running for office.  The bad news is that a significant number of those female candidates – on both sides of the political aisle – not only had to defend their record or platform but their ability to execute the office to which they aspired because of their gender. 

The 2010 election may have been the nastiest yet because the stakes were so high for both parties.  The politics of personal destruction were front and center for all candidates – male and female – but, as has been pointed out, women suffer greater damage to their reputations and their candidacies when gender-biased attacks are employed by their opponents.  For all of the talk from both sides about a “new tone” to political rhetoric, it’s the same childish sandbox campaigning when it counts.  Whoever is the least biggest “poopyhead” is the one who will be elected.  The gender-biased attacks only further bring to the fore in society the differences in acceptable perception of behavior for each gender i.e. men are assertive while women are bit**es.  As Vivian Valien noted in her book “Why So Slow” anything that accentuates male behavior results in a “plus sign” to people’s minds, while anything accentuates female behavior results in a “minus sign”.  There was no holding back in the types and number of attacks between candidates in the 2010 election.     In that regard, there was equality between the genders.  Women were treated as harshly – if not moreso in some instances – as their male opponents.

The difference, however, is that the attacks devalue the women more.  As long as that is the case, women will be on the receiving end of the minus mark and their progress toward equal representation in our government will be diminished as well.

Women Not Valued Politically

1992 was labeled “The Year of the Woman” due to the large number of women who were elected to the United States Congress for the first time.  2010 has the potential of being “The Year of the Woman: Part Two” as 160 women appear on gubernatorial and congessional ballots across America.  However, gender-target slurs slung at Meg Whitman (who was called a “whore” by a Jerry Brown campaign staffer), Mary Landrieu (a talk show host referred to her as “a high-class prostitute”), Carly Fiorina, Sharron Angle, Nikki Haley…not to mention the attacks aimed at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin in 2008 could have a profound effect on who is and who is not elected in the upcoming election.  Beyond being in poor taste and low class, the effects of these gender attacks are felt by female candidates at the ballot box.

The Women’s Media Center, Women’s Campaign Forum, and Political Parity sponsored a study which uncovered that female candidates lost twice as much support when even mild sexist language was added to a political attack.  Voters in the study saw the female candidate as less empathetic, trustworthy, and effective after the sexist attacks.  Negative campaign ads and personal attacks have long been part of the political playbook but have largely been utilized with two men running against one another.  Over the years, not as many women as men have been running in high profile contests as there are this year.  Female candidates, though having faced these types of personal attacks over the years, are experiencing a new level of scrutiny due to the facts that there are more women running this year for high profile positions and the political stakes are incredibly high.   Personal attacks between two male candidates are just seen as “a tough political fight” whereas a personal attack aimed at a woman can seriously undermine her candidacy.  Voters may look at the female candidate and not only judge whether she is qualified for the position but whether a woman is qualified for the job.  The World Economic Forum just released its 2010 Global Gender Gap Report.  The WEF found that 59% of the economic outcomes gap and only 18% of the political outcomes gap have been closed. Women are being undervalued in the political process and their ability to affect positive changes in our government are diminished.

The WEF, like me, believes that in devaluing women in our boardrooms and government leads to relegating half our of best and brightest talent to the sidelines to watch while  men try to straighten things out.  With the world and U.S. economies underperforming (to say the least) we need to put to the best available minds – male and female – to work to get us out of the mess we’re in.

With Election Day a few days away, we will see if 2010 is indeed the second edition of “The Year of the Woman” and how many women are swept into office on the strength of their ideas and qualifications and how many women are pushed aside due to the politics of personal destruction and gender slurs.

50% of the workforce, 80% of the value

A story appearing n the June 29, 2010, edition of the Post-Bulletin – “Women’s pay, power still lag” – discussed a report by the University of Minnesota Humphrey Institute’s Center on women and Public Policy. The report found that women’s pay for equal work remains significantly less than men’s. In Southeastern Minnesota the gap is narrowest at 80%. Though that is an improvement in the situation, there is still a long way to go.

My research on women’s equality has focused on glass ceilings in American business and uncovering the real causes of the barriers that keep women out of corner offices. At present there are 82 men for every 100 board seats in America’s boardrooms on the elite list of America’s 100 companies. Women hold 12% of all S&P 500 corporate board seats. 15 Fortune 500 companies have female CEOs. Less than 10% of CEOs in either the Fortune 500 or Fortune 1000 are women. These figures show us glass ceilings have created and sustained barriers that keep women out of upper executive positions. However, the more telling numbers are these:

40% of women financial executives perceive a glass ceiling, but only 10% of their male counterparts do. 66% of female financial executives said women face one or more obstacles to success in finance, but only 38% of male financial executives said women face such difficulties. 70% of female executives and 57% of male executives believe an invisible barrier – a glass ceiling – prevents women from getting ahead in business, according to a study of 1,200 executives in eight countries, including the United States, Australia, Austria, and the Philippines. 73% of male CEOs believe that the glass ceiling is no longer a problem for women, while 71% of women trying to break through glass ceilings said it is.

In the context of women in executive positions, there exists a profound “perspective gap”. Beyond the lack of women in upper executive positions there also exists a considerable pay gap. Globally, women make 78 cents for every dollar earned by a man. The pay gap is not simply a matter of gender bias, though that does play a role. The other factors that play a part in the pay gap are women opting out and women accepting less than what they’re worth.

Women who opt out of the workforce – even temporarily – do so because they want more balance in their lives or because the cost of rising to the top is too high. Women today are challenged, too, with being single mothers who have to balance both the public and private skies and have to make hard choices regarding which sky gets priority at a given moment. In 1975, 45% of women in the workforce had young children, compared to 70% by the year 2000. In 1975, 33% of young women with children younger than three were employed compared to 45% being employed in the year 2000.

Women who take time off from their careers to have and raise children find themselves at a competitive disadvantage when they decide to resume their careers. During the time women are away from the workplace to have and raise children, their male counterparts continue on their journey uninterrupted. Women coming back after time away find their peers have passed them on the way up the corporate ladder and on the pay scale. Women who choose a circuitous career path are often penalized for doing so.

Beyond gender, one of the biggest challenges for women is to figure out what they’re worth and stop taking less. For years, the disparity in pay was due to built-in biases but, in some cases, women are accepting less than they deserve. For example, let’s say Bob is Vice-President of Marketing at XYZ Widget Company and he retires, creating an opening for his job. Bob’s yearly salary was $92,500. The company decided to fill Bob’s vacant position by promoting Rita. This is Rita’s first opportunity at an upper executive position. The company offers her a yearly salary of $85,000. This is more than a $20,000 bump in pay so Rita accepts the position and the offered salary. The company has saved itself $7500 in salary for the same position and Rita undervalued herself in the process, not earning the same salary her predecessor did. This is not uncommon for women in business who are so eager for the opportunity that they shortchange themselves financially in the process, without knowing they’re doing so or being reluctant to negotiate a better salary in fear the job offer might be rescinded.

There are some encouraging signs in the battle for equal pay. In 1979, women brought home only 68 cents for every dollar earned by a man. By the year 2000, women 25-34 earned 82 cents for every dollar earned by a man on average. One of the factors in this generational increase is attributed to the fact that, in 1975, 18% of women ages 25-34 had completed four years of college. In 2000, 30% of women 25-34 completed a degree. Furthermore, the Paycheck Fairness Act is now circulating through Congress.

If signed into law, the PFA would replace the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The Paycheck Fairness Act would update the previous law, creating stronger incentives for employers to follow the law, empower women to negotiate for equal pay, and strengthen federal outreach, education, and enforcement efforts. If passed, the law would also deter wage discrimination by strengthening equal pay violations. Many argue the new law is needed because, almost 50 years later, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 has failed to live up to its billing. When the Equal Pay Act was signed women were making 59 cents on the dollar in comparison to men. In the 47 years since the law was passed, women have only narrowed the gap by about 20 cents! While the Paycheck Fairness Act is another step toward leveling the playing field, we cannot rely on legislation alone. Women and men must work together for equality in the workplace, whether it is the number of women in executive positions or their compensation. Action is needed now so that our daughters, granddaughters, sisters, and nieces will not have to bear the legacy of unequal pay for an equal day’s effort.

Women should not have to wait an additional 50 years for another 20-cent raise.

Women able to “hop” through glass ceiling

I was at my local coffee shop this morning and picked up today’s edition of the Minneapolis Star Tribune to scan the business section.  My eyebrows nearly cleared my forehead when I saw the front page headline: “No glass ceilings for best job in the world”.  My coffee could wait.  This was a must-read article.

I poured over the article and learned that beer companies are enlisting the aid of more women as beer tasters because they are deemed to have more sensitive, specific, and selective palates than men.  Women are seen as being able to recognize and identify nuances in beer such as nature of the beer (in some cases being described as metallic) and its color (women see more shades and variations of color than their male counterparts).  My fellow y-chormosome brethren tend to see the colors white, black, brown, grey, and ROY G. BIV whereas women have an encyclopedia of color variations which is more helpful in guiding beer makers in making a better brew.  Today 30% of SAB-Miller’s 1,000 advanced-level taste testers are women.  This equals a quadrupling of female taste testers in the past 10 years.

Men make up the majority of beer drinkers but there is an expanding base of women beer drinkers.  This trend has made beer tasting even more critical in an age of specialty beers and microbrews.   Though some men bristle at the thought of women being equals in the taste testing of beers, others merely enjoy the fact that they can share and discuss their appreciation of beers with men and women while consuming them. 

While at one point appearing a bit whimsical and trivial in nature, the lesson from the beer industry should not be lost nor dismissed.  Men are typically seen as the beer experts whereas women are seen as wine drinkers.  The fact that the male-dominated beer industry is seeking out women because of their perceived skill and value to the industry is no small thing. 

When other industries wake up to the fact that the skill and value of women add to their bottom line – whether at the employee or executive levels – is when the speed and momentum of women breaking through glass ceilings will dramatically increase .

2010: Year of the Woman…Part 2?

1992 was dubbed “Year of the Woman” because voters sent record numbers of women to Congress – 24 to the House and five to the Senate.  Much of the momentum of the YotW was in response to the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings during Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination hearings.  Many women were outraged at how Ms. Hill was treated by the men on the Hill and decided more female representation was  needed in Congress.  Their discontent with “business as usual” in Washington led to a tsunami of change.  For  all of the gains made in 1992, the fact remains that 17 women are in the Senate and 75 in the House, including the first female Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.  It’s still a man’s world on Capitol Hill.  While those numbers signaled an improvement, it still shows a lack of progress in our country for women.  For example, in the Senate’s 220-year history, only 35 out of 1,897 senators, or 1.58%, have been women.  1.58%.  That’s an embarrassment.

However, another tsunami could be coming to Washington this November and women could be the big winners. 

Numerous polls have been released in the past weeks pointing to the growing dissatisfaction with all politicians in Washington, D.C.  Recent primaries and special elections have gone against incumbents in the House of Representatives and the Senate.  This anti-incumbent mood could sweep many women into Congress as voters seek to dismantle the status quo and put some new faces and ideas in our nation’s capital.  The “old boys club” in Washington could be in for a huge shake up.   The seeds of the potential gains were planted in the 2008 campaigns of Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton and in the Supreme Court nominations of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Consider the following: The Center for American Women and Politics counted 23 female Senate candidates, 216 House candidates, and 23 gubernatorial candidates.  Furthermore, another 26 women are contending for lieutenant governor positions and 77 for other statewide offices.  The face of Washington, D.C. could be changing on Election Day 2010 and I, for one, am hoping it does.

Tuesday night, November 2nd, will be “Must See TV”.  I know I’ll be watching.

Life imitates art…about 25 years later

In 1986 Goldie Hawn starred in a movie called Wildcats in which she played a high school track coach who wanted to coach the football team. Hawn’s character was given the chance to be the head coach the Central High.  Nearly a generation later on March 12, 2010, Natalie Randolph, a 29-year-old teacher was named the head football coach at Calvin Coolidge Senior High in Washington, D.C.   Randolph is thought to be the first woman in the nation to ever hold such a position.  Coach Randolph played receiver for the D.C. Divas of the National Women’s Football Association, helping the Divas win a title in 2006.  She was an assistant football coach at another high school from 2006-2008. 

While Coach Randolph is imminently qualified to coach football, she will face one main question: will male football players loaded with testosterone listen to a female coach?  Women don’t usually play football after their youth football “career” has ended.  Junior high, high school, and college football programs are bastions of male bonding and the only participation by women comes on the sidelines as cheerleaders or reporters on television broadcasts.  Will Coach Randolph have enough b*lls to get through to the players when they need to be fired up, dressed down, or in need of an attitude adjustment?  Time will tell but in the meantime, the speculation and debate over whether a woman can be a football coac is underway.

ESPN 2′s show First Take had a debate on Coach Randolph on their Friday, March 13th, program.  One of the members of the panel was Keith Bullock, a 10-year National Football League veteran.  He was clearly not on board with the hiring of a woman football coach.  At one point in the conversation Bullock stated, “When one of the players comes to the sidelines woozy from a big hit or nose bloodied, what’s she going to do…give them a hug?”  As opposed to a male coach telling the player to “suck it up and get back in there.”  On his Twitter page Bullock remarked: “Football is clearly a man’s sport and it’s to be seen how young men take to their coach being a woman.”

Another individual on the panel – whose name escapes me – said that one factor should not be overlooked in the debate.  He said many young men today are raised by a their moms, so they are used to a woman as an ultimate authority figure.  If that’s the case at home, will it really be that strange to have a woman be the ultimate authority on the sidelines for their football team? 

This is a story that we should all follow with keen interest.  Many people will be watching how her team responds and how her team succeeds or fails as the result of her leadership both as a football coach and as a woman.  I, for one, will be rooting for her success.

Why EEOC rules and government mandates aren’t the answer

Today’s blog is an extension of the previous edition as to why it is not a good idea for the government or regulatory agencies to issue sweeping mandates. Yesterday I had a conversation with an acquaintance of mine. He asked me what was exciting and I replied by telling him my book – Women Under Glass – is doing very well. He didn’t know I had a book published and asked what it was about.

“Helping women get through glass ceilings in business,” I said.
He recoiled and his demeanor changed immediately. “I was forced out of [Fortune 500 company] because of EEOC. That stuff is all baloney.”

I asked him to elaborate. He said that a vice-president had left the company and rather than the usual six-month posting and search period, the company had appointed a woman within a few days. When my friend asked the new VP’s superior about why such a rush and why this woman was appointed rather than a search process conducted, he got a frosty answer, some comment about EEOC, and then grilled as to why he thought he was more qualified than she. The new female VP got wind of it and made my friend’s life so uncomfortable – she was now his boss – he chose to leave the company and a successful career there.

I told my friend that his story is the reason I favor grassroots efforts rather than sweeping, generic mandates. From this point forward, any time he hears about “glass ceilings” he will automatically have a negative reaction and be disinclined to be sympathetic to the plight of women struggling to break through glass ceilings. Mandates even the scales but they do not change the perceptions or attitudes of the men who have to work with or work for the women put into place by the government’s “magic wand.” As I continue to write and speak on the issue of glass ceilings I know there will be push back from men like my friend who don’t either believe in glass ceilings or have a negative experience based on a mandate.

My friend, when he listened to my perspective on the grassroots approach, opened up and talked more positively. It is my belief that we who want to smash glass ceilings will have to do so by changing hearts and minds, not using governmental crowbars to pry men out of positions they hold or wish to hold.

France takes a shot at breaking glass ceilnigs

Norway and Spain have done it and now France is attempting to do so – eliminating glass ceilings by legislative mandate. A bill is going through the French legislature that would require big companies to appoint women to 40% of their boardroom seats. The bill is expected to become law later this year.
In 2002 Norway enacted a 40% law and Spain has since followed suit. While on its face this law seems like a good thing, I don’t think it is. There are certainly enough qualified women to fill those positions but my concern is that the attitudes that constructed and reinforced glass ceilings in the first place will remain unchanged.
The men in those big French companies will forever look at women as being unqualified for the positions they hold because the only way women got those positions was by fiat, not achievement.
Wherever glass ceilings exist, government should only do so much. In America, the government has enacted EEO and Title IX laws that have done some good in creating equal opportunities for women. My belief is that women will break glass ceilings for good through grassroots efforts by women and men alike. Laws cannot change attitudes and it is only through enlightened self-interest that glass ceilings will be smashed once and for all. A quota system based upon gender segregation, as what the Europeans are utilizing is not the answer.

Are you ready for some football…with female referees?

I read an Associated Press story by Teresa Walker that highlighted Sarah Thomas. Sarah Thomas is an NCAA Division I official, one of seven such women in NCAA Division I football. There are two things that make Sarah unique: 1) on October 17, 2009, she worked as a head linesman in a United Football League game between the California Redwoods and New York Sentinels and; 2) she is being scouted by the National Football League as an officiating prospect. There is one female official in major pro sports – Violet Palmer is an NBA official – so Sarah’s ascension to the NFL would be no small thing. It is my belief that Sarah Thomas’ entry to the NFL would be easier (not easy) than other women who have tried to enter this very macho man’s domain.  Think about female journalists and female sideline reporters.  Going back to the Lisa Olson-New England Patriots debacle years ago, women jounalists have struggled to be taken seriously in male lockerrooms, especially the NFL.  Since the Olson incident, the instances of boys behaving badlyin the lockerroms have been few and far between.  Sideline reporters have also had a tough time being taken seriously, having to fight the perception they’re just pretty faces on the sidelines serving as eye candy for the male viewers.   That perception is starting to change thanks to women such as Bonnie Bernstein, Suzy Kolber, Michele Tafoya, Erin Andrews, and Andrea Kremer, who are not afraid to ask pointed questions and break stories from the sidelines.  It is my contention that, as with any referee – male or female – players will see how far they can push to see if that person can be intimidated.  If the day does come when Sarah Thomas or other female referees break into the NFL, that will be the case.  Past that, she’ll be just another “zebra” making calls.  Would male NFL officials have a problem with a woman joining their ranks?  Perhaps.  The positive aspect is that college and professional referees are part-time employees.  Away from the field, officials have “day jobs” as working professionals.  They tend to be more educated, which means they may be more receptive and accepting of women officials, as long as they are competent to carry out their jobs.  The National Football League is picky when it comes to a lot of things and their referees are on that list.  How incredible will it be to tune in to Monday Night Football and see a female official on the sideline?  That’s some football I am ready to see.

Clinton and Palin – One Year Later

In 2008 Senator Hillary Clinton and Governor Sarah Palin were two key figures in one of the most watched and contested presidential elections in American history.  In the end, neither woman was elected to the position for which she aspired.  One year later the professional fortunes for Clinton and Palin have certainly changed and, one might argue, not for the better.  It could be argued that both are being marginalized.

Consider this: Senator Clinton became Secretary of State in President Obama’s administration.  Have we seen much of the SoS?  Mrs. Clinton arrived in Kabul, Afghanistan for the inauguration for President Hamid Karzai.  This is her first visit to Afghanistan.  A month or two earlier, in the midst of a controversial election, Senator John Kerry was sent over to confer with Karzai about how to handle a re-vote.  Senator Kerry certainly is familiar with a controversial election, to be sure.  However, wouldn’t that be a job for the Secretary of State?  Shouldn’t Mrs. Clinton have been a member of the delegation to meet with Mr. Karzai?  Not good enough to meet with a foreign head of state but good enough to send to his big “tea party.”  Interesting.   During a recent television interview, Mrs. Clinton was asked if she’d have coffee with Sarah Palin (something Palin said she’d do in her book).  Not exactly the most pressing question one could ask the Secretary given what’s going on in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea right now.  But it makes for a good sound bite.

Furthermore, earlier this year two American women of Korean descent were held as spies in North Korea.  It was not Mrs. Clinton  who was sent on the trip to meet with North Korean official but instead Mr. Clinton.  To be fair, the North Koreans requested the former president but, again, the current Secretary of State was not even among the delegation.  Is Mrs. Clinton a Secretary of State in name only in this administration?

Governor Palin resigned her office in July 2009, seeking other opportunities.  Some said the media “drove” her out.  Others said she left due to “scandals” swirling around her administration and family.  Political pundits said she was going to do a PR tour to begin the preparation to run for president in 2012.  Fast forward to now.  Governor Palin has written a book that was at or near the top of the best seller lists for two months before the book was even available on book shelves or online.  On the date of her book’s release what was the cover story on the November 17, 2009, Newsweek magazine?  “How do you solve a problem like Sarah?” was the splash on the cover next to a photo of Palin in running gear and pig tails.  Quoting from the Newsweek story…”Obama knows the long odds against a right-wing populist winning the presidency, no matter how good she looks in a skirt (or running clothes), brandishing a gun.”  No matter how good she looks in a skirt?  Excuse me?  I don’t recall commentary in political stories about how good Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, George Bush, or John McCain looked in running shorts or any other sort of attire.   It is sexist, it is demeaning, and it is beyond the pale of what responsible poltical commentary or reporting should be about in the 21st Century. Evan Thomas needs some sensitivity training.

For all the media’s and political pundit’s talk of elevating women and how we must be more tolerant and inclusive, two of America’s leading women in politics are still being marginalized and aren’t much better off than they were one year ago.  Know your place, smile pretty, and look good in a skirt.  But for goodness sake, leave the important and difficult stuff to the men.  Don’t you worry your pretty little head about it. 

Outrageous.