Relevant Articles
Some interesting commentary on men's and women's differing work styles. Apparently, there's a whole discipline called "gender science."
This article offers thoughtful commentary on how and why Hillary Clinton's bid for the nomination fell short, but nevertheless paved the way for future female presidential candidates.
Billed as "CNN correspondents discuss their experiences as working mothers," this piece is disappointing. I can't help but wonder how edited the comments are. For presumably intelligent journalists, these working mothers have very shallow things to say.
Well, here's a depressing bit of news. Evidently, women who practice in law firms for five or more years are still 13% less likely to make partner than men, even when their qualifications are equal and they don't have kids. The study group is small and I imagine 13% less likely is an improvement over the disparity in prior decades, but the likely reasons offered in the article are the same ol', same ol'.
You have to forgive the title, which manages to be both ungrammatical and sexist, but the article is interesting: Great Jobs That Profit Women: Five Flexible Careers with Man-Sized Paychecks.
This list of 75 skills every man should master may or may not be intended as a joke, but either way it's hilarious. And it offers a few tips men and women will find useful.
I doubt the phenomenon described in this article actually occurs often enough to be considered a trend, but the notion of forming executive-level SWAT teams out of "Smart Women with Available Time" - i.e., high-powered career women who left the workforce voluntarily to be stay-at-home moms - is a great idea. Can't quite understand, though, why these women would be under-charging so dramatically.
Why, I wonder, does Danica Patrick's first IndyCar win need to be "put in perspective" and given such grudging praise, as it is in this column? Even this gushier and more positive take on the win is still, sadly, pretty sexist.
I don't love the labels "Girlfriends' Getaways" or "All-Girl Getaways," but, call them what you will, apparently they're very in. According to this article, they're also evidence of a cultural shift.
Having a husband creates an extra seven hours a week of housework for women, according to a University of Michigan study. Why is this such a popular topic for studies?? (See below for more.)
Here's a somewhat over-congratulatory article on changes over the past decades in how much men and women, respectively, do around the house. Here's the bottom line (which is nearly at the bottom of the article): "In the U.S., time-use diary studies show that since the '60s, men's contribution to housework doubled from about 15 percent to more than 30 percent of the total. Over the same period, the average working mother reduced her weekly housework load by two hours." Doubling a contribution is great, but when the starting point was 15%, there's still a ways to go.
This doesn't really have anything to do with gender issues, but I had to post it anyway so I could note how bizarre survey topics and survey results often are. Two questions begged by the study: if you make yourself buy more sneakers, will you develop leadership qualities; and what on earth do the polar opposite of sneakers - i.e., foot- and back-breaking stilettos - say about the women who wear them?
It's fashionable to complain about the supposed entitlement mentality, self-absorption and other perceived shortfalls of Gen Y-ers, but this article asserts that the members of this generation aren't that different from everyone else - and that blithely lumping them together is counterproductive from a management standpoint.
Here's some evidence that successful consulting businesses sometimes rely on selling the obvious. This article about work-life balance coaches suggests that the key to making balance work is "using exceptional credentials and skills as leverage to broker flexible work arrangements." You think?
Here's a fascinating article from the New York Times called "Postfeminism and Other Fairy Tales." Click here for a blog post with my commentary on it.
Proving, I suppose, that gender discrimination is more acceptable in our culture than race discrimination, apparently pollsters are finding it difficult to measure the race between Clinton and Obama in part because, regardless of how voters might actually feel, "it appears easier for [them] to say they won't vote for a woman because of gender, than it is for them to say they won't vote for a man because of his race."
Here's an article from Cuba on the need to involve men in gender equality discussions and efforts. I'm intrigued by the circularity of stereotypes and social constructions noted in the article, and also, as one quoted person put it, by the way "50 years of socialism is nothing compared to 500 years of patriarchal Judeo-Christian acculturation."
A wonderful screenplay wins the Oscar for writing (click here to read my complaints about the last couple winners) and, of course, the media can't wait to slam its female writer. As noted just below, disparate standards indeed.
Here's an article on the disparate standards of media coverage for male and female "celebrities in distress." Amusingly and annoyingly, the article has more than its share of self-serving "it's about demographics, not sexism" justification.
I tripped over this story on my way to the crossword in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine. Normally, I'd skip right past something called "Cybercourting." Starting with the fake word and ending with the likely sappiness or sexism of its content, the story didn't seem like something for me. But it caught my attention from the first line and I kept reading. Maybe it's because The Sound and the Fury is also one of my favorite books, but the article touched me. It's a beaut - lovely, honest, nicely written, and not the slightest bit sexist.
Evidently, the Middle Ages are still alive and well in at least one spot in the U.S. Here's a story about a referee who was barred from officiating a basketball game because the school in question "does not allow women to hold positions of authority."
OK, this kind of thing drives me crazy. The whole notion that a subjective study of a mere 1,000 women could justify a headline like "Pregnancy Does Cause Memory Loss" is offensive, sexist, demeaning and stupid. Not to mention wrong.
Here's another article, this one by Gloria Steinem, on the different impacts of race and gender in the political context. She expands on the point made by Marie Wilson (linked two paragraphs below), and makes a number of additional points about the evidently more deep-seated nature of gender bias as compared to race bias in the American electorate. I'm also intrigued by the idea that women are the one group that gets more radical with age - says a lot about the cumulative impact of sexism over time, doesn't it?
Men, women, politics, tears and double standards. This article is a fascinating example of how people tend to see what they're looking for and what they expect. Do our predispositions make it impossible for us to perceive objective reality at all? Or is there no objective reality, but only our perceptions? Click here for a related blog post.
Marie Wilson is a passionate, intelligent and inspirational feminist. (I had the pleasure of hearing her speak once and she was great.) Her many accomplishments include the founding of The White House Project, the co-creation of Take Our Daughters to Work Day, and the development and introduction (with Mattel) of President Barbie. Here's her reaction to what the Iowa Caucus results say about race, gender and class. I think she's right on the money when she notes that a woman with Barack Obama's youth and relative inexperience wouldn't have a shot in hell at the nomination.
Here's a take on gender issues that strikes me as largely wishful thinking. Gender discrimination is at heart about ingrained ideas and the use and abuse of power. While it's certainly true that some gender issues disappear with success, I bet Kiran would find no shortage of them were she to try to move into an arena where her particular power doesn't carry the sway it carries at the company she created. (Politics, perhaps? Follow the link in the above paragraph and read Marie Wilson's thoughts about the continued existence of gender discrimination especially at top levels.)
This news falls under the category of "D'uh!" but I guess it's good whenever the benefits of flexibility at work get more press - and not as only a women's issue.
I can't think of anything non-sarcastic to say in introduction of this Q&A with Suzy Welch (wife of Jack Welch) on the gender-neutrality of success skills, so I'll just post it without further comment.
Another intriguing article about reactions to Hillary Clinton's campaign in which women disapprove of playing the gender card, then offer a variety of personal experiences and commentary that make it crystal clear that gender is still a huge issue in most arenas.
This article describes the "minimal and uneven" progress in the advancement of women to top leadership positions at Chicago's 50 largest public companies, as measured by The Chicago Network's 2007 Census Report.
Interesting blog post by Ellen Bravo on what she calls the opt-out myth.
Fun article with some excellent suggestions for coping with people, including bosses, who want to encroach on your personal time. I like the idea that your personal time can and should be yours - an idea that too often falls by the wayside as people misunderstand the true nature of career success. But that doesn't mean that work and life can't or shouldn't be blended; as this article points out, blurring the boundaries and blending all the aspects of your life is a wonderful way to achieve balance.
There's a lot to be uncomfortable about in this article. I'm hoping it's just more media bashing (bad enough, but better than if what the article says is actually true). Can it possibly be that men and women still fall into such traditional, silly and limiting stereotypes where money, ambition and looks are concerned? Or is it not so much still and more anew? (I also have to note my disapproval of the article's insulting characterization of what Hillary Clinton "may" be hoping for in the way of queen bees and male slaves. That kind of misogynistic cheap shot is exactly what I decried here - despicable and utterly uncalled-for.)
Say it ain't so, Joe! Apparently, gender discrimination raises its ugly head in the context of coffee shop service, despite the economics of competition, which, as the article points out, should tend to erode discrimination.
Oh, boy! This article is a fascinating, disturbing addition to the study of how differently the media approaches portraying men and women. Where's the bashing here? Where's the "this couldn't possibly be good parenting?" baloney that would inevitably be included in any such article about a mother with six kids who also has a demanding career?
In country music, the more things change, the more they apparently remain the same. The parallels to corporate America, politics, sports, etc. are inescapable. The names may change (slightly), but the faces are, as usual, white and male.
This article talks about entrepreneurship among the younger set. The good news is the increase in women entrepreneurs in the last year, but the article also offers some in my opinion incorrect commentary about the reasons that nearly three times as many men as women start businesses. The suggestion that this is because women "aren't as aggressive" is, I think, merely sexist drivel. (Check out this blog post for more on that.) The far more likely explanation is the continuing domination in the business world of traditional male players, protocols and rules. Setting up your own business is a tough gig under any circumstances; it's got to be even more difficult, as well as more daunting, when you don't look like an entrepreneur from central casting and probably don't have access to big-time networks, financing and other resources. Also, don't I recall reading years ago that women-owned businesses employ more people than the Fortune 500 companies combined? So what kind of entrepreneurs are we lauding here? The ones who succeed in the ways the traditionally male business world finds impressive?
This is an article about writing, but in the particular context of the cultural framework that causes many women to be self- deprecating, even self-negating.
Here's an article on recent gender equality and work-life balance initiatives by the Japanese government in response to perceived needs to increase women's participation in the workforce and to curb traditionally long hours.
Very interesting New York Times article on a so-called “happiness gap” between women and men. According to time-use data, since the 1960s men have “cut back on activities they find unpleasant. They work less and relax more.” The same data shows that, while women aren’t working more than they were 30-40 years ago, they’re doing different kinds of work. We’ve replaced housework with paid work, but, unlike men, we haven’t reduced the time we spend on activities we don’t enjoy. Frankly, I think complexity characterizes women’s lives for both internal and external reasons – and not just because dusty houses bug us more than they bug men. (This complexity notion comes up several times in A Merger of Equals.)
Here's an interesting take on the relative value of an MBA in the context of smart young people making money fast (for various purposes, some noble, some merely greedy). The educational value of the MBA doesn't get much play (intriguingly), but even its value as a necessary badge gets called into question.
Here's a superb story on diversity, grit, being who you are and overcoming adversity - all in the context of college football. I recommend reading the whole article (it may be the only 11-page online story I've ever read start to finish), but here's one excerpt:
"I've got two choices," he says. "I can sit back and say everything's against me, I'm going in the tank. Or I can accept the hand that's been dealt me and move forward. I never think about why? or why me? I never second-guess it. I forget about what happened three seconds ago. People ask me what I did last night. I can't remember. They think I'm joking. Every second you think about the past is a second when you can't think about the future, about controlling what you can control. That gives other people an opportunity to control your life. You control your life. You have to control the world. You can never let it control you.
Women (including in A Merger of Equals) frequently say this, but here's a man - and a celebrity at that - verifying that the combination of children and work makes for greater efficiency:
Brad Pitt, 43, ... said that having a family has also helped his career.
"It makes me much more efficient," he says, "because that's the main focus. It makes me feel when I do have time to work, I really do have to focus because there is a really short window to get something done. I am quite pleased by it all." Quote is from PEOPLE magazine online, 9/3/07
Lest you think sexism isn't alive and well, here's a disgusting article purporting to tell women how to dress for interviews. It's misguided in too many ways to count, but I'll content myself with mentioning that "peep-toe shoes" and "short skirts and high heels" are still the wrong choices if your goal is to look like a capable business person rather than a potential date. Click here for some better advice.
Apropos of a discussion that occurs in Chapter 19 of A Merger of Equals, click here for an interesting article from The New York Times entitled "Wedded to Work, and in Dire Need of a Wife."
Here's an article about the growing number of companies offering mothers ways to balance family and work.
Here's Working Mother magazine's listing of the "2007 Best Law Firms for Women" - proof that flexibility is available even in the unlikeliest of work environments.
Intriguing story on gender issues and their import in the 2008 presidential race.
Gender bias starts young. Here's a link to several articles about gender representation in children's literature and why it's significant to the development of both boys and girls.