So, this may be my last post for a little while. I have reached the end of the quarter for my Social Web class at the Bainbridge Graduate Institute and I need a break! I have definitely learned a LOT from this exercise and I recommend it to anyone.
My experience:
Writing about a topic that gives me great consternation wasn't all smiles and sunshine. Actually, writing about gender inequality made me so mad at times that the topic started to spill too much into my personal life at times. But hey, the personal IS political, so what exactly did I expect? I do not recommend blogging about a heated debate unless you feel rock solid with the ones who are close to you. This topic made for some difficult evenings at the dinner table. However, blogging was a great way to collect a lot of information about a topic that interests me. Now, from the simple practice of blogging on a regular basis, I feel I can talk authoritatively on the subject. Blogging seems to be a lot cheaper than a PHD.
Future plans:
I still want to keep learning about gender inequality in business. In fact, I've come to learn there is a real market for gender consultants in the tech sector. So, I figure it would be a good idea to keep writing this blog. There is so much information out there and not a lot of people putting together the pieces, it seems. I come across so much information in my daily surfing habits that it seems like this blog would be a good place to leave it and collect it. However, I definitely prefer micro-blogging and would much rather find a way to combine both Facebook and Twitter so that I could have a little more than 140 characters but also the ability to make zillions of little posts as it fancies me.
Blogging is a great way to practice brevity, hone one's writing skills, and really think about the reader. It's also another great practice in backing up your work. I can't tell you how much writing I've read in the past few months that make outright claims without backing anything up. Thankfully, the internet really is the end of that sort of thing.
And with that, I say, watch for future updates but my posting frequency may go down. I really recommend checking out the links under "resources" in the right hand side bar.
Keep up the fight dear readers. Inequality is everywhere, and YOU have the power to make it right.
Thanks for reading,
Nina
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Why 11% of CEOs of Indian Companies are Women
Interesting numbers from India to look at:
I got these stats from an interesting article about the ambitions of Indian women in the workplace. According to a study done by, The Center for Work Life Policy, Indian women are more ambitious than their American counterparts despite facing serious overt discrimination that American women do not have to deal with. For instance, 52% of respondents felt unsafe traveling to and from work for fear of being raped or kidnapped. I feel it's safe to say that kidnapping is not a threat that American women have to negotiate in their day to day commutes or rape for that matter (even though rape is a very serious threat to women everywhere). 73% of respondents experience societal disproval for traveling alone to work even though 80% felt that working internationally was vital to their careers.
All in all, it's clear that India women face overt discrimination that American women generally do not and yet 80% of Indian women surveyed want to rise to the top, compared to 52% of American women.
Here are my thoughts on some possible explanations:
What does this mean for US women?
The U.S. could benefit from greater family-friendly policies. It's no coincidence that countries with greater gender parity face decreasing populations. Women are choosing to work on their careers before starting families or choose not to have careers in order to raise a family. In these systems, women are forced to make a choice. Examples of this are all over Northern Europe and the U.S. One exception to this rule is France, where families enjoy many state-run programs that care for children. French women, therefore, do not face the duality of choosing between family and career as U.S. women do. I won't even mention the differing cultural attitudes towards work/life balance between the U.S. and France. Interestingly, the U.S. seems to be a place where women, more often will choose their families over their careers. I only say this because we have such a low percentage of women in high political and business positions as well as one of the highest birth rates of all developed Western nations.
But I also wonder if there is a way for private enterprises to take on this challenge as well? For instance, I could see that having more paternity leave could be a great way to create better gender parity by private institutions as well as business cultures that expect both their male and female workers to be family oriented. My mother, who lives in New Delhi, finds the culture there to be extremely family oriented and that family values pervade every aspect of Indian society. I want to caution that family shouldn't just be relegated to the realm of women, as it traditionally has in American society...but in my research, it seems that family often gets in the way for American women in the work place.
Ok, this post is getting too long. In the end, I think we all need to understand how to keep the kind of focus that this chicken seems to be able to succeed at doing:
More stats on US women.
- 30% of women work
- 10% of women 18-23 are in higher education
- 11% of CEOs (I assume of Indian companies) are women compared to 3% of Fortune 500 in the US
I got these stats from an interesting article about the ambitions of Indian women in the workplace. According to a study done by, The Center for Work Life Policy, Indian women are more ambitious than their American counterparts despite facing serious overt discrimination that American women do not have to deal with. For instance, 52% of respondents felt unsafe traveling to and from work for fear of being raped or kidnapped. I feel it's safe to say that kidnapping is not a threat that American women have to negotiate in their day to day commutes or rape for that matter (even though rape is a very serious threat to women everywhere). 73% of respondents experience societal disproval for traveling alone to work even though 80% felt that working internationally was vital to their careers.
All in all, it's clear that India women face overt discrimination that American women generally do not and yet 80% of Indian women surveyed want to rise to the top, compared to 52% of American women.
Here are my thoughts on some possible explanations:
- Are the Indian women who were surveyed and found working, members of a higher and therefore more privileged class within Indian society?
- If the working female population of India come from privileged classes, do privileged Indian women have access to inexpensive childcare and homecare?
What does this mean for US women?
The U.S. could benefit from greater family-friendly policies. It's no coincidence that countries with greater gender parity face decreasing populations. Women are choosing to work on their careers before starting families or choose not to have careers in order to raise a family. In these systems, women are forced to make a choice. Examples of this are all over Northern Europe and the U.S. One exception to this rule is France, where families enjoy many state-run programs that care for children. French women, therefore, do not face the duality of choosing between family and career as U.S. women do. I won't even mention the differing cultural attitudes towards work/life balance between the U.S. and France. Interestingly, the U.S. seems to be a place where women, more often will choose their families over their careers. I only say this because we have such a low percentage of women in high political and business positions as well as one of the highest birth rates of all developed Western nations.
But I also wonder if there is a way for private enterprises to take on this challenge as well? For instance, I could see that having more paternity leave could be a great way to create better gender parity by private institutions as well as business cultures that expect both their male and female workers to be family oriented. My mother, who lives in New Delhi, finds the culture there to be extremely family oriented and that family values pervade every aspect of Indian society. I want to caution that family shouldn't just be relegated to the realm of women, as it traditionally has in American society...but in my research, it seems that family often gets in the way for American women in the work place.
Ok, this post is getting too long. In the end, I think we all need to understand how to keep the kind of focus that this chicken seems to be able to succeed at doing:
More stats on US women.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Does this male-dominated society make me look fat?
I was inspired by my last post about women on women discrimination to do some more reasearch. Want to read more on the way beauty standards affect and impact women's lives?
Unbearable Weight by Susan Bordo
Sexism, hostility toward women, and endorsement of beauty ideals and practices: are beauty ideals associated with oppressive beliefs?
by Gordon B. Forbes, Linda L. Collinsworth, Rebecca L. Jobe, Kristen D. Braun and Leslie M. Wise
Ravishing or Ravaged: Women's Relationships with Women in the Context of Aging and Western Beauty Culture
by Carol A. Gosselink, Deborah L. Cox, Sarissa J. McClure, Mary L.G. De Jong
Unbearable Weight by Susan Bordo
Sexism, hostility toward women, and endorsement of beauty ideals and practices: are beauty ideals associated with oppressive beliefs?
by Gordon B. Forbes, Linda L. Collinsworth, Rebecca L. Jobe, Kristen D. Braun and Leslie M. Wise
Ravishing or Ravaged: Women's Relationships with Women in the Context of Aging and Western Beauty Culture
by Carol A. Gosselink, Deborah L. Cox, Sarissa J. McClure, Mary L.G. De Jong
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Beauty Punishment
Imagine you're on the hiring committee for a job. Imagine you work in HR and do many of the pre-screenings for job applicants? How would you rate applicants who included a photo on their CV? Depends.
According to a recent Euro/Israeli study, you are more likely to be impressed by a male applicant who includes a photo, while you may regard a female applicant with a photo as "not serious" or attempting to "market herself via her appearance." Women who did not put their pictures on their CV got more call-backs about the job than women (both attractive and plain-looking) who included pictures. This has been attributed to "female jealousy" because the majority of applicant screeners are women working in HR.
This study recalled a conversation I once had with another woman who worked primarily in IT. She said she would always try to find out the gender of her main interviewer. If it was a woman, she would dress conservatively with her hair in a bun and slacks. If the interviewer was a man, she would wear her hair down and a skirt with heals. Maybe my friend was acutely aware of the "female jealousy" factor. However, if we take a systems gaze at this issue, we can actually better understand the causes of supposed "female jealousy."
Women live in a world where they are constantly and consistently objectified for their physical appearance. I remember a few years ago reading about how women who didn't wear make-up in a job interview were considered less competent (sorry, can't find the article now but I did find this).
Women grow up, as explained by the National Organization of Men Against Sexism:
Women dominate the HR field. In 1996, the U.S. department of labor found over 60% of human resources workers to be women and at that time, was projected to double. So to get to any job, it's safe to say you're likely going to have to get through a woman first.
So, what can employers and job applicants do?
1) Don't include a photo on your resume...unless you're in the acting/modeling profession.
2) If you're in HR or know someone who is, make sure they are aware of this tendency toward bias.
3) Promote women into non-HR positions of management while balancing the gender ratio in your HR department.
4) Stop talking about or commenting on the way your colleagues look at the office.
5) Incorporate sensitivity training with an emphasis on openness and non-judgment towards differences for all employees.
According to a recent Euro/Israeli study, you are more likely to be impressed by a male applicant who includes a photo, while you may regard a female applicant with a photo as "not serious" or attempting to "market herself via her appearance." Women who did not put their pictures on their CV got more call-backs about the job than women (both attractive and plain-looking) who included pictures. This has been attributed to "female jealousy" because the majority of applicant screeners are women working in HR.
This study recalled a conversation I once had with another woman who worked primarily in IT. She said she would always try to find out the gender of her main interviewer. If it was a woman, she would dress conservatively with her hair in a bun and slacks. If the interviewer was a man, she would wear her hair down and a skirt with heals. Maybe my friend was acutely aware of the "female jealousy" factor. However, if we take a systems gaze at this issue, we can actually better understand the causes of supposed "female jealousy."
Women live in a world where they are constantly and consistently objectified for their physical appearance. I remember a few years ago reading about how women who didn't wear make-up in a job interview were considered less competent (sorry, can't find the article now but I did find this).
Women grow up, as explained by the National Organization of Men Against Sexism:
- Where objectified images of women's bodies are everywhere - on TV, newsstands, in advertisements, movies, calendars.
- Where many women start to feel old and unattractive even in their 20's.
- Where women aren't taken seriously.
- Where even the youngest and most beautiful women often worry constantly, and cannot match in real life their photographed, objectified image.
- Where half-naked female bodies are displayed on walls, in public like objects, exposed female bodies used as markers of male territory, male turf... Immediate signals of discomfort, and of menace, for women.
Women dominate the HR field. In 1996, the U.S. department of labor found over 60% of human resources workers to be women and at that time, was projected to double. So to get to any job, it's safe to say you're likely going to have to get through a woman first.
So, what can employers and job applicants do?
1) Don't include a photo on your resume...unless you're in the acting/modeling profession.
2) If you're in HR or know someone who is, make sure they are aware of this tendency toward bias.
3) Promote women into non-HR positions of management while balancing the gender ratio in your HR department.
4) Stop talking about or commenting on the way your colleagues look at the office.
5) Incorporate sensitivity training with an emphasis on openness and non-judgment towards differences for all employees.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
How far have women come? (The Stats)
Top full-time jobs for women in the US today are the same as they were in the 70s:
-secretary
-waitress
-sales clerk
During their prime earning years U.S. women make 38% of what men make.
Men occupy 80-95% of decision-making positions in politics,business, military, religion, media, culture, entertainment.
20% of American women report having been sexually assaulted or raped.
25% of American women are physically/sexually attack by their current or former domestic partners.
85% of U.S. counties do not have abortion services.
Pulled these from a Harper's article.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Babies Belong in Politics
Motherhood is constantly cited as one of the myriad of ways that women are hindering their own professional progress. I'm really pleased that European Parliament member Licia Ronzulli is debunking that myth. She was not politically motivated to bring her daughter to work, but it became clear, with all of the attention she attracted that doing so was a tremendous act of rebellion. Women, specifically mothers, must often hide their motherhood at work to either be taken seriously, fit into a male-centric culture, and/or to retain pre-baby levels of responsibility and authority.
Looks like Ronzulli has absolutely no scruples about reminding the European Parliament about why they are convening together. Her baby is a powerful reminder of the future. I wonder what kinds of social policies would be more likely passed with the added presence of babies in the room?
While it is important to recognize that men too care about their families and children, traditional gender roles preclude men from having to be the constant care-takers of their children. Men less often have to face the guilt and social stigma that women face for going to work when they have small children. After all, mommy wars are real. Women often face social criticism, stigma, and even crippling internal guilt when they choose to work. More importantly, many women do not have the economic choice to stay home with the baby. Creating baby-friendly work environments and encouraging both men and women to cultivate family-open cultures in the work place will help facilitate more inviting workplaces for women. Frankly, I think it has the potential of helping us all connect to the deeper reasons of why we do work in the world.
Looks like Ronzulli has absolutely no scruples about reminding the European Parliament about why they are convening together. Her baby is a powerful reminder of the future. I wonder what kinds of social policies would be more likely passed with the added presence of babies in the room?
and:
 |
| Source |
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
How to Attract Women: A Systems Approach
Generalizing the Forrest While Looking at the Trees
Lately, I've been reading a lot of articles that go something like this:
"But we asked women to join the club and women still didn't join the club. Our conclusion? Women don't want to be in the club."
I'm using metaphor here. The "club" can stand for anything in this case but at Secretariain't, the club is business. The problem with this conclusion is that it is too narrow. It does not get to the root cause of gender imbalance in business. It does not ask "why?" Companies want more women and believe that women in their executive ranks is a good thing. They make promises and goals to increase these numbers and yet, continuously fall short of them. If companies want to further a constructive dialogue about achieving gender balance in the business world they will have to utilize a systems approach to understanding the lack of balance. When you do, it becomes clear that women "not wanting to join the club" is actually a symptom of a larger issue and not the root reason for the imbalance.
Systems thinking is challenging because it is complex. Humans tend to oversimplify, which causes us to lose site of the root causes for the huge systemic problems we want to solve (the complexity of climate change is a good example of this). The result is poorly designed ineffective solutions or no solution at all. The same thing happens when it comes to solving women's issues. Even calling them "women's issues" is oversimplifying, since limitations on women also create limitations for their families, which include men and sons. When you expand your gaze from families, you see that limitations for families create limitations in society. "Women's issues" further oversimplifies because it does not adequately express or capture the wide spectrum of impact that gender discrimination has when accounting for experiential differences due to race, class, sexual orientation, age...the list goes on.
What's the real problem?
One story I heard recently was about a tech start-up that tried to hire two women who declined because they didn't want to take on the risk. In that individual instance, the women very well could have been risk averse for various personal reasons, yet "risk aversion," in this context, was offered as an explanation for why there are few women in the tech-sector. But this conclusion oversimplifies and plays into an age-old stereotype that women are too soft for business or too risk averse. In reality there really are no differences between male and female entrepreneurs. Plenty of men turn down start-up job offers every day because they don't see the venture being profitable and consider it too risky. Yet in this example, all women were generalized when two turned down the offer. I wonder why the founder of this start-up chose to generalize all women instead of considering the declined offer as a reflection on the strength of his business model?
These kinds of generalizations about women happen all the time in the business world. But, they don't really explain what the problem is and so they don't help male leaders to attract female business partners. In this instance, risk aversion could have been fueled by many things that are not related to what has been ascribed as innate qualities of gender, but the systemic impact of gender discrimination:
Lately, I've been reading a lot of articles that go something like this:
"But we asked women to join the club and women still didn't join the club. Our conclusion? Women don't want to be in the club."
I'm using metaphor here. The "club" can stand for anything in this case but at Secretariain't, the club is business. The problem with this conclusion is that it is too narrow. It does not get to the root cause of gender imbalance in business. It does not ask "why?" Companies want more women and believe that women in their executive ranks is a good thing. They make promises and goals to increase these numbers and yet, continuously fall short of them. If companies want to further a constructive dialogue about achieving gender balance in the business world they will have to utilize a systems approach to understanding the lack of balance. When you do, it becomes clear that women "not wanting to join the club" is actually a symptom of a larger issue and not the root reason for the imbalance.
Systems thinking is challenging because it is complex. Humans tend to oversimplify, which causes us to lose site of the root causes for the huge systemic problems we want to solve (the complexity of climate change is a good example of this). The result is poorly designed ineffective solutions or no solution at all. The same thing happens when it comes to solving women's issues. Even calling them "women's issues" is oversimplifying, since limitations on women also create limitations for their families, which include men and sons. When you expand your gaze from families, you see that limitations for families create limitations in society. "Women's issues" further oversimplifies because it does not adequately express or capture the wide spectrum of impact that gender discrimination has when accounting for experiential differences due to race, class, sexual orientation, age...the list goes on.
What's the real problem?
One story I heard recently was about a tech start-up that tried to hire two women who declined because they didn't want to take on the risk. In that individual instance, the women very well could have been risk averse for various personal reasons, yet "risk aversion," in this context, was offered as an explanation for why there are few women in the tech-sector. But this conclusion oversimplifies and plays into an age-old stereotype that women are too soft for business or too risk averse. In reality there really are no differences between male and female entrepreneurs. Plenty of men turn down start-up job offers every day because they don't see the venture being profitable and consider it too risky. Yet in this example, all women were generalized when two turned down the offer. I wonder why the founder of this start-up chose to generalize all women instead of considering the declined offer as a reflection on the strength of his business model?
These kinds of generalizations about women happen all the time in the business world. But, they don't really explain what the problem is and so they don't help male leaders to attract female business partners. In this instance, risk aversion could have been fueled by many things that are not related to what has been ascribed as innate qualities of gender, but the systemic impact of gender discrimination:
- women on average make less than men in their careers and cannot afford to take the same kinds of financial risks
- women take time out of the workforce to care for children and parents, which impacts their retirement savings, so a failed venture could have worse financial consequences for a woman
- tech start-ups tend to be all-male and those all-male environments can feel unwelcoming and non-inclusive to women
 |
| Source |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)