Catalyst Blog

Look at the money in your wallet. Consider the name of the street you live on. Think about the great monuments in Washington, D.C., or your favorite Hollywood director.

Chances are you’re thinking about men.

Women make up 47% of the non-farm U.S. workforce and 50.7% of the U.S. population, but we are absent from the symbols, icons, images and voices that fill our world. I call it The Invisible Woman phenomenon. And it’s pervasive.

Only one of the 45 major monuments in Washington D.C. honors women, and women make up only nine out of the 100 statues in National Statuary Hall. About 7% of traffic circles in D.C. are named after women, a trend representative of street names nationwide. Only 21% of U.S. postage stamps produced from 2000 to 2009 feature an image of a woman. And all U.S. paper money features men.

The invisible woman phenomenon is not just about statues and coins. The phenomenon includes disparities across politics, media and arts. Women hold 16.8% of seats in the U.S. Congress, while less than 20 female world leaders are in power. Women hold only 3% of positions of clout in mainstream media. Less than 10% of TV sports coverage in the United States is devoted to female athletes. And of the 250 top-grossing movies produced last year, 7% were directed by women. And that’s just a small sampling.

So what’s the deal?

We have inherited a legacy of male-dominated monuments and street names, a by-product of thinking women had less to contribute to society than men. And ingrained biases persist. These shadows of the past still permeate our lives. They need to be replaced.

We tell our children that they can be anything they want to be, but The Invisible Woman phenomenon narrows their vision. Our sons need to see women out there if they are to embrace a culture where everyone is valued when they grow up. And if all our daughters see and hear is men, what does this tell them about themselves and their position in the world?

Women must be visible. Everywhere.

 Guest blog by Anne Summers, writer, journalist and author in Sydney

—————————————————

Australia’s reputation for being a “blokey,” male-dominated, female-unfriendly country is being mugged by the reality that women now occupy a significant number of the nation’s highest positions.

The Prime Minister, the Governor-General (Australia’s head of state), the deputy leader of the Opposition, 20% of the federal cabinet, 35% of the Senate, 27% of the House of Representatives and three of the seven members of the highest court are women.

In New South Wales, the most populous state, a female triumvirate reigns supreme: the state’s governor, the premier, and the mayor of its capital city, Sydney, are all women—as are 28% of its parliamentarians. Oh, and the deputy Premier is female.  A woman also heads Queensland—a state that in the past was often referred to as the “Deep North” for its aggressively masculine and, often, racist culture.

When the politically powerful get together, the photographs sometimes suggest that men are now the minority when it comes to running the country.

Yet even Australians are surprised when presented with these facts.  It’s as if we had not noticed these incremental improvements until just seven weeks ago when Julia Gillard became Australia’s first female Prime Minister.  It took all the publicity that accompanied Gillard taking over the highest job in the land to reveal the welcome news that with so many other women in important positions, maybe Australia was not such a chauvinist backwater after all.

Suddenly, as we looked around, and counted up the women, we could hold our heads high.  Even if the picture is not so rosy when it comes to business, when it comes to political leadership Australian women are finally at the podium, the table, the bench, everywhere it counts.

—————————————————

Anne Summers is a Sydney-based writer, journalist and author, whose latest books are The Lost Mother and On Luck. She writes opinion columns for the Sydney Morning Herald and The Sunday Age. Anne helped organize and facilitate the annual Serious Women’s Business conference, Australia’s pre-eminent conference for women aspiring to leadership, from 2001-2009. Her book The End of Equality was published in 2003 and her autobiography Ducks on the Pond came out in 1999.

In the early days, men dominated the Internet. Now more women than men use it for shopping and social networking. Details about the shift, plus news about the corporate leadership gap in South Africa, a new “sneaky” form of sexism, and tales of 40 women who have made strides in business, are included in this edition of C This.

———————————–

Sexism on the Sly

Sexist images permeate the media. According to author and columnist Susan Douglas, the imagery reflects “a new sneaky, subtle form of sexism that seems to accept, even embrace feminism on the surface, but is really dedicated to the undoing feminism and keeping women—especially young women—in their place.”

LISTEN: “Interview with Susan Douglas,” Progressive Radio, 7/19/10

 Women in South Africa

Listed companies in South Africa have more women on their boards than Australian, U.K., Canadian and U.S. companies, but the slow pace of change in South Africa means it could take up to 40 years for women to hit parity on boards and in executive management.

READ: “South Africa: Boardroom Gender Change ‘Minuscule,’” by Sue Blain, allAfrica.com, 7/29/10

Got to Have Grit

In Women of True Grit, authors Edie Hand and Tina Savas tell the stories of 40 women who paved the way for others. “Women today don’t have a clue that they are standing on the shoulders of women before them,” Savas told The Miami Herald. “We’ve overcome a lot of things, but we have a way to go in making strides.”

READ: “Women of Action: Leaders Open Doors for Future Generations,” by Cindy Krischer Goodman, The Miami Herald, 7/25/10

Networked Women

A new survey by comScore, a U.S.-based Internet research company, found that 76 percent of all women online visited a social networking website in May 2010 compared with 70 percent of men. Similarly, more women than men engaged in ecommerce, and many visited online gambling and adult websites. “This is clearly a long-term cultural paradigm that we’re seeing,” said comScore analyst Andrew Lipsman.

READ: “Social Networking Reaches More Women than Men, Study Shows,” by Venuri Siriwardane, The Star-Ledger, 7/29/10

Getting Out of the Ghetto

The so-called “pink ghettos”—female-dominated disciplines such as nursing and social work—come with low respect and low pay. What’s worse, men still outrank women in their leadership. “It’s time for communities of practice in these fields to set a new standard,” wrote Selena Rezvani. “To start with, organizations must adopt more transparent methods around compensation.”

READ: “Even in the Pink Ghetto, Women Fall Behind,” by Selena Rezvani, The Washington Post, 7/23/10

Guest blogger: Laura Liswood, Secretary General, Council of Women World Leaders, and Senior Advisor, Goldman Sachs

—————————————————

I love nature and its diversity. It provides many wondrous experiences—a plethora of flowers and animals, diverse landscapes, and a fabulous array of human beings.

And yet nature is tricky, too. I’m particularly focused on two parts of nature.

One part is that nature promises to happen “naturally.” And some things do. The sun rises and sets naturally, salmon swim upstream to spawn naturally, birds migrate naturally. 

For women, we have often been told that our progress will occur naturally. That is, fill the pipeline, get into the organizations, educate and provide healthy lives for girls and women, and we will prosper and succeed naturally. Turns out some things just aren’t as natural as we thought.

For example, the World Economic Forum has published a gender gap index for five years. It tracks the gaps between resources allocated, and positions in society, for men and women in four areas: health, education, economic empowerment and political participation. The good news is that gaps in healthcare and education are almost closed in many countries of the world. Many of us believed once those gaps closed, the economic and political gaps would close naturally. Nothing could be further from the truth. The gaps in the latter two categories are staggering—only 59% of the gap closed economically (and even worse in some countries) and just 17% of the gap closed politically. It turns out we will need much more affirmative approaches to close these two gaps, and that won’t be easy nor will they close naturally.

Companies are hiring women (and other diverse groups) in higher and higher numbers. But they don’t seem to be making it to the top—women are 50% of the labor force and only 3% of CEOs at Fortune 500 companies.  Nature abandoned these groups.

The second bone I have to pick with nature is the sleight of hand it has played on us in regards to diversity. There is no question that diversity of plants, animals, foods, people, or ideas is a good thing. But when organizations commit to that goal of diversity when it comes to people, they often stumble. As Catalyst points out in its extensive research, even in a simple dyad of diversity—women and men—we are baffled and burdened by stereotypes and preferences and assumptions and archetypes.

In my book, The Loudest Duck, I reflect on how the Noah’s Ark approach that many organizations take isn’t working. (“If we could only get two of each in the Ark, we’ll have our diversity.”) The workplace giraffe looks at his colleague, the zebra, and thinks, consciously or unconsciously, that this zebra is one funny looking animal and can’t possibly perform given its stubby neck, silly stripes and propensity to “talk” kind of strangely.

Our unconscious beliefs and perceptions about who others are get in the way of creating a fair and meritocratic workplace for those who are diverse. I once saw a sign that said, “We hire because they are different and fire because they are not the same.” Nature provided us with diversity. If only it had given us the tools to naturally use it.

—————————————————

Laura Liswood co-founded the Council of Women World Leaders with  Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, President of Iceland. Liswood serves as Secretary General of the Council, which is composed of women presidents, prime ministers and heads of government. In 1997, Liswood co-founded The White House Project, which is dedicated to electing a woman President of the United States. Her work with women presidents and prime ministers was the inspiration for the Project, which seeks to change the cultural message in the United States about women as leaders. In 2001, Liswood was named Managing Director, Global Leadership and Diversity, for Goldman Sachs, a global investment bank, and today is a Senior Advisor to the firm.

Back in 2005, I received a flurry of interview requests concerning Laura Bush’s selection of Cristeta Comerford as White House executive chef—a first for a woman.

Yes, it’s an achievement, I noted, but I was not surprised she got the job. I was amazed that it had taken more than 200 years for a woman to land this top culinary position!

And what’s worse, the buzz surrounding Comerford’s appointment as head chef eclipsed news about George W. Bush’s plan to replace Sandra Day O’Connor with a male Supreme Court Justice. “Out of the courtroom and into the kitchen,” I thought at the time.

Kathryn Bigelow’s best director Oscar for The Hurt Locker reminded me of the Comerford episode. Bigelow rightfully earned a spot in the annals of female firsts for her gripping film about men at war. (Another irony, perhaps?) But it’s 2010. We shouldn’t be surprised that a woman has actually won the top honor in this category. We should be shocked that it has taken 82 years for it to happen!

Let’s not get distracted by the narrative of female firsts. After all, firsts only go so far.

In 1917, Kate Gleason became the first woman president of a national bank, 50 years later Muriel Siebert became the first woman to own a seat on the New York Stock Exchange, and in 1972 Katherine Graham became the first woman CEO of a Fortune 500 company. These are all important firsts—but women are still nowhere near half of Fortune 500 CEOs, executive officers, or board members in the United States today.

The same is true for women in the film industry. The Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film produces a wealth of information about the so-called celluloid ceiling. Its latest report found that in 2009:

- Women comprised 16% of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors working on the top 250 domestic grossing films, a decline of 3 percentage points from 2001 and a figure unchanged from 2008.

- Women accounted for 7% of directors, a decrease of 2 percentage points from 2008 and a figure even with the rate in 1987.

This data reminds me that an overemphasis on the importance of “being first” can distract us from what’s really important. In the case of women and work, it can obscure the deep inequities that still exist.

Clicking through the news last night on my laptop I was struck again by the obvious. Despite the gains women have made over the past 50 years, I realized it still looks very much like a man’s world.

One need look no further than images of captains of finance testifying on Capitol Hill, senators sparring over the health care bill, world leaders at G20, front page photos from our nation’s (remaining) daily papers and the many company spokespeople and “talking heads” that fill our airwaves.

What’s wrong with these pictures? They’re mostly guys!

These powerful images reinforce the perception that men rule the world— that it’s the natural state of things. Here’s a quick test: close your eyes and picture the image of a leader? Who do you see: a male or female? For Alan Murray of The Wall Street Journal, only men come to mind. Have countless images of men in power created a self-fulfilling prophecy by making it seem normal— to both women and men— that only men should lead?

In 2010, of course, that’s no longer true. Today, women comprise close to 50% of the US labor force and control or influence over 70% of the consumer purchasing decisions in America. That includes choices about spending on cars, financial services, health care and so on. Clearly, women rule in the marketplace. So why shouldn’t they rule in companies that produce the goods and services they buy?

Frankly, pictures with no (or very few) women should strike us as just as out of step with the times as the linebacker shoulder pads worn by Melanie Griffith and Sigourney Weaver in the 80′s classic, Working Girl. Or floppy bow ties. Or floppy disks.

One time I spoke at a technology conference in Beijing where I was the only woman of 13 speakers. The majority of the audience—several hundred—were male.  I opened my speech with a famous quote from Mao’s Little Red Book, “Women hold up half the sky!” Then I asked, “What’s wrong with this picture?”

The audience laughed. But they got it. And I guess that’s the point. There are men who get it— in part, because we show them— but real progress is when they see it unprompted.

Only 15% of board seats and 3% of CEOs in Fortune 500 companies are women. And women make up only 17% of the House and Senate. Perhaps more diverse imagery online, on TV and in our nation’s newspapers could lead to more diverse workplaces, boardrooms, and even governments. After all, if you don’t see diversity— if you don’t see women included and leading, too— what do you really see?