Posts Tagged ‘media’
Numbers Game
Read the research—the numbers tell the whole story.
A lot of ink has been spilled over a recent New York Times article which argued that childless women had careers that tracked men’s. “Women do almost as well as men today, as long as they don’t have children,” a Columbia University professor told the Times.
The article hinged on a recent study of M.B.A. grads from the University of Chicago that probed “women’s underperformance in the corporate and financial sectors.” But what did this report really show?
The authors found a vast wage gap exists between women and men. According to the report, women earn $115,000 on average at graduation and $250,000 nine years out, while men earn $130,000 and $400,000, respectively. “Mean earnings by sex are comparable directly following M.B.A. receipt,” they wrote, “but they soon diverge.”
How’s that for an understatement? Their “comparable” earnings are a $15,000 difference. I’m not sure about you, but I’d be pretty ticked at making $15k less just because I’m a woman.
Was this dramatic finding headline news? Nope.
Instead, media coverage fixated on a detail buried deep into the report. On page 243, the authors’ state:
“Limiting the sample further to women without children, and with no career interruptions by 10 years out, makes the career paths of the women in the sample similar to those of men. For that comparison, the gender earning gap starts out slightly larger than for all women, but grows less rapidly.”
This suggests that for women without children, there’s still a gap at the start of their career after business school, and the gap still grows over time—albeit less quickly than it does for women with kids or who have taken time off.
Not really breaking news, is it? Catalyst actually reached a similar conclusion in Pipeline’s Broken Promise, which found that even among women and men without children, women still started behind men and the gap still grew over time.
The original New York Times article is accurate in saying there’s a bigger penalty for women who have kids and/or take time off (which isn’t surprising), but was misleading in suggesting to the reader that women without kids will face a level playing field with equal pay. The numbers are clear: Women are paid less than their male colleagues. They don’t call it a gender wage gap for nothing.
C This
Strike up the band! ForbesWoman called Catalyzing “an insightful blog,” and named it and the Catalyst website to its roster of the top 100 websites for women. Toronto hosted an inaugural G(irls) 20 Summit. Australia swore in its first female Prime Minister. Good news galore in this edition, but alas that isn’t the whole story. Read on for the not-so-good developments!
———————————
Best of the Best
We’re five months old and going strong. ForbesWoman rounded up the best 100 websites for working women, and Catalyzing and the Catalyst website made the cut. “We looked for compelling and decidedly female-oriented content, outstanding design, an active community and frequent updates,” wrote ForbesWoman. A big thank you to the magazine and to readers like you!
READ: “Top 100 Websites for Women,” by Meghan Casserly and Jenna Goudreau, ForbesWoman, 6/23/10
Diversity Down Under
Australia swore in its first female Prime Minister, but gender equality still has a long way to go. “Just look at the upper echelons of business, the military, the churches and the federal public service, and you will see that women are as rare in these arenas as female prime ministers once were,” writes Anne Summers. “Now this barrier is broken, perhaps it is time to address the others.”
READ: “Historic Moment, but Barriers Remain for Half the Population,” by Anne Summers, The Age, 6/25/10
Girls Speak Up
Twenty-one girls representing each of the G20 nations and one from the African Union gathered in Toronto to discuss ways to fulfill United Nations goals that impact women and girls. “I would ask the leaders of the G20 nations to reduce the arms expenditures and instead use it for education,” said Aiki Segawa, the representative from Japan. Will the G20 leaders listen?
READ: “Girls Talk–Are G20 Leaders Listening?” by Craig and Marc Kielburger, Toronto Star, 6/21/10
Work and Life
Is it really about balance? For Judith Timson, the issue is the “separation” between work and the rest of life. “And here,” she writes, “no matter what stage we’re at, we’re failing.”
READ: “Work-life Balance? Can that Cliché,” by Judith Timson, Globe and Mail, 6/17/10
Tuning Out Women
According to American University’s Women & Politics Institute, female lawmakers have comprised 13.5% of the Sunday news show appearances by representatives and senators in 2010. Does the overrepresentation of men on the shows contribute to a tendency to “think-leader-think-male”?
READ: “Women Scarce on Sunday Shows,” by Erika Lovley, Politico, 6/13/10
Bridging the Gap
Long live the gender pay gap! “When the Equal Pay Act passed, women earned, on average, 60 cents for every dollar earned by men,” writes Linda Meric, Executive Director of 9to5 National Association of Working Women. “In the 47 years that have passed, the pay gap has closed by less than less than 20 cents.”
Think Bigger Than Firsts
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.
Think We Did It? Think Again
Recent headlines such as “Schools Close the Gender Gap,” “Women Now a Majority in American Workplaces” and “We Did It!” give the impression that women have finally hit parity with men. Change has come. Women and men are equal. Hurray!
Not so fast.
Not only is the glass ceiling firmly in place— it is a lot lower than we think. As Catalyst’s Pipeline’s Broken Promise details, a woman’s first job largely seals her fate in the business world. Female MBA grads start at lower positions than men, get fewer promotions, and are paid less. Not surprisingly, they are also less satisfied with their careers.
The report surveyed 4,143 women and men who earned their MBA degrees between 1996 and 2007 at 26 leading business schools in Asia, Canada, Europe, and the United States. The results accounted for, among other factors, industry, global region, prior experience, career aspirations, time elapsed since earning the MBA and parenthood status. All these being equal, the survey found:
- Men on average began their careers in jobs that were at higher levels than those for women.
- Women were paid on average $4,600 less than men in their first post-MBA job.
- Men’s salary growth outpaced that of women, regardless of differences in starting salary.
- Even if both women and men started at the entry level, men progressed more quickly than women.
- Women were treated differently than men by their first managers— 25% of women versus 16% of men cited a “difficult manager” as the reason for quitting their first job out of business school.
- Men reported greater career satisfaction than women— 37% of men said they were “very satisfied” with their overall advancement versus 30% of women.
What does this mean for you and your company?
It’s 2010: What Do You See?
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?
