The Downtown Women's Club blog

Tuesday Rant: If you want your privacy, then respect the privacy of others

Not sure why, but I seem to like to rant on Tuesdays. 

Today I find the whole "Elena Kagan played softball and is single, childless, short-haired and once had an issue with the military recruiting on Harvard's campus, so she must be gay" discussion bizarre.  Actually, this pretty much described me in my 20s - although I didn't have short hair because I was too broke to afford frequent haircuts.  But, what's more bizarre is that people think that this matters with regard to job performance.  It's not like she's one of these politicians out having affairs with staffers or lying about their military record - that does reflect upon someone's character.

Kagan's not the only one being questioned recently as to whether being gay could affect job performance. Newsweek raised the question of whether a gay man can act "straight" on Broadway in their review of Promises Promises with Sean Hayes and Kristin Chenoweth.  Ahem ... anyone been watching gay by day, notorious TV sitcom womanizer by night, Neil Patrick Harris?  (Who happens to be guesting on Glee tonight ... gratuitous picture included for the NPH fans). 

To top it off, I find it a bit surreal that in a week where people are in a rage about their privacy being violated on Facebook and social media, that we are perfectly comfortable dissecting other people's private lives in the mainstream media.

Speculation about private lives and how they might affect future job performance is just that ... speculation.  But, it's speculation that is damaging not only to Elena Kagan or gay actors, it's damaging to others as it reinforces stereotypes that should have been long dead by now.  If it's okay to question whether sexual preferences may affect someone's job performance, how far fetched is it for others to say that someone's ethnic or religious background might affect their job performance? Or even their gender? 

I worry that delving into people's private lives is going to affect women much more harshly than men.  Of note, retired Justice Souter (the sixth bachelor appointed to the Supreme Court) was even named one of Washington's 10 most eligible bachelors according to Wikipedia, and he has never been questioned about his sexual interests or his choice of haircut.  Although, maybe he never played softball?

Gender inequity is everyone's problem

There's an interesting debate over at the Harvard Business Review as to why there are not more women leaders.  Barbara Kellerman writes in The Abiding Tyranny of the Male Leadership Model about how women and men need to "own" the issue of inequity in gender and leadership in the US.

I'm sick of hearing how far we've come. I'm sick of hearing how much better situated we are now than before. I'm sick of hearing how women are closing the gaps (in health outcomes, educational attainment, and economic participation), how in some cases women are superseding men, and how in the present more than in the past women are progressing to positions of middle and upper management. Above all I'm sick of hearing about the pipeline, about the path to the top supposedly thick with women who will, in the fullness of time, be rewarded for their patience and virtue
.
The fact is that so far as leadership is concerned women in nearly every realm are nearly nowhere — hardly any better off than they were a generation ago. The following figures, from the American experience, speak for themselves.

• 3% of Fortune 500 companies are headed by women (2009).
• 6 % of the 100 top tech companies are headed by women (2010).
• 15 % of members of Fortune 500 boards are women (2009).
• 16.8% of members of the U. S. Congress are women (2010).
• 14.5% of 249 mayors of U. S. cities with populations over 100,000 are women (2010).
• 21% of nonprofits with budgets greater than $25 million are headed by women (2010).
• 5% of generals in the U.S. Army are women (2008).
• 8% of admirals in the U. S. Navy are women (2009).
• 7% of tenured engineering faculty in four-year institutions are women (2010).
• 19 % of senior faculty at the Harvard Business School are women (2009-10).
• All ten Princeton University eating-club presidents are men (2010).

Her prescription:

Women and men must own the problem. They must acknowledge, openly, that the paucity of women leaders is equity denied. They must admit, openly, that equity denied is expensive — socially, politically, and economically. They must speak to the issue loudly and publicly and often. They must address it consciously and with deliberate forethought. They must stop touting "gains" so long as these gains remain meager.

Click here to read the full article.

But don't skip the comments. While there are some good insights and great questions about why this may be (and I, personally, don't absolve women from being part of their own problem), there are also lots of doozies in there.  Like the age old complaints "women just don't want it," and, "stop whining and wanting something for nothing."  Also, my favorite, "it would be nice for women to lead, but not at the sacrifice of children."

In light of what's going on in Ohio - where an elected female leader is being told she should go back to the kitchen - I'm siding with Kellerman on this one - it's everyone's problem. 

Diane K. Danielson is the founder of the Downtown Women's Club business network and the VP of business development for Convengine, a social media consulting firm.

***********************

I've said it before and I'll say it again ... we need more women to run for political office.  If you are considering running for office, or want to help someone who is running, learn more about how social media can play an important role on our DWC+ Teleclass on May 6th: Social Media & Politics.  Click here for more info.

Sexism and Politics: Flash Backwards

A few days ago, I woke up and scanned the news on my iPhone while still cozy in bed, enjoying the fact that I live in the year 2010 and don't have to go outside to get a newspaper.  But, then an article caught my eye and I thought:  Whoa, did I just pull a Michael J. Fox and wake up back in Hill Valley in 1955?

Fortunately, it wasn't me going flash backwards, but the GOP in Medina County, Ohio.  How else could one explain the flier that they sent around that read "Let's take [Rep.] Betty Sutton out of the House and send her back to the kitchen."  The head of the Medina County GOP, Bill Heck, has since claimed that "It wasn't intended to be sexist."  Well, McFly ... I'd explain it it to you, but I thought Rep. Sutton did a good job herself.

The following is from Rep. Sutton's reply on the Huffington Post.

Last week a talented, young woman full of promise came to me with a flier her family received in the mail from the Republican Party. As she handed me the mailer, with a sense of disappointment and hurt, she pointed to a line in the flier that read, 'Let's take Betty Sutton out of the House and send her back to the kitchen.'

The young woman, her heart heavy, then said, "I can't believe that this is how some people value women. And, even if they do, I can't believe that they would feel comfortable promoting it in a flier like this." And then, this bright, capable woman, who I know to be ready and able to do great things for our community and nation, said this: "I don't know why I even went to college; if this is how people treat you, what's the point?"

Click here to continue reading.

Ouch. This is the message young women are getting? At this rate, we'll never close the political and business gender gap.

Now, before people claim I'm just anti-GOP, I guarantee you that if a liberal had said this about Palin or Bachmann, I'd have the same reaction.  While I have serious questions about Palin's capabilities as a legislator, I have denounced those who claimed she was not capable of governing due to her being a parent.  No one ever uses that standard with male politicians.  But, women in politics (and business) have a whole different set of standards to deal with during campaigns. 

For more on the unique standards for female politicians (and businesswomen), see my recent book review of Notes from the Cracked Ceiling: Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin and What Will It Take for a Woman to Win on Entrepreneur's Daily Dose blog.

Suffice it to say, the following lines keep running through my head today (Just substitute Bill Heck and Betty Sutton for George and Lorraine):

George McFly: Lorraine, my density has bought me to you.
Lorraine Baines: What?
George McFly: Oh, what I meant to say was...
Lorraine Baines: Wait a minute, don't I know you from somewhere?
George McFly: Yes. Yes. I'm George, George McFly. I'm your density. I mean... your destiny.

Yes, Bill Heck, you are our density, but I really, really hope you are not our destiny.

Diane K. Danielson is the founder of the Downtown Women's Club business network and the VP of business development for Convengine, a social media consulting firm.

***********************

We need more women to run for political office.  If you are considering running for office, or want to help someone who is running, learn more about how social media can play an important role on our DWC+ Teleclass on May 6th: Social Media & Politics.  Click here for more info.

Speak up or others will speak for you

I was buried yesterday doing some volunteer work for a local politician.  Why take the time out of an already busy schedule?  Because if I don't speak up, I can't sit back and expect others to do it for me.  Add to that, I generally like people who work on campaigns - they're energized, opinionated and driven. 

Because I was swamped I didn't follow the breaking news of Maria Shriver's A Woman's Nation report.  I finally got a chance to look at it today.  Not to take anything away from the groundbreaking event and it's sheer scope, but I did kind of feel like I was reading a special edition of Redbook or Family Circle magazine.  Most of the focus (and I confess to not getting through all of it) was on traditional families (Male/female/2.5 kids).  This may be why I tuned out after a while.

Sure, as a remarried mom with a blended family I appreciated the "family" focus to some extent, but I've only recently joined this "traditional" club.  I far more relate to being single, and noted that there wasn't much in the report for the majority of my friends: single without kids, single parents, empty nesters, DINKs (double-income no kids), same-sex partnerships, etc.  It sort of felt like a large part of the population was missing from the conversation which focused on working moms and dads. 

So far, the most vocal about this has been Melanie Notkin, Founder, SavvyAuntie.com.  In an Editor's Letter on her site, she writes how PANK's (Professional Aunts No Kids) were left out of the conversation.

I agree that drastic changes need to be made as women account for 50% of the US workforce. And I applaud Maria Shriver, the Center for American Progress, and NBCU - the media platform that will be sharing the findings with the nation this week - for finally bringing to light the new face of the American economy.

And I agree that the American family has changed and support all efforts that enable moms and dads to work and raise their children without having to sacrifice as much as they do today.

But when speaking of the nation's women and the economy, women without children who love, nurture and support the children in their lives should be part of the conversation. The women who have discretionary income and time that they spend in our economy should have a voice.

Otherwise, we really haven't come a long way, have we?

I'd go one further - women without children, even those who can't stand children and prefer dogs, cats or houseplants should have a voice.

Kudos for Maria Shriver for starting the conversation in a big way, and also to Melanie for speaking up for a segment of the population that was left out.

What do you think?  Have you read the report?  Let us know!  It's your chance to speak up before someone else speaks for you.

Diane K. Danielson, founder, DowntownWomensClub.com and author The Downtown Women's Club Beginner's Guide to Facebook.

p.s. My favorite part of the report is that it brought up conversations about the ridiculous school schedule and how it was created at the turn of the century to have the kids help in the fields. This was a topic we covered back in 2007 when we wrote about aligning school days with work. 

What Steps to Take Now to Improve a Company's Boardroom

While we are still in the midst of proxy season (i.e. able to vote for directors and rule changes as stockholders) I thought I would bring to your attention the eight-step action plan Toni Wolfman, tireless advocate for getting more women on corporate boards, suggested in a recent article in Women's Business. "The action plan was formulated by the InterOrganization Network (ION), a national consortium of executive women’s organizations dedicated to advancing women to corporate boards and is designed for companies that want to make sure that their boardrooms are as strong as possible. "

1. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current board through a comprehensive and rigorous self-assessment process within the framework of the company’s strategic plan and its evolving marketplace.

2. Develop a forward-looking succession plan that addresses the gaps that are important to fill in the short term, as well as likely emerging needs. The plan should reflect attention to diversity, including gender, race, background, international experience, industry and functional skill sets.

3. Be open to change and willing to replace some longtime directors to make room for new talent.

4. Be flexible and actively seek out qualified candidates whose skills and experiences relate to the company’s strategic needs, going beyond current colleagues and acquaintances to identify them.

5. Build a pipeline of future directors by developing relationships with potential candidates who are women and minorities, as well as with individuals and organizations that can identify nontraditional candidates who meet the company’s needs.

6. In board searches, insist that the nominating committee interview and seriously consider women candidates and that executive search firms include several women in their slates. Create a short list of all female candidates, especially if the board has no women directors.

7. Reject “tokenism.” Make sure that the board includes a critical mass of women and minority directors.

8. Reach out to local and national organizations that promote board diversity and can provide access to accomplished women with relevant experience in every sector of the global economy.

As Toni states as she concludes the article, now is a tremendous time to take action to improve corporate boardrooms.

What are you doing to make it happen? If you are the CEO of a company and/or sit on a corporate board I suggest you print the article and distribute it to every director particularly the chairperson and members of the nominating committee.  As Gandhi said "We must be the change we want to see in the world".

Susan C. Hammond

www.schammond.com

Is it time for Citi to elect more women directors?

Today Citigroup, headquartered in NY City announced four new nominees for their board of directors.  And yes, you guessed it, all men.  Last week ION (InterOrganization Network), the organization that focuses on putting more women on boards, released its 5th Annual Status Report of Women Directors and Executive Officers.  The statistics on the how many women serve as directors and executive officers of public companies continue to show only small gains. 

While Citi currently boasts two women directors, Anne Mulcahy, CEO of Xerox and Judith Rodin, President of the Rockefeller Foundation, they haven't apparently read the Catalyst reports that show companies with more women and minorities on their boards perform better in the marketplace.

My takeaway of this current slate of nominees is that it’s business as usual.  Which leads me to ask:

• Would the meltdown of the financial services sector and the markets have happened if more women were serving on the boards of these former financial services giants? 
  

• Would the risky investment behavior have prevailed if more women were serving in the executive suites?

• Would the danger signals have been noted earlier had there been more women directors and officers?

What’s your take? 

P.S. Soon you will be receiving your annual reports if you own stock in a public company.  Check the list of board members and executive officers.  If there are no women or too few, visit the ION website for the steps you can take to make your voice heard about nominating more women.