The Downtown Women's Club womensDISH blog

World Leaders: Are You Hot or Not?

I'm sure ranking heads of state by their "hotness" factor is so wrong on so many levels, esp. when one includes the Pope, but I couldn't let the  Hottest Heads of State website go by without comment.  Not only was this fun family fodder for the holidays, but it mocks (in a good way) some of what I've been on my soapbox about for the past few months - the lack of women leaders, why women need to be in politics, and how the media needs to stop focusing on the looks/clothing attire of high-profile women business and political leaders.  More on that below.

Basically the Hottest Heads of State site was the brainchild of three people who only identify themselves as J.D., Kate and Derek and who don't claim to have been anything other than subjective, totally random and irreverent and to have completely made things up.  Nevertheless, the site provoked a lot of interest in our household and here are just some of the thoughts.

First the stuff you want to know:

The Top 5:  

• Yulia Tymoshenko Prime Minister of Ukraine
• Jens Stoltenberg Prime Minister of Norway (Pictured above - Wow ... I'd vote for him to play the next James Bond!).
• Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck King of Bhutan
• Joseph Kabila President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
• Cristina Fernández de Kirchner President of Argentina

Women make up 2 of the top 5.  Unfortunately there are only 11 women on the list of 172, once again a woeful stat (6%) and indicative of the world gender gap, a number that's sadly double the percentage of women CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. As for the hotness factor, considering the lowest ranked woman was Angela Merke, the Chancellor of Germany at #109, it seems that women leaders on the whole are hotter than their male counterparts.

President Obama came in 15th. At least that's higher than our ranking of 37 in the world for healthcare systems - which, hopefully now we'll be moving up in that ranking soon. And, if Obama poses shirtless again on this latest Hawaii trip, maybe next year he'll move up in the hottie rankings.

My parents noted a bit of ageism going on in the rankings as they opined that some of the heads of state were "total hotties" when they were younger.

My son's question, based on Kim Jong-il being ranked #172 out of 172: "Does being evil make you ugly?"  My answer was "definitely on the inside," but then we did a cross check with Parade's worst dictators - and saw a bit of a correlation - so now we have the question: Does being evil make you less hot, or does being less hot make you evil?

But, as for rating the Pope 171 out of 172, I loved one of the author's disclaimers.

Finally, after a week where I've been wondering whether the media is making things culturally bad for women because they always include irrelevant descriptions of their attire/what they wear, I like that this is an equal opportunity list -- where the 161 male leaders were being judged solely on their looks.   Perhaps I've been going about this all wrong.  Rather than encouraging the media to stop talking about the appearance of female leaders, we should encourage them to talk more the looks/attire of the men!  Maybe that's what it would take before we can get back to focusing on the issues.

The Visibility Problem for Female CEOs

Just read an interesting article about the problem of visibility and female CEOs.  The Harvard Business Review blog brought up some good points, some of which counter what I thought was conventional wisdom, i.e. that women are only asked to lead companies that are already in trouble. The authors found this not to be the case.

On the other hand, they found a trend that most female CEOs come from outside the company and that stock prices dropped after announcements of new female CEOs but not after announcing a new male CEO.  While the article didn't make a direct connection to the root cause of these issues, they did allude to the fact that the media could be playing a part in it:

Nancy McKinstry, CEO of Wolters Kluwer, a Dutch publishing and information company, recalled holding a strategy meeting in which the press in Holland wrote that she wore a suit that was the same color as the KLM flight attendants'. As she told the New York Times recently, "Here we were talking about the plans for the business and that's what they focused on."

When you add that to the recent Forbes commentary about how women need to stop dressing sexy, it makes you wonder whether the subtle bias/influence of the media might have more of an impact than one would think on our perception of leadership. 

Men Don't Promote Women Because They Dress Too Sexy?

Just finished reading this article on Forbes.com by Shaun Rein about Why Men Don't Promote Women.  The author gives women two tips to help change this.  First, ask for the promotion.  Second, stop dressing sexy.  Now, I was on board with his first tip, despite the fact that this wasn't exactly new or groundbreaking information.  But, when I got to tip #2, it was jarring:

Second, women should not use overt sexuality to get ahead. Occasional mild flirting may have its place, but to be taken seriously, focus on business. Look professional and attractive but not sexy. The same goes for men. Guys who dress too flashily likewise aren't taken seriously--except in the entertainment world.

Looks do matter in the business world, as Laura Sinberg recently wrote for Forbes. But you want to be remembered for your business ability, not for how you look in a short skirt. The latter hardly gets you taken seriously as a business executive.

Hmmm.  So that's what we've been doing wrong all these years - wearing bustiers, stilettos, and fishnet hose with our cleavage and thigh-baring outfits in hopes that will convince men to promote us.   Thanks for clearing that up Mr. Rein.  I'm not sure what goes on in China where you apparently live, or if you are confused and think Mad Men is an accurate depiction of a modern day office in the US; but I'm pretty sure that when it comes to the reasons why women don't get promotions - dressing or acting sexy is certainly not in the top two.

Yes, I will grant you that there are some employees who don't dress professionally in the office.  However, these are not generally the ones seeking promotions.  So, maybe there might be some statistics there that support your theory that women who act sexy don't get promotions, but are those individuals likely to be reading Forbes?

  

The Evolving Manager Stereotype: Do More Women Managers Make For Less Stereotypes?

A study in an upcoming issue of Psychology of Women Quarterly (PWQ) looks at how men and women leaders are evaluated differently based on the the gender-typing of the industry in which they work.  The results show that expectations are higher for team performance when led by a someone of the same gender as the gender typing of that industry.  However, the expectations for the leader do not change regardless of gender in relation to the industry.

From these results, the journal implies that as more women enter leadership roles, stereotypes will fail.  The press release asserts:

as more women move into management positions within a handful of industries, these industries are becoming more gender-neutral and stereotypes of leaders as men may be changing. . . The study shows that as more women assume leadership roles in the workforce, the management stereotype will in turn evolve, resulting in changes in the relative expectations for performance by men and women in management positions. The notion that male leaders will outperform women leaders is no longer applicable in all situations since this is largely linked to the current gender typing environment at a given firm.

But is it a stretch to say that more women managers in putatively female based careers such as teaching or nursing makes those professions gender neutral?  Wouldn't gender neutrality result from the addition of male leaders in those fields? 

Perhaps the more appropriate conclusion is that as the definition of gender typed industries expand, more women will be accepted as leaders. What do you think?

Beating the boys - filly style

It was another tough week for women, we (and our daughters) have been once again put in the position of sacrificing our rights for the good of others. But, I'm not going to write about that - other than to say that if we had more women represented on both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate, we might not be having these debates, or making these sacrifices that future generations are going to have to undo. 

Instead, I'd like to talk about Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra.

Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra are two race horses (fillies).  Fillies are female horses that are too young to be called mares. Rachel Alexandra won the Preakness Stakes in 2009, making her only the 11th filly to do so in over 100 years of racing.  Just last weekend Zenyatta became the first filly/mare to win the Breeder's Cup in 25 years.  Both fillies are in the running to be Horse of the Year.

Now I had to do a bit of research on this story as I'm not up on my horse racing lore.  After all, my first reaction when my dad said "the Filly won" last weekend, was to wonder if he missed the final game of the World Series.  But, then I became intrigued as to why this was such big news.  I hadn't realized that the winner's circle in horseracing was mostly an old boy's club.  And, here were some of the reasons I found explaining why fillies don't make good race horses:

• Fillies are naturally slower than the boys.
• Fillies get intimidated racing against the boys
• There isn't a pipeline of fillies as less fillies are born in every generation.

Well, now we have two fillies up for Horse of the Year.  Guess I'm not buying those arguments anymore on the horse track, in politics, or in the office.

Fun Fact:  Zenyatta was named after The Police Album, Zenyatta Mondatta (Zenyatta's owner Jerry Moss was the co-founder of A&M Records and helped launch the band, The Police). For more on Zenyatta's victory, click here.

As the Wage Gap Widens: Women Need to Ask for More Money by Guest Blogger Liz O'Donnell

This week's guest blogging piece by Liz O'Donnell couldn't be more timely.  We've been discussing the Global Gender Gap a bit this past week on the womensDISH.

New data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Committee on Pay Equity shows that the gender wage gap has widened. Women now earn .77 cents, on average, for every dollar a man earns. Last year’s data had women earning .78 cents for every dollar a man earned. This news is disconcerting on its own. When you couple it with the fact that women have surpassed men on the national payroll, it is even more disturbing. As more women take on the role of primary breadwinner, families will be supported on less money and there will be less cash flowing back into the economy.

Nobody wins in this scenario, which is why legislation, like the Paycheck Fairness act is critical. The Paycheck Fairness Act will expand damages under the Equal Pay Act and prohibit employers from punishing employees for sharing salary information with their coworkers. This bill was passed by the House in January but has seen little activity since.

While we wait for the lawmakers to take action, women should do their utmost to negotiate fair starting salaries and raises. When women are offered lower starting salaries than their male counterparts, it can handicap their earning potential for the rest of their careers. In fact, it is estimated women lose $434,000 in wages over the course of their lifetime. That's why negotiating the right starting salary is key.

Lee Caraher, president of San Francisco public relations and marketing firm, Double-Forte advises women to walk away from the wrong offer. "Find out the compensation in your area, know what your bottom is and be prepared to walk away. If the offer is on the low-end, work in a six month salary review based on performance with a concept of dollar amount not percentage. You'll get to your number faster with dollar increases than with percentage increases."

Negotiating raises can be trickier in today's economy. Says Caraher, "Today it is very important to know whether the workplace has frozen salaries, and for how long." She also tells women to find out if a company has rolled back any salary reductions. "You need to understand the context of what you’re asking for."

After you've researched the company and the market, examine your own assets. Be crystal clear about why you deserve what you are asking for and then put the request in writing. Finally, the most important thing women can do is to simply ask for what they want. Too many women hope their bosses will notice their efforts and offer them a raise. That just doesn't happen, especially during a recession. Men are much more likely than women to ask for a raise or refuse a first offer.

Liz O'Donnell writes about women, work, family and fashion. Read more from Liz at www.helloladies.com and www.theglasshammer.com.

Disturbing trends for women in the US and what you can do about them

A few months ago everyone was trying to explain why women, who have more choices today than ever, are not as happy.  I don't know the answer to that, but within the past week there have been a few news items that show that all is not swell in the realm of gender parity in the United States.

First, there was the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report showing that the US slipped from 27th in the world to 31st. That's not the direction I would like our country to be going.  On the bright side, at least we're not Italy (#72).

A recent study from The Boston Club in Massachusetts likewise reported a decline in women executives at public companies. Among the key findings:

• The number and the percentage of women executive officers in the 100 largest Massachusetts public companies are at their lowest points since the Census began in 2003. In 2009 only 8.6% of all executive officers in these companies are women.
• The number of companies with no women executive officers reached a record high (56) since the Census began in 2003. This is an increase from 47 companies just two years ago.
• The percentage of women holding board positions in the 100 largest public companies in Massachusetts remains static, hovering between 11.0% and 11.5%; the total number of seats filled by women directors has ranged between 92 and 96.
• Thirty-eight (38.0%) of the Census companies continue to have no women on their boards of directors.

Then we had a very interesting article called The Mismeasure of Woman in the NYTimes by Joanne Lipman detailing how women fought for more equality in business, but at the same time have culturally lost respect.

Underscoring this last point is a recent study by the Parents Television Council about the increase in violence against women on TV.  Here are some of the major findings, which are extremely disturbing:

1. Incidents of violence against women and teenage girls are increasing on television at rates that far exceed the overall increases in violence on television.  Violence, irrespective of gender, on television increased only 2% from 2004 to 2009, while incidents of violence against women increased 120% during that same period.

• The most frequent type of violence against women on television was beating (29%), followed by credible threats of violence (18%), shooting (11%), rape (8%), stabbing (6%), and torture (2%).  Violence against women resulted in death 19% of the time.

• Violence towards women or the graphic consequences of violence tends overwhelmingly to be depicted (92%) rather than implied (5%) or described (3%).

2. Every network but ABC demonstrated a significant increase in the number of storylines that included violence against women between 2004 and 2009.

 

3. Although female victims were primarily of adult age, collectively, there was a 400% increase in the depiction of teen girls as victims across all networks from 2004 to 2009.

 

4. Fox stood out for using violence against women as a punch line in its comedies -- in particular Family Guy and American Dad -- trivializing the gravity of the issue of violence against women.

 

5. From 2004 to 2009 there was an 81% increase in incidences of intimate partner violence on television.

What can women do?  In all of these, we can stop playing the victim (in the TV case, literally ...). I know it sounds trite. But, here are some things within everyone's control.

1.  In the office.  Invest in your career rather than your closet. Learn networking, negotiating, sales, leadership, technology and other skills you need to put yourself on an equal or better footing than your male counterparts.  If you invest in yourself now, you'll be able to close the gender pay gap, and as a result you'll have even more money later to not only fill your closet but pursue more of your dreams. 

2.  In government.  Hopefully one of those dreams is to run for office.  One of the reasons the US has a low ranking in the gender gap is the lack of women in powerful positions in both business and politics.  While it might be hard to make sweeping changes at the top of corporate America, most positions in government are elected, and everyone gets a vote!  But first, we need more qualified women to run for higher office.  Even if running yourself is not your thing, then get behind a qualified female candidate - which means: donating your money, time and/or skills as well as making sure that you get out to vote on election day.

3. On television and at the movies.  Advertisers and movie producers are guided by the all mighty dollar.  Stop watching shows or movies that rate high on the violence to women scale (Heroes, Desperate Housewives, CSI, Prison Break). Trust me, advertisers will stop advertising and those shows will stop being made.

All of these things come down to speaking up. You have a voice; you have the tools (social networks); and you have the numbers in your favor.  Women now outnumber men on social networks.  It's time to step up and speak out online.  Perhaps our mantra should be rather than "Just say no" or "Just do it", how about "Just say it!" or "Just speak up!"  Thanks to technology, everyone has a megaphone.

Some good examples of this:

• The Motrin Moms getting an ad canceled that they found unacceptable.
• Bad online buzz for their new Pepsi AMP iphone app that was demeaning to women forced an apology from Pepsi.
• Savvy Auntie, Melanie Notkin is rallying women without kids to have a voice after realizing that Maria Shriver's A Woman's Nation report was focused almost entirely on "mothers."

Trying to change our culture is not an easy thing to do.  Right now I'm focused on changing the political landscape because that's the easiest place to start.  How?  Women need to use online tools to help get more qualified women elected.  It's easier to influence an election where everyone gets a vote, than a board of directors where women aren't even invited to the meeting. 

President Obama showed us how organizing online could influence an election.  C'mon ladies, let's get organized.  No matter which political party you belong to, we need qualified women on both sides of the aisle. We have Martha Coakley running in Massachusetts to be the 18th woman in the Senate (18 to 82 is not exactly parity or reflective of our society); yet it took a female senator Olympia Snowe to reach across the aisle and move health care reform along.

Please note that in all cases, one should vote for the most capable candidate, not just for their gender.  But, for those female candidates who speak to you and for you -- do more than just silently wish them well.  Use your keyboard to donate, volunteer and write down your support for others to see!  Once we diversify politics, the rest will soon follow.

So, it's up to you ladies, are you going to speak up or allow others to speak for you? 

Diane K. Danielson is the founder of the Downtown Women's Club and the author of The Savvy Gal's Guide to Online Networking (or What Would Jane Austen Do?).

US slipping in gender gap

Forbes.com gives us an overview of the latest global report on the gender gap. :

The World Economic Forum released its annual Global Gender Gap Index Tuesday, a comprehensive ranking of gender gaps across the world. As in past years, the Nordic countries came out on top, but the U.S. and UK slipped down the list.

...

The U.S. fell to No. 31, down from last year's No. 27 ranking and even farther from 2006's placement at No. 23. The U.S. has always done well on measures of education and economic participation, but has been held back by mediocre scores in women's health and political achievement. The U.S. gap in political empowerment is below the world's average, having closed only 14% of its gap. This year, small changes in economic opportunity--female labor force participation and wage equality fell slightly--pushed the U.S. down the list.

Click here for the full story.

Click here for the report.

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. 

DWC founder Diane Danielson on women networking their way to the boardroom

Downtown Women's Club founder and CEO Diane K. Danielson was featured in an article by The Glass Hammer on how women can network their way onto corporate boards. 

As Danielson notes, "When it comes to board positions, just like promotions in the office, it’s very rare that someone will just notice your exemplary work and pluck you out and put you on a board.  You need to not only be your own advocate, but also build a network of advocates on your behalf. I would suggest that if you were looking to get on a board, make that a networking goal.  Look at organizations that can help you do this and let people know, one, that you are interested in getting a board position; two, what type of board you would like to sit on; and three, why you are qualified to do so.”

Read the complete article at http://www.theglasshammer.com/news/2009/10/13/networking-your-way-to-the-boardroom/