The Downtown Women's Club womensDISH blog

Why do women miss out on the best networking opportunity around?

Last night I had the great pleasure of watching a candidate I support win a primary for a US Senate seat.  The only damper on the evening?  The lack of 30 and 40-something businesswomen in attendance both last night, during the campaign, and at the voting booths.  Now, this is a bipartisan post, but I will be using a Democratic example, and you'll see why. 

The candidate I’ve been working for (as a member of their online rapid response team) is Martha Coakley, who is running for Ted Kennedy’s vacant Senate seat.  If she wins the special election on Jan. 19th, 2010, she will be the first female Senator from Massachusetts.  She would also be the 18th female Senator in Congress.  Coakley has opposed the Stupak amendment and will likely continue to be an advocate for women and has been recognized by the White House for her work as an AG taking on the financial industry. 

Now, before my Republican friends jump down my throat, I only included those details to show that if ever there was a candidate likely to attract the female demographic, she ranks up there.  Yet, where were the women?  There were Boomer women there (although in remarkably lower numbers than I would have thought), along with their young 20-something daughters.  In contrast, I think our male colleagues were out in equal or more numbers in all age groups.   From what I could see of the other candidates' events (on the large TV broadcast they had playing), they seemed to have similar demographics.  

So, here’s my question, why the heck are women missing out on the great networking opportunities provided by political campaigns?

I'm really not sure why my peers are all sitting home and not participating, but here are some thoughts I had on why women need to step it up (and I don’t care which party, or which candidate).

• Politics is serious business.  No one will ever take women seriously in business if they don’t have a presence in this business arena. Just look at a list of campaign donors:

• Here’s a link to the Massachusetts donations for the current Special Election:  http://www.opensecrets.org/races/contrib.php?cycle=2010&id=MAS1.  See any of the companies that are in your target market?

• And for national elections, there is Fundrace (http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/), where you can look up what the higher ups in your company, potential clients, or your competitors are doing.

• There are no barriers to entry.   Political campaigns require money.  Politicians don’t care who gives them money.  A $250, $500 or $1,000 check pretty much gets you VIP status and access to any event(s) you want, which means access to others who have similar resources.  Women often complain that they are still not invited to “VIP events”.  Well, VIP events cost money, and if you can write that check, every door will be open to you.  How can you afford it?  Refrain from writing lots of little checks to various non-profits/campaigns and instead write one single check to a single organization/campaign.

• Campaign events make networking easy.  Everyone involved in a campaign has a common goal/interest.  You can read up on the issues beforehand. And the nice part is that you already know it’s perfectly acceptable to talk about politics.  In just a few minutes last night I met a number of attorneys, many of whom were partners in their law firms, the owners of a telecommunications company, the president of the National Women's Political Caucus, the director of the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus, one of our Downtown Women's Club members, and I could go on.

• It’s easy to play a role.  Here’s the different things you can do:

• Write a check.  Find out what you need to donate to get invited to an event.  Campaigns run events where the ticket price can vary from $50-$1,000, I’m sure you can find one in your budget.
• Fundraise. You probably do this for non-profits, why not try it for a political candidate in a race that you feel strongly about.  If you bring in $500, $1,000 or $5,000, you personally don’t have to write as big a check to get VIP status.
• Volunteer your time or skills.  Whether it’s making calls from a phone bank, holding a sign for a morning or joining a campaign’s online tweeting/blogging team, you get to meet the other volunteers.  And, these are all free networking opportunities.

• Vote.  It’s not just running for office, making donations, or volunteering time to the campaign.  It’s also about voting.  Wouldn’t it be nice if a campaign cared about what businesswomen think as opposed to “soccer moms” and “security moms”?  I certainly don’t fit in either of the two latter categories.  But, what would have happened if businesswomen had stormed the polls in this single Massachusetts primary election (for either or both parties)?   I guarantee you in the next presidential election, the politicians and pundits would be caring about what businesswomen think.

The bottom line for businesswomen is:  if we don’t show up on the ballots, in the campaigns, or at the polls, then no one is ever going to care about what we think or take us seriously.

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?).

Does the stimulus help women business owners?

The following is the Center for Women's Business Research's response to the stimulus package.

WaPo women still tossing their gender under the bus

Thanks to @punditmom (her blog - http://punditmom1.blogspot.com/) for giving me the heads up on Twitter (yes, this is how I get my news these days!) and making me feel like I'm not crazy for thinking Sally Quinn was a bit "off" on her article this week.  Quinn, over at the Washington Post, wrote a column blaming Elizabeth Edwards for enabling John Edwards' infidelities. Her theory - she knew about it and let him run.   

OK, technically Quinn was trying to make a point that political wives need to stop accepting infidelity as part of the game plan - and I wholeheartedly agree with that.  But, I have to disagree with her following statements:

The problem is, SHE LET HIM DO IT. She not only agreed to his run for the presidency, she encouraged him to do it, knowing the toll it would take on the family given her health problems. But, worse, she let him do it knowing that he had had an affair. What on earth was she thinking? ...

This simply can't go on. These women, these political spouses have to stop enabling their husbands to behave like this. Because as long as they do the men will continue to cheat, lie and betray. As long as they believe there will be no consequences (and by their wives tacit support they begin to believe it), what is there to stop them?

But really, is it Elizabeth Edwards' fault her man shagged a party gal, then decided that he should run for president?  The woman has two young children and was being treated for cancer, now she's supposed to also be watchdog over her husband's dalliances and protect her children from the repercussions?  Why can't men take care of themselves?  Why can't they clean up their own messes, or better yet ... not get in them in the first place?  Is it really so hard?

Quinn's article smacks of the old days where if a man dallied outside the marriage, it was the woman's fault for not keeping him interested enough at home - a complaint that was lobbed at Silda Spitzer, and Hillary.  Yes, I hated to see those two women stand by their man (esp. at the press conferences).  But, I'm not going to say it was their fault their husbands' committed adultery, or that they were enablers.

Ironically, I'm reading an advanced copy of American Wife by Curtis Sittenfeld which is a fictionalized portrayal of Laura Bush (best book I've read in a long time), and you can see the type of indulgence male politicians are given which exacerbates their poor behavior. However, in the book, the W character is not really so much indulged by the Laura Bush character as he is by his own family ... which, if the book is anywhere near the truth, I'm actually starting to appreciate her quiet deference. 

Which brings us back to the Edwards'.  Sure there's the argument she could have left him.  But, let me repeat:  she has two young children and was recovering from cancer.  The interesting part now is that I agree with the commenter to Quinn's column who said that Elizabeth probably knew this would all blow up in his face, meaning that she can finally put it behind her and move on to bigger and better things.

One last point.  What's up with the Washington Post?  First they run an article where Charlotte Allen explains why she thinks all women are dumb, now Quinn writes one where women are to blame for enabling their husband's infidelities ... What's up with these Washingtonian women?   

Women supporting women in politics

I try to keep my political views out of the womensDISH and the Downtown Women's Club, but felt I had to comment today because I've been accused several times in the past few months of not being supportive of women, simply because I'm not a Hillary supporter.  Huh?  What's up with that?  Does the lack of my support for a particular woman running for office negate what I've spent 10 years building (a website and career network for businesswomen)?

In response to those who think I'm not supportive of female politicians, I happen to be supporting Annette Taddeo, a friend running for Congress in Florida.  What's really cool about her is that she's a successful businesswoman, willing to put her company on hold to do this.  This is a bit of a rarity among the few women who do run for office (often they come out of public service or have married into political families).  And while she's not even from Massachusetts, I think it's important for businesswomen to be represented in Congress.  Why?  Because I'm tired of the politicians and pollsters lumping all women together under the label "soccer mom," "security mom," or whatever "mom-label" is in vogue at the moment. 

This is why it's a bit frustrating after years of being mislabeled or ignored by politicians, I now have other women (who probably didn't like the mom labels either) labeling me "not supportive of women" simply because I don't support their candidate of choice -- now in my mind ... that's just not good business.

Don't forget to vote

For those of you in Super Tuesday states, please get out there and vote.  Don't know where to vote?  For those of you in Massachuestts, check out: http://www.wheredoivotema.com. 

A special note to the single women and generation Y -- aren't you tired of pundits telling you that you're underrepresented and too busy or apathetic to vote?  This is your year to change all that.