Posts Tagged ‘ White House Project ’

Who is Elena Kagan?

May 10, 2010
By

Elena Kagan is the current Solicitor General. President Obama is expected to announce this morning that she is his pick to replace Justice John Paul Stevens who is retiring from the Supreme Court.

Here’s what we know about Elena Kagan:

-          As Solicitor General she conducts all litigation on behalf of the United States in the Supreme Court

-          She has never served as a judge

-          She was the first woman Dean of Harvard Law School

-          While at Harvard Law she banned military recruiters from campus because of the discriminatory “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy

-          Also at Harvard Law, she hired 32 tenured and tenure-track hires, but only one was a minority and only seven were women; four out of every five hires were white men

-          She worked in the Clinton administration as a domestic policy aide

-          She clerked  for  Justice Thurgood Marshall

-          She has a bachelor’s degree from Princeton, a master’s degree from Oxford and a law degree from Harvard

-          She is 50 years old and would be the youngest member of the Supreme Court.

No doubt the media will have much more to say about her in the next few weeks and we will learn more about her stance on hot button issues.

Kagan’s anticipated nomination is encouraging for those of us calling for gender diversity and a critical mass of women in leadership. President Obama is reported to have interviewed four people for this opening, two men and two women – a search that is representative of the U.S. population. If appointed, she would join two other women Justices, bringing the gender mix to thirty percent women, sixty percent men.

But a Kagan appointment would not improve diversity in other areas. The New York Times reports that if Kagan joins the high court, every member would have studied law at Harvard or Yale. Kagan would be the third Jewish Justice, the other six are Catholic. And the Court would remain predominantly white with only one African American and of course, one “wise Latina.”

Kagan has a solid resume and is clearly a highly intelligent person. She has broad experience off the bench, a proven backbone to fight injustice, and a touted ability to bridge divides among groups with opposing views. Those traits are all encouraging. Now we watch as the ideological and partisan games begin.

Women Well Represented Among Pulitzer Winners

April 14, 2010
By

The Pulitzer Prizes were announced earlier this week and women won quite a few awards. In the Journalism Prizes, Barbara Laker and Wendy Ruderman of the Philadelphia Daily News won in the Investigative Reporting category for their coverage of a police narcotics squad, and Sheri Fink of ProPublica won for a story on doctors cut off by the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina.

In the Local Reporting category, Raquel Rutledge of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel won for her reporting on fraud and abuse in a child-care program for low-wage working parents. Kathleen Parker of The Washington Post won in the Commentary category and Sarah Kaufman, also from The Washington Post, won in the Criticism category.  Mary Chind of The Des Moines Register won the prize in the Photography category for her photo of a rescuer dangling above a dam attempting to save a trapped woman. And in the Editorial Writing category, Colleen McCain Nelson won the award along with Tod Robberson and William McKenzie of The Dallas Morning News.

In the Letters and Drama Prizes, Rae Armantrout won the Poetry category and Jennifer Higdon won in the Music category.

These wins are significant not only because the Pulitzer honors excellence, but because there are still too few women serving up the news and not enough recognition for women in the arts. According to the report “Benchmarking Women’s Leadership” from The White House Project, women account for just 22 percent of the leadership positions in journalism. And that’s not because women aren’t interested in the newsroom. Women have been the majority of college journalism majors since 1977. There are no women CEOS at the top 15 media corporations and only 17 percent of board members are women. On the Op-Ed pages specifically, approximately 80 percent of all the commentary is penned by men (according to The Op-Ed Project.) Even the Pulitzer board is comprised of 12 men and just six women.

As far as women in the arts, think of the poets you studied in school. Mostly men, weren’t they? Think of the hoopla around the first women to win an Oscar for Best Director – in 2010. Even the so-called “chick flicks” are created by men. That’s because (according to The White House Project report) women represent just 16 percent of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers in film (this number has decreased in the last 10 years) and only 25 percent of all creators, directors, executive producers and producers for situation comedies, dramas and reality shows.

The issue is not that men aren’t capable of producing excellent works of journalism and art. They certainly are. The issue is that women represent 52 percent of the U.S. population and yet they are so poorly represented among the influencers who shape our national discourse. Even those who rail against feminism because they think feminists don’t value the differences between men and women should be able to agree that we need to hear from more female voices. We are a diverse nation. Shouldn’t that diversity be reflected in the media?

I believe women are so used to reading, hearing and watching male perspective that they become conditioned to accepting those points of view as “popular culture.” But when you review the numbers you see that popular culture is overwhelmingly male culture. When I open most newspapers I see an editorial page written by mostly men (and more often than not mostly white men). When I turn on the television, I see an increase in incidences of violence against women on primetime. When I watch major events like the Super Bowl, I see an all male team cheered on by scantily clad women doing suggestive dance moves and paid for by sexist advertising. Or, I hear Jamie Foxx singing about rape on the Grammys.

It is time the U.S. media better reflected all Americans, not just one slice of the population. So, congratulations to the Pulitzer Prize winners. May all of them -male and female – help pave the way for a more diverse media.

Newsweek takes on sexism

March 24, 2010
By

Brava to the three Newsweek writers who take on gender discrimination at their own magazine. In the March 29 issue Jessica Bennett, Jesse Ellison and Sarah Ball ask just how far women at Newsweek have come since 46 women filed a sexual discrimination suit against the magazine in 1970. They go on to describe a culture of sexism perhaps less blatant than the corporate landscape of the 1960s and 70s but harder to confront. It is the micro inequities women face every day that can be hardest to address. Tell me “women don’t write here” “or sell here” or “manage here” and I can deal with that. But fail to give me the choice assignments and instead hand them to my male colleagues and what do I do with that? And good luck getting any support from coworkers – male or female. No one wants to fight the good fight, especially since we’ve been told we already won.

Write the authors, “There’s no denying that we’re enjoying many of the spoils of those women’s victories. We are no longer huddled in secret; we’re reporting for a national magazine, and we’re the ones doing the writing. We have a president whose first act in office was to sign a law that promises equal pay for equal work. Yet the fact that such a law is necessary makes the point: equality is still a myth. …We’ve come a long way, baby. But there’s still a long way to go.”

What I found to be even more revealing than the article is a slideshow on the magazine’s website showing how Newsweek has reported on women over the years.

- There is the cover featuring Bryn Mawr students from 1966. The accompanying article says “for the first time, the career drive in girls exceeds the mating drive.”

- “The Divorced Woman” cover in 1967.

- “The New Woman” cover in 1971 featuring Gloria Steinem.

- The “Women at Work and Home” cover in 1980. The article inside the magazine states, “The women’s movement, after concentrating on legislative action in the past decade, has now vowed to make day care and other family issues top political priorities in the ’80s.” Wow. We’re still trying to make them a priority in 2010.

- Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears on the “Girls Gone Wild” cover in 2007. Apparently, celebrity bad boys got a pass.

- And the Sarah Palin in running clothes cover of 2009.

According to the White House Project, women account for just 22 percent of the leadership positions in journalism. Until women reach critical mass in the newsroom, we can expect more of the same – stories discussing us as alien beings who’s desires to learn, work, have children, not have children, marry, divorce, reach the corner office and the oval office, are radical new ideas instead of the normal desires of 51 percent of the population.

Until women reach critical mass in the newsroom, we can expect more of the same – stories discussing us as alien beings who’s desires to learn, work, have children, not have children, marry, divorce, reach the corner office and the oval office are radical new ideas instead of the normal desires of 51 percent of the population.   

 

 
 

 

 

 
  
 
 

Gender Parity at the Olympics? Not Yet

February 14, 2010
By

My five year old had the stomach bug this weekend which meant she spent most of the last two days lying on the couch, snuggling her Daddy and watching the Winter Olympics on TV. How sweet. Not really. Why? Because the Olympics are just one more piece of evidence for my little girl that women are not equal; that she can’t grow up and be anything she wants to be. At least not yet.

It’s disheartening. Men have been competing in ski jumping as an Olympic event since 1924. Women, however, are not allowed to compete in this event.

It’s not for lack of interest. Several women jumpers filed a discrimination suit against the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), hoping to be able to compete this year.

David Amber of ESPN asked Alan Johnson, director and coach for the men’s project X U.S. Ski Jumping team, why women can’t compete. The numbers seem to be there. From the ESPN inteview: “This season [2009-10] there are eight ski cross International Ski Federation (FIS) events, with an average of 18 competitors representing seven different nations; there are 12 ski jumping FIS events with an average of 45 competitors representing 12 nations. So you must ask yourself, if the IOC denied ladies ski jumping based on lack of numbers and development of the sport on the same day they invited in ladies ski cross, how can this be justified when skier cross is far less developed than ski jumping? It’s not even close.”

Supposedly, in 2005 Gian-Franco Kasper, president of the International Ski Federation, said ski jumping was harmful to women’s reproductive health. How can that be the reason when young girls train so hard to be Olympic gymnasts they don’t begin to menstruate until they are in their 20s? I don’t buy the IOC’s concern for women’s health.

The most convincing argument I’ve read for barring women from ski jumping was this quote from Women’s Ski Jumping Vice President Vic Method in a Wall Street Journal article. “This is a big macho event in Europe. If suddenly you’ve got these little size-four girls jumping comparable distances, the men don’t look so macho anymore.”

For more on this topic, visit the website for “Women On Top,” a documentary that follows the U.S. Women’s Ski Jumping Team and their quest to compete in the Olympics.

I will hold off for now on telling my daughter that girls are considered equal to boys and can do or be anything. It’s not true at the Olympics. It’s not the case at work.  It doesn’t play out on the Op-Ed pages. It’s not the case in Washington. Some people don’t even want girls to make their own medical decisions.

But I do plan on telling her someday (perhap during the next Winter Olympics). So let’s get to work and reach true parity.

The Women Are Coming, The Women Are Coming

February 10, 2010
By

I read in the Boston Globe yesterday 18 New Hampshire legislators are trying to change the language in the state’s constitution so it is gender neutral. Specifically, the group wants to strike the word men and references to the word and replace them with gender-neutral words. Currently, the constitution reads, “All men are born equally free and independent.’’ It was ratified in 1783. Today, the New Hampshire State has a female majority.

From the Globe article: “We have women in leadership roles, and to have the Constitution reflect that changing status of women makes sense,’’ said Sylvia Larsen, the state Senate president.

and

“When fourth-graders come to the State House, they are amazed to hear that the Senate has a majority of women,’’ said (state Senator Kathy) Sgambati. “Those young girls should see themselves in the constitution. They shouldn’t have to try to figure out that it applies to them.’’

Fixing the language bias seems a simple enough fix. But opponents of the legislation say, no way. They say the constitution is “sacred” and changing the language would destroy it. Here’s another argument form the Globe article,

“It’s a waste of time,’’ said Charles Arlinghaus, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy and former executive director of the state’s Republican Party. “It doesn’t help anyone. It doesn’t do anything.’’

I disagree. Language matters. We tell our daughters they can grow up and be anything they want to be. But then they read and hear about selectmen and aldermen and congressmen. What is the cumulative impact on girls as they grow up and notice their gender is invisible in news stories, job descriptions and charters of freedom? Certainly, they can’t rely on visual images to inspire their dreams. Our girls don’t see very many women running universities, or newsrooms, in board rooms or on Capitol Hill.

In the online comment to the Globe story, readers argued a change would make for “unlovely” prose and that gender-neutral language is “bland.” How sad that readability is more important than equal representation. Others argue the constitution is a historic document and should not be revised. And then there is my favorite objection –that intelligent people know the term “men” implies all humans, not just males. It’s in the dictionary, after all.

So I propose a compromise.  Leave the document as is. But moving forward, all legislation and all new editions of Webster’s will use the word “women” instead of “men.” Mankind will be written as womenkind. This compromise will maintain the beautiful prose, preserve history and more accurately reflect the U.S. population, the majority of which is female.  

Any objection, ladies? (And by ladies, I of course mean you guys too.)

A Long Way from Equal

November 16, 2009
By

whpI was complaining to my father after learning a male coworker made more money than me despite the fact I was on the management team and my coworker was not. My father responded, “I didn’t think women had to deal with that anymore. I thought women were treated as equals these days.”  I’ll spare you the 30 minute rant I shared with my father in response.

The idea that women and men are equals in the workplace is a common misconception. After all, there are more women going to work every day than there are men. And women are breadwinners: a working wife, on average, contributes 42.2 percent of her household’s income. (Source: The Center for American Progress).  Women receive the majority of college degrees. But for some reason, this doesn’t add up to women rising to the tops of their organizations in any significant numbers. We know that the wage gap is widening, not closing. And, in Massachusetts alone, women are losing ground at the top.

Now, a new report from the White House Project points out just how far women still need to go in several different industries. According to “Benchmarking Women’s Leadership” women represent a mere 18 percent of top leaders. Take a look at the percentage of women who are:

*Full professors 26%

*University presidents 23%

*Fortune 500 CEOS 3%

*Among the highest paid at the Fortune 500 6%

*Movie and TV directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers 16%

*Television station owners 6%

*Newspaper publishers 18%

*News directors of radio stations 20%

*News directors at television stations 28%

*Law partners 18%

*Judges 25%

*Top military officers 11%

*Members of Congress 17%

*State legislators 24%

*Mayors 15%

*Protestant clergy and rabbis 15% (The Catholic Church,  Orthodox Judaism and Islam prohibit women from holding ministerial leadership positions.)

*College athletic directors 21 percent

The sector where women come closest to parity is nonprofit. Women represent 45 percent of nonprofit CEOS. But when you take a closer look, you will see they represent only 21 percent of the CEOs at organizations with budgets of $25 million or more. And women CEOS at these organizations earn, on average only 66 percent of what their male counterparts earn.

Maybe you are reading this and thinking, “Well I don’t want to own a television station or be a mayor or a minister. I make a decent living and have a good life.” That’s fine. But the lack of women at the top still affects you. There is a growing body of literature showing the correlation between diversity of leadership and positive results.  

Women and men approach leadership, risk management, team building and other key skills differently. Women represent 51 percent of the population and at least 85 percent of consumer buying power. In order for the United States to compete in a global market, rebound from the recession, and best represent the interests of all of its citizens, we need to shift the balance of power.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes