The New York Times: Letters to the Editor
Marie C. Wilson
June 18, 2010

Ross Douthat ends his June 14 column, “No Mystique About Feminism,” with the assertion that the emergence of the most recent round of conservative victories is a happy consequence of the victories of the women’s movement. He is right: the women who won this month have the feminist movement, and especially the ’70s liberal wave of feminism, to thank for opening the public world of politics to women.

What gets lost in Mr. Douthat’s analysis is the slippery slope that we may find ourselves on if the policies that made it possible for Carly Fiorina et al. are not supported going forward. Women must have choices about how many children they can support, affordable child care options and the ability to earn a living that will allow more of them to run for office and lead in other sectors as well.

Women make up only 17 percent of political leaders today, and the White House Project’s most recent research, “Benchmarking Women’s Leadership,” shows that across 10 sectors of American culture, women on average are only 18 percent of its leaders. If the full range of health, economic and safety options is not supported by the women who advance, then they will pull the ladder up behind them.

Marie C. Wilson
President and Founder
The White House Project
New York, June 14, 2010

Want to read more of the original article? Click here.

The Huffington Post
Marie C. Wilson
May 26, 2010

I had never paid too much attention to oil rigs until sitting on a panel with Deborah Myerson of Stanford University. She described research she had conducted with Robin Ely of Harvard that explored how focusing on safety on these dirty dangerous places had allowed men to abandon behaviors traditionally associated with masculinity. They literally made themselves vulnerable for the sake of the survival of all aboard.

Ely’s team was studying gender roles, and they focused on how masculinity could be re-shaped by changing the work environment. They chose the oil rigs on the Gulf Coast as their subject, helicoptered out and lived there to see this transformation. What they found was fascinating: men, for the sake of safety and productivity, were encouraged to abandon the bravado, risk taking, and denying failure associated with tough jobs like these and make themselves, “vulnerable.” As a result the riggers shared with their supervisors and co-workers when they weren’t quite up to snuff that day, felt free to admit to mistakes, and asked questions about information they didn’t understand.

The results of these experiments were equally astounding. There were 84% fewer accidents and increased productivity that exceeded the company’s benchmarks when men exchanged behaviors traditionally associated with masculinity and competence for more non-heroic traits. And beyond those outcomes, the study’s results showed, “how organizational features might encourage people to resist those stereotypes,” says Ely.

I have thought of this so often with reference to the Deep Horizon spill, where, as it turns out, just before the big blow-out, there had been a celebration of seven years with no accidents on this particular oil rig. But as Mike Williams, one of the last crew members to escape from the rig told Scott Pelley in his harrowing account of survival on 60 Minutes a week ago, precursors for the accident had been building for weeks.

Williams talked about the pressure that kept building to drill faster as the time table of finishing the job in 21 days expanded to 6 weeks with the accompanying profitability loss. And as safety gave way to time pressure, the most vital piece of equipment, the blow-out preventer, was damaged. When the workers pointed out this system failure, they were told it was “no problem.”

He also described the locking of horns between BP executives and Transnational (the company that actually ran the rig). This clash of the 2 corporations in charge of the rig sent a message to the crew that leadership was back, and that the teamwork the crew had displayed, complete with measures and practices that would keep them and the ocean they worked in safe, was over. The end of this tale is now the worst oil spill in history. Eleven men are dead and with it the fish and fowl, and the dreams and livelihood of countless others as the spill continues.

I follow this story every day, and I think of the big blow-outs that have happened in the last decade and how bravado has triumphed and the people of this country, and the world, have lost.

I think of all the whistle blowers in the financial crises, from those who warned the SEC about Bernard Madoff, to the journalists and economists who harped on creating financial institutions that were the equivalent of a house of cards, blow-out preventers if there ever were any.

As the fall-out from financial crisis continues to play out, that speculation has grown to include articles and inquiries about whether if there had been more women leaders in the financial sector, there would have been a crisis of such proportion. I think there’s a good chance women’s blow-out prevention traits might have prevailed

And in regard to foreign affairs, I am reminded of Jessica Tuchman Matthew’s proposal for, “aggressive inspections” as an alternative to going to war with Iraq. She asked that every site where there was any hint of weapons be inspected and even destroyed if inspectors weren’t satisfied; a proposal I am told stayed on the table until a week before the invasion. Think of the blow-out prevention that would have been.

Women have been socialized to be more risk-smart cooperative, vulnerable and open to admitting our mistakes and failures. We have our own lessons to learn about feminine roles, but one is the collusion we offer by maintaining the status quo that serves to keeping man-ly men behaviors in place.

To take the metaphor all the way , our country and our world seem to me like one gigantic oil rig: an increasingly dangerous place where we have developed instrumentalities that should have improved our lives but which, when spun out of control have put us all in danger. Scientific discoveries that allow us to kill each other in massive numbers; financial wizardry whose fall out is causing loss of our jobs and homes; products that produce wastes that clog our rivers and oceans and kill the lands and waters that we are so dependent on.

All of this spills out in ways that like the oil on the gulf waters are becoming beyond our capacity to contain.

So how, if making safety the issue could so alter behavior on oil rigs, why we aren’t able to do it on the big rigs we live and float across space on?

For the sake of the safety of the planet, why can’t we find some way to cooperate across boundaries, to make ourselves vulnerable, to admit mistakes and learn from failures? Man-ly man behavior in men and acquiescence to these behaviors by women will have to be abandoned. If we don’t pay attention to this, we may be one big unplugged event from our demise.

Want to read more the original article? Click here.

A fear of diversity is at the center of Tea Party anger, argues The White House Project’s Marie Wilson—the very quality that produces good decision-making and the innovation that is likely to pull us out of the Great Recession.

For several months Americans have watched the Tea Party movement grow and have asked, “What do these groups really want?”  When they purported to be against healthcare reform (what they called, “Obamacare”) but carried signs that read  “Get your government out of my Medicare” and “Take our country back,”  it didn’t make sense.  And the Tea Party protesters we’ve seen on the news aren’t talking about the traditional firebrand issues of abortion and gay rights either.  Actually, during the healthcare debates, they didn’t seem to have any solid policy issues at all, just anger.  But when the racial and homophobic epithets started to fly, the plot thinned.

Frank Rich nailed it in his March 28 New York Times piece, “The Rage Is Not About Health Care.”  As he said, it’s about the “real changes in America that can’t be repealed,” and he made a clear, historically based case about just what the ethnically homogeneous Tea Party members are afraid of losing: the dominance of white people in the United States.   It’s the same fear that the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights bill evoked.

Citing the folks who so visibly and recently represent this change (President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Justice Sotomayor),  Rich also argues that the issue didn’t have to be healthcare,  but that any inaugural piece of legislation would have elicited these “fears of disenfranchisement among a … dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.”  It is no surprise that those legislators who were singled out first with slurs and spit, like Representatives John Cleaver and Barney Frank and, the lion of the House, Representative John Lewis, are well-known African-American and gay leaders in Congress.  I agree with Rich in his assessment that when the Tea Party folks signal whom they “want to take the country back from,” it is representatives like Cleaver, Frank and Lewis, and their prime target, Nancy Pelosi, whom they are talking about.

Graphic by Vanessa Dennis & Cris Amico; source: Patchwork NationGraphic by Vanessa Dennis & Cris Amico; source: Patchwork Nation

As someone who grew up in Georgia in the forties and fifties and worked in the civil rights movement in the sixties, I recognized in Sarah Palin’s terse rhetoric during the presidential campaign, as Rich did, language that served as bait and evoked cries of Obama as a “traitor” and actual calls to take Obama’s life.  This rhetoric ostensibly paved the way for the post-election Tea Party movement.  Palin’s actions then and now show that beyond her lack of knowledge about politics and policy, her lack of understanding of history and culture is more dangerous.  I truly doubt she grasps the fire she is playing with, and I pray that powerful people in her party will not follow McCain’s lead in joining her in these references, and will instead advise her to cut out her language about “reload” and the gun-related images on her website.

While I disagree with the Tea Partiers actions, I don’t want to diminish the real anger and fears that Americans who aren’t taking tea, but are suffering and need some way to participate in our democracy.   I also understand that they see very few open avenues that will permit them to constructively vent their frustrations.

Those of us who are still employed have a responsibility and a mandate to help make the needed changes.   We also have the duty to keep the intensity down by talking about the real promise this growing diversity in our country, and across every branch of our government, holds for a more prosperous union.  New research actually shows that a diverse group of people will make a better decision than a group of experts, because as one of the leading researchers, Scott Page says, “we are all stuck at different places.”  It is this variety of orientation and perspective that breeds innovation.

The paradox here is that the rich diversity of people the Tea Party fears could be the key to pulling us out of this economic slump, which was created by in large by groups of wealthy white men from very similar backgrounds.

As the leader of The White House Project, I see daily the repercussions of our failure to use the resources represented by American’s women who cross all of these diverse areas, and I know what we are missing out on.   For instance, as our recently released Benchmarks Report revealed,  women led only 3 percent of the Fortune 500 companies and hold fewer than 17 percent of the executive positions in those companies, even though research shows that profits at Fortune 500 firms that most aggressively promoted women were 34 percent higher than industry medians.

As Frank Rich noted, there are real changes in American life that cannot be repealed, but that can be used to foster a better life for all of us, if we remember what Franklin Roosevelt said long ago, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

View this online.

For another WMC Exclusive posted today, click on “The Tea Party Movement—Taking the Pulse,” a report and analysis by Peggy Simpson. The views expressed in this commentary are those of the author alone and do not represent WMC. WMC is a 501(c)(3) organization and does not endorse candidates.

The Huffington Post
Ilene Lang and Marie Wilson
April 22, 2010

Eighteen years ago, only days before the first annual Take Our Daughters to Work Day, the Ms. Foundation for Women received a call from a New York City high school teacher.

The teacher said she had lined up an internship for one of her bright female students in a downtown business. All she had to do was show up. But standing at the foot of the building, the girl was overwhelmed and went home.

With encouragement from the teacher, she tried again. This time she got inside the building, but couldn’t press the button on the elevator. Again, she left.

The teacher– sensing the depth of her discomfort– went with her. It worked. She got the internship and her “sea legs.”

This is what Take Our Daughters to Work Day is all about. Expanded to include boys in 2003, the program enables millions of children to see first-hand the possibilities afforded by a good education, experience a family-friendly work environment, and bolster self-esteem.

But despite our best efforts, new research shows that the future is not as bright for our children as we once thought. Women lag behind men in pay and promotions. And across society, especially in politics, there is a crisis in female leadership.

“Pipeline’s Broken Promise,” a new report by Catalyst, analyzed the career paths and salaries of more than 4,100 MBA graduates from around the world. It found that women start at lower positions, earn less money and receive fewer promotions than equally skilled men. Even after taking into account industry, parenthood status, and region, among other factors, women make on average $4,600 less in their initial jobs out of business school.

If this is happening to the best and the brightest of our daughters, can you imagine what is happening to others across the spectrum of workplaces and skill levels?

A new report by the White House Project, “Benchmarking Women’s Leadership,” set out to answer this question. The study looked at ten sectors across American culture and found women comprise, on average, only 18% of the top leadership positions across all ten.

The business sector, where women hold an average of 16% of the leadership positions, is one of the lowest. This is painfully ironic because Catalyst’s “Bottom Line” studies show that companies with the highest representation of women in top management outperform, on average, those with fewer.

Women working full-time still earn only 77 cents to every dollar earned by a man– an improvement of less than half a penny a year since the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was signed. African-American women make 64% less than white men while Hispanic women earn 52% less.

Gender inequity is rife in politics too. While we make up over half of the US population, women are 12% of all governors, 15% of all mayors of large cities, 23% of state legislators and 24% of state executive officials. The ratios are equally dire on the federal level. Women comprise only 17% of the members of Congress and hold 14% of Congressional committee chairs. Women of color account for only 5% of representatives in the House and are completely absent in the Senate. And we still have not had a female president or vice president.

These ratios have remained largely unchanged over the past decade despite the fact that women have voted at increasingly higher rates than men in every presidential election since 1980. And women in Congress, on average, bring home more money for their districts, attract more co-sponsors, and introduce more bills than their male colleagues.

Still, women lag behind men in business and politics. The question is: how do we fix this?

For politics, we have to recruit and train women in ever increasing numbers. Research has shown that women who choose to run for office are just as likely as their male counterparts to win. Training programs provide key support networks, tools, and inspiration for women to pursue careers in politics.

In business, managers must take hard, honest looks at their recruiting, hiring, and promotion processes. If they find a disparity about where new employees were placed, and how much they earned, it should be corrected.

And there is something we all can do today. By taking our children to work we can give them the strength to pursue their goals and inspire them to strive for the top, regardless of their gender. We should tell them they can be anything they want to be– and act on this promise to make it come true.

To view original article, click here.

By Robyn Gordon
March 8, 2010

Last night’s 82nd Academy Awards saw film history made with the first woman ever winning the Oscar for Best Director.  Kathryn Bigelow, director of the 2008 American war film, The Hurt Locker, which follows a United States Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team during the Iraq War, took home the Oscar over ex-husband James Cameron for his direction of Avatar, in addition to Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds.  Bigelow is only the fourth woman in history and the second American woman to be nominated for the honor of Best Director, following Lena Wertmuller for Seven Beauties (1975), Jane Campion for The Piano (1993) and Sofia Coppola for Lost in Translation (2003).  Bigelow’s win is certainly appropriate in celebrating today’s International Women’s Day.

Bigelow, a graduate of Columbia University’s film program, began her film career in 1978 with The Set-Up, a 20-minute short deconstruction of violence in film.  She then released her first feature-length film in 1982, The Loveless, a biker movie which she co-directed with Monty Montgomery.  Other notable projects include Point Break (1991), Strange Days (1995), written and produced by her ex-husband, James Cameron, and 2002′s K-19: The Widowmaker, which starred Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson.  Following K-19, it would be six years, until The Hurt Locker, before Bigelow would return to the director’s seat.

Although Bigelow described her win as “the moment of a lifetime,” and Best Director presenter Barbra Streisand declared that finally “the time has come” for a female Best Director winner, Bigelow more importantly asserted that she “long[s] for the day when a [gender] modifier can be a moot point.”  She ended her acceptance speech with a dedication to “the women and men who risk their lives on a daily basis in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

February 12, 2010

By Robyn Gordon

At 25, Lindsay Van is considered the best female ski-jumper in the world.  During the International Ski Federation’s Nordic Ski Championships 2009 held in February and March 2009, women’s ski jumping made its sporting debut, and Van was the first North American to medal in ski jumping and the first American to win gold at the championships.  However, despite Van’s status as holding the record (for both men and women) for the normal ski jumping hill at the site of the 2010 Winter Olympics, Van will not be able to compete as athletes gather today in Vancouver for the start of the Games.  While the Olympics hold three ski jumping events, they have always been restricted to men, who have been invited to compete since 1924.  This past November, Van led a group of 14 women ski jumpers in a lawsuit against the Olympic Organizing Committee, suing the IOC for discrimination against them by excluding female ski jumpers while allowing men to compete.  Three British Columbia Courts of Appeal judges unanimously dismissed the lawsuit, asserting that the courts had no jurisdiction over the IOC, which had made the decision to exclude women.

Even more shockingly, Gian Franco Kasper, the President of the International Ski Federation, expressed reluctance to allow women to compete at the Nordic Ski Championships a year before they were held, as he was concerned about the health issues for women.  He explained, “It’s like jumping down from two meters on the ground about a thousand times a year, which seem not to be appropriate for ladies from a medical point of view.”

Alissa Johnson, a world-ranked women’s ski jumper, revealed to MSNBC that it is frustrating and difficult to be taken seriously in a sport that she and a dozen of her teammates have spent their whole lives developing and improving without participation in the Olympics.  Yet the IOC maintainted that it made its decision to exclude women’s ski jumping strictly on a technical basis and not on gender bounds.

In another blow to US women’s ski jumping, the US Ski and Snowboard Association announced that it would drop the American team because it cannot afford to support athletes that aren’t going to the Olympics.

While Olympic CEO John Furlong maintained that “there is a very good chance that [women ski jumpers] are going to get included in the program in the future,” Johnson and Van declare that the IOC insisted the same thing after the 2002 and 2006 Olympics.  “It’s like a broken record, and we’re tired of hearing empty promises,” they said.

Van fears this may mark the end of her career, that it may be time to move on, for without the Olympics or sponsors, many athletes become frustrated and quit.  She cares more about the sport moving forward, and hopefully, for young athletes such as 15-year old Sarah Hendrickson, women’s ski jumping will appear on the roster for the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, Russia.  Hendrickson affirmed, “I’m just going to keep jumping and loving it.  We just have to keep going and keep trying for the people behind us.”

The Washington Post
Marie Wilson
February 8, 2010

Sarah Palin would have to have an “extreme makeover” in political knowledge and experience to restore confidence in her beyond the conservative base.

The only people who have been able to come from outside the political world (and she is now outside that world) and run have been business leaders who have led a large corporations or reached a high rank in the military. It won’t do to be a Fox pundit or a Tea Party heroine to lead a country in an era as complex as we live in now. If punditry alone is enough to get you elected president, then our democracy is in more of a disarray than I care to believe.

If Sarah Palin really wants to be a leader in this country, she should use the identity that she touted so heavily during her Vice Presidential campaign, and that many people associate her with: mother. Ms. Palin could call for a new focus on the need for a comprehensive child care policy, something we haven’t had in 40 years. If she were to focus on this issue, all the way through to passing and enacting legislation, she would be the contributing to this country in a way that is sorely needed. She would be helping all women to be the presidents of their own lives and to lead in the public world alongside men.

To view original article click here.

Harvard Business Review
By Orit Gadiesh and Julie Coffman

Companies say they treat men and women equally — but in reality, they don’t. Our recent gender-parity survey of more than 1,800 business people worldwide, conducted in association with HBR.org, shows that in fact, employees are disappointed with the way their company handles the issue of gender parity — the attempt to treat men and women equally in the workforce. Nearly 80 percent of women and men say they are convinced of the benefits of gender parity at all levels. But only about 20 percent believe their companies actually put meaningful resources behind it.

Most companies simply fall down in the follow-through. Almost three-quarters of respondents say their companies launched initiatives like flex work programs and mentorships, but fewer than 25 percent feel they are effective: employees just don’t see enough women in leadership positions at their company. Fully 60 percent of survey respondents say they are not solicited for their opinions on gender parity by their companies. The dismal metrics get worse: Less than 20 percent report that their companies effectively utilize gender parity metrics to track progress. Only 14 percent say they had effective gender parity training or workshops. Just 8 percent believe their firms effectively tied incentives and compensation to gender parity.

Read more at: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/02/why_women_still_arent_equals_i.html

February 5, 2010
By Robyn Gordon

According to Louis O. Schwartz, President of the American Sportscaster Association, women have come a long way “from just another ‘Barbie-on-the-air’ image to complement the sportscasting done by men, to today’s qualified and respected professional hired for her skills and knowledge.” While Sports Illustrated estimated in 1991 that fewer than 50 women were working as sportscasters at the 630 serious network affiliates around the country, Fox Sports News Producer Bob Steinfeld asserts that the past ten years have seen growth in the number of women in sports broadcasting by about 50%, with such well-known broadcasters as Lesley Vissey, Robin Roberts, and Andrea Kremer. While male sportscasters still outnumber female sports broadcasters, women are participating more and more in sports, both at the collegiate and professional level, and women comprise a growing percentage of sports audiences. As a result, opportunities for both female ex-athletes and female broadcasters to enter into the field continues to rise.

ane Chastain, Donna De Varona, and Jeannie Morris are considered the pioneers in female sports broadcasting (though in the 1930s and 40s,the wife of Harry Johnson, sports announcer for Central Sates Broadcasting in Omaha, Nebraska, would often provide her own commentary alongside her husband), each working for major news networks in the 1960s and 70s. Chastain became the first woman to work as a commentator for a major network (CBS) and is also considered the first woman to do sports play-by-play. Morris, an established journalist and writer prior to launching her sports reporting career, was recognized for covering the NFL Minnesota Vikings v. Chicago Bears game in the early 1970s outside in a blizzard, as she was not allowed to work in the press box because she was a woman. Later, while women were finally allowed to report from inside press boxes, often stadiums and sports arenas did not provide restroom facilities for female reporters, who were expected to use bathrooms designated for spectators.

Today, unfortunately, while the number of female sportscasters is on the rise, Karen Kornacki, sportscaster for KMBC-TV News in Kansas City, reveals that appearance still plays quite a role in such an image-driven business and culture as the sports world: “Looks are definitely starting to play a larger role,” Kornacki said. “The number one email I receive from my viewers are comments about my appearance. People are not concerned about my interviews or my knowledge of the game.” Still, she remans optimistic, arguing that “the challenge is to stick by your professionalism,” said Kornacki. “It is still a medium where you have to communicate. Our audience is sports savvy and they would be able to see right through you if you didn’t know your stuff.” Lesley Visser, the first female NFL analyst on TV and voted the number one female sportscaster in the US by the American Sportscasters Association, agrees, indicating that “The three most important things for a sportscaster are knowledge of the game, a passion for sports, and the profession, and the stamina to struggle.” So while female sports journalism is still considered young and novel to many sports fans and among sports commentators, female sportscasters are determined and will continue to convince the world that gender should not and does not affect an individual’s ability to report a story, regardless of its content, and report it well.

January 27, 2010

By Lisa Copeland

The Power of Pink has taken on a completely new meaning to me as of today.

My friend and founder of The White House Project, Marie Wilson, was just named one of the “10 women to watch in 2010“.  What an honor! Marie has had an incredible life and career.  She founded the “Take Your Daughter To Work Day” program, The White House Project and has the ear of the most powerful women in the Nation. Her message is strong, and her resolve to see women in the white house is UNwavering.  She is a personal hero of mine!

What is the most shocking to me is who made this nomination.  None other than Barbie herself!  Let me explain.  Mattel has launched a campaign to celebrate the 125-year anniversary of Barbie (Wow, she still looks pretty good!)  Part of this monumental campaign is to decide what Barbie’s next career is going to be.  You can VOTE HERE yourself!

Now, when I grew up I had more Barbies than most girls; I love Barbie.  I fundamentally understand the reason for this campaign. I have to wonder, does  Barbie have more appeal to young girls than the Lindsey Lohan? I  hope so!  Barbie has staying power,  Barbie has a job, Barbie has never been to rehab and Barbie only has one boyfriend!

I called a friend of mine to tell her about the “Barbie campaign” and to encourage her to vote. She asked me” Are you just a little jealous that Barbie didn’t think  YOU were one of the 10 women to watch in 2010?”  We had a good laugh,  then tried to figure out who in today’s world of reality TV and pop culture could be a better role model for young women.(For the record I would have given my first very valuable, vintage  Barbie and pink Barbie corvette to make the list). Sad to say from a celebrity stand point we could not think of any.  I truly admire the amazing women who have earned to right to be called the” top 10 women to watch in 2010″.  I am telling the story to keep it at the forefront of our minds that as women, we still have a long way to go. We must be constantly looking for role models that can uphold the values that we want to instill in our young women.

Read more at:  http://thepowerofpinkblog.com/think-pink/10-women-to-watch-in-2010/

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.