NONFICTION SOURCES: GENDER PARITY
Earl C. DeMott VIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS [Company address]
EMPLOYMENT
Well-Off White Men Are 3 Times More Likely Than Women To Get Job Interviews A new study of law firm hiring offers clear evidence of privilege James Cabot and Julia Cabot seem like the kind of law school students high-paying law firms like to recruit. Their resumes and work experience are nearly identical. Both of them attend respected institutions and have worked their way to the top 1 percent of their classes. Their schools aren’t among the very top-tier institutions where the big firms do most of their recruiting ― Harvard, Yale, et al. ― but they’re still well-regarded. What’s more, James and Julia clearly come from economically advantaged backgrounds, the kind that firms admit make candidates a strong “cultural fit.” On their resumes, James and Julia each note their interest in classical music and polo. They both mention their experience on their college sailing teams. When people talk about “elites,” they’re talking about people like James and Julia Cabot. Yet when law firms looked at their resumes ― which, again, were totally the same but for their gender ― recruiters were three times more likely to call James in for an interview, according to a study first published last year in American Sociological Review and recently written up in Harvard Business Review. In a follow-up survey and interviews, the researchers learned that lawyers discounted Julia Cabot’s credentials ― indeed, the credentials of any economically advantaged woman ― because of a belief that she would eventually leave the workforce to become a stay-at-home mom. In other words, for some women, there’s a “motherhood penalty” before they’re even thinking about becoming a mother. This old-fashioned notion exists even though a majority of mothers are now in the workforce. And the stereotype, according to this study, clings mainly to economically advantaged women. As you may have already guessed, James and Julia Cabot aren’t real people. They were invented for the purposes of the above study. And while it may be hard to conjure much sympathy for the polo-playing Julias of the world, this kind of stereotyping is likely part of the reason why, despite achieving relative equality in education, women have largely failed to reach the uppermost ranks of power in the business world.
“This is a key mechanism that is keeping women out of high-paying occupations,” Lauren Rivera, a professor at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management and a co-author of the study, told The Huffington Post. Firms are screening out high-performing women not because of something they’ve done or haven’t done, but because of the firms’ own speculation about what they might someday do. The reasons for doing this “are completely in the heads of organizations,” Rivera said.
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW The researchers signaled class on resumes by listing certain athletic accomplishments and extracurricular activities. It’s already well-known that women’s careers and incomes suffer when they become moms. Female employees who become mothers see their salaries decline by 4 percent, according to one survey. Men who become fathers, by contrast, see their salaries rise by 6 percent. But there’s less hard evidence of a pre-motherhood penalty. Indeed, the wage gap between women and men is at its smallest when women are first out of college and haven’t yet married or had children. Yet any woman who’s thought twice about wearing a wedding ring to a job interview would probably not be shocked to learn a pre-motherhood penalty exists.
Even at progressive companies that say they value hiring and promoting women, the default assumption is still that a woman will want to downshift her career once she becomes a mother, if she can afford it. Women make up a majority of law school students in the United States, but only around 20 percent of law firm partners. Most firms are quick to speak of the need to hire and retain more women, to diversify. The researchers devised a second pair of candidates to go along with the Cabots ― James Clark and Julia Clark, who both hailed from less well-off families. Or at least, that’s the impression their resumes, which mention their interests in country music, pickup soccer and track and field, were calculated to give off. The researchers didn’t choose these characteristics because of any data that shows law firms tend to hire expert sailors or discriminate against country music fans. They were simply trying to signal that a person did or didn’t come from money. They even conducted an online survey to make sure their choices sent the right message. Polo signaled fancy elite rich kid; pickup soccer, not so much. It’s standard practice to include extracurriculars and outside interests in law school applications. You might not even get considered for a job without including such things. The point of the study was to drill down and see what effect social class has on hiring at high-end firms. Rivera, who has written a book on how elite investment banks and consulting and law firms favor entry-level workers from upper-class backgrounds, wanted to do more strictly quantitative work on this issue ― to try and isolate class as a factor in the hiring process. “It was hard to know from interviews if employers were truly discriminating or just picking the best and brightest,” she said. A lot of the research on class assumes that education is a great equalizer ― that once you’ve got a degree from a top school, your background doesn’t matter that much to potential employers. But “it does matter,” Rivera said. “It matters quite a bit.”
The study doesn’t even get into the ways that race and ethnicity intersect with class in employers’ minds. The resumes in this study were presumed to be from white candidates. Black, Hispanic and Asian women and men face different sets of stereotypes and biases, and Rivera wants to do further research there. For the study, the resumes from James and Julia Cabot and James and Julia Clark were sent to 316 offices of 147 leading law firms around the U.S. The goal was to apply for summer associate positions ― internships at law firms that pay around $3,000 a week and typically lead to full-time job offers once the candidate finishes school. Those entry-level positions pay a stunning $150,000 a year (not counting the bonus) and offer a fast track to the 1 percent. The researchers expected that the upper-class candidates would get called back at higher rates than the candidates whose personal info telegraphed “lower-to-middleclass.” That’s not exactly what happened. James Cabot, the upper-class man, was offered an interview at 16.25 percent of the firms, a rate that far outstripped everyone else. Polo-playing Julia Cabot saw a 3.8 percent callback rate, while country music-loving Julia Clark got a 6.3 percent callback rate. The lower-class male candidate, James Clark, only got a 1.3 percent callback rate. The researchers say the differences between the women and the lower-class man were not statistically significant.
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW The higher-class man was by far the preferred candidate of law firm recruiters. It’s worth noting, Rivera said, that law firm recruiters skew male and tend to be a little older ― factors that may have had some bearing here. Still, she was surprised to find class offered no advantage to women.
In a follow-up survey, Rivera and her colleagues asked 200 lawyers around the country to look at the four mocked-up resumes and give their feedback. In that survey, the upper-class man was again viewed as the most favorable candidate. The authors then personally interviewed 20 lawyers for their thoughts on the resumes. Those interviews yielded a gold mine of various stereotypes about white men and women of different economic standings. There was concern that neither James nor Julia Clark would fit in at a high-end law firm. Some of the lawyers even suggested the lower-class candidates would be better suited to public interest law. James and Julia Cabot, with their privileged backgrounds, were seen as a good fit for a law firm. “If you look at the interests, it’s classic cultural capital,” one lawyer told the researchers. However, the lawyers questioned Julia’s commitment, wondering if she “really wanted to be a lawyer,” the researchers write in their paper. Some declared she was “biding her time” until she could become a “stay-at-home mom.”
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW The candidates’ resumes offered clues by which they could be stereotyped. Many lawyers took the bait. James Cabot, on the other hand, was seen as a good long-term bet.
“An upper-class man is always going to be working,” a lawyer named Betsy said. “He’s always gonna stay in the workforce, and chances are he’s well connected, and that might be a good person to have at your firm.” The important thing to note here, Rivera said, is that men and women both tend to leave big law firms after their first three or four years working there. Firms hire far more associates than they could ever hope to bring on as partners. In other words, even if a firm hired Julia Cabot and Julia Clark and they both left after a couple years, it wouldn’t actually make much difference to the firm. “[Firms] expect most people to leave,” Rivera said. “It’s a pyramid organization. A tournament predicated on the fact that lots of people are going to leave.” Interestingly, the gender bias wasn’t an issue for Julia Clark. Coming from a less advantaged background, she was viewed as “hungry” for work. She would have “mouths to feed” and “law school debt to pay,” the lawyers told the researchers. Perhaps this is a sign that hiring managers can overcome some gender stereotypes. But it’s probably best not to wait around for that day. Rivera says if we want to avoid this kind of stereotyping, law firms should stop asking candidates to put extracurriculars and interests on their resumes. The idea is that you can use the information to judge a person’s leadership, she said. But “it is strange that these things carry so much weight.” -----
Education
Why Many Turkish Women Struggle With Post-Secondary Education And Careers Dominique Bonessi Women & Girls Hub Around 40 percent of Turkish women go to university, but only 11 percent graduate. Activists say a range of obstacles, from gender bias in high school to cultural pressures, pushes women out of education and widens Turkey’s workforce gender gap. ISTANBUL – Derya Gizem Ust, 19, has wanted to study law for as long as she can remember. “Since I was a little girl,” says Ust, a sophomore at Istanbul’s Marmara University. “It probably had something [to do] with me being a woman.” Ust is one of around 40 percent of young Turkish women attending university, a rate that’s not much lower than that of American women in higher education. But while those figures seem to point to progressive attitudes toward women’s empowerment in Turkey, the reality is very different. Although a decent number of Turkish women make it to university, only 11 percent graduate (in the U.S., the figure is just over 30 percent). The number who move on to study for a master’s or a PhD and then build a thriving career is even smaller. From gender bias in high schools to societal pressures to marry and start a family, the obstacles that contribute to Turkey’s workforce gender gap are insurmountable for many of the country’s women. “In high school, I was staying in a dorm with girls who were determined to graduate and go to university,” Ust says. “Even though some in their families did not want them to go, they were determined anyway.” In the Turkish education system, girls and boys start on an almost equal footing. The government has made it a priority to give all children, especially girls, a basic education, putting money into constructing high school dormitories to cut down on transportation costs, distributing free textbooks and encouraging teachers to visit girls and their families to convince them to send their daughters to school. Ust says she has benefited from these developments, but she also sees flaws in the culture surrounding girls in education. For example, when she was attending high school in Tarebolu, in the Black Sea region of Turkey, science and biology classes were taught only by male teachers. “When we were talking about sexual differences in the
genders, it was always awkward,” she says. “We [girls] felt excluded because they would only address the boys and could not look us in the eyes. We really felt left out.” The pressure for girls to stay home starts when high school ends and college looms on the horizon. “Many times the expectation is that girls get married or work in the home to help the family instead of going to university,” says Candan Fetvaci, director of the Aydin Dogan Vakfi Foundation, which focuses on helping young women gain an education and make the transition to the workforce. Large families often can’t afford to send all their children to school, and Turkey’s cultural mentality holds that as long as girls are able to read and write, there is no reason for them to go on to university. Even if they do make it as far as higher education, young women will continue to feel pressure to get married instead. In Turkey, the median age of first birth for women is 22.5, according to the CIA World Fact Book. “It makes me feel very sad,” says Ust. “For a lot of girls in my class, it is like a taboo to tell their parents they may not want to marry or have children at all.” Advocates say that cultural attitudes toward women in education are driving a gaping gender division in Turkey’s working population. According to the World Bank, only 30 percent of the Turkish workforce is female, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development says 42.9 percent of women in Turkey between the ages of 15 and 29 are unemployed, compared with just 15.1 percent of men in the same age range. Fetvaci sees the solution as a shift in both policy and mentality. “Maternal leave for mothers varies anywhere between two weeks and, if they are lucky, a month,” Fetvaci says. “There are no policies governing maternal leave, paternal leave or equal pay of men and women.” And policy can change, Fetvaci says, only if there are more women in parliament to change it. Currently, just 17 percent of Turkish parliament members are women, according to Turkey’s state-run media, the Anadolu Agency. But once women are in a position to change the laws, they can start to work on changing minds. “If women can influence policy, maybe they can begin to influence mentality,” says Fetvaci.
For girls still fighting against the odds to graduate from high school, get through university and find work, Ust gives advice that is both hopeful and cautionary. “I would tell girls who want to study that they need to struggle until the very end,� she says.
Health Care
Trump’s Global Gag Rule: A Call To Action And A Way Forward 02/10/2017 10:11 am ET | Updated 3 days ago On January 23rd, President Trump moved to drastically restrict access to contraception and other life-saving reproductive health services and supplies by imposing the Global Gag Rule. Trump’s Global Gag Rule massively expands an already harmful policy, applying it to all U.S. global health assistance. It potentially implicates up to 15 times more funding and the lives of millions more women and their families around the world. With so much at stake, it is now more critical than ever for donors, civil society and service providers to work together. That is why PAI is proud to stand with former heads of state, leading activists, more than 300 parliamentarians and almost 450 global health nongovernmental organizations from Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia to speak out against Trump’s Global Gag Rule and to use our collective strength to chart a way forward. PAI has documented the effects of the Global Gag Rule under previous Republican administrations. The policy caused cuts in services, increases in fees and closures of clinics. In many instances, the policy shuttered the only providers in remote and economically disadvantaged communities. The result for women and their families? Increases in unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortions, and maternal and newborn deaths. Trump’s Global Gag Rule will magnify these tragic consequences—and will have other global health effects that we cannot yet begin to estimate. The policy is unprecedented in its scope, not only because of the U.S.’s leadership and investment in global health over the past decade, but also because of the greater alignment and integration among the global health and development sectors. It is a policy stunning in its shortsightedness and callous in how it targets the most vulnerable. Moments of crisis can bring about great change, however. Now is the time for us all to step forward and fulfill our promises to women. Even before Trump’s Global Gag Rule, global development assistance for health was facing five years of stagnant growth. This has been exacerbated by a growing contraceptive supplies crisis. Additionally, while governments in the global South have made great strides in funding their own family planning programs, much more effort is needed around domestic resource mobilization. Despite growing political will, government funding for family planning meets only a small fraction of total funding required in the neediest countries.
Whether in Ghana, Norway, Nepal or the United States, there is a role for all of us to play. At the country level, collaboration will be critical to make the case for investments in health at all levels, but especially in sexual and reproductive health. Our first duty will be to mitigate the impact of the Global Gag Rule with whatever resources we can mobilize, with whatever ingenuity and skills we can inject. We must be ready to ask the right questions, to collect data, and to lift up the evidence and stories that make an undeniable case for sustained and increased funding; for a permanent repeal of harmful domestic and donor policies like the Global Gag Rule; and continued momentum around the sustainable development goals. We call on leaders around the world to join us in the fight to continue advancing the sexual and reproductive rights of girls and women, and the health and rights of all people. This is no time for playing politics with lives already too close to the margins. Women around the world are counting on us. Let us ensure we keep our promises to them. -----
STEM
U.N.’s Call for Women in Science Is a Key Step Toward Global Gender Parity In anticipation of the second annual International Day of Women and Girls in Science, celebrated on Saturday, February 11, The U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said in a press release: “For too long, discriminatory stereotypes have prevented women and girls from having equal access to education in science, technology, engineering and maths ... On this International Day, I urge commitment to end bias, greater investments in science, technology, engineering and math education for all women and girls, as well as opportunities for their careers and longer-term professional advancement, so that all can benefit from their ground-breaking future contributions.” The International Day of Women and Girls in Science was created on December 22, 2015, at the 70th Session of the U.N. General Assembly. It solidified the commitment of Member States to achieve gender parity in all areas and aims to meet new demands set forth by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. According to the National Science Board, women make up half of the total collegeeducated workforce in the United States, but they only comprise 29 percent of the science and engineering workforce. Most of these women are concentrated in fields of biological, agricultural, and life sciences. They are especially underrepresented as engineers and computer and mathematical scientists, accounting for only 15 percent and 25 percent of those workforces, respectively. These statistics are exponentially more one-sided when looking outside the United States. One report by the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization claims as few as 30 percent of the research workforce in Sub-Saharan African countries are women, 22.5 percent in Southeast Asia, and only 16.9 percent in South Asia. This disparity is multifactorial and complex. Even at a young age, there exists a confidence gap between boys and girls that has direct consequences on early educational paths. Often unintentionally, girls are herded away from hard-science fields. Although severe discrimination seems all but eliminated in the United States, there still likely exists subconscious gender bias and stereotyping that may limit opportunities for women in these fields. For instance, the American Association of University of Women published a report exploring some of the concepts surrounding why women are lacking in these fields. According to their findings, there remain difficult and unwelcoming climates in science and engineering departments at colleges and universities that may present obstacles for women entering those arenas.
In order to bridge the gender gap for women in science fields moving forward, we must continue to bolster a culture that supports women scientists. We need to build strong networks and communities so girls might find mentors and role models. Additionally, we must advocate for policy changes to promote female education and participation in the workforce. On this International Day of Women and Girls in Science, many organizations affiliated with the United Nations, as well as many independent groups, will hold seminars, workshops, and conferences to raise awareness and inspire conversations about these important issues. Globally, there exists unlimited potential for scientific and technologic advancement. By including more women in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce, the world would benefit from a larger and more diverse collection of people with differing talents, abilities, and intellects. -----
‘Hidden Figures’ Is Already Inspiring More Girls To Go Into STEM “We’ve already seen that effect happen nationally,” said actor Aldis Hodge. Octavia Spencer, Janelle Monáe, and Taraji P. Henson accept the SAG Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture for “Hidden Figures” on Sunday. At a pre-SAG Awards celebration for “Hidden Figures,” actor Aldis Hodge told The Cut that the film seems to have already gotten more young girls interested in pursuing careers in STEM fields. “We’ve already seen that effect happen nationally,” he said, at a brunch on Sunday. “We’re constantly doing panels for STEM and STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art & Design, and Mathematics) all over.” He also said that he’s currently working on Image of STEM, an initiative that started in the White House during the Obama Administration that seeks to expand STEM education to students of all backgrounds. Hodge also worked with the Girls Build LA program to screen “Hidden Figures for 2,000 young women in the Los Angeles area. “I love the fact that a lot of these girls are now getting support for their interest. It’s fantastic,” he said. “I hope that it just keeps going.” Women ― particularly women of color ― are seriously underrepresented in STEM careers. But Hodge hopes that “Hidden Figures,” which tells the story of three black women who worked for NASA in the 1960s, will help pave the way for a more diverse workplace.
At NASA, ‘Hidden Figures’ Cast Talk Race and Gender Disparity By Robin Seemangal • 12/15/16 3:44pm
NASA’s media center features Hidden Figures. Robin Seemangal
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER—NASA’s history is rich with the tales of heroes who overcame extraordinary odds to launch rockets and fly spacecraft. Now, in the upcoming film adaption of Margot Lee Shetterly’s book Hidden Figures: The Story of the African-American Women Who Helped Win the Space Race, the early years of America’s space program are seen through the eyes of NASA’s gifted AfricanAmerican women who broke boundaries despite being systematically marginalized due to their gender and race. The true story follows mathematician Katherine Johnson who is played by Oscarnominee Taraji P. Henson, Mary Winston Jackson who was NASA’s first black female engineer and is played by Grammy-nominee Janelle Monáe, and mathematician Dorothy Vaughan who is portrayed by Octavia Spencer. Spencer has
received a Golden Globe nomination for best supporting performance by an actress for her role in Hidden Figures. The three stars visited NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida on Monday with Director Theodore Melfi and producer Pharrell to explore the sites where their characters’ hard work resulted in history-making events. In 1962, before the late John Glenn flew the Friendship 7 mission and became the first American to orbit the Earth, he requested that Kathryn Johnson redo the calculations made by a computer and refused to fly unless she was allowed to do so. “Get the girl,” Glenn said when going through the pre-flight checklist. “If she says they’re good, then I’m ready to go.” The cast was taken to Launch Complex 14 at Cape Canaveral where that mission was launched as well as the iconic Vehicle Assembly Building where the Saturn V rocket was prepared before launching the Apollo moon missions. The three women were essential in developing the mathematics that helped rescue the crew of Apollo 13.
From left: Dorothy Vaughan, Katherine Johnson, and Mary Winston Jackson. NASA
The film touches on a myriad of social issues throughout the story, which couldn’t be more timely. Race and gender disparity are still daily flashpoints that can be attributed
to issues across a spectrum of disciplines and industries. From the #oscarsowhite controversy that skewered Hollywood to the seemingly unending battle over women’s reproductive rights both at a state and national level, these issues saturate news cycles and policy debates. In Hidden Figures, the struggle of these women is potently relatable to many viewers, but what about the actresses themselves? During a press conference held for the media at Kennedy Space Center, The Observer raised this question to Henson, Monáe and Spencer. “The struggle is there, the struggle is real. What I learned from Katherine is that you don’t complain,” said Taraji P. Henson. “I look up one day, and I’m nominated for an Oscar. I look up one day, I have a Golden Globe. You just do the work and all that other stuff comes. I don’t think Katherine or any of these women thought they were going to NASA to change the world, they were just excited to have a job in the field that they studied in school. That was just a blessing for them. Just to go to work everyday.”
The stars of Hidden Figures from left: Octavia Spencer, Taraji P. Henson, and Janelle Monáe. Robin Seemangal
“They were prepared and when opportunity meets preparation you can change the course of history. If you stay focused on your purpose and don’t worry about all the accolades. That will come. People will notice,” Henson explained. “When you do good work, it’s noticed. That’s why you couldn’t keep this story quiet forever. It was bound to be told because the work these women did was that amazing.” Six-time Grammy-nominated artist Janelle Monáe portrays Mary Winston Jackson, whom NASA believes may have been the only African-American female aeronautical engineer working in the field during the 1950s. Jackson would learn perseverance and self-discipline from her struggle to climb the ladder at NASA—lessons she would pass on to those she recruited for the agency’s Federal Women’s Program Manager at the Langley Research Center, empowering the next generation of female engineers. “These women did not really think about race and gender until somebody else made it a big issue. Then, when it started to get in the way of them pursuing their dreams and their goals, that’s when they had to stand up for themselves,” explained Monáe. “I think these women were selfless because they were not just doing it for them to be happy, but for their communities to be proud and for the women working with them to have the same opportunities. I think in my real life I’ve tried to do that.” “I’ve tried to make sure that I’m speaking out whenever an injustice done. I believe that an injustice done to my sisters is an injustice done to me,” she explained. “They did not think selfishly about it, they were servants of staying on and fighting for what’s right. I think we do that in our personal lives as well.” Oscar-winner Octavia Spencer plays NASA’s first African-American manager Dorothy Vaughan who fought for pay raises and promotions for the women at Langley’s segregated West Area Computing center which housed an all-black female workforce. This unit of mathematicians were required to eat separately and use separate bathrooms while according to NASA they, “distinguished themselves with contributions to virtually every area of research at Langley.”
“Gender parity in the workplace is still an issue. We are fortunate to be in entertainment and we’re afforded a certain comfort. But when you go out into certain industries, women should be paid the same as their male counterparts,” said Octavia Spencer. “One thing I would really like to credit NASA for is being progressive in their approach. They didn’t have to open their doors to minorities in the sixties but they did. They didn’t have to allow women in positions of power throughout the years but they have and they’ve been very inclusive. I think there should be other industries that should look to that sort of thinking because we all have something to contribute.” Unfortunately, John Glenn was unable to screen Hidden Figures before he passed away less than a week ago, but the cast spoke highly of the Senator and first American to orbit the Earth. Glenn is featured in the film and is portrayed by Glen Powell. “I always loved John Glenn. It was before our time that all of this happened but the thing that struck me the most is that he made a decision to put his life in the hands of an African-American woman,” said Octavia Spencer. “That was not a popular decision at the time and if you can do that, put aside your differences and believe in a person based on what they can contribute and how they contribute, man could go beyond the stars.” Robin Seemangal focuses on NASA and advocacy for space exploration. He was born and raised in Brooklyn, where he currently resides. Find him on Instagram for more space-related content: @nova_road.
Statistics
21 Facts You Never Knew About International Gender Inequality
SHARE ON FACEBOOKSHARE ON TWITTEREMAIL TO A FRIEND By MAKERS Team | March 07, 2015 Around the world, women continue to fight for equal rights. March 8, International Women's Day, is a dedicated opportunity to call for greater equality. At MAKERS, we recognize women who better the world, whether they're providing resources for women in war-torn countries or teaching girls to code. By highlighting their stories, we hope to empower the next generation of women leaders to aim higher, go further. Why? Because we still have a lot of ground the cover. Below, learn statistics that show the incredible inequalities we have to tackle, and discover the organizations that are working to change them. In parentheses, find the statistics source and a link to more information. This International Women’s Day, how will you support women around the world?
1. In 2015, only half of the world’s working-age women are in the labor force, compared to 77 percent of working-age men. Microlending programs like Kiva help women start and sustain their own businesses. (Department of Labor) 2. Women with full-time jobs still earn only about 77 percent of their male counterparts’ earnings. Talk about how much you earn, and report inequality. Learn about how to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC here. (White House) 3. African-American women earn 64 cents and Latina women earn 56 cents for every dollar earned by a Caucasian man. Lean In offers resources for negotiation in the workplace. (White House) 4. 62 million girls are denied an education all over the world. #UpForSchool wants to change that. Sign their petition here. (UN Foundation) 5. Every year, an estimated 15 million girls under 18 are married worldwide, with little or no say in the matter. Girls Not Brides studies the problem and is working to find workable solutions. They know that education and empowerment for girls are the first steps. You can help by sharing the facts or donating to projects making a difference. 6. 4 out of 5 victims of human trafficking are girls. The Malala Fund raises awareness and funds for girls to get out of this cycle and into school. (Malala Fund) 7. According to the UN Foundation, "At least 250,000 maternal deaths and as many as 1.7 million newborn deaths would be averted if the need for both family planning and maternal and newborn health services were met." 8. On average, 30 percent of women who have been in a relationship report that they have experienced some form of physical or sexual violence by their partner. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence offers volunteer opportunities, and you can support them at their events by checking their calendar here. (WHO)
9. Female genital mutilation (FGM) affects more than 125 million girls and women alive today. It is recognized internationally as a human rights violation. Equality Now offers specific points that will help you take action against FGM worldwide. (WHO) 10. American women serving in Iraq or Afghanistan are more likely to be raped by a comrade then killed by an enemy.The Service Women's Action Network helps achieve equal opportunities, protections and benefits for women in the military. Learn about their mission. (Pentagon) 11. In Saudi Arabia, women aren't allowed to drive and are discouraged from working jobs that would put them in contact with men. The unemployment rate for women is 34 percent for women, 7 percent for men. 12. At least 1000 honor killings occur in India and Pakistan each annually. Honor based crimes are distinguished by the fact that they are often carried out by a victim's family or community. The Honour Based Violence Awareness Network includes resources for victims and allies. (HBVA) 13. As of August 214, 74 colleges in the United States had pending Title IX sexual violence investigations. Learn how you can help stop sexual assault at It's On Us. (NPR) 14. Women around the world aged 15-44 are more at risk from rape and domestic violence than from cancer, car accidents, war and malaria. The United Nations has a list of suggestionsto help change this statistic, improving the lives of women and girls. (UN) 15. Around the world, only 22 percent of all national parliamentarians are female. That's double the number in 1995, but still a marker of slow change. Running Start is an organization that helps bring young women into politics. Learn about their programs and events here. (UN) 16. By 2018, there will be 1.4 million open technology jobs in the U.S. and, at the current rate of students graduating with degrees in computer science, only 29% of applicants will be women.Girls Who Code aims to educate and expose at least 1 million girls to computer science by 2020. Learn more about what they do here. (Microsoft Research)
17. One in five women on U.S. college campuses have experienced sexual assault. End Rape on Campus offers resources for survivors and supporters, working to bring more cases to court and raise awareness. (AAUW) 18. Women currently hold 24, or 4.8 percent of CEO positions at S&P 500 companies. Mentorship programs like Step Up help keep girls in school, getting them that much closer to an executive position. Learn how you can play a part. (Catalyst) 19. More than 43 million people around the world are forcibly displaced as a result of conflict and persecution. Half of all refugees are women. Zainab Salbi founded Women for Women International to help women in war-torn countries build their own futures. (UN) 20. Only 30 percent of the world's researchers are women. Google has a program to inspire the next generation of tech innovators. Learn how to help girls gain exposure to careers in science and technology. (UNESCO) 21. One in three women worldwide have experienced either intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence in their lifetime. Amnesty International pushes for laws that recognize this statistic, and its website has a list of ways to get involved in the change. (WHO)
Gender Pay Gap Reveals Female Bosses are Working for Free
By MAKERS Team | August 25, 2015 Would you work in a high-powered job for free? Research shows that female managers earn 22 percent less than male managers and "work for free" for nearly two hours a day, The Guardian reports. According to a survey of more than 72,000 managers in the U.K., the difference in pay equates to one hour and 40 minutes of unpaid labor per day by women, or 57 working days a year. According to The Guardian, a survey by the Chartered Management Institute and the pay analysts XPertHR shows that the gender pay gap across management professions is $13,380. Males earn an average of $61,432 compared $48,087 for female managers.
While women out-number men in entry-level jobs and junior management jobs, the pay gap increases at senior roles in a company. While men in director roles earned $217,877 on average, their female equivalents took home $194,352, according to The Guardian. The average male bonus was almost twice as high, at $7,692, compared with $3,974 for women. "An entire generation has now worked its way from [graduation] to retirement since the first equal pay legislation came into effect in 1970, yet the gender pay gap persists," said Mark Crail, content director of XpertHR. "Many employers still prefer not to know just how bad it is in their organization rather than getting to grips with the data and doing something about it."
Female bosses are working for free as gender pay gap persists Difference between the sexes in UK managers’ pay equates to nearly two hours of unpaid work a day by women Moya Greene, CEO of the Royal Mail, with managers of the London Stock Exchange and business ministers as the group’s shares began trading in 2013. Photograph: Royal Mail Group/PA Jennifer Rankin Monday 24 August 2015 Female managers earn 22% less than their male counterparts and “work for free” for nearly two hours a day, research shows. According to a survey of more than 72,000 managers in the UK, the difference in pay equates to one hour and 40 minutes of unpaid labour a day by women, or 57 working days a year. The gender pay gap across management professions now stands at £8,524, with male earnings averaging £39,136 compared with £30, 612 for female managers, according to the survey, carried out by the Chartered Management Institute and the pay analysts XPertHR. Although the gender pay gap has narrowed, from 23% in 2014, the researchers highlighted the stubbornness of the difference since equal pay legislation was introduced in 1970. Mark Crail, content director of XpertHR, said: “An entire generation has now worked its way through from school leaver to retirement since the first equal pay legislation came into effect in 1970, yet the gender pay gap persists. Many employers still prefer not to know just how bad it is in their organisation rather than getting to grips with the data and doing something about it.” Next year the government will introduce new rules forcing companies with more than 250 workers to disclose the pay gap in their workplaces, despite fierce resistance from employers. David Cameron has vowed to end the gender pay gap within a generation and has said the new rules would create the pressure needed to drive up women’s wages. The CMI’s chief executive, Ann Francke, said transparency would be a powerful driver to close the gender pay gap. “The government’s new reporting legislation is a welcome step forward and will be good news for business. Clearer employee data, improved recruitment and a reinvigorated focus on business culture will help unblock the talent pipeline and support more women to become senior managers and leaders.” But Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, the UK’s trade union body, said the government needed to do more. “The government’s move to require companies to publish pay gap information is positive, but it doesn’t go far enough,” she said. “We need
pay transparency and equal pay audits, and a requirement on companies to act on the data to close the gap. “The UK will never really address the problem of unequal pay until there are systems in place to expose and tackle the huge gap between what men and women doing similar jobs in the same workplaces are paid.” Sam Smethers, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, which campaigns for gender equality, said employers needed to take down barriers that prevented women from progressing and maintain the pipeline of talent. “One way forward would be to ensure that senior roles are advertised on a part-time basis or as a job-share unless there is a good business case for not doing so.” The national gender pay gap – reflecting average pay across all workplaces – is now at its lowest level since records began. The difference was 9.4% in 2014, compared with 10% a year earlier, according to the Office for National Statistics, but researchers say this reflects a larger drop in men’s wages compared to women’s, rather than an advance in female pay. The latest CMI/XPertHR survey underscores how the pay gap widens at the top of organisations, with men more likely to be promoted to the most senior roles. Although women outnumber men in entry-level and junior management jobs, they are not progressing to the most senior and lucrative roles. Women made up 67% of the management workforce in entry-level roles, but only 43% of senior managers and 29% of directors. Those women who do smash the glass ceiling are also likely to earn lower pay and a smaller bonus than their male counterparts. While men in director roles earned £138,699 on average, their female equivalents took home £123, 756. The average male bonus was almost twice as high, at £4,898, compared with £2,531 for women. The executive pay gap reflects the fact that women are less likely to occupy the most powerful positions in British companies. Under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, the government championed getting more women on to company boards, but progress has been slower when it comes to promoting women into the most powerful decision-making jobs in the boardroom: the roles of chief executive, chief finance officer and chair. Women now hold 23.5% of FTSE 100 directorships, almost double the number in 2011, when the target was set. But they still account for only 8.6% of all executive roles in FTSE 100 companies – still an all-time high that compares with 5.5% in 2011. Francke said: “Having more women in senior executive roles will pave the way for others and ensure they’re paid the same as their male colleagues at every stage of their careers.”
The national management salary survey is based on poll responses from 72,206 employees working in 317 private and public-sector organisations in the UK, including manufacturing, finance and IT.
Opinion
Why Gender Equality Stalled By STEPHANIE COONTZFEB. 16, 2013
THIS week is the 50th anniversary of the publication of Betty Friedan’s international best seller, “The Feminine Mystique,” which has been widely credited with igniting the women’s movement of the 1960s. Readers who return to this feminist classic today are often puzzled by the absence of concrete political proposals to change the status of women. But “The Feminine Mystique” had the impact it did because it focused on transforming women’s personal consciousness. In 1963, most Americans did not yet believe that gender equality was possible or even desirable. Conventional wisdom held that a woman could not pursue a career and still be a fulfilled wife or successful mother. Normal women, psychiatrists proclaimed, renounced all aspirations outside the home to meet their feminine need for dependence. In 1962, more than two-thirds of the women surveyed by University of Michigan researchers agreed that most important family decisions “should be made by the man of the house.”
It was in this context that Friedan set out to transform the attitudes of women. Arguing that “the personal is political,” feminists urged women to challenge the assumption, at work and at home, that women should always be the ones who make the coffee, watch over the children, pick up after men and serve the meals. Over the next 30 years this emphasis on equalizing gender roles at home as well as at work produced a revolutionary transformation in Americans’ attitudes. It was not instant. As late as 1977, two-thirds of Americans believed that it was “much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family.” By 1994, two-thirds of Americans rejected this notion. But during the second half of the 1990s and first few years of the 2000s, the equality revolution seemed to stall. Between 1994 and 2004, the percentage of Americans preferring the male breadwinner/female homemaker family model actually rose to 40 percent from 34 percent. Between 1997 and 2007, the number of full-time working mothers who said they would prefer to work part time increased to 60 percent from 48 percent. In 1997, a quarter of stay-athome mothers said full-time work would be ideal. By 2007, only 16 percent of stay-at-home mothers wanted to work full time. Women’s labor-force participation in the United States also leveled off in the second half of the 1990s, in contrast to its continued increase in most other countries. Gender desegregation of college majors and occupations slowed. And although single mothers continued to increase their hours of paid labor, there was a significant jump in the percentage of married women, especially married women with infants, who left the labor force. By 2004, a smaller percentage of married women with children under 3 were in the labor force than in 1993. SOME people began to argue that feminism was not about furthering the equal involvement of men and women at home and work but simply about giving women the right to choose between pursuing a career and devoting themselves to full-time motherhood. A new emphasis on intensive mothering and attachment parenting helped justify the latter choice. Anti-feminists welcomed this shift as a sign that most Americans did not want to push gender equality too far. And feminists, worried that they were seeing a resurgence of traditional gender roles and beliefs, embarked on a new round of consciousness-raising. Books with titles like “The Feminine Mistake” and “Get to Work” warned of the stiff penalties women paid for dropping out of the labor force, even for relatively brief periods. Cultural critics questioned the “Perfect Madness” of intensive mothering and helicopter parenting, noting the problems that resulted when, as Ms. Friedan had remarked about “housewifery,” mothering “expands to fill the time available.” One study cautioned that nearly 30 percent of opt-out moms who wanted to rejoin the labor force were unable to do so, and of those who did return, only 40 percent landed full-time professional jobs. In “The Price of Motherhood,” the
journalist Ann Crittenden estimated that the typical college-educated woman lost more than $1 million dollars in lifetime earnings and forgone retirement benefits after she opted out. Other feminists worried that the equation of feminism with an individual woman’s choice to opt out of the work force undermined the movement’s commitment to a larger vision of gender equity and justice. Joan Williams, the founding director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law, argued that defining feminism as giving mothers the choice to stay home assumes that their partners have the responsibility to support them, and thus denies choice to fathers. The political theorist Lori Marso noted that emphasizing personal choice ignores the millions of women without a partner who can support them. These are all important points. But they can sound pretty abstract to men and women who are stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to arranging their work and family lives. For more than two decades the demands and hours of work have been intensifying. Yet progress in adopting familyfriendly work practices and social policies has proceeded at a glacial pace. Today the main barriers to further progress toward gender equity no longer lie in people’s personal attitudes and relationships. Instead, structural impediments prevent people from acting on their egalitarian values, forcing men and women into personal accommodations and rationalizations that do not reflect their preferences. The gender revolution is not in a stall. It has hit a wall. In today’s political climate, it’s startling to remember that 80 years ago, in 1933, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to establish a 30-hour workweek. The bill failed in the House, but five years later the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 gave Americans a statutory 40-hour workweek. By the 1960s, American workers spent less time on the job than their counterparts in Europe and Japan. Between 1990 and 2000, however, average annual work hours for employed Americans increased. By 2000, the United States had outstripped Japan — the former leader of the work pack — in the hours devoted to paid work. Today, almost 40 percent of men in professional jobs work 50 or more hours a week, as do almost a quarter of men in middle-income occupations. Individuals in lowerincome and less-skilled jobs work fewer hours, but they are more likely to experience frequent changes in shifts, mandatory overtime on short notice, and nonstandard hours. And many low-income workers are forced to work two jobs to get by. When we look at dual-earner couples, the workload becomes even more daunting. As of 2000, the average dual-earner couple worked a combined 82 hours a week, while almost 15 percent of married couples had a joint workweek of 100 hours or more.
Astonishingly, despite the increased workload of families, and even though 70 percent of American children now live in households where every adult in the home is employed, in the past 20 years the United States has not passed any major federal initiative to help workers accommodate their family and work demands. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 guaranteed covered workers up to 12 weeks unpaid leave after a child’s birth or adoption or in case of a family illness. Although only about half the total work force was eligible, it seemed a promising start. But aside from the belated requirement of the new Affordable Care Act that nursing mothers be given a private space at work to pump breast milk, the F.M.L.A. turned out to be the inadequate end. Meanwhile, since 1990 other nations with comparable resources have implemented a comprehensive agenda of “work-family reconciliation” acts. As a result, when the United States’ work-family policies are compared with those of countries at similar levels of economic and political development, the United States comes in dead last. Out of nearly 200 countries studied by Jody Heymann, dean of the school of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her team of researchers for their new book, “Children’s Chances,” 180 now offer guaranteed paid leave to new mothers, and 81 offer paid leave to fathers. They found that 175 mandate paid annual leave for workers, and 162 limit the maximum length of the workweek. The United States offers none of these protections. A 1997 European Union directive prohibits employers from paying part-time workers lower hourly rates than full-time workers, excluding them from pension plans or limiting paid leaves to full-time workers. By contrast, American workers who reduce hours for family reasons typically lose their benefits and take an hourly wage cut. Is it any surprise that American workers express higher levels of work-family conflict than workers in any of our European counterparts? Or that women’s labor-force participation has been overtaken? In 1990, the United States ranked sixth in female labor participation among 22 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which is made up of most of the globe’s wealthier countries. By 2010, according to an economic research paper by Cornell researchers Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn, released last month, we had fallen to 17th place, with about 30 percent of that decline a direct result of our failure to keep pace with other countries’ family-friendly work policies. American women have not abandoned the desire to combine work and family. Far from it. According to the Pew Research Center, in 1997, 56 percent of women ages 18 to 34 and 26 percent of middle-aged and older women said that, in addition to having a family, being successful in a high-paying career or profession was “very important” or “one of the most important things” in their lives. By 2011, fully two-thirds of the younger women and 42 percent of the older ones expressed that sentiment.
Nor have men given up the ideal of gender equity. A 2011 study by the Center for Work and Family at Boston College found that 65 percent of the fathers they interviewed felt that mothers and fathers should provide equal amounts of caregiving for their children. And in a 2010 Pew poll, 72 percent of both women and men between 18 and 29 agreed that the best marriage is one in which husband and wife both work and both take care of the house. BUT when people are caught between the hard place of bad working conditions and the rock wall of politicians’ resistance to family-friendly reforms, it is hard to live up to such aspirations. The Boston College study found that only 30 percent of the fathers who wanted to share child care equally with their wives actually did so, a gap that helps explain why American men today report higher levels of work-family conflict than women. Under the circumstances, how likely is it that the young adults surveyed by Pew will meet their goal of sharing breadwinning and caregiving? The answer is suggested by the findings of the New York University sociologist Kathleen Gerson in the interviews she did for her 2010 book, “The Unfinished Revolution: Coming of Age in a New Era of Gender, Work, and Family.” Eighty percent of the women and 70 percent of the men Ms. Gerson interviewed said they wanted an egalitarian relationship that allowed them to share breadwinning and family care. But when asked what they would do if this was not possible, they described a variety of “fallback” positions. While most of the women wanted to continue paid employment, the majority of men said that if they could not achieve their egalitarian ideal they expected their partner to assume primary responsibility for parenting so they could focus on work. And that is how it usually works out. When family and work obligations collide, mothers remain much more likely than fathers to cut back or drop out of work. But unlike the situation in the 1960s, this is not because most people believe this is the preferable order of things. Rather, it is often a reasonable response to the fact that our political and economic institutions lag way behind our personal ideals. Women are still paid less than men at every educational level and in every job category. They are less likely than men to hold jobs that offer flexibility or family-friendly benefits. When they become mothers, they face more scrutiny and prejudice on the job than fathers do. So, especially when women are married to men who work long hours, it often seems to both partners that they have no choice. Female professionals are twice as likely to quit work as other married mothers when their husbands work 50 hours or more a week and more than three times more likely to quit when their husbands work 60 hours or more. The sociologist Pamela Stone studied a group of mothers who had made these decisions. Typically, she found, they phrased their decision in terms of a preference. But when they explained their “decision-making process,” it became
clear that most had made the “choice” to quit work only as a last resort — when they could not get the flexible hours or part-time work they wanted, when their husbands would not or could not cut back their hours, and when they began to feel that their employers were hostile to their concerns. Under those conditions, Professor Stone notes, what was really a workplace problem for families became a private problem for women. This is where the political gets really personal. When people are forced to behave in ways that contradict their ideals, they often undergo what sociologists call a “values stretch” — watering down their original expectations and goals to accommodate the things they have to do to get by. This behavior is especially likely if holding on to the original values would exacerbate tensions in the relationships they depend on. In their years of helping couples make the transition from partners to parents, the psychologists Philip and Carolyn Cowan have found that tensions increase when a couple backslide into more traditional roles than they originally desired. The woman resents that she is not getting the shared child care she expected and envies her husband’s social networks outside the home. The husband feels hurt that his wife isn’t more grateful for the sacrifices he is making by working more hours so she can stay home. When you can’t change what’s bothering you, one typical response is to convince yourself that it doesn’t actually bother you. So couples often create a family myth about why they made these choices, why it has turned out for the best, and why they are still equal in their hearts even if they are not sharing the kind of life they first envisioned. Under present conditions, the intense consciousness raising about the “rightness” of personal choices that worked so well in the early days of the women’s movement will end up escalating the divisive finger-pointing that stands in the way of political reform. Our goal should be to develop work-life policies that enable people to put their gender values into practice. So let’s stop arguing about the hard choices women make and help more women and men avoid such hard choices. To do that, we must stop seeing work-family policy as a women’s issue and start seeing it as a human rights issue that affects parents, children, partners, singles and elders. Feminists should certainly support this campaign. But they don’t need to own it. Stephanie Coontz is a professor of family history at Evergreen State College and the author of “A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s.”