The "Language" of Sexism

Recently, I followed a Twitter link to a collection of “vintage” print ads. These ads were full of such gems as, “The Chef [a mixer] does everything but cook – that’s what wives are for!” and “Most men ask ‘Is she pretty?’ not ‘Is she clever?’” and “Is a wife to blame if she doesn’t know these intimate physical facts? Yes! She’s decidedly to blame!”

Now, granted, these ads are from the ‘50s, and it would be highly unlikely for any ad agency to even come close to this level of blatant sexism. There are those who note that although we don’t see this particular type of sexism anymore, there are plenty of examples of a different kind of sexism in the media today. The photo below is from the Women’s Interest section of the magazine rack of a popular book store. Apparently the primary goals for us are to please our men (top row), lose weight and get married. Then we can move to the section that has all the family, home and garden magazines. Now, I like to look great and shop as much as the next person, and I am married and have children (but would never claim to have a green thumb!). But that is not, by far, all of who I am. Where are the magazines targeting women that focus on business, politics and finance?

But I digress.

The images presented to us on the covers of magazines more often than not show women in bikinis or sexy dresses. But what about language? Obviously, they are going to pretty much track the images. One headline promises to tell us the “12 Little Things Every Guy Wants in Bed.” Another will enlighten us as to the “Must-have shoes, bags & more.” And, of course, we will be instructed as to how to “Speak His Sex Language.”

But that’s the media. What about our own language?

The other day, I read a Facebook post by a man who had an unfortunate “run-in” with a woman he did not know. He was injured, but she did not stop to help him. His Facebook post began with random letters indicating swearing, but he went on to call her a “whore” and a “skank.” Now, I understand he was angry, and certainly he had a right to be. But I called him out on the “anti-female” language, asking him if perhaps he didn’t think it was a bit harsh. His response was, “Sorry for the language but to lump all females into one category is a little unfair. She deserves the language I used. I'm not anti-female tho :-) [sic].”

Did she deserve that kind of language? What if she didn’t know she had hurt him? What if she did? If you’re a woman, does injuring someone (whether intentionally or unintentionally) make you a whore or a skank? What if you’re a man? Are you still a whore or a skank? And are the male “equivalents” (if there is such a thing) as harsh as whore and skank? Do you agree with him that I was the one unfairly lumping all women together?

Keep in mind I did not say he was anti-female, just that his language was. Do you find it interesting that he had to reassure me that he was not anti-female, even though I did not make that statement?

I’d love to hear your thoughts, but please – keep it civil and no verbal attacks on either me or the individual making the statement. My point is not to attack, but rather to make people aware of how their choice of language may send a message they are not intending to send.

Common Sense

Despite being an avid learner, I rarely have “ah, hah” moments. Certainly I learn things that make me think, “Hey, that’s interesting,” but few that rise to the true level of “ah, hah.” However, last night I was thinking about a variety of experiences I have had recently, and did have one of those moments.

I am a huge advocate of common sense. But my “ah, hah” moment was figuring out that there are really two types of common sense. The first type is the kind that every adult should possess. The kind that says, “just because your 14-year-old daughter wants to “quit” the family vacation doesn’t mean you let her be driven home by a trucker you meet at a truck stop.” That kind of common sense should not have to be taught to adults. The second kind of common sense comes about only after some basic education. And that’s the kind of common sense I’m developing lately in multiple arenas.

Yesterday, I began Jeff Garrison’s Sales Habitudes Practice Group. Even after just the first session, I can see things that are common sense if you have basic information about how people learn, how they sell, and how they buy.

I’m increasing my financial literacy with the help of Dan Durant, of Financial Architects, and am discovering that although financial planning is not rocket science, “common sense” in this area requires a certain amount of knowledge (as well as learning the lingo).

My company, Red Lantern Group, LLC, involves issues that I consider common sense. On closer examination, however, it is clear that this is common sense based upon the knowledge I have gained from a variety of sources. Some of this “common sense” is:

• It makes sense to me to hire more women in executive roles because I know that companies that have gender balance at the top perform better on virtually every financial indicator. Although intuitively it would seem to make sense, this is actually research based as well. (Women in Leadership Roles: From Politically Correct to Competitive Advantage, by Anne Perschel of Germane Consulting)

• It makes sense to me to bring women back into the workplace after they “step out,” whether they step out to raise children, care for elderly parents, volunteer or any other reason. These women possess a wealth of experience and expertise that is not being fully utilized; they can ramp up faster than a new graduate, and bring a broader perspective and willingness to work hard. (Off-Ramps and On-Ramps, by Sylvia Hewlett)

• It makes sense for companies to do what they can to prevent domestic violence, because it has a significant impact on their bottom line in terms of absenteeism, lost productivity and potential safety/liability issues. (The Workplace Responds to Domestic Violence: A Resource Guide for Employees, Unions and Advocates, a project of the Family Violence Prevention Fund)

• It makes sense to me for women to be in political leadership. They have the education, the work experience and the volunteer and home experience. It is typically a more holistic approach. (See generally The White House Project)

When people know the basic facts upon which everything else is based, whether it’s in the area of sales, financial planning or leadership development, things become more common sense. When things make sense, individuals and companies can begin to make changes that will eventually become good habits. And as Jeff Garrison will tell you, that’s when things really click and progress can be made.

Fathers Matter, Too

This week, I attended a day and a half of Continuing Legal Education (“CLE”) entitled, Fathers Matter, Too. The focus was on bringing Dads to the table more often, particularly when their kids are involved in the juvenile court system. Speakers from the National Fatherhood Initiative spoke on the Value of Fathers and Engaging Fathers in the Process, while Dr. Leo Mesa, Jr. addressed the Fundamentals of Domestic Violence. Most of the attendees were social workers, so it was interesting to watch from an attorney perspective. A few observations:

• There is a “concern” that when children are removed from the home, services are offered to Mom, but not Dad. Further, reunification efforts are focused on Mom, but Dad is not considered. Services include the expected things like parenting classes, therapy, etc., but may also include sessions on resume preparation. Although these are valid concerns, they came about because of the reality at the time they were developed. For example, when men were the primary breadwinners and women stayed home with the children, it was the women that needed the resume-writing assistance, because they had been out of the workforce. Men didn’t necessarily need that, because they were and had been working.

• During the discussion on domestic violence, there was a discussion regarding how some men who abuse women “objectify” them (e.g., “my wife,” used in reference to her as property, rather than identification). It was interesting to hear someone say, “Men who objectify women do not think of them as something of value. . .” My immediate thought was, I never think of women as some “thing.” On a positive note, when I relayed the story to my 20-year-old daughter, I merely told her what was said, and she immediately said, “Something?”

• The focus of the seminar was to figure out ways to get more fathers involved in their children’s lives. However, at one point, one of the social workers pointed out that not all men wanted custody of their kids, or go to their conferences, etc. They might just want visitation. And my thought was, “Tough. What if both parents said that all they wanted was visitation? Why do we “allow” dads to choose to just have visitation, and not otherwise participate in their children’s lives? Those are the “Disneyland Dads” – they want all the fun with none of the responsibility.

• One of the things suggested to get more fathers involved in programming designed to make them better dads was to make it convenient. One woman suggested that if fathers were truly committed to their children, it wouldn’t matter if it was convenient – they would do whatever it took. Someone else pointed out that not every employer was family friendly, so it was hard for men to take time off. I reminded them that this was not a gender issue; when women take time off, they are considered “not serious” about their careers. The first woman also asked about the Family Medical Leave Act. However, not everyone is eligible for FMLA; FMLA is usually unpaid; and FMLA is for serious medical issues, not things like your kids’ conferences or sporting events.

• The question was posed, “Can batterers be good dads?” The answer given was a “yes, but.” Yes, but only if they stop battering Mom. My personal bias is in alignment with the second half of that statement. Dad cannot be a good dad if he is beating or otherwise abusing the mother of his children, because of the trauma domestic abuse can cause those children. I don’t care what else he is doing right – if he is abusing Mom, he is not a good Dad. Period.

After years of representing women in situations where they were abused, harassed or discriminated against, after working with children who are abused, neglected and abandoned, I confess that I have perhaps less patience with men than some of the other attendees. Yes, I know there are reasons why men batter, why they abandon their children, and why they are disengaged. Yes, I know it is not always the man’s fault that they do not have as much contact with their kids as they might like. However, at a certain point, men need to take responsibility for their lives and those of their children. They need to stop battering women and start participating in a positive way in their kids’ lives. And I am not too inclined to wait forever for them to change; in these situations, hope does not spring eternal for me. The rate of recidivism for batterers is astounding, particularly if they do not go through a good batterer’s education program. Dr. Mesa told a story of a man who was referred to, and attended a batterer’s program three different times before he finally decided to change. Will he? Forever? Hard to say.

When kids are involved, I am not willing to give too many “second chances,” because it’s too damaging for the kids. The courts agree – in Iowa, parents have about a year to get their act together or their parental rights are terminated. It’s more important to give the kids a chance at stability and success than it is to try to change the parents.

So go to the web-site and see the great work the Fatherhood Initiative is doing. But also remember that dads bear at least some of the responsibility to get involved in their kids’ lives in a positive, nurturing way.

Is It Really the End of Men?

In the July/August 2010 issue of The Atlantic, Hanna Rosin poses a provocative questions – “What if equality isn't the end point? What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women?” To support this, she provides several statements, among them:

• Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in history
• Most managers are now women; and
• For every two men that get a college degree, three women will do the same.
  

Despite the title, the article is not about male-bashing. Rather, Rosin posits that the skills necessary to succeed in the post-industrial society are skills that have typically been associated with women. She notes that, “[a]s thinking and communicating have come to eclipse physical strength and stamina as the keys to economic success, those societies that take advantage of the talents of all their adults, not just half of them, have pulled away from the rest.” (emphasis added).

This willingness to include women, resulting in improved financial indicators and better governance, has been confirmed in other studies (See prior posts). And while noting that there is still a dearth of women at the very top, Rosin notes that this, too, may be changing. In fact, according to a recent report in Bloomberg news, women who head the nation's largest companies are earning substantially more than their male counterparts. And Joel Garreau, author of Edge City, observes that suburban office parks became popular because companies looking for the “best educated, most conscientious, most stable workers” found the best candidates in “underemployed females living in middle-class communities on the fringe of the old urban areas.”

So what does all this mean? Is it the beginning of the end for men? Well, probably not, but on the other hand, changes in leadership, the workforce and work environments will require men to adapt. Women have been forced to adapt to men’s work and career paths for years. Sometimes this has been a matter of survival (their own, or that of their children), and sometimes it’s been simply so they could have better jobs. If they wanted the jobs that paid better or were perhaps more interesting, they had to play by the rules already in place.
Men, on the other hand, have traditionally shied away from what has been deemed “women’s work,” and have had no real incentive to “adapt” to the lower paying careers.

Women are moving up (the corporate ladder), they are moving in (to elected positions) and moving on (owning their own businesses when they are denied positions, promotions or are flat out ignored). In an introduction to Enlightened Power: How Women Are Transforming the Practice of Leadership, David Gergen writes, “[w]omen are knocking on the door of leadership at the very moment when their talents are especially well matched with the requirements of the day.” Further, traditional “command and control” leadership, which tends to be more male-based, is being replaced by more collaborative, transformational leadership, which utilizes skills typically attributed to women.

Although I do not believe it’s the end of men, I do believe it’s the beginning of the end of excluding women. Women are no longer willing to stand by while male-dominated firms of financial “gurus” push us into another Great Recession. Women no longer want to hear men tell them that instead of taking guns away from abusers, women should take a self-defense class instead. Women no longer want male-run oil companies to drill for oil without adequate safeguards in place to either prevent or stop environmentally crippling oil spills.
Women want accountability, responsibility and collaboration, whether in the corporate office or on Capitol Hill.

And speaking of Capitol Hill, women have recently been elected to public office in record numbers. Women who have been mercilessly attacked (think Nikki Haley, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton) and women with no party backing (Elaine Marshall). Republicans and Democrats, those with and without experience. Organizations like The White House Project, The New Agenda and the 50/50 in 2020 project are focused on getting more women elected to public office.

So run, women, run (for public office).

Lead, women, lead (in the corporate world).

Create, solve, stand up, speak out and make your life count.

It’s time.

Retraction or Clarification?

There are first times for everything, I guess. Today is the first time I’ve had to post a – well, not a retraction, exactly. The person did and said exactly what I said he did and said; but it is possible I misinterpreted his words and actions.

Let me explain.

Last week, I posted a segment talking about the different responses between men and women to my business. I work on the problem of getting professional women back into the workforce after they have stepped out (for whatever reason), as well as getting more women into leadership roles. I also work with companies to tap this incredible pool of talent by making work paths more amenable to how women work. I don’t simply suggest they do this because it’s the “right” thing to do, but also because it makes great business sense. I noted in my previous post that women intuitively “got it,” but men – well, not that they didn’t understand it intellectually, but rather they didn’t have the "experiential" understanding, because they likely had not ever been in many of those situations. I wrote that, while talking to men about my business, “[a] third [man] said he felt “emaciated” and suddenly had to take a phone call!” That was true - he did say that, and he did abruptly take a phone call and leave.

However, last night, my husband ran into this same man, who told him that he “loved” my business, thought it was a great idea and that it would really do well. He told my husband specific things that he liked about it, and was, according to my husband, quite sincere. So I’m not sure whether I completely misinterpreted his words and actions, whether he left and thought about what I was saying and changed his mind/opinion, or some combination of the two. In any event, if it’s the first, I apologize. If it’s the second, then I get an “atta girl”!

It does tell me, though, that women and men, are beginning to talk about the topic, recognize both the problems and the opportunities, and trying to figure out solutions. That's a win-win for everyone.

Do Businesses STILL Not Get It?

While writing the previous posts, I had conversations with various people about information contained in the post, as well as the work I do generally around women’s issues (especially work-related and leadership issues). The gender differences were quite interesting. Women, as you might expect, “got” the struggles women face in the workplace. They understood how difficult managing work and home could be, and the different priorities women may have in seeking the best work position/environment. They were, by and large, appalled at the statistics, whether they spoke to pay disparity, exclusion at the upper levels of leadership or career “drop-out.”

One woman (CEO of a large, well-established non-profit) told me that she knew her male counterpart was paid more, with a smaller territory. I introduced myself to a woman at a local coffee shop who is a sales representative for a major pharmaceutical company. As soon as I told her what I did, she could hardly contain her anger, raging at the company that always chose rich sports figures for their “motivational” speakers. She verbalized something I’ve always said – when there are women in your audience, you may want to lose the sports analogies (football and baseball, in particular). Not because women “can’t understand” those analogies, or don’t like sports, but because we’re not “allowed” to play some of those sports at the professional level. A third woman spoke of being bullied by the men on her committee when she wouldn’t “toe the party line,” and instead demanded accountability.

Men, on the other hand, did not seem concerned about the challenges women face, and didn’t really seem bothered by the statistics. One man suggested that rather than focusing on getting more women into executive positions, I talk about succession planning generally (which is a very different thing, and sucked the very life out of the passion I felt for the project). Another asked what the “value proposition” was (a good question, I’m sure, but one which the women I spoke with intuitively understood). A third said he felt “emaciated” and suddenly had to take a phone call!

The interesting thing about this was that all of these men are men I like and respect. They are intelligent and sensitive to diversity issues. Keep in mind, too, that I was not advocating women “taking over” and running men out on a rail. I was merely pointing out that women are grossly underrepresented in top positions, despite having the credentials and abilities necessary to succeed in these positions. That having more women on boards and in the executive suite improves financial indicators, such as the ever-important return on equity of companies. That collaborative leadership styles (common in women leaders) has proven to be extraordinarily effective. That a balance of men and women was best for most organizations.

I have always been passionate about women’s issues, whether being shocked by reports of Bosnian rape camps, outraged at being fired because I was pregnant, or dismayed by a recent Catalyst video (dismayed because it spoke of a truth that feels, at times, overwhelming). And please don’t talk to me about the progress women have made. Yes, we have made some progress, but not nearly enough. Despite all the statistics demonstrating why it’s a good business idea to have more women on boards and in executive level positions, companies still refuse to hire/promote women. Not all companies, and not all the time, but often enough that more than 70% of the top 1,500 companies in the U.S. have no women on the senior leadership team. (Holding Women Back, Troubling Discoveries – And Best Practices for Helping Female Leaders Succeed, citing Dezso & Ross, 2008)

Despite all the statistics talking about the power women are beginning to wield as consumers and holders of both intellectual and financial wealth, businesses still routinely do not take our opinions into account when developing or marketing products.

Does that make sense to anyone?

The Paradox

On September 16, 2001, and again on August 14, 2005, Wiley Miller, the cartoonist who creates Non Sequitur, produced a strip for the Sunday paper that was, unfortunately, funny. I say unfortunately, because the gist of the strip is that the boss (a white male) is incredibly impressed with a report written by one of his middle managers. He says, “Give this guy a raise and a promotion before we lose him!!” However, when the man to whom he is speaking informs him that the report was written by a woman, his eyes bug out, and he revises his position, deciding that rather than the report being “forceful and straightforward,” it instead “comes off as rather bitchy.” And instead of a promotion and raise, the woman is fired, using the “standard excuse of [the] economic downturn.”

The comic is both funny and discouraging. It is funny, because like all good humor, it contains at least a grain (if not more) of truth. It is discouraging for that same reason.

Ann Howard, Ph.D. and Richard Wellins, Ph.D, both of Development Dimensions International, conducted a study in 2008. The results of that study were presented in a report entitled Holding Women Back: Troubling Discoveries – and Best Practices for Helping Female Leaders Succeed.

Following are some of their findings:

• Women’s representation in executive-level positions was half that in first-level management
• More than 70% of the top 1,500 U.S. firms have no women on the senior leadership team (Dezsö & Ross, 2008)
• In all major global regions, women were more likely than men to fall off the management ladder before reaching the top
• Among executives, 50% more men than women are [considered] high-potentials.
  

These statistics are appalling standing on their own, but when looked at in conjunction with the benefits of having women in executive and/or board positions, they are absolutely baffling.

• A 1998 study of S&P 500 companies found that companies with the most women and minority directors had shareholder returns that were 21 percent higher than those of companies with all white male boards.
• In January 2004, Catalyst reported a link between greater gender diversity among the corporate officers of 353 companies in the Fortune 500 and better financial performance by those companies over the period 1996–2000, measured by both return on equity and total return to shareholders.
• Based on their research, the authors found that the presence of women on boards has a practical as well as a symbolic effect: it changes the functioning and deliberative style of the board in clear and consistent ways that are linked to good governance, which in turn improves organizational performance over the long term.
• “In addition, the authors noted that boards with two or more women directors, and even boards with only one women director, regularly reviewed non-financial performance measures such as customer satisfaction and employee satisfactions significantly more than did all-male boards.
  
  (Toni G. Wolfman, The Face of Corporate Leadership).
  
  So what gives? How can the results of having women at the top be so overwhelmingly positive, yet companies are still largely devoid of women at those upper levels? Why aren’t companies clamoring for, and actively recruiting these women? Or are they, and women are simply not taking advantage of these opportunities? Or is it a little of both, or something else entirely?
  
  We’ll look at the possible answers to these questions shortly.