Re:Gender works to end gender inequity and discrimination against girls and women by exposing root causes and advancing research-informed action. Working with multiple sectors and disciplines, we are shaping a world that demands fairness across difference.
The disconnect puts the social-media company at odds with others in the industry that have at least one female director, including LinkedIn Corp. and Google Inc., and from most big public companies in the U.S. Just 11.3 percent of the Fortune 500 had male-only boards last year, according to Catalyst, a New York-based nonprofit that researches women and business issues.
“We’re long past having to defend or explain why women should be on boards, given all the data that shows how companies with female as well as male directors perform better,” said Anne Mulcahy, former chairman and chief executive officer of Xerox Corp. and a director at Johnson & Johnson Co., Target Corp. and Washington Post Co. “It’s unfortunate when companies with a large percentage of women constituents don’t reflect that in their boardrooms.”
A new study by Ameriprise Financial puts the differences between how men and women worry about retirement under the microscope.
In the New Retirement Mindscape City Pulse index, the firm finds even though men are 5% more likely to be planning for retirement, women are the ones stressing the most about having a nest egg large enough to sustain them in their golden years.
According to Bill Losey, a certified retirement coach and author of Retire in a Weekend, there are a handful of factors pushingwomen to the edge about retirement planning.
"There's so much information and so many different opinions, that I think women at this point really don't know who to trust," he says.
This slideshow ranking of the top 20 cities where women earn the most was compiled from the 2010 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau, using the average earnings for full-time, year-round female workers in the largest metro areas in the U.S.
There is an increasing recognition that the ownership of, access to and control over assets constitute a critical element in the determination of the well-being of households and individuals. Owing largely to data constraints, however, there has been a tendency for studies on assets and well-being/poverty to use the household as the unit of analysis. Such an approach tends to ignore the importance of intra-household disparities in asset ownership and well-being. Moreover, the dearth of individual-level data on asset ownership makes it extremely difficult to analyze gender disparities in asset ownership, wealth and well-being. As rightly noted by Grown et al. (2005), this lack of data seriously hampers efforts to track the progress of countries toward the Millennium Development Goal of gender equality and women’s empowerment.
In 2011, women held 7.5% of executive officer top earner positions at Fortune 500 companies and a miniscule 3.6% of those firms have women as CEOs. According to a study by Pax World, Calvert and Walden Asset Management, a paltry 9.4% of directors on global corporate boards are women. We make up 46.7% of the US labor force, but in keeping with the global trend we hold fewer positions of responsibility and work part-time more frequently. And of course we're paid less than male peers: 17.2% less in the U.S., 18% less in the EU. According to Linda Basch, National Council for Research on Women (NCRW) President, the guy who sat next to me at Oxford is statistically likely to make $2M more than me over our lifetimes.
Valerie Keller, the Founder and CEO of Veritas, on being a female CEO:
Perhaps because I was a young CEO, I never paid much attention before to the 'glass ceiling' or other woes of women in the workplace... until a mid-career MBA at Oxford recently woke me up. A meager 10% of my classmates were women. As it turns out, that is pretty high. In 2011, women held 7.5% of executive officer top earner positions at Fortune 500 companies and a miniscule 3.6% of those firms have women as CEOs. According to a study by Pax World, Calvert and Walden Asset Management, a paltry 9.4% of directors on global corporate boards are women. We make up 46.7% of the US labor force, but in keeping with the global trend we hold fewer positions of responsibility and work part-time more frequently. And of course we're paid less than male peers: 17.2% less in the U.S., 18% less in the EU. According to Linda Basch, National Council for Research on Women (NCRW) President, the guy who sat next to me at Oxford is statistically likely to make $2M more than me over our lifetimes.
What is the problem? Nature or nurture? Are most of our sisters genetically hardwired to not seek out positions of power and influence -- and/or are there cultural and systemic blockages? What solutions are working to increase numbers of women leading in corporations and how can those be amplified and accelerated?
Women of all ages share dreams of retirement that include traveling, spending time with family and friends, and pursuing hobbies, but only 8 percent strongly agree that they are building a large enough retirement nest egg, according to research released by the non-profit Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies® (“The Center”). As part of its 12th Annual Transamerica Retirement Survey, the Center surveyed over 1,800 American women workers to understand where their outlook stands today and what approaches could help them make their retirement futures brighter.
Karen DeCrow examines the chain of events that prevents women from being recruited to corporate boards.
From the Post-Standard:
Perhaps the low number of women on boards — which operate far out of the sunshine — and the slow rate of change may be because it is assumed that board members should be experienced CEOs and chief financial officers. Not many women have held these positions.
It sounds like the Catch-22 that kept women from so many professions. Years ago, NASA had the requirement that, to be an astronaut, you had to have been a fighter pilot. But women had not been allowed to be fighter pilots.
What a provocative visit to NASA, what a runaround, a small group of us from the National Organization for Women had. It took forever to schedule. They were too busy with outer space to meet with us. Finally, the meeting was set in May 1974.
When we arrived, we were told that the administrator who was to meet with us had to fly away someplace. After coming to Houston from all over the country, we agreed to meet with someone else.
What did we demand? Affirmative action. The nervous official seemed convinced that we represented millions of women. NASA agreed to advertise for astronauts in publications directed especially to women.
Affirmative action worked.
Sally Ride, who would become the first American woman in space, was a graduate physicist at Berkeley when she read that NASA was seeking women for the space program.
I have been video interviewing venture capitalists, angel investors and women founders trying to investigate the apparent shortfall in funding for women led technology startups. My goal has been to listen to as many people as I could from both sides of the table, in order to get a diversity of opinions on this controversial subject.
Whilst I have been doing these interviews, many people have said to me that no problem exists and that women can be as easily funded as men if they have a great idea, team, plan and advisors. However the statistics show another story. The percentages of women in technology, female entrepreneurs and female venture capitalists are extremely low compared to men. But the reasons are multifold and complex and cannot be resolved quickly or easily.
Theodore recently teamed up with Startup Genometo help get a critical mass of women to participate in the Startup Genome Compass in order to add the dimension of quantitative data to the discovery of the DNA of women led startups.
A flurry of articles have been written on the “women and startups” problem. The same issues are brought up again and again, but one issue that hasn’t been given much attention and scrutiny is the significance of the fact that there are practically no female VC’s.
The fact that females are underrepresented in finance is a given, but the venture capital industry specifically is an egregious perpetrator of maintaining a well-balanced gender ratio. Let me provide you with some statistics. Only 2 females were listed on the 2011 Midas List, an annual list of the top tech investors. A quick-and-dirty analysis of the gender ratios of the most active VC firms of 2011 as well as some of the most visible VC firms out there today reveals that almost half of the firms have no female investment professionals within the firm, and the average percentage of females in these firms falls at 8%. [See here for my data.] On top of this is the fact that the most visible investors out there — the Fred Wilsons of the world — are male.
Our findings run counter to media coverage of the so-called phenomenon that “women don’t ask.” Instead the problem may be, as some other research has shown, that people routinely take a tougher stance against women in negotiations than they take against men—for example quoting higher starting prices when trying to sell women cars or making less generous offers when dividing a sum of money. Catalyst research has shown a number of ways that talent-management systems can also be vulnerable to unintentional gender biases and stereotypes.
Our latest findings should help us move past arguments that women themselves are to blame for the gender gap. “Too often the focus is on ‘women’s perceived issues’,” says Shahla Aly, a vice president at Microsoft. “This notion gives false comfort – that with time women will ‘be fixed’ and advance.”
If women are asking, but are still not advancing as quickly, maybe we need to frame things differently. Perhaps it’s not that women don’t ask—but that men don’t have to.