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.
Making a Difference for Women Awards Dinner on Tuesday, March 6th, at Cipriani Wall Street. To read the event press release, click here. Photos by Don Pollard for NCRW. CLICK ON FIRST PHOTO to activate slideshow.
As Augusta National Golf Club prepares to host the competition next week, it faces a quandary: The club hasn’t admitted a woman as a member since its founding eight decades ago, yet it has historically invited the chief executive officer of IBM, one of three Masters sponsors. Since the company named Rometty to the post this year, Augusta will have to break tradition either way.
IBM holds a rarefied position at the Augusta, Georgia, course. The company has a hospitality cabin near the 10th hole, beside co-sponsors Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and AT&T Inc. (T) The companies’ male CEOs have been able to don the club’s signature green member blazers while hosting clients. Non-members, who don’t wear the jackets, must be accompanied by a member to visit the course or play a round.
“They have a dilemma on many levels,” said Marcia Chambers, senior research scholar in law and journalist in residence at Yale University Law School. “If there’s been a tradition of certain CEOs, then they should look at this new CEO in the same way. The only thing that makes her any different is her gender.”
Little is known about how socioeconomic characteristics of executive teams affect corporate governance in banking. Exploiting a unique dataset, we show how age, gender, and education composition of executive teams affect risk taking of financial institutions. First, we establish that age, gender, and education jointly affect the variability of bank performance. Second, we use difference-in-difference estimations that focus exclusively on mandatory executive retirements and find that younger executive teams increase risk taking, as do board changes that result in a higher proportion of female executives. In contrast, if board changes increase the representation of executives holding Ph.D. degrees, risk taking declines.
Women work longer days and report working more often on vacation than their male counterparts. Yet, women also report greater perceived satisfaction with their compensation, according to new data released today in theFIT’s first Report on Workplace Culture. Fifty- four percent of women report working nine or more hours a day, compared to 41 percent of men. The report includes survey data from over 5,000 U.S. employees.
On a sunny afternoon in late March, before an audience of 1,200 students at the Tec de Monterrey’s satellite campus just outside of Mexico City, Josefina Vazquez Mota, the first female presidential candidate in the country’s history, talked about her campaign. “Michelle Bachelet [the former president of Chile] gave me some great advice, she said ‘never put on a mustache to govern, govern as a woman.’”
Since Lord Davies’ independent review of women on boards a year ago (February 2011), the impetus to seek out female talent for the boardroom has never been greater. FTSE 100 companies appointed 26 women to their boards in the first eight months of 2011, a jump by 227% from the whole of 2010. Of these 26 appointments, 31% were women with financial services backgrounds, i.e. the most in-demand demographic.
This paper considers why women from the world of alternative investments could be appropriate for publicly quoted corporate boards. Working with senior members of 100 Women in Hedge Funds, we have conducted a study into the potential among women in alternatives for board. Of the 100 participants, 85% felt they were ready for a corporate board role within five years or less and 58% within two years or less.
It's just 37 words, 37 plain and grammatically clunky words hiding inside a large education bill, 37 words that didn't seem to be a big deal at the time, 37 words that would change everything:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
Those are the words of Title IX, a section of the Education Amendments signed into law by President Richard M. Nixon on June 23, 1972. Not exactly "We hold these truths to be self-evident ... " but, then again, the Founding Fathers knew they were on to something back in 1776.
The Founding Mothers of Title IX were just looking for a more level playing field in academics. "We had no idea," says Bernice "Bunny" Sandler, who helped draft the legislation and now works as a senior scholar for the Women's Research and Education Institute in Washington, D.C. "We had no idea how bad the situation really was -- we didn't even use the word sex discrimination back then -- and we certainly had no sense of the revolution we were about to start."
You'll notice that not one of those 37 words is "athletics" or "sports," the very words that have come to be associated with Title IX. "The only thought I gave to sports when the bill was passed," Sandler says, "was, Oh, maybe now when a school holds its field day, there will be more activities for the girls."
They ended up having much more than a field day. The number of girls playing high school sports jumped from 294,015 in 1971-72 to 3,172,637 in 2009-10, an increase of 1079 percent. (The number of male high school athletes grew from 3,666,917 to 4,455,740 during that same period, an increase of 22 percent.) The number of women playing varsity sports in college rose from 29,972 in 1971-72 to 186,460 in 2009-10, a 622 percent increase that still leaves them behind the total of NCAA male athletes, whose population grew from 170,384 to 249,307 (46 percent) in that time frame.
Of course, the true significance of Title IX has been the accompanying increase in opportunities for women off the field -- a level of female empowerment so strong that Sandler calls the law "the most important step for gender equality since the 19th Amendment gave us the right to vote."
PolitiFact Ohio decided to focus on this simple statement about the economic plight of women.
Kaptur’s communications director Steve Fought provided PolitiFact Ohio with U.S. Census data and a National Women’s Law Center report to back up his boss’s statement.
The numbers indeed show that the poverty rate for women in the United States was 14.5 percent in 2010, which was 3.3 percentage points higher than for men.
Women also fared worse when comparisons were made within ethnic groups, such as white (non-Hispanic), black, Hispanic, Asian and native American. For instance, slightly more than 25 percent of all African-American women were in poverty in 2010, compared with 19.1 percent for African-American men.