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.
Click through the slideshow for a firm-by-firm breakdown of the numbers.
The FEM Study: METHODOLOGY
All the data for assets under management comes from the National Venture Capital Association, which sent us their latest list from Thomson Reuters, current as of Q1 2012. The list included private equity firms that also do venture capital investing, which we attempted to identify and omit. However, some may still be included in the final list of 71 firms.*
Next, we went to each firm’s website and tallied up the number of partners and managing directors, noting how many were women. Obviously, the structure is different at different firms. For consistency, and to give firms the greatest benefit of the doubt, we counted anyone as a partner who had “partner” in his or her title, including venture partners, founding partners, administrative partners and other variations. We also included managing directors, who are senior partners. We did not include vice presidents, principals or associates. When partner titles were unlisted or ambiguous, we called and asked for the numbers.
We then calculated, for each firm on the list, the percentage of partners who are female. Rather than call it POPWAF, we decided to call this number the Female Equality Metric, or FEM. (At first we called it the Kleiner number, but decided to reserve that term for “number of discrimination lawsuits filed.”)
A firm with all male partners has a FEM of zero. A firm with all female partners (LOL, JK) would have a FEM of 100. If you think gender diversity is important, a low FEM is bad and a high FEM is good. If you think women should stay at the receptionist’s desk and out of the corner offices, a low FEM is good and a high FEM is bad. And if you think Silicon Valley is a meritocracy, as does Greg McAdoo of Sequoia Capital, which coincidentally has zero women partners, then you’ll probably dismiss these numbers as meaningless.
But page through this list of venture capital’s heavyweights, and it’s striking to see how few women have made it to the upper ranks. Also striking was the perfect 100 POFR, or percentage of female receptionists, at the 26 VC firms we called. We paged through team page after team page—the staff at a venture capital firm is almost universally called the “team”—where men’s faces lined the top rows and women’s faces appeared further down, if anywhere. “We have female administrative assistants,” explained one woman who picked up the phone, when asked whether any of the partners and managing directors were women.
We’ve seen this movie before and the ending still stinks.
The sex-discrimination lawsuit by Ellen Pao against the Silicon Valley venture-capital firmKleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers may be the gender and workplace story of the moment. But let’s get one thing straight: This doesn’t describe anything that’s new. It seems to happen routinely. Just yesterday, at a hearing in London, a lawyer for Latifa Bouabdillah, a former Deutsche Bank AG director, said the woman’s male colleagues were paid bonuses “double or triple that of the claimant” for the same work.
Swap out Pao for Pamela Martens, who led the class-action “Boom-Boom Room” lawsuit against Smith Barney in the 1990s, or Allison Schieffelin, who sued Morgan Stanley in 2001, or Carla Ingraham, who sued UBS AG in 2009, and you wind up with some combination of the same old complaints: coworker come-ons, power meetings for guys only, higher pay for men and retaliation against the uppity women who have the nerve to complain.
In the venture-capital world, where you get more than the usual share of people who are prone to thinking their every experience is novel, there is shock over news that a highly qualified woman has filed a suit against a celebrity firm. But sex discrimination isn’t the iPad, folks. It’s more like the electric typewriter.
An Accenture survey released as part of our 2012 celebration of International Women’s Day found that despite their current job dissatisfaction, more than two-thirds of all respondents said they do not plan to leave their current employers, with nearly the same number citing flexible work arrangements as the reason for staying put.
Most respondents said they are taking a variety of steps to actively manage their careers—including accepting a different role or responsibility, receiving more education or training, and working longer hours.
Special Features » Infographics » Gender Pay Gap Find Out Exactly What YOU Should Be Paid Get a precise salary range for your exact position. Job Title
More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on facebook Share on google Share on twitter Share on linkedin
Do Men Really Earn More Than Women? [infographic]
inShare 29 Yes, men do earn more than women on average, but not that much more when they work the same job and they have similar experience and abilities. Take a look at what PayScale has discovered about the gender pay gap.
See the methodology for the infographic below.
Embed this graphic. Click to select:
Difference in Annual Pay: To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group.
What we created was an apples-to-apples comparison of what men and women make, all other factors held equal, according to actual market data. For example, the male software developer median, annual salary is $65,700, which is 4 percent more than the median female value of $63,300.
MEN invented the Internet. And not just any men. Men with pocket protectors. Men who idolized Mr. Spock and cried when Steve Jobs died. Nerds. Geeks. Give them their due. Without men, we would never know what our friends were doing five minutes ago.
You guys, ladies suck at technology and the New York Times is ON IT.
Men are more likely than ever to join female-dominated professions--and they're also more likely to out-earn their female colleagues.
From Women's eNews:
But attitudes are shifting fast in our hard-pressed economy. Men are now gravitating toward female-dominated occupations, according to a recent analysis of census data by the New York Times.
The Times analysis showed that from 2000 to 2010, occupations that are more than 70 percent female accounted for almost a third of all job growth for men, double the share of the previous decade.
And as men move into what used to be female territory, they are doing very well; better than women in fact. In the 20 most common occupations for women, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Women’s Policy Research, men out-earn women in all but two. For example, the median weekly earnings for female social workers is $798, while for men it is $902.
White men in these fields are climbing aboard what’s coming to be called the "Glass Escalator." They get a double boost from being white and being male and rise more quickly than equally qualified women in position, pay and benefits.
This is in stark contrast to what happens to women who move into male-dominated fields. Historically, “token women” have faced discrimination and marginalization and were often overlooked for a promotion, even when their work was stellar.
Since 2007, McKinsey has been researching intensively the advancement of women in the workplace. The business benefits are clear: a wider, deeper swath of talent to solve problems, spark innovation, and, in many cases, mirror a company’s own customer base.
In 2011, females remained dramatically under-represented as characters in film when compared with their representation in the U.S. population. Last year, females accounted for 33% of all characters in the top 100 domestic grossing films. This represents an increase of 5 percentage points since 2002 when females comprised 28% of characters. While the percentage of female characters has increased over the last decade, the percentage of female protagonists has declined. In 2002, female characters accounted for 16% of protagonists. In 2011, females comprised only 11% of protagonists.
For the last three years, the OpEd Project has conducted a Byline Survey to get a sense of who is getting heard in public discourse. The following are the results of our most recent effort, which evaluated over 7,000 articles in 10 media outlets over a 12 week period from 9/15/11 to 12/7/11. We categorized articles by media type (New, Legacy, College), publication, the author’s status as staff or not staff, and subject. After all of that hard work, I’m glad to say that we have some fascinating results to share with you.
The table below shows the proportion of total articles written by women in New Media (The Huffington Post and Salon), Legacy Media (NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal), and College Media (Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale). As you can see, women were far more active in New Media than in Legacy Media (33% vs 20%). This was expected because, in general, women are more active online than men are. If these numbers are depressing, be heartened by the 38% contribution of articles by women in College Media.
Despite more than a decade of concerted advocacy and good intentions by the industry, women continue to struggle to break through the senior leadership ranks in Canadian Capital Markets- and into the industry. According to Women and Men in Canadian Capital Markets: An Action Plan for Gender Diversity, released at a Women in Capital Markets luncheon, Catalyst found the informality of male-dominated networks, the fact that poor managerial skills are too easily overlooked and the persistent stigma around work-life balance continue to impact women's advancement.