The Women Wear the Pants(suit)

Check out this new poll about gender and power released last week by the Pew Research Center about who makes decisions at home. It got play in media outlets including USA Today, Today Show, ABC World News, and The Washington Post. Among the findings:

• In 43% of all couples it’s the woman who makes decisions in more areas than the man.
  
• By contrast, men make more of the decisions in only about a quarter (26%) of all couples.
  
• About three-in-ten couples (31%) split decision-making responsibilities equally.

From Pew's website comes this zinger: "They say it’s a man’s world. But in the typical American family, it’s the woman who wears the pantsuit."

We've known this for a while now, but there is much in the study that also looks new. For instance, on a totally different topic related to gender and power, the survey asked whether people are more comfortable dealing with a man or with a woman in a variety of positions of authority – doctor, banker, lawyer, police officer, airline pilot, school teacher and surgeon. The answer? Well, public attitudes are mixed. Read all about it here.

Here a Webinar, There a Webinar

This just got passed along to me: The National Women's Law Center is hosting a series of webinars (yep, that means, online! you can participate from anywhere) on how to negotiate for yourself in the workplace:

WORK$MART: Pay Negotiation for Women (Two-Part Series)

Did you know that men are four times more likely to initiate salary
negotiations than women? And that a worker stands to lose more than
$500,000 by age 60 if she fails to negotiate her first salary?

Two-Part Webinar:
1:00 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2008, and
1:00 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2008

During these workshops you will learn:
* How to benchmark the salary of your current job;
* How to determine whether or not you are paid fairly; and
* How to negotiate a raise or promotion.


Register Here

Got Economy?

To make up for the quiet over here today, I bring you a late-night newsbreaking post from our very own Virginia Rutter. With all the chaos down on Wall Street these days, I'm finding it hard to maintain a sense of the larger larger picture. Virginia offers us that. Read it, and, well, weep. -GWP

How ya doin'?

by Virginia Rutter, PhD

Framingham State College

There's an awesome new report out from John Schmitt and the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), called "The Reagan Question." It starts like this:

In his closing remarks during the final presidential debate of 1980, Ronald Reagan famously asked the American people: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

The CEPR report reprises the question for us today. And, besides having higher blood pressure and a lot of irritatsia, CEPR tells us, on 23 out of 25 economic indicators, we are doing worse.

Among the indicators is employment for women—which is down. So is employment for men. But check this out:

Inflation rate—up from 3.3 to 5.4 percent.

Unemployment rate—up from 4.0 to 6.1 percent.

Uninsured—we got millions more now.

Poverty—we got millions more now.

Personal savings—that we've got a lot less of now.

Even the good news isn't really good news: Family income is better now than before, by a whopping 262 dollars after 8 years. That's not the irritating part. Here's the irritating part. Under Bush, our productivity is the other indicator that is up. Our productivity grew by 22 percent in the past 8 years. In 2000, our productivity was up just 16%. That's good! (Our "fundamentals"—the workers—per McCain.) So, we have become more productive! We're doing great! But wait, where are the profits? Where are all the advantages? Not with us. Check out "real wage growth": under real wage growth wages were up in 2000 8.2 percent. In 2008, wages were up 1.8 percent. Feh. Feh. Feh.

Do take a look at this report. It is carefully constructed (lots of great citations to the data at the end) and above any of the particulars, you get the point. How ya doin'? Not so great.

Hillary, Sarah, and Beyond...

No matter what we think of Palin (um, barf), you gotta admit it's an interesting year for women in leadership. And next Wednesday, Sept. 24, the National Council for Research on Women and Dēmos are presenting a special forum on women’s transformative leadership. Emphasis on transform. Distinguished women leaders will explore the difference women’s leadership can make to bring about real change across sectors. Deets:

12:00 – 2:00 pm
Location: Dēmos - 220 Fifth Avenue between 26th and 27th Streets, NYC

Speakers:
Linda Basch, President, National Council for Research on Women
Michelle Clayman, Managing Partner and Chief Investment Officer, New Amsterdam Partners
Linda Tarr-Whelan, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women and Distinguished Senior Fellow, Demos
Deborah Walsh, Director, Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University

Moderator:
Ana Duarte McCarthy, Chief Diversity Officer, Citigroup

For media accreditation, or RSVP, contact: Lisa Rast, email: lrast@ncrw.org

Wall Street Woes 101

For those looking for an insider's explanatory take on what's happening over on Wall Street, I refer you to Purse Pundit's blog. For those of you who don't yet know Jacki Zehner, the pundit behind the punditry over there, she's a frequent media commentator on women’s success in the workplace, women and wealth, investing, and philanthropy. She was the youngest woman, and first female trader, to be invited into the partnership of Goldman Sachs. The woman knows her sh*t.

And for a lyrically philosophical take on the Wall Street catastrophe as played out in Times Square, from the perspective of a visual observer, check out Marco's latest at OpenSalon, titled "Dystopia Now."

More Research on Ladies Who Boss

As an addendum to the post I wrote about the new Catalyst study earlier this week just came in from GWP's resident sociologist, Virginia Rutter:

Related research: In "Working for the Woman? Female Managers and the Gender Wage Gap" (October 07 issue of the American Sociological Review), Philip Cohen and Matt Huffman demonstrate that the greater representation of women in management jobs narrows the wage gap among non-management workers. When ladies are boss, all the ladies do better. But for it to really make a difference, women need to be in the higher levels of management. In fact, the authors reference the "title inflation" phenomenon: they saw evidence of a concentration of women in lower management--and that concentration doesn't give the workers much relief in terms of the gender wage gap. Reason I like this story--and the one on board membership here--is that it gives us concrete evidence for the glass ceiling, and why breaking through matters.

And btw, for Philip Cohen's latest, check out his post last month at HuffPo ("Women May Be Losing Jobs Too, But They're Different Jobs") in response to the NYTimes piece on how hard economic times are affecting women's employment rates. -GWP

Women Feel the Pinch, Says Poll

Women feel the impact of economic insecurity and rising food, energy, education, and health care costs more deeply than men – and see government as a key to the solution -- according to yesterday's poll from the National Women's Law Center. Are we surprised that women are significantly more pessimistic than men in their attitudes about the status quo in America, both on a societal level and in terms of their own lives?

Turns out, regardless of age, income, and education, more than half of women (55%) feel that the government should do more to solve problems and help meet people’s needs. Candidates, are you LISTENING? For more on it all, check out the NWLC's (stellar!) blog.

Economic Downturn by Age, Race, and Gender

This week my colleagues at the Council on Contemporary Families released a briefing paper, "Families and the Current Economic Crisis," examing the maelstrom of financial dilemmas facing Americans today, along with the far-reaching human impact. The report is available at www.contemporaryfamilies.org. Here's a quick rundown of the different effects of the current economic crisis by age, race, and gender:

Gender

Men and women are affected by the job market cuts differently. In the recession of 2001-2004, women lost jobs at a higher rate than men. Today the reverse is true. From November 2007 through April 2008, men lost 700,000 jobs, especially in traditional "family-wage" occupations such as manufacturing and construction. Women, by contrast, gained almost 300,000 jobs, since female-dominated fields such as health care have remained strong. No one is "winning" any gender battles here, though. The pay gap between men and women had been narrowing for several years, but this past year it began to widen again. And in families where women have become the main providers, the results are mixed. Some families report increased respect by husbands and children for women's economic contributions. But men who have a strong identification with the "male breadwinner" role experience a decline in marital quality when their wife begins to bring in a larger share of family income.

Age

Thirty million Americans are over age 65, and with the average social security payment set at $1,079, there is not much of a margin to cover rising medical, prescription, food, and gas bills. Since more than a third of retired Americans help their children financially, according to a recent AARP poll, their financial troubles may trickle down to their children and grandchildren as well. The AARP reports that the majority of baby boomers (aged 44-62) say they are struggling to make ends meet. Sixty percent have cut back on extras and 25 percent report having trouble paying their mortgage. Young adults aged 25-35 have their own issues. Many are still paying off student loans, and 35 percent are not saving for retirement at all.

Race

As is so often the case, African Americans and Hispanics are at higher risk both for job loss and foreclosure than are whites. Studies consistently show that even where black and white families earn the same yearly income, African-Americans have much lower levels of accumulated wealth, largely because their mobility has been more recent and they did not inherit homes or assets from earlier generations. More than half of all mortgages granted to African Americans in 2006 were sub-prime. In fact, a family living in an upper-middle class African American neighborhood is twice as likely to have a sub-prime mortgage as a lower-middle class white family. Hispanics were also over-represented in the sub-prime housing market. Given the continuing residential segregation in America, foreclosures on such homes will disproportionately affect African-American and Hispanic neighborhoods.

For more information, please contact Stephanie Coontz, Professor of History and Family Studies, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA (coontzs@msn.com; 360 556-9223).

New Survey Shows Women Shakey in Economic Downturn

This just in, courtesy of the Women's Media Center: Shaky Economic Times are Shakier for Women by Heidi Hartmann, director of the Institute for Women's Policy Research.

A summary:

As politicians' focus turns from the Primaries to the General Election, the economy has become the biggest issue for voters. Based on an Institute for Women's Policy Research survey about Americans' economic insecurities, there are differences between men and women, as Heidi Hartmann reports in the latest WMC Exclusive. Hartmann points out that women are especially concerned about Social Security, whatever their income level or minority status, and highlights that three primary facts drive women's economic concerns. First, women have the children and generally rear them to adulthood. Second, women earn less than men. Third, women live longer than men. Hartmann concludes by saying that "women rely on Social Security. This election season, with economic issues becoming paramount, women would do well to find out which candidate-whether running for the White House or the Senate or House of Representatives-is most likely to sustain and strengthen the system that is so important to them."

Read the article.

Beyond "Diversity Fatigue"

Lately I've heard the term "diversity fatigue" used to describe a) the genuine frustration that diversity programs at corporations haven't made more progress, and b) the eye-rolling backlash against affirmative action.

Offering a fresher take, there's a great post over at the NYTimes blog Shifting Careers called "Diversity at Work: More than Just Numbers" in which Marci Alboher interviews Natalie Holder-Winfield, an employment lawyer turned diversity consultant and author of Recruiting and Retaining a Diverse Workforce. The book, says Marci, is "a well-researched and eye-opening account of why minority employees flee workplaces even when employers have so-called diversity programs in place."

Based on interviews with professionals from various backgrounds, Holder-Winfield seeks to provide managers, employees, and students with advice for navigating the overlay issues of cultural and generational diversity. The book looks great, but from a "making it pop" perspective, I kind of wish it had a catchier title. This one would be hard. I'm coming up dry. Which is probably why they went with the title they did?!

Read excerpts from the interview here.

Calling Working Women: Take This Survey!

The economy may be Issue No. 1, but what do working women have to say about it all?

The leading labor-rights organization, the AFL-CIO, and its community partner, Working America, are collecting data online for their Ask a Working Woman survey between now and June 20. The survey is a chance for working women to tell decision-makers what it's like to be a working woman in America in election years. It's open to all. They want to hear what working women need – health care, pension benefits, flex time? – to make the crazy juggling act that is working womanhood easier.

Findings will be announced to decision makers and released in nationwide media in order to highlight and help improve the status of the working mothers, daughters, sisters, grandmothers, aunts, cousins, nieces, you get the picture. In 2006, more than 22,000 working American women took the survey. I hope in 2008 they get even more.

There's more background information about the survey available on the AFL-CIO News Blog.

New Blogger on the Block

From time to time, I offer a snapshot of a new blogger on the block. Here I offer a quick Q&A with PursePundit, who started blogging in January of this year. Offline, PursePundit goes by the name of Jacki Zehner, and was the youngest woman and first female trader invited into the partnership of Goldman Sachs. She left in 2002. Now an impassioned philanthropic visionary and social change activist committed to the economic empowerment of women, Jacki is becoming a frequent media commentator on women’s success in the workplace, investing, current market events, women and wealth, and high-impact philanthropy. Here we go!

DS: What made you decide to start a blog?

JZ: I’ve been writing forever, but my work has generally been buried in my journals. Recently I read The Artist's Way which suggested that the way to unleash your creativity is to commit to writing every day and I am trying to do that. Most of the time what I write about is people I’ve met with, or opportunities I’ve heard about, or what is going on in the markets, so I thought, why not share it? I’m also very interested in writing a book, and want to get myself out there as a writer. The blog is a place to start.

DS: I see you started by blogging about the markets—why start there?

JZ: What’s going on in the credit markets is unprecedented. As an ex-mortgage trader and an investor, I’ve been following the markets with great interest and I feel compelled to write about what’s happening. Given my experience, I feel I have a credible voice and want to share what I think, like I used to do with my clients.

DS: Tell us something about the blog’s name, “Purse Pundit.”

JZ: I love the whole idea of a purse as a symbol for the economic power of women and I believe that positive change will happen when women really start to use that power. Money is a tool that we have to shape the world that we live in—by how we invest it, by how we spend it, by how we give it away.

DS: Your tagline is “Musings on Money, Markets, and Changing the World.” Do these things really go together?

JZ: My goal with this blog is to expand the dialogue that women are engaging in about money, and inspiring them to use their money in smart and meaningful ways. Women account for more than 50% of all stock ownership in the U.S and we do most of the consumer spending. By 2010, women will account for half of the private wealth in the country, or about $14 trillion. There’s a lot of power in our collective purses.

After doing this Q&A with Jacki, I went and bought a new purse. For more musings from PP, visit www.pursepundit.blogspot.com. You can also now find Jacki blogging over at 85 Broads and Huffington Post.

Equal Pay Day Passes...Unnoticed?

While we were all focused on PA, the Republicans were busy filibustering to prevent a vote on the Fair Pay Act. NOW has been tirelessly fighting for this on all of our behalf. As Kim Gandy tells it, there's nothing new in this bill. Writes Kim, "The Fair Pay Act just gives women back the rights that the Supreme Court took away last May. Simple, right?" For the latest, which isn't good, click here.

And do check out the interview with Lily Ledbetter in TAP. Here's the preamble:

Of all the appalling decisions the Roberts Court issued last year, one of the worst was the 5-4 ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which gutted the equal-pay provisions of the Civil Rights Act and overturned a decades-old employment-law precedent.

The plaintiff, Lilly Ledbetter, worked for nearly two decades at a Goodyear Tire plant in Gadsden, Alabama. She brought an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint against Goodyear after she discovered that for years she had been paid less than male co-workers with the same job. The justices ruled that employees can only file a wage-discrimination complaint within 180 days of when the payroll decision was made.

After the Supreme Court issued its decision, which leaves women and minorities in Ledbetter's situation with no recourse, congressional Democrats pledged to pass legislation that would give employees two years to file a complaint, in accordance with the law before the Supreme Court issued its decision. The Senate is considering the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act this week, and TAP talked with Ledbetter, who was in Washington to push for the bill's passage.

Read the interview here.

Pay Gap? What Pay Gap?

Quick note, late to the table: As Gordon E. Finley of the Washington Times reported a while back, a headline by Reuters on Nov. 7 was startling and certainly newsworthy: "Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: study." And empirically incorrect. What gives? Read the rest.

Hello from the airport!

So I return from my traveling bubble to find headlines here ablaze, of course, with Eliot Spitzer (why can't these powerful men just keep it in their pants?) and Geraldline Ferraro's comments about Barack Obama (why oh why). Meanwhile, The Guardian reports this morning that for the first time, the four key members of the Treasury committee that is working with chancellor Alistair Darling to shape the budget are women. The article begins with a cutesy little zinger:

"After Blair's babes, meet Darling's darlings."

Guess the US ain't the only one with issues around women taking charge. You'd think they'd be used to it, with all those queens. The rest of the piece is great, but why must we start with babes and darlings, I ask. Sigh. I was really enjoying my temporary news blackout yesterday.

10,000 Women: A Goldman Sachs Initiative

Incredibly exciting news this week from Goldman Sachs, via Purse Pundit, who was summoned to a press conference last week and told only that the announcement would make her proud. She writes:

Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, took center stage to tell us why we had been summoned. Goldman Sachs was announcing a brand new initiative that “will provide 10,000 under-served women, predominantly in developing and emerging markets, with a business and management education.” Why? Because he, they, Goldman Sachs, the firm that gave me my start in the business, the firm I worked with for fourteen years and gave me the honor of being a partner, had come to believe that the way to change the world for the better was to economically empower women. Here they were making a considerable and creative commitment to do just that. Damn right that was "right up by alley.” I was floored.

Also check out Purse Pundit's call to Goldman to hook up with key experts within the women's movement to help provide direction. And a joint post she and I wrote for HuffPo about it, here.

Working While Knocked Up

So women these days are more likely to work during pregnancy, says the U.S. Census Bureau. As someone who grew up in a time when working while knocked up is so common, I'm tempted to say "duh." But my inner historian knows well, and appreciates, that this hasn't long been the case. And here are the facts, courtesy of the Council on Contemporary Families:

Two-thirds of women who had their first child between 2001 and 2003 worked during their pregnancy compared with just 44 percent who gave birth for the first time between 1961 and 1965, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The report, Maternity Leave and Employment Patterns: 1961–2003, analyzes trends in women's work experience before their first child, identifies their maternity leave arrangements before and after the birth and examines how rapidly they returned to work.

Women are more likely to work while pregnant than they were in the 1960s, and they are working later into their pregnancies. Eighty percent who worked while pregnant from 2001 to 2003 worked one month or less before their child's birth compared with 35 percent who did so in 1961-1965.

Women are also returning to work more rapidly after having their first child. In the early 1960s, 14 percent of all mothers with newborns were working six months later, increasing to 17 percent within a year. By 2000-2002, the corresponding percentages had risen to 55 percent and 64 percent. (The period of analysis is restricted to women who gave birth by 2002 because some who gave birth in 2003 did not have one full year of employment data by the time of the interview in 2004.)

Other highlights:

-- In 2001-2003, 49 percent of first-time mothers who worked during pregnancy used paid leave before or after their child's birth, while 39 percent used unpaid leave. Twenty-five percent quit their jobs: 17 percent while they were pregnant and another 8 percent by 12 weeks after the child's birth.

-- Forty-three percent of women in 2001-2003 used paid leave after their child's birth compared with 22 percent before their child's birth.

-- Sixty percent of mothers with a bachelor's degree or more received paid leave benefits compared with 39 percent of mothers with a high school diploma and 22 percent of those who had less than a high school education.

-- Eighty-three percent of mothers who worked during pregnancy and returned to work within a year of their child's birth returned to the same employer. Seven in 10 of these women returned to jobs at the same pay, skill level and hours worked per week.

Hmmm. Very interesting.

GUEST POST: What Does Recession Mean for Balance?

GUEST POST: Helaine Olen is the coauthor of Office Mate: The Employee Manual for Finding and Managing Romance on the Job, with Stephanie Losee. Helaine's work on parenting, families, books, feminism, politics, personal finance and career strategy has been published in numerous print and on-line publications, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Salon.com, AlterNet.org and The Los Angeles Times, where she wrote and edited the popular “Money Makeover” feature. Her essays have been published in Modern Love: 50 True and Extraordinary Tales of Desire, Deceit and Devotion as well as in the upcoming The Maternal is Political: Women Writers at the Intersection of Social and Political Change. Helaine is supersavvy, sassy, and a very welcome addition to the blogging scene. Here she is!

Wouldn't It Be Nice?

Cali Williams Yost, the work/life blogger for Fast Company, thinks a recession could be good for the cause of balance. Sure, there will be a few companies that turn to the tried and true method of firing as many people as they can get away with and forcing the survivors to work 60 hour weeks. But they are so unenlightened! As Ms. Yost posits:

In a recession, more needs to be done with fewer resources. It’s even more critical that your employees are at their most productive and your work-flow and communication management is at its most efficient. Studies show that flexibility to help employees manage their work+life fit results in increased productivity, more efficiency, and better communication.

Finally, companies that need to cutback will use flex to creatively downsize. By offering to reduce schedules or a transition people to project-based, consulting work, employees who otherwise would lose their tie to the organization can stay. When business turns around, those companies then have the option of offering those employees a return to a full-time schedule.

Methinks Ms. Yost has been drinking a wee bit too much corporate Kool-Aid. Wherever she got this delightful idea from, it’s not from working in an actual office during a recession. In my experience, they always come for the part-timers first no matter how short-sighted that approach might well be. The folks who survive the purges are expected to put in 10 to 12 hour days. And while I’ve known a few people desperate enough to work for their former employers (you know, the people who used to offer them benefits) on a contract basis, I’ve never known one who went back to them when the economy improved. Frankly, I know more who opted out of the paid workforce entirely.

Could it be different this time? Hey, anything is possible. But given that most companies are already asking their employees to give them their lives (remember, 40% of American employees work 50 hours a week and up and that’s in a good economic climate), I wouldn’t bet on it.

(Cross-posted here.)

Announcing: Economic Justice for Women Summit

Join the National Organization for Women Foundation, National Council of Negro Women, and the Institute for Women's Policy Research for the 2008 Summit on Economic Justice for Women, April 11-12 in Atlanta, Georgia. The summit is dedicated to "Bringing Together Research and Advocacy--from Local to Global--to Advance Economic Justice and Empowerment for Women." To register, click here.

Goals for the conference include expanding the body of knowledge on critical economic issues; increasing our understanding of the global economic challenges women face; building and strengthening alliances in the economic justice movement; developing recommendations and strategies for enhancing women's economic empowerment; and informing policies globally and locally, including helping to shape the 2008 U.S. presidential election debate.

It's not too late to submit a workshop or research paper. Workshops will blend research and grassroots action, offering participants an opportunity to hear from experts and apply action strategies to address economic inequality. The deadline to submit a proposal is Feb. 15 (hey--that's my birthday!!)

And hey, while we're on the subject of economic justice and just economics, do check out the latest HuffPo piece from PursePundit, called "Quickfixonomics." PursePundit suggests we check out what George Soros has to say about the current financial crisis, too. How is this all affecting women? Stay tuned. More on that very soon.

Introducing: PursePundit!

One of my favorite things about what I do is when I’m able to bring other women into the fold. Blogging is contagious, and it is a joy beyond measure to see feminists find their online voice.

And so I am thrilled - THRILLED! - to formally introduce a new blog on the block: PursePundit. The host pundit over there, Jacki Zehner, is a frequent commentator on women’s success in the workplace, women and wealth, investing, and philanthropy. And she knows from whence she speaks--she was the youngest woman, and first female trader, to be invited into the partnership of Goldman Sachs.

Jacki's since been recognized not only as a “Wall Street Trailblazer” but as a “next-generation role model” for women navigating the complex constellation of work, family, civic service, and social activism. Jacki’s work is informed by her own journey from humble beginnings to Wall Street success. She learned early on the power of the dollar working as a cashier in her father’s grocery store. An impassioned philanthropic visionary committed to the economic empowerment of women, she now serves on the boards of The Women’s Funding Network, The Breast Cancer Research Foundation, The Center for Work Life Policy, and more. I met Jacki when she was on the board of the National Council for Research on Women, where I used to work.

Like me, the gal’s a bridger. These days, through multiple platforms, Jacki leverages her access and expertise by bridging knowledge across corporate, philanthropic, and nonprofit sectors. I learn things from this wonder woman daily. Visit www.pursepundit.blogspot.com for musings on "markets, money, and changing the world" and I guarantee, you'll learn from her too.

I’m equally thrilled to announce that Girl with Pen (aka me) and PursePundit will be teaming up on a number of projects around women’s economic empowerment and financial literacy this year. Our first collaboration has been a series of posts on the crazy market events of the past week, over in the Business section at Huffington Post. In case ya missed them, they are here, here, and here. More on our emerging partnership, soon. In the meantime, please help me welcome my new favorite blogger friend, a woman who inspires the heck out of me and has one of the largest hearts of anyone I know.