![]() |
|
||
|
It’s a Man’s MeltdownPosted on Dec 18, 2008By Marie Cocco Today’s brainteaser: Name the top female executives who were forced to go before Congress, explaining why their companies made multibillion-dollar mistakes that helped wreck the economy but nonetheless deserve billions in taxpayer bailouts. Stumped? If you can’t come up with any, it’s probably not because you haven’t been captivated—and enraged—by the drama of corporate chieftains shifting uncomfortably in congressional hearing rooms. You’re getting a bird’s-eye view of what Catalyst, the business-backed research group that’s been tracking women’s advancement in the corporate world since the 1960s, saw when it took its annual look into the nation’s executive suites: Women just aren’t there in numbers sufficient to make them visible. After more than three decades of pushing and prodding, of dressing-for-success and avoiding the trap of the “mommy track”—and despite the elimination of laws and practices that previously put women out by the water cooler rather than in the corner office—American businesswomen still are not climbing to the top. In the last few years, in fact, even the glacial progress that was being made has slowed. Fewer than 16 percent of senior corporate officers at Fortune 500 companies are women, the group found, roughly the same proportion that filled these key decision-making jobs since 2002. The number of women who sit on corporate boards—the panels that are supposed to demand answers when balance sheets, business forecasts or, say, executive pay packages just don’t look quite right—is stagnating as well. Women held a 15.1 percent share of board director positions in Fortune 500 companies in 2008, barely changed since 2005. The number of corporate boards with no women, or only one, two or three, also is essentially unchanged. Advertisement For years we were assured that once there were enough well-credentialed women in the “pipeline” that leads to professional advancement, they would be rewarded—just as men with college diplomas and advanced degrees always have been. Now women outpace men in many areas of educational attainment. They comprise about half the nation’s law students and receive more than a third of MBAs. But something seems to happen between the time they are handed their diplomas and the day big promotions are handed out. “It used to be thought that it was just a matter of time, that the more women we produced, the more women would move up,” says Ilene H. Lang, president and CEO of Catalyst. “That might be true in the colleges, that might be true in middle managers.” But at the very top of the corporate hierarchy, barriers to women’s advancement that are rooted in stereotyping still block their paths. Lang said research shows that assumptions among both women and men are that women aren’t ambitious enough, or don’t really care about money as much as men do. But, Lang says, “Our research shows that women and men want the same things out of work. They want challenging work assignments and a supportive work environment. Men are more able to get the challenging work assignments and the supportive work environment.” And what about those much-discussed “life choices” that women supposedly make, which tether them too tightly to home and hearth when what’s needed is undivided loyalty to the corporate team? The values that senior executive men and women have for balancing work and life turn out to be not very different. In an earlier survey by Catalyst and research partners, conducted among senior men and women at corporations with global operations, men ranked the value of “having a good fit between life on and off the job” fourth out of six job attributes; women ranked it third. So long as the invisible barriers to women’s advancement remain, business will be drawing its leaders from only half the available talent pool. Could this myopia have helped plunge us into the current economic swamp? The possibility is not easily dismissed. Though there certainly are women who’ve become symbols of corporate villainy—the late hotel mogul Leona Helmsley comes to mind—few women executives have been associated with the greed-is-good crowd. Now that so much has been destroyed and so much is to be rebuilt, there’s an opportunity to bring new voices and perspectives into the conference rooms. This is a fine time for new management that is genuinely new. Previous item: Torture Proponents Have No Serious Argument Next item: You Can Never Have Too Many Kennedys in the Senate Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
By mill, December 23, 2008 at 12:23 am #
political style isn’t just about gender.
when at the national political stage, the enormous pressures on any candidate/elected official tend to cause the same issues and responses ... women vary among themselves in style, as do men ... there’s an iron-Maggie Thatcher for every milktoast-Pelosi
better to discuss the individual ... what s/he is like, rather than suggest gender tells us what we want ....
as others have noted, Martha Stewart was and is the greed-head that many Wall St male execs are ... and how useful is her stuff in the re-sale market? about as good as subprime mortgages?
Report thisBy JohannG, December 22, 2008 at 6:53 pm #
It’s a historical artifact that our society is still mostly run by men. More female participation would benefit everybody, not because woman are inherently better or worse than men, but because they bring a differently point of view to the table. There is a critical mass beyond which the participation of women will have a big impact on decisions in business and politics. We have not reached that critical mass, yet.
Report thisBy libertarian, December 21, 2008 at 1:34 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Yes, Helmsley. Maybe Carly who ran Hewlett-Packard into the dirt. Err, the woman who rules Ebay, destroying the utility of the service by higher fees, penalties, refusal to address fraud. Scum all. There’s Hillary Clinton who, with a half-smile, repeatedly promised to devastate the people of Iran if there was a military exchange with the Israelis.
How are female CEO’s any better than their male counterparts? Author Cocco has a fixation with gender.
Report thisBy 2bee, December 20, 2008 at 12:05 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
As I read the variety of inputs to this article, I am amazed at the complete void of reasoning to your premises and the utter ignorance or disdain for the dialectic inference of your position.
Do your readers really believe that it’s the natural order of the cosmos, Devine intervention, or just a random walk down the street that produced these unbalanced results, whereas, the leadership of failing corporations and the expertise to right them, is vested predominantly in white males, that is silly? The system is not egalitarian, was never intended to be, and is unlikely to change anytime in the near future.
It’s a zero sum game folk and the outcome is fixed!
Report thisBy Skruff, December 20, 2008 at 11:29 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I guess one could say that Martha Stewart (who attempted to bilk her share holders) and Leona Helmsley (who attempted to redistribute the wealth…up) fit in to the sleezy executive mem’s club. I remember back in the Sixties when Ann Southern was caught owning some of the worst slums in New York City. We have the whole Patrica Dunn /Carly Fiorina mess at Hewlett Packard proving that women vying for power can be as dirty as men in their business dealings. There’s Hill-the-business-shill Clinton who is about the most cut-throat person I’ve ever witnessed… regardless of Gender.
No, no Car Companies have female CEO’s. BUT maybe that’s because women are too smart to climb aboard a sinking vessel!
Report thisBy jbillera, December 20, 2008 at 7:20 am #
Our real problems multiplied when the interest rates started to creep up beyond working man’s abililities to pay, thanks to Reagan’s “deregulation”. Relief won’t come to the working man until the interest rates start to roll back to decent levels. The “owners of the western world must take thier feet off of our necks. That would start the capital to flow back into the pockets of working people where it belongs. “Ursury is a criminal conspiracy against poor people,and everyone else” They are bleeding us like farm animals. Everyone I know is mired in debt. It is slavery with a cheap suit. You can quote me.
Report thisBy screamingpalm, December 19, 2008 at 10:38 pm #
Today’s brainteaser: Name two columnists from The Washington Post Writers Group who continue to write useless, mind-numbing drivel.
Report thisBy Ron Davison, December 19, 2008 at 9:15 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Ok before you linch me up for my man views hear me out…
Diversity is a good thing that is not leveraged to the optimum level.
Women play by the status Quot rules that are set by the establishment (85%) men.
they feel they have to, to succeed and fit in to get ahead.
But this end up leaving true talent untapped and everybody suffers in the end as from a institution or corporation to society loses as a whole.
Will the 85% accept and encourage women using their different skills in a wholesale fashion?
We all know that is a 100% no, but you will find at least of a third embracing it,and add the other 15% and some education and a critical mass of a majority mindset is very likely.

How many women are in washington in the secret rooms and meetings figuring out who gets our 2.2 trillion tax payer obligated debt and counting?
All the extra conections in a womens brain allows them to think more equtably I argue.
When the dust settles next year and we see where our money went we mat well wish we had more equitables in the room, women or men.
Is there even one?
Does it come close to 15%?
Report thisBy reason, December 19, 2008 at 7:34 pm #
Prejudice and bigotry are not traits of gender, race, economic status, political affiliation or national origin. Gender bias; just as all unreasonable prejudices is a result of ignorance and/or hate. This article was designed to promote the idea that a person’s gender makes them inherently qualified or unqualified for a position and it is not only wrong but also supporting gender bias. The fact that men were in positions of authority and leadership doesn’t prove that men do not have the ability to be good, responsible leaders nor does it prove that women are more or less able. It simply proves the men who were in charge were the wrong men and didn’t deserve their positions.
Report thisBy C.P.T.L., December 19, 2008 at 4:55 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
No, it’s a brunette and salt n’ pepper hair meltdown - and some balding. Name a blond executive who was forced to go before Congress, explaining why…
It’s really a shame when a looming deadline and a blank page drive a good mind to this brand of silliness; pinning the whole issue to a statistic in a poll.
Or is this a light version of the feminist myopy that had disappointed rabid Clintonistas foaming for McCain against all reason?
I feel for women who see the goal so close it drives them to stumble through the last steps of sound reason and grasp at thin connections. But our thin connections are no more or less unproductive than theirs.
Will keeping gay couples from adopting children save America from some kind of degredation? No. Just as parity in the executive ranks would not have made the smallest difference to the current economic crisis.
Our sound reason is something that can be examined by all and be found to be trustable, and so, might win some adherents from the other side - a gain for the cause - another step towards the goal.
And our unsound reason - and extremes, will be seen for what it is and cause us to be not trusted - and then we don’t get what we want.
Look at the numbers of two-faced Republican women currently throughout our government equally responsible for its failure.
Did you miss Condi-ssembler Rice singing her 9/11 song again recently?
Wasn’t it a woman reported to be systematically damaging the Endangered Species process for the past four or eight years?
What about that oil industry puppet from Alaska masquerading as a legitimate politician?
And there are many others. Cherry-pick Leona Helmsely to make a point? What of the Republican strategy of grooming minorities and women to lie their lies for them? It’s been going on for a couple of decades. I’ll match your Leona Helmsely and see you an Elizabeth Dole.
You can’t have it two ways. You can’t insist women are equal to men, then suggest anything different.
Women are equal to men.<period
Swamp the Fortune 500 with women and watch how many become insulated, power-hungry capitalist pigs in jets flying over the workers they just gouged - just like men.
Return to Condi Rice here. Who had the same teacher and education and intelligence as Madeline Albright?
One was a model of foreign policy professionalism, unwavering, dedicated to standards.
The other, threw over her education and common sense to follow a Texan fool who couldn’t string five words together - and proceeded to violate a host of the most elemental historical and political rules (any idiot who’s skimmed through Sun Tzu’s The Art of War for a half hour would have known better that to invade Iraq) for a Neocon scheme that caused who knows how many deaths.
Report thisBy P. T., December 19, 2008 at 1:51 pm #
Blame the men who start these businesses in the first place. They decline to have sex-change operations.
Report thisBy 2bee, December 19, 2008 at 11:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Pardon me madame,
No asians, Latinos, and certainly no African americans have been sighted, one would almost get the idea that we’re in time wrap to the 1950’s and beyond. A time when only white men rule the earth, as birth right. I do declare, the eastern and western universities do produce all the talent, witness the number of screw-ups and the keystone cop solutions that are being offered up.
That random birth entitlement thing, white and male, someone, please pass the male enhancement pills!
Report thisBy Expat, December 19, 2008 at 10:27 am #
Well Marie, this article will slide into obscurity before a truly definitive comment can be formulated. As a recovering feminist, I think we humans are highly over-rated regardless of gender. I think women are just as capable of screwing things up as men. It’s the power thing Marie; it really doesn’t have anything to do with gender.
Report thisBy Shift, December 19, 2008 at 6:09 am #
Marie, have you ever asked yourself why women, who own the majority of stocks in most companies, do not elect female leadership?
Report thisBy P. T., December 19, 2008 at 1:54 am #
We can see what a great difference Hillary Clinton made at Wal-Mart and Condoleezza Rice at Chevron and Wendy Gramm at Enron.
These women have their snouts in the trough, just like the men.
Report thisBy mill, December 18, 2008 at 11:42 pm #
Yeah, should have invited Carly Fiorina to testify, former HP chief and McCain campaign advisor who got millions of walking-away money after screwing up Hewlett Packard on her watch. At least the board axed her before she destroyed the company. Maybe that makes her a hero, compared to the Wagoners (GM CEO) of the world
What pointlessly sexist journalism by Ms Cocco.
Report this