EQUALITY MYTH

Should Women Flirt Their Way to the Top? Damn Straight, Says Forbes.

Well this is sure to cause an uproar. In today’s ForbesWoman, author Jenna Goudreau posits that women who don’t flirt are ignoring “one of their greatest career assets”—a valuable strategic tool (if used effectively), she says, to climb up the corporate ladder.

“Using flirtation is just smart,” Nicole Williams, the author of Girl on Top: Your Guide to Turning Dating Rules into Career Success, tells her. “If you need someone’s help, use the tools available to you. It’s naive to think it has no place at work.” (Oof.)

The commenters are already weighing in, of course, calling Goudreau shallow (and worse). But the real question is: is she right? Consider what we’ve already got stacked against us: working women in this country still make just 77 cents on the male dollar; we face the challenge of balancing motherhood with career, and whether or not we decide to have children, many of us struggle to scale the corporate ladder. We are navigating the workforce, meanwhile, in a culture of plumped lips and airbrushed bodies that hold us to an unattainable ideal—and where, in a corporate culture that still largely excludes women, female competition is more cutthroat than ever.

Which brings us to this: If we acknowledge that we’re being judged on our looks anyway—and that they’re indeed crucial to our career success (see recent disturbing Newsweek survey)—why wouldn’t we use them, own them, empower ourselves through them? Wouldn’t that be—dare we say it—the feminist thing to do?

It’s not as cut and dry as Forbes’ “Secrets of Professional Flirting” (oof, did they really need to go there?) but it’s something to think about. And it doesn’t make you a slut if you do.

Guest Post: Peggy Olson, Don Draper, and Why Congress Must Pass the ‘Paycheck Fairness Act’

Guest blogger Jillian Weinberger weighs in on the Paycheck Fairness Act, endorsed this week by the Obama administration as “a common sense bill”:

The fourth season of Mad Men premieres on Sunday, but this week, as Obama urged the Senate to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, I found myself reflecting on season three—when Peggy demands a raise from Draper.

It may be 40-plus years since the Equal Pay Act prevented employers from discriminating based on sex, but when it comes to pay parity, we’re hardly any further along from the Mad Men days. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that while the pay gap has certainly narrowed since Peggy’s time, the chasm is still wide: in 2009, women earned only 80 percent of men’s weekly wages, and in some jurisdictions, it’s even worse. (In Louisiana, for example, women earn just 65 cents on the male dollar.)

All of this is yet another reason why we need to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, now up before the Senate—which would close existing loopholes in the 1963 law. As the National Women’s Law Center has put it, the Act would give women “the same remedies for [pay discrimination] that are currently available” for those who suffer based on race or origin. But critics, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (and Rep. John Boehner, from my home state of Ohio, I’m embarrassed to admit), have a different view: Boehner (ed: what a name, what a name…) contends the law wouldn’t actually empower women, but “empower trial lawyers whose junk lawsuits will clog up the courts.”

When Peggy demanded her raise, Don Draper lost his patience, denounced her as ungrateful and overly demanding, and ushered her out of the room. By invoking the specter of “junk lawsuits,” critics of the Paycheck Fairness Act hope to do the same to millions of women who deserve equal pay for equal work. Americans have certainly made great strides since Peggy and Don walked the hallowed halls of Sterling Cooper, but sex-based pay discrimination continues to haunt us. Women need legislation like the Paycheck Fairness Act to ensure that they can challenge unfair and illegal practices in the workplace.

Jillian Weinberger is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn. 

The State of the American Man in 2010. And Why Cosmopolitan Isn’t Doing Anybody Any Favors.

So askmen.com just released the results of its annual “Great Male” survey, and damn if their results aren’t fascinating.The best bits:

• When asked what defines a “real man” in 2010, a full fifty percent said “being a great father and husband who takes care of his family.”
• Similarly, the ultimate male status symbol? Having a family, which ranked higher than a high-profile career, a beautiful wife, a sports car, or a nice house.
• And ninety-four percent said that they either are in a relationship with a woman who makes more than them or that being in one wouldn’t bother them.

Given the “mancession,” what’s going on with boys in school, and the gains that women have made in the last couple of decades, we’re going through a critical moment of re-evaluation when it comes to men and women and the roles that we play. And these responses feel eerily like the responses that women might have given fifty years ago, no? Are men the new women? Is this shift going to end with a full role-reversal? Maybe.

But not so fast. Cosmopolitan magazine did a corresponding survey this year, and damn if it isn’t the stupidest thing we’ve ever seen. The Great Female Survey doesn’t ask nearly the same number of questions, and sticks to stale stereotypes and gag-worthy ideas about what’s important to women today. “Money Matters” is limited to a single question about who should pay for a date. Vomit.

The few interesting findings are relegated to a random miscellaneous other insights category. They are:

• 46% of women say that a beautiful house is the ultimate status symbol. A successful husband or boyfriend came in second place, with 29%.

• 44% of women define a “real woman” as someone who can “do it all.” Being a good mother and wife who takes care of her family came in second, with 33%.

Cosmo, this is interesting. How many women wish they had a C-cup, not so much. Ugh. If a site as vapid as askmen.com can make one of the leading magazines for women look dumb, we’ll hold off on declaring victory just yet. Where, oh where is the modern-day Sassy? We miss you! We need you!!!

-jesse

‘Hey Ladies’: NPR’s Take on the Challenges of Female Rockstardom. (And Aren’t You Excited for Lilith Fair 2010?)

NPR Music has a fantastic new series out this week, Hey Ladies, about the state of female musicians today. Through hundreds of interviews with working women, they delve into everything from how to balance work and family to whether looks matter more to female musicians (they do). It’s worth checking out—especially for you Lilith Fair lovers. (Remember this poster?!)

A couple of excerpts on the challenges of being a ladyrocker:

My old voice teacher once told me that to be a female singer you have to be the VERY best in your speciality. Average is not enough as a woman.

— Sondra Radvanovsky

I’ve noticed that more people (myself included) are more critical of a woman’s singing voice. There are fewer liberties given to out-of-tune notes and tonal qualities when a woman sings.

— Karolyn Troupe, of Venice Is Sinking

Critics describe what you were wearing at the show as opposed to what you sounded like.

— The Coathangers

All the festival artist T-shirts are men’s size.

— Hiromi  

Check out the full series here.

-jessica

Today in Crap Career Advice: “Sexism” at Work? Suck It Up, Kid!

Today Marie G. McIntyre, who is apparently the workplace advice guru for McClatchy-Tribune, gives some astoundingly insensitive advice to a young woman who has just entered the workplace. McIntyre is presented with the following, hugely sympathetic, situation:

After starting a new job with a small business, I noticed that there seems to be a lot of sexism here. Everything was fine at first, but lately things have gotten worse. The older men treat the younger women terribly, and the older women do nothing to stop it.

The older men constantly make me feel inadequate because I am just out of college. They say that I should show them more respect. However, I don’t know how to deal with them when they get angry or act irrational.

I don’t want to remain silent about this situation, but there is no one to complain to. What should I do?

She responds:

Since the older women are apparently exempt from this condescending treatment, I suspect the problem is not just sexism, but also a certain arrogance towards new entrants into the workforce.

Although their haughtiness is undoubtedly annoying, try to understand that you do seem quite young to these old-timers. If you want them to value your abilities, you must show some respect for the lessons they have learned in the trenches. So listen patiently to their “war stories” and make an effort to appreciate their point of view.

Should the “sexism” ever escalate into sexual harassment, then you should either leave or file a legal complaint. But if these guys are simply acting like unprofessional dimwits, don’t allow their immaturity to interfere with your success.

One question to consider is how this position fits into your overall career goals. If working for this company is a valuable step towards your desired future, then you would be wise to tolerate a certain amount of frustration.

All together now: UGH. On the one hand, yes, a certain amount of frustration is a given in every job—especially the first job out of college. But smile and listen, really? And did she need to put sexism in quotes? It’s dismissive. And this woman is essentially being told that she shouldn’t speak up at all.

That said, we can’t really imagine what, exactly, the best advice would be. For us, just talking to each other made a big difference. So did talking to our male colleagues, those our age anyway. What else? How do we deal with this sort of thing in a practical, immediate way? Tell us.

Also. We poked around Ms. McIntyre (Ph.D!)’s website. Man. Listed as one of six “Potential Issues for Women”:

Power is an aphrodisiac:  Women are often attracted to men with power.  Unfortunately, this may include developing an attraction to their boss, leading to problematic workplace romances.

Lady, with all due respect, it might be time to hang it up.

-jesse

The Beauty Advantage: How Beauty Can Affect Your Job, Your Career, Your Life

God we love this photo, despite the weird overly buff dude. Wanted to send out a link to Newsweek’s massive package on the role of looks at work, which includes pieces on: the double bind that women face, what would happen if women ruled the world, why women should shun that beauty ideal, and, of course, a feminist man’s perspective. There’s also a poll of hiring managers asked about the importance of looking good at work.

It’s a couple months of work, and well worth a look, if we can say so ourselves. There are also many breathtaking visual elements, including ladyfriend Cara Phillips’ series of photos chronicling plastic surgery offices around the country, called Singular Beauty, an interactive graphic of 100 years of beauty ideals, a gallery looking at beauty rituals around the world, and various other elements.

An excerpt:

Economists have long recognized what’s been dubbed the “beauty premium”—the idea that pretty people, whatever their aspirations, tend to do better in, well, almost everything. Handsome men earn, on average, 5 percent more than their less-attractive counterparts; pretty people get more attention from teachers, bosses, and mentors; even babies stare longer at good-looking faces (and we stare longer at good-looking babies). A couple of decades ago, when the economy was thriving—and it was a makeup-less Kate Moss, not a plastic-surgery-plumped Paris Hilton, who was considered the beauty ideal—we might have brushed off those statistics as superficial. But in 2010, when Heidi Montag’s bloated lips plaster every magazine in town, when little girls lust after an airbrushed, unattainable body ideal, there’s a growing bundle of research to show that our bias against the unattractive is more pervasive than ever. And when it comes to the workplace, it’s looks, not merit, that all too often rule.

Check it out! www.newsweek.com/BEAUTY

-jessica

The Promise of Beauty: Women, Work, and Whether Beauty Really Pays

Remember Debrahlee Lorenzana, the chick who sued Citibank, claiming she was hired for being “too hot”? Well, she may be a total attention-obsessed moron, but she does highlight the double-bind of women at work: that we’re expected to be attractive at all times, but if we’re too attractive, we might just be punished for it—by men and women alike.

NEWSWEEK has a new poll on the role of appearance at work coming out next week, and while we’re not allowed to reveal the full results just yet, here’s a disturbing sneak preview:

* Sixty one percent of the corporate hiring managers we surveyed (60 percent of whom were men) said they believed a woman would benefit from showing off her figure at work.

Yet at the same time…

* Forty seven percent of those same managers said they believe some women are penalized for being too good-looking in the office.

Gross, right? Tune in to NEWSWEEK on Monday to see the full poll results—as well as various essays and photos, and even a Michael Jackson-inspired morphing face graphic to show our changing beauty ideal.

It’ll all be online at Newsweek.com/BEAUTY

-jessica

Even Female Law Partners Suffer Wage Disparities—to the Tune of $66,000 a Year

Jesse’s got a new Newsweek piece about wage disparity in the legal profession—even among the best lawyers at the most elite firms. A new study found those women, within the highest ranks of the most respected firms, make, on average, $66,000 each year less than men.

First of all: ouch, apparently we’re in the wrong field. But second: double ouch, that is totally appalling. As one employment attorney put it:

“The numbers are so stark that it really does call into question whether there is a systemic problem.”

We’d go with yes.

-jessica

The Daily Show v. Jezebel War Rages On… But in the Meantime, a Genius Word from Tiger Beatdown

So Jezebel wrote this post about the Daily Show having no women.

Then the women of the Daily Show responded.

Then every blog everywhere (and even that darned mainstream press!) decided to weigh in, the writer of the Jezebel kind-of-but-didn’t-really respond, we wrote something, and Emily Gould wrote a piece for Slate, though hers was more about Jezebel being jealous and inciting blogwars for clicks, which created a whole new debate, and, then, wait, now we’re confused. Lemondrop has the best play-by-play, if you want the gory details.

So, we’re over the whole thing, frankly. Except that we just saw that the ladybloggers over at Tiger Beatdown posted a fake letter from the Daily Show women responding to the letter that was responding to Jezebel. And, well, it’s kind of awesome.

Dear Feminists:

We work at the Daily Show. We are all women! Please do not make any enquiries as to whether we are hired or promoted at the same rate as men, or which opportunities are made available to us, as opposed to our male counterparts. For we are women. This should be enough for you.

We are all sorts of things: Production assistants! Administrative assistants! Writers’ assistants! So many of us women are assisting! Why, we even sometimes get our jokes on the air! But not our names, apparently, in many cases, or our faces, in all but three cases. Just because our names do not appear on the writers’ credits — just because we do not, as the saying goes, “get credit” for our work — this should not imply to you that our work is not valued! We are women! This is enough!

And now we will declare the end of us posting on this. Because it’s great that there are women at the Daily Show, and we’re sure Jon Stewart is actually a totally nice guy (or is he a dick?), but really, um, women at an organization doesn’t mean women are in power.

-jessica

Why the Jezebel vs. Daily Show War is Just, Well, Wrong.

We know what it’s like to get called out by Jezebel. When we wrote about institutionalized sexism at our own magazine—and in media in general—we were called out for being non-inclusive. It stung, both cause we liked them, and because they gave us no props whatsoever for sticking our necks out and getting our magazine to publish a story critical of the treatment of women at our own magazine. It felt like we were deemed unworthy of speaking up. Like doing so put us at risk of public shaming, so we should have therefore kept quiet.

Well, Jezebel is at it again. This time calling out The Daily Show for the lack of female representation. Irin Carmon writes:

[The Daily Show] is also a boys’ club where women’s contributions are often ignored and dismissed.

It’s a pretty serious accusation to level at place you’ve never worked. Not surprisingly, the women of the show responded, saying, among other things:

The truth is, when it comes down to it, The Daily Show isn’t a boy’s club or a girl’s club, it’s a family - a highly functioning if sometimes dysfunctional family. And we’re not thinking about how to maximize our gender roles in the workplace on a daily basis. We’re thinking about how to punch up a joke about Glenn Beck’s latest diatribe, where to find a Michael Steele puppet on an hour’s notice, which chocolate looks most like an oil spill, and how to get a gospel choir to sing the immortal words, “Go f@#k yourself!”

We get why they’d want to say F-U to someone who purports to tell you your own reality. It’s belittling.

But there’s some truth to Carmon’s criticism. There are not enough women (or minorities) on camera there, or at virtually any other night show, or in media in general. Plus, amidst these conversations, everyone seems to forget that the show is a spoof of the largely white, male dominated nightly news.

Ironically, the reasons for this are best expressed in the original post. Carmon quotes a former Daily Show writer who says:

“I don’t think Jon is sexist. I don’t think that there is a double standard at the Daily Show. I do think that by the time it gets to the Daily Show it’s already been through the horrible sexist double standard of the universe. You’re not hiring someone right out of school. By the time they get to the candidates of the Daily Show, the herd has been thinned by the larger societal forces.” Of the greater talent pool of comedians, she said, “All that’s left are white men and Aziz Ansari.”

Hey, we’re journalists, we get that this kind of nuance isn’t quite as catchy as sweeping allegations of rampant sexism. But what really bothers us is that Irin spends all of forty words responding to the letter penned by the show’s current female staffers. She, well, ignores and dismisses them.

All of this reminds us of the backlash against Tina Fey, who was accused of “not being feminist enough.” It’s an ongoing problem—one of missing the forest for the trees, we think—which threatens to spin into an increasingly inclusive, nit-picky, and, ultimately, alienating conversation.

Sure, it’s important to keep challenging each other. But it’s also important to hear each other. And let us speak for ourselves.

(PS: why does everyone keep forgetting about Kristin Schaal, above? We went to a Halloween party at her house many lifetimes ago and it was SUPER fun.)

-jesse

How Men and Women Pitch Stories—an Awl Sampling

In light of CNN talking head-to-be Kathleen Parker taking a brave stand on how Obama does things in “a woman’s way,” the Awl’s Choire decided to take a look at the ol’ Awl inbox, where people pitch stories. The emails from men, he says, are pretty direct,” while the women are falling all over themselves with apologies.

Inquiry letter from a man:

“Do you take pitches? Should I just write something and send it? Do I have to tickle the balls? I want to write for the awl, dammit.”

Inquiry letter from a woman:

“As an long-time admirer of your site (and non-too-frequent registered commenter), I’ve been too shy to pitch as I’ve never felt like my work measured up to your fine standards.”

Inquiry letter from a man:

“Can you offer a word of advice regarding how submissions work, desired timetables, what you like the pitches to look like, and so forth?”

Inquiry letter from a woman:

“I’m sure I’m going about this all wrong, but I couldn’t find any sort of submission area on the site. What I’m wondering is, how does one go about becoming a contributor to The Awl?”

This is quote appalling, actually. And sad. Why do women insist on apologizing for everything they do? We have a friend, the most direct, confident person we’ve ever met (like, really, ever—we imagine him in a tiny business suit as a child). Whenever we’re feeling less-than-confident, we think, What Would Adam Do? And we pretend we have a dick.

Now if there was ever a time to read Rachel Simmons’ Curse of the Good Girl, it’s now.

-jessica

“The Last Frontier of Women’s Liberation May Well Be Men’s Liberation”?

We’ve written on the fact that women are still not equal in the modern workplace, and we’ve written on why women of our cohort may be better off rejecting marriage (because, in part, we’re doing so well at work). We even wanted to write on why men are the new women (until the Atlantic beat us to it). But explaining why these arguments don’t contradict each other is a toughie.

Well, thank you, New York Times, you just did it for us. In her op-ed, “Feminism of the Future Relies on Men,” Katrin Bennhold writes:

In the early 21st century, women in the developed world find themselves in a peculiar place. With boys failing in school and working-class men losing their jobs to the economic crisis, pundits predict not just The Death of Macho (Foreign Policy, September 2009) but The End of Men (The Atlantic, July/August 2010).

Reality is more nuanced. Women earn more doctorates, but less money. They are overtaking men in the work force, but still do most housework. They make the consumer decisions but run only 3 percent of Fortune 500 companies.

“In theory, we now have equal rights,” sighed one senior female executive at a French multinational, who tellingly requested anonymity for fear of riling the men at her company. “In practice, we still have babies.”

Bennhold, in what we think might be the most insightful, nuanced take on this moment in gender politics that we’ve ever read, argues that for these reasons, the homefront is the last battleground in achieving true equity, and that winning there means working just as hard for men’s “liberation” as we have for women’s.

She points to Europe, where male political leaders have made greater strides towards equality than anyone: the male prime minister of Iceland (not incidentally, the country that comes closest to reaching gender equality, according to the World Economic Forum) pushed through legislation giving men three months paternity leave; a male prime minister of Spain appointed a fifty-percent female cabinet; and a male Norwegian championed a quota making companies fill at least 40 percent of their boardroom seats with women.

As one woman explained:

“When you want to change a culture, it’s easier for a representative of that culture to sell the change.”

Based on our own experience, we’ve long argued that men need to be included in these conversations just as much as women. Most of the time, unfair behavior or treatment is entirely unintentional. But if they aren’t aware of it, why would they stop?

Beyond that, given today’s so-called “boy crisis,” coming together to redefine masculinity, equality, and responsibility—both at home and at work—is gonna be good for everyone.

-Jesse

Apparently Jon Stewart Throws Scripts at Women—and Other Scary Shit from Late-Night TV

A piece on Jezebel yesterday tackles the lack of women at the Daily Show, revealing that, while Jon Stewart may positively lovable on air, one former executive describes the “huge discrepancy between the Jon Stewart who goes on TV every night and the Jon Stewart who runs The Daily Show with joyless rage.” Ouch.

In one oft-told story, apparently Stewart threw a newspaper or script at the show’s co-creator Madeleine Smithberg, because he thought her work sucked. But Smithberg doesn’t think Stewart is sexist. As she puts it:

“By the time [a person] get to the candidates of the Daily Show, the herd has been thinned by the larger societal forces.” Of the greater talent pool of comedians, “All that’s left are white men and Aziz Ansari.”

So Stewart may not be sexist, but clearly the system is.

-jessica