EQUALITY MYTH

Today in Awful Statistics: Women in the Military More Likely to be Raped by Fellow Soldiers than Kiled in Combat

That sexism and misogyny is still rampant in the military is not in itself surprising, but we were shocked to discover just how bad it is:

“There are three types of women in the Army,” says Rebecca Havrilla, a former sergeant and explosive-ordnance-disposal technician. “Bitch, dyke, and whore.” During the four years that Havrilla was on active duty, she was called all three—by fellow soldiers, team leaders, even unit commanders. Once, during a sexual-assault prevention training, the 28-year-old South Carolina native claims, she watched a fellow soldier—male—strip naked and dance on top of a table as the rest of the team laughed. While deployed in Afghanistan, Havrilla spent four months working under a man she alleges bit her neck, pulled her into his bed, and grabbed her butt and waist—on a daily basis. When, on the last day of her deployment, she alleges she was raped by a soldier she considered a friend, it was, she says, “the icing on the cake.”

Havrilla and 16 others filed a lawsuit yesterday charging none other than Def. Sec.’s Robert Gates and his predecessor Don Rumsfeld with violating their Constitutional rights by failing to deal with the problem in any substantial way. Turns out, the military is above the law—literally—when it comes to sexual harassment and workplace equality:

“For lots of reasonable historical bases, the military has a level of civil immunity in our society which is quite high,” investigator Rohman says. “There’s a downside to that: their lack of external accountability means that they have not had to adjust in the way the rest of society has.” In particular, a 1950 Supreme Court ruling, known as the Feres Doctrine, places the military beyond the reach of workplace laws regarding sexual discrimination and sexual harassment. To make matters worse, charges are usually investigated within the immediate chain of command. “There’s no investigatory training. They don’t tell you to look for evidence,” says Greg Jacob, who spent 10 years in the Marines and rose to the rank of captain. Instead, they hand over a manual for courts martial, which explains, among other things, that the investigating officer should consider, first and foremost, “the character and military service of the accused.” Jacob says that essentially means weighing each soldier’s past and future value to the unit.

Catch that part? It’s the equivalent of being raped by a coworker, and having your boss decide who’s right and who’s wrong simply by deciding which one of you is worth more to him. Horrifying. Read the rest.

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

Can a Cartoon Movie Really Be Sexist? Pixar, Kids, and Toy Story 3

Pixar is no stranger to accusations of gender bias—nor is Hollywood, obvs—but Ms magazine is the latest to point a finger at the production company, this time for sexism in Toy Story 3.  With help from the The Geena Davis Institute on Gender and Media, Ms gives us the following data:

* Out of 7 new toy characters, only one is female—far worse than the 3-1 average in children’s media as a whole. 
* The boy’s mother is a) nameless and b) a nag.
* The film is peppered with jokes about how women should be quiet, are hilarious when they say something smart, and really only care about romance.
* Ken (of Barbie and Ken) is portrayed as an effete closet-case who writes in sparkly purple pen but defends his manhood by whining, “I am not a girl toy!” The take-away: the worst thing you can be is a girl. The second worst thing you be is a gay boy.

This nice little photo montage, brought to you by Film School Rejects, is a great sampling of all our favorite Pixar leads. But… ahem: where are all the women? 

-jessica

How Lawsuits Against Novartis, WalMart Could Change How Women—Especially Mothers—Are Treated at Work

We’ve written about the Novartis case before, but we did a little more digging and found that the precedent-setting judgment—which could amount to company paying perhaps a billion dollars in fees—will have an even bigger impact than we thought:

The Novartis verdict is deemed precedent setting because it went far beyond simple pay discrimination. Employees alleged discrimination based on pregnancy and motherhood, too—claiming that women were fired when they were on maternity leave and mocked by superiors if they were visibly pregnant. It’s these motherhood-related allegations that may have tipped the scales to the tune of the multimillion-dollar penalty. “Juries tend to react quite strongly to discrimination against mothers,” says Joan Williams, a law professor at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law and the director of the Center for WorkLife Law. “After all, these mothers, assuming they’re doing all that they should at work, are then being penalized at work for trying to live up to the ideals of motherhood; $250 million in damages? You had a jury that appears to have been incensed.”

The irony is that Novartis has been publicly praised for its policies toward women and families. Last year, Working Mother commended the company’s “impressive” pretax child-care accounts and said its policies strive to make life easier for parents. As employment lawyer William Martucci put it, companies are now going to have to do a great deal of “soul searching” to ensure that internal realities match up to external perceptions.

Ultimately, Martucci says that the verdict “will serve as a bellwether for others to speak out.” More important, it raises the stakes. “The notoriety of this verdict is likely to arouse greater interest both in individuals who believe they’ve been victims of discrimination, and in the plaintiff’s bar,” he says. With a judgment this large, more lawyers will be willing to take on similar cases, especially if they know that they can successfully represent a whole class, not just one individual. “It really does mean there’ll be a lot more litigation. The impact will be dramatic.”

Yeah, we think if we were on a jury and heard that pregnant employees were told, “oops, too late,” we would be pretty pissed too.

Once again, big ups to the twelve very brave ladies who brought this about. Their efforts stand to do more for working women and families than they probably ever imagined.

Robin Givhan, the Washington Post, and Why On Earth Doesn’t Elena Kagan Cross Her Legs?

Well hot damn, Robin Givhan. We know you won a Pulitzer and all, but our jaw straight-up dropped when we read this headline, from Sunday’s Washington Post Style section: “Elena Kagan goes on Supreme Court confirmation offensive in drab D.C. clothes.” Wow! (And is there such a thing as non-drab DC clothes?) But then, there’s the caption, showing Kagan looking perfectly professional, complete with a pair of pearls, next to Sen. Amy Klobuchar: “UNUSUAL: Most women, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar, cross their legs when sitting, but not Kagan.” Double wow.

Givhan goes on to say that, in matters of style, Kagan is “unabashedly conservative,” and the piece is an attempt to convey, as Tim Gunn puts it, the semiotics of style—the idea that every part of your wardrobe says something about you. (Sexy equals stupid; dowdy equals wise.) As Givhan puts it, “Tied up in the assessment of style—Kagan’s or anyone else’s—is the awkward, fumbling attempt to suss out precisely who a person is.” Which is undeniably true. But in this case, Givhan’s attempt is exactly that: awkward, fumbling, and just plain offensive. She writes:

In the photographs of Kagan sitting and chatting in various Capitol Hill offices, she doesn’t appear to ever cross her legs. Her posture stands out because for so many women, when they sit, they cross. She does not cross her legs at the ankles either, the way so many older women do. Instead, Kagan sits, in her sensible skirts, with her legs slightly apart, hands draped in her lap. The woman and her attire seem utterly at odds. She is intent on being comfortable. No matter what the clothes demand. No matter the camera angle.

If Wikipedia weren’t telling us that Givhan is in her 40s, I’d chalk it up to grandmotherly tendencies. But beyond the idea that we’d never analyze the leg-crossing, “drab” attire of Justice Alito (though Givhan has criticized John Roberts for being too well put together), beyond the fact that, as Daily Intel points out, Kagan actually does cross her legs, there are three great ironies to this piece:

1) That it comes out the same day the Washington Post ombudsman reveals that accusations of gender bias at the Post are working against efforts “to retain or attract a critically important readership group: women.”

The ombudsman cites four particular stories that have drawn widespread feminine ire: the recent cutting review of (Newsweek editor Jon Meacham’s) PBS public affairs program, “Need to Know,” in which author Tom Shales declares that cohost Alison Stewart, looks, during a “fawning” interview with Bill Clinton, “as though she would have been much more comfortable in Clinton’s lap”; A recent column that said Rielle Hunter had spoken “blondely”; a description of Sarah Palin that referenced her “pumps and black nylons”; and a 2007 story about Hillary Clinton, again by Givhan, that focused entirely on her cleavage. In that piece, Givhan writes that Sen. Clinton’s slightly V-shaped neckline was “unnerving” and “startling,” especially for a woman “who has been so publicly ambivalent about style, image and the burdens of both.” She added, “[I]t was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!”

2) That the Post’s own internal Stylebook says that “References to personal appearance — blond, diminutive, blue-eyed — should generally be omitted unless clearly relevant to the story.” It cautions to “avoid condescension and stereotypes.” Yeah, this is a fashion story—we know. But still kinda funny, right?

3) And now for the final irony, care of Getty Images, and our beloved Newsweek photo editor Kathy Jones. Robin Givhan! What on earth are you doing at fashion week without crossing your legs?!

Washington Post Ombudsman on Gender Bias: ‘We’re Losing a Critically Important Readership Group—Women’

In Sunday’s Washington Post, ombudsman Andrew Alexander takes on the ongoing criticism of his newspaper for sexism—most recently, for its cutting review of the new PBS public affairs program, “Need to Know,” in which author Tom Shales declares that cohost Alison Stewart, an award-winning journalist, looks, during a “fawning” interview with Bill Clinton, “as though she would have been much more comfortable in Clinton’s lap.”

Shales apologized last week, but Alexander goes on to cite other stories in which the Post has been accused of sexism: A recent column that said Rielle Hunter, John Edwards’ mistress, had spoken “blondely”; a description of Sarah Palin that referenced her “pumps and black nylons” and said she “sashayed” into a courtroom and smiled “demurely”; a 2007 story about Hillary Clinton that focused entirely on her cleavage.

“References like these don’t typically prompt canceled subscriptions,” Alexander writes. “But the consistent negative response to them surely works against efforts to retain or attract a critically important readership group: women.”

In 2008, an internal Post newsroom study noted a drop in female readership that “began accelerating in 2003.” The study also said a content analysis of roughly 1,200 Post stories found that women were the focus of only 18 percent of them, although they comprised slightly more than half the area’s population. The same analysis found that “men are quoted almost three times as often as women in the paper.”

Sound familiar? Once again, it seems media outlet after media outlet is examining themselves—and finding that, well, um, we’re failing when it comes to showcasing women’s voices.

How to solve the problem? Well, you could follow the Post’s internal Stylebook, which says:

“References to personal appearance — blond, diminutive, blue-eyed — should generally be omitted unless clearly relevant to the story.” It cautions to “avoid condescension and stereotypes.”

Or you could check out this gem, from the Newsweek library, on nonsexist writing. Perhaps more rationally, we could, um, put more women in power. A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism finds that only 30 percent of news stories include even a single female source, and only five of 20 magazines considered “thought leaders” have ever had a woman in the top editorial spot.

To be fair, the Washington Post is better than most: founded by Katharine Graham, the paper has a female publisher, managing editor and deputy managine editor.

But we could still be doing better.

Turns Out, Men Get Ahead Cause They’re Just Plain Smarter, Says Creepy UK Prof

In a newspaper article last month, Susan Greenfield, one of Britain’s best-known female scientists, bemoaned the lack of female science professors in the UK. Which prompted Richard Lynn, a retired psychology professor and possessor of crazy-ass thoughts, to ask, in last week’s Daily Mail, Is there really a glass ceiling? To which he quickly answered his own question: No (or is it yes?), because—wait for it—men are just, well, smarter. He writes:

Not only is the average man more intelligent than the average woman, but a clear and startling imbalance emerges between the sexes at the high levels of intelligence that the most demanding jobs require. For instance, at the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one. That’s statistics, not sexism.

All of that brilliance, Lynn continues, goes a long way toward explaining why, in almost 110 years of Nobel Prize history, only two women have ever won the Prize for physics, only four have won the Prize for chemistry and why no women have ever won the Fields Medal for mathematics “in eight decades of trying.”

He goes on to explain what he “means” by intelligence, why men have emerged as “the more intelligent sex,” why we can’t exactly explain this, and, oh—why, when it comes to verbal intelligence, women are actually smarter than men! (Because of our nonstop gabbing, of course.)

In our hunter-gatherer past, women needed verbal abilities to negotiate their relationships with both men and women and to teach and socialise their children.

Now, before we throw up all over ourselves (and we’re only halfway through the column), we should note that this is this Richard Lynn, eugenicist, and that the Daily Mail is, well, the British equivalent of the New York Post. Still, as the ladies over at Femonomics put it:

The fact that Richard Lynn can still call himself a scientist, and his theories and the evidence he provides to back them up can be thought of as scientific, is an embarrassment to every real scientist out there, and to those of us working our tails off to put the letters P, H, and D after our names.

We don’t have P, H, or Ds after our names, but we’ll leave you with this choice quote, care of Feministing, from the lovely Richard Lynn:

“What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the ‘phasing out’ of such peoples…. Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality.”