The Re-Ignited EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

The Re-Ignited EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT
ERA is BACK ~~!!

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

We Have NOT Come a Long Way, Baby

New York Times

Business Day

Still Few Women in Management, Report Says

By CATHERINE RAMPELL

Published: September 27, 2010

Women made little progress in climbing into management positions in this country even in the boom years before the financial crisis, according to a report to be released on Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office.

As of 2007, the latest year for which comprehensive data on managers was available, women accounted for about 40 percent of managers in the United States work force. In 2000, women held 39 percent of management positions. Outside of management, women held 49 percent of the jobs in both years.

Across the work force, the gap between what men and women earn has shrunk over the last few decades. Full-time women workers closed the gap to 80.2 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2009, up from just 62.3 cents in 1979. Much of this persistent wage gap, however, can be explained by what kinds of jobs the sexes are drawn to, whether by choice or opportunity.

The new report, commissioned by the Joint Economic Council of Congress, tries to make a better comparison by looking at men versus women in a specific industry and in similar jobs, and also controlling for differences like education levels and age. On average, female managers had less education, were younger and were more likely to be working part time than their male counterparts.

In all but three of the 13 industries covered by the report, women had a smaller share of management positions than they did of that industry’s overall work force. The sectors where women were more heavily represented in management than outside of it were construction, public administration and transportation and utilities.

Across the industries, the gender gap in managers’ pay narrowed slightly over the last decade, even after adjusting for demographic differences. Female full-time managers earned 81 cents for every dollar earned by male full-time managers in 2007, compared with 79 cents in 2000.

This varied by industry, with the pay gap being the narrowest in public administration, where female managers earned 87 cents for every dollar paid to male managers. It was widest in construction and in financial services, where women earned 78 percent of what men were paid after adjustments.

Across the work force, the pay gap was also slightly wider for managers who had children.

Managers who were mothers earned 79 cents of every dollar paid to managers who were fathers, after adjusting for things like age and education. This gap has stayed the same since at least 2000.

The greater toll that parenthood appears to take on women’s paychecks may help explain why, generally speaking, female managers are less likely to have children than their male counterparts.

In 2007, 63 percent of female managers were childless, compared with just 57 percent of male managers. Of those managers who did have children, men on average had more children than their women counterparts.

Female managers were also less likely to be married than male managers, at rates of 59 percent versus 74 percent, respectively.

It is difficult to determine why a wage gap exists between female and male managers, and to what extent these differences might be because of discrimination or other factors, like hours clocked. The new G.A.O. report, for example, does not try to control for hours worked, beyond broad categories like full-time or part-time status.

The report was prepared at the request of Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York and the chairwoman of the Joint Economic Committee, for a hearing on Tuesday on the gender gap in management jobs. The findings were based on an analysis of data from the American Community Survey of the Census Bureau.

“When working women have kids, they know it will change their lives, but they are stunned at how much it changes their paycheck,” Ms. Maloney said of the report. “In this economy, it is adding insult to injury, especially as families are increasingly relying on the wages of working moms.”

During the recession that began in December 2007 and ended in the summer of 2009 — generally after the data contained in this new report — men generally bore the brunt of job losses because of the types of industries. It is still unclear how management positions might have shifted or whether women were affected differently by that.

Sandy says, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT or we don't even know you were here!

Thursday, September 23, 2010

MEN NOW LOOKING FOR PAID PATERNITY LEAVE, too

Women's eNews
=============
Covering Women's Issues - Changing Women's Lives
http://www.womensenews.org

Donate: https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=225

TODAY'S UPDATE

REAL MEN KNOW HOW to TAKE PATERNITY LEAVE !

-----------------------------------------
By Allison Stevens
WeNews correspondent
Thursday, September 23, 2010

Allison Stevens knows all about the guy who puts in long hours at the
office. He's her husband. But he's also the same man who recently took
paternity leave--and had the best time of his life.

(WOMENSENEWS)--What does it mean to be a real man at the office?

It means being a workaholic, says Joan Williams, and that has
devastating consequences for women, men and families.

Men prove their masculinity in the workplace by putting in long hours,
Williams said last week at a panel discussion at the Center for
American Progress in Washington, D.C. She was discussing her new book
"Reshaping the Work-Family Debate: Why Men and Class
Matter."

I know just what she means.

This man is my father, an attorney who spent most weekends at the
office when I was a little girl. He is also my husband, who works 10-
or 12-hour days even though he has two young children at home. He's
even my sister, a lawyer in a male-dominated firm who always asks me
to call her back at work, even if it's 10 p.m. on a Saturday.

These workers sacrifice their waking lives on the altar of modern-day
machismo.

var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};



According to many studies, professional men's working hours rose in
the 1990s, Williams said. "They just went bananas," she
said. At the same time, men's household contributions leveled off in
the 1990s and haven't risen since.

A third--and likely related--phenomenon also occurred. "When
men's household contributions leveled off, guess what? So did women's
labor force participation," Williams said.

Those women who continue to work are still responsible for more than
their share of child care and household responsibilities. Not
surprisingly, we have become the driving force behind the growing
movement for better work-life balance.

Work Benefits Enjoyed Elsewhere

We want one of the big benefits that our peers enjoy in many other
countries: paid leave to care for ourselves or a family member who
falls ill or to bond with a new child. We also want more control over
our work schedules so we can fit a doctor appointment or a meeting
with our child's teacher into our busy workdays.

Yet despite the obvious and desperate need for these kinds of
benefits, bills that would provide them to millions of employees
around the country are going nowhere.

That's because men aren't involved in the discussion, Williams argued.
(Right, of course! They're too busy putting in long hours at the
office proving their manhood.)

"We have to open up a national conversation about the gender
pressures on men that are making them feel so unable to change,"
Williams said. "Women will continue to lose in kitchen-table
bargaining over child care and housework until we open up successfully
that conversation about men and masculinity."

This conversation has taken place in our house and it has had huge
payoffs.

Last year while pregnant with our second child, I learned that my
husband had accrued six weeks of vacation leave and a stunning eight
months of paid sick leave. I suggested (and was prepared to insist)
that he use it after the birth of our son and he enthusiastically
agreed--and actually made it happen.

I was pleasantly surprised--or should I say downright stunned--since
he works in an office comprised mostly of military officers.

He certainly has gotten his fair share of ribbing from his colleagues
for taking such an extended leave (some of his colleagues in the
military are just happy to be in the same time zone when their
children are born). But I must say, he's also gotten some surprising
and welcome chest-bumps too from envious colleagues.

One Complaint

One lingering complaint, however: He couldn't use his deep well
of sick leave during this period (which was when our son was 6 months
old) because of his gender.
As a father, and not a mother, he was
apparently not entitled to use sick benefits to care for our child
because a certain limited amount of time had passed.

But he did exhaust his vacation leave--and then some--to care for our
children after I went back to work, and I cannot overstate how
fabulous it was for our family.

During these two months I was married to the equivalent of a
traditional wife and mother, with all the benefits that bestows on any
bread earner. What a gift!

But my husband was the greater beneficiary. He has often said since
that those two months (he tacked on a couple weeks of unpaid leave)
were the best of his life. He lost two weeks pay and ignored warnings
about the risk to his career, but he came out ahead, way ahead.

Sporting a beard, a baby carrier, and his version of a gender-neutral
diaper bag (a black backpack) spilling over with diapers, wipes, my
pumped breast milk and all manner of other infant accoutrements, John
headed out--often with the dog in tow, too--every morning to the park,
the museum, the playground, wherever, to spend some quality time with
his kids.

Loving Every Last Minute

He loved every last minute of it. When I asked him how he felt about
going back to work, his eyes began to water.

Now, my husband is no crier. He didn't cry when he proposed to me. He
didn't cry during our wedding ceremony. He didn't cry during the birth
of our first and second sons.

Like most men, John expresses neither joy nor sorrow through tears.

To be sure, my husband loves his job. But the mere thought of
returning to the long days and late nights of his working world--and
missing out on uninterrupted weekdays with his children--brought him
to an emotional precipice.

John and I are now talking about ways he can spend more time with the
kids, from job-sharing to flex-time and all the other options women
often wind up considering after we become mothers.

It's the kind of discussion we all need to have, not just us women.
Men may be seen as less macho in the work force if they alter their
schedule for their children, and perhaps they'll pay a price in the
same way that women do if they attempt to find that precarious balance
between work and family.

But the discussion alone can yield incalculable rewards.

Talking about ways fathers can spend more time with their children
could open up more options for dads and will push the work-family
movement forward--and it may just make a few more overworked fathers
well up with tears of joy.

GOT AN OPINION? LEAVE IT HERE !!

Friday, September 10, 2010

Florida Senators Who Have Never Co-sponsored ERA Bills

It is very important that during the 2010 election season voters are aware of which legislators of both houses have NEVER co-sponsored an ERA bill during their time in Tallahassee. *Here are THE NAMES WHO HAVE VOTED AGAINST ERA by their silence, have refused to co-sponsor after years of our lobbying them-- please post this information to others via email and also use on any literature that may serve to educate the voting public as to where a candidate stands on women’s rights.

Attend Candidate Forums to ask the question of every candidate, "Will you cosponsor the Equal Rights Amendment ratification bills in 2011, and, if not, WHY NOT?" Elections and forums give the PEOPLE top billing. USE your current huge clout and GO ASK THE QUESTION! Everyone is doing it. How about YOU? ...Sandyo


JD ALEXANDER alexander.jd.web!@flsenate.gov (863) 679-4847

THAD ALTMAN altman.thad.web@flsenate.gov (321) 752-3138

JEFF ATWATER atwater.jeff.web@flsenate.gov (561) 625-5101

CAREY BAKER baker.carey.web@flsenate.gov (352) 742-6490

LEE CONSTANTINE constantine.lee.web@flsenate.gov (407) 331-9675

VICTOR CRIST crist.victor.web@flsenate.gov (813) 975-6658

CHARLIE DEAN dean.charles.web@flsenate.gov (352) 860-5175

ALEX DIAZ de la PORTILLA portilla.alex.web@flsenate.gov (305) 643-7200

PAULA DOCKERY dockery.paula.web@flsenate.gov (863) 413-2900

MIKE FASANO fasano.mike.web@flsenate.gov (727) 848-5885 (VOTED YES)

DON GAETZ gaetz.don.web@flsenate.gov (850) 897-5747 (VOTED YES)

RUDY GARCIA garcia.rudy.web@flsenate.gov (305) 364-3191

ANDY GARDINER gardiner.andy.web@flsenate.gov (407) 428-5800

MIKE HARIDOPOLOS haridopolos.mike.web@flsenate.gov (321) 752-3131

JOE NEGRON negron.joe.web@flsenate.gov (772) 219-1665 (CHAIR 2010 #1 COMM)

STEVE OELRICH oelrich.steve.web@flsenate.gov (352) 375-3555

DURELL PEADEN JR. peaden.durell.web@flsenate.gov (850) 689-0556

GARRETT S. RICHTER richter.garrett.web@flsenate.gov (239) 417-6205

RONDA STORMS storms.ronda.web@flsenate.gov (813) 651-2189 (does not like ERA!!)

JOHN THRASHER thrasher.john.web@flsenate.gov (904) 727-3600

ALEX J. VILLALOBOS villalobos.alex.web@flsenate.gov (305) 222-4160 (voted yes twice!)

STEPHEN R. WISE wise.stephen.web@flsenate.gov (904) 381-6000

Friday, September 3, 2010

FL HOUSE MEMBERS NEVER COSPONSORING ERA BILL IN 8 YEARS; FL SENATORS NEXT.

The following are Florida House members who have been lobbied by ERA Inc. many times IN PERSON in Tallahassee and by ERA constituent-speakers at Legislative Delegation Hearings (several have been verbally attacked by their hosts, their legislators), BY EMAIL with requests to cosponsor including our Bullet Point rationales; and each get PERSONAL PHONE CALLS just prior to Session every year. Most have had District lobbying visits by constituents, too. ALL receive electronically
from us our varied materials every year. The entire Florida legislature receives the same, whether cosponsored in the past or not. Those who DO cosponsor also get a card of Thanks, Will You Do it Again Next Year? "we don't fool around". We've told them, "You've seen us in your hallways and in your offices. You will go on seeing us there, whether we're in a wheelchair and on oxygen, or NOT!" How about YOU getting serious about ERA, too, and calling your own legislators, saying you are THEIR CONSTITUENT (YOU are their VIP, trust me) and YOU want THEM to cosponsor the ERA bill that will be filed during November". Think of it as your civic duty or as something you are dying to see passed into the US Constitution, BUT JUST CALL THEM AND ASK THAT YOUR MESSAGE BE SENT ON TO YOUR LEGISLATOR. {Senators' list tba here shortly.] THANK YOU FROM ERA INC and Sandy Oestreich, Pres/founder of the re-ignited ERA movement in Florida, and helping mentor 5 other states as they file their bills. I work for FREE for YOU, now you can put in a little time for us and ERA!

FL HOUSE MEMBERS NEVER COSPONSORING ERA, AS OF 2010

Sandy Adams sandy.adams@myfloridahouse.gov (407) 977-4020

Janet Adkins janet.adkins@myfloridahouse.gov (850) 488-6920

Kevin Ambler kevin.ambler@myfloridahouse.gov (813) 558-1333

Tom Anderson tom.anderson@myfloridahouse.gov (727) 943-4760

Gary Aubuchon gary.aubuchon@myfloridahouse.gov (239) 344-4900

Leonard Bembry leonard.bembry@myfloridahouse.gov (239) 344-4900

Mack Bernard mack.bernard@myfloridahouse.gov (561) 829-1857

Ellyn Bogdanoff ellen.bogdanoff@myfloridahouse.gov (954) 762-3757

Esteban Bovo estebanbovo@myfloridahouse.gov (305) 364-3113

Debby Boyd debbyboyd@myfloridahouse.gov (386) 454-0803

Rachel Burgin rachelburgin@myfloridahouse.gov (813) 740-7655

James Bush III james.bush@myfloridahouse.gov (305) 571-2100

Dean Cannon dean.cannon@myfloridahouse.gov (407) 623-5740

Jennifer Carroll jennifer.carroll@myfloridahouse.gov (904) 573-4994

Chuck Chestnut lV charleschestnut@myfloridahouse.gov (352) 955-3083

Gwyn Clarke-Reed gwyn.clarke-reed@myfloridahouse.gov (954) 786-4848

Marti Coley marti.coley@myfloridahouse.gov (850) 718-0047

Larry Cretul larry.cretul@myfloridahouse.gov (352) 873-6564

Steve Crisafulli steve.crisafulli@myfloridahouse.gov (321) 449-5111

Janet Cruz janet.cruz@myfloridahouse.gov (813) 673-4673

Carl Domino carl.domino@myfloridahouse.gov (561) 625-5176

Chris Dorworth chris.dorworth@myfloridahouse.gov (407) 333-1815

Brad Drake brad.drake@myfloridahouse.gov (850) 892-8431

Eric Eisnaugle eric.eisnaugle@myfloridahouse.gov (850) 892-8431

Greg Evers greg.evers@myfloridahouse.gov (850) 983-5550

Anitere Flores anitere.flores@myfloridahouse.gov (305) 227-7626

Clay Ford clay.ford@myfloridahouse.gov (850) 595-5550

Eric Fresen eric.fresen@myfloridahouse.gov (305) 663-2011

Jim Frishe james.frishe@myfloridahouse.gov (727) 518-3902

Matt Gaetz matt.gaetz@myfloridahouse.gov (850) 833-9328

Bill Galvano bill.galvano@myfloridahouse.gov (941) 708-4968

Rich Glorioso rich.glorioso@myfloridahouse.gov (813) 757-9110

Eddy Gonzalez eddygonzalez@myfloridahouse.gov (305) 364-3066

Tom Grady tom.grady@myfloridahouse.gov (239) 417-6200

Denise Grimsley denise.grimsley@myfloridahouse.gov (863) 385-5251

Adam Hasner adam.hasner@myfloridahouse.gov (561) 279-1616

Alan D. Hayes alan.hayes@myfloridahouse.gov (352) 742-6441

Doug Holder doug.holder@myfloridahouse.gov (941) 918-4028

Ed Hooper ed.hooper@myfloridahouse.gov (727) 724-3000

Mike Horner mike.horner@myfloridahouse.gov (407) 943-3077

Matt Hudson matt.hudson@myfloridahouse.gov (239) 417-6270

Dorothy L. Hukill dorothy.hukill@myfloridahouse.gov (386) 322-5111

Kurt Kelly kurt.kelly@myfloridahouse.gov (352) 732-1313

Paige Kreegel paige.kreegel@myfloridahouse.gov (941) 575-5820

John Legg john.legg@myfloridahouse.gov (727) 869-8600

Marcelo Llorente marcelo.llorente@myfloridahouse.gov (305) 273-3200

Debby Mayfield debby.mayfield@myfloridahouse.gov (772) 778-5077

Charles McBurney charles.mcburney@myfloridahouse.gov (904) 359-6090

Seth McKeel seth.mckeel@myfloridahouse.gov (863) 647-4896

Dave Murzen dave.murzen@myfloridahouse.gov (850) 494-7330

Bryan Nelson bryan.nelson@myfloridahouse.gov (407) 884-2023

Marlene H. O’Toole marlene.otoole@myfloridahouse.gov (352) 315-4445

Jimmy Patronis jimmy.patronis@myfloridahouse.gov (850) 914-6300

Pat Patterson pat.patterson@myfloridahouse.gov 386) 736-5100

Scott Plakon scott.plakon@myfloridahouse.gov (407) 262-7520

Ralph Poppell ralph.poppell@myfloridahouse.gov (321) 383-5151

Stephen L. Precourt steve.precourt@myfloridahouse.gov (407) 355-5784

Bill Proctor bill.proctor@myfloridahouse.gov (904) 823-2550

Lake Ray lake.ray@myfloridahouse.gov (904) 723-5300

Ron Reagan ron.reagan@myfloridahouse.gov (941) 727-6447

Michelle Rehwinkel- michelle.rehwinkel@myfloridahouse.gov (850) 488-0965
Vasilinda
Ronald “Doc” Renuart ronald.renuart@myfloridahouse.gov (904) 270-2550

Ken Roberson ken.roberson@myfloridahouse.gov (941) 613-0914

Maria Lorts Sachs maria.sachs@myfloridahouse.gov (561) 266-6645

Rob Schenck robert.schenck@myfloridahouse.gov (352) 688-5005

Ron Schultz ron.schultz@myfloridahouse.gov (352) 860-5160

William D. Snyder william.snyder@myfloridahouse.gov (772) 221-4904

Kelli Stargel kelli.stargel@myfloridahouse.gov (863) 614-9156

Dwayne L. Taylor dwayne.taylor@myfloridahouse.gov (386) 239-6202

Nick Thompson nick.thompson@myfloridahouse.gov (239) 533-2411

Perry E. Thurston perry.thurston@myfloridahouse.gov (954) 762-3746

John Tobia john.tobia@myfloridahouse.gov (321) 984-4848

Baxter Troutman baxter.troutman@myfloridahouse.gov (863) 298-5220

Charles Van Zant charles.vanzant@myfloridahouse.gov (386) 312-2272

Will Weatherford will.weatherford@myfloridahouse.gov (813) 558-5115

Mike Weinstein mike.weinstein@myfloridahouse.gov (904) 213-3005

Trudi K. Williams trudi.williams@myfloridahouse.gov (904) 213-3005

John Wood john.wood@myfloridahouse.gov (863) 419-3470

Ritch Workman ritch.workman@myfloridahouse.gov (321) 757-7019

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Subj: [flnownet] RE: News Release: Public Assistance Not Reaching Poor Women During Recession
Date: 9/2/2010 5:14:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: spfuentes@comcast.net
To: spfuentes@comcast.net
Received from Internet: click here for more information




From: Sonia



[Press Release for Immediate Release]

For Immediate Release Contact: Dr. Jane Henrici, 202-785-5100

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE NOT REACHING POOR WOMEN DURING RECESSION

Tremendous variation across the states


WASHINGTON, DC - 15.5 million women are living in poverty but, as a Briefing Paper released today by the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) shows, the number of women receiving public assistance is much smaller. Further, the distribution of supports varies a great deal depending on the region and the state, so that poor women in some parts of the country are much less likely to get help than in others.

"Women in Poverty During the Great Recession," an IWPR Briefing Paper analyzing the most recent American Community Survey data from the U.S. Census Bureau, finds that in every state a large number of adult women who live in poverty are not receiving help through benefit programs. Focusing on food stamps, heath coverage, and cash assistance, IWPR finds that the rates of adult women in poverty during the recession who are not receiving assistance vary among different public programs and across the states and regions.

Although 10.6 million adult women in poverty have either public or private health insurance, another 4.9 million are not covered. For nutrition support, 5.9 million women in poverty use food stamps, but 9.6 million do not. Meanwhile, fewer than 750,000 poor adult women with children receive cash aid through TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) while 5.4 million do not.

The largest observed gap relates to the TANF program: 88 percent of impoverished women with dependent children are going without that support. Across the states, the percent of women who do not have cash assistance through TANF ranges from the best, at only 60 percent in the District of Columbia, to the worst, at 96 percent in Louisiana.

Health coverage and food stamps reach more women in poverty than TANF, but still leave many uncovered: nationwide, nearly one-third of women in poverty are without either public or private health coverage and 62 percent of poor women do not receive food stamps. The variation across the states is much greater in health coverage than in nutrition support. In Massachusetts, the best state, only 8 percent of poor women are without health insurance, while in Texas, the worst state, 50 percent of poor women have no health coverage. For food stamp benefits, 44 percent of poor women lack that support in Maine, the best state, while 77 percent go without that assistance in California, the worst state.

"Especially during an economic downturn, the social safety net needs to be stronger to help prevent families in poverty from sinking even further," states Dr. Jane Henrici, IWPR Study Director. "During these hard economic times, public assistance programs should support poor women and their families, but too many are not receiving any kind of help at all."

View the Policy Brief here.

The report was prepared with support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

The Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) conducts rigorous research and disseminates its findings to address the needs of women, promote public dialogue, and strengthen families, communities, and societies.

POLITICAL SEXISM--We're Not Gonna Take it Anymore!

Check out the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ7LdRBsmn8&feature=player_embedded

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090103673.html

WOMEN'S GROUPS CALL OUT POLITICAL SEXISM

By Krissah Thompson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 1, 2010; 7:28 PM


The list includes the talk radio host who called a female senator a "prostitute" for cutting a deal to benefit her state, the male challenger who referred to his female rival "attractive" and "probably a good mother," and the TV host who noted that the candidate's wife looked like an angry woman.
This Story

*
Women's groups call out political sexism
*
Democrat 'mama grizzly' Stephanie Herseth Sandlin v. 'the next Sarah Palin' Kristi Noem
*
44: Women, politics and sexism in the media

Those comments and others have been collected by a group of advocates for women running for office who are monitoring what they consider a "highly toxic" media environment that makes it difficult for female candidates.

The effort to track sexist comments and put pressure on advertisers that help bankroll the media figures responsible for some of the remarks comes as women campaign in several high-profile races this year, including for governorships in South Carolina and California as well as Senate seats.

(Complete political coverage on PostPolitics)

Much attention has been paid to the tough races and hard-charging campaigns that female candidates nationwide have run this year, and commentators had begun to say that women had turned a corner - dishing it and taking it. But women have won relatively few close primaries, and some of those races were fought on the uneven territory of gender politics, said Jennifer Lawless, director of American University's Women and Politics Institute.

The Women's Campaign Forum, Women's Media Center and Political Parity plan to spend $250,000 on research and outreach for the initiative, which they have dubbed "Name It, Change It." The idea is to call out a range of issues - everything from what the groups considers an unfair focus on women's clothing and family responsibilities to profane name-calling.

The money will pay for an online advertising campaign, spoof videos and a smartphone application that will allow users to report sexist comments in the media.

The list, which was started several years ago, includes a comment by conservative radio host G. Gordon Liddy about Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor: "Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate," Liddy said on his show. "That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then."

The women's groups also point to a quote in a Wall Street Journal article about former Alaska governor Sarah Palin 's run for vice president. A liberal voter asks, referring to Palin's infant son and teenage daughter: "Who's watching the baby? And what kind of nurturing is going on in that 17-year-old's life if she's pregnant?"

The comments were only lightly condemned, said Jehmu Greene, president of the Women's Media Center, and they keep coming.

"Sexism against women in the media has become normalized and accepted in a way that they would not be if the comments were racist," Greene said. "It dramatically affects women candidates."

Those effects have been measured in research by American University's Women and Politics Institute, Lawless said. Her research has shown that women are less likely than men to consider running for office because they perceive an unfair political environment. The United States ranks 86th in the world for representation of women in political office. Women make up 51 percent of the nation's population but hold only 17 percent of the seats in Congress and 24 percent of the seats in state legislatures. Those numbers frustrate groups that have tried for years to get more women in the political pipeline.


Lawless said her research shows that a potential candidate's perceptions of unfairness are shaped by how women who are running in the nation's most challenging and high-profile races are treated by the media. "We have to call attention to the sexism and let pundits know they can't speak this way about candidates because those effects trickle," she said.



Greene said equal treatment for female candidates should be determined by a measure that women's activist Gloria Steinem calls "reversibility." (Steinem and actress Jane Fonda are among the founders of the Women's Media Center.)

"Don't talk about if she's had some plastic surgery unless you're going to talk about the fact that he's had hairplugs," Greene said, explaining Steinem's concept. "Don't talk about if she's a fit mother if you're not going to talk about whether he's a fit father."

Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who is conducting an online survey this month to determine how voters are affected by sexist commentary directed at female candidates, said most people wrongly assume that comments that deride women because of their gender are a thing of the past.

"Often the candidate feels like it happens in isolation," said Lake, whose research is being funded by the women's groups. "They feel like they just have to take it. There is no accountability in the system right now."

NameItChangeIt.com went up this week, and organizers hope it will become a "sexism emergency response" system, said Siobhan "Sam" Bennett, president of the Women's Campaign Forum. Bennett, who has run for mayor and Congress, said she was once asked at a forum for mayoral candidates: "Sam, what are your measurements?"

"We have so many women whose seats are in play," Bennett said. "So that they do not have to deal with these references when they happen, we'll deal with them and hopefully mitigate any negative electoral outcome."



http://www.nameitchangeit.org/ Sign up for alerts and report sexism in the media

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

FLASH! NO HARD WIRING OF WOMEN, MEN

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/15/girls-boys-think-same-way/print


"Male and female ability differences down to socialisation, not genetics"
[AND, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS?]

>Behavioural differences between the sexes are not hard-wired at birth but are the result of society's expectations, say scientists

* The Observer, Sunday 15 August 2010


It is the mainstay of countless magazine and newspaper features. Differences between male and female abilities – from map reading to multi-tasking and from parking to expressing emotion – can be traced to variations in the hard-wiring of their brains at birth, it is claimed.

Men instinctively like the colour blue and are bad at coping with pain, we are told, while women cannot tell jokes but are innately superior at empathising with other people. Key evolutionary differences separate the intellects of men and women and it is all down to our ancient hunter-gatherer genes that program our brains.

The belief has become widespread, particularly in the wake of the publication of international bestsellers such as John Gray's Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus that stress the innate differences between the minds of men and women. But now a growing number of scientists are challenging the pseudo-science of "neurosexism", as they call it, and are raising concerns about its implications. These researchers argue that by telling parents that boys have poor chances of acquiring good verbal skills and girls have little prospect of developing mathematical prowess, serious and unjustified obstacles are being placed in the paths of children's education.

In fact, there are no major neurological differences between the sexes, says Cordelia Fine in her book Delusions of Gender, which will be published by Icon next month. There may be slight variations in the brains of women and men, added Fine, a researcher at Melbourne University, but the wiring is soft, not hard. "It is flexible, malleable and changeable," she said.

In short, our intellects are not prisoners of our genders or our genes and those who claim otherwise are merely coating old-fashioned stereotypes with a veneer of scientific credibility. It is a case backed by Lise Eliot, an associate professor based at the Chicago Medical School. "All the mounting evidence indicates these ideas about hard-wired differences between male and female brains are wrong," she told the Observer.

"Yes, there are basic behavioural differences between the sexes, but we should note that these differences increase with age because our children's intellectual biases are being exaggerated and intensified by our gendered culture. Children don't inherit intellectual differences. They learn them. They are a result of what we expect a boy or a girl to be."

Thus boys develop improved spatial skills not because of an innate superiority but because they are expected and are encouraged to be strong at sport, which requires expertise at catching and throwing. Similarly, it is anticipated that girls will be more emotional and talkative, and so their verbal skills are emphasised by teachers and parents.

The latter example, on the issue of verbal skills, is particularly revealing, neuroscientists argue. Girls do begin to speak earlier than boys, by about a month on average, a fact that is seized upon by supporters of the Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus school of intellectual differences.

However, this gap is really a tiny difference compared to the vast range of linguistic abilities that differentiate people, Robert Plomin, a professor at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, pointed out. His studies have found that a mere 3% of the variation in young children's verbal development is due to their gender.

"If you map the distribution of scores for verbal skills of boys and of girls you get two graphs that overlap so much you would need a very fine pencil indeed to show the difference between them. Yet people ignore this huge similarity between boys and girls and instead exaggerate wildly the tiny difference between them. It drives me wild," Plomin told the Observer.

This point is backed by Eliot. "Yes, boys and girls, men and women, are different," she states in a recent paper in New Scientist. "But most of those differences are far smaller than the Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus stereotypes suggest.

"Nor are the reasoning, speaking, computing, emphasising, navigating and other cognitive differences fixed in the genetic architecture of our brains.

"All such skills are learned and neuro-plasticity – the modifications of neurons and their connections in response experience – trumps hard-wiring every time."

The current popular stress on innate intellectual differences between the sexes is, in part, a response to psychologists' emphasis of the environment's importance in the development of skills and personality in the 1970s and early 1980s, said Eliot. This led to a reaction against nurture as the principal factor in the development of human characteristics and to an exaggeration of the influence of genes and inherited abilities. This view is also popular because it propagates the status quo, she added. "We are being told there is nothing we can do to improve our potential because it is innate. That is wrong. Boys can develop powerful linguistic skills and girls can acquire deep spatial skills."

In short, women can read maps despite claims that they lack the spatial skills for such efforts, while men can learn to empathise and need not be isolated like Mel Gibson's Nick Marshall, the emotionally retarded male lead of the film What Women Want and a classic stereotype of the unfeeling male that is perpetuated by the supporters of the hard-wired school of intellectual differences.

This point was also stressed by Fine. "Many of the studies that claim to highlight differences between the brains of males and females are spurious. They are based on tests carried out on only a small number of individuals and their results are often not repeated by other scientists. However, their results are published and are accepted by teachers and others as proof of basic differences between boys and girls.

"All sorts of ridiculous conclusions about very important issues are then made. Already sexism disguised in neuroscientific finery is changing the way children are taught."

So should we abandon our search for the "real" differences between the sexes and give up this "pernicious pinkification of little girls", as one scientist has put it?

Yes, we should, Eliot insisted. "There is almost nothing we do with our brains that is hard-wired. Every skill, attribute and personality trait is moulded by experience."
What they say

Cambridge University psychologist and autism expert Simon Baron-Cohen:

"The female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy. The male brain is predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems"

Writer and feminist Joan Smith:

"Very few women growing up in England in the late 18th century would have understood the principles of jurisprudence or navigation because they were denied access to them"

John Gray, author of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus:

"A man's sense of self is defined through his ability to achieve results. A woman's sense of self is defined through her feelings and the quality of her relationships"

Sociologist Beth Hess:

"For two millennia, 'impartial experts' have given us such trenchant insights as the fact that women lack sufficient heat to boil the blood and purify the soul, that their heads are too small, their wombs too big, their hormones too debilitating, that they think with their hearts or the wrong side of the brain. The list is never-ending"


About this article
Male and female ability differences down to socialisation, not genetics

This article appeared on p15 of the Main section section of the Observer on Sunday 15 August 2010. It was published on guardian.co.uk at 00.06 BST on Sunday 15 August 2010.