Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Guess Which Corporate Suits Did the Most to Wreck the Economy? Men.

By Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group. Posted December 30, 2008.


America doesn't have enough women business executives for them to be visible, let alone destroy the economy.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

WASHINGTON -- 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.

Should we sigh? Or scream?

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. Although 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.

(c) 2008, Washington Post Writers Group


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: discrimination, women, workplace, sexism, corporate ladder, glass ceiling, stereotyping

Marie Cocco is a prize-winning syndicated columnist on political and cultural topics for the Washington Post Writers Group. She is a frequent commentator on national TV and radio shows.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Sanity
Posted by: Nebris on Dec 30, 2008 1:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what keeps women out of those top corporate jobs.

The Corporate World is psychotic and to succeed in that world requires a form of mental illness...and, to their credit, women don't seem to possess enough of it.

It is almost exclusively men who have that innate pathological drive to 'reach the top', a drive that trumps everyone and everything else in their lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sanity Posted by: photon's feather
» BOLLOCKS Posted by: cordas
» RE: BOLLOCKS Posted by: mercianomad
» RE: BOLLOCKS Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: BOLLOCKS Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: BOLLOCKS Posted by: chomsky
» RE: BOLLOCKS Posted by: cordas
» Not all men are insane. Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Sanity Posted by: chomsky
» RE: Sanity Posted by: cordas
What a load of bilge...
Posted by: cordas on Dec 30, 2008 2:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet more sexist crap is expressed on alternet. The credit crunch has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with "market forces". Or greed, incompotence, larceny and more greed... none of which are traits exclusive to the male of the species.

I really wish you stop putting this garbage up on what is otherwise a good news website that looks at stories from a more realistic perspective than given by the main stream media.

The issue IS NOT gender, its greed and incomptence by those at the top. People who are intelligent enough to see that divide and conquor is still a valid tactic! So how about you stop this pointless male bashing because it only weakens our position to fight the rot at the top.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What a load of bilge... Posted by: Opsmit
» RE: What a load of bilge... Posted by: demosthenes2010
Excellent point...........
Posted by: nfamous on Dec 30, 2008 3:23 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women are minorities in corporate America get to their positions of relative power and influence by conforming and assimilating with the expectations of white males. If anyone is going to be a reformer or renegade for what is right it is not going to be women or minorities because we've already had to sell out to corporate America to get that far. The blame for this mess goes squarely and completely on the shoulders of greedy and irresponsible white males. Of course they will take no responsibility for it while accusing blacks of never having any themselves in their personal lives.

This is similar to women blaming all men for sexism when in fact this patriarchal system in America was set up by European white males. I'm not taking the blame for sexism when I didn't create it. Women have been running things in Africa and many other parts of the world for centuries. Sexism and excessive greed seem to be endemic to the white population only. The sexism we see from other races in America is learned behavior from assimilation with whites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author is correct about one thing:
Posted by: photon's feather on Dec 30, 2008 3:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To limit your pool of qualified candidates on purely arbitrary grounds is illogical.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The author is correct about one thing: Posted by: photon's feather
RE: MORE POWER TO GOOD AND HONORABLE WOMEN
Posted by: sirios on Dec 30, 2008 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Women who have lost their way in life normally end up being a whore"??????????? Dwight, are you completely fu!#$%^ retarded? Put the "good book" down and write an immediate apology to Alternet readers. There are many who believe that Mary Magdalena was a favorite of the main character of your favorite reading material.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

don't believe in patriarchy or feminism, so here goes...
Posted by: ellie on Dec 30, 2008 5:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
where you do find women execs is in the small business realm (IRS defines small business as up to 250 employees)where they can create their own balance between work and being human... have taught marriage and family at a university for years and by the end of the course, few if any women want to go into the top tier of corporations... especially business and marketing majors!!!

the imbalance between men and women at the highest levels seems to be based on desire not in inequality... women seem to want a different business model then the cut throat capitalistic model we have been taught to desire...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Glass Ceiling for Greed
Posted by: Urstrly on Dec 30, 2008 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe Marie Cocco hasn't heard of Kathryn Thompson, the managing director of America Eagle who bilked taxpayers out of a fortune for homes intended for American service men and women.She saw her chances, and she took 'em. I suspect we haven't heard the end of women's involvement in the real estate/mortgage debacle, because that industry was more open to women than Wall Street.

Yes, Marie, there is a glass ceiling. Yes, women (and people of color of all genders) are denied access to positions of power, especially where money is involved. But women no less susceptible to greed than white men any more than Merrill Lynch CEO Stan O'Neal was because he is African American.

The folks at Catalyst have some notion that women can be integrated into the high-stakes work force without changing its ethos. I'd argue that it's impossible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guess Which Gender is Hit Hardest by Slumping Economy? Men.
Posted by: bizeeb on Dec 30, 2008 6:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
82 percent of the 2.4 million jobs that the United States has lost over the past year have been lost by men. "Stated differently," writes economist Mark J. Perry," for every female job lost, there were 4.5 male jobs lost."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's pretty hardcore Posted by: bizeeb
» RE: That's pretty hardcore Posted by: maxpayne
» Who do you think you are? Posted by: rickiey
Uh, greed isn't limited to gender.
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 30, 2008 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like politics, men and women alike in top positions can and will screw the working class if they think and even know that they can and will get away with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why not throw in the "77 cents on the dollar" myth too?
Posted by: bizeeb on Dec 30, 2008 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This statistic, the most frequently cited of the Labor Department's data, is also its most misused/misunderstood. Google "A Bargain At 77 Cents To a Dollar" to see a good explanation of the wage gap, written by a woman.

Now bring on the obligatory onslaught of posts that will call me a misogynist, etc.; it wouldn't be Alternet without them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Re: more choices Posted by: bizeeb
» RE: e: more choices Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: more "choices" Posted by: stellabloo
WELL - here's MY 2 cents - bringing us up to $0.79 :.?
Posted by: stellabloo on Dec 30, 2008 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women do very well in traditional "pink-collar" jobs. Too bad I never went that route ...

Some years ago I opted out of my unionized municipal job and went to work for a private utilities company which was later bought out by Kinder Morgan. (And subsequently unloaded, as the profit margin for water utilities is very slim.)

I was orginally hired as Regional Supervisor, which (my crystal ball was really malfunctioning here) put me into direct conflict with the pre-existing Regional Manager and HIS boss, the General Manager, BOTH of whom had zero formal professional training (compared to my then 6 years of job experience on top of a degree).

Fine, I stayed out of the office as much as possible to avoid conflict. Ever the obliging employee (even though I was technically an independant contractor) I even found my own assistant to help me during my unpaid maternity leave. Long story short, my lovely assistant got a full-time job with the company and lost no opportunity to bury me completely with the obliging help of both managers, of course.

Of course she's too dumb to do anything other than follow the instructions and protocol that I set up for this company, so she will be in her current position forever, making 2/3 of what I was being paid for the same work.

These assholes are fully prepared to break the law in order to shave a few cents off the cost of operations. The profit margin is very, very small and the GM is making 6 figures a year - with no professional accreditation. And then there's the whole useless Board of Directors to pay, too! For example, they quit testing the water in a residential neighbourhood on lease land - without telling the residents or the client - or even their own lab ... I was the one who stood up and told them that was illegal! And you see the thanks I got ....

Now, I have been working for 20 years in 'non-traditional' fields. And I always get along wonderfully with my (mostly male) co-workers. My only conclusion is that if you are female, healthy, successful, intelligent and pleasant to work with - and your 'superiors' at work are not - then you might as well paint a big bullseye on your back. You are going the way of the dodo ....

And yes, I got another job - finally - right back at the bottom as a Level 1 operator. Which is great - considering how many municipal supervisors have told me I'm unqualifed (with 12 years of experience and Level 3 certification) to be a Level 1. And my new GM is an engineer - at least he can understand what I'm telling him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

one more grossly sexist article like this one
Posted by: rafaeltoral on Dec 30, 2008 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and im done with alternet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» He'll be back. Posted by: maxpayne
» I know how he feels Posted by: bizeeb
Minority Power and Influence on Wall Street Almost Nil - And That Could Be The Central Problem
Posted by: Nuuon on Dec 30, 2008 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem of who controls corporate America is much worst for African-Americans and minorities. The same researchers you cite (Catalyst) found that while fewer than 16 percent of corporate officers were women, a mere 1.7 percent were women of color.

Other research shows that the situation for African-American males is almost laughable. To cite one example, out of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies, 1 percent are African-American males, and only 3 percent are minorities of any kind.

We can definitely call the destruction of the American economy a dirty deed performed almost exclusively by white males: The "great brains" of Wall Street, many of them Ivy League educated. They were programmed to be arrogant and trained to maximize profits even if it meant peddling Ponzi-type investments schemes. Some may call this last observation racist and sexist, but I think we all know the shrill headlines we would be reading right now if African-American males (or women) ran Wall Street and could be blamed for this pitiful economy: It would be a day of reckoning like no other.

We need to do some serious soul searching, and then we need to clean house. Some of the folks responsible for this economic mess should lose more than their jobs-- they should forfeit their freedom and their fortunes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I KNEW SOMEONE WOULD GET AROUND TO IT
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Dec 30, 2008 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The absence of women, so far in this debacle they're calling a meltdown, is obvious. Wall St. and banking have many women in high places. But they're not sitting and lying in front of Congress. Claiming they didn't know what was going on. Larry Sumner (Harvard) made a statement a few years ago that landed like a big block of cement. Women were just not good at the 'mathy' stuff. It cost him his job and the school $3 billion dollars. The problem is not about smarts. Women think in yet abother dimension and that includes consequences. We are presumed to be stupid to begin with so why prove the point. When we arrive at an answer to the math problem we see another question. Now What? Does that make women smarter? Not necessarily, we just take the question a bit further. Another thing to take into accounty is the fact that men can expect a huge support system no matter what they do. Women are likely to be hung out to dry. Alone. Admittedly we don't come to the defense of each other the way men do. Consequently the men have a kind of confidence that women do not. It's based upon the knowledge that other men, and women will defend their actions. So it is indeed a gender thing. But it's easily explained. We are wired differently. Something very simple is a great example. Women ask directions, men do not. Nobody's right or wrong, just different. Looking back over 8 years of George Bush it has occured to me on countless occasions that a woman would never have survived the first 3 months without being impeached. Bush is the epitome of what men AND women will do to cover a man's ass. No woman would ever be that presumptuous. So, we are not paragons of virtue, just very aware that if we screw up there are dues to be paid. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Larry "Sumner" Posted by: bizeeb
» RE: Larry "Sumner" Posted by: chomsky
» RE: Larry "Sumner" TRUE Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Larry "Sumner" TRUE Posted by: bizeeb
Well...
Posted by: Blue Heron on Dec 30, 2008 11:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the novel 'American Psycho' certainly comes to mind. There is a definite association with macho values where the corporate world is concerned, and that can't really be denied. Having said that, Americans, both male and female are to blame for having this absurd obsession with all things corporate, and God help us, even imbuing it with a kind of sexual allure. I hope we can do better than that, and just put the 80s behind us. We need to make sure that corporate culture goes the way of the dinosaur and start tending to our lives in a more meaningful way. Stop giving so much credit where credit is absolutely not due. Get rid of the logos - get a life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The mirror and good better best
Posted by: empirePie on Dec 30, 2008 2:49 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any Mama Will Do

The ever lasting fire of desire, the juggernaut of might
tugged by a paid for animus to a heady flight
speeded on.... while anima was searching for a switch
to turn off the mind or soul of mind
while inertia came unstuck and even Mama had no luck
to slow the perilous quest the treadmill of good better best
that fouls our nest as hubris puckered up to kiss for
duck and cover since inflated debt and paupers sweat
props up the style that’s mirrored in our denial

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mmmm
Posted by: Dixie Dawg on Dec 30, 2008 3:45 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Try as we will, there is still no way to modulate the human voice in such a way as to make a whine sound like anything but a whine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sugar and Spice and All things nice
Posted by: chomsky on Dec 30, 2008 4:13 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is an Alternet article recently that calls for Americans to stop being stupid. This misandrist author should take the advice. Her inane idea of equality is same outcome, but of a selective nature. She only want the good parts. What a fool.

A sickening article only surpassed by revolting and bigoted posts blaming white men. Only men of course, it is not like there has not been a history of slavery in all civilisation and that men and women have always taken advantage of slavery and other peoples suffering. No just blame it on white men. And I am not white, but have more in common with any average working white male than I have with any bigoted feminist of any colour.

You know rich women should become like men and marry uneducated males waiters with a good heart. Lift those less fortunate than them up, then they can pamper them while they climb the wholesome corporate ladder. So stop being so hypergamous women (Please no anecdotes).Ah, nothing like stupid paragraph.

So when are things "equal"?

When it's exactly 50/50 at the top of the corporate ladder will the world be a better place? Will elites suddenly stop screwing the rest of humanity?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

female CEOs are no less evil as their male counterparts...
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Dec 30, 2008 5:08 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and whether or not theres as many of one as the other makes no difference whatsoever...the problem that needs to be attacked is the existence of such positions of absolute power.. not merely the fact that (at this moment in history) more of them happen to be males...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shame on you, Alternet!
Posted by: yada-yada on Dec 30, 2008 7:40 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a woman and feminist, I have to agree with those who call bullshit on this article. This article is an example gender-baiting of the kind that gives feminism a bad name. It pits women against men in a way that is childish and naive as well as ill-informed. The lack of evidence cuts both ways. A scarcity of women in top positions means there is insufficient evidence to suggest that women are heroines or villains.

The idea that women are naturally more virtuous than men is an incredibly sexist idea, one that harms real women. The belief that women are Madonnas/virgins and the belief that they are witches/whores are just two sides of the same ideological coin.

Sexism can be advanced by women as well as men. While it may be hard to wrap your mind around this idea, the patriarchy harms individual men as well as women, though in different ways, because it's a symbolic structure maintained by culture as a whole, not by men against women. Unless feminism stops framing issues in ways that pit men against women, as this article regretfully does, it will lose its rhetorical power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Shame on you, Alternet! Posted by: bizeeb
Corporate Types Are Unadulterated Sociopaths
Posted by: MicroGlyphics on Dec 31, 2008 12:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some have already said it here, but the few women who are at the top of the corporate ladder are just as sociopathic as the many men. We don't need more women, per se; what we need are fewer sociopaths. 'Nuff sed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corporate Suits Wreck Economy
Posted by: usd03745 on Jan 2, 2009 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will grant that the male of the species is more 'visible' than the female, but to me, it just doesn't matter. I hate them all. I just happened to work for HP since 1978 before dear Carly came on board. (That was the day that Bill and Dave rolled over in their graves). I will never understand why, after she drove Lucent into the ground, HP was so desperate to hire her. True to her nature and her resume, she nearly drove HP into the same pile of dirt. Point is, she was laughing like a fat cat when she left with her millions and her golden parachute.

Man or woman. it doesn't matter... They should ALL be forced to divide and distribute their ill-gotten gains. May they all rot in hell while my retirement dwindles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Illogic
Posted by: Urgelt on Jan 2, 2009 5:12 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, I'm as much in favor of women in boardrooms as the most rabid feminist. I am. If they have the merit, they should get the jobs, at every level.

But it gripes me to see feminists using utter illogic to bolster their campaign for equal opportunity.

Yes, boardrooms are dominated by men.

There is no proof anywhere that the crisis would have played out differently if women were equally represented in those boardrooms.

Here's the deal. There is a *system.* You are selected to advance to the next level if you display the loyalty and characteristics they're looking for at each level of the hierarchy. If you don't have 'em, you don't go up. You don't get into those boardrooms unless you live and breath the culture of those boardrooms and convince those occupying them that you belong.

Which means, of course, that women who make it into the boardrooms think and act just like the men who are there..

We need more than a gender shift in those boardrooms. We need a paradigm shift that has nothing to do with gender.

Claiming that merely adding women to boardrooms will prevent the sort of idiocies that led us to this economic nightmare is mere feminist opportunism, and dishonest to boot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Preposterous Article
Posted by: colleenwhalen on Jan 5, 2009 5:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article assumes that women are "more honest" than men and have better morals. The human race is equally depraved, power hungry and greedy. I am a woman, an ardent feminist and acknowledge that men and women can be equally selfish and craven when it comes to power.

The ridiculous belief that "women are more moral" was used in the Victorian Era (and for thousands of years before that) as a false justification to keep women out of the professions - along the lines that falsely alleging women were too soft, delicate, emotional and pure (i.e. "moral and honest") to be able to compete in a male dominated
work-force.

The same argument has been used for centuries to keep women in a subserviant position and out of power.

Why is an allegedly "progressive" alternative media outlet promoting this rubbish?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a difference
Posted by: rickiey on Jan 7, 2009 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Between promoting female equality, and simple "male-bashing".

This article is the latter, and embarrassment to progressives everywhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement