Recently in Business Category

Yesterday the Meredith Corporation-responsible for some of the most gendered marketing on the block (Better Homes and Gardens, Family Circle, Parents, Ladies' Home Journal, More, Fitness, etc)-released a study discussing a new demographic of women, Gamma women. These are women that are different from alpha women in their desire for success, money and stature. Gamma women thrive on sharing, changing the world around them and social networking, online and off.

The Gamma woman is one of 55 million American women* creating a groundswell in today's new media and marketing landscape. Using multiple media--both online and off--she shares ideas, information, and recommendations with her vast network. The Gamma woman stands in the center of a web of positive personal connections: she aims to bring out the best in herself and others. Her sense of self is guided by her internal beliefs, passions, and priorities. She is motivated by the desire to interact, rather than to impress. She is her family's strong center, her friends' trusted ally, and she models the change she wants to see in the world.

According to the Wall Street Journal, this new demographic of women has yet to be properly marketed to.

The Gamma Factor: Women and the New Social Currency, explains how the social behavior, media habits and sheer magnitude of Gamma women represent a tidal force that is redefining the marketing model. By providing strategies and anecdotes for capturing the attention and advocacy of Gamma women, the report reveals how information travels within the Gamma landscape, and how marketers can effectively communicate with Gamma women to leverage the power of this vast and influential segment.

Reading the WSJ article and the executive summary of the report it is hard to figure out if they are talking about women or robots, but I think it is interesting that one of the groundbreaking lessons here is that women should be engaged with, not talked at. Is this an example of feminism going into the field of marketing? Ha, I wish. Corporate-driven, gender-based mass marketing makes no exceptions, everyone is a possible target for a strategic product sell.

Two related calls for help in the feminist publishing world this week.

The first, via Lisa Jervis over at the Bitch Magazine blog, is about South End Press.

If you're not already familiar with South End, you should get to know them right now. They are, as their letter notes, "the nation's only unapologetically radical, feminist, mission-driven, and majority women of color publishing collective." Their list is tremendous: big names like bell hooks, Vandana Shiva, and Howard Zinn, plus less well-known but no less important books from Incite!, Andrea Smith, Kristian Williams, and many more.

And they're in trouble, because Borders is in trouble, and the unfortunate thing about the publishing business is that the actual producers of actual content are generally at the mercy of retailers and distributors when it comes to our financial survival.

The short of it is that they need help, particularly in the form of their community supported publishing program. You pay a monthly fee and get their books for free. Sounds pretty great. More info about that program here.

The second comes from Off Our Backs, an almost 40 year old feminist news magazine. From an official statement:

We are not closing down yet, but things are a bit difficult for us right now. We are trying some last-ditch efforts in the hopes that we will be able to raise enough funds to continue publishing.

Ironically, we have been in a process of actually coming closer to achieving self-sustainability, but have a shortfall of approximately $20,000 at this time. When we are able to afford enough staff to continue our new subscriber campaign, we in fact are able to steadily increase our revenue. If we can manage to fill this gap, we believe that we will be able to continue building our growing subscriber base through our subscriber
outreach campaign, which, when we have been able to do it, has been remarkably successful.

As the oldest feminist publication in the United States, we are in our 38th year of publication, so hopefully, we'll be able to weather this latest downturn in funds and regroup to keep going. Rest assured that all of us on the collective are trying as hard as we can, and we have managed to come through funding shortfalls before, but we're not sure right now how this will happen.

You can donate to off our backs here, and even better, subscribe to the newsjournal here.

We have to support independent and feminist media, particulary during times of economic decline so that we don't lose important venues for these writers and ideas.

I will be repping Feministing at Y-Pulse today. If you are there please say hello! Here is the information and expect some live blogging.

I received this as a forward yesterday with the message, "This is how a real man uses post-its." It reminds me of oldie-but-goody Lakshmi Chaudry's "Men Growing Up To Be Boys," where she talks about consumer culture literally consuming more traditional concepts of manhood and spitting out a man-child.

So move over, beer commercials and manly meat ads; we've now entered the realm of sexist stationary. Sigh.

NOTE: We have found out that this is, in fact, a joke and not an actual post-it ad. At the same time, the fact that this is being disseminated very widely still perpetuates the same confused notions of American masculinity/man-boyhood we find in our everyday commercials and magazine ads. But we are glad to find that that Post-It has not taken part in it.

Remember the awesome pro-choice Manhattan Mini Storage ad that attracted a shitload of media attention?

Well, it looks like there's been so much hoopla around the ad that they're asking the public to take a vote on whether you think they should give "just the facts" or continue to bring the "edgy" advertising we all know and love? So go vote.

Southwest Airlines is apparently now telling its female passengers how to dress. Kyla Ebbert was reprimanded and nearly kicked off a flight for daring to wear a tank top, miniskirt, and cardigan. (This picture is of the outfit she was wearing at the time. Scandalous, no? How dare she walk around in 100-degree weather wearing that?!)

They walked out onto the jet bridge, where [flight attendant/fashion policeman] Keith told Ebbert her clothing was inappropriate and asked her to change. She explained she was flying to Tucson for only a few hours and had brought no luggage.

“I asked him what part of my outfit was offensive,� she said. “The shirt? The skirt? And he said, 'The whole thing.' �

Keith asked her to go home, change and take a later flight. She refused, citing her appointment. The plane was ready to leave, so Keith relented. He had her pull up her tank top a bit, pull down her skirt a bit, and return to her seat.

Guess we know what airline Wendy "Modestly Yours" Shalit is going to be flying from now on!

The San Diego Union-Tribune columnist clearly thinks Ebbert's treatment was unacceptable, but then he throws up his hands:

Who knows where the lines are drawn these days, particularly when it comes to dress? If you watch television, or visit the mall, or take in a game at Petco Park, you'll see women dressed in ways that, 50 years ago, were pornographic. Today they are stylish.

Uh, newsflash: 50 years ago, Southwest was requiring its own stewardesses to wear skirts just as short as Ebbert's. (Picture below the fold.) So much for the good ol' days of modesty.

But this is one of the reasons for sure. There is nothing weirder than the cyborg woman fetish. Well, except the cyborg woman who multiplies and exists to be gutted and filled with a beer keg. I am sure this ad campaign is supposed to be edgy and (post!) modern, but really it relies on some pretty standard notions of what the *purpose* of a woman is and that it is all good to watch her being cut up, spliced and reproduced like starfish or something. Clearly, anything but edgy.

Cara has more, including info on where you can lodge a complaint.

A recent study found that women are less likely to ask for higher salaries because when they do the social costs are far greater than when men ask for raises. You know the usual--I don't want to work with an aggressive, ball-busting bitch.

The study first done by a professor, who noticed that women Ph.d candidates were less likely to be teaching classes than men, decided to inquire.

When Babcock took the complaint to her boss, she learned there was a very simple explanation: "The dean said each of the guys had come to him and said, 'I want to teach a course,' and none of the women had done that," she said. "The female students had expected someone to send around an e-mail saying, 'Who wants to teach?' " The incident prompted Babcock to start systematically studying gender differences when it comes to asking for pay raises, resources or promotions. And what she found was that men and women are indeed often different when it comes to opening negotiations.

These differences, Babcock and other researchers have concluded, may partially explain the persistent gender gap in salaries, as well as other disparities in how people rise to the top of organizations. Women working full time earn about 77 percent of the salaries of men working full time, Babcock said. That figure does not take differing professions and educational levels into account, but when those and other factors are controlled for, women who work full time and have never taken time off to have children earn about 11 percent less than men with equivalent education and experience.

The studies done were all really interesting as were the conclusions.

"What we found across all the studies is men were always less willing to work with a woman who had attempted to negotiate than with a woman who did not," Bowles said. "They always preferred to work with a woman who stayed mum. But it made no difference to the men whether a guy had chosen to negotiate or not."

They luckily moved past the tired and archaic, 'women are genetically inferior' bull, and looked at reasons outside of just blaming women for not being aggressive enough in demanding salaries. They found that there are clear social ramifications for women to ask for raises. It is dangerous for them to do so as they will hurt their reputation and potentially hurt their work environment.

Furthermore, I think that women are so used to working twice as hard as men, they may not always think they can get a raise. They have probably internalized the message that they are lucky they got the job in the first place. Naturally you can't totally generalize, but in a lot of cases, it is not that women don't believe they deserve it, or they are afraid of being perceived as a bitch, they just don't believe they will actually get it.

The reality is, women do the majority of work, in non-profits, in education, in government jobs, in corporations, in health care and in universities and men make the majority of the money. Still. Today.

Maybe that is why women don't ask for raises. When was the last time you asked for a raise? And I know damn well you deserve it.

via MSNBC.

I liked this story about Harley Davidson making bikes for women, because the changes they've made aren't stupid things like makeup mirrors or pink paint. They're mostly practical modifications that women riders actually need:

“Fifty percent of the population is female and there is pent-up demand,� said James L. Ziemer, Harley-Davidson’s chief executive. “We need to remove barriers.�

So they are producing more motorcycles that are low to the ground — so women can plant their feet firmly at rest — with narrower seats and softer clutches, and adjusting handlebars and windshields to make bikes more comfortable for smaller riders.

Ok, so they're also selling rhinestone-studded merchandise and decorating with more plants. Gag. But thank god their marketing site for women isn't pink. And the changes to the actual product seem truly beneficial to real women -- unlike some prototype cars "for and by women," which feature crap such as changeable seat covers to match your outfit and computer-aided parking (because y'all know men don't need the help). In contrast, Harley-Davidson's more practical changes to their motorcycles, along with the stated mission to treat women as serious buyers when they enter the showroom, is a great tactic. Way to market to women without condescension.

It's not surprising that there's yet another in the series of "babe chain restaurants," which typically sell meaty entrees delivered to your table by nearly-naked women. This one, Hawaiian Tropic Zone, brings you both broiled meats and waitresses resembling the broiled beauties from suntan ads. It's owned and operated by Dennis Riese, a total feminist -- in the Pussycat Dolls sense, that is.

Nor is Hawaiian Tropic Zone a strip club. “No nipples,� Riese said. “You’re never, ever going to see a girl nude.� He continued, “I’m such a feminist. I love women and believe in them. And I’m not being P.C. by saying that men and women like to look at the woman’s form—it’s been going on since Michelangelo, you know, since they were doing statues of Venus de Milo. So I really believed that I was creating a restaurant that was going to appeal to men and women. I used colors that are very feminine in this place.� He gestured toward a tropical mosaic and toward a pair of soft-orange overhead lights shaped—as are the salt and pepper shakers—like breasts.

I mean, what's not feminist about boob-shaped salt and pepper shakers? They're the must-have gift for every graduating women's studies major.

Riese called for a menu. “We have a section that says ‘simply grilled,’ because women don’t like to eat sauces the way men do,� he said. “They’re watching their weight more often.� He pointed at the menu. “Also, see, it says ‘sharing encouraged,’ no extra charge. Well, women have smaller stomachs. And maybe two young single girls have a smaller pocketbook, and the idea of encouraging two girls to come in—nobody’s going to put a spotlight on you, make you feel uncomfortable because you’re sharing a dish, or that you want something just simply grilled.� (Riese says that women make up about a third of the restaurant’s customers.) “Women like sexy. Talk about empowerment and feminism! There’s nowhere offering women sexy in the way they would like it to be—classy sexy!�

The mind reels.

via Gawker.

This one totally passed me right by, but today is a "Day of Silence" to save internet radio. Why should we care about the corporate takeover of web radio? Because people that can't get radio stations on the airwaves anymore and folks (community run women and people of color stations) that have been put out of business by companies like Clear Channel, have gone to internet radio. But now internet radio is at risk as well.

via Wired News.

Barring Congressional intervention or the success of one of the many appeals of the Copyright Royalty Board's decision, Internet radio will die on July 15th, when payments under the new scheme are due, though SoundExchange recently back-pedaled a bit by exempting small webcasters until 2010. (It's worth noting that SoundExchange collects royalties for all artists and labels, so webcasters can't even stay online by refusing to webcast music from RIAA bands.)

However, no music doesn't mean that all webcasters will go offline completely. For instance, KCRW plans to air a loop of an hour-long discussion of the copyright royalty situation called "D-Day for Webcaster (there was talk of me appearing near the beginning of the show to introduce the situation, but the timing didn't work out -- bummer).

Also according to the Media Action Center at YMC:

The new rates mean fewer outlets to get the music and diversity we don't hear on broadcast radio. Putting webcasters out of business will only hurt artists more. They depend on Internet radio to get their music out to fans and build new audiences. When the webcasters go off the air, so do artists.

This is particularly alarming for youth, women and communities of color that have been pushed out of any meaningful participation in broadcast radio. A recent study by Free Press found that despite compromising 51% of the U.S. population, women only control 6% of commercial radio stations. Racial or ethnic minorities make up 33% of the population but own just 7% of radio stations. For our communities, saving Internet radio is a matter of maintaining power in a media system wherein we have so little already. It means making sure we have choices and control over who and what we hear. It means radio belongs to everyone, not just who can afford it.

You can take action here.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a company's failure to offer insurance coverage for contraception doesn't violate its female employees' civil rights.

The suit against Union Pacific railroad for failing to cover contraceptives has been going on for years. In 2005, after the district court ruled in favor of UP's female employees who sued for coverage, the company "independently" agreed to cover birth control. (Initially, the UP insurance plan covered drugs like Viagra and Rogaine but not birth control pills or IUDs.) So this disastrous ruling isn't necessarily bad for female employees of UP. But it means that UP and other companies are still not required to cover your pills. Which is a problem.

The female employees and Planned Parenthood (which joined the suit) alleged that failure to cover contraception is discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The language in the law says it applies to "women affected by pregnancy," not "pregnant women." They argued that every sexually active woman who is capable of becoming pregnant is a woman "affected by pregnancy." (I completely agree.) But the appellate judges rejected the argument on the basis that the PDA does not specifically mention contraception.

How hard is it for judges to understand that 1) contraception is a basic, fundamental part of women's preventive and routine health care, 2) pregnancy -- which is the result of lack of contraception use -- disproportionately affects female employees, so 3) failure to cover contraception is discrimination against women? Seems clear as day to me.

The kicker? UP was named one of Working Mother magazine's best companies for women! Despite the fact that many of its readers are, I'm sure, mothers who don't want any more children, the magazine doesn't include insurance coverage of contraception as one of its judging criteria.

One judge on the panel dissented, which may pave the way for an appeal. In the mean time, we can encourage Congress to take action on the Prevention First Act, which "guarantees equity in contraceptive coverage by ensuring that private health plans offer the same level of coverage for contraceptives as they do for other prescription drugs and services."

Check out the Cover My Pills campaign, which has a list of states that require businesses to provide contraceptive coverage.

Writing for The New Republic Online, Alexandra Robbins says the DePauw sorority's ouster of its less-than-Barbielike members was purely a business decision:

But, in truth, the ouster wasn't just about Aryan uniformity--it was about business. As Delta Zeta's national office admitted, it needed to recruit new members because its house was half-empty--and it wanted to make the sorority popular again (it used the pretense of lax recruiting to boot the victims). The way to do that, presumably, was to make it seem pretty and perfect (even if that meant a caricature).

Isn't it any wonder sororities call this process "re-colonization"? Sure, there may have been business goals motivating this decision, but it was a racist and fat-phobic decision nevertheless. It's still racism when fashion magazines consistently feature white models on the cover because they "sell better." It's still sexism when female casino employees are required to wear makeup to improve their looks. It's still fat phobia when an airline fires its curvier flight attendants because they aren't the airline's "best ambassadors." Just because it's good for business doesn't mean it's not racism/sexism/fat-phobia. In fact, the opposite is often true. As far as I know, Hooters has never been in the red.

That said, Robbins makes a lot of interesting points about the business of sororities:

Originally, sororities were founded on the pillars of service, scholarship, leadership, and friendship for life, all noble endeavors. In the twenty-first century, however, these pillars appear to have morphed into the corporate lynchpins [SIC] of quota, property, image, and profit. At age 17 or 18, girls join sororities expecting to join a social or service club, but they often find that, financially and emotionally, membership is more than they had bargained for.

Greek culture doesn't have to operate this way. Robbins points to many of the historically black sororities as an example -- they often don't require members to live in a communal residence, they don't charge the same exorbitant dues, and they still maintain a very tight-knit sisterhood.

The Penthouse Steakhouse.

“Are you hungry?� one of these women said, making hungry sound like an X-rated word. “Ravenous?�

Yet another in an ongoing series of ads, eateries and comments that equate women and meat.

(Thanks to Erin for the link.)

Everything about this rubbed me the wrong way.

This weekend’s World Economic Forum held a “Powerful Women� reception, which was co-sponsored by Forbes and Ernst & Young. The welcoming speeches were given by the (male) CEOs of the companies as well. You can try to redeem yourself, Forbes...

Heads of state, ministers and chief executives were among those who attended...

But there were also a lot of men.

‘I think that shows that men like powerful women,’ quipped Deborah Platt Majoras, chairman (yes, that’s what her business card says) of the United States Federal Trade Commission, as she scanned the room while sipping a glass of champagne.

The whole coverage was about men’s reaction, even the one quote by a female attendee.

Mr. Forbes said he was not intimidated by the concentration of high-powered women in the room.

‘I have six of them at home,’ he said, referring to his wife and his five daughters.

Ya think he'd be more intimidated by a room full of high-powered feminist bloggers?

Beauty image obsessions are just going WAY too far. Indian Airlines has been suspending their female flight attendants for being overweight. Their justification is that they need to save the company image. One company exec actually said, why would you fly with us, if other airlines have better looking staff. I don't know about you, but I am usually looking for the cheapest ticket and couldn't care fuck-all what the flight attendants look like. But I guess creepy businessmen flying around Asia may feel differently.

Eleven employees, recently grounded for putting on too much weight, claim that the airline has changed its vision of the Indian feminine ideal - abandoning the more buxom prototype in favour of a more westernised, skinny model, which staff see as 'unattainable'.

Indian Airlines will argue that this is a case of selecting the 'best ambassadors' to represent the national airline, and the country as a whole, and will also claim that thinner employees are more agile and better equipped to tackle terrorist incidents and other emergencies.

'They want to discard the heavier women and bring in newer, thinner models,' said Sheela Joshi, an air hostess who was grounded after a spot weigh-in found she was 1.9kg over the prescribed limit for her height.

Distressed at the prospect of losing her job after 25 years with the company, she went on a crash diet, and now eats only one meal a day to try to keep within the limit. She has been allowed to fly again, but describes the process as demeaning. 'This is our national carrier and should represent the dignity of Indian culture. These new policies are humiliating to women.'

I am sorry. That is just wrong. What the hell does thinness have to do with agility? Hopefully, the Indian Supreme Court will know what's up and Indian Airlines will LOSE.

via UK Guardian.

Well I guess if you can't get into the board room, the living room works.

Nearly half of all U.S. businesses are run from home, and most companies owned by women are home-based, according to a government report released on Wednesday.

The data, showing 56 percent of female-owned businesses are run from home, illustrates how women opt to work from home for an array of family reasons, workplace experts say.

Among businesses owned by men, less than half, or 47 percent, were home-based, said the U.S. Census Bureau report.

"A significant percent of women having businesses in the home are comprised of women who are doing it for family reasons," said Kathleen Christensen, director of the Workplace, Workforce and Working Families program at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation in New York.

The word "opt" always makes me nervous. I mean are women *really* opting to stay at home? Or is it because a) they can't afford day care and b) it is difficult for women to advance in the corporate world? Also, I think the internet has made at home businesses much easier to run, especially for women and people of color, who are historically excluded from the workplace.

via Reuters.

Working Mother did a study to find the 100 best companies for working mothers to work in. Their methodology included,

The list of companies selected for the 2006 Working Mother 100 Best Companies was based on an extensive application completed by each company. The application includes detailed questions about the workforce, compensation, child-care and flexibility programs, leave policies and more. The application checks the usage, availability and tracking of programs, as well as the accountability of managers who oversee them. That means it's not enough to have a great program if no one is using it.

Check out the list via Business Week Online.

And let's not forget, all moms work. Being a mother is WORK.

Food Network junkies know them from their hit cooking show, “Too Hot Tamales� (1995-1999). But Chefs Mary Sue Milliken and Susan Feniger have known each other since 1978, and haven’t stopped working together since the opening of their first restaurant in 1981.

In 1988, they were the first women to receive the California Restaurant Writers’ “Chef of the Year� award. And in 1993, they were two of only 16 chefs worldwide invited to appear with Julia Child on PBS’s “Home Cooking with Master Chefs.�

Mary Sue and Susan took time out of their busy day to do a conference call with me. Mary Sue called in from Border Grill, their restaurant in Santa Monica, California; they also have a Border Grill in Las Vegas. And Susan called in from Ciudad, their restaurant in downtown Los Angeles

Here are Mary Sue and Susan…

It’s not my usual time to post, (I will post on Saturday, too) but I spoke with Joan Blades, co-founder of MoveOn.org yesterday afternoon on the issue of “Net Neutrality� from her Berkeley, California home. And she said Friday might be the day when the internet changes for all of us.

Here’s Joan…

As well as the blackberries in their hands, according to the religious-looking pic of suits and electronics above this article by the Economist last month.

The author's claim was that women are presently the most powerful engine of economic growth in the world, as well as predicted that future generations may ask “why a man can’t be more like a woman.�

The article seemed to have a tone that was pretty impressive; the author was attempting to convince readers that having women in the work industry is essential for economic growth and that the only way to support this belief as well as improve the economy is to push for better daycare, parental leave, an equal share of housework between the sexes and more of an overall acceptance of women in work.

However, my delight in such an article came to a screeching halt during the second part, “Girl Power,� when the author pretty much denies the existence of a gender pay gap:

“The main reason why women still get paid less on average than men is not that they are paid less for the same jobs but that they tend not to climb so far up the career ladder, or they choose lower-paid occupations, such as nursing and teaching.�

I was also bothered by the author’s argument that women are not just crucial to the growth of the world economy, but offer certain skills that men don’t have. By the end of the article, it was a battle of the sexes, and to distinguish women and men’s working styles as “this� and “that� just seems to support the idea that men and women are inherently different. (Let’s not even get into the capitalist overtones.)

Thoughts?

According to Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), the federal government is falling short on its promise to give 5 percent of contracts to women-owned small businesses.

In 2004, the government met its overall small-business goal, with small businesses receiving 23 percent of federal prime-contracting dollars, [House Small Business Committee spokesperson Rich] Carter said. Women-owned businesses, however, received 3 percent, falling short of the 5 percent goal, he said.

Rep. Velazquez, member of the House Small Business Committee, says that “when it comes to women business owners, the federal government is getting worse...Women-owned businesses are the fastest-growing sector in our economy. They need to be represented within the federal market.�

Check out the full article at The Chicago Tribune for more.

Finally.

After a long battle in which Walmart has continuously refused to sell emergency contraception, the corporation has finally bowed to public pressure and announced that they will carry Plan B in all of their pharmacies beginning March 20th.

Check out their own very brief news release on the Walmart website, where they make it a point to state that they will still maintain their "conscientious objection policy," and will not force any of their workers to dispense EC if they feel "uncomfortable" with it.

Should we be surprised?

The number of women-owned businesses, many of them one-person enterprises, grew at twice the national rate for all private companies from 1997 to 2002.

About 28 percent of all private companies were owned by women in 2002, according to the report being released Thursday by the Census Bureau.

Not much, but getting closer.

via Seattlepi.

While this news is a bit old, I have to know what y’all think about this.

The New York Times had an article on “life coaching” the other day, an apparent growing trend amongst young women. The article begins:

To figure out what you want to do with your life, you could:

A) Study hard in school, get internships in the field that interests you, work diligently and learn as much as possible at your first real job.

Or:

B) Hire a life coach.

A lot of women in their 20's are opting for B…

For $200 to $500 a month, the lucky ladies will receive information and advice via telephone concerning, well, their lives. Jane magazine featured a big article on it in this month’s issue. The coaches not only help you with school and work, but with your personal life as well.

Am I just being nitpicky, or does this "trend" seem to perpetuate the idea that women are helpless and incapable of running their own lives?

Our favorite Christian crazies, Concerned Women for America, have recently made a big stink over a very serious issue that will apparently infect the young kids everywhere: Barbie has crossed over to the queer side.

It seems that they’re outraged because a poll featured on the Barbie website asks children their age and sex, giving them three options for their sex: “Boy”, “Girl” and “I don’t know.”

In response, CWA has said that Mattel is being influenced by the transgender movement and that a “bisexuality gender confusion” is the dangerous agenda of the website. Um, what? Transgender, bisexual, it’s all the same perverse shit, right??

It seems that Mattel can’t escape the attention that conservative groups have been giving them as of late; they've recently broke partnership with Girls Inc. because of the American Family Association’s ludicrous hating on the nonprofit organization that empowers young girls.

Mattel claims that the third option in the poll was an oversight, was meant to be “I don’t want to say” instead of “I don’t know,” and have since changed the wording.

Shocker.

This actually reminds me of a recurring childhood nightmare I used to have.

NBC4.com has a story on a new attraction that Mervis Jewelers has been displaying in their windows for the holidays: live models. That’s right, instead of displaying mannequins with the bling, they thought real women would catch more attention.

Over a dozen models will alternate shifts, taking six hours a day to stand in front of the window and pose for the onlookers.

"We wanted it to be fun, we just wanted to have fun . . . so we're going to do it," said owner Ronnie Mervis.

Yeah, I’m sure the models are having loads of fun. It’s one thing to walk down a runway, but to be a display in a window? That shit gives me the creeps.

Heidi Fleiss, ex-madam and convict for running a prostitution ring about a decade ago, has plans to get back into sex work, except the brothel she’s looking to open will be full of men. A rooster ranch, or so they call it.

The town of choice is Pahrump, Nevada, a tiny city about 80 miles northwest from Las Vegas. Fleiss intends to get what she calls a “stud farm” and charge a whopping $250 an hour for the gentlemen’s services. She seems anticipate to a majority of female clients:

"Women are more independent these days...They make more money and it's hard to meet people. You wouldn't believe the number of women who've told me, 'Heidi, if you do this, I'll be the first one in line'. I mean, relationships are harder than dieting - you know what I mean?"

No, not really. (I try to stay away from both.) But I can’t deny that I’m curious to see how much business she does.

Any thoughts?

t looks like China has recently taken up a serious interest in bras, an interest so serious that you can now get your bachelors in bra studies at Hong Kong’s Polytechnic University. Now that’s a degree!

China’s biggest lingerie manufacturer, Top Form, even has its own bra lab. As of late, the lab has been trying to find new ways to pad, testing "fillers" such as air and oil. (That would be a tad messy, no?) Their latest (and more realistic) experimentation has been with fiberfill, the stuffing used in ski parkas.

I would think a much better choice than oil. But don’t ask me -- I didn’t go to school for it.

I wasn't too shocked to find that Hooters restaurant has a statement in their handbook that employees are required to sign stating that -- while harassment isn’t tolerated -- they acknowledge that the concept of Hooters is based on female sex appeal, and that the environment is one where “joking and innuendo based on female sex appeal is commonplace.”

So they don’t dig harassment, but you can’t complain if you’re harassed.

Via The Smoking Gun.

We've reported a lot on Walmart over the last year (mostly because they've done a lot of sexist shit). Here's a little cherry on that cake for you:

Womens E-News ran a great story yesterday about Walmart's struggle to break out of its rural, Christian mold and expand into urban areas. Turns out, their discriminatory history is catching up to them, and might actually end up hindering their success in more populated areas of the country. As the article states:

Political battles over proposed Wal-Mart stores in New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago have demonstrated that what's acceptable in Arkansas isn't necessarily embraced everywhere. While the objections focused on the retailer's low wages, hostility to unions and damage to small businesses, the discount giant's antagonists also pointed to its [refusal to stock Plan B] as an issue.

Maybe, in an attempt to conquer more of the American terrain, Walmart will ease up on its anti-contraception stance.

Why is life always a tradeoff?

The Washington Post released some depressing facts drawn from a new report yesterday on the tiny-ass percentage of women and people of color serving on corporate boards.

Despite the fact that the numbers are growing, it's going pretty damn slow and there's quite a bit to go, reports Catalyst, a New York organization. Just a few uncovered and infuriating facts:

- Women and minorities together account for less than one third of directors on more than 60 percent of the Fortune 100 companies examined.

- Minorities held 15 percent of director positions.

You do the math. Sigh.

As the Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship, Senator John Kerry called out Bush and the Small Business Administration (SBA) concerning their lack of regard for women-owned businesses. Here's a snippet of Kerry's comments:

"Women business owners continue to be short-changed by the administration...The number of women-owned businesses is growing at more than twice the rate of all firms, but women entrepreneurs aren't getting their fair share of the capital, counseling or contracts. There's no place for the ol' boys club in our government. We need to ensure that, with a smart business plan and a lot of hard work, every American entrepreneur can achieve success."

Of the $300 billion in contracts awarded by the government, women-owned businesses (which are 30 percent of all businesses in the US) are expected to receive five percent. Yet they're only given three. Although it doesn’t seem like much, this means that they lose out on about $6 billion per year. Additionally, (and not surprisingly) the administration has refused to implement a women’s contracting program to help women-owned businesses obtain access to federal contracts.

As infuriating as this is, I’m glad to see that our old friend (sniff, sniff) is back and doing his thang for a good cause.

My friend Gary recently sent me an article from the Wall Street Journal. (He knows just how to please me). The article is called "Girl Power as Boy Bashing: Evaluating the Latest Twist In the War of the Sexes," and before reading the piece, I groaned. I hate when people attribute things like cuts to men's college sports (or affirmative action) to girls "robbing" men of things they deserve. It's so tired to claim that women's progress is somehow meant to punish men.

Luckily, I was basically wrong. The article actually deals with the economics of the tween consumer market. (Shocking! An economic analysis from the Wall Street Journal!) The author shows that kids are now spending millions on products promoting the gender war. He points out the popularity of things like insult-laden clothing lines, confrontation-packed reality TV shows, and advertising that defines girl-power as boy-bashing.

Most of the girl power/boy-bashing argument focuses on the popularity of the David & Goliath "boys are stupid" clothing line, which is sold in 2,500 outlets and has an annual income of $100 million. As many of you know, the clothing line sells the infamous "Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them!", "Boys are smelly," and "Boys have cooties" t-shirts.

I think this is an interesting point. I don't think, as people quoted in the article suggest, that this trend is a product of Title IX, and shows girls trying to get a leg up by pushing boys down. That seems like a far-fetched and quite serious claim. I do think, however, that this trend is useless, obnoxious and, given that people can see it as a negative product of feminist advances, potentially damaging. I'm also tempted to wonder why this article essentially ignores the AMAZING amount of anti-woman products selling millions out there. But alas...

What do you think?

According to Reuters and CNN International, by 2007, Norway will shut companies that refuse to recruit at least 40 percent women to their boards under an unprecedented equality drive announced on Tuesday.

In 2002, Norway's parliament told companies to ensure at least 40 percent of each sex in boardrooms by mid-2005 to force corporate leadership to match Nordic traditions of sex equality elsewhere in society. But, until now, Oslo had not threatened sanctions for non-compliance.

Norway has a long tradition of feminism. According to the article, sex equality is built into Nordic traditions of strong welfare, now funded in Norway by vast North Sea oil revenues. As long ago as Viking times, women ran farms when men went abroad on voyages of discovery or pillage. Furthermore, 40% of the cabinet of Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik and 37% of Norwegian parliamentarians are women.

Now all we need is to convince our own "progressive" country to think similarly.

After receiving some critical words from Norway's prime minister, Ikea has agreed to feature more pictures of women assembling furniture in its catalogues.

While I'm happy for the change, I'm not quite sure what to make of Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik's remarks. He claimed that Ikea failed to picture more women out of fear of upsetting Muslim consumers--"It's important to promote attitudes for sexual equality, not the least in Muslim nations." Ikea countered that they already included women in their catalogues, but chose not to feature women assembling furniture in short skirts "to avoid giving offence in some parts of the world." Ummm, what? I don't know about you, but *I* would be offended by a manual filled with ladies in short skirts putting together furniture. grrrr...

Regardless, Ikea acknowledged that men are disproportionately featured in their catalogue and have already submitted some new sketches of female assemblers. Ikea's spokesperson assured that, "Ikea places great stress on being open for all and equality is important in the Ikea catalogue and in every other form of communication." I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm shopping for some cheap DIY furniture.

Meet Dr. Farrell. He's the asshole of the week that the NY Times Business Section decided to give in-depth coverage. He's a pseudo-scientist that believes he's finally figured out the gendered wage gap. His answer: women self-sabotage.

"Women, he believes, methodically engineer their own paltry pay. They choose psychically fulfilling jobs, like librarian or art historian, that attract enough applicants for the law of supply and demand to kick in and depress pay. They avoid well-paid but presumably risky work - hence, the paucity of women flying planes. And they tend to put in fewer hours than men - no small point, he says, because people who work 44 hours a week make almost twice as much as those who work 34 and are more likely to be promoted."

Ummmm, yeah. But where is the analysis on how women are pushed out of partnerships and senior level positions when they become pregnant. Or how women are *still* left tending to the majority of childcare and house work. And how no matter how many hours we put in, we will still *never* be eligible for the boys club. I don't care how you spin it, it is just plain *wrong* to blame women for their lower pay. (sigh).

Now I guess that because Dr. Farrell served on the board of NOW in the 1970's we're supposed to think that he's not so anti-feminist after all. That he's just presenting a new paradigm of economic analysis. Ummmm, yeah.

"It is O.K. to trade a fatter paycheck for more time with children and hobbies. Just recognize that society did not force the choice on you. 'Feel powerful and happy that you have control over your own life,' Dr. Farrell said. 'It's better than feeling like an angry victim of discrimination.'"

Well, you know what. I think anger is a pretty valuable tool. And rather than just accepting wage discrimination or blaming myself & other women for our low wages, I say that we keep giving the Dr. Farrells of the world hell.

One final thought--could the Times *really* not find anything better to publish than this propaganda? Well, hey, maybe in the post-Summers media climate, backlash is cool.

There was an interesting article in The Washington Post yesterday (free subscription) questioning what happens when a female chief executive leaves her position. More specifically, will her departure call more attention than when a male chief executive falls? The author examines the presence of corporations led by women and the stigma that comes with their (sadly) rare existence.

After all, there’s only about one percent of female chief executives in the Fortune 500. The author uses Carly Fiorina as an example -- the chief executive who just resigned from her successful tenure of six years at Hewlett Packard Co. But the author questions, “Will her departure also just be another ‘aha, see?’ moment in Corporate America?”

Betty Spence, the president of the National Association of Female Executives, puts her two cents in. “’Everybody is so interested when a female executive goes under...The coverage [Fiorina] is going to get for it has everything to do with being a woman because there are so few women at the top, and they receive a great deal of scrutiny.’”

The author also mentions Harvard President Summers’ controversial comments and the resulting debates involving interests, leadership styles and abilities between the sexes. She predicts that Fiorina’s departure will question even more of what women’s “natural” abilities are.

Barbara Gault, director of research at the Institute for Women’s Policy and Research, seems to have a good take on what this bullshit is about:

"An aggressive, risk-taking style is viewed more negatively in women than among men. Women face a double standard in that if they are too accommodating and feminine, they are seen as weak. Too aggressive, it brings up negative associations for a lot of people...Given that there are already so few women in the Fortune 500 . . . it seems likely that her departure is just going to add to that perception that clearly already exists."

Thoughts?

According to Stuart Elliot's New York Times email column In Advertising, the YWCA is changing its image with a new, honest and bold marketing campaign — "Eliminating racism. Empowering women." As the article states, it is intended to declare the modern-day goals of the organization, which was founded 147 years ago, and to highlight the problems of misogyny and racism in mainstream society.

One main part of the campaign is a television ad which will be played on BET, MTV and MTV2. As Elliot's NY Times article reported, one of the TV commercials features scenes of girls innocently playing while the soundtrack plays a medley of rap, country and rock tunes (composed for the spot) with harsh lyrics using words like "ho" and "bitch."

Two radio spots present confident young women discussing the contradictions of modern womanhood. "The best kind of success comes in both suede pumps and sneakers," says one woman of the need to choose between motherhood and career. Being "both gentle and assertive," another woman says, does not mean she likes "being considered inferior," nor does she like "being called a bitch just because I know what I want."

The final two radio commercials describe the YWCA as serving women's diverse needs. In one, as the listener hears the sounds of a woman running, an announcer asks whether she is jogging, hurrying to pick up her child or fleeing abuse. The YWCA is "a finish line for all women on the run, regardless of the reason," the announcer concludes.

Looks like the YWCA is revamping -- and I like it. I like that it's not afraid to be both Christian and feminist. This is a combination that certainly exists, but is rarely publicized. Right on.

Now if we could only get the YMCA to ban that Village People tune forever.

*Thanks to Narguess for the article.

Whether it’s academia, science or blogging, it seems that the question is always the same: “Where are the women?” So it was only a matter of time before someone took on women in tech companies.

Wired reports that the lack of women’s representation in tech companies is widespread, but counterintuitive—companies with more women in higher positions make more money.

Companies with the most women in senior management had a 35 percent higher return on equity than those with the fewest, according to a study (.pdf) by Catalyst, a nonprofit group that studies women in business. It also found those companies paid their shareholders 34 percent more than companies with the fewest women in top management.