women’s economic empowerment

And, yes, given the economic meltdown, for everyone’s no doubt.  But here are a few items that caught my eye:

In technology…

According to an article in Saturday’s New York Times, women are veering away from computer science in droves.  The stat:

• Twenty-five years ago, more young women in colleges and universities were drawn to computer science than today.

What up?  Read the article, and do check out the amazing work that GWP’s own Science Grrl is doing on this front.  Paging Science Grrl!

And at Citibank…

In case you missed it, check out the article on how the chaos on Wall Street has cost Sallie L. Krawcheck’s career, cutesily titled  “When Citi Lost Sallie.” (Thanks to Purse Pundit for the heads up).

And in Afghanistan, a horrible blow for girls’ education.  This whole thing about the acid attacks on school girls in Kandahar makes me just weep.

Sorry to be a downer today.  I’ll be back with more cheery news, I hope, soon.

GWP’s resident Science Grrl, Veronica Arreola, is here with a fantastic column adding to her WMC commentary on Larry Summers. Reminding us all that a much-celebrated election victory doesn’t mean our work is over, Veronica asks whether Summers is really change we can believe in. –Kristen

There’s much more not to like about Larry Summers than just one line in one speech.

First that line…It was not just a simple line, but a complex argument that was summarized into one line and then reinforced during the question and answer session and in subsequent interviews. And that was not all he said; he also ranked in order of importance three reasons why women are not well represented in science and engineering. First, he noted women’s unwillingness to work 80 hour weeks, second, their innate handicap in math, and finally, discrimination.

The first reason is important, because I believe it will soon become obsolete—it will be the straw that breaks academia’s back…MEN will quickly move into this category too. I have seen signs of Gen X men scoffing at 80 hour weeks because they want to be more than just the breadwinner. They want to know their children and enjoy their lives. Once a critical mass of men do, we’ll have more support for work/life balance. But what is flabbergasting is that Summer ranked discrimination last, privileging the idea that women are innately unable to do math as reason for our lack of representation. But the data simply does not bear out this theory.

While women hold the largest edge in biological sciences, they lose that edge by graduate school and quickly fade by faculty time. Obviously the on average 60% of biological sciences degree holders have a firm grasp on math, so what happens to them? Do they lose their math skills as they age? Doubtful. The genetic difference argument holds no water, and other factors, such as family pressures and lack of role models, give more valid insight into why women are being “lost in the pipeline” in graduate school.

Second issue: is Summers such a strong believer in the theory of the free market that he wouldn’t initiate any pro-women policies for fear of hindering the free market? That’s a question I’d like to see a Senator ask if Summers is nominated. Does welfare to single moms throw off the free market? Does it do more damage than a government bailout of the banking system? While Summers has written Financial Times columns in the past few months that show a greater role for a government hand in the economy, is this an actual rebirth, or would he still fall back on the free market policies of the Clinton years?

And lastly, yes, his past stance on the developing world is important to this debate. As I wrote in my WMC article about Summers, I voted for change and that means a change from this country using developing countries as a dumping ground.

My opposition to Larry Summers as Treasury Secretary goes beyond one line in one speech. It is the mentality and thoughts behind that one line, behind that one speech. What type of person thinks it is ok to say that women and girls can’t do math, and that he would be safe from rebuke for it? Will a man who holds these views fight for equal pay, give benefits for child care, or demand that discrimination be stamped out of the workplace?

The question: Does he or does he not believe in regulation … and if yes for financial markets, why NOT for labor markets?

~Thanks to economist Susan F. Feiner for guidance on this issue and for the last line.

–Veronica Arreola

My inspiring powerhouse of a friend, feminist philanthropist Jacki Zehner, has a post up today over at Huffington Post that I encourage you to help me make go viral. Here’s the gist:

On Wednesday Goldman Sachs & Co. announced their new class of Partners and yesterday they announced their new Managing Directors. Twelve years ago Jacki was one of those fortunate people who got the call inviting her into the partnership of the firm. The year she made it, she was one of TWO women out of a total of THIRTY-EIGHT, bringing the grand total at that point in time up to TWELVE.  One by one, for reasons Jacki writes about from time to time on her blog, those women left.  Of the fourteen pre-IPO women partners of the firm only THREE remain.  So many of those who have left have gone on to do KICK-ASS AMAZING THINGS.  They are leaders, movers, shakers, philanthropists, and innovative social entrepreneurs.

So that makes Jacki, and these other women, Goldman Sachs alumni–and they are proud of it, as should they be. The question Jacki now asks, though, in light of a cover story in Bloomberg Markets magazine this week that features FORTY-THREE Goldman alums–FORTY-ONE of whom are WHITE MEN–is this:

Is Goldman Sachs proud of them?

Sometimes things come through my Inbox that are just too good not to share.  This here’s a resource–a newsletter–for those of you who, like me, are feeling baffled by the economic crisis, hungry for explanations in non-super-specialized language, and in need of a savvy woman’s perspective on the whole thing.  It’s from Jacki Zehner, author of the blog PursePundit, and a dear dear friend.  Writes Jacki:

As a retired partner of Goldman Sachs and now a partner of Circle Wealth Management Group, I spend a lot of time thinking about the financial markets and the world in general. I feel so privileged to have access to some of the smartest people on the planet, and for me, life is about sharing and about community. I am deeply committed to writing about what I consider important issues and topics related to money, markets and changing the world.  I started a blog at the beginning of the year because I wanted to create a platform to share knowledge and information as I thought it would be a historical one in the financial markets. Little did I know it would be that and more.

Next to come will be some newsletters that will contain resources on a variety of different topics with the main subject areas being money, investing, philanthropy and social change. That will come to your Inbox if you subscribe. My dream is it becomes a DAILY CANDY type newsletter–not around where to get the latest deals of cashmere sweaters, but rather on subjects that keep us informed and empowered.

Please take a minute to add you email to the subscriber icon on my blog and pass it on to your friends. For me, at this moment, it is what I can do to try to be the change I want to see in the world.  What I can do is take a minimum 30 minutes a day to put something out there in the world that I think is relevant based on what I have read or who I talk to. I believe in the power of women working together to make the world a better place.

Joe Joe Joe. All we seem to be hearing about since Wednesday’s debate is Joe. Well, my colleague Linda Basch (Pres of the National Council for Research on Women) is leading us into a discussion of Jane the Plumber, cuz Jane’s got woes too. Specifically, Jane is worried about her retirement funds. As Linda notes,

So far, neither candidate seems to have woken up to the tough economic facts facing so many older women voters. Women represent 57 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries aged 62 and older and approximately 70 percent of beneficiaries aged 85 and older. Women who have been widowed, divorced, or never married are especially dependent on Social Security, which accounts for at least half the income of nearly three-fourths of non-married women aged 65 and older.

Read all about it in “What About Jane Plumber?” over at CNN.com . While I’m at it, I point you to this post by Cindy Hounsell (Pres of the Women’s Institute for a Secure Retirement), “Why Women Are Poor in Retirement,” too.

Did ya’ll know that next Wednesday, October 15, is Wednesday is Blog Action Day on Poverty? A number of bloggers are participating in the event, including those of us here at GWP.  If you are a blogger and haven’t already signed up, you can register your blog here: http://blogactionday.org/en/blogs/new .  And do spread the word!

If you’re looking for ideas, check out Linda Basch’s post over at HuffPo, “The Missing Debate on Poverty,” and also the National Women’s Law Center’s analysis of recent Census data on women and poverty. Great stuff.

(Thanks to Mary at NWLC for the heads up.)<

This just got passed along to me: The National Women’s Law Center is hosting a series of webinars (yep, that means, online! you can participate from anywhere) on how to negotiate for yourself in the workplace:

WORK$MART: Pay Negotiation for Women (Two-Part Series)

Did you know that men are four times more likely to initiate salary
negotiations than women? And that a worker stands to lose more than
$500,000 by age 60 if she fails to negotiate her first salary?

Two-Part Webinar:
1:00 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2008, and
1:00 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2008

During these workshops you will learn:
* How to benchmark the salary of your current job;
* How to determine whether or not you are paid fairly; and
* How to negotiate a raise or promotion.

Register Here

To make up for the quiet over here today, I bring you a late-night newsbreaking post from our very own Virginia Rutter. With all the chaos down on Wall Street these days, I’m finding it hard to maintain a sense of the larger larger picture. Virginia offers us that. Read it, and, well, weep. -GWP

How ya doin’?

by Virginia Rutter, PhD

Framingham State College

There’s an awesome new report out from John Schmitt and the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), called “The Reagan Question.” It starts like this:

In his closing remarks during the final presidential debate of 1980, Ronald Reagan famously asked the American people: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

The CEPR report reprises the question for us today. And, besides having higher blood pressure and a lot of irritatsia, CEPR tells us, on 23 out of 25 economic indicators, we are doing worse.

Among the indicators is employment for women—which is down. So is employment for men. But check this out:

Inflation rate—up from 3.3 to 5.4 percent.

Unemployment rate—up from 4.0 to 6.1 percent.

Uninsured—we got millions more now.

Poverty—we got millions more now.

Personal savings—that we’ve got a lot less of now.

Even the good news isn’t really good news: Family income is better now than before, by a whopping 262 dollars after 8 years. That’s not the irritating part. Here’s the irritating part. Under Bush, our productivity is the other indicator that is up. Our productivity grew by 22 percent in the past 8 years. In 2000, our productivity was up just 16%. That’s good! (Our “fundamentals”—the workers—per McCain.) So, we have become more productive! We’re doing great! But wait, where are the profits? Where are all the advantages? Not with us. Check out “real wage growth”: under real wage growth wages were up in 2000 8.2 percent. In 2008, wages were up 1.8 percent. Feh. Feh. Feh.

Do take a look at this report. It is carefully constructed (lots of great citations to the data at the end) and above any of the particulars, you get the point. How ya doin’? Not so great.

No matter what we think of Palin (um, barf), you gotta admit it’s an interesting year for women in leadership. And next Wednesday, Sept. 24, the National Council for Research on Women and DÄ“mos are presenting a special forum on women’s transformative leadership. Emphasis on transform. Distinguished women leaders will explore the difference women’s leadership can make to bring about real change across sectors. Deets:

12:00 – 2:00 pm
Location: DÄ“mos – 220 Fifth Avenue between 26th and 27th Streets, NYC

Speakers:
Linda Basch, President, National Council for Research on Women
Michelle Clayman, Managing Partner and Chief Investment Officer, New Amsterdam Partners
Linda Tarr-Whelan, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women and Distinguished Senior Fellow, Demos
Deborah Walsh, Director, Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University

Moderator:
Ana Duarte McCarthy, Chief Diversity Officer, Citigroup

For media accreditation, or RSVP, contact: Lisa Rast, email: lrast@ncrw.org

For those looking for an insider’s explanatory take on what’s happening over on Wall Street, I refer you to Purse Pundit’s blog. For those of you who don’t yet know Jacki Zehner, the pundit behind the punditry over there, she’s a frequent media commentator on women’s success in the workplace, women and wealth, investing, and philanthropy. She was the youngest woman, and first female trader, to be invited into the partnership of Goldman Sachs. The woman knows her sh*t.

And for a lyrically philosophical take on the Wall Street catastrophe as played out in Times Square, from the perspective of a visual observer, check out Marco’s latest at OpenSalon, titled “Dystopia Now.”