In this entry I try to connect the dots regarding the glass ceiling for women, from an outsider’s (male’s) point of view.
I am reading the book Microtrends, a wonderful collection of small trends that flow under the traditional trend-radar but nevertheless are shaping the future of the U.S. and the world. The “Wordy Women” section tells us that “women are on the verge of taking over word-based professions, like journalism, law, marketing, and communications.”
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of 2005, 57 percent of news analysts, reporters, and correspondents were women. Even 57 percent of TV news anchors—that authoritative role once reserved for the likes of Walter Cronkite—are women.
This observation matches what I have witnessed in Taiwan. Almost half of my co-workers in word-oriented positions, including marketing, sales, and writing, have been female. (Let’s not talk about the situation in Japan, the third-world country of gender equality.)
And yet what I remember most vividly about what it means to be a female journalist/writer today is an article from James Chartrand. Before she (yes, it’s she) became James Chartrand, the über-writer at Copyblogger, she was a single mother with two daughters, struggling to make ends meet.
One day, I tossed out a pen name, because I didn’t want to be associated with my current business, the one that was still struggling to grow. I picked a name that sounded to me like it might convey a good business image. Like it might command respect.
Instantly, jobs became easier to get.
There was no haggling. There were compliments, there was respect. Clients hired me quickly, and when they received their work, they liked it just as quickly. There were fewer requests for revisions — often none at all.
…
I was applying in the same places. I was using the same methods. Even the work was the same.
In fact, everything was the same.
Except for the name.
Something feels odd. If the number of women in the word-oriented industries is equal to or outnumbering men, why did she have more success after picking a pen-name of the opposite sex? Mark J. Penn, the author of Microtrends, also admits this contradiction and offers a statistic that shows that the majority of decision-making positions in the wordy professions are still filled by men:
To be sure, that women flood the wordy professions doesn’t mean that they always dominate decision-making. In journalism and in law, particularly, women drop off somewhere between the professional schools (where they are the majority) and the corridors of power. Women are only 17 percent of law partners. They are only one-third of full-time journalists working for the mainstream media.
And sadly, my own observations agree with this statistic too. In the past five years I have seen female managers in word-oriented positions (in total, 5 or 6), maybe more than their male counterparts (4 or 5). But when it comes to executives, I have seen only one female. Mark J. Penn does not offer a reason why, and instead throws in a slightly evasive statement: “But this trend is new, so it may take a long time for it to percolate through to the top.”
Aside from the tired (but persuasive-sounding) theory of “women are biologically not programmed to be interested in power,” the only reasonable explanation so far that I have heard comes from Penelope Trunk, who says:
Forget the glass ceiling because it's about to become irrelevant. Not because women are finally going to get to the top of Fortune 500 companies in forces of more than two companies at a time. That may happen, but no one's holding their breath. The glass ceiling is going to become irrelevant because the women who are coming into the workforce now see what's above that glass and they are uninterested.
So here is my guesstimation on what is going on, deduced from my own observations and these stories. Because younger generations are less interested in climbing the ladder, the old folks (men) who should have been pushed to retirement some time ago can still afford to cling to their positions, and are filtering out the non-traditional workforce, including females, probably subconsciously. Any other explanations?
The latest one is great, if you consider it a showcase for Daniel Craig. Unfortunately the movie tried to immitate the predecessor’s success too much and ended in a commendable action film without the James-Bondness. (Oh yes, it has some Bond-ness. One Bond girl is named Strawberry Fields.)
Defining Corporatism is part of the ‘moment’ I was describing to Iaso about Daniel Craig’s ascent into the Bond franchise. Note ‘franchise’… I think of corporatism as large multi nationals and as a cultural phenomena second, mostly due to having worked for Marriott International off and on over a ten year streatch as a Massage Therapist…which is not unlike Health Care in the U.S. and it’s relationship to Alternative Health where ‘subversive’ ideologies are concerned. Hence, I’ve been thumping on ‘Alienation of Affection’ and the way it is portrayed and it’s relationship to culture that is corporate, rather than to corporatism. Corporatism is often derided as an Islamification of American values in many generes and I am working on making more time for it on my blog.
My thoughts almost to ‘a tea’! I haven’t seen the latest one with him though, and should make time too. I was in the middle of a ‘blond moment’ when that one came out.
I agree – they master the accents perfectly, whereas the American fellows…suffice to say that you should watch Robin Hood (Kevin Kostner’s version). Or Far & Away (Tom Cruise playing an Irishman). Have you watched “In America”? The dad, an unemployed actor, mimics different British accents impeccably. It’s a good film, all in all. Highly recommended.
In my opinion, British actors can disguise their accents much better than Americans. And I am not surprised in Hollywood they call them “white mexicans”, that’s America for you.
I think it was a bold move. Daniel Craig knew he had to establish himself as the new Bond, not as the KGB spy. And he chose to go through an untraveled road – and he made it. People have mixed feelings about the blond (and I personally prefer black), but that blond is a medal of honor for an actor who took a serious gamble and won it. He deserves to show it off for as long as he wants to.
What do you think of the blond Bond by the way?
Thanks Heidi…your comments are touching and insightful as well. I totally forgot about Sherlock Holmes! Well, that film was not exactly a “British” film imho – if they had chosen Hugh Jackman as James Bond, I might have softened my attitude.
I might be slowing down but I will definitely continue writing. Encourgements such as yours are what drives me. Thank you always.
P.S. you do have insight Isao. >’.'<
BBC Magazine also listed a number of comments following the article. One that also touches on the reflexivity you mentioned as producing tragi comedy, points out the cross over with recent and coming films such as Sherlock Holmes and Robin Hood casting an American and Aussie in lead roles. It’s the logic of empire IMO. Speaking of which, I can finally toss my old thrift store copy of criticisms of Joseph Conrad’s collected works for one focused only on his Heart of Darkness…thanks to the Salvation Army and ‘Progress’ (as if that doctrine is purely racial and not about money at all.)