Girls on the Run Alaska participate in end-of-season 5K run.

Last month Girls on the Run-Southeast Alaska hosted its end-of-season 5K run. The Saturday event happened at Twin Lakes Park on a cloudy, typically rainy day in Alaska’s capital city. Girls prepared for and ran along a paved path that borders Twin Lakes at the foot of the Alaska Coastal Mountain Range.

Before the run, the girls and their mentors gathered in a crowd in front of the main pavilion with banners and signs announcing their school and team.

Ati Nasiah, council director and founder of the GOTR-Southeast Alaska council, stood on a bench in costume and rallied cheers and speeches and enthusiasm for the work already done and the accomplishment each girl was about to make.

One by one the teams came to the front where Ati gave accolades and called for comments from the members. After each team had its moment, singer Liz Bognar came forward and led the audience in a song written by a previous GOTR team:

“Do you ever feel like you’re hiding out,
Not telling anyone what you’re all about?
Do you ever feel like giving up,
Wondering how you’ll ever be enough?”

The girls and their mentors sang together a common theme, a call out to stand up, take notice, and be confident. A message of strength and respect and healthy living resounded through the crowd:

“Stand up for yourself and your values
Do your exercise and eat and sleep well
Like a leader you’ll be positive and you’ll show others
What it means to respect yourself and others
Stand up as you are and you’ll be a star…”

The refrain, repeated throughout, inspired each girl to sing out and smile:

“Cuz, baby, you’re a girl on the run
Come on, think what you have learned
Make ‘em go: ‘Oh! Oh! Oh!’
As you race across that line…”

After 12-weeks of training and weekly classes that covered topics ranging from self-image and the media, resisting peer pressure, making healthy decisions, and contributing to the community – the girls gathered at the lakes one more time and celebrated their abilities through the 5K run.

Each took off under the balloon archway and each returned in her own time and pace without any one “winner” and certainly no losers.

The event ended with hugs and cheers and a common look in each girl’s eyes that “I can do anything and anything is possible.”

“Stand up as you are and you’ll be a star.”

******************

To learn more about Vision 2020 National Ally Girls on the Run International, go to http://www.girlsontherun.org, or Girls on the Run – Southeast Alaska, go to: http://www.gotr-sealaska.org.

The progress of women lawyers can also be seen in the ever-increasing number of women entering the profession. In 1970, women made up only 7 percent of law school enrollment. Today, nearly half of all law school graduates and 45 percent of all associates are women. Similarly, in 1970, just 4.9 percent of lawyers were women; now, women comprise almost one-third of the country’s lawyers.

Unfortunately, however, notwithstanding the influx of women into the profession, they still remain grossly under-represented in positions of real power and influence in law firms. Distressingly, the percentage of women equity partners at the country’s largest law firms has remained static for a number of years, stubbornly failing to cross the 16 percent threshold. Moreover, women constitute just 4 percent of the managing partners at the 200 largest U.S. law firms. Only 20 percent of the members of those firms’ management committees are women. In 11 percent of these firms, there are no women on the management committee, and 35 percent have just one woman on their management committee.

There are several disturbing trends that have impeded the progress of women at law firms. Most notably, as reflected in the “Seventh Annual Survey on Retention and Promotion of Women in Law Firms” by the National Association of Women Lawyers, while women have historically fared far better in single-tier firms, the vast majority of law firms are now utilizing two-tier and mixed-tier partnership tracks. Also, in mixed-tier firms, a disproportionate number of women are placed in the “fixed-income equity partner” designation. Women also fill many of the non-equity partner, counsel and of counsel positions at law firms. The increasing use of staff attorneys by firms is also troubling, because these positions, which are overwhelmingly held by women, offer lower pay, less job security and no real prospects for advancement. As a result of all of these trends, there is an inverse pyramid for women in law firms. The higher up you look at each level of a law firm, the smaller the percentage of women you will find.

The statistics for women attorneys of color are particularly sobering. They comprise only 11 percent of associates and 2 percent of law firm equity partners. They have the highest rate of attrition, with 86 percent of women associates of color leaving their law firms before their seventh year. A series of “Visible Invisibility” reports by the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession confirms that women attorneys of color face unique obstacles that have greatly impeded their progress, including inadequate mentoring, inferior work assignments and exclusion from formal and informal networking opportunities. In addition, minority women partners are rarely represented on important firm committees, such as the executive or partner compensation committees.

Hillary Clinton, who served as the first chair of the ABA’s Commission on Women in the Profession, observed in a groundbreaking report in 1988 that the increasing number of women lawyers would not, in and of itself, ensure that women would advance and succeed in the profession at the same rate as their male counterparts. As shown above, an examination of the status of women in the profession over the past 25 years confirms that she was prescient.

The progress of women attorneys has also stalled with respect to compensation. At the associate level, although salaries for male and female lawyers are roughly equivalent, women associates receive only 40 percent of all discretionary bonuses even though they constitute nearly 45 percent of the associate pool. Numerous state and national surveys have confirmed that the pay disparity between male and female lawyers increases as lawyers become more senior. Indeed, the largest gap is between male and female equity partners. This shortfall is substantial and can add up over the course of a career to millions of dollars. Women attorneys of color are particularly hard-hit by the pay gap, as they are paid less than men as well as non-minority women.

The gender gap in compensation is closely correlated with the under-representation of women in positions of true power and leadership in law firms, because the most influential law firm committees are often composed of the firm’s most highly compensated partners. Given this dynamic, it is perhaps not surprising that 70 percent of the country’s largest law firms have either no women or just one woman on their partner compensation committee. The lack of a critical mass of women on partner compensation committees, in turn, results in decision-making by those committees that adversely affects women’s compensation and perpetuates the gender pay gap.

The pay disparity experienced by women partners was the subject of a landmark 2010 study undertaken jointly by the ABA Commission on Women in the Profession, the Minority Corporate Counsel Association and the Project for Attorney Retention titled, “New Millennium, Same Glass Ceiling?” That study examined how law firms distribute billing origination credit and how that distribution affects compensation and the advancement of women lawyers. Of the 700 women partners who responded to the survey, a staggering 55 percent complained that they had been denied their fair share of origination credit. Even more shocking, 30 percent reported that they were subject to intimidation, threats or bullying in allocation disputes. Respondents also reported that their firms did not provide women with equal opportunities to participate in client pitches. Even when they participated in pitches, they often did not receive a proportionate share of the origination credit or other financial credit for their contribution in landing the new client or matter. Likewise, the study found that women received far fewer internal firm referrals and cross-marketing opportunities.

Although law firms differ in their partner compensation criteria and processes, origination credit, revenue collection and billable hours constitute the three most important factors influencing partner compensation decisions. Serving on the recruiting, diversity, associate development or pro bono committees of a firm rarely plays any role in partner compensation. However, these are the very committees on which women generally serve.

Women lawyers’ efforts to achieve higher compensation have also been derailed by the fact that very few firms have formal client succession policies. As a result, it is extremely common for individual partners to determine on an ad hoc, unilateral basis who will inherit the client origination credit from them when they retire, with little or no oversight or involvement by the firm or even by the client itself. In most cases, male partners simply bequeath their clients to their male protégés, and women partners who helped maintain or grow the relationship with the client are excluded from the opportunity to inherit the client relationship and thereby move up the compensation ladder.

Study after study has confirmed that gender plays a major role in how women lawyers fare in billing credit and client succession decisions and helps explain why almost one-half of the 200 largest law firms in the country have no women among their top 10 rainmakers. The National Association of Women Lawyers has reported that women equity partners receive only 75 percent of the amount of the origination credit ascribed to their male colleagues, and women partners represent only 16 percent of the partners credited for at least $500,000 in business.

The slow rate of progress of women lawyers in attaining equity partnerships, firm management positions and compensation commensurate with that of their male counterparts can be attributed in part to implicit bias. Implicit biases are unconscious biases that everyone has, both men and women, and affect what we notice about people, how we interpret their behavior and what we remember about them. Social psychology research teaches us that these biases stem from everyone’s natural desire to associate with those who look, act and think like them and share similar characteristics and backgrounds. As a result of these implicit biases, women often have to demonstrate greater levels of competence and proficiency and are held to higher standards than their male colleagues.

Implicit bias can affect the compensation and advancement of women lawyers. A few examples illustrate how this plays out in a law firm. Women who are assertive and act decisively are often criticized for being unduly aggressive. Likewise, women who tout their own achievements in their efforts to be considered for partnership or to attain higher compensation are frequently viewed negatively and are considered too boastful or self-aggrandizing. Conversely, men who brag about their own achievements or who act aggressively are viewed positively and often praised for their ambition and drive.

Women lawyers with children face an entrenched “maternal wall” bias. Negative assumptions are made about both their competence and commitment. It is not uncommon for women with children to receive more negative evaluations than they received before having children. Also, they tend to receive less significant and challenging assignments, which impairs their ability to advance in their firms.

Despite extensive efforts by law firms to ensure that women lawyers are advancing and succeeding, the harsh reality is that the slow rate of progress for women contributes to their continuing high rate of attrition from law firms. This attrition hurts not only individual women, but also their firms, which have made a substantial investment of time and resources in hiring and training their women lawyers. More and more corporate clients are demanding diverse legal teams, and firms will lose a competitive advantage if they do not devise effective solutions to retain their women lawyers, keep them on the partnership track and promote them to leadership positions.

In order to stem the high rate of attrition and to enable women lawyers to make real gains in compensation and firm leadership, the ABA’s Gender Equity Task Force and the Commission on Women in the Profession are set to release several important new publications in August. They will include model policies and best practices that law firms can implement to make their compensation decisions more equitable and to increase the number of women among their top rainmakers. In addition, the written materials will include practical steps women lawyers can take to negotiate more effectively for compensation, as well as concrete strategies that they can utilize to maximize their leadership potential. Information about these materials can be found at www.americanbar.org/groups/women.html.

Clearly, the slow pace of progress of women lawyers is unacceptable. In order to change this paradigm, law firms will need to make significant structural and governance changes that demonstrate that they are truly committed to gender equality — mere lip service will not suffice. Also, women lawyers will need to take charge of their own careers and not be reluctant to seek power and influence in their firms. It is only when women achieve a critical mass in law firm leadership that we will finally see meaningful progress for women lawyers. Our profession is dedicated to the achievement of justice, and thus the attainment of gender equality must be a top priority.

Roberta D. Liebenberg is a partner in Fine, Kaplan and Black in Philadelphia. She concentrates her practice in complex commercial litigation, particularly class actions and antitrust litigation as well as white-collar criminal defense. She is chair of the American Bar Association’s Task Force on Gender Equity and is the former chair of the ABA Commission on Women in the Profession.

The ties between America’s civilian population and the military are stretching thin, according to recent studies. Less than one percent of all Americans today have served on active duty.

While three-quarters of Americans ages 50 or older say they had an immediate family member who is or has been in the military, only one-third ages 18-29 can make that claim. For the younger generation, it’s increasingly possible that family relative is a mother, sister or wife.

For women, joining the military has never been more attractive. In 2010, 15 percent of the U.S. military were women. Today, 20 percent of new recruits are women.

The reasons why women join up are similar to men’s – patriotism, adventure, a job with benefits, an opportunity for tuition-free higher education, and pride.  The opportunity to serve as equals is one reason why women military cheered the Pentagon’s decision earlier this year to officially open combat duty to women troops. This decision also meant greater pay and promotion opportunities for women.

Recent Congressional hearings on rape in the military have made all too clear how far military leaders must go to create equal opportunity for female soldiers. There must be zero tolerance for sexual assault in the military. The guilty must be punished and the top brass must take the lead on this issue.

Not surprisingly, women are the fastest growing group within the Veteran population. While the Veterans Administration works to accommodate the needs of 1.8 million women vets, several gaps remain. Only 14 percent of women vets access VA healthcare benefits because women’s care is fragmented and inadequate childcare is available. Sadly,  40 percent of VA homeless shelters cannot accept women veterans.

Vision 2020 urges our elected officials to make sure the VA supports women as well as men veterans. And as we put out our American flags for Memorial Day weekend, let’s give a special salute to women past and present in the U.S. military

As the occasional headlines remind, many returning women veterans are finding it a challenge to land second careers.   While unemployment rates vary per source or quarterly report, the specific challenges don’t.  Many women returning from service in Iraq and Afghanistan, even with hard skills and a security clearance, are facing a new battle on the home front; a job market rife with obstacles inherent in being female and a military veteran.  The good news is that organizations are growing in numbers and scope as women veterans increasingly turn to themselves to find solutions and break barriers.

“If not us, who?” asked Kimberly Olson, CEO of Grace After Fire, a nonprofit dedicated to providing women veterans with knowledge, insight and renewal.  Olson is a former Air Force command pilot who retired as a colonel after 25 years of service.  She is now a Vision 2020 Texas National Delegate and leads the Grace After Fire organization’s efforts to help guide women veterans through outreach, networking and peer support programs.

“Women returning from active duty are entering the perfect storm,” said Olson.  “There are specific circumstances that directly affect their re-entry to the civilian workforce.  No matter their rank, education or the fact that they are security cleared, one of the reasons they’re finding trouble getting jobs is that they are the nurturers.  They return home and the first thing they want to do is restore the family.  For every female veteran I see, I know there are six people relying on her.  She’s the nucleus.  And that sets her up to care for others first, which robs her of the transition period.  She’s slow to go back to school or enter the marketplace.”

Getting into the game late may mean a time gap on the resume, a red flag to hiring managers.  But that’s not the only one.

“Society looks at women veterans differently,” she said.  “If she served in a diesel shop for example, and goes to get a similar civilian job, she’s just not going to look like a diesel mechanic. They won’t know what to do with her.  They may be thinking they have to take down the girlie posters.”

According to Olson, countering stereotypes often takes more work for women veterans.

“Sometimes women have trouble translating their skill sets to civilian employers,” she said.  “They need to learn the language, particularly with employers who have never served in the military.  They also need to get well-versed in translating other assets because they have great nontraditional skill sets.”

Because of family expectations and societal stereotypes, female veterans often end up downplaying their skills and values.

“They learn that people don’t get what they’ve done in the military, and over time, they stop telling their military service story,” she said.  “For men, it’s the first or second thing they tell people.  For women, it’s the fifth or sixth thing they tell.”

Olson can attest to the fact that when women are active in peer support groups, they increase their opportunities to move forward, both in life and in the job hunt.  They meet others with whom they can relate, learn more about how to best present themselves to prospective employers and how to tailor their interests to the job search.

“Some women who drove trucks in the military don’t want to come home and drive an 18-wheeler,” said Olson.  “They want to get back in touch with being a woman.  In the military, we crush that and grind it into sand.  So they have to take back that part of themselves, which adds another layer to the challenges they face.”

Celia Szelwach agrees that tapping into women veteran support groups can be advantageous personally and professionally.  A West Point graduate and former Army captain, Szelwach has also worked with the Department of Veteran Affairs as an advisor.  In 2007, she formed Women Veterans Network (WOVEN), a volunteer support group offering women veterans opportunities to connect for social support and networking opportunities.

“I became aware of the challenges women veterans face and experienced some of those challenges myself,” said Szelwach.  “When transitioning, women veterans need to network and establish connections outside the military.  This can be difficult unless they have each other to turn to. We are able to help each other find resources we might not otherwise know about or have an introduction to.  That’s why we are here.”

Olson and Szelwach represent only two of the many women veteran support groups available online and in physical locations.  In addition to making connections and finding peer to peer support, transitioning women learn more about specific steps they can take to enhance their opportunities for a successful transition.  Their advice:

• Be upfront about your security clearance, education and other certifications. The value of a security clearance is only going up.  If you have one, state it.  Ditto for any credentials. Instead of downplaying military service, be bold about what you’ve attained.
• Learn to speak employer.  Continue to refine the way you explain your skills and experience.  Tell your story with job description adjectives that match your skills instead of your military job titles.  Never assume employers understand what you’ve done, even if they have prior military service themselves.  Make your expertise clear.
• Network.  Consider networking as the never-ending story.  Fellow veterans who have made the transition are great resources for mentors.  Ask for advice or introductions, not a job.  Continue to expand your network as a course of action in the job hunt.
• Start the job search early.  Even as you work to reestablish your role in the family, continue to put some time into the steps necessary for a second career.

For more information:

Grace After Fire: www.graceafterfire.org

WOVEN: http://womenveteransnetwork.org

For the past 4 months, I have been engaged in heavy campaigning across my state for the position of Chair of the Democratic Party of the State of New Mexico. This is an elected position by nearly 400 delegates from all 33 counties in New Mexico, from urban areas like Albuquerque and Santa Fe to some very rural areas.  In my travels, I met many wonderful people who believed in me and my candidacy.  I was blessed with new friends in all corners of the state and in-between.  The race was hard fought, but my opponent Sam Bregman  won this one in the end.  There were three contenders–myself, Cornelia Lange and Sam. 

Almost immediately upon entering the race, I started receiving comments about my hair, my clothing, selection of jewelry and, of course, the height of my heels.  I also received numerous, unsolicited comments about the other woman in the race and her appearance.  After four months in the race, it wasn’t until the last month, that I heard any comment about the man’s attire or appearance. 

What is most telling is that these comments came from mostly women. Throughout this entire race, I found that the most “criticism” came from women–it was women who judged my appearance and told me what I should or should not be wearing; women who said horrible things about me to my supporters; and women who played games with their support/nonsupport of me.  Don’t get me wrong. There were many wonderful women who worked hard in my campaign and will be my lifelong friends, but I was struck by the number of “woman advocates” who were not. 

The differences between true woman-advocates and the others were pretty clear.  Women who support women stay away from snarky comments about appearances, and they judge only on qualifications.  Women who support women look for ways to be helpful and not engage in gossip to tear women down.  Women who support women are honest about their support and don’t play games with whoever is in the room at the time.  Women who support women change the conversation when it gets away from the merits of the candidates. 

Now, I don’t believe that women should support women just because we are the same gender.   But I do believe that if we really want to see the numbers change, then we, as women, have a responsibility to not be the ones driving the petty conversations.  We should be the ones stopping them.   I live in a state with a woman governor and above-average numbers of women in elected office but we can do better in terms of gender equality when we walk the walk.

So, next time someone engages you in Hillary Clinton’s hairstyle or Michelle Obama’s choice of clothing or that your locally-elected female candidate has “put on a few pounds” or that Sarah Palin “sure is pretty,” we have an obligation to stand up and change that discussion to “Hillary sure was one of the best Secretary of States we’ve ever had, traveling to more countries and working with more world leaders than any other Secretary” or “Michelle really has heightened the conversation on healthy lifestyles for our children” or “Sarah Palin sure did a remarkable feat by becoming Alaska’s youngest-ever and first female governor.”

 Whether you “like” the candidate or not, we as women must stand up and ensure the discussion is on merits – not looks or pettiness which only tears women down.

When it comes to improving gender equality on corporate boards, two of the world’s most economically important countries just declared it’s time for more action.

In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel recently announced her party will push for a policy to require companies’ boards of directors to include at least 30 percent women by 2020.

In Japan, meanwhile, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has said he wants the country’s biggest business to set a target of appointing at least one woman executive per company.

“Women are Japan’s most underused resource,” Abe said, according to the Financial Times. Women hold less than 2 percent of executive roles at Japan’s top business groups.

The moves by leadership in Germany and Japan follow the imposition of quotas that require companies to appoint more women executives in other countries around the world.

Norway, for instance, now requires companies to fill at least 40 percent of corporate board seats with women. The European Commission wants women to fill at least 33 percent of board seats by 2020. To get countries moving in the right direction, Britain several years ago announced an unofficial quota of 25 percent women on corporate boards by 2015.

In a world where women make up half of the population and in many countries make up half of the workplace, having a relatively small percentage of women as directors seems like a small consolation.

Is it time for corporate board quotas in the United States? I don’t think so.

But, I would hope U.S. companies would do what is right to improve the embarrassingly low numbers of women on their corporate boards.

It just makes good business sense.

Study after study shows that companies that have more women on their corporate boards have better returns than companies with fewer women. Adding more diversity at the upper echelons of management also means better diversity of thought — which in turn means better decision making and broader appeal to more potential customers.

Yet unfortunately, most U.S. companies still don’t get it. Many are still stuck in the “good ol’ boy” system of yesterday that makes it tough, if not impossible, to add diversity on their corporate boards.

Just look at the recent news about Hewlett-Packard. There, longtime board member Ray Lane had to be all but forced out of his role as chairman of the company, according to The New York Times.

HP isn’t as bad as places like Occidental Petroleum, where former Chairman and CEO Ray Irani has been on the board for nearly 30 years, according to the Times.

Instead of waiting for government quotas, boards would be wise to do more themselves to term-limit director positions and implement ‘diversity of thought’ in every way they can.

They can start by helping support women at all rungs of the career ladder.

They can pay women the same as men to make them true equals in the workplace and actually impact the GDP.

They can put more women in leadership positions to feed the pipeline to the boardroom.

And they can support efforts to develop more women leaders across corporate America. One example they can learn from is a women’s leadership event that Microsoft and Amway recently held in Michigan.

By not taking steps like these to improve diversity in the boardroom, corporate boards are not living up to their fiduciary responsibility to do what’s best for their companies and their shareholders.

And that’s not just bad for women and for companies. That’s bad for all of us who depend on a vibrant, diverse economy.

Celebrating its 20th year, Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day is Thursday, April 25. In case you were wondering, you can buy official merchandise (string back pack, squishy pen, tee shirt) to recognize this day. Originally, Take Your Daughters to Work Day was an effort targeted to girls ages 10-14 when their bodies are changing and attention to girls’ physical beauty becomes the obsession of society and individuals. The idea was and is to introduce girls to jobs and careers where intelligence and creativity matter. The work world quickly morphed the day into organized activities for both boys and girls directed by the corporate HR department. There’s nothing wrong with these activities or with including boys. But in our national reflex for political correctness, we have erased the significance of one day – just one day – dedicated to showing girls in middle school that there’s a bigger world beyond the lunch table, the bus stop, the ‘tween magazines and even the classroom. And it is a world that needs their attention.

Yes, it is a stretch to say one day will make a difference in a girl’s life and will ultimately accrue to Vision 2020′s goal of increasing the number of women in senior leadership positions. But it can be a meaningful start. That’s why I propose we embrace the initial concept of showing a girl how business works. If possible, invite your daughter, niece, or neighbor’s child to spend the day with you. If weekday logistics prohibit this, consider inviting her to a business lunch on the weekend. Explain your work. Remember that everything may look unfamiliar and scary to her. So de-mystify. For example, a teenage girl was looking for a job and tried to find the employment office. But she didn’t go in because the sign on the office door said Human Resources. “What are human resources?” she wondered. If you only do one thing this month, do this: take a daughter to work.

Read more on this day with the Huffington Post.

I traveled with a dozen college students and faculty to London early September to see the Paralympics (disability Olympics). The experience brought new meaning to human performance in sport– the ability to go faster, higher, and be stronger. The trip was the culmination of a course on “Perspectives on Disability.” Recently Secretary of Education Arne Duncan promulgated the need for schools to provide students with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate alongside their peers in after-school athletics. In Philadelphia, a young girl and her parents are challenging the league to let her continue to play football beyond the sixth grade.

Given these events, I continue to ponder the meaning of “otherness,” especially as it relates to sport. I am starting to challenge why we have gender-specific competition in elite sport, especially in non-contact sports.

I am surprised how few women, both in sport and out, consider this evolution to equality a radical idea. With just a few months of study of the Paralympics, I am able to appreciate human performance in sport without parameters or qualifiers of the corporeal. So many “barriers” have been broken in sport, it seems that it may be time to consider mixed competition at the elite level– especially in non-contact sports.

The women I have engaged in this conversation have been surprisingly quick to note the many “significant differences” between men and women. I thought the women’s equality movement advocated for “no significant difference.”
Naturally, I understand there are anatomical differences between men and women. However, considering human performance comparisons, especially at the elite sport level, are we not talking about matters of degree, not matters of principle?

For example, at 5’6” most 6’6” men or women would easily outperform me in dunking a basketball. I cannot dunk a basketball; not as a matter of principle of gender, but simply a matter of degree of performance.

Furthermore, I cannot get a good answer why several non-contact sports have to be segregated. Is there a gender difference in diving? Is there a gender difference in sharp shooting? Archery? Dressage? Most Olympic sorts don’t have contact. Why do we continue to compete separately in these?

Take running events– pure and simple human performance events. Many argue that muscle strength gives the males the advantage. Is this not a matter of degree and not principle? There is little I can find principally different between men and women in “just running.” What about the marathon? An argument can be made that since women hold more body fat, they are better equipped to go the distance.

One could argue that socio-cultural constructs have historically favored men in certain sports. Arguments have been made along characteristics other than gender that have proven to be false. For example, African Americans “are not good at” tennis. African Americans “don’t play ice hockey.” Even anthropomorphic arguments in sport have not always held up. In 1992 several Asian runners placed highly in the marathon, including first and second place, disabusing us of the notion that “the Asians are not good distance runners because of their body build.”

Even if socio-cultural forces are strong, have we not advanced in sport to look past stereotypes? Let’s take a close analysis of the need for gender segregation in non-contact sport at the elite level. It appears that the arguments for separate competition are matters of degree not of principle.

I have learned from Paralympians that we should not look at elite athletes principally for their differences, but in matters of degree in how well they perform for themselves or compared with “others,” however we choose to define “otherness.”
Our mantra in the future for wishing well the elite athlete will be “May the best women (or man) win!”

Stephen Gambescia teaches at Drexel University (Philadelphia, PA). Nine students and three faculty attended the Paralympics in London as part of their Great Works Symposium course.

Stephen F. Gambescia, PhD, MEd, MBA, MHum, MCHES
Associate Professor Health Services Adminisration
College of Nursing and Health Professions
Drexel University
1505 Race Street–4th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
215-762-8405 sfg23@drexel.edu

Women are nurturers, leaders, caretakers, providers, teachers — and so much more. While many strides have been made toward gender equality, challenges and hardships still remain. Young girls deserve equal opportunities for financial independence, access to education and the opportunity to accomplish their dreams and life goals.  

The Philadelphia Foundation funds nonprofits that empower and prepare girls with the social and economic skills necessary for a healthy and successful lifestyle. We partner with our component fund-holders to support women’s organizations.

More than 30 of our 900 active funds specifically support women and girls, and many others do so as part of their overall approach to philanthropy. We have funds whose focus is abused women, women artists, women in food careers and women in politics.

We help build the endowment for several nonprofits that serve women. The Alice Paul Institute and the League of Women’s Voters of Pennsylvania are among the 60 nonprofits that grow their permanent financial resources though us. Additional funds provide direct annual support for Women’s Way, Girls Inc., and for the Boys & Girls Clubs of Metropolitan Philadelphia, Nicetown, Bridesburg and Germantown.

We’ve been doing this so long – since 1918 – that some of our funds have purposes framed in quaint language. The Elizabeth Phile Stott Fund, established through the creation of a private foundation after her death in 1848, provides fuel and other necessities for “reduced or decayed females.” The Anne Gerhard Maris Fund, also initially established as a private foundation by Elizabeth’s niece in 1929, is targeted for  “the relief of gentlewomen in reduced circumstances.” Times and language change, but the philanthropic purpose of these two visionary women continues to be fulfilled, exactly as they had intended.  

Among our newest funds is one established by a group of women who decided to pool their financial resources for maximum impact, and another that honors the can-do spirit and legacy of a family’s Italian grandmother.

The Women and Girls Fund provides The Philadelphia Foundation’s professional staff with the financial resources needed to assist organizations that improve the lives of women and girls in our region.

You can support any of these funds by visiting www.philafound.org and selecting the “Give Now” button. If you so choose, you can designate your donation an honorary tribute to the women who have played vital roles in your own life.

Supporting women is an investment that pays off immediately, as well as with “compound interest.” The Foundation knows that  confident, independent women use their acquired skills to benefit the next generation. In that way, gender equality not only improves the lives of women, but also aids in the economic and cultural  development of our entire community for generations to come.

That’s something Elizabeth Phile Stott and Anne Gerhard Maris – along with many other philanthropic women through the years – knew well. For that, we – those you could call their granddaughter’s granddaughters — are most grateful.

TECW: Half of Tennessee’s population and workforce not likely to attain their full earning potential

Equal Pay Day has been set for April 9 by President Obama and the National Committee on Pay Equity to bring attention to wage discrimination and other factors that contribute to a gap in wage between genders. The Tennessee Economic Council reports the following in preparation for the day of awareness:

• In 2010, women made up 51 percent of Tennessee’s population and 47 percent of its workforce while earning just 77 percent of what Tennessee men brought in annually, at the median.1,2

• Several studies, including the Economic Council’s own Wage Gap report, have shown that this gap begins as soon as women graduate and persists in nearly every sector. What’s more, the gap is shown to increase as workers grow older and advance in their careers.

• 63.9 percent of women are either primary breadwinners or co-breadwinners in their home.3

• Women are more likely than men to spend their wages on household purchases, childcare, and other various needs for everyday life.4

• Tennessee women are disproportionately represented in lower earning career fields–such as food service, health care, social services and education—and earn less than male counterparts in these fields as well.2

• Only 36 percent of the managerial occupations in Tennessee are filled by female candidates.1

“The wage gap stifles a woman’s ability to meet the needs of herself and those in her household,” says TECW Director Phyllis Qualls-Brooks, “but that’s only one part of it. We also find that women continue to be obstructed in their career paths, and are choosing or being steered into a diminished role in the workplace. This affects the entire state because women are improving stock values and decision-making where they are able to pry their way into the board room. We are missing out on the ingenuity and diversity that a female perspective can add.”

“We have had some successes, but we have a great deal more work to do,” adds TECW Chair Yvonne Wood. “Wearing red on Equal Pay Day, learning more about the wage gap, or attending a local rally are ways to help close this gap.”