Posted by: Richie Bernardo

1. Main Findings
2. Ask the Experts
3. Methodology

Main Findings Embed on your website<iframe src="//d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.net/wallethub/embed/5835/geochart-women.html" width="556" height="347" frameBorder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <div style="width:556px;font-size:12px;color:#888;">Source: <a href="http://ift.tt/2vUoiTb;

 

Overall Rank	State	Total Score	‘Workplace Environment’ Rank	‘Education’ Rank	‘Political Empowerment’ Rank
49	Georgia	44.46	45	18	49
50	Utah	33.70	50	50	39

Ask the Experts < >

• Susan Bordo Holder of Otis A. Singletary Chair in the Humanities and Professor of Gender and Women's Studies at the University of Kentucky
• Sharon L. Sullivan Professor of Theatre and Chairperson of the Women's and Gender Studies Program at Washburn University
• Shannon R. Wooden Professor of English at Missouri State University
• Sarah Donley Assistant Professor of Sociology and Social Work in the School of Human Services & Social Sciences at Jacksonville State University
• Sally Frank Professor of Law at Drake University
• Sally Barr Ebest Founder's Professor of English at University of Missouri-St. Louis
• Roxanne A. Donovan Assistant Chair in the Interdisciplinary Studies Department and Professor of Psychology and Interdisciplinary Studies at Kennesaw State University
• Melina Constantine Bell Professor of Philosophy and Law at Washington and Lee University
• Gail Evans Adjunct Lecturer in Organizational Behavior in the Scheller College of Business at Georgia Institute of Technology
• Erin Heidt-Forsythe Assistant Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and Political Science at Pennsylvania State University
• Doris T. Chang Associate Professor of Women's Studies at Wichita State University
• Courtney Kisat Assistant Professor of History and Secondary Social Studies Education Program Coordinator at Southeast Missouri State University
• Danielle MacCartney Assistant Professor of Sociology at Webster University College of Arts And Sciences
• Anna Kuxhausen Associate Professor of History, Chair of Russian Language and Area Studies, and Director of Women's and Gender Studies at St. Olaf College

Susan Bordo Holder of Otis A. Singletary Chair in the Humanities and Professor of Gender and Women's Studies at the University of Kentucky From my point of view as a cultural historian, we’re never going to make significant progress closing the gender gap in any area unless we start talking about it again -- and not just the statistics, but the deeper, often unconscious obstacles standing in the way. It’s very clear to anyone who pays any attention that we have a long way to go in addressing the double standards, biases, and stereotypes that still haunt women -- particularly those who aspire to positions of power. But in 2017, just try to raise any of these issues, whether around the water cooler, in the boardroom, in the mainstream media, or at the kitchen table, and you’re likely to be met with rolling eyes, yawns, or outright hostility. It’s just one example -- but a significant one -- that we have yet to see a panel, even on liberal and left-leaning news shows, about the “gender factor” in the 2016 presidential election. In that respect, we seem to have gone backward rather than forward from 2012, when politicians’ comments about rape, and even a fairly innocuous remark by Mitt Romney about “binders full of women” raised national conversations. During this election, far cruder, blatantly misogynist chants became acceptable political rallying-cries, yet if you dared to mention the word “sexism,” you were accused of being “politically correct” or “playing the woman card.” This dismissal didn’t come only from conservative circles; many young people across the political spectrum seemed to operate under the illusion that gender discrimination is a tired, old issue of concern only to tired, old feminists. They don’t seem to recognize that the economic and racial inequities that they do take seriously are thoroughly intertwined with gender. I have no single recommendation as to how to address what has become a virtual taboo against discussing the stereotypes, biases, double standards and double binds that are still very much alive in our culture. There isn’t a “fits all” blueprint. But each of us, wherever and however we can -- whether in the family, in the classroom, or at work -- can work to find a way to start talking again. Arguing, even loudly, is healthier than this deafening silence. Sharon L. Sullivan Professor of Theatre and Chairperson of the Women's and Gender Studies Program at Washburn University The foundational problem is that women are not seen as equals to men. A recent study found that children as young as 5 or 6 begin to think women are less intelligent than men. There is no scientific basis for this belief. Cultural stereotypes and bias effect people’s perceptions and behavior. We are all products of patriarchy. We need to think critically about the ways those stereotypes and beliefs limit our ability to realize our best selves. Females in our culture are often objectified and valued only for their physicality (what they look like) and sexuality. Women and girls are consistently objectified -- turned into an object for sexual gratification -- in our culture. This devalues their intellect and character. It means they are not allowed to be fully human. Of course, these stereotypes influence men, too. When we tell men and boys they shouldn’t cry, or they have to be tough to be a man, we are telling them they are not allowed to be fully human. Stop violence against women and children. Traumatic experiences can change what a person is able to do. Trauma, such as child abuse, can change the structure of the brain. An abused child may not do well in school because of the effects of trauma. They may fall behind their peers in education and social skills, and never be able to catch up. Trauma affects self-esteem, confidence, ability to learn and more. If I have to spend my time and energy recovering from trauma, I’m not fully engaged in the world. I’m not reading and learning, exploring the world or challenging myself to try new things. It is in the best interest of society for individuals to be fully engaged in the world, to be fully human, to reach their full potential. After all, women have made significant contributions to science, politics, education, medicine, etc. There is no logical reason for women to be excluded from politics or upper management, for example. There is no logical reason to pay women less money than men for the same job. It’s all biased behaviors based on stereotypes. The US is currently ranked 73rd globally when it comes to the gender gap in political empowerment. Are there strategies the US can learn from other countries to help close this gap? Female politicians in the U.S. are treated very poorly. They are often judged on appearance -- clothing, hair, makeup, body -- and judged harshly. They are asked questions men are not asked -- who is going to care for the children? I think about the horrible ways Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin were treated (“Miss Representation” is an awesome documentary which examines this aspect very well). We need to focus on issues and skills, not body parts. AAUW has a terrific program that teaches young women to run for political office. Some countries have instituted quotas -- demanding a specific percentage of their governance to be female. Generally, these countries believe that women have an important perspective that is crucial to the success of their society. For example, the Nordic countries believe that their government should mirror their population. Sweden is committed to gender equality because they believe it makes them a better, stronger country. Women are highly represented in government in Rwanda. It’s been argued that more women ran for political positions to stop the civil conflicts, because they were tired of being raped, seeing their men and children butchered. Others suggest there are simply fewer men due to killing during civil conflicts, so it gave women an opening to get involved in governance. Getting more women in local governments is probably the best way to change cultural stereotypes about women in power. It’s quite clear that most women experience the world in a way that is different from most men. As a result, they have information that men do not have. When women are part of the political process, they often address things like health care, child care, pay gaps in a way that is different from men. What policies would be most effective in closing the gender pay gap?

• Requiring equal pay for equal work. Teaching women and girls how to negotiate salary. Teaching children that women are as valuable as men. Personally, I want to judge someone on the way they do the job or fail to do the job, not on their parts.

• Raise the minimum wage. About 2/3 of minimum wage earners are female, often single mothers.

• Invest in quality, affordable childcare and early education. Many women are unable to afford decent child care. As a result, they end up working low-wage jobs that will work around their schedules, or leaving the workforce for long periods of time, often derailing their careers.

• Flexible scheduling and fairness in scheduling. Single mothers (and fathers) need consistency in their schedules in order to work around school, daycare, etc. They also need to be able to take time off when a child is sick or out of school for a teacher day, without risking their jobs.

• Paid sick days and paid family leave. Healthy families mean a healthy society.

What policies would prove effective at increasing female representation in senior management roles in the Fortune 500 and other large, multinational corporation? Again, stereotypes are a huge problem. When we imagine a CEO, most people still imagine a man. When we imagine an administrative assistant, most people imagine a woman. Often, in large corporations, women are in support positions, not leadership positions. They are not even in line for a promotion to a leadership position. Corporations need to fight to train and develop women leaders. It’s financially beneficial for them to do so. Studies show that boards with a high number of women financially outperform those that are all male. Diverse people bring diverse skills and diverse views of the world. Since the majority of consumer choices are made by women, it benefits corporations to have women’s leadership. Leadership mentoring programs for women and other underrepresented people can significantly change what is possible in a corporation. Identifying and nurturing women (and others underrepresented people) early in their careers can put them in the pipeline for leadership. Shannon R. Wooden Professor of English at Missouri State University What policies would be most effective in closing the gender pay gap? I don't think the gender gap is best understood in terms of salary discrimination. Rather, it's lifestyle discrimination: lingering sexist ideologies and normalized attitudes that allow employers -- and, often, workers -- to accept and perpetuate practices that result in a gender gap. A story, with admittedly some slight liberties taken from the strict truth in order to reflect a more typical experience than my own: I finished my Ph.D. at 30. I was divorced and had miscarried a child, so, single, no kids, by accident, mishap, and/or dumb luck. I got a non-tenure track job and remarried, then moved to a tenure-track position. I was 32. My new husband and I decided to start our family, and four years away from my first tenure decision, I was nursing a demanding infant. The semester after my son was born, I was asked to take an extra class for a colleague on sick leave, to be the faculty mentor for the student honor society, and to read or direct two theses. I was one of a very few tenure-track women on the faculty, and many students wanted a gender-studies perspective on their work. I was teaching specialty courses I had never taught before. And, of course, I was supposed to be publishing. I was offered a year to freeze my tenure clock, but could not take leave with pay, since I was new in the job and had not accrued sick leave. My (male) spouse, also an academic, was given a course release for administrative work and a student worker to help him with it. He was given little to do in terms of service work, and attended faculty mixers and conferences I was often unable to attend. He also was expected to publish, but with a reduced teaching load and assistance, managed to get it mostly done during the regular work day. Say at the moment of our hire, we make the same amount. But I need -- at least -- to take a year off from career advancement in order to stay sane and healthy. It would have been far easier to parent properly if I could have taken leave. It might even have been a good idea, given our plans to start a family, to adjunct or take an instructor position for a few years. Of course, by the time my children were in school, I'd be geographically stuck by my husband's job and several unaccountable years out graduate school, a poor candidate on a narrow market. And my husband would have tenure and promotion. Within five years, no matter how you slice it, he's making more than I am. It is worth pointing out that none of my female departmental colleagues had a Ph.D., tenure, and children. Most of my male colleagues did (this is not a liberty taken from my personal experience: every word of that is true). I think the gender pay gap is a symptom of a larger problem, residual from a gender-divided past: our society still expects most domestic work to fall to women, still assigns to women nurturing and service roles even in the professional arena, still fails to provide adequate family leave and affordable, high-quality childcare, still balks at flexible career paths that would assist with work/life balance. Since none of these things specifically target women -- only "parents" -- we can't necessarily call them out as "sexist." But in practice, they disproportionately affect women. The gender pay gap comes, in part, from the difficulty many women have in starting their careers in the same manner, at the same speed, from the same starting point, as their male counterparts. What policies would prove effective at increasing female representation in senior management roles in the Fortune 500 and other large, multinational corporations? I can't help but believe that policies of job-sharing, of telecommuting, of on-site daycares, of generous family leave, would help increase female representation in senior management, eventually: it would have to start with an overhaul of the way the whole industry treats female workers. This is key: changes can't start at the level of senior management. By the time my fictionalized-autobiographical self above might qualify for a deanship, my male spouse would have been considering retiring. Changes have to start at the level of employment, where men start getting groomed for management, and women still have to make hard choices between family and career. And while I recognize that these policies wouldn't directly help women who do not have children, the shift in attitude would undoubtedly help women despite their life choices and circumstances. Just wondering why women aren't in senior management misses the structural reality of the problem. Being able to imagine women in leadership roles comes first. Being willing to help them get there comes next. Sarah Donley Assistant Professor of Sociology and Social Work in the School of Human Services & Social Sciences at Jacksonville State University The US is currently ranked 62nd globally when it comes to the gender gap in health and survival. What is driving this? What should be done to close this gap? In terms of the driving force in why women are more likely to report poorer health than men, the biggest is lack of economic capital for women. Women and women with children are more likely to be in poverty than men, this effect is known as the feminization of poverty. Twenty-four percent of people who live below the poverty line in the United States are single women with children. Poverty comes with its own set of challenges, including higher likelihood of poorer nutrition, living in low-quality housing, neighborhoods (e.g., high crime rates), or environmental hazards (e.g., lead poisoning, contaminated water, exposure to pesticide chemicals), and more stressful living conditions. People among the working poor are less likely to have consistent, full-time employment, making their access to quality health insurance and employment benefits negligible. They are more likely to have jobs in dangerous or stressful working conditions, than those who work in white-collar positions. With the extension of Medicaid to the 33% poverty line under the Affordable Care Act, many of the most economically disadvantaged Americans have increased access to health insurance and health care. This, however, does not negate the underlying aforementioned causes of poorer health conditions for women in poverty. Lack of access to adequate health care options due to minimal state funding (cutting funding for Planned Parenthood) and geographic seclusion may contribute to women being unable to access needed health care providers easily and consistently. When looking internationally, we find that countries that are the most “women-friendly” have the most gender equity. Thus, improving women’s overall status is likely to improve women’s overall health and survival outcomes. In particular, improving women’s access to education and control over reproductive rights has been shown to greatly improve women’s health. Particularly, for the United States revisiting and expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act could provide lower income women with more job security and options when experiencing health-related issues. The US is currently ranked 73rd globally when it comes to the gender gap in political empowerment. Are there strategies the US can learn from other countries to help close this gap? The United States might follow in the footsteps of other countries by instituting quotas for political positions. Quota systems have explicit requirements for the number of women in political positions. Countries that currently use quota systems include Rwanda, Iraq, South Africa, Germany, and Norway, among others. Rwanda, after introducing quotas in the late 20th century, became one of the leading countries with female representation in politics. Of the top 20 ranking countries where women are most represented in government, 17 are countries that currently utilize some form of quota system. What policies would be most effective in closing the gender pay gap? Currently, in the United States, women earn about 80 cents to every dollar a man earns, on average. The gender gap varies when looking between occupations; the gap for doctors is about 60 cents, while computer scientists is more equitable at about 90 cents. According to the Pew Research Center, the gap also increases as women age -- the wage gap for women between ages 25-34 is only 93 cents to the dollar. Women often have to modify their work schedule after motherhood, typically taking time off or quitting their jobs to raise children. In doing this, women lose years in work experience that men do not lose. Hence, why the gap increases as women age. The gap does not widen for women who remain childless throughout their career. Similarly, research conducted by sociologists Correll and Bernard on the “motherhood penalty” demonstrate that women who are mothers are paid less, and less likely to be hired than men who are fathers -- indicating inherent gender bias in employers’ perceptions of who is the most desirable employee. Thus, there are structural and cultural processes contributing to the continuation of the gender gap. One area to improve the gender pay gap is for workplaces to become more child and family friendly, by allowing women to be both mothers and workers. Paid family leave and supported childcare could materially benefit women (and men). The second is a cultural shift in the assumption that mothers are not dedicated and hardworking employees. Therefore, the continued representation of women in workplaces and in leadership positions will continue to challenge these antiquated, gender stereotypes. What policies would prove effective at increasing female representation in senior management roles in the Fortune 500 and other large, multinational corporations? In terms of increasing representation of females in senior management roles in Fortune 500 and other large, multinational corporation, I think it is important to look at the approach of our international counterparts. Similar to the quotas for women in politics, many countries in Europe have quotas for women in corporate board seats. Norway was the first country in 2003 to institute a quota of 40% for women. Iceland, Spain, France, the Netherlands, and Germany have all followed suit in the last decade and a half. Since the implementation of the quotas, women’s overall representation on corporate boards has increased from 11% in 2007 to 23%, currently at 734 large publicly traded companies in Europe. Sally Frank Professor of Law at Drake University The US is currently ranked 62nd globally when it comes to the gender gap in health and survival. What is driving this? What should be done to close this gap? What policies would be most effective in closing the gender pay gap? There is a real connection between the questions and the answers. The U.S. lags in all of these areas, in part, because we give less support to women and families. For instance, many countries have long paid family leave for new parents. The United States only has 12 weeks of unpaid family leave. Women are more likely to take time off from work to care for a new baby or a sick family member. This work interruption impacts future earnings and health care. It is also very hard to bring sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and equal pay suits. Many that are brought are dismissed too easily on summary judgment. There are many barriers to equal pay suits. One of the biggest barriers is the culture and often workplace rules that prevent people from finding out the salaries of fellow employees. Without know what others are paid, individuals don’t know that they are being discriminated against in their pay. This could be overcome by banning workplace rules that bar employees from discussing salary with each other. Congress has refused to pass such a statute. The health gap has several facets. One involves the limits on reproductive care for women. Many states are trying to stop funding Planned Parenthood, which provides the broadest general women’s health care to poor women in the country. Limited sex education leads to more unwanted pregnancies. Lower income women have a difficult time getting the prenatal care they need. Our policies of criminalizing the disease of addiction and limited rehab programs for women, especially pregnant women, also makes more women unable to get prenatal care. Another issue involves how drugs are tested and information as to symptoms for some diseases. Drugs are for more frequently tested on white men than on women. They may work differently on women. That cannot be known without testing. In terms of symptoms, the general public knowledge of a problem, like a heart attack, is that it is great pain in the chest and arm. Women often manifest different symptoms. If they don’t know what the symptoms for women tend to be, they are less likely to get timely emergency care. Sally Barr Ebest Founder's Professor of English at University of Missouri-St. Louis The US is currently ranked 62nd globally when it comes to the gender gap in health and survival. What is driving this? A Republican-controlled Congress. What should be done to close this gap? Universal health care would be a good start. The US is currently ranked 73rd globally when it comes to the gender gap in political empowerment. Are there strategies the US can learn from other countries to help close this gap? Establishing gender quotas for government office, with incremental goals for achieving them, would help. What policies would be most effective in closing the gender pay gap? Enforcing the Equal Pay Act passed in 1963, and teaching women negotiation skills. What policies would prove effective at increasing female representation in senior management roles in the Fortune 500 and other large, multinational corporations? It’s not a matter of policy, as much as it is engendered attitudes, but universal day care would be a good start. Roxanne A. Donovan Assistant Chair in the Interdisciplinary Studies Department and Professor of Psychology and Interdisciplinary Studies at Kennesaw State University The US is currently ranked 62nd globally when it comes to the gender gap in health and survival. What is driving this? What should be done to close this gap? It’s important to understand that the health and survival measure is based on two indices: sex ratio at birth, and gap between women and men’s healthy life expectancy. The U.S. sex ratio at birth is 0.92, meaning there are almost equal numbers of girls and boys born in this country. Therefore, our rank of 62 globally is almost exclusively based on healthy life expectancy -- how long men and women are expected to live in full health. U.S. women’s healthy life expectancy is three years longer than U.S. men’s. This three-year gap is not as large as many of the other higher ranked countries. For example, Finnish and U.S. men both have a healthy life expectancy age of 68. Finnish women, however, have a healthy life expectancy of 73, compared to 71 for U.S. women. Several interrelated factors that influence health are lack of affordable, comprehensive, high-quality health care, ineffective or substandard medical treatment, experiences of discrimination (e.g., sexism and ageism), exposure to male-perpetrated physical, sexual, and emotional violence, chronic stress, and economic insecurity. In the aggregate, women are disproportionately more likely to experience the above factors compared to men. Other socio-demographic factors, like race and class, intersect with gender to influence exposure to and impact of these factors. Gender and race, for example, intersect in ways that make Black women three times more likely to experience maternal mortality than White women, a rate that is not ameliorated fully by education level or socioeconomic status. Given the complexity behind the health and survival gap, sustainable change requires interventions at the cultural, institutional, and individual levels. Examples of possible interventions include:

• Availability of universal health care. This benefit would have the greatest impact if it included comprehensive mental health coverage, and coverage of areas unique to women’s health, such as prenatal and postnatal care and reproductive health.

• Implementation of required intensive ongoing training for medical professionals and government employees (e.g., federal, state, and local politicians, and public school teachers) focused on minimizing bias and maximizing equitable treatment of marginalized group members.

• Mandatory education for school-age children on how privilege, power, and prejudice impact access to resources and life outcomes. These educational opportunities should also teach techniques that increase empathy and perspective taking when interacting across differences.

• Establishment of a national economic safety net, such as living wage and guaranteed minimum income policies.

The US is currently ranked 73rd globally when it comes to the gender gap in political empowerment. Are there strategies the US can learn from other countries to help close this gap? This relatively low political empowerment ranking is due to the overrepresentation of men, particularly wealthy, White, Christian men, in political office. Specifically, men make up 49% of the U.S. population, but they constitute 79% of the Senate, 81% of the House of Representatives, 67% of the Supreme Court, and 88% of governors. The cause of this significant gender gap is complicated, multifaceted, and systemic. Therefore, change requires the coupling of individual-level interventions -- e.g., mentoring, training, education, financial support -- with those at the cultural and institutional levels. Cultural and institutional interventions are arguably the most challenging to implement, because they are inextricably linked and require, at least in part, that those in power (i.e., men) recognize gender inequity and act to ensure a more just political system. Institutional leaders can shift cultural norms through positive media representations of women, especially those in leadership roles, intentional fostering and incentivizing of egalitarian values in schools and the workplace, and education/training similar to what was mentioned in the second and third points in the answer above. Implementation of electoral gender quotas, such as reserving a percentage of political office seats for women, is another political empowerment strategy that has been used successfully in other countries. Changing the dominant U.S. culture’s negative perceptions of quotas, including the legal interpretation of gender (and racial) quotas as unconstitutional, is requisite to the acceptance of this intervention. What policies would be most effective in closing the gender pay gap? U.S. Census data show that full-time women workers are paid 80% of what fulltime men workers are paid, resulting in a 20% pay gap. Taking a deeper look at these gender data reveals other important differences. For example, men make more than women within all racial categories, and the pay gap is greatest between White men and White women (24%), and least between Latinos and Latinas (8%). The gap is particularly wide when comparing White men’s earnings to those of Latinas (46%) and Black women (38%). Finally, more education is associated with more pay, but more education does not reduce the gender pay gap. In fact, the pay gap is smaller for those with less than a high school diploma (20%) compared to those with an advanced degree (36%). As with health and political empowerment, the gender pay gap is the result of complex interwoven factors, such as cultural norms and institutional practices that privilege men in the public sphere, place disproportionate demands on women in the private sphere, limit the advancement of women in the workforce, and cluster women in low-paying service sector jobs (e.g., sales, clerical, and childcare). As the racial analysis indicates, these norms and practices have an outsize impact on women of color. Closing the gender pay gap requires closing the cultural gap between how men and women are viewed and valued. As discussed earlier, such interventions hinge on training and education opportunities that help participants unlearn dominant cultural stereotypes while promoting equity, empathy, and perspective taking across difference. The U.S. is one of only a handful of countries without a national paid parental leave policy, making this a prime intervention area. To be effective, the leave policy must offer a full salary replacement option for at least three months, and be automatic, versus opt-in, to reduce stigma. Federal policies that mandate a livable wage, a guaranteed minimum income, free or subsidized quality childcare, and universal health care are also effective ways of closing the gender pay gap. Melina Constantine Bell Professor of Philosophy and Law at Washington and Lee University The United States has remained committed to a family model in which the primary caretaker of the home and family, including children and disabled or elderly relatives, is a different person from the wage earner. So, the paid labor market is set up as though workers have no significant caretaking or family responsibilities, and the income tax structure is organized to reward this model. Quality child care is extremely expensive. All of these factors contribute to the decision that many married couples make, to prioritize the labor market participation of the higher wage earner, while the caretaker plays a support role by performing the family work without pay. This constitutes a subsidy by the family worker to the wage earner’s employer (because the wage earner can spend more time performing paid work), and to society (because children are a non-rivalrous, non-excludable public good). Why are women nearly always the family caretaker in families headed by different-sex couples? One reason is that women face discrimination in the paid labor market and in government at all levels. Another reason is that women pursue lower-paying work that is more compatible with family caretaking (so-called “pink collar” work), because they anticipate that they will be responsible for family caretaking and want to be effective in that role. Men usually do not adjust their career ambitions or expectations to accommodate family caretaking, and those who do make smaller adjustments than is the norm for women. So men tend to choose higher-paid work and accumulate more market capital over time. In single-parent families, mothers generally have to earn wages and perform family responsibilities, so the demands on their time and energy make it very difficult for them to advance careers, or run for or serve in public office. Divorced men generally have fewer family responsibilities, and though they may have to pay child support, those with well-paid work can continue to develop their market capital. The lack of social support for family caretaking, and the expectation that women will perform this work for free, makes it difficult for women to advance in politics and business. So, policies that could help address both of these issues would support families with subsidized, quality child care, require employers to provide paid family leave and flexible work hours, and prohibit discrimination against workers who take advantage of these benefits. In short, the labor market should cease to operate on the assumption that family caretakers and workers are exclusive categories. Instead, the labor market should be re-organized to operate as though every worker had significant caretaking responsibilities. Another barrier to women’s advancement both in business and in politics is the way leadership qualities are socially coded as masculine. Men are admired, liked and rewarded for being high-achieving, assertive, decisive, etc. Women are disliked for behaving in these ways. But these traits, which are closely linked to success in business and politics, are considered unfeminine. This makes it extremely difficult for women to win over supporters. If they behave as leaders, they will be disliked; if they don’t, they will not be elected, hired, promoted, because they will not be regarded as competent. Some countries reserve a certain number of positions for women on governing bodies and corporate boards. In the United States, that would likely be regarded as unlawful. “Quota” is a dirty word, in part because quotas were used to exclude Jewish applicants from college in the early twentieth century. It is also a dirty word because of the deep roots of racism and xenophobia in the United States, where white people tend to fight politically to maintain white privilege. “Quotas” are associated with preferential treatment hiring or admissions programs for under-represented minorities. There is also a prevalent myth that people succeed according to their merit in the United States, and that if women are not being elected to public office (or hired/promoted into high levels of business), that is because they either are not good enough, or they are not interested in seeking those positions. Americans are culturally oriented to focus exclusively on individual people and situations, and explain everything in isolation, ignoring institutional and systemic factors. In part, this is because so many people really believe the American myth that this is the land of opportunity, and anyone can do anything she sets her mind to do. People want to believe that myth so badly that they might not see the counterevidence. Perhaps women’s working a double shift, and lacking a political voice in how health care is organized and delivered, contributes to women’s poor health outcomes. The anti-abortion sentiment may also contribute by blocking women’s access to health care far beyond abortion. Pregnancy and childbirth have been medicalized by a historically male medical establishment that operates, like all industries, according to financial incentives rather than health outcomes for women and babies. And partly because of fear of liability having to do with pregnancy and reproduction, medical studies have not included, and often still neglect, women. When more women have real power in government and business, so they can call attention to and protect their unique interests, the way men have always done (probably without realizing they were doing so), all of these outcomes will improve for women. One unique challenge in the United States involves recognizing that the most qualified candidate doesn’t “naturally” win, so it might help to set aside some positions for well-qualified female candidates, until we stop seeing femininity as incompatible with leadership (affirmative action for men in historically feminine roles could help break these gender role expectations, too). Another challenge is to find a way to embrace socially provided benefits, and see that it is not undeserved “others” that are getting what “we” are paying for, since most people at some points in their lives need care, or to need to provide others care, and we all have family work that needs to be done. We can pretend to be rugged individualists, but that does not change our human needs. Women should not be expected to sacrifice their careers and other pursuits to perform socially necessary work without pay. Gail Evans Adjunct Lecturer in Organizational Behavior in the Scheller College of Business at Georgia Institute of Technology The US is currently ranked 62nd globally when it comes to the gender gap in health and survival. What is driving this? What should be done to close this gap? In most societies, women are less valuable than men, and therefore their health care is of less importance. The US is currently ranked 73rd globally when it comes to the gender gap in political empowerment. Are there strategies the US can learn from other countries to help close this gap? The following phenomena should be fought:

• In the U.S., women judge female candidates more harshly than they would judge males (males also do this, but a woman rarely wins if she doesn’t have strong female support);

• Women scrutinize other women more than they do males (this is true in the political realm and business realm);

• Women do not vote for women, because they are women. American women still fear being called a feminist;

• When women run for political office and win, they are likely to get a female opponent in the next election. Women in the U.S. view the pie as though only a certain amount is open for them;

• Women play like a minority, even though they are the majority;

• The U.S. still has a portion of the female population that believes leadership should be male.

What policies would be most effective in closing the gender pay gap? Fighting the following phenomena:

• Unintentional or implicit bias;

• Sexism;

• Penalty women pay for negotiating and, on the opposite end, women’s reluctance to negotiate for themselves;

• Cultural perception that women who are mothers are less committed to their careers;

• Belief that men who are fathers are the prime or sole breadwinner, and therefore need to earn more;

• Choice of professions -- line positions tend to pay more than staff positions; women are disproportionately represented in staff positions;

• Lack of sharing information -- women’s networks tend not to talk about money as much as men’s do, therefore, women have less information as to what to ask for.

When women dominate an area of business (pink collar work), it is valued less than areas dominated by men. A good current example is from the movie Hidden Figures -- when black women were the computers, it had little economic value. When men began to dominate IT, it became a much higher paying industry. Women tend to get promoted based on performance, men get promoted based on potential and possibility. This means men advance more quickly, and reach higher levels of pay earlier. What policies would prove effective at increasing female representation in senior management roles in the Fortune 500 and other large, multinational corporations?

• Explicit commitment of top management. CEO or President of a company must make it clear that moving more women into senior management is a prime objective of the business. Tying executives’ bonuses to achieving more gender diversity is an effective tool.

• Convincing middle management that gender diversity leads to better financial results for the business. Even when top management states that gender diversity is good for business, rarely do those in middle management buy in to it.

• Women supporting other women. Operating like a team so that women executives are committed to bringing other women along with them.

• Successful men and women taking women places they don’t belong, the same way they take young men.

• Women speaking up and stating what they want, not waiting to be asked.

• Women being more strategic about the move they make in their careers. Understanding that the workplace is not necessarily a meritocracy, but a place where strategic players and top networkers advance more quickly than hard workers.

• Teaching women how to become their own PR agents.

Erin Heidt-Forsythe Assistant Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and Political Science at Pennsylvania State University The US is currently ranked 62nd globally when it comes to the gender gap in health and survival. What is driving this? What should be done to close this gap? From the research I've seen, a few issues are driving this. First, it's not terribly surprising that the U.S., which does not guarantee or extend basic health care insurance to all of its citizens, falls short in treating preventable disease -- the U.S. is one of the only nations in the Global North that does not have some form of centralized, universal care. That's the first obvious issue in the U.S., but health inequalities are also entangled with racial, educational, and class disparities in the U.S. Rates of illness increase if women are not white, not middle-class, and not highly educated -- there are higher rates of maternal mortality for poorer, rural women of color, for example, that are similar to nations with less wealth, medical infrastructure, and technology. This is due to a lot of issues: poorer medical care, less accessible medical care, and a focus on neonatal care at the expense of maternity care. The U.S. is a case of great disparities: you can get the highest quality maternal care, if you can pay (or have a job with excellent insurance coverage) -- but in the U.S., we have the poorest maternal outcomes in North America and Europe. Finally, access to care in the U.S. varies quite a bit. I do research on infertility care in the U.S., and find that access and affordability are major barriers for non-white, middle-and working-class (as well as women in poverty) to receive even a diagnosis of the condition. Racial bias, class bias, and education are major reasons why there is a huge gap between white women and women of color to receive infertility care; if we expand this example out, we can see that these issues are intertwined more broadly in women receiving medical care and the gender gap. In terms of closing this gap, we need to attend to each element: dismantle/change practices that allow racial, class, and educational biases to be a barrier to access to medical care; consider how employment, education, housing, etc. play a role in illness and health, and try to close these disparities; and finally (and probably most obviously), try to get a medical health care system in place, that creates insurance coverage for all. The US is currently ranked 73rd globally when it comes to the gender gap in political empowerment. Are there strategies the US can learn from other countries to help close this gap? We have some of the lowest percentage of women in legislatures in the world, not to mention the lowest numbers of women as head of state; some of this is due to barriers within the electoral system (such as the incumbent advantage and party politics), some of this is due to historically biased media coverage of women, and some of this is due to how we think about leadership in the U.S. -- we often think about men in leadership positions, expect leaders to be men, and describe ideal leaders using masculine adjectives (we think of the president as a fighter, a warrior, strong, rational, etc.). Finally, some of this is due to what gender and politics scholars call "political ambition," where women are socialized to not think of themselves as political (and that politics is not for women), and thus don't think of themselves as either qualified or willing to run for office. After the 2016 election, I'm convinced that the gender gap in politics in the U.S. is a mix of partisanship, and some of our ideas about leadership -- that party identification plays a strong role (and the Republican Party puts forward much fewer women to run for office), as well as our beliefs about what a leader should look/sound/act like (often masculine). Doris T. Chang Associate Professor of Women's Studies at Wichita State University The US is currently ranked 62nd globally when it comes to the gender gap in health and survival. What is driving this? What should be done to close this gap? Like most other post-industrialized countries, women live longer than men in the U.S. by several years, thanks to the universal availability of Medicare for all U.S. senior citizens. Most post-industrialized countries in Europe, North America, and East Asia have universal health insurance for all their citizens, regardless of age. One solution for fixing the high premium rates of Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) would be to expand the Medicare program to all citizens and permanent residents in the U.S., so that health care will be truly affordable for all in the U.S., regardless of one's age, gender, income level, or employment status. The US is currently ranked 73rd globally when it comes to the gender gap in political empowerment. Are there strategies the US can learn from other countries to help close this gap? Based on the United Nations' policy for gender mainstreaming in 1995 and thereafter, many countries have experimented with setting up a quota system for nominating electoral candidates. These national governments urged their political parties to nominate women to comprise at least one-third of electoral candidates for legislative elections, on both local and national levels. Since the mid-1990s, women have comprised at least one-third of national legislatures of many countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa. In the aftermath of the Rwandan Genocide, women have filled in the gap of political leadership and occupied more than half of all seats in the National Legislature. In Taiwan, an island nation in the Asia-Pacific, women comprised 38 percent of the lawmakers in the legislature -- a result of implementing the UN-recommended quota system. While the social democracies of Scandinavia have a long-standing reputation as countries with the most female legislators (at around forty percent of their national legislatures), the percentage of women in U.S. Congress is currently at about 20 percent. Since most political incumbents are men with more name recognition and resources, it has been a problem and challenge for some new women candidates to get elected. Based on the positive results of implementing the UN recommendation for gender-mainstreaming in Asia, Latin America, and Europe, it is worth considering the implementation of quota system of electoral nominations in the U.S. After the percentage of elected lawmakers in the legislature reaches 50 percent for women, the quota system can then be abolished. Courtney Kisat Assistant Professor of History and Secondary Social Studies Education Program Coordinator at Southeast Missouri State University The US is currently ranked 62nd globally when it comes to the gender gap in health and survival. What is driving this? What should be done to close this gap? This discrepancy, and all other measures of poverty, wealth, and gender, could be addressed by making sure more feminist politicians with progressive agendas -- women and men -- are elected to public office. Just electing women is not a panacea for gender inequality, for an enlightened man is just as able to promote policies which protect women’s health as his female colleague. Similarly, a socially conservative female politician can oppose policies which actually would help women and increase the lifespan gap between women and men in the health and survival category. Key among those policies would be maternity leave, reproductive freedom, and better access to women’s health services, especially preventative care and, it should include alternative prevention, such as yoga and massage. What policies would be most effective in closing the gender pay gap? Policies which would increase access to birth control and subsidized child care would help close the gender pay gap. We are the only industrialized nation that does not offer handsome child care subsidies, which enable women to pursue advanced degrees and careers. The government should be rewarding us for producing their future citizens, and instead we are practically punished for daring to want children. The recent renewed wave of repression from the religious right, which seeks to allow employers to deny female employees access to birth control is ridiculous. They would deny us the right to choose whether or not to become pregnant, then once those babies are born, we are demonized for seeking support in raising those children. Give all women access to birth control, and you will have fewer unplanned pregnancies. Support women who have young children, and you ensure a smarter, more productive, and emotionally secure future citizenry. Danielle MacCartney Assistant Professor of Sociology at Webster University College of Arts And Sciences The US is currently ranked 62nd globally when it comes to the gender gap in health and survival. What is driving this? What should be done to close this gap? Of course, there are many contributing factors. Because of the consistently differential outcomes by gender, it can be easy to fall into the trap of thinking that these inequalities reflect biological differences, like the recent memo from the Google employee. Instead, these outcomes are, at best, epigenetic, and highly influenced by the social and cultural environment. The outcomes closer to parity in the Scandinavian countries show how much influence the social, cultural, and political environment has. Frankly, the disparity in health outcomes reflects a healthy dose of ignorance and apathy. In many cases, I seriously doubt the negative health outcomes are intentionally malicious. And yet, the consequences of ignorance and apathy about women's health are significant and deserve more attention. While those making policy and adjusting budgets have little motivation to think about experiences other than their own, there is little reason to believe much real change will happen. Looking to the policies and procedures other governments have used to shrink the gap should be our first step. I'll go back to the Scandinavian countries: with strong legislation to track, monitor, and address inequality, inequality decreases. The US is currently ranked 73rd globally when it comes to the gender gap in political empowerment. Are there strategies the US can learn from other countries to help close this gap? Absolutely. The U.S. could, like other countries, implement quotas in politics. While effective, our difficult history and antipathy towards Affirmative Action, particularly the way it has been cast as an unfair advantage, rather than leveling the playing field, makes this a particularly unlikely option. The best option for the U.S., in my mind, would be incentives for women to join politics. The incentives do not need to be financial -- sitting politicians (male and female) could mentor young girls and women interested in politics. What policies would be most effective in closing the gender pay gap? This question has been discussed so much, and there are so many possible options. The most effective policies are ones that exist. Our current policies are weak and, when they exist, are implemented and monitored halfheartedly, if at all. For us to close the gender gap, we have to want to. We have to be willing to work at it. We have to be willing to devote resources to close the gap. We need to solicit recommendations from researchers and implement them. In the current political environment, I doubt very highly any of these are likely. What policies would prove effective at increasing female representation in senior management roles in the Fortune 500 and other large, multinational corporations? There's so much great research on this. On the one hand, Sheryl Sandburg's "lean in" school can help us get part of the way. Yes, women can make choices to push themselves more into the limelight. However, this school of thought completely overlooks the challenges women in positions of power face on a regular basis. Corporations create their own culture. If the government won't set up incentive programs and policies with noncompliance consequences, organizations can do so. Organizational policies that take seriously gender equity, that monitor it, that set up incentives and consequences, can move us much closer to gender equity. But this would also require an intentional allocation of resources. Anna Kuxhausen Associate Professor of History, Chair of Russian Language and Area Studies, and Director of Women's and Gender Studies at St. Olaf College The US is currently ranked 62nd globally when it comes to the gender gap in health and survival. What is driving this? What should be done to close this gap? This is a very disturbing decline. According to the World Economic Forum data, the U.S. ranked 1st in closing the gender gap in the category of health and survival ten years ago. So, one question is why has the U.S. lost ground in the past decade in women’s health? We should also ask about demographics: which women in the U.S. are not receiving adequate preventative health care and are suffering worse outcomes when they become ill? Other research suggests that socio-economic status determines access to and quality of health care; in other words, middle- and upper-class women are likely not the ones whose life expectancy is dragging down the U.S. rankings in this category. In all likelihood, women who did not have health insurance for some or most of the last decade are those who went without preventative medical care, prenatal care, and adequate care for chronic health conditions and severe illnesses. Open enrollment in insurance exchanges as part of the Affordable Care Act began in January of 2014, and therefore would not have had a big impact on the data collected in 2016 for this study. Access to affordable health care and to good nutrition for all U.S. women would help to combat the gender gap in health and survival. In some states, this will mean raising the minimum wage and exploring ways to provide affordable health care. In other states, it also means finding ways to provide health care in rural areas that are grossly underserved. The US is currently ranked 73rd globally when it comes to the gender gap in political empowerment. Are there strategies the US can learn from other countries to help close this gap? In political empowerment, the U.S. had a smaller gender gap ten years ago, meaning we’ve lost ground in this category as well, although not as dramatically as in other categories. A wide range of nations have found ways to successfully close or lessen this gender gap. If countries with far fewer resources than the United States can make dramatic progress in politically empowering women, why can’t we? We know that encouraging participation on the local level is essential to developing candidates for higher office. One strategy to consider is establishing quotas for the number of female candidates in local elections. Norway, ranking third worldwide in political empowerment, has had success with gender quotas for local elections, and Iceland, ranking first, has employed voluntary quotas within political parties. In Rwanda, women hold 64% of the seats in parliament. The path to this dramatic achievement of political gender equity began less than twenty years ago, which underscores that sometimes great strides can be made relatively quickly. The leadership of Rwanda’s president Paul Kagame in 2003, during the aftermath of genocide and the dire need to rebuild the country, passed a new constitution, requiring 30% of seats in parliament to be filled by women. Kagame was no liberal feminist, it should be noted, and Rwanda’s having achieved gender equality in political empowerment does not mean that it has created a feminist utopia, of course. But in a time of rebuilding the nation, women are exercising political influence, and shaping the policies that will determine the country’s future. This is important. Of course, quotas sound un-democratic to some, or difficult to achieve in some local contexts. What if there simply aren’t enough women willing to run? So, the U.S. also needs to consider other barriers to women entering politics, and these are likely cultural and social, and therefore difficult to address through policy. What policies would be most effective in closing the gender pay gap? The proposed Paycheck Fairness Act would provide the transparency we currently lack in the private sector, so that gender discrimination in salaries could not be concealed. Currently private businesses are not required to disclose or to address gender inequity in pay; women do not even know if their male colleagues make more for performing the same job. Legislation to end gender discrimination in pay is essential to combatting the gender pay gap. What policies would prove effective at increasing female representation in senior management roles in the Fortune 500 and other large, multinational corporations? We need to enable women to pursue ambitious career goals. In countries with generous paid family leave policies and high-quality, affordable childcare options, women achieve greater economic equity. The Scandinavian countries have invested greatly in family leave, and have diminished the gender gap across the board. In the U.S., it seems unlikely that government-subsidized parental leave or childcare would garner the support necessary to raise the required revenue to fund such programs. Thinking realistically for the U.S. context, some kind of insurance program that would enable parents to take paid leave is an option that has been gaining attention and deserves more consideration. Too often, women with advanced degrees and high ambitions pay a penalty for becoming mothers -- families find childcare so expensive that it makes economic sense for one parent to stay home, and this is usually the mother in heterosexual families. A long absence from one’s career is an obvious obstacle to achieving leadership status in a large corporation. We also need to enable girls to be ready to achieve in STEM fields, and to be positioned to pursue leadership roles in tech and emerging fields. Classes in robotics, advanced math, and computer science at the middle school and high school level should be requirements for all students, not electives, in order to prepare all children to pursue careers in STEM fields. Too often, girls lack the exposure and opportunity in these fields and are not prepared to take engineering and computer science courses in college. Without that early preparation and encouragement, interventions at the college level arrive too late.

Methodology

 

from Wallet HubWallet Hub


via Finance Xpress