No Job for a Woman

In the earlier days of our agency, after I bought out my male co-founder and before I became part of Omnicom, I often was approached by vendors and organizations because LP&P was a "woman-led organization." I always blanched at this notion and said, "no, LP&P is run by a person who happens to be a woman." I never wanted to play the "woman card." I told interviewers, clients and prospects that one reason I loved the high tech field is that it didn't matter whether you were male of female, from the U.S. or international. This young field cared about what was in your head, not about your external makeup.

Perhaps I was wrong. Two blog posts caught my attention this morning as I dig out from a long weekend with my professional women colleagues and friends (the 10th year for this women's weekend). The first was in the Huffington Post and it talked about the derisiveness faced by Hillary Clinton during the long campaign she has waged and continues to wage. The post points out the lack of outcry about the sexism used in the attacks on Clinton's floundering campaign. Instead of looking at the strategic mistakes and direction, they focus on what they view as "unattractive" personal traits as a woman who just won't say die and derides her for them. They also poke fun at her women followers. It reminds me of the dismissing of "pink hats" among some Red Sox fans who equate women and girls wearing Sox gear in pink as being dilettantes and not hard core fans. They couldn't possibly really be there because they love the game and follow the team intensely. They just like wearing pink and think Jacoby Ellsbury is cute.  Stereotypes are hard to counter.

The second post, from Stacey Higginbotham on the GigaOM site, is even more disturbing, as it points out the placement of a New York Times article that covers the downward trend of women in the science and technology fields. The article is very good information and references a Harvard study coming out in June that definitely needs to be read by diversity specialists and HR people in major science and technology employers. But will they find it where the Times has placed it, in the LifeWorks column of its Style section rather than the business section. Stacey comments that the article does acknowledge the macho nature of these fields as being one of the culprits. I guess the Times' editors didn't see the irony in admitting that when they were deciding where to place the article -- near swimsuits or before the stock pages? I guess they assume that if it's about women, the former is more appropriate. This is where the power of social media comes in, with Stacey's blog post getting this article more play in the tech industry. 

Even this weekend, I talked with some of my friends who run companies and are struggling with the pressures on young women who start families and need to figure out how to balance the second full-time job of motherhood they are taking on. Very often their first full-time job becomes impossible to maintain. And part-time work is hard in a field in which the demands and expectations -- due to technology and the ability to communicate, blog, text and twitter constantly -- are higher than ever. 

So maybe I was wrong not to emphasize that as a woman head of an agency, I do try to look at things differently. I have done the juggling act my entire tenure here, as the mother of three great children who now are all teens (two off to college). I know how hard it is and I try to create an environment to help young parents (it's not just the women who struggle with this) figure out how to balance career and family. The onus really is on employers to help women continue to succeed during all stages of their lives and careers, even though it isn't an easy task. 

But given the reception the historic first female presidential candidate has received, which may be due to past Clinton administration baggage, but also may be due to a continuing bias against women bucking traditional roles, I may just be dismissed as having a "pink hat" agency.