Sound Politics: It's in the P-I

November 15, 2006

It's in the P-I

"P-I Special Report: Women still struggling to break the glass ceiling"

Women have reached the apex of Washington's political landscape, but they are almost nowhere to be found in executive offices and boardrooms in the state's biggest publicly held companies, the Seattle P-I has found.

The best quote in the article is from a "dismayed" Mrs. Gregoire:

"I would have expected those boards and companies to be looking at what their customers are doing when they go to the voting booth and want to mirror that," Gregoire said.

What is she saying, that more companies should try to recruit Dino Rossi to be their CEO?

(The article doesn't explain why some companies have more male than female executives, but if having more women executives is an important goal, the P-I could start by feminizing its own executive staff and its corporate parent, Hearst).

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 15, 2006 10:04 AM | Email This

Comments

1. Hey Stefan, We may only have men at the top of Hearst Corp. and the P.I., but we are in touch with our feminine side. You big meanie.

Posted by: Moondoggie on November 15, 2006 10:25 AM

2. To equate women, or anyone, who rises to a position of leadership in a corporation through fiscal reponsibility, genuine leadership and common sense, to liberal polticians who rise to power promising to tax the rich, egnage in fiscal irresponsibility, increase handouts to the dependency class, and lead only by opposing everything Republicans pursue is a rediculous premise.

Everything that makes a person a good leader within a company is exactly the opposite of what gets a person elected in the Democrat Party. And if a majority of voters existed that were informed truthfully by the MSM and/or not out to suck the life out those who fund this society, Democrats would never win an election again.

You can't blame corporations for not sharing the absurdly low standards that are used to locate and elect Liberal Demcorat men and women.

Posted by: MJC on November 15, 2006 10:26 AM

3. what is with this liberalthink obsession that every company and institution must be exactly proportionate to society in terms of gender & colors & ethnicities? what happened to ability and proven results? performance be damned?

if all women happen to be the best on some board, than so be it. does anyone attack the interior design field to mandate males at the helm? this is crazy. does anyone stomp on Asian-owned companies to insist they hire less of their families or culture/race? does anyone take minority-owned companies to task & insist they hire more white males? any disgruntled non-minority workers from Oprah's Team?

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 15, 2006 10:46 AM

4. I think we need to have proportional number of drug addicts/dealers on the board too. A proportional number of prostitutes would be good, then of course gays, criminals, alchoholics, left handed people, and we can't leave out people that are 25%black, 25% white and 50% asian, we could go on for ever here....

Posted by: Right said Fred on November 15, 2006 10:56 AM

5. "What is she saying, that more companies should try to recruit Dino Rossi to be their CEO?"
LOL!
The "horrifying" truth is that many women take time out to stay home with kids. That tends to put them behind in the "years of experience" category. So there end up being fewer women than men in that category. This is not the greatest tragedy ever. In fact, those women who took time off will tell you they'd never trade it for anything.

Posted by: Misty on November 15, 2006 11:05 AM

6. Let's look at Jacques Nasser's tenure at Ford Motor Co. Immediately after taking power, he launched a wholesale ethnic and gender cleansing throughourt the engineering division extending into upper managment. It took only a few years for Ford to drop all the way to last place in categories in which it formerly was number one. The Ford family finally sacked Nasser and installed one of their own as CEO, but the damage will take many years to fix.

Posted by: JDH on November 15, 2006 11:16 AM

7. At my former employer- at one point I had 4 layers of all female management above me. Granted only some of this was due to "promoting women." However there was a lot of emphasis on women at work networks and the like, instead they should have been focusing on hiring good employees regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation- like most good companies do.

That company is in the biggest tail spin in industry history with massive layoffs right now. I'm very glad to NOT be there.

Posted by: Andy on November 15, 2006 11:28 AM

8. jimmie-howya-doin @ #3:

Well said jimmie.

Question: What would happen to professional sports (basketball, football) if we implmented hiring quotas to ensure that the racial mix in professional sports teams exactly matched the racial mix of each teams' hometown population?

Posted by: Marty on November 15, 2006 11:53 AM

9. too bad, Andy. but don't dare imply cause & effect--it's the pc third rail.

in fairness, i worked with a lot of imcompetent men who were parked/moved around to wait out their retirement. i've also experienced the disdain from childless career women against family people--to other women & to men alike. as if they had a chip on shoulder for their own successes and your life choices.

all in all, i found that most competent women are respected. some are feared, just like men. i've been dumped on by both sexes. for me, it's always boiled down to respect. earned respect. earned on many facets. once respected, things flow pretty well. but all are held to the test.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 15, 2006 11:58 AM

10. Chris, you need to work on your fellow Witch of Eastwick- Patty Murray. Girl Power and all. He top staffer is a man if what I was recently told is correct.

Posted by: swatter on November 15, 2006 12:12 PM

11. Swatter, you are correct about Patty. Same thing with Maria, I was in a meeting in her DC office where her 3 top staffers were answering her questions (she doesn't answer questions posed to her)all 3 were male. Talk about an annoying woman, funny thing though Patty was pretty good, actually knew answers to questions. I had always heard she was a dolt, but she stood right there and took a bunch of questions and gave reasonable answers. Now, I just wish she would vote that way!!!

It's funny, I now work in the macho world of manufacturing and our GM is a woman and many of our senior staff are women. We didn't do this on purpose, simply hired the best and brightest, I think it is time that feminists think up something new to carp about - ladies that glass ceiling broke a long time ago.

Posted by: the duke on November 15, 2006 12:31 PM

12. Wait, Doesn't Darcy count? Oh, you mean she really ISN'T an executive?

Posted by: Mikey on November 15, 2006 02:39 PM

13. Mikey, not only is she not an executive, she apparently isn't even human.

No, Darcy could best be described as an alien Chatty Cathy doll simultaneously addicted to caffeine and Zoloft -- how otherwise to explain her alien speech pattern, which is both labored and copious?

The truly frightening thing is that, if the Nutroots get their way, she has at least forty years of public life to go.

Good Lord.

Posted by: Rey Smith on November 15, 2006 03:35 PM

14. Letter in the Olympian, NOV 14, 2006 - I don't know whether to laught or cry... O.F.
--------------------------------------------
Republicans have treated women poorly

In The Olympian, I have read that the education department announced invidious and regressive rules that will make it easier to create single-sex classes or schools and also updated Title IX - the landmark anti-discrimination law. Now, females will no longer have the help of Title IX in fighting sex discrimination in schools and in jobs. In one action, thanks to the Republicans, females no longer have any protection against sex discrimination.

Women should be very, very afraid of President Bush and the Republican platform carrying on a war against women to take away their rights of access to equal education, to living-wage jobs and to equal wages for equal pay.

Segregated education in the past, whether by sex or by race, was never fair or equal. Colleges were closed to women. Women weren't allowed to take advanced mathematics courses, science or medical subjects.

They were forced into work that paid starvation wages, into marriage and into prostitution just to survive. It wasn't until the 1970s that women were able to take certain courses and were able to apply for living-wage jobs. Women still only make 70 percent of what men do, but that isn't low enough to suit the Republicans.

I was an independent voter but I will never again vote for any Republican. Just seeing the word Republican makes me feel nauseated.

Gloria Dearden, Lacey

Posted by: Old Faithful on November 15, 2006 04:32 PM

15. To be blunt:

If a woman is the most qualified and the best match for the job then she should be hired.

If not: STFU

Posted by: Jack Burton on November 15, 2006 05:00 PM

16. Did you know, because of Title X, that there is literally zero all-male schools, but most of all-female schools are still all-female schools?

Why haven't women take over corporate executive roles like they eliminated all male colleges? It may have to do with women becoming mothers after schooling.

Posted by: C. Oh on November 15, 2006 05:41 PM

17. poor Gloria. long on tears & fears. short on economics & real business.

"starvation wages" coming back? where? what industry? i dont hear the illegal aliens kvetching. hell, Seattle Times glows about them buying properties & getting mortgages--how "progressive" and fair to us LEGAL citizens! (grrr) guess lawbreakers are more deserving.

also guess Gloria wants mandated salaries for women. how market-oriented. performance & acheivement to the dogs. sex-based entitlement. now THAT's an American value! what next, paying a bonus solely for skin color?

sorry, Gloria--start your own business and hire all women if you want. no problem here. then, wring your hands as you try to meet your payroll costs when paying your (higher) "fair wage" to your female (or any) employees. it's not that simple. and it's not a conspiracy against women. it's just economics.

there are plenty of female-owned businesses who struggle with payrolls and would blanch at your thought of paying more only due to one's sex. sounds like you promote some type of "female reparations"

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 16, 2006 12:50 PM