The Flat Decade

Another in a series of paradoxes:
Decades ago, in principal at least, we committed to equal pay for women for equal work and equal representation in leadership positions. But U.S. women’s progress toward equality so far in the new century can be called the flat decade. It’s as if feminism hit a societal glass ceiling.

The average gender pay gap for workers without a four-year college degree has slightly narrowed since the mid-1990s, in part due to effects of the Great Recession that began in 2007 described below. Surprisingly, the gap has widened for those with degrees. For example, a study of doctors’ salaries in New York State in first jobs after residency eliminated the effects of inflation, hours worked, practice settings, and specialty choices. It found a $3,600 annual gap between men and women in 1999, but a much larger gap of $16,819 in 2008.

Although the aggregate effect of these opposite trends narrowed the average gender pay gap across all occupations by a few percentage points in the first decade of the new century, the median annual gender pay gap for full time workers reduced by less than one percentage point, despite much greater progress in earlier decades. The median is the income of that man or woman whose income is greater than the lowest half of those workers in his or her respective gender, and also less than the higher half. (Given that a relatively small number of those at the top of the income ladder earn very high wages, the average income is higher than the median.) One explanation for the stagnation in the median gap is that even though women made up fifty percent of the total workforce in 2010, they remained stuck at sixty percent of those in low wage jobs.

One might see some progress in the fact that while women lost the most jobs in the recession of 2001, men held more than three-quarters of the jobs lost during the Great Recession. But a New York Times’ analysis gave feminists little cause for comfort. First, it said the Great Recession hit male dominated industries such as finance and construction the hardest. The Times’ second explanation went straight to the heart of the earnings paradox: because of the wage disparity between men and women, women were in greater demand in the Great Recession because they are willing to work for less than similarly qualified men. Public sector layoffs caused by the recession subsequently increased women’s overall unemployment even as private sector jobs began to recover, because women hold a large majority of public sector jobs. In addition, opposite trends in unemployment rates by gender combined with public sector pay cuts and freezes exacerbated the wage gap rather than narrowed it.


In 2010, a General Accountability Office study examining the most recent data found that between 2000 and 2007 the percentage of women managers grew by only one percent. And growth at the top was flat in the first decade of the new century. In 2002, fewer than sixteen percent of corporate officers in Fortune 500 companies were women, and women held just ten percent of the positions with direct responsibility for profit and loss. In 2008, it was the same.

Although there was some progress in the number of women on boards of directors in the first half of the decade, there was nearly none in the last half. As of 2006, women remained less than fifteen percent of the board directors for Fortune 500 companies. Nearly half of these companies had just one woman or no women on their boards. Stung by criticism for their lack of diversity, by 2008 only thirteen percent of Fortune 500 companies had no women on their boards. But the overall percentage of women on boards barely changed, so this was not progress but rather merely reshuffling the deck. The total number of board positions decreased slightly during this period, which means that for every company that added a woman, another with at least two on its board dropped one. By 2010, women broad members still were less than sixteen percent of the total.

It’s probably not a coincidence that law firm management shows similar percentages. A survey in 1999 found that only sixteen percent of the equity partners in the one hundred largest American law firms were women. Another survey in 2009 found the equity partner percentage had not changed.

Because of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin’s historic bids in the Presidential race, and Nancy Pelosi’s ascendency to Speaker of the House, some believe that women made significant gains in elective politics in twenty-first century America. But the sad truth is that women’s hold on political power in the U.S. seems by some measures to no longer be increasing and may even be declining. The percentage of women in elected statewide offices in 2008 shrunk to its lowest level since 1994, at twenty-three percent. It fell half a percent lower still in 2010. In 2008, women were mayors in only eleven of the one hundred largest American cities, a drop of four percentage points from just a few years before. The percentage of women mayors in American cities of at least 30,000 persons was less than sixteen percent in 2008, down five percentage points from 1999. Female representation in state legislatures basically flatlined at twenty-three percent starting in 1999.

In 1997, the U.S. ranked forty-first internationally for female representation in national legislatures. By 2008, the U.S. had fallen to seventieth. At this rate, the U.S. could be at the bottom of the rankings in just two decades.

It’s ironic that in the fourth decade of the modern women’s movement many indicators of women’s participation in government and business are flat, and some are negative. Building on prior efforts, nearly all these indicators should at this point be climbing. But they’re not. A decade from now, will we be looking back at another ten years of zero or minimal growth? Without determined national effort, it’s a distinct possibility.

To procreate or not to procreate? That is the question.

Another in a series of paradoxes:
A recent exchange between Senator Barbara Boxer and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice highlights one difficulty in staking out a clear vision of women’s roles in the twenty-first century: women, like men, make different choices and do not share a single set of priorities. In a Senate hearing, Boxer tried to say that many of the Iraq War policymakers do not have as much as stake as the military families whose sons and daughters face death and injury in battle. Secretary Rice's supporters later complained that Boxer seemed to be criticizing Rice for not having children.

This conflict between two women policymakers illustrates the challenge of devising policies that improve the outcomes of the seemingly impossible choices currently facing many working parents, while at the same time not shifting the discrimination onto those choosing not to procreate. Should people of either gender who choose not to procreate have the priorities of their workplaces set my those who do, or vice versa?

Finally, the Boxer-Rice exchange also demonstrates how procreation and children are still regarded as women's issues. If the exchange had been between two men, it would have generated much less attention and criticism. It shows how far we still have to go to achieve gender equality. (Another lesson from the Boxer-Rice exchange is how quickly policy conversations can turn into partisan political fights that distract from the real issues. One of Rice’s supporters, Rush Limbaugh, rolled out the Clarence Thomas lynching metaphor to describe Boxer’s treatment of Rice.)

The 26 percent rule

Looking for some illustrations of how the 26 percent rule described in the book Upside Down would work? Here's some examples from 2004:

Women made up forty-seven percent of the Washington State Senate and thirty-two percent of the House in 2004. The combined percentage of both chambers remained the highest in the nation, even though they have dipped slightly since their peak in 1994. In theory, the Senate could use the twenty-six percent rule unmodified. The House could use just over half of thirty-two percent, or women’s votes equal to at least seventeen percent of the total number of House members. Because women constituted a much higher percentage of Democratic legislators than of Republicans, and Democrats controlled the House while Republicans controlled the Senate, the consequences of the rule for the two chambers would be quite different. These results illustrate two ways in which the rule would affect a number of other states.

To pass legislation in the ninety-eight member House using the rule at seventeen percent, Democrats would need just seventeen votes. There were twenty female Democrats in 2004. To affect women’s influence in the House, the rule would have to be introduced at twenty-one percent. This way, the Democrats would have to strike a bargain with at least one Republican woman in order to pass bills. After an increase of just one Democratic woman, House Democrats would be freed from their obligation to seek support from Republican women for two years. After that, either the failsafe provision or growth in the number of female legislators would keep raising the bar. For the Republicans, a gain of just four more seats, coming from either gender, would give them control of the House. However, they would need to increase the women in their ranks from the existing number of eleven to at least ten more to earn a two-year respite from having to seek support from Democratic women in order to pass bills.

In the forty-nine member Senate, Republicans had a one vote majority in 2004, but Democrats had more than twice as many women. Using the twenty-six percent rule unmodified would require Republicans to routinely beg six Democratic women to join in their votes, which would severely limit their ability to govern. Lowering the introductory percentage to just eighteen instead would force them to get support from only two Democratic women, which would make it possible to forge reasonable compromises on legislation and fulfil the purpose of the rule. As the Washington example illustrates, the rule’s initial percentages would have to be tailored to the circumstances of each state legislature.

There are seventeen states in which, unlike Washington, the twenty-six percent rule could be enacted by a majority of voters. For most legislative chambers the rule initially would be adjusted to begin one to three percentage points above half the current percentage of women’s representation in that chamber.

In states where the majority party has a lopsided majority, a high percentage of women legislators, or both, implementation at just above half the existing overall percentage of women in each chamber would not change present practices. In the Democratic controlled California Senate, implementation of even the unmodified twenty-six percent rule would not immediately change anything. Out of a total of forty members, there were eleven women in 2004 – all Democrats. The rule would serve only to encourage the minority party to work harder to increase the number of women legislators in its ranks in preparation for a return to power. The value of highlighting the opposition’s lack of attention to women’s issues, combined with the erection of a device that would reduce the risk of a reversal of political fortunes, might make the rule attractive to Democratic Senators.

In the California Assembly, and in both houses of the Massachusetts legislature, the unmodified twenty-six percent rule would force their Democratic leaders to work with one Republican woman. Just over half the total percentage of women in the California Assembly in 2004 was sixteen percent, but the rule would not be effective unless introduced at twenty-six percent because most of those women were Democrats.

In Republican controlled Arizona, North Dakota (House only) and South Dakota, and Democratic controlled Arkansas, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma (Senate only) and Nevada (House only), legislatures faced situations similar to the Washington House. Introducing the rule at a percentage just a point or two above half the existing percentage of women in each chamber would change nothing. It would take an increase of approximately five percentage points above half the existing percentage to force the majority party to seek agreement with one woman from the minority party. The Nevada House would have to start the rule at least eight points above the normal modification for it to have an impact. (As in Washington State, a different party controlled each of the two chambers in Nevada’s legislature in 2004.)

Other legislatures were comparable to the Washington Senate, where the majority party had a lower percentage of women than the minority party. In those states, implementation of the rule adjusted to just above half the overall percentage of women in a chamber would require the majority party to negotiate with four or more women from the minority party. Lowering the number of women needed to just two would reduce the risk of gridlock. To accomplish this, the rule percentage would have to be set below half the existing overall percentage of women. States with at least one chamber affected in this manner included Republican controlled Colorado, Michigan, Missouri and Montana. The 2004 Colorado Senate had nine Democratic women and only one Republican woman.

The thirty member Oregon Senate was evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats in 2004. With six Democratic women and only one Republican woman, it presented a special case. If Democrats were facing the rule, it would have to be introduced substantially higher than half the existing overall percentage to have an effect, whereas for Republicans it would have to be substantially lower to be viable. Probably, the fairest solution would be to base it on the Republicans’ circumstances.

In the remaining states allowing constitutional amendment by voter initiative, introducing the rule at just over half the existing percentage of women in each chamber would be the right number to help shape policy to be more favorable to women’s needs. The majority party would have to bargain with one or two women from the minority party in order to pass legislation. These states included Republican controlled Florida, Ohio, Oregon (House only) and Nevada (Senate only), and Democratic controlled Oklahoma (House only).

Finally, there is Nebraska, with non-partisan elections and only one chamber in its legislature. Just over eighteen percent of its legislators were women. Introduced at ten percent, the rule would give Nebraska women a greater voice in decision making.