Enough is Enough – What’s happening to our men?


“The number of working women in the United States is about to surpass the number of working men. Three-quarters of the people who have lost jobs in the current recession are men” (Harvard Business Review September 2013),  yet women still earn on average 77 cents in the dollar to that of a man. On the surface these statistics seem like a great thing, and to a degree they are, but if women remain the bulk of the underpaid workforce and men remain the bulk of those in power, there will be even greater issues for women in the future.  As the article points out, many companies are still failing to provide the right products and services to women and these companies are the one’s who will suffer in the future because of women’s increased financial ability to consume and influence.

There are other issues for men when their working lives are impacted by long-term unemployment and these can include a loss of self-esteem, a loss of financial stability and general emotional insecurity.  This can be difficult for those men who were previously the breadwinner and may feel a loss of identity. The change in status for them in their home life and the way they think that they are perceived by the community can lead to depression and illness which will ultimately impact the economy.

There may be more severe impacts on society, particularity if some men start to see themselves negatively and begin to relate to women in a different way because of these feelings of inadequacy and fear.  Books like “Guys and Guns Amok, Domestic Terrorism and School Shootings from the Oklahoma City Bombing to the Virginia Tech Massacre” Kellner (2008), cite a ‘crisis of masculinity’ because men’s previously secure identities are now in question and a change in breadwinner status could lead to an increase in violence because some men can not cope with the change in their status.  Kellner says;


Direct extract


One can only speculate how a major change in the status quo of gender balance of the workforce may impact society, but it is something that we need to understand quickly.  Kellner also believes that ‘white men fear losing their status as the dominant group’ (pg.; 93) because of globalisation and multi culturalism.  This combined with the increased agitation by women for their own equality, may push some men to violence when fear and insecurity turn to anger.  Kellner goes on to talk about ‘anti statism’, ‘anti politics’ and the increase in ‘militaria’, but we won’t continue on that vein in this discussion – suffice to say that there is fear out there in this current globalised economic climate where, particularly in America, women are now overtaking men in employment.

Added to the economic loss of employment for male Americans is the fact that the numbers of those incarcerated in the United States continues to rise, with the prison population rising from 744 thousand to 2.2 million between 1985 and 2002 (Giroux) alone.  In the United States a prison officer now earns more than a school teacher, and there are alarming numbers of young coloured American men permanently incarcerated.  What sort of message are we sending to young men?

Enough is enough! How do we fix this? Its up to each and everyone of us to Question, Question and Question some more and then demand transparency in our organisations to compare wages. We need to question government policy and create discourse that help to positively influence the way society thinks about work and gendered roles.


Kellner, D (2008).  “Guys and guns amok: domestic terrorism and school shootings from the Oklahoma City bombing to the Virginia Tech massacre”,Paradigm Publishers, 01/01/2008

Giroux, H: http://www.henryagiroux.com/online_articles/class_casualties.htm


This great article in the Harvard Business Review spells it out http://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy/es?goback=.gde_2306571_member_267262109


Susanne is the Founder and Chair of The Centre for Gender Economics and Innovation™ and is credited with developing the emerging fields of Gender Economics and Diversity Economics. Now a Sociologist after a career in ICT and business, she has a focus on Gender, innovation and performance at an organisational level through her consulting. She brings a practical business experience coupled with academic rigour to her consulting practice around Gender Economics. An advocate for the advancement of women in leadership, she developed the Diversity Program Review Framework™ (DPRF™) in 2012, a diagnostic which measures both the program’s standalone effectiveness from a program management perspective, and assesses the viability of program’s data for further research in Diversity Economics and as input into organisational profitability and sustainability in creating the next generation of Business Transformation.

Susanne is passionately interested in equality, equity, truth and justice and how these attributes can improve business performance through transforming business ideologies and shifting traditional business paradigms.

She is an articulate, professional, entertaining and thought provoking speaker follow her @susannemoore or @gendereconomics

Should We Care About Diversity? (Yes, It’s a Serious Question)

This is an interesting article, by Sallie Krawcheck, (18October 2012 LinkedIn) who is the Past President of Merrill Lynch, US Trust and Smith Barney, but the comments below it are even more telling.  It is true that her assertion that “If women were fully engaged in the US economy, GDP would be 9% larger than it is today” is largely unsubstantiated by any hard facts although previous work by the UN does point to benefits for engaging a higher percentage of women in leadership roles, or at least providing them the ability for self determination.  What is interesting are the comments from a couple of the men who seem almost hostile, a little rejected and incredulous by the suggestion of increased gender diversity.  This attitude is nothing new and is one of the major obstacles yet to be overcome not only for Gender Diversity but general diversity issues.

Krawcheck acknowledges that there many important issues to discuss but says that

I have come to the conclusion that it does indeed matter. Let’s put aside personal opinions (almost impossible to do on a topic such as this) and look at just the facts:

Diversity matters for the broader issue of economic fairness, as companies led by women have lower gender-based pay disparities throughout their organizations. (Heck, companies run by men with daughters have lower gender-based pay disparities.)

Diversity matters for economic growth. If women were fully engaged in the US economy, GDP would be 9% larger than it is today. This is growth our economy could sorely use. (And, no, it’s not a zero sum game of new entrants taking others’ jobs; history shows that the economy can grow as a result of new entrants, in a virtuous circle.)

Diversity matters for US company performance and competitiveness. Study after study after study has shown that companies with diverse management teams outperform those with less diverse teams. And that diverse teams outperform even more “capable” teams. And they don’t outperform non-diverse teams by a little, but with ROE differentials of 30%+, with lower earnings volatility.

And diversity can even be a matter for the safety of our economy and financial markets. Which industry could use the lower volatility, more customer focus and the longer-term perspective that women have been shown to bring? The banks.”

Without hard facts that prove the impact of Gender on the Economy this debate still flounders,  diversity is a ‘nice to have’, any many business owners and CEO’s revert to the tried and tested methods of old fashion business, much of which has been engineered using traditional business models that often provide a barrier to women’s effective participation.  Commonsense would tell you that engaging the other 50% of the population more fully would not doubt open up a broader range of thinking.  For a start it would provide valuable business feedback from female consumers not currently present in many boardrooms.  Krawchecks comments have drawn some criticism from white males who may have taken offense at her assertion;

“And, yet, the progress of women into senior roles has stalled in broader corporate America. And, on Wall Street, an industry that was substantially white, middle-aged and male has become whiter, middle-aged-er and maler coming out of the downturn, essentially doubling down on that bet.”

I have noticed a distinct upsurge of men complaining that they have been ‘hard done by’, that they are ‘being discriminated against’ and many are turning to anti-feminist organisations and men’s own groups for support.  Whilst their complaints and comments might seem trivial in comparison to the plight of many women, they should not be dismissed.  These men are finding change difficult, they feel rejected and insulted as can be seen by the comments in the article.  They feel that they are being blamed for this inequality and can’t quite understand why, so instead they feel persecuted and brow beaten.  Part of the Gender Economy debate and the debate for Gender Diversity must provide positives for both genders.  It is a journey, and currently we are in that part of the journey that has women (and many men) highlighting the issues, so it sounds like one negative being raised after another.  We need to move to the next phase of the journey quickly by assessing potential solutions otherwise the debate will remain a discussion with different sides.  The next phase of the journey will discuss the benefits and help people to see the advantages for all.

See the full article here



Gender Diversity makes a difference to the ‘bottom line’

Diversity makes a difference, see the latest research by WOB (Women on Boards). Article By Claire Braund on  17 February 2012 in the Australian Mining Magazine and Shared by Dorothy Jakab and 1 more in WOB Women on Boards via LinkedIn.

The article notes some important statistics which make a strong case for an increase in women’s representation on boards and leadership positions;

“In 2004 the US-based non-profit organisation Catalyst created the link between female board directors and corporate performance in its report ‘The Bottom Line: Corporate Performance and Women’s Representation of Boards’.

The report found higher financial performance for companies with higher representation of women board directors in three important measures – return on equity, return on sales and return on invested capital.

Fast forward to Australia in October 2011 and the non-profit research organisation Reibey Institute found that over three and five year periods, ASX500 companies with women directors delivered significantly higher return on equity (ROE) than those companies without any women on their boards.

In between 2004 and 2011 there were a number of significant studies and reports successfully prosecuting the business case for recruiting and retaining women into senior leadership roles and onto boards.”

The article further discusses the need for a full utilisation of all human resources, male and female in reference to the current resource shortage in the Australian Mining Industry where good resources are hard to come by.

“In Australia, this will require a significant shift in corporate culture and in the attitudes and behavior of many who occupy positions of power.

The mining sector is a dominant player in the Australian economy with major human resource demands. Surely, of all sectors it should be the one that understands the importance of a fully deployed labour force and the business benefits that diversity brings?”

Economically, Gender Diversity makes sense.

References:  Australian Mining Magazine