Women Archives

Hitting the Road: Women and Entrepreneurship

52 women (and one man) from 53 countries. 11 cities. 21 days.

It’s not. It’s a snapshot of the itinerary for a recent U.S. State Department International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP), organized by Meridian International Center, to promote women and entrepreneurship. These 53 leaders were from Algeria to Zimbabwe and everywhere in between.

The participants were entrepreneurs, directors of business accelerators and non-governmental organizations supporting women in business, corporate executives, government officials, and academics. All play a role in their country’s efforts to support women entrepreneurs, whose enterprises contribute substantially to economic growth and poverty reduction.

I met with the group in Washington, DC both at the beginning of their visit to the U.S. and when they returned from travel to cities as diverse as Kansas City, Missouri; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Pensacola, Florida. At the first session, they talked with each other about their role in the ecosystem of entrepreneurship and in supporting women entrepreneurs. They shared views about the fundamentals for advancing successful women’s entrepreneurship and business and how to ensure that more women have access to the tools they need to succeed. They each outlined their goals and objectives to maximize the IVLP for themselves, their business or organization, and their community. They listed the types of contacts and skills they wanted to gather as well as the types of policies and innovations that interested them, such as accessing supply chains, meeting angel investors and talking with successful women entrepreneurs.

We met again when they returned from their intensive program outside of Washington, DC. They talked about what impressed or surprised them, whether the IVLP changed their perspectives, and what new individuals and organizations they would connect with upon their return home. (Side note: they also talked about how their packing and unpacking skills had improved.)

They each had a unique experience, but overall, several things stood out:

Globally, women entrepreneurs face common challenges. The most common takeaway was that women, particularly women business owners, across the world face similar issues. Participants were struck by how their everyday challenges were similar to those faced by their fellow participants from different countries and by women in the U.S. Bottom line, since there is so much we have in common, there is much we can learn from each other.
Support systems and women’s networks matter. The IVLP participants met with organizations supporting women entrepreneurs and providing platforms for women business owners to connect. This strategic networking and relationship building is critical to business development, and to business success and growth. Many took away lessons about the types of organizations and platforms that exist in the U.S. for developing connections and business opportunities, as well as for helping women learn how to be effective networkers. While in DC, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) organized a roundtable with pioneers and leaders in building strong environments for women’s businesses. In Charlotte, NC, the group met with the National Association of Women Business Owners (NAWBO), which gives U.S. women business owners a place to organize as an economic and advocacy force.
Broader policy support for women and girls is critical to economic empowerment and opportunity. Women can’t succeed as entrepreneurs if they can’t stay in school, learn critical thinking and financial literacy skills, or make their own life decisions. In several countries represented, child marriage is prevalent and the women participants are committed to changing that reality, as they see its negative impact on women’s economic futures. In the countries represented, most decision-makers are men and women are subject to restrictive laws that create barriers to business success, such as those that restrict women’s ability to get credit or have access to child care and family leave. The participants focused on the importance of advocating for changes in these laws and policies as well as those that narrowly target barriers to entrepreneurship.
Government support of women’s entrepreneurship makes a difference. Participants were struck by the critical role that government in the U.S., at every level, plays in supporting women and business. This includes advocacy around increasing the allocation of government contracts and procurements set aside for women-owned businesses, and regulatory reforms that increase access to capital and markets for businesses.

These 53 leaders — representing almost one-third of the world’s countries — are already successful. The purpose of the IVLP, and their exposure to what is happening here in U.S, is to ensure that they become force multipliers. From my viewpoint, I have little doubt that will be the case.

StartUps: Embedding a Focus on Gender From Day One

Businesses ignore women — and a focus on gender — at their peril. Everyone from startup founders to CEOs of Fortune 500 companies needs to promote women’s leadership, create safe and fair workplaces, support and engage women in the community, and ensure that their products and services reflect the differential experiences, and needs, of women and men.

When women’s participation in the labor force increases, GDP rises. When women start businesses, communities flourish. When companies have more gender diversity at the top, they are 21 percent more likely to experience above-average profits.

Startups founded by women are more profitable. According to the Vinetta Project, startups founded by women are 20 percent more likely to be revenue generating and there is a 35 percent higher return on investment (ROI) when financing a company founded by women.

Founding teams that include a woman outperform their all-male peers by 63 percent, according to First Round Capital,comparing performance data in their portfolio over a 10 year period. Women founders create companies targeted at new market niches. Many of the most innovative and promising women-led startups focus on how to manage and ease the time burdens women face. For example, in 2014, Kate Ryder founded Maven Clinic, an online platform connecting consumers with doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals with appointments in real time and a starting price of $18.

I spoke recently on a panel, “Women=Change,” held during DC Startup Week, a festival of programming for founders and entrepreneurs. The standing-room session addressed how focusing on women and gender can increase profitability and sustainability as well as how to concretely build this approach into business planning and development.

Four of my key takeaways:

Good news: investors are looking to invest more in women-led companies. In 2017, only two percent of venture funding went to women-led startups and ventures. That needs to change. But, more funds are investing in companies led by diverse founders. The Helm plans to only invest in women-led companies, and Backstage Capital announced a $36 million fund investing exclusively in companies led by black women founders.
Building a strong ecosystem is essential. Founders and new ventures need what is called an “ecosystem”: a supportive culture, enabling policies and laws, availability of financial and human capital, venture-friendly markets for products, and a range of institutional and infrastructural supports. In order to create such an ecosystem, government, business, financial institutions, investors and mentors must work together. More good news: there are groups bringing together these key actors, such as BEACON DC, a community-led campaign to make Washington, DC the most influential and supportive city for women entrepreneurs in the United States.
Have tough conversations early. If you have issues with people assuming your male co-founder is in charge, or one of your male colleagues takes credit for your ideas, have that uncomfortable conversation early (and often). Discuss this with your co-founder (or employee) to ensure your leadership role is acknowledged. Be clear about who will represent the firm at conferences, and meetings, and how those presentations will be structured.
Simple actions create a more inclusive culture. Rethink your recruitment and selection process. Job descriptions can be unintentionally biased by using phrases that emphasize an aggressive business culture. Use gender neutral titles, check the use of pronouns, and emphasize your commitment to diversity of all kinds. Hire people whose skill sets complement yours. Post jobs in multiple forums. Commit to the slate of candidates you interview being gender-balanced.

If you can embed this approach into your firm’s culture from day one, you are building for growth and sustainability. These actions can take time and thought, but in the end, will save you from playing catch up.

Gender vs. Women’s Empowerment in Development

In many discussions, the term “gender” is often used interchangeably with “women and girls.” These concepts both get at gender norms and roles, but are different. Here’s a overview of these terms and how they differ. In short, we’ve learned that gender equality is are not just about women or girls, but about the different ways women and men experience their lives, have access to resources and can take advantage of opportunities. It broadens our perspective, so that policies and programs take into account those differential experiences of women and men, and address structural constraints to gender equality. Importantly, taking gender into account also encourages programs to include men and boys – political, business and religious leaders as well as husbands, brothers and fathers – because their gender or social roles will also change.

While “sex” refers to the biological characteristics that define us as female or male, “gender” refers to the economic, political, and cultural attributes and opportunities associated with being male or female. How gender is defined varies among cultures and changes over time.

Gender equality is the concept that all human beings, both men and women, are free to develop their personal talents and abilities and make life choices without the limitations set by stereotypes, rigid gender roles, or prejudices. It does not mean that women and men are the same, but that their rights, responsibilities, and opportunities should not depend on whether they are born male or female.

The role of women and the idea of “gender equality” in development has changed over time. For a very long time, development programs did not take sex or gender into account. Commodities or services, such as food, healthcare or education, were provided by richer countries to developing ones without attention paid to the characteristics of the beneficiaries.

A few decades ago, discussions and program implementers began to take into account that women might have different needs than men and/or might prioritize assistance in a different way. An example — for a long time rice was distributed around the world in 50 lb bags. While most men could haul the bags onto their backs and carry them home, the weight made collection of this food almost impossible for women. A simple change, made at women’s request, made the bags of rice lighter so that women could transport them.

Next, development organizations began to consider how men and women benefited from their programs. For instance, asking if both boys and girls were able to attend school, and what the barriers might be if there weren’t equal attendance rates. Or, if an agriculture program was teaching how to improve crop yields, were both male and female farmers benefiting from that knowledge. If all of the intended beneficiaries were not being reached or the outcomes were not being reached as planned, implementers started asking questions.

In the last ten years, technical experts have moved from a focus on women to gender. What was acknowledged was that in order to “empower” women, their social or gender roles had to change. For example, if the aim of a program is to create more women business owners in order to increase her family’s income and move them out of poverty, then the program cannot focus solely on the female entrepreneurs-to-be. Training women about how to start and run a business is key, no doubt, but the program must also take into account the local laws that prevent women from having access to credit, and, very importantly, how her income will create a new balance of power within her home. We now know that when a woman, a wife, earns her own income it can change the gender roles of both the woman and her husband. If a women begins contributing to family income (when she didn’t before), this can make her husband feel shame that he cannot solely support his family and lead to an increase in violence against her. And the same is true when women learn more about how their bodies function, play a greater role in politics or even stay in school a few more years.

The United States government, particularly the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), has kept abreast of this growing field of gender and development just as it has with other technical fields, gaining new knowledge and improving its programs to spend U.S. taxpayer dollars more efficiently as it ends extreme poverty. USAID collaborates with other governments, private companies and implementing partners to know more and do better for women around the world.

While the gap between the number of boys and girls in primary school has been eliminated, the number of women in elected office has increased and the number of women in the formal workforce is higher than it has ever been, now is a good time to remind ourselves about the importance of these issues, how we arrived at this moment and the need to continue this critical work.

SDG Five, Target Four

Within the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), or Global Goals, Goal 5 is to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. For Goal 5, there are nine targets. In this blog post, we will focus on SDG5 Target 4, which focuses on the value of unpaid care and domestic work and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family.

The prevalence and invisibility of unpaid care work in the U.S. and abroad makes acknowledging and tracking data critical to developing policy solutions. UN Women’s “Progress of the World’s Women Report” acknowledges that “Domestic work makes all other work possible”—and this is true regardless of whether that work comes from domestic workers or unpaid family caregivers. The labor of domestic workers is critical to the function and growth of national and global economies.” (Source)

Unpaid care and domestic work are barriers to reaching gender equality as they reinforce discriminatory gender stereotypes that force women to stay in the home and limits participation in the public sphere, (Source) and contributes to the persistent gender gaps in labor force participation, activity rates, and wages. In terms of numbers, women comprise the majority of domestic workers, accounting for 80 percent of all workers in the sector globally; which means that approximately 55 million women participate in domestic work. (Source) There are at least two million domestic workers in the United States, and most of them are African American or immigrant women.

Around the world, women spend two to ten times more time on unpaid care work than men. (Source) According to a 2014 OECD study, women and men in the United States also spend their time differently. While men spent an average of 19 minutes per day caring for a family member, women spent 41 minutes. While men spent an average of 82 minutes per day doing “routine housework”, women spent 126 minutes. (Source)

One way to recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work is by creating more public services that can take care of the family care and household duties that are now disproportionately done by women. The United States remains the only country in the developed world that does not mandate employers offer paid leave for new mothers, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Twenty-five years ago President Bill Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act, which included a provision giving eligible workers 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a new child. (Source) Because of the lack of support at the federal level, states and the private sector are now starting to address the issue. As of May 2018, twenty-one states had pending legislation for paid leave laws, in addition to the five states and District of Columbia that have paid family leave laws already. (Source)

Further, the U.S. Government also does not provide for child care, and quality child care is often very expensive. In a 2016 report, the cost of infant child care in 49 states plus the District of Columbia exceeded seven percent of the state median income for a two-parent family. (Source) Daycare is also often hard to find. A report from the Center for American Progress (CAP), found that 51 percent of the population in 22 states resides in “childcare deserts.” In those neighborhoods, the number of children under age five outnumber available daycare slots more than three to one. (Source)

Another way to reach this target of Goal 5 is through the provision of infrastructure and social protection and the prevention of abuse of those who work in the care sector. Of the 67 million domestic workers worldwide, 60 million are excluded from social security coverage. In the U.S., while the infrastructure for domestic work, such as access to clean water and availability of household appliances, generally exists, laws protecting domestic workers are often not enforced, or domestic workers are excluded from certain legal protections. (Source) As a result, beginning with New York in 2010, eight U.S. states (Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Nevada, Oregon and California and New York) have passed Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights, which protect workers from racial discrimination and sexual harassment, provides for one day off a week, and overtime and paid leave. Other states have yet to catch up. (Source)

Finally, in order to reach this SDG target, governments can actively promote shared responsibility for care and domestic work. From what I can find, the U.S. government has never had a campaign to increase the burden sharing for unpaid care and domestic responsibilities. There was a three- year “Make it Work” campaign centered around the 2016 U.S. elections that asked candidates to focus on child care, pre-Kindergarten and elder care; pay transparency and the fight for a higher, national minimum wage; as well as paid family and medical leave, earned sick days, fair scheduling, and workplace fairness for pregnant women. Family Values@Work is a network of coalitions in 21 states working to pass policies that value families at work such as paid sick days and affordable family leave. These policies are not only good for individual women and families, but provide support on a policy level for a more equitable division of labor and family responsibility.

Women. Drive. Economic. Growth. Period.

When women’s participation in the labor force increases, GDP rises. When women start businesses, communities flourish. When women are promoted to senior management and appointed to corporate boards, companies do better. We ignore this compelling data at our peril.

Business leaders, advocates and policy makers committed to economic growth and prosperity must use every strategy and tool to open doors and opportunity for women to participate in today’s global economy.

In early May, I moderated the opening plenary of the Women’s Forum for the Economy and Society in Toronto, which convened 600 influential business, institutional and political global leaders to strategize about breaking down entrenched barriers to women’s participation and developing concrete

solutions. The Forum focused specifically on influencing the agenda of the G7, a powerful group comprising the U.S., Japan, Germany, the U.K., France, Italy and Canada, as well as the European Union. This discussion was particularly timely as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made empowering women one of the main themes of Canada’s 2018 G7 presidency.

The plenary examined how governments, the private sector and multilateral forums like the G7, can take action to accelerate women’s economic opportunity, and in the process, create more jobs, increase innovation, and transform societies. It highlighted the importance of enabling environments and corporate culture, the role of technology, and the importance of measuring impact. I was joined on the panel by four dynamic women leaders from the private, public and NGO sectors.

Here are my key takeaways.

First, most private sector leaders today recognize the competitive advantage of women’s economic participation, whether in the corporate c-suite, in non-traditional jobs, or as entrepreneurs. But, talk isn’t enough. Companies that make their commitment real have been able to attract, and importantly, retain women employees by challenging assumptions, promoting work/life balance, and creating an environment where everyone is valued. For example, Salesforce took an honest look at how women and men were being paid, and increased salaries when it found discrepancies. But these actions aren’t only important to women. Today, both men and women are seeking jobs and starting businesses that value their contributions, are flexible, and give them a sense of ownership.

Second, strong enabling and legal environments are critical. To succeed, women need skills, networks, and access to capital and markets. At the same time, women also need access to quality education, child care, clean water, health care and a sense of personal security. This includes legal frameworks that ensure non-discrimination, and protections against sexual harassment, assault and violence. There is good news. According to the most recent World Bank Women, Business and the Law Report, over the last two years, governments in 65 countries took concrete steps to improve women’s economic inclusion. However, women still face legal barriers in over 100 countries, and those barriers adversely affect their economic choices.

Third, technology is both a tool and a challenge. Technology is driving change and innovation across the globe, and has a tremendous impact on economic competitiveness. As we embrace technology, however, we need to be mindful that globally, there is a gender gap in online access. In urban poor areas, women are 50 percent less likely than men to be online, and 30–50 percent less likely to use the internet for economic or political empowerment. A 2015 report, Connected Women, found that women are 14 percent less likely than men to own a mobile phone. And, when women own phones, they use them differently than men do.

Finally, measurement matters and helps tell the story. We know that making the business case is important, and macro-level data, like that contained in the studies cited in this article, makes a difference at the policy level. We also need to look closely at what works on the individual and business level. Measuring success is about understanding how many women graduate from a vocational program, and also how that translates into impact and value.

Under the Canadian presidency, the G7 is deepening its focus on these critical issues. As advocates, policy makers and business leaders, we can help by continuing to gather data about how women are central to economic growth. Interventions must ensure women are treated equally and fairly, and have access to the tools they need to succeed, wherever they are on the path of economic participation and leadership.

Kuwaiti Women: Forging Forward in Public Life

Kuwaiti women: quick, what image comes to mind?

Truthfully, it’s a mixed picture. According to the 2017 Global Gender Gap Report, Kuwait ranks 129, of 144 countries, on gender parity overall. Having said that, however, 50 percent of Kuwaiti women are in the labor force. They have higher levels of educational enrollment than Kuwaiti men, have access to financial services and bank accounts, although at lower rates than men. They marry in their 20’s, have their first child at 30, and on average live the same number of years as Kuwaiti men.

One area where Kuwaiti women are not represented is in elected office. Having won the right to vote in 2005, Kuwaiti women voted for the first time in 2006. Four women won seats in the Kuwait Parliament in 2009 (out of 65 members), but currently, there is only one women serving in the Parliament.

In April, I worked with a group of exceptional Kuwaiti women interested in expanding their participation in public life, whether that means running for political office, supporting other women’s campaigns, leading in civil society and business, or working to address legal issues that impact women’s ability to fully participate in society, such as gender-based violence.

They were in the U.S. for two weeks, and visited Washington, DC, Annapolis, Maryland, and Dearborn, Michigan. They met with leaders from a cross section of institutions and communities: the federal government, Congress; state and local government; the judiciary; non-governmental organizations; experts in political leadership and campaigns; and academics. They met men and women, Arab Americans and not, elected and appointed officials, and those seeking political office. They got to see American political fundraising upfront and personal by attending a large DC gala dinner, supporting women candidates in the upcoming election cycle.

Of course, the reason behind such a visit is exposure to American people, places and viewpoints. These experiences gave these women a sense of what has worked here and why and what hasn’t, so they can think about what might work in their context when they return home and strategize about their way forward. As always, it is interesting to me to see our institutions and our democracy through their eyes.

They grappled with existential issues, such as what it means to be an Arab American, and the tension between assimilation and integration. Meeting with young elected officials, they were taken by how those officials balanced their own values and views with respect for others in their family and community who may not hold the same views.

SDG Five, Target Two

Within the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), or Global Goals, Goal 5 is to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. For Goal 5, there are nine targets. In this blog, we will focus on SDG5 Target 2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation.

Violence against women and girls is a reality in the United States and in every country around the world. According to the World Health Organization, global estimates indicate that about 1 in 3 (35%) women worldwide have experienced either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence in their lifetime. Most is intimate partner violence. Moreover, globally, as many as 38 percent of women who are murdered are killed by a male intimate partner. Other kinds of violence are also widespread. UNICEF found that around 120 million girls worldwide (slightly more than 1 in 10) have experienced forced intercourse or other forced sexual acts at some point in their lives. Also according to UNICEF, 21 million people are victims of human trafficking. 79 percent of human trafficking is sexual exploitation and women and girls are the predominant victims of this crime.

According to OECD data on violence against women, the United States ranks 13th in the world in terms of these crimes, and statistics are similar to global data. One in three women have been victims of some form of physical violence by an intimate partner within her lifetime, and one in five women has been raped in her lifetime. From 2009-2013, Child Protective Services agencies substantiated, or found strong evidence to indicate that, 63,000 children a year were victims of sexual abuse. 72 percent of all murder-suicides involve an intimate partner; 94 percent of the victims of these murder suicides are female. (Source) According to the National Human Trafficking Resource Center last year show that more than 4,000 cases of sex trafficking were reported in the U.S. In a 2015 survey, one in three women between the ages of 18-34 has been sexually harassed at work. (Source) Among U.S. female internet users aged 18-24, 26 percent have been stalked online and 25 percent have been sexually harassed. (Source)

Moreover, as the recent #MeToo movement has shown, sexual harassment and even assault, is prevalent in workplaces across the country. An October 2017 ABC News/Washington Post poll found that more than half of all American women (54%) have experienced “unwanted and inappropriate sexual advances” at some point in their lives. Thirty percent of women have endured such behavior from male colleagues and 25 percent identified men with sway over their careers as the culprits. This translates to about 33 million U.S. women being sexually harassed, and 14 million sexually abused, in work-related incidents.

These are sobering statistics, so what has the U.S. government done to eliminate gender-based violence in the U.S. and what current efforts exist?

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) (1994) is a critical tool that created a framework to improve criminal justice and community-based responses to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. VAWA has provided $1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted. The Act also established the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice; that position is currently vacant. VAWA was reauthorized, and some of its provisions expanded, by Congress in 2000, 2005 and 2013.

VAWA has made a difference. Since 1993, domestic violence rates declined 64 percent. And the rate of women being murdered men in single victim/single offender situations — often characteristic of intimate partner violence — dropped by 26 percent over a similar time period, between 1996 and 2012. One study attributed the decline partly to VAWA, which “has been an important impetus for funding in the area of civil legal assistance.” (cut and pasted, needs to be edited) (Source)

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 was the first comprehensive federal law to address trafficking in persons. The law provides a three-pronged approach that includes prevention, protection, and prosecution. The TVPA was reauthorized through the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2003, 2005, 2008, and 2013. There were 4,460 cases of human trafficking reported in 2017 as of June 30. This number is down after a spike in cases reported in 2016 (7,621) of which 84 percent of the victims were female. (Source)

In comparison with other countries around the world, the U.S. domestic violence laws are comprehensive, yet cultural barriers regularly keep women from reporting rape; and human trafficking is illegal but there are enforcement lapses. And while the Obama administration, particularly former Vice President Biden, worked to increase the reporting and response to sexual assault on college campuses, the policy was rescinded and new guidelines were released in the fall of 2017. There are serious concerns that the new rules will weaken sexual violence protections in higher education settings.

As women across the U.S. and across the globe talk more openly about what they have experienced in terms of violence, assault and harassment, it is vitally important that the legal framework — and more importantly the legal system — keeps up. #MeToo and #TimesUp aren’t just about uncovering what happened in the past and making things right, but creating systems, laws and enforcement mechanisms to stop it in the future.

Smart Cities Must Reflect Women’s Transportation Needs

Today, 55 percent of the world’s population lives in urban areas, and by 2050, that number is projected to increase to 66 percent. At least half are women and girls. This movement of people — largely in Africa and Asia – is transforming our cities and should transform our thinking about how infrastructure meets everyone’s needs.

As the number of urban dwellers increases, mayors and other city officials are focusing on designing “smart cities,” where plans and services are based on data that reflects citizen needs, provides a strong foundation for economic growth, allows for more efficient management of city assets, and minimizes environmental impact. These officials are also examining how “equitable innovation” can help ensure that city services meet everyone’s needs, no matter who they are, what neighborhood they live in, or what they do.

This presents an unprecedented opportunity for greater gender equality if urban design and the provision of public services are more responsive to, and reflective of, the needs of women and girls. We rely on infrastructure — roads, street lighting, public transportation, technology, public spaces and parks — as a foundation for economic and social development but often don’t think about how men and women use it differently.

Everyone needs to get to and from work, school, the store, and the doctor. Women more often use public transportation than men. And, women and men use transportation differently because social roles and gender norms drive the contours of a woman’s daily life. She may work outside of the downtown business center, and she has more family responsibilities, such as child care, running household errands, and maintaining family and community ties. These tasks all determine where a woman goes every day.

Unlike men who usually travel to and from work, and then home, women often “chain” their activities together by combining multiple stops and destinations within a single, longer trip because of their multifaceted household and domestic responsibilities. Traveling to multiple destinations makes public transportation costlier, since the traveller may have to pay for numerous single-fare, one-way tickets throughout a “chained” trip. If women are traveling with children, elderly parents, or groceries, there are additional challenges if buses aren’t on time or aren’t easy to use. Finally, routes outside central commuter corridors may have regular service during off-peak hours, when women are most likely to need public transport for caregiving or to see friends and family.

Think about it – as women juggle work, family care and household responsibilities, the purpose, frequency, and distance of trips differ. Women may take the bus or train to work, and along the way drop their children off at school, which is outside the central business district; similarly, on the way home, they may pick their children up, go grocery shopping closer to their home and check in on an older relative in a different part of town.

At the same time, we know that women and girls experience more violence in public spaces than men and boys do – whether that is street harassment or sexual assault. In Mexico City, 64 percent of women reported having been groped or physically harassed while using public transit. In New York’s subway system, 63 percent of women surveyed reported sexual harassment and 10 percent sexual assault. As a result of unsafe transportation, women tend to change their behavior and often reduce how many trips they make. Transport insecurity reduces household income, as women are limited from access to their full educational and employment opportunities.

Let’s look at what has worked to make public transportation more responsive to the needs of women:

Recognize that infrastructure and city design aren’t gender neutral: As a graduate of a city planning program, I can attest to the ethos in the planning and architecture fields that design is gender neutral. It isn’t. Planners need to shift their perspectives and understand that every decision that gets made has a differential impact on women and men.

Involve everyone, including women and girls, in transportation planning: It’s important to involve everyone – women and girls, boys and men – in the decisions that impact their daily lives. Planners shouldn’t make decisions about transportation routes, the hours they run, without hearing from a broad cross-section of the community. As a corollary, planners need to take the input and concern of women and girls seriously, since they are the ones who have lived the experience of using public transportation. Tools for this type of input include household surveys and focus groups. Planners shouldn’t make assumptions; for example, studies in the UK reflect that women prefer more police on transport to address safety, while men prefer closed circuit TV.

Address issues of both actual concern and perceived concern: Perceived threats can impact the way women make decisions about transport use, and as result can have an impact on the jobs they take or the tasks they do at certain times of the day. For example, to address safety concerns in Quito, Ecuador, 43 out of 44 trolley stops have been remodeled with new safety criteria, including the construction of transparent glass corridors that provide secure transfer and waiting areas.

Conduct a safety audit: UN Women has created templates for safety audits, with a series of questions to ask around transportation issues. These include questions about lighting (where it is located and whether it is working), signage, the availability of footpaths, the level of maintenance, visible police presence and the ability to reach someone in an emergency.

Equitable access to public transport is about making the transport system work for everyone – regardless of gender – and meeting needs for safe, efficient, sustainable mobility. These are critical investments to ensure that the smart cities being designed are truly inclusive.

Women’s Empowerment and Protections in the Workplace

Human Resource offices and legal representation are not the first choice of disclosure for many who are intimidated by a negative workplace experience or an overbearing supervisor.

There’s often a gap between official corporate policies protecting workers against harassment, and the ongoing nonprofessional behavior in the corporate workforce. It can create a dangerous place to be caught in the crossfire of gender discrimination.

Social change results from two levels of pressure; one, official and another, personal. Efforts initialed by industry and government leaders such as the EDGE, WEP, PAX (see Smash 5/5/17 Blog Post) and online grassroots exchanges can both assist women in taking the initial step of sharing their grievances and receiving support and guidance.

“…The rise of the internet has opened important new forms of safe space.” Julie Creswell and Tiffany Hsu of the New York Times explain that the internet has become a clearinghouse for complaints, noted Dr. Anne Litwin, author, New Rules for Women: Revolutionizing the Way Women Work Together.

Internet rants may be seen as the exclusive purview for teenage angst, however, professionally employed women have found special sites that provide a safe place to share grievances and exchange resources with others who have experienced sexual harassment. Cresswell and Hsu list a few such specialized sites:

Tech Ladies, an invitation-only Facebook group
#HelpASisterOut, a forum for advice on how to file a complaint or learn about a company’s culture
Blind, an app for anonymous chats about the workplace
BetterBrave, an online guide to resources for sexual harassment victims
SheWorx, an advocacy group for online entrepreneurs.

When corporate policy is being implemented a standard non disclosure element in a work contract can deter an honest report of sexual harassment or other infractions. The gossip grapevine is not the correct avenue for lodging complaints, however, some mechanism that ensures safety and anonymity is needed. Women have found their own venues for closing the gap between corporate policies and the ongoing negative behavior in the workforce.

Formal and informal methods are necessary to stem the tide of such infractions. Open, safe communication is a right that must not be withdrawn in the name of public image protection.

Women’s Political Underrepresentation in the United States

There is a fascinating new book out by Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox entitled “Women, Men & U.S. Politics: Ten Big Questions.” It covers topics that range from contemporary feminism to campaign finance to reproductive rights in the United States.

Of course, the chapter that caught my attention is “Falling Further Behind: Women’s Underrepresentation in U.S. Politics” which focuses on the question of why the U.S. ranks 100th globally for the number of women elected at the national level. As it lays out, Rwanda (61.3%), Bolivia (53.1%), Cuba (48.9%), Iceland (47.6%) and 90+ other countries have more women serving in their national legislature than does the United States (19.1%).

As I have traveled around the world, I have created my own theories about why this is the case and this book tends to back up my ideas. First, while quota laws have been shown to be the best tool used to increase women’s political participation, the U.S. “first past the post” rather than proportional representative system makes it very difficult to initiate a quota law for women. Not surprisingly, 15 of the top 20 countries for women’s representation have instituted some type of quota. Moreover, political parties in the U.S. are considered weak institutionally, as voters, rather than the parties create the candidate lists. So while candidates running for Congress do receive some help from their political party, they must also create their own political organizations, raise money, build coalitions, and deliver their own message both the primary and general elections. In other countries, a strong central committee of the party selects the candidates for the party list and in what order they will appear. Finally, what is strong in the U.S. system is the power of incumbency. Overall, in the last 10 election cycles, 95 percent of the House incumbents who wanted to keep their posts were re-elected. In 2016, 394 of 435 incumbents from the House of Representatives chose not to run for reelection. Of those who ran, only 13 lost their races.

If that isn’t daunting enough, Lawless and Rich discuss barriers that exist at the individual level for women seeking public office in the U.S. First, as they have documented for over a decade, there is a gap in the political ambition of women and men. “Deeply embedded patterns of traditional gender socialization make it far less likely, even today, for women to emerge as candidates.” Because of the attitudes and norms of men AND women about what is “appropriate” for women, men are considerably more likely than women to think about seeking elective office. The 16 percentage point gap existed in 2001 and continues today. Moreover, the “work-family” balance that Anne-Marie Slaughter and others have written about is even further out of whack for women thinking about running for office. Often women have jobs outside of the home that are necessary for their family’s income. Next, they are in charge of the household duties and are taking care of the majority of the childcare, cleaning, etc. at home. And now, we’re asking women to take on a “third shift” of politics – attending community meanings and fundraisers in order to run a viable campaign. For many women, there are just not enough hours in the day.

Where I part with Lawless and Rich is in the conclusion of this chapter where they say “even an optimist would be hard-pressed” to see major increases in women’s representation in the U.S. in the near future. In addition to the outpouring of increased interest of women in running for office (SF article) I believe that here in the U.S. we may be thinking too narrowly about how to increase women’s political participation. While I can name a half dozen groups that are recruiting women to run for office, we aren’t working on the larger structural issues that keep the numbers low. We might not get constitutional amendments passed, but we can address factors that can change over time: the political parties, time use and attitudes about women’s leadership.

First, although the role of political parties in the U.S. is not as strong as those in other countries, the Democratic and Republican parties here are not doing all they could do to recruit and support women candidates. Until they understand and value the role women can play in the party and in Congress, these outside groups will be on the outside looking in. When I worked to increase the number of women in politics in other countries as diverse as Kosovo and Zambia, no training program for female candidates was complete until we met with the (largely male) party leadership to talk about the benefits of women candidates on their party lists. Secondly, we must step out of the political sphere and address the issues of time use and public attitudes about women’s leadership. Both of these issues are not only keeping women out of Congress but also out of the Boardrooms and C-suites of companies across the country. According to Pew Research, the share of Fortune 500 chief executives who are female remains very small, reaching a record 5.4 percent in the first quarter of 2017 and women hold just 20.2 percent of the seats on boards of Fortune 500 companies – very similar to the political statistics. We need to change that social norms that exist that have women spending about six hours more than men doing household work and about three additional hours taking care of the children each week. And finally, we must help men and women, boys and girls in the U.S. see the value of women’s leadership. In a 2014 poll, 57 percent of respondents said that it made no difference to them if a female were elected president in their lifetimes.

What a shame that despite evidence that a diversity of views in decision-making roles can help drive innovation and a recent poll that showed that only 33 percent of likely U.S. voters now think the country is heading in the right direction, we in the United States are not willing to ask the big questions and increase women’s political representation in order to improve our communities and the everyday lives of our citizens.

12 3