abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

27 Aug 2011

Author:
Vivia Chen, Careerist

The Economist Doesn't Get It

See all tags
I'm...infuriated about a recent piece in The Economist...about the dearth of women on corporate boards..."The Economist defines the culprit: Children...It's nice that The Economist says we should respect a woman's choice, but is this why there's a shortage of women on the boards of big companies...I don't buy it. And neither does Marissa Wesely...a board member of DirectWomen, who advocates for a greater number of women on boards. Wesely says it's "myopic" to blame the dearth of women on boards on the demands of children and home. She adds, there's a "multitude of factors" that push women out or discourage them—like lack of mentors or sponsors...[T]he Economist piece doesn't seem to think enough women are up to the job. The solution to getting more women in the pipeline, explains the author, is to make companies "more family-friendly. "So we're back to that: Just make companies "family-friendly" and change the world. That should be a cinch.