Joanne Lipman’s op-ed piece from Saturday’s New York Times, “The Mismeasure of Woman,” comments on the Shriver Report and the reactions following its release. The article concludes that many of the numbers show how women’s gains have stalled, citing the statistics that women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man, that only 15 women run Fortune 500 companies, and, the one we are all familiar with: in 2008, women made up half of law firm associates, but only 18.3 percent of partners.

Lipman also notes that the numbers about women’s representation in the work force are misleading because they do not address current disrespectful attitudes towards women. She finds that this attitude problem is shown in how women are perceived in the media: “The conversation online about women, as about so many other topics, degenerated from silly and snarky to just plain ugly — and it seeped into the mainstream.” She ties this shift in attitude to the aftermath of September 11, when the Iraq war polarized Americans who then turned to the Internet as a forum to sound-off. (Lipman’s take on disrespectful attitudes reminded me of a 2008 article from New York magazine by Amanda Fortini, “The ‘Bitch’ and the ‘Ditz’: How the Year of the Woman reinforced the two most pernicious sexist stereotypes and actually set women back.” It’s almost a year old, but if you haven’t read it and find Lipman’s piece interesting, it is definitely worth reading.)

Lipman offers several ways we can all “help change the conversation” including telling girls to have the confidence to go after what they want, even at the risk of failure or criticism, having a sense of humor, and not being afraid to “be a girl.” This last one is important because, she believes, we could have an advantage in tough times, because we “withstand hardship and pain” and tend to define ourselves more broadly, so that if we are laid off from our jobs, we are “less apt to fall apart.”

What do you think about Lipman’s assessments of current attitudes toward women? What are some ways we might “change the conversation” to ensure respect is part of the dialogue when women are discussed in the media and in our own interactions? 

I don't buy the blame 9-11 thing.  I don't remember 9-11 polarizing America.  I remember it bringing us together, even if just for a short period of time.  The Iraq war kicked off in 2003 and the president was re-elected 18 months later, so I am not so sure that it had the polarizing effect that she claims. She doesn't come right out and say it but she might as well -- she is blaming President Bush, a refrain that is polarizing in itself and over-played by those in the media.  Maybe she should blame the internet or the cable news network format, but 9-11... I just don't see it.  This is what stuck out in the article to me, which is unfortunate because she does make some keen observations and good points but I have to believe the shift can be blamed on somebody/somthing other than President Bush.

The presidential primary and general election and the ways the party operatives attacked the women in the campaigns likely did far more to encourage sexism in the "new" media than any war could have ever done. 

I agree with Peg that Lipman refers to the aftermath of September 11th's terrorist attacks as a proxy for President Bush and his policies in general. I also agree with Peg in being skeptical that those policies negatively impacted the treatment of women, particularly professional women, in media and business.

While I was personally opposed to most of those policies, I do think the role women have played overseas as a result of The War on Terror (diplomatically, militarily, as aid workers, and as reporters) has been important in showing how strong, competent, and important women are to our country's continued success.

I also think we were all just as "divided" in the Clinton years. 9/11 was a rare and fleeting moment of togetherness. The Bush II years look divisive in comparison to that alone, but not to the history immediately preceding the attacks.