The SheEO Blog

Let’s boycott Facebook this Valentines Day! Facebook shuns women on its Board

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Do you heart Facebook? Many women do it seems – with 58 per cent of its users being women. That’s no small number when you consider the 800million users on Facebook. Read More

Comments (11) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Comments

Catherine H commented on 07-Feb-2012 06:17 PM

Hi Jen, That is astounding. Would you consider writing to them and offering your services (for an appropriate fee)?

Heidi Alexandra Pollard commented on 07-Feb-2012 06:38 PM

What a shocker - it amazes me that in 2012 this still is the reality in so many companies. Women lets drag them out of the industrialised century and into the modern world!

Steven O commented on 07-Feb-2012 06:44 PM

The guy is sheltered at 32 - as he has only collaborated with males for projects, this will not change. He is also foreward thinking and realises this, but has succeeded with the current status quo. An better alternative for a stronger feminine presence
on the board will be with LinkedIn over the long run - in todsys terms - 1 year

Helen Robinett commented on 07-Feb-2012 08:56 PM

I've just shared your blog link to my 1200 friends on facebook. let's see how long it takes before my post is deleted .......

TheSheEO commented on 07-Feb-2012 09:54 PM

Hey Helen - would they REALLY delete a post on Facebook? Is that ethical? Steven O - I think you're right - I believe LinkedIn currently has one female director - is that right? Jen

Alison commented on 08-Feb-2012 09:26 AM

Social media is so all-consuming these days, I think we need to use Facebook to fight Facebook. Better to start a conversation among 800 million users as to why the maker of their beloved product has no women on its board. Enough comments and it's bound
to get noticed. And good timing when Facebook is about to go public. I think these are the types of guys that have been afraid of women all their lives. Time to show them that they can't hide behind a computer screen any more.

Babette commented on 08-Feb-2012 10:19 AM

Good one Jen. Thanks for raising this one as well.

TheSheEO commented on 10-Feb-2012 11:16 AM

Alison you are right - I need to figure out Facebook quick smart to get it up there... bear with me I have a call out to the Social Rabbit!! Thanks to everyone for your suggestions, let's see where we can go with this...

Steve F. commented on 14-Feb-2012 08:57 AM

I know many women for whom the composition of Facebook's board won't make a difference. I quit FB months ago because of their moral (ethical) ambiguity but 800,000,000 or more obviously couldn't care less. The question isn't whether Zuckerberg and his
minions give a damn about anyone (obviously they don't, as long as they're making money). The question is, "How do you get everyone - not just women - to stop being sheep?"

Andy commented on 14-Feb-2012 09:05 AM

I may be mistaken, but Facebook seems to be going pretty strong under the guidance of Zuckerberg. I'd be keen to hear your thoughts on the decision making process that he went through, as you were clearly present when the board was selected to be able
to comment with such impunity. Who cares about who is best for the job. Just chuck a woman in there! And why stop there? There probably aren't any Africans or transgenders, nor homosexuals. Heck, let's just put a poll up on Facebook and let the people decide...

TheSheEO commented on 23-Feb-2012 07:36 AM

That's an interesting perspective, Steve, from someone who's been on the inside of the company culture. It's just a shame - with a young organisation like Facebook it was a real chance to create the kind of organisation today's workforce is looking for...
As to users and sheepish behaviour - who knows? It seems most users are more concerned when their favorite Facebook feature is altered than the profile of leadership, that's for sure.

Would you like to see Tony Abbott as PM? Why do majority of women polled say "no thanks"?

Thursday, February 02, 2012

I don't usually write about politics... but I'm fascinated by the NewsPoll opinion results that confirm women are still not warming to Tony Abbott. More than that, their satisfaction with him as opposition leader is in decline, and 42% of women prefer the idea of Julia Gillard as Prime Minister rather than Mr Rabbit (as the PM refers to him).... Read More

Comments (9) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Comments

best not say commented on 02-Feb-2012 07:43 PM

We don't trust Abbott because he is an attack dog who only criticises (barks) but doesn't come up with any worthwhile solutions (just barks more). We have come across one too many men like that and we are looking for someone with a bit more substance,
and more intelligent, considered and enlightened argument - even if we don't agree with it! That might explain why women prefer MT and get grossly tired of Mr Abbott's false "I'm just a normal Aussie bloke" whiny cheap personal attacks. There's nothing remotely
clever about that!

me too commented on 02-Feb-2012 10:07 PM

I tend to agree with Best Not Say... what is with the negativity? Is that just the job of opposition? I just don't remember Rudd, Crean, Beasley et al in Labor camp being such 'no men' when in opposition...

Em commented on 04-Feb-2012 04:21 PM

It's funny isn't it ... all the conversations I have about politics at the moment centre around the 'Why dont we form the 'I've lost faith in labour but could never vote for Tony Abbott' party. I'd join for sure.

Me neither commented on 07-Feb-2012 07:17 PM

Tony Abbott is a Rhodes Scholar. This is not only serious intellect but outstanding sports ability. His wife is not a "stay at home wife". She runs a local pre-school and by all accounts is a strong and independent minded woman. In any case, this comment
is a nasty put-down to women who choose, or who have the luxury of being able, to stay at home to raise their children. I wish. He has 3 strong, intelligent and independent daughters. Role models for young women everywhere. Why do people create a fantasy,
and then criticise him for their own fantasies? He has strong morals which are sorely lacking in our public life. At least you know where he stands. He's not in government, he's in opposition; it's not his job to guide the government. There's more media attention
on the opposition than on the government - the ABC particularly is obsesses with Tony Abbott. I'd love to hear from a psychologist about this.

TheSheEO commented on 07-Feb-2012 10:02 PM

Interesting posts here... Perhaps you're right @MeNeither - a psychologist may be able to shed some light. I will put the word out and see what I can come up with... Jen

Kasey commented on 08-Feb-2012 11:36 AM

I dont believe he's highly moral at all. By all accounts hes a womaniser. Hes extremely good at suppressing information he doesn't want the public to see. His underhanded comments about women, the disabled and anyone not seen as 'productive' to his cause
should alert you to the real views he possesses. I dont bother listening to his scripted crap. You know hes a great actor. The candid stuff says a lot about what he's really about. I'm a strong believer in separating religion and state, he however is not.
We are too multi cultural to ever have a leader who cant separate these aspects and those who suffer at the hands of the church will suffer at the hands of the government if thats the case... Yes, the government has made mistakes but better the devil you know...

Me neither commented on 08-Feb-2012 03:45 PM

This is crazy. The church and state were separated in this country over 100 years ago in the Australian constitution and he can't change the constitution. In the state of NSW, as far back as the 1820s, the decision was made that there would be no established
church, which is still the case. Last night the media made a great fuss about Kevin Rudd being in church for the commencement of the parliamentary year. Does that bother Kasey? If Abbott is a womaniser, which I doubt, then that puts him in the grand tradition
of former Labor party prime ministers, eg, Bob Hawke. Keating might have been if his preferences didn't lie elsewhere. At least we know Gough Whitlam didn't womanise but there again he was in love with himself. It's a pity that children aren't taught in school
about our system of government, and the 1000 years of bloody wars that brought it about, and how free we are compared to the rest of the world. It's a pity, also, that more people don't step back to more objectively consider issues related to the government.
Seems like celebrity worship is alive and growing; the ability to analyse policy, justice and our comparative national advantages is shrinking. All those migrants are coming for a reason and it's not because we are oppressed.

Sue commented on 09-Feb-2012 10:15 PM

Well done ‘Me neither’ it would be wonderful if some proper analysis was made rather than Kasey’s spreading a rumour which is just plain dangerous and in many ways dishonest. (When does he get the time and energy anyway?) If this was published in a newspaper
rather than the website then you could be sued for defamation. These underhand comments such as those women’s magazines rallying against Abbott in speedos (the uniform of lifesavers which he is) yet Ian Thorpe can pose in speedos and that’s OK. Likewise Hugh
Jackman photographed bare chested. Abbott is a member of the local bushfire brigade, another worthy community voluntary organization as are lifesavers. I assume his cycling is used not only for exercise but also to clear his head as well as such events as
the ‘Pollie Pedal’, a funding and awareness raising event for various causes (started in 1998 by Tony Abbott.) In Australia we are supposed to have religious freedom/tolerance but it seems as long as it’s not Christian and definitely not Catholic, it is acceptable.
It would be informative if some of the comments came after more thoughtful research such as how Margaret Thatcher was hounded even before she was PM by the Unions and Labour Party in the UK in 1971 when she faced cries of "Ditch the Bitch" and "Margaret Thatcher
– Milk Snatcher"’ and the availability still of a 1983 Labour 'Ditch the Witch' Campaign poster see: http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/1983-labour-ditch-witch-campaign-168631560

TheSheEO commented on 10-Feb-2012 11:06 AM

OK I'm just getting concerned with some of the comments being posted here... don't want to get hit with a defamation suit!! So Kasey I'm going to edit a couple of sentences out of your post. We get the gist of what you're saying, please don't add it back!
Cheers, Jen :-)

Social and community services workers receive payrise under equal pay order by Fair Work Australia

Thursday, February 02, 2012

In a landmark case for closing the gender pay gap, the Full Bench of Fair Work Australia yesterday agreed to make an equal remuneration order under section 302 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). What this effectively means is that there will be an increase of up to 41% in the Award pay rates for employees in the social and community services industry – roles predominantly held by women – as compared with other public servant roles. Read More

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Davos ponders quotas to increase female participation, while fewer than one in five participants this year were women

Thursday, February 02, 2012

I received this article from Carol Schwartz of the Women’s Leadership Institute of Australia… So it turns out only 17% of Davos participants this year were women, despite a new quota system demanding that the largest members send one woman for every four men. Read More

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

I'm a sole trader - am I elibible for the Government's parental leave scheme, and what is the income threshold?

Monday, January 23, 2012

Hi Jen! My husband and I are thinking about starting a family, and I'm wondering whether we can afford it! As a business owner, am I eligible to participate in the Government funded paid parental leave scheme? My business is a sole trader structure - do I need to change it to an incorporated company? And is the income threshold based on my income, or our combined household income? Help!! Louise Read More

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Do 90 percent of women still change their name on marriage?

Monday, January 23, 2012

In this post on Hoopla today, Lisa Linton shared her experiences in being a married woman who has retained her maiden name. As someone who has done the same (for many of the usual reasons mentioned in her article), it was bound to get my attention. But it was the comment that "that (there) is this unspoken pressure (whether we put it on ourselves or not) that prompts 90 percent of marrying women to change their name to their husband’s..." Linton reckons that "while we strive for equality in the workplace and kitchen, it seems the last thing to change is this archaic tradition." Read More

Comments (8) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Comments

Anonymous commented on 23-Jan-2012 07:55 PM

I thought the "progression" would have been that we can now choose...you are assuming that we would choose to keep the also patriachal title carried down from the male parent...seems just as archaic AND NO LESS LIBERATING!

Helen Wiseman commented on 23-Jan-2012 08:01 PM

At the age of 23 I got married and went with tradition. I changed my maiden name to my married name of Wiseman. I liked the new name although it took me a few months for the surname to feel a part of me. I would not have dreamt of keeping my maiden name
- it was just not the done thing and it seemed unromantic to not change my name. I used to enjoy practicing writing my new name before our wedding day! (hey, the Princess Diana style of romantic wedding was still in vogue back then). Well, seven years later
the divorce was finalised but although it didn't work out, my first husband was (and is) a fantastic man, a really beautiful person. We had many happy times, we shared many years together - I have always felt that these memories and what he brought to my life
were and continue to be worth honouring many years on. So I kept my married name. Although a secondary reason at that time, I was also busy growing my career and it was too much hassle to change it. Along came husband number 2 - this time I was 35 years old
and life was even more complicated still. It was simply too much hassle to change my surname again, and my first married name of Wiseman is what everyone knows me by professionally. I didn't keep my surname for feminist reasons, purely practical reasons. Luckily
my wonderful husband is a practical chappy himself and he never asked that I change my surname to his - too busy on his own stuff and more important things in life to worry about. But if he had felt that it was important to him to change my name, I would have
changed it. I would still change it now if he has an epiphany one day and decides after ten years of marriage that this is something that really matters to him. I would do this purely out of respect and love for him and not because of any kind of sense of
marital duty! As you can tell, I am not too attached to surnames (unless it was something really awful - my husband has a nice surname). Whilst I have strong views about the advancement of women, women having a seat at the table etc I believe that what surname
you decide to go with is a matter of personal choice and that there is a role for tradition if that is what you like. Of course, some women feel a pressure to change their surname when they don't want to - all I can do is share my experience. I am lucky that
I have never had an issue or challenge (that I am aware of) regarding my choice to keep my first married name whilst being married to hubby number 2. People see that we are comfortable with it and happy and it really does not concern me what people think of
it other than hubby. Notwithstanding that the decision to retain married surname number 1 was primarily driven from practicality, I do like the fact that I have retained something "tangible" from marriage number 1 as a way of honouring the man with whom I
shared twelve years of my adult life.

The SheEO commented on 23-Jan-2012 08:07 PM

Hi Anon no I'm not assuming anything. Though it's still more common for a child to take it's father's name in Australia, I do have friends where that's not the case, so I wouldn't assume. In my situation, I decided that if my child was a boy he would take
his father's surname; if it was a girl she would take mine. It was a boy - so he has his father's surname, and my surname as a middle name. Like I said, just curious.

The SheEO commented on 23-Jan-2012 08:11 PM

That's really interesting Helen, thanks for your comment. After all these years, I didn't know the story, and it's just so "you"! I remember my first marriage, I had discussed at length with my first husband that I would be keeping my name. After the marriage
(and before the divorce!) he went nuts - claiming he thought I meant I'd take his name as well as... so to keep the peace I hyphernated. It made it somewhat easier to drop his name off and just get back to mine after the divorce - but with very different circumstances
to yours, it still irks me that my early degree and professional qualifications were in that name... oh well, c'est la vie...

Melissa Watts commented on 24-Jan-2012 09:10 AM

This is a great article. I'm currently pregnant with my first child and my partner and I have chosen (about 5 years ago) not to get married. Thus I have never had the changing name issue. However we do have the issue of choosing a surname for our child.
My partner would like our children to have my surname, he feels awkward about the usual approach of them taking his surname purely because it's tradition. I don't mind them taking his surname, they have to have one so his is as good as any. I don't mind having
a different surname to my children (some women have suggested that's a good enough reason to get married and change my name.) I think regardless of the surname our children will be smart enough to work out who their parents are. I never realised how much of
an issue it was until now, people are naturally referring to my partner as my husband because I'm pregnant, and I'm constantly being asked about surnames.

Nikki White commented on 24-Jan-2012 09:50 AM

Hmmm I'm in the same boat as Helen... White is my married name to my ex-husband and it was just who I had become plus I liked the sound of it, it gave me the same surname as my kids and frankly once divorced I didn't care enough to change it. Besides the
fact that I wouldn't dream of going back to my maiden name. Now wedding discussions are happening with new man and I have been stuck in the dilemma of what to do. I have decided to go with another change... though it has been a big decision. I was concerned
about my brand that I had built based on my name however the reason for my decision is that I think it will be a good energy shift... base my name around love and not anger & resentment plus it's a good excuse to contact all my customers once the change occurs
:) Stay tuned for the re-brand!!

AW commented on 24-Jan-2012 10:13 AM

This debate seems to come up periodically, more so in the last few years I think. I got married 5 years ago and changed my name for three reasons. 1. I didn't really like my maiden name, anyway; 2. My father and I work in the same field and he is very
well known, so I was pleased to be able to forge my own path; 3. Coming from divorced parents, I was keen to have a symbolic sense of family to reflect the actual family we were creating. I think people are very keen to reinforce conformity to social norms.
In the end, though, it should be no one's business but your own. My mum always had a different name to me and it never occurred to me that it should be an issue. It didn't make her any less my mum! Ultimately, there are just more important issues in the world.
We need to stop trying to control women and focus on the stuff that matters!

The SheEO commented on 24-Jan-2012 01:59 PM

Melissa your post is really interesting - I'm going to be interested to find out what you end up going with for the bub's name... You could be like Anna Bligh and her (now) husband... I remember reading they were together for something like 20 years before
they eventually got married (quite recently) and as they weren't married when they had their kids (and I think never expected that they would marry) they decided that they preferred a completely neutral surname to either one of their own... so that's what
they did!

Three cheers for the 2012 finalists in the Veuve Clicquot Business Woman Award - here's the list!

Monday, January 23, 2012

The judges of the Veuve Clicquot Business Woman Award today announced a stellar lineup in the Australian shortlist for the 2012 award.... I'm sure you'll agree it's going to be tough to choose just one winner amongst these entrepreneurs who span sectors ranging from fashion to food to industrial products. The finalists are: Read More

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

The changing face of leadership - an infographic on leadership styles

Thursday, January 19, 2012

According to this nifty infographic from Careerbuilder.com, 63% of senior management wear business casual to work, 51% of women in senior leadership roles wear black to work (compared to 18% of men) and senior leaders are more like to drive SUVs to work than any other vehicle... and 57% of women senior leaders bring their lunch from home compared with 36% of men. Agree or disagree? Any surprises? Read More

Comments (1) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Thinking of hosting an event for International Women's Day? Like $5,000 to put towards it?

Thursday, January 19, 2012

If you haven't already heard the news, Commonwealth Bank's Women in Focus has a competition running to win $5,000 towards hosting your own International Women's Day event. I've taken three calls already about IWD2012 - and so if you're thinking of organising an event it's definitely time to start working on it now. Read More

Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Do you have a good article on how gender diverse boards are more successful (or their companies?) I need some empirical evidence about this…

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Hi Jen, do you have a good article on how gender diverse boards are more successful (or their companies?) I’d love to share some empirical evidence about this with a client of my firm. M. Read More

Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

SIGN UP TO RECEIVE NEWS & UPDATES DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX

Latest Posts

Let’s boycott Facebook this Valentines Day! Facebook shuns women on its Board

Comments

Post a Comment

Would you like to see Tony Abbott as PM? Why do majority of women polled say "no thanks"?

Comments

Post a Comment

Social and community services workers receive payrise under equal pay order by Fair Work Australia

Comments

Post a Comment

Davos ponders quotas to increase female participation, while fewer than one in five participants this year were women

Comments

Post a Comment

I'm a sole trader - am I elibible for the Government's parental leave scheme, and what is the income threshold?

Comments

Post a Comment

Do 90 percent of women still change their name on marriage?

Comments

Post a Comment

Three cheers for the 2012 finalists in the Veuve Clicquot Business Woman Award - here's the list!

Comments

Post a Comment

The changing face of leadership - an infographic on leadership styles

Comments

Post a Comment

Thinking of hosting an event for International Women's Day? Like $5,000 to put towards it?

Comments

Post a Comment

Do you have a good article on how gender diverse boards are more successful (or their companies?) I need some empirical evidence about this…

Comments

Post a Comment