Barbara & Shannon Kelley look at women who opt out of the mommy track and instead work for themselves.
From the Huffington Post:
I came across an interesting study the other day that found that when it comes to independent work -- freelancing, consulting, you name it -- those indie workers are more likely to be women. According toMBO Partners' Independent Workforce Index, some 8.5 million women are choosing to fly solo when it comes to work, making up 53 percent of all independent workers.
It's all about work life balance and career satisfaction, the study found, adding that many of the women they surveyed are finding their choice to go it alone more rewarding than traditional work.
Sounds quite dreamy, doesn't it?
But when you look beyond the numbers, you realize there's more involved here than the entrepreneurial spirit or the freedom to go to work in your jammies -- which, when you come right down to it, really isn't all that dreamy. One reason for the growing number of women saying "oh, phooey" to the land of nine-to-five may speak to something beyond career satisfaction, and that's the workplace itself, which still skews a little Mad Men, where, for every Don behind the desk, there's a Betty at home to take care of business. (Okay, Betty's been replaced, but you get my point.)
This is especially true for women with kids. Back when we were doing research and reporting for ourbook, we came across a relevant study by Joan Williams, who's a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law and director of the Hastings Center for WorkLife Law. Her report, The Three Faces of Work-Family Conflict, authored with the Center for American Progress, found that women with families were often marginalized or even pushed out when their jobs demanded 24/7 availability or when "full time" meant fifty hours a week or more.
The Christian Post reports on a Penn State study that finds a correlation between the number of Wal-Mart stores and the number of hate groups in a given area, and on the reaction to the study by Concerned Women for America.
The president and CEO of a national women's organization expressed her outrage this week over a study from Penn State University which indicates that the existence of hate groups in a particular county is correlated to the number of Wal-Mart stores.
Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, expressed her anger with the study in an article titled "Elitism of the Left," which appeared on her organization's website on Monday.
"Penn State must have had to do amazing mathematical gymnastics to correlate that the hard-working families who shop at Wal-Mart are members of hate groups," wrote Nance. "But that's the trouble with leftist elites. They hold fast to their egotism and preconceived notions, dismissing everyone who opposes their ideologies as ignorant and bigoted."
The study, titled "Social Capital, Religion, Wal-Mart, and Hate Groups in America," appeared in the April edition of Social Science Quarterly and was conducted by Stephan J. Goetz of Penn State University, Anil Rupasingha of New Mexico State University and Scott Loveridge of Michigan State. The hate group statistics used in the study came from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a Mongtomery, Ala.-based civil rights organization.
Goetz, a professor of agricultural and regional economics, told The Christian Post on Thursday that Nance was wrong about the study in that it doesn't associate any particular demographic with hate groups.
Three essays in favor and three opposed from the U.S. News and World Report Debate Club
From U. S. News & World Report:
After battles over the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and the mandate by President Obama’s healthcare law that religious institutions cover contraceptives for employees, another storm is brewing in Washington over women-oriented issues. The Senate is expected to call a vote in the coming weeks on the Paycheck Fairness Act, an update on 1963’s Equal Pay Act, which made wage discrimination based on one’s sex illegal. With a reported 77 cents to the dollar pay gap between women and men, respectively, persisting nearly five decades later, the Paycheck Fairness Act is designed to help those who believe they are victims of gender-based wage discrimination by making wages more transparent, by requiring that employers prove that wage discrepancies are tied to legitimate business qualifications and not gender, and by prohibiting companies from taking retaliatory action against employees who raise concerns about gender-based wage discrimination. The bill, supported by the Obama administration, was passed by the House in January 2009 only to be stalled in the Senate in November 2010, and was reintroduced in both chambers in April 2011. Democratic National Committee Chair and Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz recently urged presumed GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney to take a stand on the bill, bringing it back into the political limelight and putting the pressure on Senate Dems to prioritize a vote on the legislation.
Proponents say that more must be done to close the pay gap between men and women, particularly with much greater participation by women in the workforce since the Equal Pay Act became law. Opponents say that the proposed new law misdiagnoses the problem, questioning the data cited by its supporters, and would unfairly harm small businesses as the economic recovery struggles to pick up steam. Should the Senate pass the Paycheck Fairness Act? Here is the Debate Club’s take.
With a growing need for family-friendly workplace policies, a new study commissioned by the National Partnership for Women & Families, with support from the Rockefeller Foundation, concludes that providing paid family leave to workers leads to positive economic outcomes for working families, businesses and the public.
The research, conducted by the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, finds that women who use paid leave are far more likely to be working nine to 12 months after a child’s birth than those who do not take any leave.
HR 4160, or the State Health Flexibility Act, introduced by Congressman Todd Rokita (R-Ind) and now added to the Republican budget plan, would force states to halt programs that provide funding for abortions for low-income women.
A bill introduced by Congressman Todd Rokita (R-Ind) would force states to halt programs that provide funding for abortions for low-income women. The bill, HR 4160 (PDF)or the State Health Flexibility Act, was introduced in March and has been added to the Republican budget plan. The bill would move Medicaid to a block grant model in which states are given blocks of money and can individually structure their low-income healthcare plans. Although the Hyde Amendment has prohibited federal funding of abortion since 1976, 17 states have programs that use state money to cover abortions for low income women as part of their Medicaid plans. HR 4160 would make this practice illegal.
Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert at George Washington University, says the bill "would block the only avenue left to states that wish to make safe and legal abortions accessible to low income women." Judy Waxman of the National Women's Law Center says the bill "would be a significant change from how current law operates today."
Postsecondary education yields myriad benefits, including increased earnings potential, higher lifetime wages, and access to quality jobs. But postsecondary degrees are not all equalin the benefits they bring to students and women tend to obtain degrees in fields with lower earnings. Women with associate degrees earn approximately 75 percent of what men with associate degrees earn (U.S. Department of Commerce and the Executive Office of the President, 2011). This wage gap occurs in part because women with AA degrees—like women at all degree levels—often work in lower-paid, female-dominated occupations (Hegewisch, et al. 2010).
by Layla Moughari, Rhiana Gunn-Wright, Barbara Gault, Ph.D. (May 2012)
As a federal appeals court considers the legality of Texas’ family planning “affiliation regulation,” a new report provides a preliminary assessment of the impact of the Texas rule on preventive care access by low-income women.
“An Early Assessment of the Potential Impact of Texas’ “Affiliation” Regulation on Access to Care for Low-income Women,” released by the Geiger Gibson/RCHN Community Health Foundation Research Collaborative, reports on the impact of Texas’ “affiliation rule” on access to cancer screening, preventive health care, and family planning services by low-income women.
The Barclays Female Client Group, now in its second year, has launched a White Paper entitled: Understanding the Female Economy: The Role of Gender in Financial Decision Making and Succession Planning for the Next Generation. The findings show important distinctions into how men and women approach financial decisions differently and is the only research of its kind in the market.
The president of Georgetown University cited the importance of Catholic identity in his announcement that student health care plans will not be adjusted to include coverage of birth control.
However, he also indicated that the D.C.-based Jesuit university will continue its practice of offering such coverage to employees.
In an April 26 email to the university community, President John J. DeGioia said that after “thoughtful and careful consideration,” the administration has decided to “continue our current practice for contraceptive coverage in our student health insurance for the coming year.”
DeGioia also said the university will not change its approach to contraceptive coverage for employees in 2013.
Georgetown’s current student health plan does not cover birth control for contraceptive purposes. But according to the National Women’s Law Center, employees of the university can choose between multiple plans, including some that include birth control coverage.