Here's A Shock for Women
By LYSIANE GAGNON
The next generation of Quebec women might face a difficult love life. According to the September figures on student enrolment unearthed by La Presse reporter Andre Noel, in a few years the province will be filled With high-paid, ambitious, professional women. Across the dance floor will be a large group of losers -- uneducated men stuck in small, low-paying jobs.
More and more women -- and fewer and fewer men -- enroll in universities. In 1991, 57 per cent of the students at Universite Laval in Quebec City were female. By 1996, the proportion was up to 60 per cent; now it is 63 per.
This fall, the Universite de Montreal has twice as many female students as male. Women make up 80 per cent of the medical school's student body. The same imbalance can be found in most departments, including dental, veterinarian and law school. Most criminals are male, but when they're brought into court, they'll be surrounded by female lawyers and judges and observed by female criminologists and psychologists. The only areas where male students remain predominant are science, math and business; but Even there, the gap is shortening.
The good news is that women are becoming more educated. The bad news is that the proportion of men with university degrees is decreasing every year.
What is especially distressing is that the trend is even stronger in younger cohorts. In the CEGEPs (the community colleges that are compulsory for university entry), 57.5 per cent of the 64,000 newly enrolled students are female. The gap is especially wide in the programs that lead to university; there, women form a 60-per-cent majority. Even in the three-year technical programs with direct links to the job market, the student body is 56 per cent female.
And women are much more successful. Three out of four female students receive their college diploma, while almost 40 per cent of the male students drop out or fail the exams.
More than half of 17-year-old females -- but only a third of male teenagers -- enroll in a CEGEP. One reason is that boys drop out of high school. The phenomenon is not new, but it's getting more serious.
"So these 16-year-old boys leave school, find a small job and make enough money to buy a car," says Denis Marceau, academic vice-president at the Universite de Sherbrooke. "For a while, they think life is great. It's only later that they realize that you can't do much without a degree."
This is not the kind of world that '60s feminists dreamed of. The idea was to develop a balanced society, where men and women would equally share power and responsibilities, both at home and at work. Instead, what's developing looks like a complete reversal of the old order, with women gaining full power over men -- something that only radical, man-hating feminists used to wish for. (This also is an eerie reminder of a very distant past, when French Canadian women used to be slightly more educated than men -- at Least they would know how to read and write. Young women often were grade-school teachers, while men were woodcutters or farmers, jobs that didn't require reading skills.)
One wonders where these future high-profile women will find their mate, in a society where well-off, educated men will be a smaller minority than they are today. Will female doctors and corporate lawyers happily settle down with male nurses and mall clerks?
MOST POWERFUL WOMEN IN BUSINESS
Arm candy? Are you kidding? While their fast-track wives go to work, stay-at-home husbands mind the kids. They deserve a trophy for trading places.
By Betsy Morris
Friday, September 27, 2002
When Anne Stevens wakes up at 4:15 a.m. to exercise, her husband, Bill, makes coffee and breakfast for her. She leaves the house at 6:15, heading for the firing line of Ford Motor's turnaround effort. As head of North American vehicle operations, she is under severe pressure to reduce costs and raise quality at the 29 manufacturing plants in her division. While she's doing battle, Bill is home tending the gardens, running errands, managing the social calendar, planning the weekend, and playing golf. When Anne gets home, Bill is waiting. Okay, not with her slippers and newspaper and pipe. But he does have dinner on the table. He's capable of a killer beef Wellington, though on weeknights he keeps things simple, with chicken or pasta salad. Although he'd love some scintillating conversation, he usually lets Anne flop in front of Wheel of Fortune or Jeopardy! and fall asleep. "We have a good arrangement," says Bill. "Anne works her tail off during the week. The weekends are our time.... I am the domestic executive assistant."
This may seem like an unusual situation-except that a similar day begins at Dawn Lepore's house outside San Francisco. As she dries her hair, husband Ken brings her a cup of coffee and asks if she'd like a banana. Then Ken fixes breakfast for 4-year-old Andrew and gives 5-month-old Elizabeth a bottle. Andrew blows his mom a kiss as she leaves for her job as vice chairman of Charles Schwab.
At the Dublon household in New York's Westchester County, it has always been husband Giora who packed the lunches and took the kids to school. Wife Dina, the CFO of J.P. Morgan Chase, is the spouse who handles tough questions from Wall Street about the bank's exposure to Enron. "My dad has always been my mom," says their 16-year-old son, Gershon, with pride. "He keeps a pretty good house."
Remember that adage, Behind every great man is a great woman? Well, forget it. As corporate women continue their climb up the ladder, the reverse is increasingly true. At Ford, Xerox, Sun, Schwab, Verizon, J.P. Morgan Chase, Coca-Cola-almost everywhere you look in the upper ranks of the FORTUNE 500-it could be the woman wearing the pants and the man minding hearth and home. Call him what you will: househusband, stay-at-home dad, domestic engineer. But credit him with setting aside his own career by dropping out, retiring early, or going part-time so that his wife's career might flourish and their family might thrive. Behind a great woman at work, there is often a great man at home. He is the new trophy husband.
Thirteen years ago, Fortune wrote about trophy wives: the young, glamorous, second (or third) wives of prominent CEOs. Their only job was to lunch, party, conspicuously consume, and keep their husbands off Viagra. The men we're talking about carpool the kids, coach the soccer team, pay the bills, pick up the dry cleaning, and fix dinner. Talk about trophy! These guys may be every working woman's definition of trophy.
Nobody has measured how widespread this phenomenon is among well-educated, high-salaried couples. But there is clearly a dramatic shift afoot. When FORTUNE attempted this story five years ago, we had to give up. It was hard to find examples and even harder to get anyone to talk publicly about their choices. Everyone was in the closet. Now, says Doreen Toben, CFO at Verizon, "almost all the senior women [here] have husbands at home." So do many women at Sun Microsystems. Of the 187 participants at FORTUNE's Most Powerful Women in Business Summit last spring, 30% had househusbands. And of the 50 women on this year's list, more than one-third have a husband at home either full- or part-time.
Some would rather discuss their quarterly numbers than their at-home husbands. Anne Mulcahy, who told FORTUNE last year that her retired husband, Joe, helped make it possible for her to do her job as chairman and CEO of Xerox, declined to participate. So did Carly Fiorina, chairman and CEO of Hewlett-Packard. She is very protective of her husband and would say only that "Frank has been a huge source of support. He had a very successful career and has lots of interests outside of me and my career. He has been a rock for me; I am tremendously lucky. To describe him as a stay-at-home husband is not fair to him." Frank Fiorina took early retirement in 1998 as a vice president of AT&T's corporate business unit.
But among the most powerful women- and many other high-level women-this is a red-hot topic. They gossip about it. They marvel at it. They compare notes. They know which colleagues have husbands at home and which do not. They know which are married to doctors: Shelly Lazarus and Meg Whitman. (Doctors travel infrequently and can often set their own hours.) They are envious of women whose husbands have retired. Most of all they debate, How important is it to have a man at home helping you get to the top? Very important, says Dina Dublon. "My spouse would say that I probably have enough drive and ambition that I would have done this even if he weren't there," she says. "But there is no doubt in my mind that the extent to which I can do this is because of his willingness to be at home."
So maybe it's not only a glass ceiling that has kept so few women from reaching the upper tier of corporate America; only 6% of the FORTUNE 500's very top jobs-senior vice president and above-are held by women, according to Catalyst. Maybe it's that not enough of them have the luxury most of their male counterparts have had forever: a spouse at home. A year ago, when Catalyst asked 3,000 women in their mid-20s to mid-30s to name the biggest barriers to women's advancement, 68% cited personal and family responsibilities. That compares with 50% who blamed lack of mentoring, 46% who said lack of experience, and just 45% who cited stereotyping of women's roles and abilities. "A precondition to having more women in positions of power is to have more sharing in the burdens of parenthood," says Dublon. "It is crucial."
Nobody says it's easy. For all the progress women have made in the workforce-and men have made in accepting them there-many people of both sexes are uncomfortable with the outright reversal of gender roles. There is a price to pay for living a life that so defies convention. Women must adjust to the burden men have carried all along: the responsibility of being the primary (or sole) breadwinner. They give up not only precious time with their children but often intimacy too. Even as they struggle with that loss, they get a bad rap: They are bad mothers.
It's even more difficult for men. They get the cold shoulder at the playground and the PTA. They must deal with their own demons as they knock around an empty house. They are always suspect. Everyone wants to know what's wrong with them. Were they fired? Are they losers? If they have nannies-a few of the men we interviewed did; most did not- they are presumed to be freeloaders, members of the leisure class, even when the nanny is enabling them to sneak in some part-time work. All those annoying but familiar two-career tensions-who stays late at the office, whose turn it is to travel-are supplanted by a strange new set of conversations. Is the kitchen your domain or mine? How much TV is too much for the kids? How much mold in the fridge before it's okay to complain? "I feel like we are in uncharted waters almost every day," says one executive who wanted to speak for the record but whose husband did not. "There is a [lot of money] for a therapist in some of these relationships."
That's why even Sheila Wellington, the president of Catalyst, believes there will never be a large number of households with go-to-work wives and stay-at-home husbands. "Values have changed, and all kinds of options have opened up," she says. "Will there ever be a revolution in this area? I doubt it. Some things are hard-wired into a society." We also won't see more men at home for the same reason we see fewer women there: Many families need two incomes.
Still, as a critical mass of corporate couples get further up the ladder, some are finding it's just too hard on their children to continue the dual-career high-wire act. Ursula Burns, an SVP at Xerox, says more and more women are wrestling with gender roles as high-powered jobs come within their reach. Anne Stevens says she knows of at least 20 women in her division at Ford whose husbands are home. At Coca-Cola, Madeline Hamill, vice president of worldwide strategic planning, says women come to her seeking advice. Will her arrangement work for them? (Her husband Paul quit work five years ago to stay home with their twins, now 10.)
These women are not who you think they are. Yes, they are tough and ambitious and competitive. But they are not ball-busters. And their husbands are not wimps. They are physicists, lawyers, engineers, marketing executives, and Navy pilots. These couples usually started out in even-steven, dual-career marriages. Most never imagined such role reversal; in fact, many of the women assumed their careers would take a back seat to their husbands'. "There was nothing in our setup that was in any way unconventional," says Dina Dublon. Twenty-five years ago she came to the U.S. from Israel as "the wife of" her physicist husband, who had a fellowship at Harvard. She took a leave of absence from her job in Israel and decided to pursue an MBA only out of boredom. "I had come to the States following my husband's career," she says.
Sarah Fitts, 38, a partner at New York City law firm Debevoise & Plimpton, had planned to do the same. After her husband, Robert, 36, received his Ph.D. from Brown, she figured she would follow him to a college town where he would teach and she'd "hang a shingle and do house closings." Kathleen Holmgren's career was also eclipsed by her husband's. After she and Bob both graduated with honors in industrial engineering, they earned MBAs, he from Berkeley, she from Stanford. Bob got the blue-chip job-in brand management at Clorox-while Kathleen, a high school homecoming queen, went to a little company nobody had heard of: Sun Microsystems.
As they all pursued their careers, society was changing. Marriage became more of a partnership. Women's work gained approval. Husbands began doing more chores around the house-9.5 hours in 1995, vs. 4.7 in 1965, according to John Robinson, a time-use expert at the University of Maryland. They also became more involved with their children; in a true sign of the times, Koala, the company that makes diaper-changing tables for public bathrooms, says its products are now as likely to be found in men's rooms as in ladies' rooms. The pay gap between men and women, though still considerable, was narrowing. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women in 2001 earned 76% as much as men, on average, vs. 63% in 1979. Many women began outearning their husbands. In a 1996 Catalyst survey of 461 executive women, 75% earned more than their husbands. Serendipity, timing, and earnings potential influenced the choices of these two-income couples far more than gender.
Giora Dublon was a Ph.D. physicist and a painter. Two years after the Dublons' daughter was born 19 years ago, Giora, 55, gave up physics to paint and spend time with her. "It was a question of who had the potential for greater financial compensation and who had greater interest in pursuing a career," says Dina, 49. "It was a question of making a choice that was not biased by gender about who is interested in doing what, and can we afford it."
By the time Rob Fitts completed a Ph.D. in 1995, his wife was on a fast track to partnership at Debevoise. "It just seemed silly to ask her to go to Potsdam, N.Y., for me to take a poor-paying teaching job," says Fitts, who got a job as an archaeologist. But because Sarah worked grueling hours
-earning a salary that dwarfed his-he left to spend more time with their two young boys; eventually he started a web-based Japanese baseball card business.
A conventional marriage made no sense for Bob and Kathleen Holmgren either. Although his marketing career was thriving, Kathleen, 44, was a true star at Sun, where she had been given founder's stock. (She is now SVP in charge of network storage.) His promotions would have relocated the family and derailed her. Three children later, Bob, also 44, became an at-home dad.
The higher you go in corporate America, the harder it is to keep two high-octane careers on track, especially when you have children. It is not impossible. Nancy Peretsman, a managing director at Allen & Co., does it; her husband, Bob Scully, is a vice chairman of Morgan Stanley. Edmund Toben, the CIO at Colgate, is the husband of Verizon's Doreen Toben. For a long time, Pat and Steve Sueltz managed too. For 20 years both had bigtime careers at IBM, where Steve was a financial VP and Pat a software development VP. They had one daughter in college, another in fourth grade, a newly renovated home, and a great family balance when Pat, 50, got a job offer from Sun three years ago. Steve, 49, encouraged her to take it, saying, "How can we expect our daughters to be all they want to be if their mother isn't all she wants to be?"
When they moved to California, Steve had no trouble finding a finance job at Siebel Systems. "New company. New job. Everything's booming," he says. But Pat was never home during the week, and Steve was rarely home on weekends. "We were losing Kathleen [now in seventh grade]," says Pat. "She was miserable." The Sueltzes spent several months debating what to do. Could one or the other get home earlier? Should one or the other switch jobs? Should Steve become a consultant to give him more flexibility? Ultimately, Steve made the decision to stay home-despite his pedigrees (Phi Beta Kappa at Occidental, Stanford MBA), despite his career success. It was Pat who had gotten the big job. Pat recalls the note Steve received from his mentor Jerry York, the former CFO of IBM. "It said, 'Steve, you are one of the smartest men I know. This is a very brave thing for you to do.' "
The problem is, these guys are stepping into no man's land. Literally. The sorority of soccer moms can be every bit as formidable and exclusionary as the good ol' boys network at work. "I never get invited over to coffee," says Sueltz. "Forget about it. It isn't going to happen." The men get funny looks at Safeway at 10 a.m. Their presence is a disconnect at the PTA. At the playground they hear lots of unsolicited advice. Robert Fitts, the archaeologist, recalls one mother admonishing him because his son wasn't wearing a sweater. "Some of it is truly good-natured, and some of it is very snippy," he says. It has an undercurrent of "Who do you think you are?... You don't belong here." One at-home man finally figured out why his male neighbors treated him with such suspicion. "They thought I was going to steal their wives," he says.
Dennis Gavin, 47, whose wife, Eva Sage-Gavin, 44, is an SVP at Sun, will never forget the knock on his door shortly after they moved to Orange County, Calif. The Welcome Wagon lady wanted to speak to the woman of the house. "Well, you're looking at him," said Gavin, the self-appointed "trailing spouse," who has handled every detail of the couple's six moves and at the time was home with their newborn. "No, seriously," she replied. (Gavin is now back at work managing a law firm.)
"No, seriously" is the common comeback to these unconventional husbands. Everywhere they go, they encounter disbelief, confusion, and wariness. "Are you disabled?" "Are you retired?" people constantly wonder. Anne Garnick, a sales VP at Schwab whose husband stays home with their two daughters, tells about the time another mother rushed up to greet her, saying, "I'm so glad to meet you. I thought you had passed away."
The transition is easier for some than others. Dawn Lepore's husband, Ken, 55, recalls the day his boss at Schwab delivered good news: Dawn, 48, would be promoted. The bad news was that Ken would now be reporting to her, which was against company policy. He had to leave, but he handled it well, since in his heart he knew he was a techie, not a manager. "It was kind of like the Peter Principle," says Ken. "You get promoted up to your inability. Well, there I was. I wasn't doing what I wanted. I wasn't very good at it anyway. It wasn't fun." He took a job at Visa, where he spent 12 hours a day working with computers. When he retired early after son Andrew was born four years ago, the hardest part wasn't giving up a title or a paycheck but the work he loved.
Men usually find it easier to reverse roles if they've firmly established their own careers. Lloyd Bean was a 14-year veteran of Xerox when Ursula Burns arrived at the company. After they married, his wife quickly surpassed him. How did Bean, 63, deal with her rapid ascent? "I was rooting for her," he says. "There's no way you could try to hold somebody like that back." Bean, a respected researcher with a string of patents to his name, retired early last year to spend more time with their two children, 13 and 9, as his wife's duties and travel expanded. "Wherever we go, people know I'm a vice president and he's a scientist," says Burns, 44. "I think the cover here is that he's the brain guy."
Sometimes who stays home is a matter of temperament. Bill Stevens, 57, is more laid-back than Anne, 53; he has a dry sense of humor and a passionate love of golf. As Anne's career took her to New Jersey, Texas, England, and finally to Dearborn, Mich., Bill, also an engineer, was the one who stayed behind so that their two children (now grown) could finish the school year. "I use the Slinky analogy," he laughs. "There goes Anne, here comes Bill." Early in their marriage the Stevenses were very competitive with each other. But at some point, says Bill, "I realized this wasn't a rivalry, it was a partnership." In 1999 he retired. At company parties Bill talks golf with the men and shares household tips with the women. What do they ask about most? "Beef Wellington," he says.
Staying home is harder for men who feel they don't have much choice. Terry Brennan, 54, is a systems engineer who was laid off when his company was acquired last year. His wife, Susan, 40, is a director of manufacturing at Ford who works for Anne Stevens. They have a 3-year-old son and a baby due any day. Since Susan's job requires weekly travel, it made sense for Terry to stay home instead of looking for a job in an ailing industry. He has seen friends move around the country for jobs only to lose them again. He badly wants to do the right thing for his family. Still, staying home is a jolt to his ego. When Susan explains Terry's new role to friends who ask about it, he sometimes won't speak to her for hours. "It's taking a while to adjust to this," he admits. "I've been programmed all my life to be a provider. I'm becoming a domestic god." Terry, who grew up with four brothers, says, "My father still doesn't know a washer from a dryer."
The resolve of even the most committed dads can be sorely tested by young children. They discover what women have known all along: Raising kids is a difficult, often thankless job. Brian Shanahan, 41, wistfully recalls his days at Cummins West, where he was an owner and vice president of the Cummins engine distributor. "Your employees listen to you," says Shanahan, who stays home with Casey, 6, and Riley, 4, while Lauri, 39, works as general counsel at Gap. "These two little girls-they don't work for me. I work for them. I can't fire them." He gets frustrated by his girls' many wardrobe changes as he's trying to hurry them out the door. When they want him to play Barbie, he asks if they can play Barbie with cars.
It should be no surprise that the same things that long drove housewives crazy also plague househusbands: isolation, lack of intellectual stimulation, lack of appreciation. "If you have too much time to think about it, you can eat yourself alive," says Shanahan. He was nearly accosted by a guy at a carwash when the man realized they were fellow stay-at-home dads. "He was so excited he practically jumped out of his skin," says Shanahan. So the men keep busy. Steve Sueltz volunteers at Kathleen's school and at a senior citizen center. Lepore's husband does some consulting and builds websites for his son's school and the family's church.
Just to complete the role reversal, picture this: The women come home from work, and the men-desperate for adult company-want to talk. It's the wives who are too tired. "Sometimes I say, Can we just put a pin in it?" says Anne Stevens, and then Bill knows to save it for the weekend. After her children arrived, Dawn Lepore wanted to spend her weekends away from Schwab hanging out with her family. But after being home all week, her husband was stir-crazy. Now they have a standing date on Saturday nights.
The women have their own adjustments to make. Now they know how it feels to be the only one with a paycheck. "I really had to get my head around that," says Pat Sueltz. "I got nervous." Adds Lauri Shanahan: "I remember feeling, 'Oh, my God. I'm the only one.' I always like having options even if I never exercise them." By far the hardest adjustment for most women is giving up time with their children. Like a lot of traditional fathers, many of these mothers are weekend parents. They are grateful for-but also a little jealous of-the close relationships their husbands have with the kids. "In life we are always making tradeoffs, and to some extent I have made tradeoffs," says Dina Dublon at J.P. Morgan Chase. "I have spent less time with the children. There is an intimacy in the relationship between my daughter and my husband that, in part, is driven by the fact that they have spent more time together. This is some of the price you pay for spending more time away from home. I have made choices and tradeoffs over the last 20 years, and I have at times felt good about it and at times sad about it."
Sometimes, says Lepore, she calls home to see how everybody's doing. Her husband replies, "We're cuddled up watching a video," and she thinks, "I'm going to a budget meeting." She admits to a pang when Andrew calls for his father in the middle of the night. "But on the other hand, I think about how lucky Andrew is to be so close to his dad." When Sarah Fitts leaves for her law firm while husband Rob and 1-year-old Simon are playing cars, she occasionally thinks, "Maybe I did get the short end of the stick. But it doesn't really matter. It's a family unit, and it's how we all go together."
And it sure does relieve the strain on a family. There is laughter again in the Sueltz family, where Steve handles everything from Christmas cards to cleaning toilets. "I have my chores," he says. "Kathleen has her chores." When Pat says she has chores, Steve shakes his head. "Pat has no chores," he teases. "I'm trying to get her to put her clothes in the hamper."
The kids are clearly the biggest beneficiaries. When Kathleen first learned her dad would stay home, she was aghast: "What will I tell people you do?" she asked. Now her grades have improved, her spirit is back, and Steve is a hit with her classmates, who call him for help with math homework. Gershon Dublon is delighted that his dad still packs a brown-bag lunch for him; not many of his friends eat homemade lunches. "I came out on top," he says. These kids are proud of their career moms too. The Stevenses' daughter, Jennifer Zechman, recalls that her mother dropped everything to help when Jennifer had her first baby. For two weeks Anne cleaned, cooked, and did laundry, much to Jennifer's amusement. "I'm like, 'Who are you?' " Zechman laughed. "She never does those things."
The dividends for these working wives
--peace of mind, no distractions, the ability to focus single-mindedly on work-are precisely the ones their male counterparts have always had. Ursula Burns can apply her energy to Xerox because husband Lloyd has applied his analytical skill to creating a family flow chart: grocery shopping, fixing the roof, carpooling, doctor's appointments, music lessons-the megabytes of daily minutiae. Then, of course, he executes all these tasks. When Ursula arrives home, she quizzes the kids on their homework, but she never has to worry about the trumpet that got left behind. Without this division of labor, she says, "forget it. It would be impossible for me. Impossible."
That theme echoes all through the corps of executive women. Lauri Shanahan doesn't fret about who's driving her daughters to play dates and piano lessons. "I'm more balanced and productive because I know they are with Brian," she says. "It makes a huge difference." Another executive mom agrees: "I can make multibillion-dollar decisions at the bank far better than I can face chaos at home-like handing off children in airports, where if one thing goes wrong, the whole thing blows up." Adds Sarah Fitts, the Debevoise lawyer: "My life is so much more manageable. A lot of the stress is worrying about things that might happen but actually don't," such as whether Simon's early-morning crankiness will mean that dreaded midday trip to the pediatrician's office. "I don't know how people with two full-time, unforgiving careers manage the small stuff," says Fitts.
For better or worse, it is possible for these executives to be on call 24/7-which is still what it takes to get to the top at most companies. If Giora Dublon had not been home with the children, says Dina, she could not have stayed at all those bank meetings that were supposed to end at 7 p.m. but lasted until ten. "Would I have reached the same position if I had gone home? That's a question I can't answer," says Dina. "But one of the criteria was your willingness to stay and do whatever needed to get done, irrespective of anything else in your life."
The household arrangements these couples have created are simultaneously radical and conservative. Yes, the men and women have traded places. But they have divided their labor quite traditionally. There is a back-to-the-future quality to their domestic relations, a reversion to notions of work and home right out of the 1950s. Except for one big difference: The 21st-century organization man could very easily be a woman. And the corporate wife could be a husband.
The Superiority of Women
Anonymous Female Author
Back in 1982 Edward C. Whitmont a Jungian psychologists wrote a book called "Return Of The Goddess". This book was about the returning Goddess archetype and although to my mind a very important book, it was written only for people interested in Jungian psychology. So unfortunately it was limited in its readership. So I would like to discuss the return of the Goddess archetype in a more easily understandable form.
A archetype is a powerful emotion that resides in the collective unconsciousness. A example would be the Hero archetype which in its positive form will push people like soldiers, policemen and firemen to risk their lives to save others. Though in its negative form will encourage conquerors like Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte and Hitler to conquer other nations and inflict great suffering onto millions of others for no other reason than to boost the conqueror's personal ego. The Goddess archetype is feminine counterpart to the Hero archetype and is now returning to consciousness. Over the last two thousand years the Goddess archetype seemed to have nearly completely disappeared from people's consciousness and only survived in passive forms like the Virgin Mary. Yet over the last few hundred years it is now starting to return and what is becoming clear is that it is a immensely powerful archetype. So powerful is it that it is changing the consciousness of the human race over the last few hundred years.
The first clear manifestation came with the beginnings of the Suffragette movement in the late 19th century. Though it is now clear it this archetype was affecting people's unconscious mind long before this in preparing the way for female emancipation. Mary Wollstonecraft wrote her famous book "A Vindication Of The Rights Of Women" back in 1792. Before such a book could be written without the authoress being burnt at the stake as a Witch.
As scientists took over the role of the wise men of society they couldn't see why women needed to be oppressed. This allowed women to begin to demand equal rights without the threat of violence from the authorities. What is surprising about the Feminist movements in the 19th and 20th century is the lack of male opposition. It only took a small band of Suffragettes demonstrating in the streets at the beginning of the 20th century for exclusively male legislators to pass laws giving women voting rights. The same thing happened in the 1960s where a small number of Women's Liberation demonstrators forced male dominated legislative chambers pass laws giving equal rights for women. The lesson of this is that the Goddess archetype is so powerful in our world today, that if Women are willing to organize themselves and stand up for themselves, men will quickly capitulate. Though it has to be admitted that the Goddess archetype seem to be more powerful in the West than in many third world countries. Though even here we are seeing signs of change. Women in extremely patriarchal countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan are today risking their lives to bring about change.
The Goddess archetype seem to be affecting men in a very different way, as the Goddess archetype seems to be working through men's sexuality. Back in the 19th century Leopold Von Sacher-Masoch wrote his famous book "Venus In Furs" and other books of a similar nature. He was basically the first FemDom writer and it was from him the word masochism comes from. Another writer Sir Henry Rider Haggard at about the same time wrote two novels called "She" and "Ayesha, The Return of She". Although these novels were not sexual they portrayed a women with seemly limitless power. As in the second book she contemplates ruling China and seems to have the power to rule the world if she wanted to. In these books she was undone by her love for an attractive man, though perhaps this had to be added to make the books acceptable to the society of the time.
The Goddess archetype was also changing other men's sexual behavior in this period. The common image of the Victorian prostitute in England is of a very downtrodden powerless women. Yet this wasn't true for all of them, at the same time there were very successful prostitutes who became very wealthy and powerful, like the infamous "Skittles". She got her name by threatening men that; "she would knock them down like a bunch of skittles". It seems that her aggressive nature made her very popular among rich and powerful men of the time who would happy grovel to her. In spite of the fact she came from the lower classes. Her great popularity even allowed her to become a fashion leader. As young upper class Victorian Women would copy her dress styles and even her behavior.
In the 1950s I remember reading a book that commented on the strange fact that many men going to prostitutes only wanted to do the prostitute's housework and to be ordered to do it. Today with the increasingly popularity of the Dominatrix this behavior is becoming more understandable. As more and more men admit to being sexually excited by Dominant Women.
The Dominant Women has also did have popular appeal in films. What is remarkable about the Hollywood films of the 1930s and 40s is the popularity of powerful women like Betty Davis, Joan Crawford, Mae West, Marlene Dietrich, Katharine Hepburn and Barbara Stanwyck. The powerful characters these actresses portrayed were far ahead of their time and must of presented a powerful role model for ordinary women of the time. Then it seems the Hollywood films were subjected to more rigorous censorship and these powerful woman disappeared from Hollywood films, in the 1950s and 60s and only slowly returning in more recent times.
Where the Goddess archetype has had the greatest influence is in the individual relationships between women and men. In the 19th century it was normal for men in marriage to be the dominant partner and there was a strong social stigma against him if he wasn't. Legally he was entitled to beat his wife with a stick and have his "conjugal rights". This means his wife wasn't legally entitled to refuse her husband sex and he was allowed to use violence to get his way. At the beginning of the 21st century we now see a big change as woman can have her partner charged with rape or assault if he attempted to do this. Also it is now far more acceptable for men to no longer be the dominant partner, and among the younger generation it seems to be more common place that the women is more dominant. There is also now a
increasingly number of househusbands where the traditional roles of the sexes has been completely reversed.
So it seems that the Goddess archetype is influencing us all on the political, religious, social and sexual levels. There is now not a part of life that the Goddess archetype in not influencing and changing our world. Even ironically in fundamentalist Churches where you have strong dominant women upholding, "family values" and attacking the rights of women to have abortions.
Now we are seeing signs that the Goddess influencing the minds of women in a different way to allow progress to continue. The demand by Feminists for equality during the 20th century was very effective in giving women more power, but now equality has been nearly achieved it is becoming a hindrance to further progress. This requires the Goddess to plant in the minds of people that it is acceptable for women to demand dominance over men and not just equality. This is very difficult to accept for many older women who fought for equality in the 20th century but there are signs that for the younger generation dominance over men is more acceptable to them.
Men also have to change, many men still very much see Female Dominant as only a sexual fantasy. Though by exploring this fantasy it has brought about a fundamental change within them. The next stage will be in living this fantasy 24/7 which many men are starting to do.
This then means we are helpless in the face of this returning archetype, because she works on our emotions and unconscious minds. Already people during the 20th century have found social change too fast to cope with as the Goddess archetype increases in power and influence. She is able to override the efforts of conservative and right wing politicians to stop the rate of change and return us to the certainties of patriarchy. While the power of the Christian Church is continually being eroded because they continue to dare to challenge the power of the Goddess archetype. The same is becoming true for Islam where many of its mullahs are becoming increasingly violence and fanatical in the face of "western influences". This has created oppressive governments in many Islam countries which in the long run is counter productive. As normal people will in time revolt against the oppression of fundamental Islam. This is already happening in places like Iran as the common people are now demanding a more freedom and liberty. It seems that in Islamic countries where the extremists are not in control like Egypt, Malaya and Libya, women are now starting to organize themselves and demanding the freedoms western women enjoy. This is why the Islamic clergy fear and hate the west as western influences are undermining patriarchal power in their countries.
Patriarchy only became possible because the Goddess archetype moved into the background allowing men to rule. She has now decided to return and there is nothing that can be done to stop Her.
The Natural Dominance Of Women
By William Bond
If you take a cork and hold it underwater it is very easy to hold it down but it will only stay there while you keep holding it in that position. If at any time you arm gets tied or you get fed up with keeping the cork underwater and let go. The cork will automatically rise to the top. This concept gives a good metaphor of what is happening today in the politics of Female power.
For anyone who has read the history of patriarchy over the last five thousand years what it very striking is the great efforts needed to keep Women powerless. Up until the end of the 19th century, there were laws to ensure that women couldn't own any property or wealth. As the law stated that everything a woman had was either owned by her father or husband and the law also make it very difficult for any woman to inherit property. Women were also barred from all jobs and professions except being a housewife, servant or prostitute. So Women were unable to acquire any wealth of power in her own right. Husbands were also encouraged to dominate their wives, who had to swear to obey there husbands when they were married. The law even gave husbands the right to beat their wives with either a stick or whip.
In other cultures the laws oppressing women were even more strict than in the western world. It was traditional for the Somalis people of Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti for a bride to start married life with a flogging from their husbands. It seems the newly wedded husband would wait for her in the bridal chamber with a whip in his hand. This was also true with the Sifon people of Tibet, who traditionally would again start of married life with the husband whipping his bride.
Yet we are taught at school and in our history books that men have always been the dominant sex going back to early Stone age. The irony is that if it is natural for men to be the dominant sex why do then men had to create very oppressive laws and customs against Women? If it is natural for men to be the dominant sex then they shouldn't need any laws, custom or propaganda to keep their place as the dominant sex. For instance they only reason way we have laws against stealing is because many people do steal. If people didn't steal there would be no reason to have laws against this behavior. The same is true of customs and traditions. The custom of marriage with people swearing to be true to each other is only needed because people do tend to have sex outside of marriage. If pair bonding was completely natural for
human beings then we wouldn't need customs like marriage, enforced by laws and social censure.
This then means that oppressive laws and customs to keep women in a subservient position suggests that it is not natural for women to be the submissive sex. If it was natural for men to be the dominant sex then there would be no reason for men to have oppressive laws and customs to keep women in bondage.
If you think about it, from the time the original Aryian invaders conquered Matriarchal communities in southern Europe to the start of Christianity and Islam was about 3,000 years. This means the Patriarchs needed 3,000 years of brainwashing all men and Women into believing that our Creator was a male, that sex, childbirth, and menstruation was sinful or dirty and that women was inferior to men. This suggests that Women were held in such high regard in ancient times that the original Patriarchal invaders with all the advantages of violence and intimidation, still took thousands of years to overcome the power of Women.
If we compared this with what is happening today where Women for a position of complete powerlessness in the 19th century has in just over a 100 years gained near equality with men. We can see that patriarchal men have had to put in a enormous effort into subduing Women. We can now see Women rapidly rise to power once again. So it is like a holding a cork underwater. It is easy to hold the cork down, but once you let go the cork rises to the surface. Patriarchy could only keep Women down while it was actively suppressing them, and when the pressure was release we know find Women are naturally moving back to ruling society once again. This suggests to me, that it is probably natural for human beings to be ruled by Women.
Not only has Women gain political power over the last hundred years but the relationship between men and Women are also changing rapidly. With the undermining of the many customs, beliefs and social conventions that men are the dominant sex, the personal relationships between men and women are rapidly changing. It is now more common place for Women to openly claim they are the head of the household and we even now have house husbands. While sexually things are also changing, from very tiny beginnings during the early 1970s the FemDom movement has grown steadily and strongly.
It has been patriarchal religions like Christianity and Islam that has been in the forefront oppressing Women. Even today extreme Islam countries try to force Women to wear facial screens and discourage female education. Restrictions like this wouldn't be needed if men didn't fear the power of Women. In the past, Christianity used extreme violence against Women. In the infamous Witch hunts of the Medieval age the vast majority of millions of people who were tortured and burnt alive were Women. Suggesting again a real fear of Women becoming too powerful.
With the ending of oppressive laws and customs throughout the 20th century women have quickly gained near equality with men. I know to us a hundred years might seen a long time but in historical terms it is very quick for such a far reaching social change. If this rate of progress for Women is to continue during the 21st century then clearly Women will be ruling the world in another hundred years time.
What is clear is that men can only become the dominant sex by enforcing through violence and propaganda oppressive laws and customs against Women. This means that it is not natural for men to be the dominant sex if he has to put so much effort into keeping Women down. If we get rid of all these artificial laws and customs created by patriarchal men and follow our natural instincts then Women will naturally become the rulers of our World.
Look Who's Barefoot in the Kitchen
By Michelle Conlin - Business Week Online
You could say Doug Wilson is the sultan of savvy dining in Dallas. The 35-year-old can get his family of five in and out of Furr's Cafeteria--where he and his wife lean toward the meat bar and his kids prefer the seven colors of Jell-O--for under $30. The deal he's got at Marshall's BBQ and Souper Salads is even better: $20. Avoiding places like Olive Garden and TGI Friday's, with their $45 tabs, is one of the many ways Wilson and his wife, Lisa, survive on just one annual paycheck of $40,000.
Her paycheck, that is. Wilson used to spend his days soaked in sweat managing road repavings in the 110-degree Texas sun. Now, he does the housework, runs the errands, and scours the city for bargains in his '86 Ford LTD. "This is the hardest job I've ever had," Wilson says.
In many ways, you could say Wilson has traded places with June Cleaver, becoming one of a new and growing breed of housewife--the househusband. In fact, the number of children living with stay-at-home dads has jumped 70% since 1990, to 1.7 million, according to Census data. "These are dads who have committed to leaving their life for four to five years," says family researcher Robert Frank, a psychology professor at Oakton Community College, in Des Plaines, Ill., who studies at-home dads.
Some of these fathers, like former Simpata Inc. CEO Jeff Simon, were fried from working 12-hour days and missed spending time with their kids. Others, like former Dell Computer Corp. (DELL ) senior manager Justin Espinosa, decided to stay home with their children after they got laid off, sending their wives into the workforce, only to experience marital strife as a result of the swap. Then there are those like Wilson, whose wife's earnings began to outstrip his, causing him to question the value of spending $1,200 a month on a germ-filled child-care facility when he could raise his kids himself. Trailing husbands, who follow their globe-traveling executive wives, are also part of the trend. "Five years ago, if you were recruiting a female executive, you always had to take into consideration the husband's career, who we could introduce him to," says one of Silicon Valley's top headhunters, Russell Reynolds Associates Inc.'s Becky Stein, whose physician husband has primary responsibility for their kids. "Now, I don't even think about it anymore."
Because their overall numbers are still so tiny, the increase in stay-at-home dads hardly means most fathers have suddenly become co-CEOs of the home, sharing equal responsibility for child rearing with their wives. "In most households, working women are still the ones doing the second shift at home," says Frank. But, more and more, researchers note, the roles are starting to change, evident in the increase in male executives working compressed weeks so they can have more time with children, in shift workers who are taking responsibility for daytime child care, and in dads working from home so they can be closer to their kids. Frank estimates that the total number of dads with primary responsibility for children in dual-earner households has jumped 25% since the early 1990s to 2.5 million.
TAKE-OUT TIME. Another surprising statistic: Children are actually spending more time with their parents than they were 20 years ago, according to several studies. The enhanced participation of men in child-rearing is the biggest reason, besides the falling birth rate. One recent time diary study, conducted by Sandra L. Hofferth and John Sandberg at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, found that despite a rapid increase in the number of dual-earner families, children under 13 with working parents were spending an average of four hours more a week with their mothers and almost six hours more a week with their fathers than they were in 1981. The increase, notes Purdue University's professor of family studies, Shelley M. MacDermid, stems in part from discomfort parents have in sending kids out to play unsupervised. In fact, the study found that children's time with mothers and fathers in two-parent families increased so much that it washed out any decrease of time due to the mother's outside employment.
If parents are spending more time with their kids, then what gives? Housework, according to Suzanne M. Bianchi, professor of sociology at the University of Maryland. Bianchi found that both working and at-home moms spend about half the time on household chores that they did in the 1960s, thanks to take-out meals, hired housekeepers, and wrinkle-free clothes. Meanwhile, men's time on household duties during the same period has doubled, so that they are now doing fully one-third of housework.
Of course, the current economic downturn is playing a role in men's increased involvement. Often, though, these dads say their time at home adds to the family stress level. As much as wives want their husbands to be involved, the role reversal can be difficult, forcing them to relinquish control of the home. Husbands, on the other hand, have to struggle against the ingrained expectation of being the bread winner. Espinosa, the Dell manager, thrived in his career in service operations there. But the 28-year-old often worked 60 hours a week. He was worried about the way he often left the house before his three kids even woke up. So when he got laid off in May, he decided to make the scariest decision of his career--putting it on the shelf for the summer. His wife went to work, for the first time in their marriage, at a local Internet company. "The stress between couples is tremendous," he says. "Two sets of our friends are separated right now, and the layoff has had a lot to do with it," Espinosa says. He's now looking for a new job.
Even if couples hash things out in their relationship, as the Espinosas have, trading places can bring on judgments from the outside world. Many stay-at-home dads complain about the conversational snubs and weird stares they get at playgrounds and school yards. More and more, though, these caregiver fathers are likely to become a more familiar sight.
Why Women Should Rule the World
Monday, October 28, 2002
By Justin Fox
Kim Campbell, former Prime Minister of Canada, offered a solution to today's scandal-riddled world: women leaders. "The qualities that are defined as masculine are also the same qualities that are defined as the qualities of leadership. There is virtually no overlap between the qualities ascribed to femininity and those to leadership."
Yet in several studies, Campbell said, "results show that when you have a critical mass of women in an organization, you have less corruption." Peru and Mexico have even implemented initiatives based on such thinking. And Campbell warned that "lest you think that all we aspire to for the world can be accomplished by male-dominated organizations, I have only to say to you: Enron, Taliban, Roman Catholic Church."
Women power: how to market to 51% of Americans
Marketing Intelligence / Joanna L. Krotz
Most industries and marketers have finally figured out something: Women have wallets, and women do make independent, big-ticket purchasing decisions.
Even traditional male sectors such as automotive, financial services and technology have made efforts to attract women consumers. More than a decade ago, for example, General Motors rolled out the Saturn model specifically for women buyers, making sure at the time also to hire women sales staff to sell the cars. Merrill Lynch, Charles Schwab and Fidelity, among others, now market financial services to women, including such lures as life-stage retirement advice and investing seminars.
Is there anything wrong with this picture? Yes and no.
Such initiatives tend to be pretty small potatoes compared to the company's mainstream marketing plans and resources. Women may represent a majority of the population, but they are also an astoundingly untapped market:
By 2010, women are expected to control $1 trillion, or 60% of the country's wealth, according to research conducted by BusinessWeek and Gallup.
Women purchase or influence the purchase of 80% of all consumer goods, including stocks, computers and automobiles.
Women earn more than half of all accounting degrees, four out of every 10 law degrees and almost that many medical degrees.
More than half (55%) of all new Web users are women, according to Jupiter Media Metrix.
The solo woman's market defined as never-married women ages 25 to 44 will approach $200 billion by 2006, according to Packaged Facts, a division of MarketResearch.com.
The Wisdom of Women, and why men will never catch up
From the British Daily Mail - June 2002
Women have long asserted that they are cleverer than men. Now Scientists claim to have proved that their intellectual superiority lasts a lifetime.
Research on 600 85 year olds showed the women were much quicker and sharper than then men - despite the female candidates generally having a much lower standard of education.
The results suggest the difference between the male and the female brains is biological, not social, say the researchers.
Tests have already shown that girls do better at school than boys and continue to do so through university.
The latest study theorises that women's brains simply carry on performing for longer because they live longer and so need to be mentally active at a greater age.
Doctors carried out memory and recognition word and number tests on every 85 year old who was willing in the Dutch town of Leiden.
Thirty-three per cent of women, compared to 28 per cent of men had good speed in their replies while four in ten women but three in ten men had a good memory.
The results are published today in the British Medical Association's Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry
Women Rising in Corporate Ranks
By Kirstin Downey
Washington Post - November 19, 2002
Nancy Pelosi's ascent to the Democratic Party leadership in the House of Representatives reflects the steady progress of women in the political world. According to a new report, women also continue to climb the
Women now hold 15.7 percent of corporate officer positions at large U.S. public companies, up from 8.7 percent in 1995, according to the report by Catalyst, a New York City-based research group. There are six
female chief executives among the Fortune 500 firms, up from two in 1995. And women now make up 5.2 percent of all top-earning executives, up from 1.2 percent seven years ago, when Catalyst first began studying female employment patterns.
"There's progress, however slow, in every dimension year after year," said Sheila Wellington, president of Catalyst. "And this year, despite the poor economy, the number of women executives keeps going up, and that's heartening."
Female leaders in corporate America include Carly Fiorina of Hewlett-Packard Co., S. Marce Fuller of Mirant Corp., Patricia F. Russo of Lucent Technologies Inc., Anne M. Mulcahy of Xerox Corp., Andrea Jung of Avon Products Inc. and Marion O. Sandler of Golden West Financial Corp.
The prospects for ambitious women in the District are brighter than in other regions in the country, according to Catalyst, which reported that at the two Fortune 500 firms based in the nation's capital, the Federal National Mortgage Association (better known as Fannie Mae) and Danaher Corp., more than a third -- 38.6 percent -- of corporate officers are women.
"Corporate America has awakened to the notion that it can't afford to waste talent," said Jamie S. Gorelick, Fannie Mae's vice chairman, one of three female vice chairmen in the United States. "We get a tremendous amount out of women who are senior executives at our company. There's a critical mass of us."
Gorelick said that such "critical mass" is essential for women to have enough of a "comfort level" to move forward aggressively in their own careers. She credited Fannie Mae's chairman, Franklin D. Raines, and former chairman Jim Johnson with instituting recruitment and retention policies targeting women.
"You can't be successful in this arena without the chief executive voicing it and making it clear," Gorelick said. "Otherwise people just give lip service to the concept but you get no results."
In Virginia, about 19.9 percent of top executives are women, and in Maryland 16.7 percent, according to Catalyst. The survey included all company officials who are designated "insiders" to the Securities and Exchange Commission, including chief executive, president, chief operating officer, senior vice presidents and legal counsels.
Having more women in executive positions is better for female workers overall, said Heidi Hartmann, president and chief executive of the D.C.-based Institute for Women's Policy Research. "Women at the top do more for other women," she said.