articles
China Elevator Stories
“The Cost of Sexism, How the Economy is Built for Men and Why We Must Reshape It” (by Linda Scott)
This book explains how women often can’t get ahead in their careers because of sexism.
xx/xx/2024
Ruth Silbermayr
Author
In the book The Cost of Sexism: How the Economy is Built for Men and Why We Must Reshape It, Linda Scott writes:
“An unparalleled influx of data since 2005 reveals this reality: a distinctive pattern of economic inequality marks the female population of every nation, each with the same mechanisms holding the disadvantages in place. Everywhere, the barriers to women’s economic inclusion reach beyond work and salary to encompass property ownership, capital, credit, and markets. These economic impediments, combined with the cultural constraints usually imposed on women—limited mobility, reproductive vulnerability, and the ever-present threat of violence—form a shadow economy unique to females: I call it ‘the Double X Economy’.”
I hadn’t anticipated that economic inequality would be as extreme as I later experienced it in Austria. On the surface, women’s rights are recognized; women work in offices, and there are many examples of successful women in high positions. But when you take a closer look, you see that women are often pressured to stay out of the workforce, relegated to lower positions, or prevented from having fulfilling careers—all by men.
I personally experienced this firsthand when I worked in an office, where sexist men soon bullied me out of my job. They saw me as competition that could threaten their positions rather than as a colleague, even though each of us had distinct roles and there was no real threat to anyone’s job.
Linda Scott, who has observed and studied the effects of economic inequality affecting women around the world, writes:
“I am frequently dismayed by what I observed. The national finance ministers who manage the world economy undermine women’s advocates by treating them like a ladies’ auxiliary. The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the G20 may hold a ‘women’s week’ or start an ‘engagement group’ and even put a phrase about women in their communiqués, but they won’t accommodate the distinctive needs of half their citizenry in their plans. They refuse to learn how the exclusion of women hurts their economies or how including women in their national budgeting could bring the growth they so desperately seek.”
In my experience, this represents empty words without intent to change the status quo. Often, these powerful figures benefit from maintaining their positions and thus resist changes that would disrupt them. If there were genuine intent to help women, actions would follow naturally, with measures enabling women to benefit from these changes. When the intent isn’t there, either no measures are implemented, or those that are fall short of creating meaningful change—offering only superficial improvements while upholding the appearance of progress.
To understand how some men view women, we must observe what they say in private, where they believe no one is watching, rather than their public statements. Scott explains:
“Press attention was sparked by a study that revealed, in shocking detail, what economists say about women in private. A million posts from an online discussion group where economics students and faculty gossip about their colleagues were analyzed to see whether, in unguarded moments, economists spoke about men and women differently. The words most frequently used about a female colleague were hotter, lesbian, sexism, tits, anal, marrying, femnazi, slut, hot, vagina, boobs, pregnant, pregnancy, cute, marry, levy, gorgeous, horny, crush, beautiful, secretary, dump, shopping, date, nonprofit, intentions, sexy, dated, and prostitute. The terms used in connection with males were mathematician, pricing, advisor, textbook, motivated, Wharton, goals, Nobel, and philosopher. Female economists told journalists these word lists reflect the way in which senior economists teach junior members to disparage women.”
Scott also notes:
“Economists are much more likely to believe that if there aren’t many women in the field, it must be because they’re not very interested or not very productive. The culture of economics departments, however, strongly suggests a different explanation. Forty-eight percent of female economics professors say they have experienced sex discrimination on the job. There is a pervasive atmosphere of bullying: many point to the economics research presentations required of new recruits, junior professors, and doctoral students, which are always subject to hostile scrutiny by the male faculty ‘trying to nail the speaker to the blackboard’. At academic conferences, 46 percent of women say they will not answer a question or present an idea for fear of being treated unfairly.”
Having experienced similar mechanisms in other fields (in my case, the creative field, which is not traditionally male-dominated), I believe this is a systemic issue, rather than one limited to male-dominated fields, even though it appears linked to these fields on the surface.
Have you ever experienced workplace discrimination?