Last week, I found myself on Manhattan's West Side in an exquisitely decorated loft owned by Winds of Change philanthropist Shamaya Gilo. Sixty powerhouse women were gathered together for wine and cheese and to strategize about how to support women's leadership through cold-hard cash. The loft was filled with talented and accomplished women of wealth -- women who were personally wealthy or those who pulled the strings at some of New York's top financial institutions. Present in the room were wealth managers, venture capitalists, fixed income and equity traders, professional investors, lawyers, quants, mutual fund managers, bankers, heads of family foundations, philanthropists and market makers of all kinds and a couple of token (and sympathetic) males thrown into the mix. We had one thing in common: the drive and ambition to push more capable and accomplished women into the ring.
What is the "Ring?" It is the corporate boardroom, the C-Suite at Fortune 500 companies and top levels of financial institutions. The ring includes politics, finance, business and generally anywhere that women have been traditionally marginalized, which let's face it, is everywhere that matters aside from the home front. The question we are asking is why are women deliberately kept out of key roles in world affairs and what can we do to change that?
The New York gathering of high-powered women, organized by Criterion Ventures under the direction of the indefatigable Jackie VanderBrug, encouraged women to invest in each other. Speaking to the crowd of well-heeled power women were Nada Jain (Golden Seeds), CJ Juhasz (ISIS Fund/Women's World Banking), Jo-Ann Tan (Acumen Fund), Georgie Benardete (Multicultural Capital), Sally Boulter and Noelle St. Clair of Calvert Foundation who detailed each organization's mission to empower women. The event marked a shift in action -- we are tired of waiting for men to open the door for us. Ladies and gentlemen ... in the 21st century, we are opening the doors for ourselves.
What makes the world go around is money. The Criterion Ventures model aims to put money behind women-centric ventures and entrepreneurs. (Women investing in Women.) We have seen how money in the wrong hands, evidenced by the global economic crisis, has thrown the scales of power completely out of whack and left behind whole portions of the population on both sides of the Atlantic. Women, it may come as no surprise, have fared worse than average. The poor are getting poorer and the majority of poor in the U.S. and around the globe are women. They are the last to get hired and earn substantially less than their male counterparts.
I am not going to pretend that I don't think women should have seats of power. I am not going to play nice and say it doesn't matter. I am not going to quietly and apathetically marginalize my own gender by politely acknowledging that men are wonderful and capable of handling world affairs without us. Yes, many men are wonderful and ladies what would we do without them? But what we would do with them as co-creators of the world is the real issue.
The first and critical question is: What would men do without women? I'll start by answering that from my home turf in the U.S.
In the last twelve years since the end of the 20th century and the birth of the new, America has started two wars that have cost millions of people their lives and changed the world order permanently. We have given birth to a devastating global financial crisis that has plunged millions of innocents into starvation, joblessness and homelessness. The wars and the economic collapse have resulted in international chaos and unrest and launched movements of desperation like the 99 and 1 percent. All of these disastrous events occurred under male leadership-- without the help or input of women. Gentlemen, you have done such damage to the world we share, why you continue on that path and do not see the wisdom of incorporating women into top leadership positions is beyond logic. Yet women continue to be disenfranchised.
So enough. Enough of testosterone-fueled aggression whether it is the violence of economic greed or the guns of bloody wars. It is time for western civilization to enter the enlightened age. Women are the key to a more sustainable world in the new millennium.
Why are women the key to changing the world for the better? Because very simply: we are the life-givers, not the life-destroyers. It is in our DNA to create and nurture life, not desecrate it. Yet somehow, despite the fact that we carry, create and protect life, women are raped, murdered, mutilated, marginalized and humiliated every second of every day somewhere in our world. The issue becomes which kind of world do we want to carry forward -- one that destroys life or one that creates it? If the choice is the latter, then the inclusion of women is essential.
In my work at the United Nations over the past several years, I had the honor and privilege of knowing one of the great men in this world and a true champion of women: Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury. As President of the Security Council in 2000, the Ambassador introduced Resolution 1325 which endorsed urgently needed economic and educational opportunities for women. The resolution was the result of his experience as a diplomatic leader in Bangladesh where women were routinely violated physically and materially. His work has greatly advanced the plight of rural women around the globe.
Yet our work in this decade necessitates more than helping women. In very direct ways, the world desperately needs women to help it. We need every bit of TLC for people and our planet we can muster. For women, this is second nature. Strength is no longer measured in an enlightened world by brute force. True courage can be seen in the stoic stamina, tolerance, patience and big-picture vision of women.
Something Ambassador Chowdhury once said stuck in my mind. He explained that at UN mediations to resolve global conflicts, the men at the table invariably wanted to know, "What's in it for me?" They would ask how the solution would affect them personally in power and privilege before giving their consent. Women, according to the Ambassador, were more concerned with what kind of world they were leaving for their children.
The stark difference in thinking jolted me and I realized this was true. Women naturally think in terms of creation and cooperation, not domination and aggression. These qualities, however, are a double-edged sword. In one way, this is precisely the reason we have been held back. In many ways, we have held ourselves back. We have not fought tough enough or hard enough to say: This is our world too; you don't have the right to destroy it for me or my children.
In this century of women, we -- the feminine gender -- and the men who see us as friend, not foe, need to pool our resources, money, votes and support and put these behind women in leadership roles. Only with the direction and input of women can we build a more sustainable world based on mutual cooperation and constructive solutions.
We are proud of the women on the world stage handling the complex chaos around them with grace, brilliance and courage: the Hillary Clintons, Christine Lagardes, Angela Merkels and Ellen Johnson Sirleafs. But they can't do it alone. They need our help -- every one of us, male and female.
Hillary Clinton said of empowering women, "It's not just the right thing to do; it's the smart thing to do." Jackie VanderBrug explains why: "Gender diversity [in companies, on corporate boards and in leadership roles] works for all of us. It allows you to see things that you would not otherwise see."
The time to step up, step out and make our voices heard is now. Not a moment should be lost, because without our help and the feminine sense of balance and wisdom we naturally bring to problem solving, the world is a sad and sorry place. Our only hope for a better future lies in the power, appreciation and inclusion of women.
Monika Mitchell is the CEO of "Good-b," New York's award-winning CSR and sustainable business news journal and the co-author of a ground-breaking new book, "Conversations with Wall Street: The Inside Story of the Financial Armageddon and How to Prevent the Next One."
Follow Monika Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/monika_mitchell
That's not so hard to swallow is it?
This is because women are economic net negatives as a class. They're resource hogs who don't produce much of anything. They make poor leaders because they only think about what the group can do for them instead of what they can do for the group. They make poor leaders because no one respects those who don't earn their position
"And pretty much all of the western civilization has been on a free-fall as soon as we removed all restrictions from women voting."
Let's see you back that one up, buddy. Western civilization has been in free fall since 1920? Yes, because we here in the feminist West are the ones living backwards lives of ignorance - not like all those Saudi Arabian masses who are sitting at the top of the cultural heap, out there where they keep women in their place like cows. LOL.
That must be why the feminist cultures of Scandinavia have the highest standard of living AND the highest quality of life. It's incredible to see how misogyny warps the minds of its most desperate adherents.
It's not. but if so, "SO WHAT?"
"Let's see you back that one up, buddy."
You're not going to read anything that I post that proves me right, so I'm not going to bother. If you cared, you would seek out the information yourself.
But I will go as far as to say: "look at all of the social programs that women have voted for themself, and look at all of the (lack of) social programs for men, and lastly, look at our national debt.
Compare and contrast.
"not like all those Saudi Arabian masses who are sitting at the top of the cultural heap, out there where they keep women in their place like cows"
What do Saudi Arabians have to do with anything? Is this your attempt at racism? or some kind of insult on religion? If so, you fail because I'm black. Also...I'm American, and I'm atheist
But thanks for playing...
We live in a DEMOCRACY in which the majority of voters are women. In the Clinton-Bush-Obama years, many members of Congress were/are women, and a woman has served as Speaker of the House and serves as Minority Leader. A woman was been nominated for Vice President.
Another woman launched a viable presidential candidate, claiming qualification in part based on her experience and INFLUENCE as First Lady in her husband's presidency, which included free trade agreements, repeal of Glass Steagall and welfare reform that contributed directly to the current economic collapse. She claimed to have great influence as a Senator, including votes for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Three of the last four U.S. Secretaries of State have been women, ALL supporters and leaders in use of aggressive military force and WAR. Her fans attribute great influence to our current SoS, who has been the leading advocate for escalation in Afghanistan, expansion of profiteering "defense" contracts, and violent regime change.
It seems Ms. Mitchell wants women to have disproportionate credit for good decisions, and claim no responsibility, “help or input” when decisions are bad. It is certainly harsh commentary on the effectiveness of women as current leaders.
Yes...throughout history, it has always been men fighting in wars...For the protections, and provision of women and children...
Only a feminist would look at the history of men fighting and dying for women and frame it as "OMG MEN ARE IMMORAL, VIOLENT KILLERS!"
"They don't fight for women and children."
A breathtakingly stupid comment. Throughout history, men have died defending their families. For every invader who sacks a city or steals a country, there have been men opposing who tried to protect their families.
You claim to have two sons. With a comment like yours above, you devalue them.
The question you should be asking is "Why are we blaming our own inadequacies on someone else?"
Leadership by women will not end all wars. It will not end equity bubbles or over leveraged banks. Women doing what men do end up playing whatever game the men were playing. When women play tennis the sport does not become less aggressive. When women box they don't avoid hitting each other in the face. It's the game that makes you aggressive not your gender. I am all for equality because I would not want to see any talent being sidelined but it's not because women are some how better than men.
so is this article a bit sexist? yes, but its no more than what men have been doing for centuries to women and not even to the same degree as they have. she does not even try and make this a platform to promote the idea of seperating compeltely from the men, as some radical feminists have said we should do. she simply promotes a more financially-backed, aggressive agenda for including and empowering women in the workforce and in positions of power and leadership.
The author seems uninformed of the advances of women in business.
I suggest that you watch a short video by hosted by Hanna Rosin speaking at the TED conference in which she illustrates how well women are doing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZymFMmpOa0
Or just Google: Hanna Rosin Speaks at the TED
It's very informative and well worth listening to.
let me rephrase my comment, women technically have (most of the) same rights as men but the difference in theory and practice is visible; how many women (in comparison to men) are in positions of power, influence or wealth? how many are leaders in the business, political and scientific community? communities that have been, traditionally, male-oriented and still dominated by men in general. how many have been honored, acknowledged or revered for thier accomplishments, abilities or skills? and im sure we can both come up with many more, "how many women...?" but let's move on, shall we?
"women have more rights than men"? right. if that's true, then would you willingly spend a day as a woman? if such a thing were possible and you made that choice, and at the end of that day (and night) were able to truthfully say that being a woman and being treated like a woman, that your statement still held true...then my opinion would be invalid.
as for my thoughts on selective service, that's a government policy not a societal one, so any complaints or concerns you have about it should be directed toward the government. i do believe, however, that it's not necessary nor 'right' to force men to register...were it up to me, i would abolish the policy.
I believe women cast 54% of the votes in the last couple of presidential elections, therefore, wouldn't you say they had a lot of input? It was married women who overwhelming voted for George (Don't change horses in mid-stream) Bush during his reelection and put him over the top.
"Gentlemen, you have done such damage to the world we share, why you continue on that path and do not see the wisdom of incorporating women into top leadership positions is beyond logic."
Wait a minute, Haven't our last two secretary of states been women? Isn't that a pretty major leadership position? And they both seemed to be just as warlike as any men.
And don't overlook power by proxy. Certainly Bidden/Obama are just as beholden to females (and just as pandering to them) as any female president. I can't imagine any female president being more "female friendly" than our current leaders. You don't necessarily need a women to be president if the males do feminist bidding.
Actually, Condi Rice was the NSA who pushed for war. Hillary Clinton was one of the many woman who both voted for and pushed for the war in Congress. Angela Merkel was one of our key allies in starting those wars.
Are they men now?
"I am seeing a surge in mens hate and violent behavior towards women and i dont get it."
Sorry if you notice this in your own small circle of friends. According to FBI nationwide stats, violence/rape against women (and the crime rate in general) has dropped for nearly two straight decades. But you would be correct if you think the media stirs the pot and they do it because negative news sells and increases readership.
In sixty years on planet earth, and having met hundreds and hundreds of men, I've never known them to think as you state: "its because we have something they dont,the ability to create life and have it be the center of our being.Men will never have that and for them that means becoming secondary and i guess that fuels their insecurities and perpetuates the lame excuse for all the bad things they choose to do to women and girls."
Believe it or not, the vast majority of men protect and help women. You are letting the bad 5% of people (both male and female) put fear into your heart.
For the record men have always avoided violence against women, that's why a tribe or nations warriors almost always consisted of only it's men. Women were to be fought over and not to be fought. Women who only want to protect women from violence lack empathy for male victims of violence. They are interested in getting what they want from men but care little for what happens to men. We can't build a society based on the whims of self centered, self serving individuals like this. We need to be lead by people who care about everybody.
This is the absolute most sexist tripe I have ever read here. EVER. That's a stunning achievement.
"All of these disastrous events occurred under male leadership-- without the help or input of women. Gentlemen, you have done such damage to the world we share, why you continue on that path..."
All men are not responsible for the actions of some men. Stating otherwise is a sexist generalization.
"Why are women the key to changing the world for the better? Because very simply: we are the life-givers, not the life-destroyers. It is in our DNA to create and nurture life, not desecrate it."
Yes, Susan Smith, Casey Anthony and Andrea Yates are fine examples, right?