Dear Mr. Zuckerberg,
Congratulations are definitely in order. That S-1 filing for Facebook's IPO was filled with impressive numbers: $3.7 billion in revenue last year, $1 billion in earnings, and $3.9 billion in the bank account.
There was one number that really caught my eye though:
Zero.
Zero is the number of women listed on Facebook's Board of Directors.
What I want to know is why?
Many studies show that companies with high percentages of women on the Board perform far better than companies without women on the Board. In fact, the Fortune 500 companies with the highest percentage of female directors have a 62 percent higher return on invested capital than companies with the lowest percentages of female directors, according to one article outlining the business case for women on Boards.
Surely you know the value of women in leadership positions, since Sheryl Sandberg has helped elevate Facebook to unprecedented success. Have you asked her what she thinks about women being shut out of the Boardroom at Facebook? I'd also like to remind you that women make up 58 percent of your users.
In your letter submitted with the IPO filing, you said your goal is "to give everyone a voice and to help transform society for the future." I challenge you to walk the walk and amplify the voices of women and other minorities by fighting to elect them to Facebook's Board of Directors. We can't transform society and leave women behind.
Sincerely,
Natalie MacNeil
This post was originally published on She Takes on the World.
Follow Natalie MacNeil on Twitter: www.twitter.com/nataliemacneil
But I don't see the point of saying, "Give a woman a position on the Board of Directors because she's a woman." That's as demeaning to women as not giving a woman a job BECAUSE she's a woman.
Unless someone wants to accuse MZ of outright sexism and discrimination, I think it's safe to assume that he's got the best people on his Board that he feels were available at the time. To make this an issue of sexism seems unfounded at this point.
Should he have opted for quotas over merit?
Equal but special is their battle whine.
You know it.
I know it.
Keep pointing fingers though. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that.
Women wanting women to be powerful and dominate is little better than men wishing the same for men. It is not going to make life for the average women better anymore than men on boards make most men's lives better. The focus needs to get off the roles occupied by very few people. Such changes are inherently superficial in nature. In the tech world where mostly men CHOOSE to be employed it should come as no surprise that most of those in leadership are in fact men.
Women can also CHOOSE to do these things. HP is on it's second female CEO after the previous one failed. How sexist would it be to assume the second female gender would also fail. This gender based assessment can quickly be turned around and provide excuses to exclude people.
It breaks my heart/turns my stomach every time I see a woman say "no one asked me, no one invited me, no one welcomed me, no one allowed me" etc.
No one will.
Most of the overt sexism that remains seems to come from the equality advocates who insist we pay special attention to what job a women wants regardless of how senior a position they are already in. To justify this they resort to female chauvinism, declaring the many ways in which women may be superior to men. I think those who make it that far are capable enough to fight for whatever job they want on their own especially since it's mainly themselves who stand to benefit from the position.
How often have we heard about the world being better if it were run by women? That is sexism and it's coming from a kind of feminist who is not a true supporter of us all being judged as individuals.
My opinion is I am very happy Mark founded Facebook ....and Sheryl is not underpaid from what I hear............and Facebook has helped to change the world!
What a baseless what if...
Why?
I hear this question asked a lot and I have heard explanations that range from "it was unintentional" to "women professionals just didn't want something unstable and take the risk when we were a startup", but my question is how do you think we fix the issue without punishing (qualified) men for being a man?
Now, you are just spouting feminist cliche without a shred of evidence.