The Ambition Myth
Sure, some women are less ambitious in the paid labor market after having a child. But we should all be asking ourselves why that is.
ALSO IN THIS POST…
A masterclass in mansplaining
A worrying VC funding slowdown
Last October, when Lean In and McKinsey published their annual Women in the Workplace report—an agenda-setting state of the nation-style tome—there was one takeaway that topped much of the related news coverage: Women are ambitious after all!
Contrary to recent headlines, the report proclaimed (while citing reams of data, and to the astonishment of absolutely no women anywhere), women are just as committed to their careers and just as interested in being promoted as their male counterparts. This is true “at every stage of the pipeline,” the report noted.
The fact that a formal report has legitimized this idea is, of course, good news. But here’s something that would have been even better: If employers had acknowledged this decades ago.
Regular readers of this Substack will know that in the prologue to my book, WOMEN MONEY POWER I write about an off-the-record interview I did with the CEO of a major multinational company that employs tens of thousands of people. (You can read that particular excerpt from my book here.)
I asked the CEO about the gender pay gap at his organization, why it had barely budged in recent years, and what needed to be done to fix it. His response floored me: When women have children, he posited confidently, their priorities shift and they might no longer be as eager for that promotion or pay raise as their male colleagues. In short, he said, women simply become less ambitious after having babies. I was so shocked, I could barely formulate a coherent follow-up.
Of course, in some cases, his assertions hold up. Some women do make the choice not to work outside of the home. Some women do decide that the burden of child-raising is incompatible with the career trajectory they’d previously been aiming to track. No doubt, some women are less ambitious in the paid labor market after having a child.
But why is that? In many instances, it’s because the parameters of the traditional workplace force women to make a choice. It’s because the math of continuing to scale the career ladder while shelling out for a dawn-to-dusk childcare, doesn’t make sense. It’s because unchallenged assumptions too often postulate that a working mom simply doesn’t want to be a primary breadwinner.
But for a CEO who’s on the hook to explain the gender pay gap in his organization, maybe it’s just easier to simply blame women.
I’ve thought so much about this particular interaction and, more broadly, about the concept of ambition and gender over the last few years. As such, I was really happy to have the opportunity to delve deep into this topic in an essay for The Persistent, a short excerpt of which you’ve just read above. I’d urge you to check out the full thing and subscribe to The Persistent here. And while you’re there, also check out this brilliant piece (free to read) by Emma Haslett on why heatwaves are a woman’s issue.
Mansplaining: A Case Study
Elsewhere last week, I had the pleasure of attending a brilliant book talk by the authors of the recently published THE FALL OF ROE, which chronicles the ten years leading up to the June 2022 Dobbs decision that bulldozed Roe v. Wade, a ruling that for almost fifty years had safeguarded a woman’s right to abortion here in the U.S.
I haven’t read the book yet, but I’m sure Elizabeth Dias and Lisa Lerer have done a masterful job. It’s received critical acclaim and I’ll be certain to share my impressions when I finish it. Another person who’s not yet read it—or at least hadn’t at the time of last Tuesday’s book talk—is an elderly gentleman who sat in the front row of the talk.
When Dias and Lerer finished their opening remarks, they opened the floor to questions from the audience. Immediately his hand shot up, signalling his intent to contribute—really more of a comment than a question. Buckle up.
“I think you’re missing something,” he informed the two veteran journalists who have collectively dedicated decades of their careers to studying the complex dynamics and nuances of the anti-abortion movement and the forces that have enabled it to persevere.
“Enlighten us,” Dias politely beckoned, prompting the man to dive into a monologue about obscure legislation and a particular social trend of the 1980s. I must admit, I was too distracted by his audacity and tone to appreciate the actual content of what he was saying, but I was tuned in enough to understand that, at some point, he admitted that he’d not yet read their book.
Sometimes I think we’re too quick to dismiss a well-intentioned clarification as patronizing “mansplaining”. Other times I’m rendered speechless by the confidence that some men have to prove their (real or imagined) intellectual brilliance and superior expertise.
Let’s for a minute assume this man really did have a salient, important and relevant insight to share. And let’s even assume he’d actually read the book, and actually established that this really important fact had been omitted from the book. Even in this admittedly unlikely scenario, his behavior would have been totally inappropriate; rude even. A book talk is a place to celebrate authors and their work and perhaps to ask critical but respectful questions of the experts in their field. It is a place for debate but not lecturing. And it is certainly not a place to brag, posture or make a dismal attempt at embarrassing two brilliant writers. At the very least, the optics of what he was doing should have kept him from making an utter fool of himself.
Fortunately, everyone else in the room seemed to appreciate the ludicrousness of what was unfolding. A beautiful dressed and coiffed elderly lady in front of me turned to the person next to her, roller her eyes in disgust and stage-whispered: “Is he for real? This is crazy.” It really was.
For more on the topic of mansplaining, I love this piece from a few years ago on the BBC. It also includes this brilliant chart by Kim Goodwin. Might be worth laminating and keeping in our wallets for future reference or, you know, as a charitable handout to those in need.
The VC Slowdown Hits Underrepresented Hardest
Earlier this month, fresh data on the funding environment shed new light on the experience of racially diverse and all-female startup founding teams.
Now, of course it’s no secret that headwinds are much stronger for women when it comes to raising money. Many of us are familiar with that feeble 2% number. But the latest research shows that things could actually be getting worse rather than better.
The research conducted by DocSend, found that racially diverse, all-female startup founding teams spent the longest time fundraising in 2023 at an average of 25 weeks, which represented a 75% increase year-over-year. These teams also raised the least money of all demographics (an average of $460,000) and although all demographics raised less in 2023 than in years prior, underrepresented founders faced the most adversity. And 2023 was, by the way, the slowest year for VC funding since 2018.
This data made me think of my recent coverage for the BBC of the backlash against DEI. My piece focused on the shrinking proportion of women in the C-Suite, but the dynamics underpinning this very worrying trend are relevant against the backdrop of this VC data too.
I interviewed Nicholas Pearce, a DEI expert, professor at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management, and the founder and chief executive officer of management consultancy The Vocati Group, for that BBC article. He said that he’s witnessing an "escalating war on DEI", which is built on a "patently false yet increasingly widespread belief that DEI [initiatives] inherently discriminate against and disadvantage white males".
"Many organizations are reversing course on DEI to avoid becoming legal and political targets," he explained. "The short-run impact of this fear-motivated strategic shift is fewer women and persons of color being advanced into positions of corporate leadership."
It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that what Pearce is talking about is starting to show up in the world of VC fundraising too.
WOMEN MONEY POWER: The Book
And finally, in case you missed it, Amazon earlier this month named WOMEN MONEY POWER one of the Best Books of the Year So Far 2024.
Elsewhere, Catalyst, the workplaces consulting group, recently published a brilliant review of the book. Here’s an excerpt:
“Cox frames the odyssey through vignettes and vibrant portraits of women changemakers, from household names like equal pay advocate Lilly Ledbetter to influential figures who never quite got their due, such as lawyer and activist Pauli Murray. Readers also meet lesser-known women who broke from the status quo, including Mae Burkett Krier, who joined the millions of “Rosie the Riveter” women entering the labor force to support the US economy during World War II.
“Their stories shine a light on the courage, grit, and persistence required to stand up to the status quo. But for every incredible achievement, Cox notes, a major setback was not far behind.”
You can read the full review here.
And, as ever, a last shameless request. If you’ve read the book or listened to the audiobook, I would massively appreciate it if you could take just thirty seconds to post a review or rate it on Amazon using this link. If Goodreads is your jam, that’s just as great, and you can leave a review or rating here. Thank you so much for your support!
Over the summer I’ll be taking a few weeks off here a there, mostly to accommodate fewer childcare hours and a tired brain. I won’t be publishing next Monday, on July 8. But I’ll be back in your inboxes July 15.
Be safe and happy holidays to those celebrating,
Josie