Not long ago I read about a women entrepreneur who had invented a shirt (not a blouse) for professional women that did not have that irritating gap between buttons that seems to be a distraction for many of our male colleagues.   Currently there is a spirited exchange of opinion about another gap; the gap in wages between men and women- but surely the two gaps are not related-or are they? 

            That both gaps are of global concern is not disputed; let’s leave the cleavage gap for the moment- most of us don’t need much clarification as to why this is a universal phenomenon. However, what does require reflection is the global wage gap – why so little change in over a decade? While there are fluctuations around the globe the average gender gap in wages seems glacially immobile.       

            In a now frequently cited speech on January 14, 2005, (the newly rehabilitated by the Obama administration) Larry Summers, then president of Harvard University, advanced three “broad hypotheses” or gaps to explain why few women were found in the science and math departments of prestigious universities.  The three “Broad Hypotheses” are as follows:

1.  The high-powered job hypothesis.  Summers suggested that “the most prestigious activities in our society expect of people who are going to rise to leadership positions in their forties, near total commitment to their work.”  In other words besides cleavage gaps, women also have dedication gaps!

2.  The different availability of aptitude at the high end.  Summers speculated that the gap in the SAT math scores between men and women resulted in two or more men for every woman in the candidate pool for these top positions. Besides cleavage and dedication gaps, according to Summers, women seem to have IQ gaps. He forgot to mention the controversy about whether IQ scores correlate to any kind of success, including amongst Harvard staff who Summers did not bother to consult before speaking.

3.  The different socialization and patterns of discrimination in selection of candidates hypotheses- in other words gaps resulting from bias, stereotypes, or discrimination.  He concluded that there was little support for either of these explanations, commenting that “there is a tendency to attribute things to socialization that in fact are not attributable to socialization.” He forgot to cite any evidence about this lack of a gap!

            These comments set off what has been called “Le Affaire Larry” or more graphically “The Perfect Shit Storm.”  The chronology of the aftermath to his comments reflects most of the themes in the current explanations for the global phenomena of men being paid more than women sometimes for the same job.  We’ve all heard the arguments. Women choose not to take the difficult jobs because they don’t want to sacrifice their lives to their work or they don’t have the genetic equipment to master challenging positions.  The question of socialization and discrimination seldom enter gap discussions!

            It is a fact that women are clustered into traditional jobs around the globe. How did this happen? Was it a lack of ability to do anything else as Larry Summers hypothesized? Or was it perhaps a lack of motivation or dedication caused by a genetic allergy to work 60 hours a week? I doubt it!!

            How may women even know they have a choice? If from the time you come home from the hospital in a pink blanket your entire society expects you to take on the care and nurturing roles in society, do you really know you have a choice?  Just because your IQ happens to be upwards of 145 and you are a female being, doesn’t mean you weren’t raised on dolls, and endless positive reinforcement for displaying caring attitudes and nurturing behavior.  Does any one out there have a brother who was given an extra cuddle because he showed sweet compassion or shed tears of empathy when viewing other humans in need? I bet there won’t be a flood of responses.

            Typically these discussions are approached as an intellectual smack down of man vs. women.  While this “contest” can be entertaining I feel that it often ends up in a media or academic food fight, which misses the real issue. How are we going to dig ourselves out of the deep economic hole that we are in?  In North America the biggest job losses are being experienced by men and it is entirely possible that in the next 18 months women will be 50% of the labor force (See NY Times). They are nearly there right now. With these dramatic job losses women’s incomes are more important than ever. Imagine how much better off the entire world would be if that 30% wage gap had been closed by now.

            As women’s education levels increase dramatically in many places on the globe (Canadian women earn over 60% of undergraduate degrees, over 50% of masters and over 44% of doctorates) it is pretty obvious that if we don’t properly align our best educated human resources with our economic policies, growth will be sub optimal. Full stop! If we are going to extricate ourselves from the imbroglio we HAVE to engage all our resources in the economy.

            It is the male half of the species that drove us to the point of economic crisis we face today. There is no arguing that barely a single skirt was shown on the front pages of our economic and financial journals. The word testosterone is showing up in an increasing number of articles that attempt to make sense of the implosion. Iceland has effectively banned men from the top positions of their banking system by putting women in charge of both of their large banks.  And there is a growing realization that the economic potential of women may well be the key to this recovery.    In introducing a film shown at the Davos World Economic Forum this year, the web page of PriceWaterhousCooper states:   “In addition to economic change, we are going through a period of huge social transformation, as we move into a future of labor shortages, skills gaps and a world in which the educational and economic empowerment of women will become even more significant.” Click below to see the video. It is intriguing!

            Mr. Summers certainly has retracted most of what he said. And rightly so!! Let’s hope that as the Chief Economic Advisor to the Obama administration he takes the lessons he learned in the “Perfect Shit Storm” and applies to the mess he is facing now. Certainly President Obama’s announcement this week that his good friend Valerie Jarrett will head a new White House Committee on Women and Girls augurs well for the possibility of change. The President told the story of watching his grandmother who was the first women vice president of a bank in Hawaii passed over for promotion by men less qualified than she was and vowed that this situation must change. He is right. This situation must change everywhere, not only in America.