It really angers me to see stories like this. Seriously do writers have nothing better to write about? Opinion poles nothing better to talk about? Is it that important we analyse the statistics of men versus women in a certain type of profession?

We live in a day and age where women have the same rights, education and working opportunities. If women wanted to work in the military, represent our nation in politics or any other position of power, don’t you think they would?

I think everyone forgets when looking at statistics; people, male or female have the freedom to choose their path and career choice. The strong willed and determined women who make up the statistic in this story are people to proud of rather then making the focus on which sex is represented in these professions. Washington’s foreign-policy community maybe full of men; both the men and women have worked extremely hard to be in these positions.

Who really cares which sex they are as long as they meet the necessary selection criteria, work hard and represent the nation the way it deserves to be.

If the world wants to stop prejudice stop writing stories like these.

Think of the big picture; if a woman wanted these roles they would have them, if men are dominating these areas, they’re obviously damn good at their jobs!

Numbers do not indicate bias. We have a majority of college students now are women. Are men "disadvantaged"?

Maybe women are less interested in some things and men less interested in others. Find actual cases of bias and address them, but don't give a silly statistic about numbers.

People come as individuals, not members of groups. We should take them as people, not groups.

The odds are worse for photographers...only one woman out of a total of eleven photographers in your picture...

The email notice for FP had the headline "Why do Think Tanks Hate Women?", not the innocuous headline used on this website.
After reading the article, my first inclination is to say "Why Does FP hate men?" by writing such an article and using inflammatory headlines.
My second thought is that my entire 45+ years of work experience result in the opinion that many women ignore politics so why blame men for that. Women ignore math, science, politics, technical professions, manual professions, but then why blame men for an apparent difference in gender preferences?
When I worked in corporations, men would contribute new knowledge to online knowledgebases, but women only used the info, and most did not contribute knowledge. Women did not read publications to learn new technical knowledge anywhere like the level that men did. Business magazines in the past would get accused of leaving women out of articles, but then the magazine would disclose that 90%+ of their readers were men...I don't see FP asking why women don't read about technical OR political subjects anywhere near the level that men do?

If you want women represented in political and technical fields, you first have to get them interested in those fields, and my experience is they don't even want to talk about business news or issues at business meetings. But, the ones that do ARE sought out and retained by organizations. The problem is that there are not many of them.

Finally, unlike the US, most foreign countries are dominated by men, and in foreign policy, my belief is that US soft skilled women are no match.
For instance, when I was in Iraq for 23 months as a US adviser in the Embassy, there were plenty of young women in USAID, NGO and State Dept groups, but Iraqi government is run by much older men who had no rapport with them. USAID and State focused on soft programs to benefit women which is nice, but it really caused a high degree of resentment in the Iraqi men that we were spending funds to re-educate their wives, etc and still could not get the electricity running.
I am all in favor of the women who DO enter the fields of politics, math, etc and focus on those technical issues, but stop blaming men or organizations when many women have no interest in fields that ARE of interest to men.

Politics is nasty business, and Washington think tanks are all about politics. It takes an aggressive nature to succeed in politics, and women are not noted for being aggressive. Overcoming that takes more than calls for immediate action. What are we to do? Put Depo-Provera in male politicians' water? (Looking at ‘em now, not such a bad idea.)

These results are due to both culture and nature. The lack of females in high positions is not an indictment of politics, but it should lead us to ask if we might not well listen more often to women instead of alpha-male bombasts and talking heads. Both sexes,alas, can suffer from Tenth Floor syndrome (no one on lower floors is worth listening to) and "I'm RIght You're All Wrong."

And money is male. Who funds the think tanks?

The inflamatory subject line in the FP email aside, Micah Zenko is right to point out that the gender balance in Washington's foreign policy think tanks is pretty abysmal. The leaders of these tanks should wake up and recognize that this undermines their effectivness and puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

I am lucky to work at a premier Washington's think tank that is a happy exception to this rule, the Center for Global Development (CGD). Of our 55 full-time staff, 27 (49%) are women and 28 (51%) are men. Of the 20 senior policy/program/research staff, 8 (40%) are women and 12 (60%) are men. Our president Nancy Birdsall is one of the few women to lead a major Washington think tank.

Gender balance makes a difference: having a woman leader and a substantial number of senior female colleagues is one of the keys to CGD's success.

The article implies women are doing all they can but in the end are powerless victims. If you are a woman and you buy that, you have just given up what power you have to solve the problem.

We can start with being more conscious of and honest about problems women cause other women at work. As one of many examples, see Rudman's article on how women in power penalize other women while men who are focused on getting the job done tend more to value a competent, contributing co-worker regardless of gender.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9523410

Anyone who reads this and thinks it's total BS is obviously part of the problem. To say that women aren't interested in politics is a lie and an easy excuse for someone to make who is too lazy to do anything to remedy the situation themselves. As a young woman who is interested in foreign policy and politics, it's hard not to feel like you're struggling in an uphill battle against antiquated mindsets like some of the statements made here. It's difficult to build a report with the older men who are in power and frustrating to see your male colleagues be given more and more responsibilities so easily.

And the consequences of women being left out of foreign policy think-tanks are terrible! When you have only men in power making all the decisions, women's issues will always be one of the first things on the chopping block in negotiations. It's vital to get women involved in the process, and offering explanations that "they just aren't interested" is bogus.

In the UK only 21 % of MPS are women and only 18% of top academics are women too so your numbers are not as bad as ours. Our army figures are a lot worse but we have different rules re combat. I know they are not directly comparable of course but they are certainly indicative. Our figures show a distinct if slow upward trend however. Our debate is couched in the same terms as yours. Post events like Margret Thatcher's premiership no one thinks it has anything to do with ability

I noticed Andrew Exum addressed this article on his blog at CNAS, and I wanted to suggest you find other responses from staff at the thinktanks you mentioned and list them on Foreign Policy. It'd be a great follow-up to your article to keep the conversation going.

Women work 44% of total hours in America, yet they only represent 7% of workplace fatalities. This under-representation is never subject to protest and clamor for immediate corrective action.

Why? Because it is a natural result of women selectively choosing to pursue professions that are easier and safer.

Fine. But, I take issue when women are preferentially treated in the hiring process for dangerous work, like the military, and then are protected from the dangers of that work. Witness the 2.5% female contribution to combat deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 1.6% contribution to deaths in Operation Enduring Freedom.

More opportunity. Same pay. Less risk. Less injury and death. This equals preferential treatment and yet those same folks who profess a desire for true equality are silent.

This article is a call for intervention to enable women to preferentially enjoy the prestige and high pay associated with cream of the crop jobs at the highest levels of employment in foreign policy.

This is another call for gender-biased, preferential hiring that is unconnected to any desire for true gender equality.

Modern feminism is once again showing its true colors: equality of outcome and preferential treatment when goodies are involved, unequal protection and freedom from civic responsibilities when unpleasantness and danger are involved.

Naked hypocrisy and misandry....as usual.

When I see articles protesting the lack of men in the classroom and the lack of women dying in the trenches, I'll believe that feminist writers have a shred of integrity and credibility.

Even since the invention or statistics and the discovery of statistics as weapon, I have been reminded ceaselessly of the fact and the reality that discrimination pervades every section of our society. Our government is discriminating either against either women, or minority, or men all the time. Our academes are either dominated by men or women or minority or majority all the time. The inteligentsia of the US who invented the statistical tool to guage the equality can't do well on equality all the time. Whenever I look at the farm workers, I am disgusted. They are almost all Mexicans. Where are Japanese Americans? Where are whites? Why are there so few white Americans owning Chinese restaurants? Who is going to tell me that Japanese American can't pick up strawberries better than Mexicans and that a white American can't stir-fry as good as any Chinese American? I will not tolerate all these blatant discrimination until city of men becomes city of half men and half women, or 1/4 while men, 1/4 white women, 1/4 black men and 1/4 black women.... No, it should be 1/16 white men, 1/16 white women, 1/16 Asian men, 1/16 Asian women, 1/16 Latino male, 1/16....
CORRECTION: 1/32 white men, 1/32 white women, 1/32 Middle Eastern male, and 1/32......... No, let me think again...... Can I get back to you guys later?... Ooops, I mean gals.

Let the victim speak for herself.

Sears Roebuck, to their credit, *won* a landmark case years ago that was based on a purely statistical argument as here. The case was not brought by any female employee of Sears claiming she'd been discriminated against, but by the EEOC! Jobs selling "white goods" such as refrigerators, washer-dryers, etc pay more commission, yet women were far fewer in those jobs than men. Sears researched its workers and found that women were self-selecting out. They didn't like the hard-closing interactive tactics associated with high sales volume; they didn't like long hours, or having to call customers up at night; they preferred to feel helpful, showing customers where to find their items, rather than pushy; etc. (An anthro professor once told me, "Stereotypes persist because they're not *entirely* false.")

Look, I'd rather have more women in those jobs too. That same anthro professor characterized academia as "full of alpha females and beta-minus males," which doesn't sound too far off the think-tankers, come to "think" of it. When lots of smart, educated women with credentials decide they want to besiege the think tanks to acquire the swell employment opportunities there, there's no way the think tanks can avoid hiring them. Until then, let the women do what they prefer.

... and it probably isn't 100 percent fair or accurate in the context of your article. Having worked for many years with children, including girls and young women, I observed that the women in their inner circles (mothers, teachers, female siblings) were often their role models. The very women who could have helped them develop self-reliance often imbued them with their fashion sense and make-up skills. They often encouraged bust development over brain development. (And these Kim Kardashians of the world do seem to be the ones drawing fame, wealth and admiration - of both men and women, especially younger women and girls.) Girls must be socialized differently almost from birth to compete with men, with the understanding there are biological factors that must be considered.

The great actress and champion thinker Katherine Hepburn said that to be truly happy, a woman must live life like a man. If a female wants to pursue a job in foreign policy, or any other male-dominated field or profession, she must prepare herself with appropriate education, mentors and network and think "adventure in life" instead of "man, marriage and kids." The three things your colleagues mentioned are absolutely on target. And if think tanks do hate women, maybe it's because women hate themselves.

The problem is that "the game is rigged".

Go read Shelly Tailor's research on the Gender Specific Hormonal Response to Stress. It is clear that stress loving individuals create an environment were "individual choices" are sorting function for those other folk who like gratuitous "stress", which generally excludes women.

But then this eliminates 50% of the competition for the positions at am early stage so that clueless wonders don't have to work so hard!

Why aren't there articles about Gender bias in industries like media and publishing, nursing, Primary school teachers, Airline Cabin crew, Beauticians, Gynecologists, etc where men aren't "equally represented" ? Why don't we have article about how men are "disadvantaged" by the loss of gainful employment in so many areas "DOMINATED" by women for decades ?

Also, if women are "discriminated" against in so many areas, why aren't there feminists who are campaigning and writing articles about how there are so few "women" working as truck drivers, cab drivers, painters, electricians, masons etc ?? Why is it the campaign for "equality" by feminists extends only to the white collar professions and the high paying prestigious jobs ?

Clearly, there is a ridiculous double standard employed by so called "feminists" that has been indoctrinated into women as a matter of faith - that men have been consciously and systematically excluding women from "achieving their potential" and continue to do so and therefore they have to hoist the flag of feminism and rail about the "injustices" and the "disadvantages" that are being meted out to them! Never mind the fact that in reality the US Federal Government, the State governments, thousands of charitable organizations and thousands of foundations are pumping BILLIONS of dollars on helping women with scholarships, quotas, special programs and what have you, while there is literally not one penny spent on better "males" in this country because well that would be "unmanly" ! The real sad irony is that despite so much funding and so many legal protections and public and private provisions to foster and encourage women to develop themselves, men are still accused of perpetuating "discrimination" and "double standards".

There is a double standard, the double standard is in how women and men don't compete on equal terms and what was once rightfully challenged by women as being biased against them has now been reversed into being biased towards them. In a time when politically correct terminology is fashionable and savvy there has been a frenetic effort by corporations, the Federal Government, the US Military and every other group to push women staff to visible positions and comply with political correct and politically fashionable culture despite the fact that many are not ready and many are not capable. Yet the same tired refrain is heard about how women are being "singled out" and "disadvantaged'.

Like the boy who cried wolf, this charge of bias now rings hollow and soon the girl who cries "discrimination" shall be a parable that future generations shall teach their children !

Why there are not many women? Because men do the actual work, research foreign policy issues, etc. while the majority of what women do is not to study foreign policy isues but engage in the kind of bean-counting, moralizing and denouncing of males, seeing and analyzing your own male co-workers as enemy and oppressor, that's best exemplified by this article. The day when there are more women or equal number of women as men is the day when American think tank is rendered no longer relevant.
You can;t have an effective insitution when all the work is done by half and the other half is bent on scrutining and bringin down the other half as enemy.

Certainly we need more women in the halls of official and unofficial Washington. But the cover story proclaiming that “Think Tanks Hate Women” uses inaccurate information, at least with regard to Brookings.

As Director of HR at Brookings, I know that as of June 30, Brookings had 412 total employees (not 293), of which 56% (not 21%) are female. And 37% (not 20%) of the employees actively engaged in research at Brookings are women. To ensure that we sustain, and ideally increase, this figure, in 2008 some of my colleagues created the Women’s Mentoring Network to foster networking opportunities within the Institution and to build strategies for career progression among female employees. Those of us in leadership continue to work on various ways to attract and retain women and people of color into scholar and senior leadership positions here.

While this story highlights an important issue, it casts an unfair aspersion on Brookings, and, I suspect, on many of our sister think tanks.

The whole point of the article is to state that there are simply more men than women in Washington's foreign-policy community.

There is really no need to debate on discrimination and equality. The question to ask is how many women actually want positions in Washington's foreign-policy community.

These women don't need to buy digital cameras and look pretty. They need to take action if they want these positions and prove themselves.

Zenko could have just looked at the male/female ratio of subscribers to Foreign Policy and figured out why foreign policy think tanks are disproportionately male.

Next Zenko will drop the BOMBSHELL that model train enthusiasts are disproportionately men ... and SO ARE TRAIN CONDUCTORS! And then what brilliant social insights will he treat us to after that? Is he going to move on to airline pilots? I think he is!

Surely the answer to all of this is to mandate strict sex quotas, regardless of interest, for every area of human endeavor. If men and women will not willingly conform to our views of precise sexual equality in all things, then we will build our heaven of equality at the end of a gov't baton.

Statistics are good to draw doodles on. They don’t make any difference whatsoever. It’s like saying if there is poor circulation in legs then legs are the reason for poor blood circulation in the body. Nonsense! Get to the root of the problem. We don’t need equal number of men and women in Washington. What we need is good men or good women.

It is not the gender that makes good decisions, but a professional with sharp mind and a good set of values. Would you like to have to say 75% of women who are in that group who are an exact replica of Sarah Palin?

Well, my opinion is that it is not always about the choice and it is not always about the prejudices. I have lots of female friends who work in huge corporations, they are interested in politics, in science, are good at math, etc. They say that they do not feel any pressure from male colleagues. But there are also women who would love to be involved in politics or work in big corporations, but they are stopped by the social stereotypes. They say that they are scared that this kind of job will be an obstacle for having the family, children. As such high positions require a lot of time and energy. And I absolutely agree with the author’s reason for the minority of women in “powerful” professions – they just cannot afford to spend so much time at work. And for women it is really a choice – family or job. I doubt that men are judged if they spend a lot of time at work or travel a lot. Also there are not many men out there who are ready to accept that their wife will spend so much time at work. So, sometimes it is not about the choice. I also have a female friend who wanted to get the promotion, but who was said right into her face, that her male colleagues are more likely to be promoted. (Yes, the “male” was highlighted). So, sometimes it is really about the prejudices, but there is nobody to blame.

imant

This piece seems to have got a lot of people's backs up for reasons that are not immediately obvious. It neither victimises women, nor does it attack men.

Obviously men are not to be blamed for the absence of women in foreign policy. If anything, the majority of men that I've encountered whilst working for think tanks have been deeply supportive and proactive in their attempts to redress the balance. I don't see that this piece argued the contrary...

What I will say is that it's missing one crucial piece. My observation after 3 years of working in this space has suggested that women make up the majority of junior level and support positions in think tanks and in the policy world more broadly. This makes the absence of women in senior positions more striking. Appreciating that there has been improvement in the last stretch in the opportunities available to women and so that there, is as a result, likely to be an imbalance in age and sex distribution to some extent, I am disinclined to believe that this is the only reason there's a big drop off.

I suspect that the usual roster of causes plays into it (some of which this piece explores): women are less good at asking for promotions and being self-promoting than their male counterparts; managing a family and a career is difficult; there is a lack of female role models (though less so now) and mentors; and, more controversially, an under confidence in the work space means that women do better in junior positions than men. They are more willing to do tasks that men in similar positions would feel were beneath them and are thus more likely to do well in those positions than men, but less likely in positions where they are required to take on other responsibilities (this is something my colleagues and I have seen a lot of first hand). An additional difficulty is that because there are so many young women in foreign policy and so few senior, one instinctively believes women to be more junior, regardless of their title, until proved wrong. I've even caught myself doing this in some cases (and then kicking myself very hard subsequently).

Yes, a lot has been done to break the glass ceiling, and there are no longer any insurmountable obstacles in the way. However, there are still obstacles - some of them legal (e.g. childcare provisions which favor mothers over fathers rather than giving parents the choice), some of them social (e.g. perceptions of women in foreign policy), and many of them pyschological (e.g. inability to self-promote). Progress has certainly been made, but there's more to go yet and seeing that happen is not just a matter of patience. Some of this needs to take place in the broader context, but much of it needs to be industry specific.

There needs to be more thought from and conversation between people who work in all areas of the industry - not just those doing 'women in foreign policy'. It's fantastic that this conversation is being had and it's great that it's being had in a reputable industry magazine like Foreign Policy rather than in the usual ideological feminist or left wing rags, and I hope it continues. It makes one slightly less daunted by the prospect of being a woman in this space. It's nice to see that one doesn't need to have to take on all of these problems by oneself in addition to the typical ambitions of people working in this space...

From my point of view: The question upon which the whole future peace and policy of the world depends is this: Is the present war a struggle for a just and secure peace, or only for a new balance of power? If it be only a struggle for a new balance of power, who will guarantee, who can guarantee, the stable equilibrium of the new arrangement? Only a tranquil Europe can be a stable Europe. There must be, not a balance of power, but a community of power; not organized rivalries, but an organized common peace..

Thanks faye reagan for editting.

The numbers are in, and they show a staggering absence of women in Washington's foreign-policy community. Civilization is the creation of the male mind. You politically correct guys look at history and hopefully you will get what I am talking about. Philosophy, physics, mathematics, symphonic music, orchestra conducting, etc. were and still are the domain of males. Why? Because very very few women are capable of complex multi-faceted thinking. A think tank needs people who can relate / connect facts a read more ost , than they moved on to terror and suicide bombings in the second Intifada and lost again, now they realized they cannot beat us through force than they are trying to show Israel in a bad light to the world as if they are up with the standard of the western world. branda branda gsm phone software The law is for the purpose of not giving a hand and funding through the government to organization

hey are more willing to do tasks that men in similar positions would feel were beneath them and are thus more likely to do well in those positions than men mediterranean diet, but less likely in positions where they are required to take on other responsibilities (this is something my colleagues and I have seen a lot of first hand).