Can Women Compete?

You probably missed the article in the Daily Mail, a bottom tier London tabloid, about how rich boys are more competitive than girls. In a Norwegian study of 15 year olds shows that "boys really are more competitive than girls... but only if they come from rich families…[A]mong the well-off participants boys were much more aggressive… A similar American study from 2007 found 73 per cent of the men were competitive, against just 35 per cent of the women."

The Professor conducting the Norwegian study was quoted saying that a lack of competitiveness may be a reason why women do not become top leaders. "This does not necessarily mean they ought to compete more. Perhaps we need to think differently about the way we recruit top leaders. The most competitive candidate is not necessarily the best leader." Interestingly enough, Forbes took a look at how women the 51 CEOs among the top 1,000 U.S. companies have performed. So these are also wealthy people-- but they are certainly not taking a back seat to their male peers.

Texas boasts the most Fortune 1000 companies (103), but New York has the most big corporations led by women (seven). California comes in second, with six women-led companies, followed by Illinois with five.

Specialty retailers lead the list of companies with women chiefs… Only 5% of Fortune 1000 companies have female CEOs, but those giants generate 7% of the Fortune 1000′s total revenue. The biggest woman-led company: Mary Barra’s General Motors.

…Fortune 1000 companies with female chiefs outperformed the S&P 500 index over their respective tenures.

Women-led companies tend to reward investors well. Home Shopping Network’s Mindy Grossman and TJX’s Carol Meyrowitz are among the CEOs who generated the highest returns during their respective tenures.

Now, when you turn to politics, I'd bet on one woman to compete for my team any day-- Elizabeth Warren, the most talented woman in Congress. Like many of us, she was stunned by the Hobby Lobby ruling. And along with most of her colleagues, she's taking action to as a countervailing force against the 5 right-wing old men who made the decision. "This is 2014, not 1914-- and we've had enough," she reminded her supporters. She spoke for millions of Americans when she said she is "stunned that the Court would establish precedent for one enormous slippery slope on letting employers deny individuals health coverage for any medical treatment."

Today, my Democratic colleagues and I are fighting to do what the Supreme Court failed to do: to protect the basic rights of American women and families.

Led by Senators Patty Murray and Mark Udall, we've just introduced a new bill-- the Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act. The bill reverses the Supreme Court's decision by making it clear that employers cannot deny access to any of the health benefits required by the ACA-- not immunizations, not blood transfusions, not HIV treatments, and not birth control-- while preserving reasonable accommodations for religiously exempt employers.

If we're going to respond to Hobby Lobby, it's got to be through a legislative fix. And if the Republicans won't fight for the women they represent, then we're going to take that fight to them. Let them explain why they think employers should decide what health care a woman can get covered by her insurance.

...The Republican Party has made it clear: They want to spend their time working to deny women access to birth control and punch as many holes in the Affordable Care Act as they can.

Just look at the facts:

• In 2012, Republicans tried to pass the Blunt Amendment-- legislation that would allow employers and insurance companies to deny women's health care services-- even birth control-- based on any vague moral objection.
• When the Blunt Amendment failed, the Republicans resorted to hostage-taking. Remember last year's government shutdown that nearly tanked our economy? That all started with a GOP threat to get Democrats to change the law so employers could deny coverage for birth control.

When Democrats wouldn't cave and the government shutdown backfired, the Republicans turned to their conservative friends on the United States Supreme Court-- five justices who are among the top ten most pro-corporate justices to serve in the last half-century-- to do what Congress and the American people would not: give corporations rights to determine women's access to health care coverage.

We cannot stand by while the radical right of our country conducts a full-scale assault on women's rights and basic health care.

Ultimately, the stinking corpses of Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and the Koch brothers will be rotting in hell-- and Elizabeth Warren's progressive vision of fairness and equality will have prevailed.

Murray's and Udall's Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act has been co-sponsored by 40 senators-- although, naturally enough, Susan Collins of Maine is not one of them. These are: Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Mark Begich (D-AK), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Al Franken (D-MN), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Carl Levin (D-MI), Ed Markey (D-MA), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Tom Udall (D-NM), John Walsh (D-MT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).