Gender and the Economy

Tag: En Français

  • Primer on the gendered impacts of COVID-19

    Primer on the gendered impacts of COVID-19

    [fusion_builder_container admin_label=”” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”20″ margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” type=”legacy”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”3_4″ layout=”3_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”false” first=”true” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ spacing_right=””][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hue=”” saturation=”” lightness=”” alpha=”” content_alignment_medium=”” content_alignment_small=”” content_alignment=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” sticky_display=”normal,sticky” class=”” id=”” margin_top=”” margin_right=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_left=”” fusion_font_family_text_font=”” fusion_font_variant_text_font=”” font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” text_transform=”” text_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_color=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_delay=”0″ animation_offset=”” logics=””]

    Introduction

    The COVID-19 pandemic has had gendered effects. Women, especially those who are racialized, Indigenous, low-income, migrants and immigrants, and / or have disabilities, have been particularly susceptible to contracting the disease, as well as to experiencing heightened economic instability, job loss, and curtailed access to services and resources. Trans and gender diverse peoples also face increased risks due to widespread discrimination and stigma. On the other hand, some data suggest that men, particularly racialized men, have been more likely to face serious illness and death from COVID-19.

    This primer provides a summary of how gender and its intersections impact the ways the COVID-19 crisis is experienced, including key resources for further reading, and the implications for policy and action during and after the pandemic. It has been updated in July 2021 to add more resources and information to the original April 2020 version.

    1.    Women are more likely than men to be frontline workers.

    Women are more likely than men to be healthcare workers, on the frontline of the pandemic. According to the World Health Organization, across 104 countries, women comprise 70% of health and social care sector workers.[1] In Canada, they are even more represented, at 81% of health care and social assistance workers.[2] This has made women more vulnerable to COVID-19, and as of spring 2021 they made up 51% of COVID-19 cases in Canada. One study in the summer of 2020 found that of all women who tested positive for COVID-19 in Ontario, 36 per cent were employed as healthcare workers, and of those, 45 per cent were immigrants and refugees.[3] However, because there is an underrepresentation of women in leadership, especially racialized and immigrant women, their voices are not often heard in decision- and policymaking.[4]

    2.    Women, particularly racialized women, are more likely to do high-contact, unprotected, and economically insecure work.

    Women and particularly racialized and immigrant women are also concentrated in jobs in services, retail, care, and hospitality sectors. These jobs involve high contact with people, often do not offer paid sick leave, and tend to pay relatively low wages.[5] This has translated to increased risk of contracting COVID-19 for these workers and their families.

    Such jobs are also likely to provide precarious and part-time or temporary work, increasing workers’ susceptibility to layoffs and economic insecurity.[6] This latter point means women have been more severely affected by the economic recession caused by COVID-19. Data from Statistics Canada show that women made up 70% of employment losses for Canadians aged 25-64 in March of 2020.[7] Subsequent waves of COVID-19 causing further lockdowns resulted in more lost hours and temporary layoffs for core-aged women than for men, and higher unemployment for young women compared to young men.[8]

    Resources (for 1 and 2)

    Research and policy

    Media

    3.    Women’s domestic and caregiving burdens have increased.

    The pandemic has brought to the fore the importance of public investment in childcare. As countries went into lockdown, women’s domestic work and caregiving burdens increased heavily. When schools and daycares closed and social distancing measures were put into place, caregiving was moved back into the home, and grandparents or other relatives could not assist with care. Sick and / or self-isolating people also needed caregiving. Due to gender norms and roles, women have been doing the majority of this unpaid labour. While both women’s and men’s time spent on domestic work increased during the pandemic, women’s tended to increase more than men.[9] Further, for single mothers, balancing caregiving and paid work is a norm, but during the pandemic this work has been an even heavier load.

    As a result, more women than men have left or reduced paid work due to caregiving responsibilities. In the summer of 2020, women’s participation in the Canadian labour force fell to 1980s levels. Between February and October of 2020, 20,600 Canadian women left the labour force while nearly 68,000 men joined.[10] In November 2020, over half of mothers with children under eighteen were working less than half their usual hours, compared to only 41% of fathers.[11] Such caregiving burdens have also resulted in increased reports of mental health issues for parents and particularly for mothers.[12]

    Research on gendered effects of the pandemic across multiple countries suggest that having the ability to telecommute reduces these gender differences in employment. However, even for parents who have been telecommuting while taking care of children, mothers still face higher productivity declines than fathers.[13]

    Studies show that investing in the care economy (i.e., through publicly funded, affordable and accessible childcare) will boost women’s participation in the labour force as well as ensure that workers in the care sector have good jobs that are paid fairly, resulting in higher quality care services for all.[14]

    Resources

    Research and policy

    Media

    4.    Gender, race and other social identities shape the risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19.

    Some evidence suggests that men have experienced more serious illness from COVID-19 than women. As of June 2021, for every ten women who died of COVID-19 around the world, thirteen men died.[15]

    Intersectional analysis is important here. Racialized people are less likely to be able to access healthcare and have access to paid sick leave. They are more likely to work in essential jobs and to be in poorer health due to poverty and inadequate access to healthy foods. Research has found that race plays a significant role in mortality, with one study from the United States showing that Black men have the highest mortality rates from COVID-19. However, Black women showed higher mortality rates than white men and women.[16]

    To better understand risks and impacts, it is vital that COVID-19 data disaggregated by sex and gender, as well as other variables such as race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, are made available.[17]

    Resources

    Research and policy

    Media

    5.    Vulnerability to domestic abuse and gender-based violence increases.

    Isolation and social distancing pose increased dangers to victims of abusive relationships. During a lockdown, victims face more barriers to leaving abusers or to reaching out for help to friends and family. There has also been limited access to domestic violence services such as shelters due to social distancing measures. During the spring of 2020 in China, data indicate that the number of reported domestic violence cases tripled.[18] In Canada at the beginning of the pandemic, the federal government noted that there was a 20-30% increase in domestic violence reports in some regions. It has since announced extra funding for supports and services for gender-based violence, as well as a commitment to a National Action Plan on Gender-Based Violence.[19]

    Resources

    Research and policy

    Media

    6.    Access to sexual and reproductive healthcare is curtailed.

    During a pandemic, barriers to sexual and reproductive healthcare arise globally. Research has suggested that access to contraception and menstrual products has been curtailed due to supply chain interruptions. There has also been a shortage of services providing sexual and reproductive health care, as resources have been taken away from these programs. Further, people have lacked information about what sexual and reproductive health services are available during quarantine periods.[20] [21] A recent survey of sexual and reproductive health workers in 29 countries found that 86% reported the pandemic decreased access to contraceptive services and 62% reported decreased access to surgical abortion. These results came about due to a lack of political will, the effects of lockdowns, and suspension of sexual education.[22]

    Resources

    Research and policy

    Media

    7.    Indigenous, racialized, low-income, LGBTQ+ and other marginalized groups are more affected.

    It is crucial to emphasize that Indigenous, racialized, low-income, LGBTQ+, immigrant, and other marginalized groups have been more affected by the pandemic, as they were already more likely to be in economically insecure and high-risk health circumstances.

    The resources linked below point to some different aspects of heightened risk:

    • Indigenous and racialized communities as well as immigrants and migrants have been more susceptible to the pandemic’s impacts due to overcrowded housing, unsafe water, and poor access to healthcare and safe employment.
    • The pandemic has resulted in palpable racism, hate, and xenophobia against Asian populations.
    • Low-income groups are less likely to be able to work from home or have access to paid sick leave, resulting in higher rates of COVID-19.
    • Trans and gender-diverse people continue to face high levels of discrimination and stigma, including in healthcare and in bathrooms (where handwashing is done).
    • LGBTQ+ people are more likely to face employment instability or insecurity than the general population. LGBTQ+ elders are also more likely to be isolated or living alone.
    • Persons with disabilities and chronic health conditions have faced high rates of social isolation and financial uncertainty during the pandemic, leading to increased stress, anxiety, and despair.

    Resources

    Research and policy

    Media

    Policy considerations

    Considering the above perspectives, the following actions are recommended for policymaking and decision-making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Pandemic recovery must use a feminist lens and focus on equity for all groups who have been disproportionately affected. A summary of the Feminist Economic Recovery Plan for Canada developed by GATE in partnership with YWCA Canada can be found below and the full version is available here.

    1. Ensure marginalized groups have a voice in decision-making around pandemic response. Pay specific attention to the needs and perspectives of women, girls, gender-diverse people, Indigenous, low-income, racialized, LGBTQ+, and other high-risk groups.
    2. Conduct a gender analysis on all pandemic policy responses, both economic- and health-related. Analysis should be intersectional and consider race, socio-economic status, sexual identity, Indigeneity, and other social demographics. Gender analysis should be considered essential.
    3. Establish a universal or targeted basic income to ensure that a livable income is not tied to access to work and that unpaid labour is valued.
    4. Prioritize ensuring that everyone has paid sick leave, high quality health care, and affordable childcare. Lack of paid sick leave and access to care puts an entire population at risk during pandemics.
    5. Fund and provide extra support for essential reproductive and sexual health services, especially for vulnerable populations. This includes access to maternal and child services, abortion, and women’s hygiene products.
    6. Fund and provide extra support for shelters and assistance for domestic violence victims and ensure that assistance services are available digitally.
    7. Promote and campaign for equal domestic work sharing among genders to concretize the importance of reducing these burdens for women.
    8. Ensure that data collection and analysis on the impacts of the pandemic is disaggregated by gender, sex, race, Indigeneity, disability status, and other social demographics.

    Further reading

    The following links provide more helpful resources on gender and COVID-19.

    Téléchargez le pdf en français ici.
    ________________________

    Policy brief prepared by:

    CARMINA RAVANERA OF THE INSTITUTE FOR GENDER AND THE ECONOMY AT THE ROTMAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO, UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PROFESSOR SARAH KAPLAN.

    References

    [1] Boniol, M., et al. (2019). Gender equity in the health workforce: Analysis of 104 countries. World Health Organization. Retrieved on March 25, 2020 from https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/311314/WHO-HIS-HWF-Gender-WP1-2019.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

    [2] Statistics Canada (2019). Employment by class of worker, annual (x 1,000). Retrieved on March 25, 2020 from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410002701&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=3.15&pickMembers%5B2%5D=4.3

    [3] Guttmann A. et al. (2020). COVID-19 in Immigrants, Refugees and Other Newcomers in Ontario: Characteristics of Those Tested and Those Confirmed Positive, as of June 13, 2020. Retrieved on May 20, 2021 from https://www.ices.on.ca/Publications/Atlases-and-Reports/2020/COVID-19-in-Immigrants-Refugees-and-Other-Newcomers-in-Ontario

    [4] Wenham, C., Smith, J., and Morgan, R. (March 6, 2020). COVID-19: the gendered impacts of the outbreak. The Lancet 395(10227).

    [5] Scott, K. (March 20, 2020). COVID-19 crisis response must address gender faultlines. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Retrieved on March 25, 2020 from http://behindthenumbers.ca/2020/03/20/covid-19-crisis-response-must-address-gender-faultlines/

    [6] Moyer, M (2017). Women and Paid Work. Statistics Canada. Retrieved on March 26, 2020 from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-503-x/2015001/article/14694-eng.htm

    [7] Statistics Canada (2020). Labour Force Survey, March 2020. Retrieved on May 19, 2021 from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/200409/dq200409a-eng.htm

    [8] Statistics Canada (2021). Labour Force Survey, April 2021. Retrieved on May 19, 2021 from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/210507/dq210507a-eng.htm

    [9] Kabeer, N., Razavi, S., van der Meuelen Rodgers, Y. (2021). Feminist Economic Perspectives on the COVID-19 Pandemic. Feminist Economics 27(1-2), 1-29.

    [10] Desjardins, D. and Freestone, C. (2020). Canadian Women Continue to Exist the Labour Force. RBC Economics. Retrieved on May 19, 2021 from https://thoughtleadership.rbc.com/canadian-women-continue-to-exit-the-labour-force/

    [11] Statistics Canada (2020). Labour Force Survey, November 2020. Retrieved on May 19, 2021 from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/201204/dq201204a-eng.htm

    [12] Oxfam (2020). 71 per cent of Canadian women feeling more anxious, depressed, isolated, overworked or ill because of increased unpaid care work caused by COVID-19: Oxfam survey. Retrieved from https://www.oxfam.ca/news/71-per-cent-of-canadian-women-feeling-more-anxious-depressed-isolated-overworked-or-ill-because-of-increased-unpaid-care-work-caused-by-covid-19-oxfam-survey/

    [13] Alon, T. et al. (2021). From Mancession to Shecession: Women’s Employment in Regular and Pandemic Recessions. NBER Working Paper. Retrieved on June 28, 2021 from https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28632/w28632.pdf

    [14] de Henau, J. and Himmelweit, J. (2021). A Care-Led Recovery From Covid-19: Investing in High-Quality Care to Stimulate And Rebalance The Economy. Feminist Economics 27(1-2).

    [15] The Sex, Gender and COVID-19 Project (2021). Retrieved on July 5, 2021 from https://globalhealth5050.org/the-sex-gender-and-covid-19-project/the-data-tracker/

    [16] Rushovich, T. et al. (2021). Sex Disparities in COVID-19 Mortality Vary Across US Racial Groups. Journal of General Internal Medicine.

    [17] Allotey, P., Reidpath, D.D. and Schwalbe, N. (2020). Are men really that much more likely to die from coronavirus? We need better data to be certain. The Conversation. Retrieved on May 19, 2021 from https://theconversation.com/are-men-really-that-much-more-likely-to-die-from-coronavirus-we-need-better-data-to-be-certain-141564

    [18] Allen-Ebrahimian, B. (March 7, 2020). China’s domestic violence epidemic. Retrieved on March 26, 2020 from https://www.axios.com/china-domestic-violence-coronavirus-quarantine-7b00c3ba-35bc-4d16-afdd-b76ecfb28882.html

    [19] Patel, R. (April 27, 2020). Minister says COVID-19 is empowering domestic violence abusers as rates rise in parts of Canada. Retrieved on June 2, 2021 from https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/domestic-violence-rates-rising-due-to-covid19-1.5545851

    [20] Hussein, J. (2020). COVID-19: What implications for sexual and reproductive health and rights globally? Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters.

    [21] Marie Stopes International (2020). Resilience, Adaptation and Action : MSI’s Response to COVID-19. Retrieved on May 20, 2021 from https://www.msichoices.org/media/3849/resilience-adaptation-and-action.pdf

    [22] Endler, M. et al. (2020). How the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is impacting sexual and reproductive health and rights and response: Results from a global survey of providers, researchers, and policy makers. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 100 (4), 571-578.

    [/fusion_text][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_button link=”https://www.gendereconomy.org/category/policy-briefs/” text_transform=”” title=”” target=”_blank” link_attributes=”” alignment=”” modal=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” color=”custom” button_gradient_top_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_bottom_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_top_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ button_gradient_bottom_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ accent_color=”” accent_hover_color=”” type=”” bevel_color=”” size=”” stretch=”yes” icon=”” icon_position=”left” icon_divider=”no” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]See more policy briefs[/fusion_button][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_recent_posts layout=”default” picture_size=”fixed” hover_type=”none” columns=”3″ number_posts=”3″ offset=”0″ pull_by=”category” cat_slug=”policy-briefs” exclude_cats=”” tag_slug=”” exclude_tags=”” thumbnail=”yes” title=”yes” meta=”no” meta_author=”no” meta_categories=”no” meta_date=”yes” meta_comments=”yes” meta_tags=”no” content_alignment=”” excerpt=”no” excerpt_length=”35″ strip_html=”yes” scrolling=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”true” first=”false” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″][fusion_title title_type=”text” rotation_effect=”bounceIn” display_time=”1200″ highlight_effect=”circle” loop_animation=”off” highlight_width=”9″ highlight_top_margin=”0″ before_text=”” rotation_text=”” highlight_text=”” after_text=”” title_link=”off” link_url=”” link_target=”_self” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” sticky_display=”normal,sticky” class=”briefsummary” id=”” content_align_medium=”” content_align_small=”” content_align=”left” size=”3″ font_size=”” animated_font_size=”” fusion_font_family_title_font=”” fusion_font_variant_title_font=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” text_shadow=”no” text_shadow_vertical=”” text_shadow_horizontal=”” text_shadow_blur=”0″ text_shadow_color=”” margin_top_medium=”” margin_right_medium=”” margin_bottom_medium=”” margin_left_medium=”” margin_top_small=”” margin_right_small=”” margin_bottom_small=”” margin_left_small=”” margin_top=”” margin_right=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_left=”” margin_top_mobile=”” margin_bottom_mobile=”” text_color=”” animated_text_color=”” highlight_color=”” style_type=”none” sep_color=”” link_color=”” link_hover_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]

    Authors

    Carmina Ravanera

    Published

    July 2021 (updated from April 2020)

    [/fusion_title][fusion_widget_area name=”avada-custom-sidebar-researchbriefsidebar” title_size=”” title_color=”” background_color=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • Shattering the second glass ceiling: Financing women’s entrepreneurial ventures

    Shattering the second glass ceiling: Financing women’s entrepreneurial ventures

    [fusion_builder_container admin_label=”” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”20″ margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” type=”legacy”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”3_4″ layout=”3_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”false” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”true” spacing_right=””][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” content_alignment_medium=”” content_alignment_small=”” content_alignment=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” sticky_display=”normal,sticky” class=”” id=”” font_size=”” fusion_font_family_text_font=”” fusion_font_variant_text_font=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” text_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]

    Download this research brief (in English/en Français).

    Shattering the Second Glass Ceiling cover             

    Overview

    Securing funding is one of the first obstacles every entrepreneur must overcome. But, for women entrepreneurs, accessing financial capital is even more challenging than it is for men. For example, in 2018 nearly 98% of all venture capital funding in the United States went to start-ups owned and operated by men.[1] That means only 2.2% went to women entrepreneurs. Scholars have described this phenomenon as the “second glass ceiling.”[2] This research brief provides an overview of existing academic literature about the barriers to funding and financing for women entrepreneurs, identifying current gaps in research, providing recommendations for future work, and practical implications for researchers, funders and entrepreneurs.

    Today, only 16% of businesses in Canada are owned or led by women.[3] Why does this matter? Not only do women entrepreneurs represent an important source of economic growth and provide valuable and diverse perspectives, committing to supporting women’s entrepreneurship is one step toward a more just and equitable world.

    What does it mean to be an entrepreneur?

    Historically, an entrepreneur was defined as someone who managed theatrical productions, borrowing from the French entrepreneur: “one who undertakes or manages.”[4] In the 15th century, the word began to be used by English speakers to describe business managers in general. During industrialization, entrepreneurship became inextricably linked to capitalism, machines, and men. This association continues resulting in the conflation of entrepreneurship with innovation and masculinity, particularly in the technology sector.

    One of the challenges in understanding what the research says about women entrepreneurs is that the definition of entrepreneur used today is often very narrow. For example, self-employed women may not be considered entrepreneurs. As a result, this research overview focuses primarily on studies about founders (that is, women who start companies), but also includes work about women who lead small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

    Research about women and entrepreneurship is relatively young.

    Although scholars have studied entrepreneurship since the 1930s, the first research article about women and entrepreneurship was not published until the mid-1970s.[5] The literature reviewed below comes from a variety of peer-reviewed academic sources. We’ve sought to include seminal studies as well as contradictory findings and more recent research. When discussing emerging trends (e.g., “sidepreneurship”), we also cite relevant popular sources (e.g., Fortune, Forbes). It’s important to note, however, that this is a nascent area of study, deserving more time and attention from researchers in diverse disciplines.[6] Finally, it’s also telling that many of the top tier journals in fields like finance, management, and organizational studies have published relatively few studies about women entrepreneurs and funding.[7] Note that there is even more limited research on the experiences of transgender and gender non-conforming entrepreneurs and so we can only offer some suggestions for future research in this domain.[8]

    What existing research tells us about women entrepreneurs and funding

    Research says women entrepreneurs are less likely to seek certain kinds of funding, but a closer look proves it’s more complicated than “women don’t ask.”

    Research suggests women are less likely to seek funding provided by formal, external sources (e.g., angel investors, venture capitalists, public lenders).[9],[10] For example, a 2008 study found that significantly fewer women-led firms—less than 9%—were likely to seek angel investment (meaning, investment from a high-net worth individual who uses their own capital).[11]

    Why do women seemingly exclude themselves from certain kinds of funding? A growing body of work suggests that, while self-efficacy, imperfect information, and internalized sexism—sometimes contributing to what researchers call the “discouraged borrower” phenomenon[12],[13] —may play a role, so too does the presence (or absence) of start-up helpers (i.e., supporters who are not financially involved)[14] and women’s perceptions of how effective asking for funding may (or may not) be.[15]

    When it comes to venture capital (meaning, private equity provided by a group of investors), women may not seek venture capital (VC) financial support because, historically, they’ve been less likely to receive it and because VCs, in general, exhibit little gender diversity.[16] In other words, women may not seek funding from formal, external sources for a variety of reasons, many of which overlap and are reinforced by their own experiences and the experiences of other women.

    This brings us to the supply vs. demand debate in the literature.[17] While some researchers argue women don’t seek funding (there’s no supply of women entrepreneurs), others argue investors are unwilling to invest in women entrepreneurs (there is no demand to invest in women’s entrepreneurship). This debate speaks to a dynamic sociological and economic phenomenon that is often difficult to tease apart, but recent research suggests that both factors are at play.[18] However, what we do know from the research is that, historically, the deck has been stacked against women seeking funding, particularly when it comes to biases held by gatekeepers.

    Investors evidence biases against women entrepreneurs.

    Investors evidence biases that impact their decisions to fund (or not fund) women. For example, a series of studies have found that investors are less likely to invest in women-led start-ups even when factors like start-up quality, sector focus, and risk were similar.[19],[20],[21] Furthermore, some research suggests investors ask different things of women entrepreneurs than of their male counterparts. According to one study, investors involved in TechCrunch Disrupt New York City from 2010 to 2016 consistently asked men how they would succeed and women how they would avoid failure.[22] And it isn’t only that investors ask men and women different kinds of questions during pitches; they also use different kinds of language to describe men and women entrepreneurs. For example, Malmstrom and colleagues (2017) recorded the conversations governmental VCs in Sweden had about both men and women entrepreneurs and found that, overwhelmingly, VCs described women in a way that undermined their credibility, knowledge, trustworthiness, and experience.[23]

    It appears that these effects may differ by sector. Evidence from France shows that women entrepreneurs are less likely to use external equity in male-dominated sectors but more likely to use external equity in female-dominated sectors.[24] Unfortunately, most sectors are male-dominated, which leaves women with access to financing in a much smaller part of the economy. Because the bar is higher for women in male-dominated sectors, this same study showed that—conditional on receiving funding—women-led businesses outperform their male counterparts in these male-dominated sectors.

    Bank lenders also evidence biases against women-led businesses.

    Investors aren’t the only stakeholders who enact biases against women entrepreneurs. Studies find loan officers also evidence gender biases that negatively impact women seeking start-up capital. However, this bias plays out in ways that are more complicated than the gender of the individual bank lender. That is, researchers have found that both men and women loan officers perceive women entrepreneurs as more risk-averse and less autonomous than men.[25] Furthermore, the processes by which loan officers make decisions—including the protocols and practices they use—can reinforce gender norms and stereotypes, further excluding women.[26],[27]

    Women entrepreneurs are more likely to rely on informal networks for funding.

    Given the findings noted above, it’s perhaps unsurprising women entrepreneurs often seek financial support from informal networks.[28] Overall, women are more likely to rely on credit cards, personal savings, and/or “love” money (meaning, capital provided by family and friends) than men.[29] Other research suggests that women—particularly those in traditionally male-dominated sectors such as technology— may benefit more from crowdfunding (e.g., through Kickstarter) than men do because of activist women investors on those platforms.[30],[31]

    Race and class inequalities shape women entrepreneur’s experiences.

    In the past several years, businesses founded, owned, and operated by women of color, newcomer and immigrant women, and women with low socioeconomic status (SES) have grown significantly. However, too often research about women entrepreneurs presents a homogenized view of “female entrepreneurs” as though every woman’s experience is the same. We know this isn’t true.[32] Intersectionality—the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender and how they create overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination—means that race and class inequalities radically shape women entrepreneurs’ experiences of seeking and securing funding. For example, a study of women entrepreneurs in the Southern United States found that Black women starting their own businesses are more likely than their white counterparts to depend on a “multiplicity of resources,” combining public and private sources of capital and drawing on family members to provide free labor.[33] Similarly, a study of women entrepreneurs in Sweden found immigrant women were more likely to rely on loans from family members than their native-born counterparts.[34]

    To date, research about ethnic entrepreneurship and intersectionality has been undertaken largely by scholars outside of disciplines traditionally associated with business (e.g., anthropology, sociology).

    Women entrepreneurs in developing countries have different experiences.

    Recent research about how context impacts entrepreneurship has resulted in a wave of emerging work about women entrepreneurs in developing countries where they have even less access to capital.[35] Microfinancing (meaning, small collateral-free loans generally provided to unemployed or low SES individuals) has been championed as a way to help women establish their own businesses thereby facilitating their empowerment and subsequently reducing poverty. In some cases, microfinancing women entrepreneurs seems to have proven successful.[36],[37] In others, microfinancing has failed largely due to unacknowledged cultural realities. For example, a study of microfinance in Ethiopia revealed that, due to gender dynamics in families (e.g., decision making, the division of household labor), women who receive microloans often don’t have access to the funds and become even more overworked.[38]

    Funding is only one of the challenges women face in the entrepreneurship ecosystem.

    Women continue to be at a disadvantage in the larger entrepreneurship ecosystem.[39] Funding and financing, though significant, is only one of the challenges women face. Women entrepreneurs also face a lack of role models, gendered cultural expectations regarding what it means to be an entrepreneur and work-life balance, and, at times, blatant sexism and harassment.[40],[41] Women of color, newcomer and immigrant women, and women with low SES face additional hurdles including, but not limited to, racism, classism, language barriers, and the long-term effects of discrimination. Many of these challenges compound women’s access to financial capital as they start and as they grow their businesses.[42]

    What we still don’t know about women entrepreneurs and funding

    As noted above, research about women and entrepreneurship is relatively new, and much of it has leveraged what’s called a deficit model—asking why women entrepreneurs can’t be more like men.[43] But these limitations provide ample opportunities for future work. As Leitch and colleagues write in their introduction to a 2018 recent special issue of Venture Capital devoted to research about women entrepreneurs, despite a decade of research, “we do not seem to have progressed far […] in either theoretical development or in understanding the challenges which women continue to face in accessing entrepreneurial finance.”[44] For example, how does the underrepresentation of women in the financial sector impact women entrepreneurs’ access to funding? What alternatives to microfinance exist for women starting businesses in non-Western settings? How do national and international financial crises impact women entrepreneurs? How are women financing the increasing “sidepreneurship” endeavors they’re pursuing?[45] What kinds of structural interventions best address the persistent gender gap in entrepreneurial funding? And, perhaps most provocative, if women entrepreneurs have the same access to financial capital as their male peers, what will happen?

    Addressing barriers to funding and financing for women entrepreneurs

    Given the challenges of funding and financing for women entrepreneurs, what’s the best way to overcome the unique hurdles women face? Although many of the challenges women entrepreneurs face are the by-products of institutionalized sexism—a problem that is nearly impossible to solve due to its social complexities and interdependencies—research suggests the following practices are reasonable first steps:

    • Ask women entrepreneurs what they need most. As noted above, there is still much we don’t know about women entrepreneurs in general and about women entrepreneurs and funding more specifically. The bulk of research in the past few decades has focused primarily on traditional models of entrepreneurship, reifying dichotomies and, at times, reinforcing stereotypes. To move forward, we need to ask women entrepreneurs what they need most and understand how they define what it means to be an entrepreneur.
    • Challenge stereotypes. Entrepreneurship is often equated with heterosexual masculinity, and this conflation can perpetuate insidious stereotypes.[46] Instead of positioning women as in a deficit relative to men, we can imagine women’s entrepreneurship on its own terms, offering alternative models for business creation and economic growth.[47] One way we can challenge these stereotypes is to build awareness of women entrepreneurs’ successes and promote them as role models. Here, representation matters. For example, we can consider illustrating content about entrepreneurship with images of women or conducting case studies about women-owned firms—not as an exception but as a rule.
    • Pay attention to context. Because the research shows that access to finance will differ based on the type of finance, the sector, and the country context, research and practical recommendations will need to take into account these differing circumstances.
    • Create networks. Decades of research find that entrepreneurs of all genders benefit from strong networks.[48] By creating networks for women, non-binary, and transgender entrepreneurs, we can support people who may not identify with the ways in which entrepreneurship has been historically and conventionally construed. These networks, however, should be gender inclusive and supported by allies as women-only networks have proven to be problematic given women already have limited access to financial capital.[49]
    • Redefine innovation. Current definitions of “innovation” are narrow, favoring technological advancements and, subsequently, prioritizing the technology sector where women are already underrepresented. As a result, investors often overlook the kinds of radical innovations women entrepreneurs introduce in the marketplace, including in the services and retail sectors.[50]
    • Support inclusive policies and practices. Women and other historically marginalized entrepreneurs benefit from policies and practices that recognize and seek to redress institutionalized bias and discrimination in material and instrumental ways. Initiatives like the Government of Canada’s first ever Women Entrepreneurship Strategy—which has funded more than 50 projects—can effect substantial change by supporting women entrepreneurs with immediate access to capital, expertise, and networks.

    __________________________

    Research overview prepared by:

    Dr. Amanda Menking, under the supervision of Professor Sarah Kaplan, Director, Institute for Gender and the Economy at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management.

    The preparation of this research overview was supported by the Government of Canada’s Women Entrepreneurship Knowledge Hub (WEKH).

    Cite as:

    Menking, Amanda (2020), “Shattering the second glass ceiling: Financing women’s entrepreneurial ventures,” Institute for Gender and the Economy, https://www.gendereconomy.org/shattering-the-second-glass-ceiling/.

    References

    [1] Hinchliffe, E. (2019, January 28). Funding for female founders stalled at 2.2% of VC dollars in 2018. Fortune. Retrieved https://fortune.com/2019/01/28/funding-female-founders-2018/

    [2] Bosse, D.A., & Taylor, P.L. (2012). The second glass ceiling impedes women entrepreneurs. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 17(1), 52-68.

    [3] Women Entrepreneurship Strategy. (n.d.). Government of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/107.nsf/eng/home

    [4] Entrepreneur. (n.d.). Online etymology dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.etymonline.com/word/entrepreneur#etymonline_v_8748

    [5] Jennings, J. E., & Brush, C. G. (2013). Research on women entrepreneurs: Challenges to (and from) the broader entrepreneurship literature? The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 663-715.

    [6] Ahl, H. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 595-621.

    [7] Drawing on subject terms and author keywords from seminal studies and meta-reviews (e.g., Jennings & Brush, 2013), we used Business Search Premier to search top tier journals (e.g., Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Strategic Management Journal, Organization Science, Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of Management) without date delimiters using the following key phrases and variations thereof: women, female, gender, female entrepreneurs, female entrepreneurship, women entrepreneurs, women entrepreneurship, gender + entrepreneurs, gender + entrepreneurship, gender gap + funding, women entrepreneurs + capital, women entrepreneurs + funding, women entrepreneurs + financing, women-owned business enterprises, and businesswomen. In total, across these publications and search terms, we found only 10 articles relevant to the topic of women entrepreneurs and funding.

    [8] We located one study based on evidence from Viet Nam (Pauline Oosterhoff & Tu-Anh Hoang (2018) Transgender employment and entrepreneurialism in Vietnam, Gender & Development, 26:1, 33-51) and a few conference papers such as Ruebottom, Trish & Madeline Toubiana (2017), Biographical Opportunities: How Entrepreneurship Creates Pride in Alterity in Stigmatized Fields, Academy of Management Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.12168abstract.

    [9] Coleman, S. (2000). Access to capital and terms of credit: A comparison of men-and women-owned small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(3), 37.

    [10] Coleman, S., & Robb, A. (2012). Capital structure theory and new technology firms: Is there a match? Management Research Review, 35(2), 106-120.

    [11] Becker-Blease, J.R., & Sohl, J. (2008). Confidence and angel investors: Does gender matter? Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research.

    [12] Kon, Y., & Storey, D.J. (2003). A theory of discouraged borrowers. Small Business Economics 21(1), 37-49.

    [13] Mijid, N. (2014). Why are female small business owners in the United States less likely to apply for bank loans than their male counterparts? Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 27(2), 229-249.

    [14] Kwapisz, A., & Hechavarría, D.M. (2018). Women don’t ask: An investigation of start-up financing and gender. Venture Capital, 20(2), 159-190.

    [15] Naegels, V., Mori, N., & D’Espallier, B. (2018). An institutional view on access to finance by Tanzanian women-owned enterprises. Venture Capital, 20(2), 191-210.

    [16] Brush, C., Greene, P., Balachandra, L., & Davis, A. (2018). The gender gap in venture capital-progress, problems, and perspectives. Venture Capital, 20(2), 115-136.

    [17] Fernandez-Mateo, Isabel & Sarah Kaplan (2018), Gender and Organization Science, Organization Science, 29(6): 1229–1236.

    [18] Guzman J, Kacperczyk A (Olenka) (2019) Gender gap in entrepreneurship. Research Policy 48(7):1666–1680.

    [19] Ewens, M., & Townsend, R. R. (2019). Are early stage investors biased against women? Journal of Financial Economics.

    [20] Brooks AW, Huang L, Kearney SW, Murray FE (2014) Investors prefer entrepreneurial ventures pitched by attractive men. PNAS 111(12):4427–4431.

    [21] Bigelow, L., Lundmark, L., McLean Parks, J., & Wuebker, R. (2014). Skirting the Issues: Experimental Evidence of Gender Bias in IPO Prospectus Evaluations. Journal of Management, 40(6), 1732–1759.

    [22] Kanze, D., Huang, L., Conley, M. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2018). We ask men to win and women not to lose: Closing the gender gap in startup funding. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 586-614.

    [23] Malmström, M., Johansson, J., & Wincent, J. (2017). Gender stereotypes and venture support decisions: How governmental venture capitalists socially construct entrepreneurs’ potential. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(5), 833-860.

    [24] Hebert, Camille, The Minority Effect: Gender Stereotypes and Entrepreneur Financing (December 1, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3318245 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3318245

    [25] Buttner, E. H., & Rosen, B. (1988). Bank loan officers’ perceptions of the characteristics of men, women, and successful entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(3), 249-258.

    [26] Carter, S., Shaw, E., Lam, W., & Wilson, F. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurship, and bank lending: The criteria and processes used by bank loan officers in assessing applications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 427-444.

    [27] Eddleston, K. A., Ladge, J. J., Mitteness, C., & Balachandra, L. (2016). Do you see what I see? Signaling effects of gender and firm characteristics on financing entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(3), 489-514.

    [28] Nancy Carter, Candida Brush, Patricia Greene, Elizabeth Gatewood & Myra Hart (2003) Women entrepreneurs who break through to equity financing: The influence of human, social and financial capital, Venture Capital, 5:1, 1-28

    [29] Manolova, T. S., Manev, I. M., Carter, N. M., & Gyoshev, B. S. (2006). Breaking the family and friends’ circle: Predictors of external financing usage among men and women entrepreneurs in a transitional economy. Venture Capital, 8(02), 109-132.

    [30] Marom, D., Robb, A., & Sade, O. (2016). Gender dynamics in crowdfunding (Kickstarter): Evidence on entrepreneurs, investors, deals and taste-based discrimination. Investors, Deals and Taste-Based Discrimination.

    [31] Greenberg, J., & Mollick, E. (2017). Activist choice homophily and the crowdfunding of female founders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2), 341-374.

    [32] Neumeyer, X., Santos, S. C., Caetano, A., & Kalbfleisch, P. (2019). Entrepreneurship ecosystems and women entrepreneurs: A social capital and network approach. Small Business Economics, 53(2), 475-489.

    [33] Inman, K. (2000). Women’s Resources in Business Start‐Up. A Study of Black and White Women Entrepreneurs. Garland Publishing.

    [34] Abbasian, S., & Yazdanfar, D. (2013). Exploring the financing gap between native born women-and immigrant women-owned firms at the start-up stage: Empirical evidence from Swedish data. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 157-173.

    [35] Poggesi, S., Mari, M., & De Vita, L. (2016). What’s new in female entrepreneurship research? Answers from the literature. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(3), 735-764.

    [36] Estapé-Dubreuil, G., & Torreguitart-Mirada, C. (2010). Microfinance and gender considerations in developed countries: The case of Catalonia. Management Research Review, 33(12), 1140-1157.

    [37] Hussain, J., Mahmood, S., & Scott, J. (2019). Gender, Microcredit and Poverty Alleviation in a Developing Country: The Case of Women Entrepreneurs in Pakistan. Journal of International Development, 31(3), 247-270.

    [38] Geleta, E. B. (2016). Microfinance and women’s empowerment: an ethnographic inquiry. Development in Practice, 26(1), 91-101.

    [39] Aidis, R., & Weeks, J. (2016). Mapping the gendered ecosystem: The evolution of measurement tools for comparative high-impact female entrepreneur development. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 8(4), 330-352.

    [40] Thébaud, S. (2015). Business as Plan B. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(4), 671–711.

    [41] Jones, K., & Clifton, J. (2018). Rendering sexism invisible in workplace narratives. A narrative analysis of female entrepreneurs’ stories of not being talked to by men. Gender, Work & Organization, 25(5), 557–574.

    [42] Yang, T., & del Carmen Triana, M. (2019). Set up to fail: Explaining when women-led businesses are more likely to fail. Journal of Management, 45(3), 926-954.

    [43] Marlow, S., & Swail, J. (2014). Gender, risk and finance: Why can’t a woman be more like a man? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 26(1-2), 80-96.

    [44] Leitch, C., Welter, F., & Henry, C. (2018). Women entrepreneurs’ financing revisited: Taking stock and looking forward: New perspectives on women entrepreneurs and finance. Venture Capital, 20(2), 103-114.

    [45] Hannon, K. (2019, October 24). Sidepreneurship: The booming trend for women. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2019/10/24/sidepreneurship-the-booming-trend-for-women/#597e5a943fc1

    [46] Bruni, A., Gherardi, S., & Poggio, B. (2004). Doing gender, doing entrepreneurship: An ethnographic account of intertwined practices. Gender, Work & Organization, 11(4), 406-429.

    [47] Ahl, H., & Marlow, S. (2012). Exploring the dynamics of gender, feminism and entrepreneurship: advancing debate to escape a dead end? Organization, 19(5), 543–562.

    [48] Malecki, E. J. (2019). Entrepreneurs, Networks, and Economic Development Revisited, Reflections and Extensions on Key Papers of the First Twenty-Five Years of Advances. Emerald Publishing Limited. Publisher Emerald Publishing Limited Copyright, 117-126.

    [49] McAdam, M., Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. M. (2019). Stories from the field: Women’s networking as gender capital in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 53(2), 459-474.

    [50] Beckton, C., McDonald. J., & Marquis-Bissonnette. (2018). Everywhere, every day innovating: Women entrepreneurs and innovation. Report. Retrieved from https://carleton.ca/creww/?p=1393

    [/fusion_text][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_button link=”https://www.gendereconomy.org/research-briefs/” text_transform=”” title=”” target=”_blank” link_attributes=”” alignment=”” modal=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” color=”custom” button_gradient_top_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_bottom_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_top_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ button_gradient_bottom_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ accent_color=”” accent_hover_color=”” type=”” bevel_color=”” size=”” stretch=”yes” icon=”” icon_position=”left” icon_divider=”no” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]See more research briefs[/fusion_button][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_recent_posts layout=”default” hover_type=”none” columns=”3″ number_posts=”3″ offset=”0″ pull_by=”category” cat_slug=”research-briefs” exclude_cats=”” tag_slug=”” exclude_tags=”” thumbnail=”yes” title=”yes” meta=”no” meta_author=”no” meta_categories=”no” meta_date=”yes” meta_comments=”yes” meta_tags=”no” content_alignment=”” excerpt=”no” excerpt_length=”35″ strip_html=”yes” scrolling=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”true” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”false”][fusion_title title_type=”text” rotation_effect=”bounceIn” display_time=”1200″ highlight_effect=”circle” loop_animation=”off” highlight_width=”9″ highlight_top_margin=”0″ before_text=”” rotation_text=”” highlight_text=”” after_text=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” sticky_display=”normal,sticky” class=”briefsummary” id=”” content_align_medium=”” content_align_small=”” content_align=”left” size=”3″ font_size=”” animated_font_size=”” fusion_font_family_title_font=”” fusion_font_variant_title_font=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” text_shadow=”no” text_shadow_vertical=”” text_shadow_horizontal=”” text_shadow_blur=”0″ text_shadow_color=”” margin_top_medium=”” margin_bottom_medium=”” margin_top_small=”” margin_bottom_small=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_top_mobile=”” margin_bottom_mobile=”” text_color=”” animated_text_color=”” highlight_color=”” style_type=”none” sep_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]

    Research summary prepared by

    Amanda Menking

    Published

    November, 2020

    [/fusion_title][fusion_widget_area name=”avada-custom-sidebar-researchbriefsidebar” title_size=”” title_color=”” background_color=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • The rise of femtech

    The rise of femtech

    [fusion_builder_container admin_label=”” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”20″ margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” type=”legacy”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”3_4″ layout=”3_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”false” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”true” spacing_right=””][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” content_alignment_medium=”” content_alignment_small=”” content_alignment=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” sticky_display=”normal,sticky” class=”” id=”” font_size=”” fusion_font_family_text_font=”” fusion_font_variant_text_font=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” text_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]

    Download this research brief (in English/en Français).

    The Rise of Femtech cover             

    Overview

    In the last decade, we have seen a rise in businesses leveraging technology to offer products and services dedicated to “improving” women’s health. This new market segment has been dubbed femtech, and, according to Frost & Sullivan, it has the potential to reach $50B by 2025.[1] Because femtech is relatively new, there is little empirical research about it. However, the topic has received a great deal of attention from the popular press, and we can also learn from prior work in other cognate areas (e.g., gender diversity and innovation). This research overview provides a brief history of femtech and a summary of the existing academic work and industry research. Below, we begin by defining femtech, describing the importance of this new term—including backlash to it—and discussing what femtech signals about entrepreneurship, technology, and women’s health more broadly.

    What counts as femtech?

    When people talk about femtech, they are referring to a subset of medical technology (or medtech) products and services addressing issues historically and conventionally associated with the reproductive health of cisgender women.[2] That is, the vast majority of femtech addresses issues like contraception and fertility, pregnancy and post-pregnancy, breastfeeding, menstruation and period care, pelvic health, menopause, hormonal disorders (e.g., polycystic ovary syndrome), and sexual wellness. Some femtech companies—such as Maven, a virtual clinic for women—also address women’s health in general.

    Examples of femtech products and services include:

    • Clue. A mobile menstrual health app created by Berlin-based BioWink GmbH, a company co-founded by Ida Tin in 2013. As of 2019, Clue has raised $29.7M.[3]
    • Glow. A mobile fertility app created by a data science company of the same name, co-founded in 2013 by Max Levchin, former co-founder of PayPal. As of 2019, Glow has raised $23M.[4]
    • Natural Cycles. The first FDA approved fertility tracking app created by CB Rank, co-founded in 2013 by CERN physicist Dr. Elina Berglund and her husband Dr. Raoul Scherwitzl. As of 2019, Natural Cycles has raised $37.5M.[5]
    • Ava. Established in 2014 by Lea von Bidder, Pascal Koenig, Peter Stein, and Philipp Tholen, Ava is a bracelet that monitors five “physiological signals of fertility” and then displays the real-time data via a mobile app. As of 2019, Ava has raised $42.4M.[6]
    • Lola. Established in 2014 by co-founders Alexandra Friedman and Jordana Kier, Lola offers a subscription service for menstrual products (e.g., pads, tampons, essential oil for menstrual cramps) and sexual health products (e.g., condoms, lubricant). As of 2019, Lola has raised $35.2M.[7]
    • Lia offers the first biodegradable and flushable at-home pregnancy test. Co-founded by Bethany Edwards and Sarah Rottenberg in 2015, as of 2019, Lia has raised $2.6M.[8]
    • Co-founded by Eric Dy and Julien Penders in 2014, Bloomlife is a wearable tracking device that monitors contractions, displaying real-time data via a mobile app. As of 2019, Bloomlife has raised $14.4M.[9]
    • Creators of a Kegel trainer and breast pump, Elvie was co-founded in 2013 by Alexander Asseily and Tania Boler and has, as of 2019, raised $53.8M.[10]

    Who’s behind femtech?

    Ida Tin, a Danish entrepreneur and the co-founder and CEO of Clue, coined the term femtech in 2016 to describe the proliferation of women’s health products she’d noticed in the market and to mitigate men’s discomfort with discussing issues like incontinence and menstruation. As Tin explained during a 2018 Geekettes panel: “Then, investors can say, ‘I have four FemTech companies in my portfolio’ instead of ‘I have a company for women peeing in their pants.’ That’s hard for a male investor to say.”[11]

    The origins of the word femtech tell us several things. First, the advent of femtech signals unmet needs and corresponding opportunities in the marketplace. Second, Tin’s coining of femtech signals the female anatomy continues to be stigmatized[12] and women’s health continues to suffer from sexism.[13] [14] Relatedly, Tin’s reasoning (“That’s hard for a male investor to say”) signals the majority of investors who have the capital to fund start-ups continue to be men.

    Canadian femtech start-ups like Eve Medical, Damiva, Elvie, and Knix Wear—all of which were started by women—have also become prominent players in the femtech space. Although there’s a lot of speculation (and a growing amount of evidence) that femtech companies are more likely to be founded and funded by women, to date there has been very little academic research about femtech products, services, and entrepreneurs. Important exceptions include Sarah Fox’s 2018 dissertation in which she “examines recent industry and policy initiatives aimed at extending menstrual resources,” briefly touching on the work of social entrepreneurs in the menstrual product space.[15] However, a few femtech founders have published books about their experiences as women entrepreneurs. For example, Miki Agrawal, the controversial co-founder and former CEO of THINX, published DO COOL SH*T: Quit Your Day Job, Start Your Own Business and Live Happily Ever After in 2013 and DISRUPT-HER: A Manifesto for the Modern Woman in 2019.

    Critiques of femtech products and services

    Early critiques of femtech include Maggie Delano’s 2015 Medium article entitled “I tried tracking my period and it was even worse than I could have imagined.”[16] Delano describes how—as a queer woman with irregular periods who is not interested in having children—she felt “erased” by the apps she tried. Since 2015, the backlash against femtech has become more widespread with others echoing Delano’s observations[17], asking whether the term femtech pigeonholes women’s health[18] and essentializes women to reproductive biological functions while simultaneously excluding non-binary and trans users.[19] Critics have also asked why there is no “MenTech”—that is, why are cisgender men considered the “average user” for any given technology? Consider that menstrual tracking apps were created largely in response to Apple’s initial failure to include menstruation in HealthKit (now known simply as Health).[20] Finally, feminists and practitioners alike have expressed concerns about how femtech products exploit women’s anxieties and fears for profit.[21] For example, in her 2019 book The Vagina Bible, Jen Gunter, an OB/GYN and pain medicine physician, argues Kegel trainers and vaginal steams not only reinforce “vagina shame,” they are also unnecessary and potentially dangerous.[22] 

    What the academic research says about femtech

    Academic research about femtech has primarily fallen outside of traditional management scholarship, being dominated by those in the human computer interaction (HCI) field.

    Experimental designs and protypes

    In the past five years, a small group of human computer interaction (HCI) researchers and designers have begun to design and build femtech prototypes solely for research purposes. For example, Almeida and colleagues created Labella, “an augmented system that supports intimate bodily knowledge and pelvic fitness in women” via a pair of underwear and a mobile phone[23] while Schneider and colleagues created and tested a prototype of a fertility tracking app (FTA) to explore how technology might handle uncertainty without negative emotional effects.[24] In general, these experimental designs and prototypes have been vehicles for exploring concepts (e.g., self-knowledge, uncertainty, data practices) relevant to HCI in general. [25],[26]

    Critiques of existing femtech products

    Other HCI researchers have interrogated and critiqued existing femtech products on the market to ask how well these products meet users’ needs. In their survey and interview-based study with users of period tracking apps, Epstein and colleagues found apps were ineffective when it came to predicting cycles and that designs of apps can create feelings of exclusion for some users. [27]  Similarly, in a heuristic evaluation of 17 menstrual tracking apps, Eschler and colleagues found the majority of apps they tested did not account for users experiencing menarche and menopause. [28]

    Concerns about data security, privacy, and surveillance

    Sociologists and legal scholars have also critiqued existing digital health technologies marketed to women, asking how they reinforce gendered norms and offer ways for the body to be subject to surveillance. [29],[30],[31] For example, Karen Levy writes about different kinds of intimate surveillance including fertility tracking, noting that some fertility apps (i.e., Glow) encourage partners to set up “mirror” apps so that they can monitor moods and even provide “objective” readings of dispositions.[32] Similarly, Deborah Lupton has written about the “caring dataveillance” enacted by mothers who use tracking technologies to monitor their pregnancies and, later, their children.[33]

    Questions about whether femtech products and services improve health-related outcomes

    Finally, HCI and health informatics researchers have asked whether digital femtech products are based on evidence-based medical practices and can actually improve health-related outcomes. Lee & Kim argue that the results of their double-blind randomized control trial of two different menstrual tracking apps indicate that some such apps may result in the “possibility of behavioral and cognitive changes in dysmenorrhea and PMS management.” [34] To date the adoption, use, and efficacy other kinds of femtech products and services have been understudied.

    Gender diversity and innovation

    One of the questions researchers across disciplines have asked is whether gender diversity impacts innovation.[35],[36] For example, a study of 1,648 Danish firms found firms with more balanced gender compositions were more likely to innovate than firms with a higher concentration of one gender.[37] We know from prior work—and from industry examples like Apple’s failure to include menstruation in its earliest versions of Health—that gender is often not a factor explicitly considered during product design.[38],[39] We also know that when gender has been considered, design choices have reinforced stereotypes: for example, the “shrink it and pink it” phenomenon.[40] Some press pieces argue that men—rather than women—design the products and applications dominating femtech.[41] However, as noted above, there has yet to be any academic research done in this space.

    What industry research says about femtech

    Industry research about medtech indicates healthcare is becoming more “consumer-centric” in general.[42] While femtech has received less attention from industry researchers, many of the general observations about medtech also hold true for femtech. However, reports about femtech tend to consider more specific markets. For example:

    • I See Africa, “a content hub of curated, informative, relevant information” about trends in Africa, released a report in 2019 about the ways in which femtech in Africa is addressing menstrual equity, pregnancy care, and sexual wellness.[43]
    • Modern Fertility, Her, and researcher Mere Adams released a report based on survey data about the state of “LGBTQ+ fertility” in 2019. In it, they note the fertility information gap and subsequent use of social media to address this gap, challenges with traditional healthcare, enthusiasm towards at-home fertility tests, and the anxiety triggered by fertility concerns.[44]

    In summary, the modest amount of industry research available about femtech indicates that some products and services may be able to address the needs of consumers who have historically been marginalized by mainstream markets, medical institutions, and practices.[45]

    What we still don’t know about femtech

    Because the rise of femtech is such a recent phenomenon, there is still much we do not know. Future academic research might ask questions about:

    • The demographics and motivations of femtech founders and investors. Who are femtech founders and what motivates them to start companies in this space? What kinds of barriers do they face and how do they overcome these barriers? How does entrepreneurship in this space compare to entrepreneurship in other industries and market segments? Are women more likely than men to start and/or invest in femtech ventures?
    • The role of gender diversity in innovation. How is gender diversity important in this space? Are women more likely to create innovative products that address women’s health concerns? Does one need to be a woman to disrupt women’s health?
    • The role of social entrepreneurship in femtech. Are femtech founders more likely to make social good a key part of their businesses as some popular media pieces have assumed?[46] If so, how does this impact their business strategies and their success?
    • Global femtech markets and consumers. How do femtech solutions for girls and women in poorer countries compare to those in wealthier countries? Do femtech markets and consumers differ across the globe? If so, how and why?
    • The design and execution of femtech products and services, particularly with regard to evidence-based medical practices. How do femtech products and services incorporate evidence-based medical practices? Do femtech products and services improve health-related outcomes?
    • Femtech and health disparities. What kinds of conceptualizations of the body do femtech founders employ in the design and execution of their products and services? How do femtech products and services contribute to existing health disparities? Relatedly, do they create new ones?
    • The necessity and efficacy of femtech products and services. Is femtech truly radical, or yet another way to “shrink it and pink it”? If the femtech market becomes dominated by women entrepreneurs, investors, and designers, will we see new innovations that break with old stereotypes?

    Returning to the question we posed above regarding whether femtech is an innovative and disruptive space for women’s health or simply a buzzword, the answer is clear: femtech is more than a buzzword. But it is too early for us to understand how much more. We do not yet know all of the potential promises—and pitfalls—of technologies designed, produced, and marketed to “improve” women’s health. This, then, is an area for ample future work across a range of scholarly disciplines.

    __________________________

    Research overview prepared by:

    Dr. Amanda Menking, under the supervision of Professor Sarah Kaplan, Director, Institute for Gender and the Economy at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management.

    The preparation of this research overview was supported by the Government of Canada’s Women Entrepreneurship Knowledge Hub (WEKH).

    Cite as:

    Menking, Amanda (2020), “The Rise of Femtech,” Institute for Gender and the Economy, https://www.gendereconomy.org/the-rise-of-femtech.

    References

    [1] Femtech: Time for a digital revolution in the women’s health market. (2018, January 31). Frost & Sullivan. Report. Retrieved from https://ww2.frost.com/frost-perspectives/femtechtime-digital-revolution-womens-health-market/

    [2] There has been little to no attention or research on how these concerns are relevant for transgender men.

    [3] Clue. Crunchbase. Retrieved from https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/clue

    [4] Glow. Crunchbase. Retrieved from https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/glow

    [5] Natural Cycles. Crunchbase. Retrieved from https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/naturalcycles

    [6] Ava. Crunchbase. Retrieved from https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/ava-3

    [7] Lola. Crunchbase. Retrieved from https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/lola

    [8] Lia. Crunchbase. Retrieved from https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/lia-diagnostics

    [9] Bloomlife. Crunchbase. Retrieved from https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/bloom-technologies

    [10] Elvie. Crunchbase. Retrieved from https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/chiaro-technology-ltd

    [11] Weiss, S. (2018, April 16). What is FemTech? 5 things to know about the new industry. Bustle. Retrieved from https://www.bustle.com/p/what-is-femtech-5-things-to-know-about-the-new-industry-8792289

    [12] Braun, V., & Wilkinson, S. (2001). Socio-cultural representations of the vagina. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 19(1), 17-32.

    [13] Hughes, F., & Bernstein, P. S. (2018). Sexism in obstetrics and gynecology: not just a “women’s issue”. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 219(4), 364-e1.

    [14] Homan, P. (2019). Structural sexism and health in the United States: a new perspective on health inequality and the gender system. American Sociological Review, 84(3), 486-516.

    [15] Fox, S. (2018). Maintaining the Menstruating Body: Feminist Interventions on Care Resources. Dissertation. DOI: http://hdl.handle.net/1773/42879

    [16] Delano, M. (2015, February 23). I tried tracking my period and it was even worse than I could have imagined. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@maggied/i-tried-tracking-my-period-and-it-was-even-worse-than-i-could-have-imagined-bb46f869f45

    [17] Tiffany, K. (2018, November 16). Period-tracking apps are not for women. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/11/13/18079458/menstrual-tracking-surveillance-glow-clue-apple-health

    [18] Kleinman, Z. (2019, October 8). Femtech: right time, wrong term? BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49880017

    [19] Goldhill, O. (2019, April 3). “FemTech” is not and should not be a thing. Quartz. Retrieved from https://qz.com/1586815/why-femtech-is-a-sexist-category/

    [20] Duhaime-Ross, A. (2014, Sept. 25). Apple promised an expansive health app, so why can’t I track menstruation? The Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2014/9/25/6844021/apple-promised-an-expansive-health-app-so-why-cant-i-track

    [21] Altman, A. (2019, January 14). Mommy and data. The New Republic. Retrieved from https://newrepublic.com/article/152693/femtech-companies-alleviate-exploit-female-anxiety

    [22] Gunter, J. (2019). The Vagina Bible: The Vulva and the Vagina: Separating the Myth from the Medicine. Citadel Press.

    [23] Almeida, T., Wood, G., Comber, R., and Balaam, M. 2016. Interactivity: looking at the vagina through Labella. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3635-3638. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2890261

    [24] Schneider, H., Wayrauther, J., Hassib, M. and Butz, A. 2019. Communicating uncertainty in fertility prognosis. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Paper 161, 11 pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300391

    [25] Fox, S., Howell, N., Wong, R., & Spektor, F. (2019, June). Vivewell: speculating near-future menstrual tracking through current data practices. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference (pp. 541-552). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 541-552. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3323695

    [26] Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S., Lazar, A. & Makoto Su, N. (2019). (Re-)framing menopause experiences for HCI and design. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Paper 115, 13 pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300345

    [27] Epstein, D., Lee, N.B., Kang, J.H., Agapie, E., Schroeder, J., Pina, L.R., Fogarty, J., Kientz, J.A., and Munson, S. 2017. Examining menstrual tracking to inform the design of personal informatics tools. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 6876-6888. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025635

    [28] Eschler, J., Menking, A., Fox, S., & Backonja, U. (2019). Defining menstrual literacy with the aim of evaluating mobile menstrual tracking applications. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 37(12), 638-646.

    [29] Lupton, D. (2014). Critical perspectives on digital health technologies. Sociology Compass, 8(12), 1344-1359.

    [30] Wissinger, E. (2017). Wearable tech, bodies, and gender. Sociology Compass, 11(11), e12514.

    [31] Rosas, C. (2019). The future is femtech: privacy and data security issues surrounding femtech applications. Hastings Business Law Journal, 15(2), 319.

    [32] Levy, K. E. (2014). Intimate surveillance. Idaho Law Review, 51(3), 679-694.

    [33] Lupton, D. (2019). Caring dataveillance: women’s use of apps to monitor pregnancy and children. The Routledge Companion to Digital Media and Children. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.

    [34] Lee, J., & Kim, J. (2019). Can menstrual health apps selected based on users’ needs change health-related factors? A double-blind randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 26(7), 655-666.

    [35] Ding, W. W., Murray, F., & Stuart, T. E. (2013). From bench to board: gender differences in university scientists’ participation in corporate scientific advisory boards. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1443-1464.

    [36] Díaz-García, C., González-Moreno, A., & Jose Sáez-Martínez, F. (2013). Gender diversity within R&D teams: its impact on radicalness of innovation. Innovation, 15(2), 149-160.

    [37] Østergaard, C. R., Timmermans, B., & Kristinsson, K. (2011). Does a different view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on innovation. Research Policy, 40(3), 500-509.

    [38] Dray, S.M., Busse, D.K., Brock, A.M., Peters, A.N., Bardzell, S., Druin, A., Burnett, M.M., Churchill E.F., Williams, G., Holtzblatt, K., & Murray, D. (2014). Perspectives on gender and product design. In CHI ’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 53-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2559218

    [39] Metaxa-Kakavouli, D., Wang, K., Landay, J.A., & Hancock, J. (2018). Gender-inclusive design: sense of belonging and bias in web interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Paper 614, 6 pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174188

    [40] Van Tilburg, M., Lieven, T., Herrmann, A., & Townsend, C. (2015). Beyond “pink it and shrink it” perceived product gender, aesthetics, and product evaluation. Psychology & Marketing, 32(4), 422-437.

    [41] Ayers, R. (2019, September 26). The rise of “menstrual surveillance” and the fight for data privacy in women’s health. Dataconomy. Retrieved from https://dataconomy.com/2019/09/the-rise-of-menstrual-surveillance-and-the-fight-for-data-privacy-in-womens-health/

    [42] Betts, D. & Korenda, L. (2019, November 21). A consumer-centered future of health. Deloitte. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/health-care/global-health-care-trends-survey.html

    [43] FemTech: eHealth for women. (2019). I See Africa. Report. Retrieved from http://iseeafrica.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/fem-tech-final-report.pdf

    [44] Modern state of LGBTQ+ fertility 2019. (2019). Modern Fertility. Report. Retrieved from https://modernfertility.com/lgbtq-fertility-survey-2019/

    [45] Bird, J. (2019, November 28). ‘Femtech’ adapted to benefit women and girls in poorer countries. Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/a7a79e1e-f630-11e9-bbe1-4db3476c5ff0

    [46] Jones, N. (2018, November 8). Women’s health start-ups bloom with no blushes. Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/de0f5b8c-dec0-11e8-b173-ebef6ab1374a

    [/fusion_text][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_button link=”https://www.gendereconomy.org/research-briefs/” text_transform=”” title=”” target=”_blank” link_attributes=”” alignment=”” modal=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” color=”custom” button_gradient_top_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_bottom_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_top_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ button_gradient_bottom_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ accent_color=”” accent_hover_color=”” type=”” bevel_color=”” size=”” stretch=”yes” icon=”” icon_position=”left” icon_divider=”no” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]See more research briefs[/fusion_button][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_recent_posts layout=”default” hover_type=”none” columns=”3″ number_posts=”3″ offset=”0″ pull_by=”category” cat_slug=”research-briefs” exclude_cats=”” tag_slug=”” exclude_tags=”” thumbnail=”yes” title=”yes” meta=”no” meta_author=”no” meta_categories=”no” meta_date=”yes” meta_comments=”yes” meta_tags=”no” content_alignment=”” excerpt=”no” excerpt_length=”35″ strip_html=”yes” scrolling=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”true” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”false”][fusion_title title_type=”text” rotation_effect=”bounceIn” display_time=”1200″ highlight_effect=”circle” loop_animation=”off” highlight_width=”9″ highlight_top_margin=”0″ before_text=”” rotation_text=”” highlight_text=”” after_text=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” sticky_display=”normal,sticky” class=”briefsummary” id=”” content_align_medium=”” content_align_small=”” content_align=”left” size=”3″ font_size=”” animated_font_size=”” fusion_font_family_title_font=”” fusion_font_variant_title_font=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” text_shadow=”no” text_shadow_vertical=”” text_shadow_horizontal=”” text_shadow_blur=”0″ text_shadow_color=”” margin_top_medium=”” margin_bottom_medium=”” margin_top_small=”” margin_bottom_small=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_top_mobile=”” margin_bottom_mobile=”” text_color=”” animated_text_color=”” highlight_color=”” style_type=”none” sep_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]

    Research summary prepared by

    Amanda Menking

    Published

    November, 2020

    [/fusion_title][fusion_widget_area name=”avada-custom-sidebar-researchbriefsidebar” title_size=”” title_color=”” background_color=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • Les femmes détenant un nouveau doctorat atteignent l’équité salariale

    Les femmes détenant un nouveau doctorat atteignent l’équité salariale

  • Ces hommes qui m’expliquent la vie…

    Ces hommes qui m’expliquent la vie…

  • L’idée des croustilles pour femmes: un «test de marketing»?

    L’idée des croustilles pour femmes: un «test de marketing»?

  • Des entreprises ont recours à la technologie pour favoriser la diversité

    Des entreprises ont recours à la technologie pour favoriser la diversité

  • « Ces hommes qui m’expliquent la vie » : de nouvelles solutions à un très vieux problème

    « Ces hommes qui m’expliquent la vie » : de nouvelles solutions à un très vieux problème

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    En 2008, l’auteure Rebecca Solnit a publié son désormais célèbre essai, Men Explain Things to Me, (Ces hommes qui m’expliquent la vie) déclenchant une tempête !

    Bien que Solnit n’ait pas utilisé le mot « mansplaining », on crédite à cet essai la naissance de ce terme, qui fait maintenant partie du langage courant.

    Le « mansplaining » survient lorsqu’un homme (« man ») explique (« explain ») à une femme quelque chose qu’elle sait déjà, sur un ton généralement paternaliste ou condescendant. Même si cette dernière n’a rien demandé, et qu’il s’agit souvent de son domaine d’expertise et pas du tout de celui de l’homme. Idem lorsqu’une femme tente de raconter une expérience signifiante, et qu’un homme renchérit.

    Les femmes ont donc finalement trouvé un moyen d’exprimer ce phénomène qu’elles vivent régulièrement, particulièrement au travail.

    Sallie Krawcheck prend la parole à l’assemblée annuelle de la Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

    Sallie Krawcheck, ancienne PDG à la Citibank et auparavant PDG de Smith Barney Investment Advisers, a déjà dit que des investisseurs en capital-risque intéressés par sa nouvelle entreprise d’investissement financier, Ellevest, lui offraient des conseils financiers qu’elle-même leur avait déjà donné!

    Nous avons toutes nos propres histoires à ce sujet. La plupart des femmes que je connais lèvent les yeux au ciel lorsqu’on leur pose des questions sur le « mansplaining ». Nous en avons fait l’expérience si souvent que nous ne sommes même pas toujours conscientes de ce qui se passe.

    Monsieur prend le plancher

    Notez, comme le fait Solnit, que le « mansplaining » n’est pas un défaut universel du genre masculin. Il s’agit simplement d’un mélange d’excès de confiance et de manque de connaissances. Un vieux problème qui a un nouveau terme pour décrire une réalité très tangible.

    Des études montrent que dans les réunions, les hommes parlent davantage, et encore plus s’ils ont du pouvoir. Les hommes interrompent aussi davantage, et sont moins susceptibles que les femmes de céder la parole. Les femmes craignent (à juste titre) que si elles se battent pour faire entendre leur voix, elles en subiront les contrecoups.

    La blogosphère est remplie de recommandations sur la façon dont les femmes doivent gérer le « mansplaining » lorsqu’il se produit : 7 façons de répondre à du « mansplaining », ou Comment traiter avec un « mansplainer » et Comment gérer le « mansplaining » au travail.

    Ces recommandations sont bonnes : ignorez le « mansplainer », tenez-vous debout, posez-lui des questions sur son expertise et sur ce qu’il espère accomplir en « expliquant » quelque chose, utilisez d’autres femmes comme alliées pour vous défendre, et autant d’humour que possible.

    Comme avec le mouvement #MoiAussi et d’autres efforts pour souligner les inégalités que connaissent les femmes, beaucoup d’hommes se sentent attaqués, même lorsque les femmes tentent de répondre avec humour, comme l’a fait la blogueuse féministe Elle Armageddon avec son organigramme « Should You Explain Thing to a Lady ? ».

    « Pas tous les hommes » est le refrain habituel. Mais honnêtement, de telles protestations témoignent d’une réticence à écouter les expériences légitimes des femmes sur leur lieu de travail. Et il est injuste que, bien que le « mansplaining » soit subi par les femmes, les solutions semblent toutes porter sur la façon dont ces dernières peuvent y faire face – plutôt que sur la façon et les raisons pour lesquelles les hommes devraient cesser de le faire.

    Tactiques d’éradication

    Un service d’assistance téléphonique serait génial, mais apparemment il n’est disponible qu’en Suède. Shutterstock

    En Suède, un important syndicat a mis en place une ligne d’assistance téléphonique pour dénoncer un « mansplainer ». Vous pouvez appeler pour dénoncer les délinquants et recevoir des conseils et de la compassion. Mais ce n’est pas une ressource dont nous disposons toutes.

    Alors, que peuvent faire les hommes pour se débarrasser du « mansplaining » ? Les conseils d’Armageddon sont plutôt bons : si vous n’êtes pas un expert en la matière, vous n’avez peut-être pas besoin de parler.

    Pour ceux d’entre vous qui craignent d’être un « mansplainer », gardez à l’esprit – même si vous êtes un expert – que la femme est aussi une experte et n’a pas demandé votre avis. Vous pouvez simplement rester silencieux. Quel mal y a-t-il à écouter ? Vous pourriez apprendre quelque chose. Même si vous parlez beaucoup moins, vous le faites dans doute encore plus que les femmes dans la salle, selon la recherche que j’ai citée plus haut.

    Mais les « mansplainer », presque par définition, ne peuvent pas s’en empêcher. Les conseils sur l’auto-contrôle sont voués à l’échec. Peut-être devrions-nous donc réfléchir à des solutions plus structurelles. En d’autres termes, que peuvent faire les organisations pour égaliser les chances ?

    Ajuster le niveau de testostérone

    En tant que professeur de gestion stratégique, j’y ai beaucoup réfléchi dans mon propre enseignement aux étudiants du MBA. Historiquement, les programmes de MBA ont toujours été à haute teneur en testostérone. J’ai l’habitude de faire appel aux étudiants qui sont silencieux, de découvrir qui sont les vrais experts et d’interrompre ceux qui parlent tout le temps.

    J’évalue également les élèves en fonction de leur contribution à l’expérience d’apprentissage en classe. Et ces évaluations récompensent l’écoute et la mise à profit des idées des autres (pas seulement en répétant leurs propres lignes dans leur tête pendant qu’ils attendent de parler).

    Les organisations peuvent reproduire ces pratiques. Elles peuvent élaborer des lignes directrices lors des réunions afin que chaque personne puisse partager son point de vue ou donner des instructions. L’animateur de la réunion s’assureraient que les « mansplainer » ne prennent toute la place au détriment des femmes.

    Il ne suffit pas, soit dit en passant, de simplement prolonger la période de questions ou de discussions dans l’espoir que les femmes s’exprimeront davantage ou que les hommes seront à court de choses à dire. Les recherches montrent que cela ne fonctionne pas .

    Les réunions d’affaires sont particulièrement appréciées des « mansplainers. » (Shutterstock)

    De plus, les évaluations de rendement pourraient être adaptées pour sanctionner le « mansplaining » de certains, et récompenser l’écoute et la mise à profit des idées des autres membres de l’équipe.

    En bref, nous devons cesser de donner aux femmes des conseils sur la façon de corriger les inégalités et la discrimination auxquelles elles sont confrontées et nous tourner plutôt vers les auteurs de ces actes pour qu’ils changent leur comportement et vers les organisations pour qu’elles changent la dynamique du milieu de travail.

    « Réparer les femmes » est une solution coûteuse pour ces dernières et pourrait entraîner la perte de précieuses employées dans les entreprises. En fin de compte, il sera inefficace sans un changement organisationnel. On ne devrait pas demander aux femmes de « s’occuper » du « mansplaining ». Les organisations devraient s’en occuper à leur place.The Conversation

    Sarah Kaplan, Professor, Strategic Management, Rotman School of Management; Director, Institute for Gender and the Economy, University of Toronto
  • Intersectionality and the implications for workplace gender equity

    Intersectionality and the implications for workplace gender equity

    [fusion_builder_container admin_label=”” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”20″ margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” type=”legacy”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”3_4″ layout=”3_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”false” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”true” spacing_right=””][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]

    Download this research brief (in English/en Français).
    Download the infographic (in English/en Français).

    Overview

    Intersectionality is a way of understanding how individuals are differently impacted by inequality on the basis of factors such as race, ethnicity, class, gender, age, citizenship, ability, and sexual orientation.[1] Intersectional inequality affects women and visible minorities differently, depending on their social, cultural, and occupational contexts.[2] Evidence suggests that many organizational initiatives promoting diversity and inclusion tend to benefit white women in particular and not other under-represented groups.[3] 

    Inequality affects individuals differently on the basis of factors such as race, age, or gender.

    Consequences of intersectional inequality in the workforce

    We can see unequal workplace outcomes on the basis of intersectionality in the gendered and racialized wage gap in Canada. Visible minority women, especially first-generation immigrants, earn on average $5,000 less than non-visible minority women, and $7,000 less than visible minority men.[4] Compared to any other group, immigrant women—and those from racialized backgrounds—are more likely to be unemployed or underemployed in jobs that do not reflect their education or experience.[5] And spending long periods of time in precarious work can have lasting negative effects on the employment outcomes of racialized immigrant women.[6]

    Visible minority women are more frequently employed in precarious jobs characterized by insecurity, low wages, low protection, and limited benefits.[7] Poverty rates for visible minority families are three times higher than for non-visible minority families, and families who identify as Arab, West Asian, and Korean have poverty rates above 30%.[8]

     Research has documented other types of intersectional inequalities in the workplace. For example, white men often experience a “glass escalator” when working in female-dominated occupations such as nursing and teaching, that enables their promotion through the ranks more quickly.[9] However the same benefits do not extend to visible minority men; Black male nurses are perceived as less skilled than female nurses.[10]

    Solutions to overcoming intersectional inequalities at work

    Some of the traditional methods for addressing organization diversity are not sufficient for addressing intersectional inequalities. For example, bias training in the workplace can create backlash if trainees resent being selected for training and perceive it as punishment for prior behaviour.[11]   

    Management can consider some of the following recommendations as starting points:

    • Be specific in language use: “Diversity” has become a catchall phrase that can be misappropriated, to mean, for example, hiring in order to achieve “diversity of thought,” which may preclude the hiring of women and visible minorities. Management can focus explicitly on addressing gender and racial/ethnic discrimination.[12]
    • Promote sponsorship over mentorship: In sponsorship relationships, mentors typically go beyond providing advice and use their influence to advocate to executives on behalf of their mentee. But high-potential women are over-mentored and under-sponsored relative to their male peers, and subsequently, do not advance as quickly up the ranks. Management can ensure that white male sponsors take on female and visible minority sponsees.[13]
    • Get buy-in from management: Diversity initiatives are more effective when they engage managers in solving problems of underrepresentation and increase managers’ on-the-job contact with female and visible minority workers.[14] Such initiatives should include fostering acceptance and understanding of accents, and of religious differences, two common but overlooked forms of discrimination.[15]

    • Track data on employee demographics: Many firms do not collect data on the diversity of their employees.[16]  This oversight makes it harder to identify underrepresentation along the intersections of race, ethnicity, gender, ability, and sexuality. By tracking demographic data, firms can better determine whether and how they need to alter practices to mitigate discriminatory behaviour.
    • Move beyond your usual networks for recruitment and hiring: Management can post job listings on job sites geared towards helping underrepresented groups find employment, such as The Aboriginal Job Board.[17]  

    References

    [1] Crenshaw, K. (1990). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stan. L. Rev., 43, 1241.

    Collins, P. H. (2002). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.

    [2] Aline Tugend, The Effect of Intersectionality in the Workplace, New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/the-effect-of-intersectionality-in-the-workplace.html

    [3] Apfelbaum, E. P., Stephens, N. M., & Reagans, R. E. (2016). Beyond one-size-fits-all: Tailoring diversity approaches to the representation of social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 547.

    [4] Statistics Canada, Visible Minority Women: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11527-eng.htm

    Hou, F., & Coulombe, S. (2010). Earnings gaps for Canadian-born visible minorities in the public and private sectors. Canadian Public Policy, 36(1), 29-43.

    [5] Cranford, C. J., Vosko, L. F., & Zukewich, N. (2003). Precarious employment in the Canadian labour market: A statistical portrait. Just labour.

    Fuller, S., & Vosko, L. F. (2008). Temporary employment and social inequality in Canada: Exploring intersections of gender, race and immigration status. Social indicators research, 88(1), 31-50.

    Premji, S., & Shakya, Y. (2017). Pathways between under/unemployment and health among racialized immigrant women in Toronto. Ethnicity & health, 22(1), 17-35.

    [6] Fudge, J., and Strauss, K. (Eds.). (2013). Temporary work, agencies and unfree labour: Insecurity in the new world of work. Routledge

    [7] Creese, G., and B. Wiebe. 2012. ‘Survival Employment’: Gender and Deskilling among African Immigrants in Canada.” International Migration 50 (5): 56 76. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2435.2009. 00531.x.

    Galarneau, D., and R. Morissette. 2009. “Immigrants’ Education and Required Job Skills.” Perspectives on Labour and Income 9 (12): 5–18.

    Picot, G., & Sweetman, A. (2012). Making it in Canada: Immigration outcomes and policies. IRPP study, (29), 1.

    Noack, A. M., and L. F. Vosko. 2011. “Precarious Jobs in Ontario. Mapping Dimensions of Labour Market Insecurity by Workers’ Social Location and Context.” Toronto, Commissioned report by Law Commission of Ontario.

    [8] Block, S., & Galabuzi, G. E. (2011). Canada’s colour coded labour market. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 1-20.

    [9] Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female” professions. Social problems, 39(3), 253-267.

    [10] Wingfield, A. H. (2009). Racializing the glass escalator: Reconsidering men’s experiences with women’s work. Gender & Society, 23(1), 5-26. Wingfield, A. H. (2009). Racializing the glass escalator: Reconsidering men’s experiences with women’s work. Gender & Society, 23(1), 5-26. 7(6), 999-1022.

    [11] Kalev, A., Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (2006). Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589-617.

    Alyson Colón, Does Diversity Training Work?, Institute for Gender and the Economy: https://www.gendereconomy.org/does-diversity-training-work/

    Sanchez, J., & Medkik, N. (2004). The Effects of Diversity Awareness Training on Differential Treatment. Group & Organization Management, 29(4), 517–536

    [12] Adia Harvey Wingfield, How Organizations are Failing Black Workers and How to do Better, Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2019/01/how-organizations-are-failing-black-workers-and-how-to-do-better

    [13] Ibid

    Ibarra, Herminia, Nancy M. Carter and Christine Silva (2010) https://hbr.org/2010/09/why-men-still-get-more-promotions-than-women

    [14] Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business Review, 94(7), 14.

    [15] Ameeriar, L. (2017). Downwardly Global: Women, Work, and Citizenship in the Pakistani Diaspora. Duke University Press.

    Boyd, Monica and Xingshan Cao. 2009. Immigrant Language Proficiency, Earnings, and Language Policies. Canadian Studies in Population 36(1-2):63-86.

    Derwing, Tracey M. and Erin Waugh. 2012. Language Skills and the Social Integration of Canada’s Adult Immigrants. IRPP Study No. 31.

    Dovidio JF, Kawakami K, Gaertner S. 2002. Implicit and explicit prejudice in interracial interaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82(1): 62– 68

    MacDougall, A. (2007). Hearing audible minorities: Accent, discrimination, and the integration of immigrants into the Canadian labour market. Vol. 47 , No.04 pp. 20-39

    [16] Matthew Braga, Canadian tech companies say they value diversity — but what are they doing about it?, cbc.ca: https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/canada-tech-companies-diversity-reports-2017-1.4194556

    [17] https://aboriginaljobboard.ca/

    [/fusion_text][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_button link=”https://www.gendereconomy.org/research-briefs/” text_transform=”” title=”” target=”_blank” link_attributes=”” alignment=”” modal=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” color=”custom” button_gradient_top_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_bottom_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_top_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ button_gradient_bottom_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ accent_color=”” accent_hover_color=”” type=”” bevel_color=”” size=”” stretch=”yes” icon=”” icon_position=”left” icon_divider=”no” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]See more research briefs[/fusion_button][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_recent_posts layout=”default” hover_type=”none” columns=”3″ number_posts=”3″ offset=”0″ pull_by=”category” cat_slug=”research-briefs” exclude_cats=”” tag_slug=”” exclude_tags=”” thumbnail=”yes” title=”yes” meta=”no” meta_author=”no” meta_categories=”no” meta_date=”yes” meta_comments=”yes” meta_tags=”no” content_alignment=”” excerpt=”no” excerpt_length=”35″ strip_html=”yes” scrolling=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”true” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”false”][fusion_title hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”briefsummary” id=”” content_align=”left” size=”3″ font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_top_mobile=”” margin_bottom_mobile=”” text_color=”” style_type=”none” sep_color=”” margin_top_small=”” margin_bottom_small=””]

    Published

    April 23, 2019

    This research brief was funded by the Government of Canada’s Labour Program for the Women in the Workplace Symposium that took place at Rotman on May 09/10, 2019.

    The opinions and interpretations in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Government of Canada.

    To see more from this event, check out #Womenintheworkplace.

    Government of Canada logo

    [/fusion_title][fusion_widget_area name=”avada-custom-sidebar-researchbriefsidebar” title_size=”” title_color=”” background_color=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • Care responsibilities and work-life balance

    Care responsibilities and work-life balance

    [fusion_builder_container admin_label=”” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”20″ margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” type=”legacy”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”3_4″ layout=”3_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”false” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”true” spacing_right=””][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]

    Download this research brief (in English/en Français).
    Download the infographic (in English/en Français).

    Overview

    Since 1976, the percentage of dual-earner families has nearly doubled from 36 to 69%. This increase is driven primarily by women’s greater participation in the paid labour market. In 2014, 58% of women between the ages of 25 and 54 were employed full-time.[1] Single mothers accounted for 81% of lone-parent families.[2]

    The growing participation rates of women in the workforce have been accompanied by increasing demand for childcare services. Daycare provision helps mothers of young children stay in the paid labour market, and it facilitates peer socialization and school readiness.[3] In 2011, almost half of parents (46%) in Canada reported using some type of childcare for their children aged 14 years and younger. Of those parents paying for childcare, 31% use home daycares, 33% opt for licensed daycare centres, and 28% enlist private care.[4]

    46% of Canadian parents reported using some type of childcare for their children aged 14 years and younger.

    Sources of work-family conflict

    At the same time that their share of paid work is increasing, women spend twice as much time performing unpaid childcare as men (50.1 vs. 24.4 hours per week on average), and they spend more time on domestic work than men (13.8 vs. 8.3 hours per week).[5] Canadian women also spend less time on leisure activities, and they are more likely than men to be simultaneously engaged in unpaid work.[6]  The “second shift” performed by working women is exacerbated by unrealistic cultural norms of intensive mothering.[7] Women also make up a larger share of the “sandwich” generation, cohorts of adults who are responsible for caring for their ageing parents in addition to bringing up their own children. Nearly 6 in 10  (57%) of eldercare providers are women.[8]

    Expectations that workers are available 24/7 and job design that inhibits remote work also make it more challenging to accommodate caregiving responsibilities. The inflexibility of work hours and lack of schedule control in high-status occupations like law contributes to women’s stratification within such fields and their overall underrepresentation in such fields.[9] 

    Availability of licensed daycare space varies widely. Approximately 44% of all non-school-aged children in Canada live in communities where demand outpaces the supply of childcare. While large cities in Quebec and Prince Edward Island have the most availability, cities such as Kitchener and Brampton, ON and Saskatoon, SK have the lowest coverage rates.[10] Since 2000, Quebec has offered subsidized childcare for children ages 0-4, where the average cost of childcare is $7 per day. Since the implementation of universal childcare, estimates of the increase in mothers working full-time outside the home ranges from 8 to 12%.[11] The median cost of full-time childcare in Quebec is four times lower than the Atlantic provinces, which have a median cost of $541 per month. Childcare is most expensive in Ontario where the median monthly cost is $677.[12]

    Solutions for improving work-life balance and making care work more equitable at work

    There are several measures employers can take to improve the work-life balance of employees and help make the division of unpaid work more equitable:

    • Promote fathers’ involvement: Cultural norms around the male provider role make men feel uncomfortable taking extended parental leave.[13] Employers need to encourage this more strongly. Long parental leaves have been shown to compromise women’s career advancement.[14] Longer parental leave for men can help reduce parental leave for women, thus getting them back into the workforce more quickly. Small and medium-sized businesses might find parental leaves more disruptive than large firms, but careful and creative planning for leaves can pay off in terms of intangible benefits such as increased motivation, loyalty and retention.[15]
    • Provide flexibility: Flexible work arrangements, such as telework and flex-time, are one mechanism that make it easier for working parents to balance the responsibilities of paid and unpaid labour. But they have to be implemented correctly and there has to be buy-in from management. Given that use of flexible work arrangements increase when managers demonstrate support—and that most employees (86%) and managers (74%) do not receive training on flexible work arrangements —managerial training could be a key intervention.[16][17] For example, PepsiCo executive Robbert Rietbroek suggests that senior management “leave loudly,” thereby demonstrating to junior staff that it’s acceptable to work flexible hours in order to accommodate personal needs.[18]
    • Offer subsidized or on-site daycare: Larger firms can introduce on-site daycare. On-site childcare improves worker morale and enables parents to spend more time with their children.[19] It also helps with employee retention.[20] Smaller firms can consider subsidizing childcare or offering reimbursement for “emergency childcare” in order to improve the retention of employees with caregiving responsibilities.
    • Change job designs: There are ways of designing employment that make it easier to achieve work-life balance. Some organizations have considered introducing a 4-day workweek. This would enable female employees to take the extra time they need with their dependents while staying on the same footing as their work colleagues. And partners of men working a 4-day work week would be provided with the option of ramping up their own careers.[21]
    • Encourage change in cultural norms: In addition to workplace policy implementation, recent research points to the need to share the cognitive workload that accompanies unpaid care work. Mothers, in particular, are more likely to perform “invisible labour,” such as remembering birthdays, planning meals, scheduling extracurricular activities and scheduling doctor’s visits, which prevents them from focusing on other pursuits.[22] More attention needs to be paid to the gendered and unequal division of cognitive work that occurs in most heterosexual households.

    References

    [1] 2011 Statistics Canada Childcare in Canada report: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2014005-eng.htm

    [2] Statistics Canada, Lone parent families: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2015001/article/14202/parent-eng.htm

    [3] Nores, M., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Benefits of early childhood interventions across the world: (Under) Investing in the very young. Economics of Education Review, 29(2), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.09.001

    [4] 2011 Statistics Canada Childcare in Canada report: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2014005-eng.htm

    [5] Statistics Canada, Families, Living Arrangements and Unpaid Work: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11546-eng.htm#a12

    [6] Moyser, M. and Burlock, A., 2018. Time use: Total work burden, unpaid work, and leisure. Women in Canada: A Gender-based Statistical Report. Statistics Canada Catalogue, no. 89-503-X.

    [7] Collins, C. (2019). Making Motherhood Work: How Women Manage Careers and Caregiving. Princeton University Press.

    de Laat, K., & Baumann, S. (2016). Caring consumption as marketing schema: Representations of motherhood in an era of hyperconsumption. Journal of Gender Studies, 25(2), 183-199.

    Hays, S. (1998). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. Yale University Press.

    Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home. Penguin

    [8] Cranswick, K., & Dosman, D. (2008). Eldercare: What we know today. Canadian social trends, 86(1), 49-57.

    [9] Kay, F., & Gorman, E. (2008). Women in the legal profession. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 299-332.

    [10] The Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/child-care-deserts-canada

    [11] Fortin, P., Godbout, L., & St-Cerny, S. (2012). Impact of Quebec’s universal low fee childcare program on female labour force participation, domestic income, and government budgets. The Research Chair in Taxation and Public Finance at the University of Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.

    [12] 2011 Statistics Canada Childcare in Canada report: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2014005-eng.htm

    [13] Coltrane, S., Miller, E. C., DeHaan, T., & Stewart, L. 2013. “Fathers and the flexibility stigma.” Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 279-302.

    Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. 2013. “Penalizing men who request a family leave: Is flexibility stigma a femininity stigma?” Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 322-340.

    Vandello, J. A., Hettinger, V. E., Bosson, J. K., & Siddiqi, J. (2013). When Equal Isn’t Really Equal: The Masculine Dilemma of Seeking Work Flexibility. Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12016

    [14] Hideg, I., Krstic, A., Trau, R. N., & Zarina, T. (2018). The unintended consequences of maternity leaves: How agency interventions mitigate the negative effects of longer legislated maternity leaves. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(10), 1155.

    Olivetti, C., & Petrongolo, B. (2017). The economic consequences of family policies: lessons from a century of legislation in high-income countries. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(1), 205-30.

    [15] Karen Firestone, How Should a Small Business Handle Parental Leave, Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2013/05/how-should-a-small-business-ha

    [16] Conference Board of Canada 2017 study on flexible work arrangements: https://www.conferenceboard.ca/temp/dcfed0e6-3c32-4ad5-906e 66f09c02f5f1/9614_Flexible%20Work%20Agreements_RPT.pdf

    [17] Munsch, C. L., Ridgeway, C. L., & Williams, J. C. (2014). Pluralistic Ignorance and the Flexibility Bias: Understanding and Mitigating Flextime and Flexplace Bias at Work. Work and Occupations, 41(1), 40–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888413515894

    [18] Leaving loudly: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-work-life-balance-20170922-story.html

    [19] L. Gullekson, N., Griffeth, R., B. Vancouver, J., T. Kovner, C., & Cohen, D. (2014). Vouching for childcare assistance with two quasi-experimental studies. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(8), 994-1008.

    [20] Connelly, R., Degraff, D. S., & Willis, R. (2002). If you build it, they will come: parental use of on-site child care centers. Population Research and Policy Review, 21(3), 241-273.

    [21] The four-day workweek: https://qz.com/work/1530023/wellcome-trusts-four-day-week-is-great-for-gender-equality/

    [22] Hartley, G. (2018). Fed Up: Emotional Labor, Women, and the Way Forward. Harper Collins.

    [/fusion_text][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_button link=”https://www.gendereconomy.org/research-briefs/” text_transform=”” title=”” target=”_blank” link_attributes=”” alignment=”” modal=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” color=”custom” button_gradient_top_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_bottom_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_top_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ button_gradient_bottom_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ accent_color=”” accent_hover_color=”” type=”” bevel_color=”” border_width=”” size=”” stretch=”yes” icon=”” icon_position=”left” icon_divider=”no” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” border_radius=””]See more research briefs[/fusion_button][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_recent_posts layout=”default” hover_type=”none” columns=”3″ number_posts=”3″ offset=”0″ pull_by=”category” cat_slug=”research-briefs” exclude_cats=”” tag_slug=”” exclude_tags=”” thumbnail=”yes” title=”yes” meta=”no” meta_author=”no” meta_categories=”no” meta_date=”yes” meta_comments=”yes” meta_tags=”no” content_alignment=”” excerpt=”no” excerpt_length=”35″ strip_html=”yes” scrolling=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”true” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”false”][fusion_title hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”briefsummary” id=”” content_align=”left” size=”3″ font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_top_mobile=”” margin_bottom_mobile=”” text_color=”” style_type=”none” sep_color=”” margin_top_small=”” margin_bottom_small=””]

    Published

    April 23, 2019

    This research brief was funded by the Government of Canada’s Labour Program for the Women in the Workplace Symposium that took place at Rotman on May 09/10, 2019.

    The opinions and interpretations in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Government of Canada.

    To see more from this event, check out #Womenintheworkplace.

    Government of Canada logo

    [/fusion_title][fusion_widget_area name=”avada-custom-sidebar-researchbriefsidebar” title_size=”” title_color=”” background_color=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]