According to the report published by the Wellesley Centers for Women at Wellesley College, among the top 25 men’s and women’s teams, college charged nearly three times as much, on average, for single-game seats for men’s games. Additionally, the average highest-priced season ticket package came in at $233 for women as opposed to $2,500 for men.

In the report authors Laura Pappano and Allison J. Tracy claim athletic departments are engaging in “institutional discrimination that is camouflaged as sensible economic practice” by charging significantly less for women’s competition.

The threat this practice poses to the pursuit of gender equity is an obvious concern, but it is also important to consider what else may be at risk by altering ticket prices.

If elevating female ticket prices drives away fans, especially in a sensitive economic climate, would the financial equity be worth risking the competition environment for female student-athletes?

At most institutions men’s basketball is one of very few revenue-producing sports. Contrary to popular misconceptions, this revenue is used to fund programs and initiatives throughout the athletic department–not simply the men’s basketball team. In this sense, the entire athletics program benefits by achieving the maximum amount of revenue possible from men’s tickets sales. Is standardizing admission worth lowering ticket prices and risking losing necessary athletics revenue?

By driving prices down, more people are able to attend female athletic events and hopefully will become interested and emotionally invested in the sport. Once that investment exists, the initiative to standardize ticket prices against gender lines can more accurately and seriously be evaluated.

Nicolas Sarkozy’s centre-right party has put forward legislation that would see women make up half the figures in France’s leading boardrooms by 2015, under a bold plan to impose gender equality on the male-dominated business world.

In a bill submitted to the French parliament this week, all companies listed on the Paris stock exchange would have to ensure female employees made up 50% of their board members by 2015. If passed, a gradual implementation of the law would see businesses obliged to have women in 20% of board seats within 18 months, and 40% within four years.

Jean-François Copé, president of the majority UMP party, said it could give a “much-needed electro-shock” to the French corporate world, long considered a bastion reserved for the male elite in which only 10.5% of board members in CAC 40 (French stock market index) companies are female.

Referring to France’s move in 2000 to encourage gender equality in politics, he said: “We must do to companies what we did in the public domain a few years ago and impose parity.”

The proposals, which would also apply to state-owned companies and non-listed firms with supervisory boards, will be debated next month and would need the approval of both houses of parliament to become law.

Despite the historically entrenched opposition of business chiefs to quotas, advocates say the bill is the result of a sea change in public attitudes towards gender equality. Over the past year a series of French figures not known for their feminist stance have spoken out in favour of quotas.

Daniel Lebègue, president of the conservative French Institute of directors (IFA), said his organisation had reluctantly decided they were the only way of encouraging progress. Nadine Morano, the secretary of state for the family, has said quotas are a “necessary evil”, while the president of Areva, Anne Lauvergeon, recently admitted she had changed her mind about a strategy she nonetheless acknowledged as “humiliating”.

Véronique Préaux-Cobti, a leading businesswoman, said the discussions were a sign that times had changed.

• “In 2002, a huge majority would have been against,” she told Le Figaro earlier this year.
• “Now, after years of good will with no change, there is a real realisation that things are not going to change on their own.”

Cope and the bill’s other author, the UMP’s Marie-Jo Zimmermann, are determined to capitalise on the change in public opinion to drive through the reforms. Inspired by the example set in Norway, where enforced quotas have led to 40% of director posts being occupied by women, they say they are willing to take on the “reserves” of several government ministers.

Their boss, President Sarkozy, was congratulated in 2007 for appointing seven women to his 15-member cabinet. However three of those, including former Justice Minister Rachida Dati, have since been replaced, giving rise to one news weekly wondering if he was starting to show his true “macho” colours.

France’s failure to impose parity on its politicians, despite a constitution change in 2000 hich had the aim of giving women a larger presence in the French parliament, is one of the reasons many people remain sceptical about this week’s proposals. At the last election, only 18% of MPs in the lower house were women.

Françoise de Panafieu, one of those MPs, hit out today at her own party for setting out quotas for the business world when it had failed to put its own house in order. “I prefer people setting an example to those giving lessons,” she told L’Express magazine, claiming that Sarkozy’s party had had to pay €5m (£4.5m) in fines after the 2007 elections for failing to impose parity.

The Norway Way

Norway was the pioneer in introducing legislation to boost the number of women on company boards, in 2003. The change in the law affected nearly 500 public companies, including 175 firms listed on the Oslo stock exchange. Ministers stipulated that businesses should increase the number of women on their boards to 40% or face the threat of closure.

It unleashed an uproar in the Norwegian business community, with many protesting it was ridiculous to shut down a company because it lacked a woman on the board. Others argued that the law infringed the rights of shareholders to decide who they want as directors. But the threat worked and company owners duly complied. Norway now has the highest proportion of
women on boards anywhere in the world with 44.2% – up from 6% in 2001. By comparison, in the UK, 12% of FTSE 100 directors are female and one in four boards are exclusively male. Sweden and Finland boast more women at leading companies at 22% and 17% respectively.

The proportion of female directors among US Fortune 500 firms is 15.2%.

The government announced the release last Friday, 18 December, of the draft Prevention of Gender Discrimination Bill (2010) for public consultation.

The release coincided with the 30th anniversary of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). On 18 December 1979, the UN General Assembly adopted CEDAW, the international human rights treaty which is exclusively devoted to gender equality.

CEDAW is often described as an international bill of rights for women. Comprising a preamble and 30 articles, it defines discrimination against women and establishes an agenda for national action to end such discrimination.

Deputy Premier and Gender Affairs Minister, Hon. Juliana O’ Connor-Connolly stated that the passage of local legislation will allow the extension of CEDAW to the Cayman Islands through the United Kingdom.

• “Women’s rights have progressed considerably during the past three decades, but there are still major obstacles that prevent gender equality from being achieved.
• “Given the far-reaching effects that this important piece of legislation will have on employees, employers and other bodies, I encourage the public to review the draft Bill and provide their comments to the Ministry,” Mrs O’Connor-Connolly said.

Senior Policy Advisor for Gender Affairs Tammy Ebanks-Bishop commented, “Acceptance of this Bill will be a positive step towards ensuring the extension of CEDAW to the Cayman Islands; that will be yet another gain for women’s and girls’ rights on a practical, everyday level.”

She noted that despite recent local advances, much remains to be done before reaching the point where principles of gender equality become national standards.

• “Positive steps to date are the new Constitution Order with its Bill of Rights and the use of gender-inclusive language; the creation of the draft Protection Against Domestic Violence Bill (2009) and the Prevention of Gender Discrimination Bill (2010).

• “However, serious human rights violations against women still occur daily, such as domestic violence, sexual harassment and workplace discrimination due to maternity status or unequal pay for the same work as males,” Ms Ebanks- Bishop said.

She further pointed out that social progress in gender equality is not automatic. “It requires considerable work, awareness and commitment in order to make the necessary societal changes that lead to increased gender equity. This CEDAW anniversary provides an international platform for increasing awareness,” she said.

Ms Ebanks-Bishop explained that, since 186 countries have ratified CEDAW, the anniversary presents an opportunity for the global community to celebrate its near-universal ratification. She added that many countries have scheduled a variety of events to acknowledge this essential tool for achieving women’s human rights.

• “In Argentina, a workshop is being held on CEDAW’s application to the Latin America and Caribbean region. Cameroon is organizing a vast media campaign to sensitize and inform the public on CEDAW.
• “Also, in Japan, the Minister for Gender Equality will host a gathering of female governors and mayors in order to publicize the importance of female participation in national decision-making,” Ms Ebanks- Bishop said.

For more information or to provide feedback on the draft Prevention of Gender Discrimination Bill, visit the government website. The public has until 31 January 2010 to submit their comments.

More on CEDAW

• Over 90 percent of the 190 United Nations members are party to CEDAW. The cornerstone of CEDAW is the principle of equality between men and women and the prohibition of discrimination against the rights of men and women.
• CEDAW is often described as an international bill of rights for women. It is simply a human rights instrument that provides a framework to identify what constitutes discrimination against women, and which sets up an agenda for national action to end such discrimination.
• The Convention defines discrimination against women as “…any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”
• Countries that have ratified or acceded to the Convention are legally bound to put its provisions into practice. They also commit to submit national reports, at least every four years, on measures they have taken to comply with their treaty obligations.

By accepting the Convention, they commit themselves to undertake a series of measures to end discrimination against women in all forms, including:

• Incorporating the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolishing all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women;
• Establishing tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination; and
• Ensuring elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organizations or enterprises.

From Looking for a Better World: One of my major interests is in the equality of women in all societies. Gender bias is as hurtful and destructive as any other bias. Though I am not particularly liberal, I have for my lifetime been opposed to the macho philosophy, the Islamic plunder of womanhood, the gender distinctions in the professions and the entire “woman driver” and, yes, even “blonde joke” phenomena.

Women and men are not created equal. They each have their God given strengths, focused on their responsibilities for procreation and family viability. Those differences are not easily dismissed … however those differences do not condone gender discrimination in society and certainly not in the workplace. In fact, because of the glass ceiling and gender discrimination, professional women need to be better than their male counterparts to succeed! That makes them better choices … and, in fact, I have made those choices! My physician, ophthalmologist, podiatrist and a recent surgeon are all female. Obviously, female clergy are welcome in my world.

I attended a lecture given by an oil minister from an Islamic state. He was asked when women would gain equality … and he jokingly replied “When the sands of the Sahara turn to Jello.” I cannot accept the gender inequality issue and I certainly am opposed to the current Islamic extremism.

Plunder and disrespect of women among the Muslim extremists are but a cursor of their disregard for life. It is just a clue, albeit a significant one, towards the larger issues of suicide bombings and indiscriminate slaughter. If the gender issue was gentler, their other more acceptable behaviors could follow.

Dr. Malkin holds a B.Sc. in Business and a Masters and Ph.D. in Religion. He has made hundreds of visits to schools with a moving and effective motivational presentation, urging teens to do their personal best. His mentoring programs have empowered many, many children. His quest for years has been to teach the power of Right Action, working towards the goal of a better world.