Thursday, 9 November 2017
Musings and Amusings
15:17
Book Review, Bubbles, Debt, Education, Environment, Everyday Money, Finance and Investments, Investing, Money, Small Business, Wealth, Who's counting?
No comments
Manifestoes
for working women, much like working women themselves, are often held to an impossibly
high standard. Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In
was a best-seller, but critics – male and female – tore it apart because it
asked women alone to fix their broken work environment. The criticism is valid;
Sandberg has since admitted that it would be hard for a single mother to follow
her advice. And yet male-authored advice books hardly get torn apart for
failing to address intersectionality, privilege, and structural racism and
sexism along with tips on how to climb the corporate ladder.
Sallie
Krawcheck wants us to know, even before we open Own It: The Power of Women at Work, that she excels in the face of
such impossible standards – in heels, no less. The cover features Krawcheck,
the co-founder and chief executive officer of Ellevest, an online investment
service for women, perched atop a stepladder in black stilettos. Krawcheck gets
how difficult it is for women to break into the executive class. She worked her
way up in the banking industry, only to be let go from C-suite jobs at
Citigroup and Merrill Lynch.
Reflecting on her tenure at Citigroup, which ended
about nine years ago, she says she believes gender played a major role in the
tensions she experienced. The final straw, Krawcheck writes, came when she made
an unpopular suggestion that she believed was in the company’s best interest:
reimbursing some Citigroup customers for losses they’d suffered in the early
days of the 2008 financial crisis.
Given how
she frames her experiences, you wouldn’t expect Krawcheck to write that “being
a woman in the business world is not a liability: it’s power.” The liability,
she says, manifests primarily when women try to affect a masculine demeanor
around the office: when women speak up, as she did, they’re judged more
negatively than men. Women who negotiate the way men do are considered too
pushy. So throughout the book, Krawcheck scatters tips on how to successfully
leverage feminine traits. In a chapter titled “The Obligatory Ask-for-the-Raise
and How-to-Negotiate Chapter (With a Twist),” she suggests that women pretend
during salary negotiations that they’re at a PTA meeting. Research shows that
women perform better when they’re fighting on behalf of someone else, such as
their kids.
Her
approach makes sense, but does it work? Here, Krawcheck runs into some trouble.
She argues that companies resistant to women-friendly policies and practices
will fail – but they haven’t, even as inhospitality remains the norm. The pay
gap persists. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission got almost 13,000
complaints of sexual harassment in 2015, a number that’s held steady since
2011. Women enter corporate America at near-parity with men but occupy only 19%
of C-suite positions, according to a recent survey by McKinsey and LeanIn.org.
Sandberg’s nonprofit. In another recent survey, by MWW Public Relations and
Wakefield Research, three-quarters of respondents said they believe women are
worse at delivering financial returns for companies. The opposite is true:
Numerous studies say that organisations with female managers perform better on
average than those led by men. Whatever Krawcheck’s hopes, women tend to get
penalised no matter how they act on their way to the top. Those who get there
are often set up for failure, tapped to lead only in moments of crisis, when
the odds of succeeding are slim to none, a phenomenon known as the glass cliff.
Ultimately,
Krawcheck argues, there may be no way for women to work within the system and
win, no matter how often they transform perceived liabilities into assets. Her
most useful – and radical – advice comes in chapters that urge women to opt
out. In “Literally Own It: Start Your Own Thing,” she encourages women to start
businesses. When that happens, “there’s no playing by the boys’ club rules,”
she writes. “No asking permission.” Since the system isn’t working for us, it’s
time for us to build our own.
Source:
Bloomberg.com
Thursday, 2 November 2017
Womenomics
09:35
Education, Everyday Money, Finance and Investments, Marriage, Musings and Amusings, Rights, Sex, Trends, Wealth
No comments
Why Put a Ring on It?
In America,
women are waiting longer to wed than ever, and many are choosing not to do so
at all. The freedom to pursue high-powered careers and sexually diverse lives
without fear of pregnancy or stigma has turned marriage into a choice, not
destiny. By 2009 nearly half of all American adults younger than 34 had never
married, a rise of 12 percentage points in less than a decade. Unmarried women
outnumber married ones for the first time ever.
Single
women are reshaping politics. As women tend to worry more about reproductive
rights and fair pay, they have favoured Democrats for president since 1988. But
the overall women’s vote hides a divide: in 2012 Mitt Romney narrowly carried
married women, while the unmarried rushed to Barack Obama in their millions, giving
him a 36-point margin. Single women cast almost a quarter of the votes, nearly
guaranteeing his re-election.
Delaying
marriage is also having economic effects: women aged 25 to 34 are the first
generation to start their careers near parity with men, earning 93% of men’s
wages. Single women now buy homes at greater rates than single men, a big step
in independent wealth-building.
These
trends have some conservatives fretting about the decline of the family. The
divorce rate rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s, as women who had rushed into
unhappy marriages discovered they could make their own way. The boom in divorce
encouraged many in the next generation to abstain from marriage rather than
enter a flawed one. Now that marriage is simply one option among many, fewer
women are exchanging vows, but those that do tend to be in happier, more
co-operative relationships.
The divorce
rate, now falling, has plunged fastest among those who stay single longest.
Despite the stereotype that high-achieving women are doomed to spinsterhood,
the truth is that these women are now the most likely to tie the knot, and can
afford to hold out for the right match.
Not all
women are celebrating. For some, singlehood is less a choice than bad luck.
Outside big cities, women who are unmarried into their late 30's are often
pitied. For those who hope to become mothers, biology imposes harsh deadlines –
though breakthroughs in fertility treatments have raised the number of women
giving birth after age 35 by 64% between 1990 and 2008.
In
particular, poor single women face a different landscape. Not all are unmarried
by choice: America’s high incarceration rate has shrunk their pool of men.
Single parenthood is strongly correlated with poverty. Conservatives duly push
marriage as the antidote: the federal government has spent almost a billion
dollars on pro-marriage programmes, to little avail.
Source:
economist.com
Friday, 27 October 2017
Frame and Investment
Women Are Owning More and More Small Businesses
Owning your
own business is often touted as the ultimate coup in the working world. You set
your own hours, pursue projects you’re interested in, and maybe work in your
pajamas.
About 29%
of America’s business owners are women, that’s up from 26% in 1997. The number
of women-owned firms has grown 68% since 2007, compared with 47% for all
businesses.
The
progress for minority women has been particularly swift, with business
ownership skyrocketing by 265% since 1997, the report says. And minorities now
make up one in three female-owned businesses, up from only one in six less than
two decades ago.
Why have
minority women had such an apparent breakthrough in the world of
entrepreneurship? It’s partially a numbers game – in 1997 minority women
represented such a small number of owners – less than one million – that even
moderate growth would have likely helped them outpace the growth of the broader
field of women-owners. But Jessica Milli, a senior research associate at IWPR,
says that the characteristics of minority women who opt to open businesses may
also play a role in the runaway growth.
“Women of
colour are more likely to be younger when they first found their business,”
says Milli. “Given today’s climate – when a lot of purchasing occurs online and
social-media usage can really make or break a business this can mean that those
businesses might have a competitive advantage.”
The growing
prevalence of female entrepreneurs of all races didn’t happen by accident.
Instead, it may be proof that legislation targeted at women and minority
small-business owners are having an effect.
Women
business owners still face a significant wage gap and continually have smaller
amounts of start-up capital than their male peers.
For one,
women-owner businesses make only about 25 cents for every dollar their male
counterparts earn. That’s a much larger gap than the one that exists in the
overall labour market, where the median earnings of women were about 83% of
men’s.
Although
challenges like access to capital and wage equality persist having more women
entrepreneurs may be helpful in and of itself when it comes to boosting the
successfulness of female owners. Researchers who studied the effect of peer
relationships on female entrepreneurs in India found that women who received
business training with a friend were more likely to take out business loans,
and more likely to report higher business activity and household income than
peers who received training without a peer. And though equality on all fronts
is still a long way off, the field of entrepreneurship is “moving toward
equality in terms of representation, which is a great thing,” Milli says.
“Overall, the picture is optimistic.”
Source:
theatlantic.com
Tuesday, 24 October 2017
Everyday Money
This is One Inheritance You Don't Want
Economics
professors at the University of Copenhagen have found that if a parent was in
default on a loan at the end of the year (their study looked at data from 2004
to 2011), the chance of default for their children was more than four times as
high as for those whose parents were model financial citizens. And that’s
across all levels of parental income, loan balances and other measures,
including that of intelligence.
The study
analysed about 30 million personal loans held by some 5 million Danes ages 18
to 45. It linked that information to government data, including income level
and education for the borrowers and their parents.
The key
finding: The share of 30 year olds in financial trouble – narrowly defined in
this study as being at least 60 days late on a loan at the end of the year -
was 5 percent among those whose parents showed no similar sign of financial
trouble. It was 23 percent for kids whose parents’ records showed financial
trouble.
The study
follows other research concluding that risk attitudes seem to be handed down by
generation. It couldn’t rule out the chance that long-lasting health shocks had
an effect on income that carried over to the next generation, but it did find
evidence that shared common shocks tied to the business cycle, such as a parent
and child unemployed at the same time, weren’t likely causes for the
correlation.
An earlier
study that lends support to the Copenhagen work found that adoptees with
parents who take on more investment risk in their portfolios tend to make financial
decisions for their own portfolios that reflect similar levels of risk. It
concluded that nurture plays a substantially larger role than nature in
financial risk-taking among parents and children.
That’s not
to say our hard wiring plays no role. A 2015 study of identical and fraternal
twins in Sweden concluded that “genetic differences explain about 33 percent of
the variation in savings propensities across individuals,” finding that
parenting plays a part in the differences in the twins’ savings behavior early
on but that the effect waned over time.
Even if
some of our attitudes toward money are hard-wired, no one wants to pass along a
legacy of financial instability. There are many ways to nurture self-control
and highlight the difference between “wants” and “needs.”
If you’re
able to be a smart saver and shopper and make the tough budgeting tradeoffs –
and if you let your kids see all that at the grocery store and when you’re
paying the bills – they’re likelier to adopt these behaviors as adults.
Source: Bloomberg.com
Wednesday, 18 October 2017
Why?
Men Aren’t the Smartest When it Comes to Credit
The majority
of men – 61% - describe their knowledge of how credit scores work as good or
excellent.
They might
want to take a refresher.
More than
40% of men and women questioned in a new poll think a person’s age, marital
status, and ethnicity are among the components that determine a credit score.
Of course, none of them are. On all three of those questions, a significantly
higher percentage of men thought those things played a part in a credit score,
according to the annual survey of credit understanding.
The biggest
gender-knowledge gap was about whether marital status affected your credit
score. Additionally, fewer men correctly choose three ways a consumer could
improve a credit score, or maintain a high one.
Rather than
a knowledge gap, what women may suffer from in the credit arena is a confidence
gap: Even though they largely outdid men on the questions, fewer women – 54% -
rated their knowledge of credit as good or excellent.
These
figures replicate those relating to both genders, however, showed a decline in
their understanding of credit compared with last year’s survey. Fewer people
had success with a multiple-answer question about how much more a person with a
low credit score could pay on a 60-month auto loan, as well as with more basic
facts such as how everyone has more than one credit score, and that credit
repair companies rarely wind up actually repairing your credit understanding
and confidence for women in investment – read Girls Just Want to Have Funds for more on this. You can order from
our website www.strategies.co.nz.
Source:
Bloomberg.com
Tuesday, 17 January 2017
Musings & Amusings
The gender pay gap persists almost everywhere – and has done so since pre Victorian times.
On average, women earn 18% less than men, according to analysis by Korn Ferry Hay Group, a consulting firm which looked at more than 8m employees in 33 countries. The pay gap is largely explained by a lack of women in highly paid roles. Women make up 40% of the global workforce for clerical jobs but only 17% of executive roles. However, the pay gap shrinks when comparing males and females working at an identical level and function within the same company (but still favours men by 1.6%).In Britain, more than four decades after the equal pay act was introduced, the headline difference between men and women’s pay is still high. A pledge made in 2015 by David Cameron, Britain's prime minister, to “end the gender pay gap in a generation” is an ambitious one. Women only make up around a third of senior management roles there. Workers at the same level but in different companies still face an average pay gap of over 9%.
The United Arab Emirates, on the other hand, has a reverse pay gap. Women at the same level, company and function actually earn 2% more than their male counterparts. This is partly because fewer women participate in the labour force, and those that do tend to have higher levels of education. In 2014 women made up 13% of the labour force; in Britain the share was 46%.
Source: The Economist
Everyday Money
The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Investors
These are the
basics of running your financial life.
In a recent study, just 8 percent of college students taking a recent survey
gave themselves an A for how well they manage their finances. In a larger, 2014
survey of U.S. adults, 18 percent gave themselves the top grade for their personal
finance knowledge.
Many people
get stressed even thinking about managing their money, seeing it as just too
complicated. But Harold Pollack, a University of Chicago professor, famously
fit the basics of good personal finance on an index card.
Here are
seven simple ways to increase the odds of getting in and staying in good
financial shape.
Once you’ve
got these covered, you can explore investment opportunities.
1. Save
early, and automatically
The point is
just to get in the habit of saving. Even if you start small, it’s a start. And
seeing your money grow can be very motivating.
2. Expect
financial emergencies
About 47
percent of respondents wouldn’t be able to cover an emergency $400 expense
without selling something or borrowing money. So when you start saving, you may
want to set aside money for an emergency fund before saving for retirement.
That’s because, in a financial emergency, many people just tap into a
retirement fund early and pay a penalty.
3. Set an
asset allocation, and diversify
Asset
allocation is an investor’s most important decision, said Bernstein. Research
by numerous finance professors has shown that the vast majority of returns over
time come from asset allocation rather than picking the right security or the
right time to invest in the market.
One rough
rule of thumb Bernstein uses for setting a stock-bond allocation is that your
age should equal your bond allocation. A 50-50 or 60-40 split is a good
starting point, he said, but then you need to figure out your risk tolerance
and tweak your portfolio to reflect that.
4. Keep fees
low
With many
people expecting future stock market returns to be muted, it’s more important
than ever to keep fees low. Situations in which a retirement saver gets
conflicted advice—meaning an adviser gets fees and commissions if the client
buys a particular product—lead to returns roughly 1 percentage point lower per
year, according to a report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
The council estimated the aggregate annual cost of conflicted advice on Superannuation
assets at about $17 billion a year.
For most
people, keeping investments simple is the most cost-effective strategy. Warren
Buffett is a longtime fan of investing in low-cost index funds, and in his 2013
Berkshire Hathaway shareholder letter, Buffett shared the advice he gave to his
estate’s trustee:
5. Use a qualified
adviser
Late-night
television isn’t the place to find financial wisdom.
6. Spend less
than you earn
Spending more
than they earn is a pattern for 23 percent of millennials and 19 percent of Gen
Xers, according to a 2014 study by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority’s Investor Education Foundation. So it’s not surprising that only
about a third of each demographic has an emergency fund in place.
Part of what
can make it tough to build an emergency fund is lifestyle creep. As we
(hopefully) earn more, we often ratchet up our spending—we upgrade phones or
cars, or take fancier vacations—rather than increasing our superannuation contributions by 1 percent, or setting a
higher amount of savings to automatically be taken out of pay.
7. Maximise
employee benefits
Ensure your
KiwiSaver contributions match those of your employers.
Source:
Bloomberg
Who's Counting?
Gender pay gap in children's pocket money as boys get 12% more than girls.
There was also a gender gap last year but it was just 2%. It’s reasonable to assume that the New Zealand situation reflects that of the UK.Boys received almost 12 per cent more weekly pocket money compared to girls, according to the Halifax’s annual pocket money survey of more than 1,200 children and 575 parents.
The gender gap grew from only 2 per cent the year before.
In 2016, boys between eight and fifteen received an average of £6.93 per week, compared to girls who got an average of £6.16.
“The big increase in the pocket money pay gap doesn’t bode well for the future. If we’re ever going to get pay equality in the workplace girls need to be empowered with the confidence to drive a hard bargain and learn to be unafraid to ask if they think they should be ‘paid’ more; this needs to start at home," said Hannah Maundrell, editor in chief at Money.co.uk.
"Teaching your kids the value of money and the importance of negotiation when they’re young will really set them up for success when they enter the real world," she added.
On average, eight year olds receive £5.06 with 15 year olds receiving £7.85 - the highest level recorded since the onset of the financial crisis in 2007.
Giles Martin, head of Halifax Savings said it is “reassuring” to see that the average pocket money amount has reached a nine year high.
“Some parents are clearly not feeling the pinch in the same way as they have done in recent years, when weekly pocket money dipped as low as £5.89”, Martin said.
“It’s likely it’ll be a few more years until we reach the dizzy heights of £8.37 in 2005 though, when we saw the highest average pocket money since our records began ,” she added.
Despite the pocket money pay rise, 42 per cent of children still believe they should receive more cash than they do, up 1 per cent from last year.
Children living in London receive the highest amount of pocket money with youngsters in East Anglia getting the least.
Source: Independent UK
Finance & Investment
Finance industry fails to attract female investors
Women savers alienated by ads for ‘older rich men.’
The finance industry is failing to attract cash from female
investors who feel “alienated” by jargon-filled marketing campaigns designed to
appeal to wealthy older men, given my experiences in that industry can’t say
I’m surprised.
Advertisements used by the investment industry are confusing women rather than inspiring confidence, a new study has claimed, citing this as one reason women are more likely to hold their savings in cash rather than invest them in funds. Read Girls Just Want to Have Fund$ for more on this.
“In a workshop we held, women were literally shrieking at
the investment and financial services advertisements we showed them,” said
Deborah Mattinson, founding director of Britain Thinks, the consultancy that
conducted the research for the Financial Times. She added they were described
as “alienating, overly complicated and riddled with jargon”. The least
successful ads assumed a level of knowledge that women did not have, including
the “profit hunter” campaign by Artemis Fund Managers, which women thought was
aimed only at “older men” who had a “substantial amount to invest”. If women
were featured in adverts at all, they tended to be “yummy mummies with
idealised lives” which women felt “did not reflect their reality”, Ms Mattinson
added. Previous studies have found only 10 per cent of British women have a
stocks and shares Isa, compared to 17 per cent of men, meaning they are missing
out on long-term growth potential. Women were more likely to describe
themselves as “less knowledgable about investing” than men, and rely on their
male partners to come up with investment ideas, according to a survey of 2,000
male and female investors conducted on behalf of the FT by Britain Thinks.
Personal Finance Why do most women fear the stock market? Why women lack the
confidence to invest — and what to do about it Senior women in the asset
management industry believe a substantial marketing makeover is needed to help
address this, with new methods — such as videos and online tools — as well as a
broader message. “Asset managers are extremely good at talking to each other,
but extremely bad at talking to anyone else,” said Diana Mackay, chief
executive of MackayWilliams, the research house. Recognising that many women
tended to sit on cash as they were “terrified at the thought of investment”,
she urged fund managers to “start talking in a language the end investor can
understand” adding that this would benefit both sexes. Sue Noffke, a senior
fund manager at Schroders, said she believed it was a lack of confidence,
rather than competence, that was holding women back. The investment trust she
manages is using videos to broaden its appeal. “There really is a market
opportunity for financial services firms,” Ms Noffke said. “Women are a large
part of the market. Financial services firms are not doing what is required to
access that market opportunity.”
Source: Financial Times
Womenomics
Women bosses boost female places in boardroom
Having a female boss makes it more likely that there will be
more women on your board, according to new research.
Headhunter Spencer Stuart, which compiles an annual report
reviewing governance at the UK’s largest listed companies, found that boards
have significantly more female directors where the chief executive or chairman
is also a woman. The proportion of women serving as non-executive directors at
the UK’s top 150 public companies has reached 29.9 per cent, up from 17.5 per
cent in 2011. On the six boards where there is a female chairman, such as
Shire, led by Susan Kilsby, Land Securities and St James Place, just under 40
per cent of non-executives are women. In companies where there is a female
chief executive, 35.4 per cent of executive committee members are women. In
2016, 30 per cent of non-executive directors were women, but only 8 per cent of
executive directors. The data support persistent concerns that appointing more
women to boards has had little effect on the gender imbalance at senior
management level.
“This reflects the fact that the majority of companies at
the top of the FTSE have a truly global footprint and boards have long
understood the importance of having directors with knowledge and experience of
strategic markets,” the research said. A quarter of chief executives are
foreign, as are 17 per cent of chairmen. Fifteen companies have both a foreign
chairman and a foreign CEO. Mr Dawkins said the Britain’s exit from the EU was
unlikely to diminish the international scope of FTSE 150 businesses, and thus
the need for foreign expertise on domestic boards. “The signs are, from the
thinking we see among nominations committees in the FTSE 150, that the
proportion of non-UK directors will continue to rise, in line with the
businesses’ increasing foreign exposure, possibly spurred by the weakness of
sterling,” he said. Only 23 directors at the top 150 FTSE companies are black,
Asian or from another minority ethnic group, representing just 1.6 per cent of
all directors. Fifty other directors were from BAME backgrounds, but were not
British citizens. The question of broader ethnic representation has come under
greater scrutiny with the release of Sir John Parker’s review into board
diversity this month. Just nine people of colour hold the role of chair or
chief executive at FTSE 100 companies and more than half have no minority
ethnic directors at all.
New Zealand boards still have a long way to go.
Source: Financial Times
Why?
The struggle of women in science is written in the stars.
In her 1968 poem, Planetarium,
the poet Adrienne Rich wrestles with the crisis of female identity through the
lens of astronomy. Rich wrote the poem after learning about the case of
Caroline Herschel, an astronomer born in Germany in 1750 who discovered
eight comets and three nebulae, and drew praise from the King of Prussia and
London’s Royal Astronomical Society. Yet Caroline remained obscure compared
with her brother, William, who discovered the planet Uranus.
To this day, astronomy remains
one of the only scientific fields that relies so heavily on ancient Greek and
Roman mythology for its naming conventions. Cosmology and mythology have been
interwoven throughout human history, so it’s not surprising that modern-day
astronomers have inherited this tradition. But classical mythology is deeply
misogynistic, and using it to identify celestial bodies contributes to a
scientific culture that diminishes the achievements of women like Caroline. Male
deities and figures reign with nearly unlimited power, while their female
counterparts suffer violence and humiliation.
Among the
myths we have used to name and claim the heavens is Cassiopeia, a constellation
in the northern hemisphere. It is named for a mythical queen of Aethiopia, whom
Poseidon punished for her vanity by lashing her to her throne. Cassiopeia’s
daughter, Andromeda, was also made to suffer for her mother’s sins by being
chained naked to a rock, where she waited for the sea monster Cetus to rape
her. In the myth, Perseus saved Andromeda and took her as his wife, but as a
constellation, she still waits chained to her rock.
The Pleiades,
also known as the Seven Sisters, is a cluster of stars in the Taurus
constellation. The Seven Sisters were once women who danced together under the
night sky, but Orion desired them, so he hunted them for seven years. To help
the sisters escape, Zeus turned them all into stars – but Orion, another
constellation, still chases them night after night.
Male astronomers,
when they look at the sky, can find more uplifting role models. The
constellations named after men tell stories of heroism and conquest, not
submission and subjugation. Even today, NASA continues to recycle the names of
mythological figures and great men of history when naming spacecraft and
missions. Orion, a crewed spacecraft meant to facilitate travel to Mars, is
named for the same Orion that hunted the Seven Sisters. Kepler, Galileo,
Copernicus, and Cassini – names pulled from the scientific establishment that
excluded women like Caroline – are all unmanned spacecraft sent to explore the
cosmos. Even spacecraft with seemingly gender neutral names are coded male:
Voyager and Pioneer evoke the men who heroically left home and hearth on
voyages of exploration.
There are
exceptions. Sojourner, a Mars rover, was named after Sojourner Truth, the
escaped slave who became a women’s rights activist and abolitionist. But it’s
telling that this name was suggested by a 12-year-old girl in an essay contest,
rather than originating in the scientific establishment. ARTEMIS, a spacecraft
in orbit behind the Moon, is named for the Greek goddess of the hunt, virginity
and childbirth. Yet this too has gendered implications, since Artemis is
associated with purity and motherhood, two features of classical femininity.
Juno, an unmanned spacecraft, is currently observing the planet Jupiter; in
Roman mythology, she was Jupiter’s wife, and had the ability to see
through the clouds of mist that he used to conceal his infidelities. Juno
the spacecraft will attempt the same thing – and so even now, when we send a
female-named spacecraft to investigate the cosmos, the mission invokes a
domestic metaphor. (Alice Bowman, NASA’s Mission Operations Manager for the New
Horizons’ mission to study the outer edges of the solar system, is commonly
referred to as ‘MOM’.)
Today, the skies are still
filtered through this tradition of mythic misogyny. Naming
conventions for spacecraft and constellations are a subtle but significant way
that the discipline of astronomy perpetuates a male-dominated culture.
Simply giving more celestial bodies female names is not the
solution. Rather, change must begin with the recognition that astronomy’s
self-image is built upon an age-old habit of telling stories about the abuse of
women.
Source: Aeon