 All right, well, good afternoon, everyone. I should tell you all maybe to stand up and stretch your legs just a little bit before we get started on the next panel. You guys want to take a deep breath in? Ready? Yeah, a leady yoga class. All right, well, great. Well, listen, I'll get started. So my name is Bridget Schulte, and I am the director of the Better Life Lab, which is our work, life, and gender equity program here at New America. We have a real treat for you. This is the last panel of the day, so stick with us. I promise it's really worth it. Well, we're going to have a series of Ted-style talks with some incredible speakers. We've been talking an awful lot about change and some of the challenges that we have in terms of thinking about the next social contract. And what we've got here are some speakers who have actually been working on that actual issue, how do you make change in some really exciting ways. So the panel is experiments in disruption, disrupting work. How do you define and change the way we work? Disrupting our brains with our unconscious bias that many of us don't even realize that we might have, disrupting gender, disrupting policy, disrupting Hollywood and the stories that we tell ourselves. So I'm going to very briefly introduce the speakers. They are going to come up one after another and give sort of a short Ted-style talk. They're all going to come back up on the stage at the end. And then I'll answer, we'll have open questions from the audience. So I want you guys to be thinking what are your questions and when I come back up. So very briefly, our first speaker is Michael Kaufman. He's a PhD and an educator. He's a writer focused on engaging men and boys to promote gender equality and violence against women. He's a senior fellow at Instituto Promundo. And he's the author or editor of eight books. And his articles have been translated into 16 languages. Carolyn Samard will become next. She is the research director at the Klayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford. And she's responsible for leading research designed to build more effective and inclusive organizations. And previously she was the associate director of diversity and leadership at the Stanford School of Medicine, where she implemented innovative models for increasing work life integration to increase faculty satisfaction and retention. And that's what she's going to be talking about. And Kita Patnick is an economist based here in DC. She's currently at Mathematica Policy Research. She's going to be coming next. She's working on large scale social experiments to study how social programs can be effectively designed to improve public well being. She's got her PhD from Cornell and she really looks at labor economics and paid family leave. Next will come Kirsten Schaefer, who's the executive director of Women in Film in Los Angeles. It's the preeminent organization for promoting gender parity in Hollywood. So it's going to be interesting. And then finally we'll have Joan Williams, who's one of our advisory council members on the Better Life Lab. I think many who are familiar with work life and work family studies, they know her as the rock star. She's amazing. She's written lots of incredible books, authored some really amazing and groundbreaking studies. And she's going to share some of that work with you. So without further ado, the panels. Michael first. I'm going to talk about achieving gender equality in our lifetimes. Now, that must mean, right? I'm talking about women. But I believe that if we're going to achieve gender equality, we've got to fill in the missing piece of the gender equation. We've got to make men visible. Now, making men visible of course means making some critical comments about the attitudes and behaviors of some men. But I want to be clear from the start. This is not an exercise in collective guilt. This is not an exercise in collective shame, collective blame. It's not to make you or you or you feel really crappy about yourself. This is not to say that men are a bunch of monsters. But rather it's to talk about the paradoxical nature of our male dominated societies. But it's also to talk about what the men here in this room can do to make a difference, to make a difference in the lives of women, but also in the lives of men. Well, let me tell you a story. The wonderful moment of my life 35 years ago now when my son was born. Now, just picture the scene. Here we are in the delivery room. And I didn't yet know if my kid was a boy or girl. I do know the difference. But at this moment, I had so many tears in my eyes, I couldn't see the little thing. And I mean the little thing on the little thing. I didn't know if it was a boy or girl until the nurse spoke. Until this moment, she had been speaking her normal voice. And suddenly her voice dropped down really low. And she said, it's a boy. What a strong little fellow. I was totally shocked. And not because it was a boy, I had taken high school biology. I kind of figured there was a 50-50 chance, more or less, of that one. But I was shocked by the change in her voice. And of course, what she said. I knew if it had been a girl, her voice would have gone up a notch. And she would have said something like, it's a girl. What a sweet little thing. Instead, my kid was five seconds old. And he was being measured for his first football jersey. That's what it felt like. And that, of course, reflects our reality. It reflects 8,000 years of patriarchal societies. Now, there are those out there who are saying, wait a minute. That was the past. We now live in this wonderful post-feminist reality. But of course, as you all know, we still live in a world where men make much more than women, where men dominate the political structures of the world, where men run the economies of the world. And let me just say what a great job my half of the species has been doing on the economic front. And of course, while men are doing the important stuff out there, women are at the sidelines, cheering us on, or perhaps just doing that double shift. Right now in the US, every single day, men do about 101 minutes of routine housework and childcare day. Women, 167 minutes. I just got back from the speaking tour in Japan, where women do eight times as much housework and childcare. So and then what about the workplace? Well, we still have ongoing problems of sexual harassment at work. We have problems with job ghettos. And of course, as we go up the corporate ladder, up the hierarchies, we see way more men at the top. So you would think, hearing all this, that men have it made in the shade. You'd think we fit right in. After all, we raise boys, as my story tells you, from the start to fit right in. The types of clothes and toys, we teach them to fight. We teach them to take the pain. We teach them to be rugged individuals. And of course, we have these constant images that we're bombarded with what a real man looks like. This is my other job. I am a Calvin Klein model, as you know. But anyway, but the course of pressure is not just physical. And really, in all seriousness now, what we do is we set up conditions where we can't live up to the expectations of manhood. We can't live up to it because there's relentless pressure. Because what we say in this male-dominated society, what we say to men is that you've got to always be powerful. You've got to always be strong. You've got to have all the answers. You can never back down. You can never feel any fear. You can't feel anything. I mean, let's face it. No pain, no weakness. And when men can't live up to that, we humiliate them. You're not a real man. Man up. Don't act like a girl. Don't be a baby. We humiliate men, we humiliate boys and men into manhood. Now, add on to that. Add on to that. That a male-dominated society is not only one of men's power over women, but an intricate hierarchy of the power of some groups of men over other groups of men based on the color of our skin, based on our sexual orientation, our gender self-identity, our ethnicity, our physical abilities, our socioeconomic class, and more. And we put this all together. Women have been saying for years, this is really no good for us. But here's the bizarre paradox. The very society that gives men more power, gives men privilege in some bizarre ways in spite of all those things is also crappy for men too. In spite of those privileges, and those privileges are real. And we know that because men are literally torn apart by these realities, by this relentless pressure to be a man. And we know that. We know it because men die younger, engage in more risk-taking behavior, are more likely to be in prison, are more likely to be addicted to alcohol and other drugs, are more likely to use violence, use physical, sexual, emotional violence in their lives against women or against other men or internalized against themselves to prove that I am a man. And this goes on and on. So what can the men here do? What can the men you work with, that we all work with in our lives across the country and the world, what can you do? What can we do to make a difference, to help achieve gender equality and a world of gender justice? Let's not talk about what men can do. Let's talk for a second about what men are doing, listening to women in partnership with women. First of all, more and more men are speaking out and working for equal and respectful workplaces. I wish I had an hour right now to share with you some of the things I share with corporate leaders, male leaders, about the types of policies, the types of training, the types of managerial support, the types of monitoring that they need to have in place in order to achieve gender quality in the workplace. More and more men are speaking out and supporting women's health and reproductive rights, women's social and political participation. More and more men are speaking out to end men's violence against women because, after all, the majority of men don't use violence in our lives, but the majority of us have been silent. 25 years ago, three of us started a campaign called the White Ribbon Campaign to encourage an educational campaign to encourage men to speak out against violence and that campaign has now spread to, well, we think about 80, 90 countries around the world encouraging men to find creative ways to reach the men and the boys around them. This is going on, but perhaps the biggest change that's happening among men across America and around the world is the transformation of fatherhood. You know, up to now and even now we've got three big images of what a father is like. We've got this one, Father Knows Best, this idealized perfect father. We've got this image, you know, father is dolt and of course we have this, you know, the wait till your father comes home, the image of fatherhood and these things are really out of kilter, not only with what women need but with what more and more men are saying that we need as well, more and more men are saying I don't want to help out with my kids, I want to be a parent to my kids and so what we're seeing now is a, I'd say revolution in what it means to be a father around the world, doing not just the glamorous work, the quality time, but the quantity time, the hard everyday jobs of being a dad. What our research shows, such as the state of the world's fathers which we launched, which I co-wrote, we launched a year ago and the forthcoming coming out in three weeks, State of America's Fathers, please watch for that, shows that the transformation of fatherhood is critical for gender equality, that nurturing nonviolent dads are important for the well-being of children and are great for men as well. Our men care campaign is advocating around the world that men do 50% of the care work on the planet. So what can men here do? What are men doing? Men have got to make, I want to encourage my brothers here to make a personal commitment to be leaders at your workplace, at your place of worship, in your community, in your political party, wherever you are, on your team, make a personal commitment to be a leader for gender equality. Now you say, okay, that's all nice, but is it possible? Are men ready for this? And I can tell you, I believe that men have waited their whole life to hear a message of change, to hear about the possibility of escaping from this armor-plated masculinity which has been disastrous for women and although it's conferred power and privilege to men, a strange way has been bad for men as well. Can we do it? Let me tell you a story about a man who did it and a group of men who did it. Story told to me a number of years ago, and I'm gonna end on this story, a number of years ago by a guy from the Swat Valley of Pakistan. And when he told me the story, I never heard of it. Of course, he heard of it and now it's where Malala's from. He came from, he left his home, went to the capital to law school. Why is that law school? There's a coup d'etat. And the general proclaimed the hooded ordinances, one of which said that when a woman was raped, to prove that she had to come up with four male witnesses. And when she couldn't, she would be charged with adultery and thrown into prison or executed. So this guy comes back from law school to the Swat Valley, sees this happening and says, this is wrong. He says, this is not what law school's been teaching me. And he also says, because of course he's a Muslim, he says, this is not what my religion has taught me. And so he starts defending these women and he gets them off the charges. Well, the powers that be trump up some charge and they throw him into prison. I don't know if any of you have ever been in prison but in a prison. The prisons everywhere are the worst places on the planet. So you can imagine the hellhole they threw him into in the Swat Valley of Pakistan. And then you can probably imagine what happened to him. When the other male prisoners found out why he was in prison, what they did. And whatever you imagine, you're probably wrong. Because when the other male prisoners found out that he was in prison for defending the women in their community, they all went on a hunger strike. They said, we're not gonna eat until you release our brother from prison. And they won. If they can pull that off in the remote Swat Valley of Pakistan, think what we can do here. Think what we can do here with a powerful women's movement to back us up. Think what we can do here with laws, with support, with the traditions of democratic struggle. Think what we can do. And as we do it, as we work together as women and men to achieve, not just gender equality, but gender justice, what we are doing together is achieving and creating a far better world for women. But you know what? Also, a better world for men. And most importantly of all, a far, far better world for our children and our grandchildren. Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you so much. That was incredibly inspiring. So I'm Carolyn Samard and I'm director of research at the Klayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford. And I've spent my career bridging theory and practice. And today I'm gonna tell you about my journey putting myself in the shoes of the practitioner, trying to drive change in the workplace in real time. And so this work is an experiment in redesigning the way we work that I did while I was associate director of diversity and leadership at the Stanford School of Medicine. And I did this work in collaboration with Hannah Valentine who's now at the National Institutes of Health, Jennifer Raymond and many others. So this work begins with the story of Dr. Ha. Dr. Ha is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Stanford. She's been there for three years. She comes to Stanford after four years of undergraduate degree, four years of medical school, three years of residency, three years of fellowship. She's 35 years old and she owes $150,000 in student loans, the loans that got her this far. She's a mother, she has two young children. Her husband is a small business owner. At Stanford, Dr. Ha has one title, but four jobs. Job number one, patient care. Dr. Ha spends 35 hours a week taking care of patients in the emergency room. She sees everything from the flu to gunshot wounds. And recently she's been under increased pressure to see more and more and more patients per shift as hospitals are trying to increase their clinical productivity. Job number two, teaching. 10 hours a week. Dr. Ha trains the residents that are gonna be tomorrow's physicians. She spends time with them in the emergency room, teaching them the right clinical procedures. And she also mentors them one-on-one. Job number three, research. 20 hours a week. Dr. Ha does research on the prevention of adverse drug effects in emergency medicine. This is key to her ability to get promoted. When she got to Stanford, she had a small grant from the NIH, but that has run out. And now she spends most of her 20 hours a week writing grant proposals. Her department director warned her that if she does not publish more, she's not gonna get tenure and she's gonna have to leave. Job number four, service. Five hours a week. Dr. Ha is responsible for organizing the lecture series for residents in the department. This is work that's not compensated and it's also not important for promotion, but everybody is expected to pitch in. Dr. Ha also recently learned that her father was diagnosed with early onset dementia. And her siblings are looking to her, the doctor, to manage his care. Overwhelmed, overworked, and exhausted. Dr. Ha asks for a meeting with her department chair. He says, you should take advantage of our great flexibility policies. Just go part time, right? Go part time. And Dr. Ha says, first of all, nobody is using these policies, so surely that can't be good for my career. Second, going part time and working 55 hours instead of 65 hours would dock my pay and not even change the cost of my childcare. So Dr. Ha doesn't see how these policies would help her. Dr. Ha's story is a story that we heard over and over and over and over again as we interviewed the faculty in our own School of Medicine at Stanford. And these stories have critical consequences for our nation. Nationally, over 55% of the doctors that take care of our health have clinical symptoms of burnout. 55%. In emergency medicine, Dr. Ha's department, it's 70%. People who are making life and death decisions are clinically burned out. Nationally, a million Americans lose their doctors to suicide each year. This overwork and burnout has significant consequences for mental health, for patient health, and for our physician's health. The rate of suicide for doctors is twice the average of the rest of the population and for female physicians, four times the average. So this is a crisis that we're facing with our healthcare system. So faced with this and also the knowledge that we were losing a disproportionate amount of our faculty, we were losing half of them 10 years into their career at Stanford. And when we surveyed them, we found that 73% of them worked on average more than 60 hours a week and 30% of them worked on average more than 70 hours a week. This is the highest number of hours worked in the entire campus. How do we fix this? Policies, and I don't mean national policies, I mean institutional policies, did not work. We had all the policies in the book, part-time policy, flex policy, tenure-clock stoppage policy, childcare policy, sick policy, vacation policy, and in fact trying to find out all of these policies was like an archeological dig, right? But our faculty was not using the policy. Why? First, the ideal worker norm. The ideal worker norm, which Joan Williams has done a lot of work on, is this idea that in order to be seen as successful, you need to prove that you can tough it out and you can work 100 hours like the rest of them, right? Two, the flexibility stigma. We punish those who use flexibility policies. We see them as less successful and we actually demonstrate that there's a career cost to using the policy. When we asked our faculty, why aren't you using our policies? They said two things. Number one, concern about the work raining down on their colleagues, okay? The patients are still showing up and it's not easy to replace a highly specialized doctor, right? It's not like you can backfill the position easily. So these people were very aware that if they cut back, other people would have to pick up the work. Two, concern about what this would do to their career. So we knew that the answer could not be more policies. So we used the design thinking approach to try to redesign how a team may go about sharing the work and inject just a little bit of support, all right? So we partnered with the design thinking firm and we actually followed faculty every day. We followed them home, we followed them at work, we were trying to have a more user-centric approach and see what we could do. And we worked with different teams of faculty to experiment with them. So there was a lot of talk to them about the power of experimentation. And this is the model we came up with. At the center of the model is the fact that time is the biggest constraint resource, right? Everybody wants more of it. Our faculty are splitting their time between work and their personal life. They have constraints on both sides. On the work side, they are stretched thin between research, clinical teaching, and service, right? So they're trying to juggle all of these priorities. And at home, maybe they want to spend time with family, friends, hobbies, health, and sleep. So what if we design a system by which faculty could work together and earn credits when they step up to fill out for somebody else who needs more flexibility and, in turn, they earn credits that they can redeem to invest in their own flexibility and gain back some time? So we created a banking system in which faculty would earn credits for stepping up for each other and, in turn, they could cash in these credits with more support at home and a little bit more support at work in the form of a little house cleaning help, some meal deliveries, writing, editing, graphics, lab management services. And because of the conversation we've had today, I also want to highlight that we carefully vetted the providers. And for the house cleaning, we did essentially a nonprofit model where it was provided by workers who had a cleaning cooperative and had access to healthcare and sick time benefits, because that was really important to us. So what did we show? Essentially, what we demonstrated is that we did move the needle somewhat. We saw increased significant support for our culture of flexibility, reduced frequency of behaviors detrimental to wellness. So we got more and more stories about people prioritizing sleep, being more attentive to their health, taking vacations. This also opened a conversation about self-care that was critically missing in our culture. And we saw a significant increase in institutional satisfaction. So this was a drop in the bucket, and the most important metric came from the stories that we got, right? I think that this is telling that this made me cry. I've been up working since 4 a.m. and to know that someone cares is game-changing. And it didn't take much of this little bit of investment for everybody to feel a little bit supported. That's the biggest lesson learned. I thought for a long time running this pilot that I was not making a difference. I said, how can this drop in the bucket ever impact the fact that people are working 100 hours a week? But what I did factor in is just a little bit of feeling of support from your employer goes an incredibly long way. Dr. Ha is still working in the emergency room department. The emergency room department is continuing the pilot. The department of the division chair said, this is a no-brainer. It's less than 1% of my budget, and it's the best recruiting tool we've ever had to get young physicians on board. So Dr. Ha still works too much. It's not fixing everything, but she's still there. She feels a little more supported, and she still works in the emergency room, and she's still saving lives. Thank you. Thank you very much, Carolyn. Hi, everyone. My name is Ankita Patnaik. I'm at Mathematical Policy Research, and today I'm delighted to be sharing with you all some findings from my doctoral research on how social policy can be designed to promote gender equality within a couple. So let's start with a little bit of background on the state of gender equality today, really quick. So we often hear about these promising trends in gender equality in the formal labor market. In recent decades, we've seen gender differences in education, employment, and wages all shrink considerably. However, as Michael pointed out, a large gender gap remains in the care work that is done at home. And with young, modern couples, this gap often begins, or at least expands, with the birth of their first child. It usually starts with parental leave, and this is going to sound like a familiar story to many of you. Because of the way that parental leave is structured and because of the cultural expectations that we have of mothers, women are much more likely to take leave, and they're more likely to take longer leaves. In some European nations, for example, women take up to a year of leave, which has the potential to negatively impact their career. Even among dual-earner families, women are working a second shift. They continue to spend more time in housework and childcare than married men every day. Not only that, they're doing different types of work. Women do more of the routine, time-inflexible tasks that have the most potential to conflict with work and leisure. As an example, think of cooking family dinner every day. Needs to be done every single day at pretty much the same time. It poses the greatest conflict with career progression and mental well-being. And lastly, we see this generally in household priorities. Even among dual-earner families, women's employment is more sensitive to spouses working extra long hours or to spouses having to relocate than vice versa. So why should we care how people divvy up the responsibility in their own home? That's their choice, right? Well, there's a couple of different reasons. The first is, relying too much on a single male breadwinner, it's financially risky for the family. What happens to the family if the man loses his job, if he has an accident? It's also personally risky for women. Since caregiving skills are, unfortunately, poorly compensated in the formal labor market, it leaves women more financially vulnerable if they're ever divorced or widowed. And because it limits their outside options in this way, it can reduce their bargaining power within the marriage. And lastly, there's an argument to be made that the traditional divisional of labor is plain and efficient. The only reason the couple is dividing labor this way is to fall in step with antiquated social norms and because our social institutions haven't kept up with cultural change. So it's been proposed that paternity leave could really help change gender dynamics at home and in the workplace. It would intervene at this crucial time when partners are renegotiating their household roles and forming their identities as parents. It might enable women to go back to work a little sooner without compromising on the care of their child. And it would make the parenting experience more similar, at least the initial parenting experience. So husbands and wives can relate to each other better and so that they develop the same skills in caregiving. Lastly, it would undermine the rationale for an employer to discriminate against a female candidate by assuming she's more likely to take time off than her male counterpart. And many men today are excited at this opportunity to spend time with their newborn and support their wives' careers, so many obstacles. To begin with, there's a loss of earnings. The family loses a big paycheck when the man takes leave. Men are also worried that their bosses, their supervisors, their coworkers are going to resent them for asking for time off. There's also social stigma in some cultures to men being caregivers even if it's for a short period of time. And of course, some men may themselves feel more comfortable with their role as breadwinners than caregivers. So this really leads to two important questions that we need answers to, right? Step one, what kinds of policies can really encourage men to participate in parental leave? And step two, maybe more important, doesn't even matter. Even if we could get men to take parental leave, would this really have a long-term effect on gender dynamics at home? So to answer these two questions, I turned to a policy episode in Canada. Allow me to give you some background. In Canada, every new parent gets 52 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave. Many parents can convert that into paid leave by claiming benefits from the employment insurance or EI system. EI is basically a social safety net. It's funded by a payroll tax on employers and employees and it covers multiple reasons for being out of work. So people can claim from this because they've been laid off because they have a temporary disability or because they want to stay home to kick care of their newborn. EI covers basically a year of leave for the family. Much of that is maternity just for moms and about half of that is shared gender-neutral parental leave. So moms and dads get to decide how they want to share it between them. But it turns out dads don't end up sharing at all. Under 20% of dads under this old program took part in the parental leave program. But it's not as though moms were using all the leave either. In 60% of families the entire month or more of leave was just being left on the table. It was just plain and efficient. So one province decided to do something about this. In July 2005 Quebec decided it was leaving the EI program and it was setting up its own scheme. It was known as the Quebec Parental Insurance Plan or CUPIT for short. CUPIT began on the January 1st, 2006. Now CUPIT was really designed with men in mind. It was designed to tackle each of the barriers that men face to taking leave. So first of all it was easier for men to be eligible to claim benefits from the EI system or the new CUPIT system. It made the benefits more generous and that's really important. Previously you could get about 50% of your wages back up to a max of $400 a week. Now under CUPIT you can get 70% of your wages back up to a max of $800 a week. And really importantly to combat gendered attitudes CUPIT introduced five weeks of daddy-only leave. So it introduced a papa quota. What that means is that the family's full year of leave got five extra weeks for just for dads. They were offered on a use it or lose it basis. So to look at whether CUPIT had the desired effect on father's participation I look at benefit claims data over that decade. At the bottom you see in blue participation rates in other provinces which held on to the old program. Father's participation was constant at about 12%. As you can see in 2006 there was a dramatic jump in father's participation in Quebec when CUPIT came into place. In fact within two years of the new program father's participation tripled from 25% of dads participating in leave to 75% of dads participating in leave. That's a huge immediate change. I also found that dads took longer leave. Previously dads would take about two weeks on average now under CUPIT five weeks. You'll notice that's exactly the amount of the papa quota. Interestingly I found that moms didn't actually change behavior at all. They didn't go back to working sooner or later under the new program. I did find that the biggest response came from first time dads that makes sense. They're the least set in their child bearing patterns and I found that this wasn't just an income or a class thing there was a response from both low and high income fathers. So as you can imagine when I saw this I was pretty excited. Here's this kind of natural policy experiment that urged the average father to take more parental leave and we can use it to find out if it changed gender dynamics in the long term. And there's a couple of theoretical reasons it would. So you can imagine the dad on paternity leave he's getting on the job training in housework and childcare he's just more productive in home production. He might develop new habits and routines that stick around after he goes back to work it might even affect his preferences and of course it might shape his identity and his beliefs about what it means to be an engaged parent. But I'm sure the skeptical amongst you are wondering that's all great in theory but can five weeks of leave really change something for years afterwards like does it even stick? So to find out I looked at time use data in Canada from 2005 and 2010. Now a time diary essentially asks people for one single day to write down the minutes that they spend in different activities and locations. It paints this really nice picture of the average day I focus on married or cohabitating parents who have a kid between the ages of one and three. Now that means these parents are not on leave at the time that I observe them but they're still facing the demands of pretty young children. Before I get into the results I wanted to show you what a household looks like before Cupid comes into place. In red are time spent by women in blue is the time spent by men. On the left as you can see in childcare, cooking, housekeeping and all chores females spend more time than males. On the right as you can see in paid work men spend more time than women. You see the same pattern in time spent physically at home versus physically at the workplace. So even today, even among young couples a gendered division of labour does exist. But I did find that households that were exposed to Cupid behaved differently than households that had children under EI. I find that in a typical Cupid household dad spent 15 minutes longer in housework 20 minutes longer in childcare and 30 minutes more physically at home on an average day. Moms that were exposed to Cupid spent 18 minutes less in housework and 30 minutes less physically at home per day. So it really seems like in a Cupid household dads are preaching in more at home. Years after they took paternity leave. What are moms doing with the time that they saved? Actually moms are spending 60 minutes longer in paid work every day. They're 7% more likely to be full-time employed and moms in Cupid households make $5,000 more on average. So the takeaway from this research is if you want to promote gender equality within a couple, you've got to start early. Start by offering parental leave. And remember that when we're designing this policy men are most likely to take you up on this offer when it's well compensated and when this time reserved specifically for them. Lastly I want to emphasize that while this talk has talked about the benefits of paternity leave for gender equality, everyone stands to gain in the long run. Men who take paternity leave report higher satisfaction with their parenting. One study found that paternity leave reduces divorce rates and promotes marital stability. Multiple studies show that when men take leave, children's schooling, mental health and cognitive outcomes improve over time. And this should be obvious but giving men time to bond with their children has the potential to strengthen one of the most meaningful relationships any of us will ever experience. That between a father and child. Thank you. I grew up in the 70s and 80s totally obsessed with Charlie's Angels. I'd run home from school every day to watch the 4 p.m. reruns. I had an Angels lunch box. I reenacted the show with my friends. I even perfected the Farrah Fawcett hairdo with my battery operated curling iron. Still try to use that curling iron. Media. Film. Television, web series games and now VR have a profound impact on how identity is created. Images, stories show us who we are and who we can become. Cultural critic Jeff Chang writes, stories are what moves the country. Culture is where ideas are introduced. Values are inculcated and emotions are attached to concrete change. It is where the national imagination gets moved. For 70 years, television has been imagining women from the stereotypical 50s housewives in Ozzy and Harriet and Leva to Beaver to the trailblazing working women in the Cosby Show, Roxanne and Murphy Brown from the smart and sexy gals of Charlie's Angels and Sex and the City to the earnest do-gooders of ugly Betty The Good Wife and Scandal. Television has imprinted ideas of how women work, love, dress, parent and generally exist in the world. Television gets inside our heads. The characters show up in our living rooms and our bedrooms. They are more familiar and more like family than the mystical larger-than-life characters on a 20-foot screen. I live in Los Angeles and this thing happens to me from time to time. I'm in a restaurant, I see Carrie Washington, I go up to say hi. It takes me five seconds before I turn bright red and realize that I don't really know her. I watch her, but she does not watch me. And this is the power of television. It manufactures familiarity. It introduces us to people that we might not otherwise know. This ability of media to change hearts and minds is significant. But what's even more important is the way that cultural impacts policy. It moves us from the realm of private to public. One of the most widely cited success stories of cultural change leading to political changes in the LGBTQ movement. Queer culture made its way into mainstream film and television in the 90s, moving the American public from considering marriage equality unthinkable to inevitable in less than 20 years. A University of Minnesota study on the effects of television show Will and Grace demonstrated that increased viewing frequency and parasocial interaction were found to correlate with lower levels of sexual prejudice. In other words, watching Will and Grace led to increase acceptance of LGBT people which ultimately led to Supreme Court ruling that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. Two studies about girls' career aspirations are directly linked to what they see on TV. One titled, Accessing Media Influences on Middle School Age Children's Perceptions of Women in Science, uses the Draw a Scientist Test to make a correlation between the images kids see and their career aspirations. A lack of female scientists on screen leads to girls who are less interested in science and science based careers. And then another study, one done by the Gina Davis Institute and USC found a dearth of images of women in STEM fields which led to a recommendation that both young girls and boys should see female decision makers, political leaders, managers and scientists as the norm, not the exception. I have two little girls, one six, one is 18 months and as much as I love my Charlie's Angels as an eight-year-old, I want something better for my girls. I want them to see the world of possibility in their media. I want them to see families that look like guards, to moms, by racial kids and I want them to see women and men in all of their sexity and in a plethora of roles. Hollywood is known to be progressive so why don't we see more images and stories of women and people of color in leadership roles. Sadly, it's because we have a deep-seated gender and racial equality problem in the entertainment industry. Let's look at some numbers. In the top 100 films of 2014 only 2% were directed by women, 11% were written by women, 18% almost 19% were produced by women and television is a little bit better but not so much. 14% are directed by women, 23% are created by women and 26% have staff writers that are female. Four years ago, women in film and the Sundance Institute partnered with USC to conduct three rounds of research to better understand these statistics and to better understand why it is that it is out of the pipeline between film school to mainstream Hollywood careers. We used the Sundance Film Festival and the lab participants as a control group and we found that over a 13-year period 25% of narrative films at the festival were directed by women compared to 4% of mainstream films. We dug a little deeper and this is what we discovered. When money comes in women go out so the higher the budget, the greater the risk the fewer women are involved. There is a perception of a gender marketplace, gendered marketplace. There is this idea that women make small movies and I just want to note that our next round of research is going to be about making a business case for why women are good for business but I just to put in focus a little bit I'll just call out that Pitch Perfect 2 a movie that was written and directed by women made $185 million in the US alone. Perceived lack of talent and ambition there's an idea that there aren't big enough talent pool and there aren't women who want to direct tentpole movies. So in that 13-year study there's 45 women who made top-grossing movies they're all eligible for directing more tentpole movies and of the independent filmmakers that we surveyed 44% said that they were interested in tentpole movies that their action-adventure movies is the big blow-up movies. And then finally there's this idea that exists in the industry of think director, think of male. So when the studios think about who they're going to hire they think naturally of men in the same way that they think of men to command armies and big groups of people. I know this is really crazy in this decade but in this time but it's true and they also think that women can't always handle a big set and again those action-adventure scenes come up that women can't direct those. Also I wanted to note that through previous research conducted by USC we also know that female directors are more likely to feature girls and women on screen than male directors and this is true in both top-grossing movies and critically acclaimed movies that have won Academy Awards over the past 33 years. In television the number of women in the writer's room increases as they get more powerful so does the representation. Now we have female show runners like Shonda Rhimes bringing us multi-dimensional female characters in Grey's Anatomy and Unscandal. We have Melissa Rosenberg bringing us Jessica Jones Marvel series featuring a badass superhero. We have Mindy Kaling with a complex and hilarious portrayal of a working mom. We have Genji Cohen showing us a range of female power dynamics in Orange is the New Black Lena Dunham and Jenny Conner's Voice of a Generation in Girls and of course there's Jill Soloway creator of Transparent the Emmy-winning show on Amazon. I want to talk about Jill for a minute. Jill is leading a revolution. Jill is creating culture on set and across the nation. In her world form follows function. Theory becomes practice. She has prioritized hiring women and transgender people many of whom are brand new to TV a practice almost unheard of in Hollywood and she runs her set completely differently. She encourages emotion that's crying not yelling. She has a kind of collaboration that borders on job sharing she does trans awareness trainings. She has public appreciation for her colleagues people start the show the beginning of the day and they recognize something another person has done on the team the day before a thing that probably happens in corporate settings but not so much again in this crazy industry in Hollywood and these are all things that you just don't see in the hyper competitive male dominated film and television business. Last year we launched a systemic change initiative to bring about conversion in Hollywood. The plan includes unconscious bias training a protege program a system to get more women on the list for writer and director positions and a seal of approval to award shows and feature films that achieve gender parity. It will be years before we see the full results of our work but for now I can tell you it's a brave new world with women at the helm. Imagine a future that is female that's inclusive maybe even intersectional that opens up a full range of storytelling. Imagine that equality is the baseline not the finish line. Where will this creativity and vision lead us? How will stories of female filmmakers impact identity community and policy? I can hardly wait. Thank you. Oh I didn't get the last slide. Okay. The display here is the wrong display. Are you seeing the right display? Okay. Okay. Get ready to get wonky. This is much more wonky than what you've just heard. There are 40 years of social psychology studies that have documented the same patterns of gender and racial bias over and over and over again. One of the things that people have been wondering about is do these studies describe what actually goes on in the workplace? So I undertook a course of research to answer that question. About five years ago every time I met a savvy woman I said can I have an hour of your time and I simply recited to her the findings of the social psychologists from the college labs. This is what I found. 96% of the women I talked to said yes. They had experienced exactly the kind of gender bias that the social psychologists had been documenting. 96%. So as you see there are four distinct patterns of bias. I only have time today to talk about two. I'll be talking about glass ceiling bias. Maternal wall bias the third is actually in order of magnitude larger. So I'm today I'm going to be telling you about the good news. You know after decades of corporate diversity initiatives still women long ago stalled out at about 14% in top level jobs and they have flat lined since the mid 1990s. Nothing has changed. Why? It's because I think we've been using ineffective tools. The typical reaction is oh we have a problem let's found a women's initiative. Well that is a great idea if the problem is with the women. But the problem my research shows is that bias is constantly playing out in the business systems and so the solution is to change the business systems. So in a recent article in a 2014 article in Harvard business school a Harvard business review I articulate a model for doing exactly that. For changing the interrupting the constant transmission of bias in sourcing, hiring, performance evaluations all of these basic business systems. And this is called as a four step model called metrics driven bias interrupters. I warned you it was wonky, right? The HBR editor said only someone from San Francisco could like that name. So it's a four step model. The first step is very simple just do an assessment do what I did, recite the patterns and ask people in your workplace hey any of that happened here. So you get some hypotheses about what might be happening. The women may be wrong. So the next step is to develop an objective metric to see whether what they think is happening is actually happening. The third step is to put in place a bias interrupter a tweak to one of the basic business systems that's designed in an evidence based way to interrupt the transmission of bias. And then the fourth is to go back to the metric to see if you've changed anything or haven't I think you have to try something different and ratchet up. So that's the model. I'll talk about two of the patterns of bias and give you some examples of bias interrupters. The first pattern which is experienced by about two thirds of working women I call prove it again. The first prove it again mechanism stems from what's called in group favoritism. Now what's the most important factor in determining who is in your social network? It's similarity. So imagine the effect of that in workplaces where 85% of the people on top are men. Who gets sponsors? For example, we know who gets sponsors. You sponsor people in your network. Who's in your network? People like you. All of this has a gender effect. By the way, a lot of what I'm saying also applies to race. I don't have time to talk about that now. Happy to talk about that in the question period. So the in group favoritism effect plays out in who gets a sponsor. It plays out in opportunities. It plays out also in access to information because sensitive information is passed through social networks. So if your assessment identifies a possible problem with sponsorship the first step of course is to set up a metric. Keep track of who's sponsoring whom. And if there's a certain demography to that, which there probably is, then you need to set up a more formal system for allocating sponsors. How about for these issues related to access to information? Recent assessments in organizations I've worked with, most of them involved women in STEM in a university and it turned out that the way you accelerate tenure and promotion in that university is passed through informal networks. It's nowhere published. So the women feel very isolated and they don't know how to get that acceleration. In law firms something different happens. In law firms how do you find out that who what like sexy new cases are coming in the door? So you can get on that team. That's passed through informal networks. Women are left out. So to level the playing field in each context you need to shift from informal systems to more formal systems as a way of disseminating information. What happens is informality in many contexts is an invisible escalator for a very specific demographic group. The second mechanism that produces lack of fit is excuse me if prove it again is lack of fit. And what you see up there is two pictures of barber bars on this side and Ben bars on the other. They're the same person. But Ben said some people think my research is better. Shortly after I changed sex someone said to me Ben bars gave a great seminar today but then his work is so much better than his sisters. You would think anything was objective a science lecture but no this place takes place at a cognitive level. And this is how it plays out in the workplace. This is a quote from a woman in tech this is really common in tech. She said to me for a woman to get a promotion it's difficult. She said I've been doing this job for an entire year without a pay raise and without the title and I still couldn't get the promotion. They needed a little more time to make sure I was up to it. You notice how she has to prove herself over and over and over again. So if your assessment shows prove it again problems with respect to promotion or that women think this is going on again set up a metric figure out who gets promoted and with qualifications and if you find a disparity what the literature suggests are the two things that are important are pre commitment to what's important for promotion and accountability you need to explain why this is the person getting promoted. Okay that's the first of the four patterns the second is the tightrope. The tightrope is the most common form of gender bias as you see it's a pre force of women reported and it stems from prescriptive stereotypes women are expected to be nice and communal interpersonally sensitive helpful and modest. Men are expected to be competent and a genetic direct assertive competitive and ambitious and so women have to behave in masculine ways in order to be seen as competent only problem is that women are expected to be feminine and so women find themselves walking a tightrope between being liked but not respected or respected but not liked that's called the competence likability trade off I'm going to skip a few slides because I'm way behind time so on the other hand if women are direct or competitive then they're seen as a bitch this plays out all the time in performance evaluations performance evaluations of women very often have bossy abrasive emotional irrational criticism of negative personality traits performance evaluations even if they're negative of men tend to have things like it is important to provide proper guidance with respect to skills assessment totally different totally different so if this is happening first of all if you're not looking for this in performance evaluations this is happening in performance evaluations you need metrics secondly if it is you need training and you need a bounce back so there's beginning to be an assessment and understanding of what these patterns of bias are like so this is the wrong this is the wrong version I knew I couldn't do all this in this time I'm just the last well you can look at my sources and I will finish up so bottom line is what we've been doing is something that is bound to be ineffective what businesses need to do if they're actually serious about racial and gender bias is to begin to do what they do for any business problem they actually care about which is to set up objective metrics and then to keep trying until they solve the problem thank you