Media, pop culture, news, trends, photos, rants + things we like.
Hello there! I'm Brian, your current tumblr. But we wouldn't be here without
this guy. Or this gal. BOTH OF WHOM NOW WORK AT TUMBLR! We're happy for them!
Perhaps check out our sister tumblrs: The Cheat Sheet! And NWK Archivist (your daily dose of gems from the Newsweek archives).
Send us an email. Ask us anything about life, love, & liberty.
Follow us on Tumblr!
Or follow our RSS, like a robot.
Or hey, visit Newsweek on the web! If you click on an ad there a wish might come true!
Dahlia Lithwick says yes.
Social scientists contend that the difference is more than just cosmetic. They cite a 2006 study by the Wellesley Centers for Women that found three to be the magic number when it came to the impact of women on corporate boards: after the third woman is seated, boards reach a tipping point at which the group as a whole begins to function differently. According to Sumru Erkut, one of the authors of that study, the small group as a whole becomes more collaborative, and more open to different perspectives. In no small part, she writes, that’s because once a critical mass of three women is achieved on a board, it’s more likely that all the women will be heard.
Rock on, smart ladies at the WCW.
Depressing. It takes one man to be heard, but three for *maybe* a women to be heard.
Feminism + economics. Beautiful.
Interesting… But do you think they could have found less attractive pictures of them? I mean really?