Cheezhead

At <a href=”http://www.DamselsInSuccess.com”>Damsels In Success</a>, we’ve recently begun offering employers an opportunity to sponsor the site. Corporate sponsors will receive placement of their logo on the <a href=”http://www.damselsinsuccess.com/jb/default.aspx”>Jobs home page</a>, women-friendly company profiles, features about their executive women, editorials about their products/services, etc.

All the conversations we’ve had with potential sponsors have gone very well, but there’s one conversation I recently had in which a surprising concern was raised. My contact at the company loved the site and pushed decision-makers at the company to partner with us. The final decision, however, was not to sponsor the site and the only feedback provided was that the <a href=”http://www.damselsinsuccess.com/blogs/default.aspx”>Forum section</a> of the site — an area where pre-selected professional women are blogging about professional topics — was “too candid” because the word “bitch” appears in <a href=”http://www.damselsinsuccess.com/blogs/blog.aspx?id=180″>one post</a>, and because a woman wrote about the maternal wall in <a href=”http://www.damselsinsuccess.com/blogs/blog.aspx?id=75″>another</a>. The company indicated it would reconsider its decision if we removed these posts and if we provided assurance that similar posts would not be published in the future. We, of course, declined.

I can come up with some legitimate reasons to pass on the sponsorship opportunity — the site is too new, the price of sponsorship is too high, etc. — and I expect that some companies will pass. We hope they all hop on board, of course, but we’ll certainly understand if some don’t. No problem. But, this company’s response was deeply troubling for at least a couple of reasons.

First, the two posts the company cites are excellent and should not have given the company even a moment of pause. Both posts articulate some very important women’s issues and treat the issues carefully. The first post cited does include the word bitch but not gratuitously. The post was entitled, <a href=”http://www.damselsinsuccess.com/blogs/blog.aspx?id=180″>”Beat the Bitch? Straight Talk on the B-Bomb”</a> and it was about one of John McCain’s supporters referring to Senator Clinton as a bitch at one of his rallies. This was a national story covered by every major media outlet. The author of the post, Dr. Debra Condren, is our site’s resident advice columnist and is a respected business psychologist who even appeared on CNN to discuss her post and the use of the word “bitch” to describe powerful women. But, according to this employer, it was just crossing the line for us to put the post on our site.

And, yes, there is also a <a href=”http://www.damselsinsuccess.com/blogs/blog.aspx?id=75″>post</a> on the site about the maternal wall. A Yale Professor intelligently, thoughtfully, and, most importantly, *fairly*, suggests that her bonus at a firm she once worked for *may* have been reduced because she took maternity leave. She never mentions the company, and she is clear to repeatedly say throughout the post that she is not certain why her bonus was cut but that she *suspects* it was because she took maternity leave. This is an important post, about an important topic, and any employer that truly claims to “listen to the needs of [it's] valued female employees (as this employer says verbatim on its own website) should not be concerned about such a post.

Second, the response was troubling because it suggests 1) an extreme degree of conservatism in the area of women’s issues and 2) that the company is not ashamed of its conservatism or aware that there are some sexist notions underlying it’s attitude (or the company would not have been so explicit about it’s reasoning). With regard to the latter, I read into the company’s response something akin to “Sure, we’re all for advancing women as long as they keep their mouths shut.” And this is simply not acceptable.

All that said, I am glad to say that this is the only problematic response we’ve gotten. Most companies think that what we’re doing on the site is fabulous, and they see the site as an opportunity for them to communicate their support of important conversations among women, and their genuine dedication to improving women’s professional satisfaction. A manager at a Fortune 500 company recently noted that, “We understand that women want to work at companies that embrace the difficult issues. They want to work at organizations that are open and transparent. We’re not scared of the issues and we support and encourage tough conversations.”

At <a href=”http://www.damselsinsuccess.com”>Damsels In Success</a>, we have taken great care to only work with writers who can blog intelligently, thoughtfully and responsibly about even the most sensitive issues (issues which both professional women and employers should want to discuss). There is not a single article on the site that is gratuitously provocative or indulgent or damaging to a potential sponsor’s interests. If one ever gets submitted, we’ll review it closely and consider whether it should be published. That’s not censorship — that’s just making sure that all content is in line with our mission: helping professional women advance themselves and each other. And unfortunately for the employer that sparked this post, the two articles they asked us to remove fit squarely within that mission.