As explained in this excellent research, gender bias begins when women are just not "one of us" at the entry level position. #fit=fail. And then they are mentored ("you're doing it wrong") rather than sponsored ("let's get you into your next promotion").
Here, courtesy of Jezebel, is a little girl ranting on the pink ghetto and product-aisle insistence on her ascribing to the Princess Phase.
Interesting how she trips over how boys don't want to buy pink stuff (she was going to say that they did, but it rang false to her) - her dad "corrects" her, but we all know the Pink Ghetto exists beause "pink is for girls and NOT for boys." She seems more confident when she says that boys might want to play with princesses.
So, for the record: all girls do NOT want to be princesses. Instead, consider that 3-5 year olds want to emulate adults. Unfortunately, this means marketers give girls props to play at being a mommy or a princess (most marriageable maiden). Queens are typically evil, and why boys can play/explore other aspects of daily life (cities, farms), girls' props are usually confined to the domestic. So to repeat, girls just want to practice being adults, the same way that boys do.
Clearly there's a gigantic business opportunity to simply re-package non-domestic daily props in pink boxes. Throw some sparklies on there. Excellent: now you've got a pink microscope and chemistry set, pink road construction toys, and let's throw in a pink tool belt, presumably with sparklies. Then wrap princess costumes, vacuum cleaners, and baby dolls in boxes of bright primary colors for the boys, and you're done.
After having conversations about what is maturing in this space and what is emergent, it seems that the big "buzz" is around: what about US? And by "us" I mean the United States.
Specifically, why are we focused on extreme environments internationally when there are extreme environments in the United States?
This question was first brought up on Social Edge forum in about May 2009. (Can't find the link; will update when I can.) But it has persisted and grown, and every conference makes it more obvious that there is a dearth of socially-oriented businesses incubated in a more survival-oriented culture by those very people who have few resources... that are represented.
Is it real? If so, is it a matter of patronizing attitudes that we're unwilling to face? Is it because of an international infrastructure that makes it easier to get funding for work in Uganda than East Oakland? Something else?
Or is it an artifact of disconnected communities, where the elite-educated go one way, and the grassroots grown innovators go another?
There's no denying there are entrenched problems in the extreme environments within the United States, but there's also no denying that there is massive innovation emerging here, also. However, those stories are not making the news in the way international work is.