I completely agree. (I also adore Carla Bruni; have you heard her music? Incredible.) The G-20 Wives’ Club reminds me of something I encountered when I worked on Camp Lejeune as an editor at a weekly newspaper: the OWC, or Officer's Wives Club. Granted, there's nothing wrong with coming together over a common interest – your husband is at war – but a lot of these women had successful careers and other accomplishments on their belt. It's just disheartening because I think there is so much for women to connect over besides their husband's jobs.

Completely agree, but here is a nice pic of Angela Merkel's husband Jochen Sauer hanging with the girls.
http://twitpic.com/2wcfa

It is weird that they had a top 100 women bloggers, considering women are so much more up to speed on the world of blogging. If anyone needs any favors in the blogging world, it's male bloggers.
I think the root of most sexism is managers and investors determining hiring and investment decisions based on what they consider their fool-proof gut instinct. The problem is, their gut instinct is unconsciously based on who they have the most in common with — other men.

Also, Argentina is G20, and Cristina Kirchner is the President. She is a babe.

I have such a crush on you, PT, you'll never know. Yeah, I'll be your research man/

I work out resolution in the dream world
I buy and sell adventure in my sleep
When I awaken, precautions are taken
To make good on the promises I have to keep.

I was just about to correct you to, but in a nicer way because I really like your blog.

Go power of The Internet!

Yet another reason why I read your blog.

Have you seen Therese Rein (Kevin Rudd's wife)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se_Rein

"an Australian businesswoman and the wife of the 26th Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd. She is the founder of the Australian employment agency Ingeus, and the first Australian Prime Minister's wife to remain in the paid workforce while her husband is in office. She has an estimated net worth of AUD 60m."

Maybe we have these female photo ops because

A: Some of these women have dedicated a lot of time to supporting these powerful men and their families, and these photo ops are a rare shot at public acknowledgment of that.

B: They like the attention.

I personally don't see anything wrong with the wives of powerful men being photographed together. Even if Michelle Obama is smart and successful, she and these other women were chosen as partners by the most powerful people in the world. It's a curiosity and an interpersonal achievement.

As long as people aren't prevented from doing other things they want to do, let them enjoy what they enjoy. If that means photo-ops, playing tea-party, or OMG! make-overs, go for it.

More troubling is when women who work hard at achieving success outside the traditionally feminine sphere (great!) de-value and call insane other women for being themselves.(not so great)

Powerful, talented, intelligent, and successful women confident enough to be feminine are hot.

I agree that segregating women for the sheer sake of it is counterproductive, demeaning and sexist. I don't think that avoiding business publications and networking groups that are niched towards women is a stand against this sexism because most business publications are written for a predominately male demographic (it just isn't outlined in the title).

I can see your point that women meeting only because of their partner's common interests doesn't value all these women have to offer. But women meeting in a professional capacity doesn't honour their roles as mothers or partners either.

If we really want to move past the inherent sexism we need to value a woman’s role in any and all arenas she chooses to participate in. If these women were meeting to support their children in a school play would this be as unacceptable or is it just that they are supporting their husbands that is distasteful?

Feminism means that supporting ones family is no more or less important than a powerful career or cheering children on in a school play.

Well said, P. I agree wholly, for the same reason i don't join an all-women's gym, don't take part in women's 10K races or sign up for women-only groups. Women say they want equality, but what they ask for is special treatment – and yes, people think they are doing us a favour. Why? Leave gender out of it!

Michelle Obama, on the other hand, I believe is respected because we know exactly how capable she is, and we don't for a second think that this – being First Lady – is as high as she ever aspires to be.

P: I'm one of your readers who almost always agrees with your every snarky word, but this is one time when I have to point out a few inaccuracies. While SOME women might be earning more than men, most aren't. There is still a wage gap in corporate America as well as an old boys club. Most of the higher level managers are still men. There is still sexual harassment and sexism. I was once passed over for a promotion because I did not drink with the guys after work. That's why I left. It's getting better, but we are far from equality.

I think you are correct that women small business owners (and bloggers would fall into this group) do quite well. There are fewer people to discriminate against us. We are not at the whim of a series of male bosses.

I can't speak to the women wives who are pictured. I really don't follow famous people in general, male or female. And I don't care about what Michelle Obama happens to be wearing, or any other female celebrity for that matter. But a lot of women seem to care. I've never understood why.

I participate in a women's business group, though. We don't necessarily wear pretty dresses, but the fact that we are seen together does not make us weaker. It makes us stronger. It allows us to secure opportunities and support that we could not get on our own.

You need only watch a bunch of moms together at GNO to see the power of women in groups. It scares the crap out of men to see a group of women who support each other. It's true vagina power, and I wish more women realized they had it.

sing it, sister! i couldn't agree more, and have been writing the same thing about women artists, another "industry" in which this happens over and over again as well.

You're a woman! You're special! Here's a cookie!
No thanks!

Given all the apparently mandatory responsibilities a first spouse has, how is it we do not pay the position a salary? It seems to me a bigger story is how did we con all the first spouses into a full time volunteer job.

Women are earning more than men in corporate America? Since when? I'm almost certain I've read posts of yours before where you linked to studies showing there's a huge wage gap between men and women, and women make LESS than men do for the same work.

Regardless, I liked where this post was going at first because I do think the G-20 is BS for women, but the point of that to me is that we need more women leaders. Merkel is fantastic. Kirchner is as well, but she's also president of Argentina partly because of her husband's political status, so I think that gives her less credibility.

However, I don't think women-only groups are stupid. I think it is really important for other women to support each other. Sexism is not dead. There are plenty of women in male-dominated industries who still have to deal with gender discrimination everyday, and for them, it is important to have other women to support them who have been where they are and know what they are going through. Men and women don't share all the same experiences, so it is really important for women to support each other.It's not about "segregating women foolishly."

Interesting. On the one hand, I so agree with your first two paragraphs and this sentiment:

"The G-20 Wives’ Club photos are particularly insulting because these women are being associated not by their special interests, or particular education, or common background, but merely by who they are sleeping with. Seriously. When, other than when rounding up prostitutes for jail, has this approach to grouping women been acceptable to society?"

On the other hand, being the spouse of someone is probably a bit more than just "sleeping" with him or her (1) . . . . and (2), [and more importantly] at some level there is a valid difference between male and female that is not arbitrary nor merely financial. I'd hate to see that overlooked, devalued or even given up, in the name of so-called "equality".

And by "equality", I do not mean equal pay.

They don't call the two genders the "opposite sex" for nothing. Viva la difference!"

I agree with you whatever on the "sleeping with" comment. The fact that these women are the wives of these powerful men automatically includes them as a part of a "special group". What other wives can relate to these women and their unique roles as spouses of the world's wealthiest leaders on the same level( wasn't clear in previous post)?

GREAT POST!
thanks for writing!
Hannah

Malcontent7 makes an excellent point (and, note my name below: I'm female).

Whining about the "calling out" of women is really trivial. We women want it all and we're so contradictory. We're really a negative reflection upon our own gender. Knock it off ladies.

Here's some examples:
We women insist we can only be successful if we are the most fashionably dressed and stay looking like a 20-yr. old (Penelope promotes this more than anyone else). Yet, we get mad when society only recognizes us for our looks. Duh, we're the ones letting ourselves get suckered into this trap.

We women complain we're never recognized for our skills. Yet, many of us have no problem using sex to accomplish our goals. Isn't sex Penelope's number one selling tool for her writing?

We women want to work any job a man does, but often don't want to be subjected to the crap the comes with it, even when it's regularly part of the job whether you're a man or a woman. A lawsuit was recently settled in our town because a female firefighter felt she didn't need to do heavy lifting even though it's requirement for the job. "Sorry, you poor person stuck in a burning building…I'm a female firefighter and I don't do heavy lifting."

Gloria Steinhem-style feminism rejected men opening doors for us and helping us with heavy boxes – you know, general courtesies that all humans should extend to everyone, male or female. And now we complain when it's not done for us, not to mention that we also expect men to pay for our dinners when we go out.

Ladies, choose your battles. Whine only about the big things so when we have legitimate complaints (which we certainly do), people will actually listen to us.

This is a great post. It's true, we need more women leaders and fewer women-only groups, awards, etc. For a while, like maybe 30, 40 or 50 years ago, they were helping advance our cause, but now they're only perpetuating where we were, rather than spotlighting where we are.

I also think men have an important role to play in this. They not only need to promote and honor women in leadership positions, but they need to break more deeply into the areas of home, family and community that have typically been thought of as "female." We all have work to do if we're going to shake up these deeply-rooted stereotypes (and I know many men who are doing that good work).

Penelope, Penelope….

How can you bitch about being grouped together and then recommend using it to your advantage in the same post? I kind of get what you are saying on the side of being grouped together because I am a minority. I think they over-do it when they make a fuss about the first Black this or the first Hispanic that. Being a Hispanic businessman, if I am awarded such an honor (First Hispanic….), I feel like I have just one a volleyball tournament in the rec-division league at the park. It's cool to win such a tournament but probably doesn't require news coverage, especially if I think that my volleyball skills rival the non-rec league big boys, you know what I mean? So, I get it, but our difference here is, I don't complain about those honors when they come.

So I somewhat agreed with your point and then you close by saying, use it to your advantage. i.e. wearing a skirt and heels when they are looking to fill a female exec spot. My point is this. If you are going to use a category to your advantage (female, Hispanic, handicap), you shouldn't complain when being grouped as such or awarded something within that category. Therefore, you really should post you recognition you received for being one of the top 100 women bloggers. And guess what, one could look at that as being a greater honor if they felt female blogging is superior to men's (just as I tend to believe).

Okay. There are two issues here.

One is, groups of women who are being reverred for who they're married to. That's bull. That's ridiculous. I totally agree with that, excellent post.

A completely different dish is group of women who get together on their own accord to support each other. Such as mommy blogs. And I for one am glad that they exist.

In traditional societies in which women were in traditional roles there was support for mothers from other women. In recent modern times, if you choose to be a mother, you were quite isolated. Enter mommy blogs. I have no words to express how helpful it is to hear from other women their experiences through pregnancy, miscarriage, etc. It is empowering.

Motherhood is a valid option and if it not embraced by feminism, then there is something really wrong with feminism.

"Women are earning more than men in corporate America, women are keeping their jobs at a higher rate than men in the recession, and, Adam, when it comes to making money from blogging, the mommy bloggers knock the ball out of the park."

You make a fine point that gender discrimination is no longer an important issue. Women who sell this argument are embarrassing themselves. Especially tough to imagine that gender makes much of a difference for what my friend affectionately calls "sellout careers" (marketing, advertising, etc).

re: keeping their jobs

If this is true, It's possible that lawsuit fears are an important element in the ax decision.

GREAT post!

Sometime ago I read Frances Hesselbein's "Hesselbein on Leadership." She said, "I never walked into the board room thinking ‘I am a Woman.’ I participated because I had something to contribute beyond gender. I never thought of myself as the woman on the board (though indeed I was); rather, I knew I brought a special perspective to the deliberations and the decisions.”

I totally agree with her and you!

If you're a woman… who cares. You bring more to the table than your sexuality. You bring ideas, skills, and passion. Don't apologize for being a woman and don't make us pity, resent, or feel obliged to you because you're a woman. Just be who you are and lead what you love.

BTW, I blogged about Hesselbein's thoughts here – http://paulpetersonlive.com/2007/01/28/women-leaders/

AND for what it's worth – I'm a conservative dude.

Peace out…

I’m glad you’ve spoken up. You’ve pointed out what is really a special case of the diversity mindset. This is the belief that people of X characteristic need special treatment. It labels them weak. Meanwhile, if people of Y characteristic were treated the same way there would be outrage, reinforcing the idea that they’re superior to the X people.

It's so lazy to label Carla Bruni a 'homewrecker'–that myopic tendency is part of the problem.

I agree; could we hear a little less about the Obama-Bruni fashion comparisons? This is not news…

Good point that Michelle O. has to give up a powerful career and a good income. One reason we don't have more women leaders is that husbands with successful careers won't give up their careers and income.

Additionally, the scrutiny required for holding office will become even more problematic with two-career couples. I remember reading somewhere that, when Gerry Ferraro ran for VP, her husband was not comfortable disclosing his business records because he would tip his hand to the competition. A spouse would have to be retired, stay-at-home or working for the government in a salaried position.

this was too much time and energy on something really rather trivial and inconsequential….when women are finally out and about (honestly being seen AND heard), leave it to a woman to seek out something to complain about – JEEZ…. Noone ever says anything about MEN taking advantage of photo ops and/or having power lunches. Sometimes just by virtue of focusing on the petty and trite it points out issues, stereotypes and subjective issues which would have better served, never said.

As to the irrelevance of women-only groups/magazines/blogger lists/whatever, I think criticizing those is a bunch of bull and trivializing in itself. If there's an old boy network, which has traditionally gotten many things done (whether for good or ill), why not create an old girl's network? Really. As a female entrepreneur, I feel pretty confident that other women are more likely to support other women and provide the valuable word of mouth needed for more business. I've received client referrals from both men and women peers/clients, but more from women. And I'm certain I work harder than male peers for landing new clients. I'm not saying it should be used instead of also generating business from male clients, yet using an OGN certainly helps other women get established. Who do you think is supporting all those SAHM blogs and making them profitable? That's certainly not a male demographic readership. It's women supporting women.

Reminding the OBN that women are a viable and formidable adversary in the world of business is a message that doesn't get old and it's not trivializing.

The fact that Penelope didn't realize that there are two women in the G-20 is not the issue. It's all about the reason Penelope didn't realize and that's because all of us, even those of us who try to be enlightened about these things, just don't expect to see women fairly represented in the power groups that really matter.

The question we should all be asking is why are there only two women in the G-20? Jeannette Rankin said, "We're half the people, we should be half the Congress." That means half the G-20 too.

Penelope

If we are going to complain about these practices, then there is probably a better question to ask.

Why is it that men in high corporate or political positions seem to need women to validate their positions/ virility/ X-factor-du-jour, whereas women in similarly high positions seem to do well _without_ the need for such arm candy or photo-ops?

So while Mr Obama needs a Michelle, Dr Singh needs a Gursharan Kaur, Mr Brown needs a Sarah, while Dr Angela Merkel does fine without a Joachim on her side, and Mrs Cristina Kirchner does not need a Nestor (of course, you completely missed noticing there were two women leaders at least one of whom got where she did without the patronage of her father or husband!).

Besides, if some women get to pose in designer dresses, while the rest of us are content with blog posts or billing clients (some of us in our DvF and Thakoon gear we bought!), why complain at all? Are we jealous that we did not marry similarly powerful men whose positional upgrades in their jobs insure for us lifelong privileges that we can cash in over and over again? (Case in point: Cherie Booth Blair).

Next time, some more research please :-) Politics isn't everyone's forte especially when writing about it in a business context.

PS: I take it you won't be at BlogHer then? And should it ever come to pass, that Queen Rania invites you, you will turn her invitation down? After all what can be the possible use, eh?

I think the real problem is that it is labelled a 'wives' club'. In this day, anything other than a partners' club is political idiocy. I remember being horrified as a teenager in mid 70's reading about a major british organisation (I think BBC) having a wives agenda during a symposium. The assumption is explicit, the institution expects the bystanders to be female. It would be nice to think that our political figures had the respect to put an open label on the position, so that by comparison we know we are expected to also be a part of the decision making group.

On the other hand, a communal group where a subclass voluntarily comes together for a mutual need (not for exclusion purposes) should be able to be accommodated, in imperfect times.

This particular post, like many that cover the experiences, struggles, and perceptions of women, is a roller coaster of inconsistency. At first, it appeared that you were calling woman to arms to not be paraded around…then, oh but a few sentences later, recognized that there is a game to be played.
No doubt that we face our own set of challenges, but the most successful (and admirable) women define themselves not by their gender but by their sense of self…whether that be supporting their spouse, wearing a skirt in a room full of pants, or climbing their way to top in the same way everyone else does.
I'll have to ponder this a little and make it my next post on my blog http://www.LeadershipSoup.com.

This is a generation where women are stepping up to the plate ready to hit one out of the ball park. For example Hilary was running for US presidents and was well prepared and looked like she was going to Win. She stepped up with all the big boys and battled it out with them. It doesn't matter if she lost or anything, it just goes to show that women are becoming more and more powerful today.

Pretty soon women are going to be running this world and men are just going to be sitting at home smoking Cuba's finest cigars. Hell they deserve a good break since men have been running this world since we call all remember. It just makes sense for them to sit back and relax with a Cohiban Cigar rolled to prefection.