Whisper It Quietly?

My incautious reaction from the hip is that it's all about the money. When I was a family mediator in the not-for-profit sector (hourly rate £12) I was surrounded by women - typically around 10% of mediators at training events were male. When I began to develop a workplace mediation practice (hourly rate anything from £40-150) I would estimate the proportion became roughly 50/50. Whenever I have dipped my toe into commercial mediation (hourly rate ?) I seem to meet mostly men in suits. Like you I can't offer a solution. On this and many other levels mediation seems to reflect the society of which it is a part.

As someone who co-led consciousness raising groups last century, taught assertiveness training to women and men, was the only woman on the county board of supervisors, and on-and-on-and-on, I say I hope I live long enough for all girls and women to be assumed to have the same equality, potentialities, quirks, challenges and value as boys and men. And thank you for writing this though it need not be a whisper IMHO. Oh, and yes, Charlie, thank you, the money is also a biggie issue. Thank you, also.

As bad commercial mediation is for women, it's much worse in commercial arbitration. I published an article in the ABA Dispute Resolution Journal a couple of years ago in which I cited some statistics and posited some explanations, and I'd be happy to post it here, or send it to whoever would like to look at it. Interestingly, I concluded that the time is still not ripe for women neutrals to expect support from women litigators, who are still trying to get in the game and don't want to call attention to their gender by going against the prevailing norms of neutral selection. It's a sad state of affairs. Even Wall Street--which I always thought would be the last bastion of gender discrimination--has cleaned up its act

I can't say for the West, but in India, commercial matters, whether in litigation, arbitration or even mediation, tend to go to men. Probably because they are seen and heard everywhere. They are in Courts, in Bars and Pubs, in Parties, in Golf Courses, in Flights and Airports, in offices after work times, just everywhere. Women lose out because they end up going home for family after work and not doing general P.R. Men do it all the time because they are free. Secondly, women , overall, do not tend to be overwhelmingly pushy about big money. But when it comes to work , they are no less. They work hard and volunteer for all the causes and meaningful issues. So yes, I suppose I agree with Charlie Evine that women work more for the cause than for the money.

Bill, while I cannot disagree with the point about gender disparity, I will take issue with these lists as a basis for demonstrating the extent of the problem. If a list requires payment of a fee to be included, for example, then gender disparity simply means that men were more willing to pay to be featured, not that they are better mediators or more highly regarded in the market. Or if the list is one in which parties/corporate counsel are asked to provide opinions, typically it is the professional being evaluated who provides the name of the parties to be queried. Obviously, they don't refer list-makers to any parties who were unhappy. (Also there is no science in whether the queried parties are qualified to provide views, or whether they have had more than one experience on which to form their opinions...) So, again, the list may say more about an ability to self-promote than genuine reputation or skill. Finally, none of the lists, as far as I am aware, purport to verify the number or types of mediations that mediators may claim to have conducted.... Again, not to deny there is a problem in gender in disparity, just that lists that are not based on objective methods of data collection or reliable feedback from parties are of dubious value in reaching any sort of conclusions.