The Mississippi country star put it succinctly: sometimes it's hard to be a woman. Indeed, in the male-dominated world of enterprise one might go further than the American chanteuse. In business it is almost always hard to be a woman.
Take the exa
mple of Katherine Garrett-Cox, newly elevated to the position of chief executive at the Dundee-based Alliance Trust.
Her promotion makes her one of the most powerful women – possibly the most powerful – in the still heavily male-dominated world of Scottish business.
It also makes her one of the most powerful woman in the.....you guessed it..... heavily male-dominated world of UK business.
Garrett-Cox, who has been given the soubriquet of "Katherine the Great", has become the only woman in charge of any of the eight Scottish Footsie 100 companies.
And there are only four other female chief executives of any of the blue chip index's firms – Cynthia Carroll at Anglo American; Clara Furse at the London Stock Exchange; Dame Marjorie Scardino at Pearson; and Dorothy Thompson at Drax.
And, rightly or wrongly, the coverage of "mother of four" Garrett-Cox's appointment went into areas that would not have been touched on were she a man.
When was the last time Sir Fred Goodwin, for example, was described as "father of two" and asked about how he combined parenthood with running the Royal Bank of Scotland?
This is not to argue that references to the responsibilities of motherhood in Garrett-Cox's case should have been ignored by newspapers, including this one.
It is a reflection of the rarity of having a woman in such a senior position and the fact – like it or not – that women are still seen as the main carers of their children that this aspect of her life has been extensively reported.
The danger is, of course, that these rare examples are seen as freaks, something abnormal relative to the "natural order" of things in business.
Garrett-Cox, who must surely wince at having "the great" attached to her name, has also been described as one of the few "superwomen" in the world of finance.
Nicola Horlick, probably the original business superwoman, has been a pains to deny that she was any such thing. In one interview she described the notion as "ridiculous" and drew a wise comparison with other working women.
"Look at someone who has no help at home and holds down a job. Or look at me with my nanny and my secretary. Who would you call 'superwoman'?" Quite.
Sentiments which Garrett-Cox would presumably agree with. It would be foolish for extremely well-paid women somehow to paint themselves as martyrs to their sex.
Yet the issues raised by the scarcity of high-profile female executives does raise a fundamental question about British business. Why are there not more of them?
Is it because women are not as good as men?
Only the few remaining hard core male chauvinists would argue that – and only in the safety of their men-only golf clubhouse.
Could it be that women just find the whole alpha-male, "my balance sheet is bigger than yours", testosterone-charged, "phwoar have you seen the Core Tier 1 ratios on that", atmosphere of business more than a little pathetic? Probably.
Might it be that girls are still socialised and educated in a way which discourages them from going into finance? Could be.
Or is it that there is a deeper problem in that, wittingly or, to be charitable, unwittingly, the male of the business species has perpetuated one of the last remaining forms of discrimination in this country? Possibly.
A look at the make-up of the boards of Scotland's major companies suggests that this may be the case.
Wood Group has no women. Audrey Baxter is there at First Group. RBS has only Janis King and at Cairn energy there is Jann Brown.
Susan Rice is the only female on the Scottish & Southern board, Baroness McDonagh the only woman at Standard Life.
As well as Garrett-Cox, Alliance has Lesley Knox and Clare Salmon, a total of three. HBOS has Jo Dawson, Coline McConville, Kathleen Nealon and Karen Jones.
Progressive examples like HBOS apart, the general picture is unlikely to be any better in smaller companies; indeed it may even be worse.
Few would argue for some kind of positive discrimination for women but the evidence shows there is a problem. What can be done?
Research in American has reportedly shown that women have a much better chance of breaking through the corporate glass ceiling if they work for companies with several female board directors.
A study of Fortune 500 companies between 2001 and 2006 showed that companies with a high percentage of female board directors ended up with more women in senior managerial positions than rivals with male dominated boards.
So one way of encouraging more women into business is the relatively straightforward process of appointing more female board members. It would be a start at least.
In the 21st century it is shameful that women are under-represented in the upper echelons of business.
Instead of standing, Tammy-style, by their man, women in business should be standing beside the men.
The full article contains 901 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
