Please Ladies, Do Not Try to Make Any Important Decisions
by Suzanne Reisman

Stereotypes usually have some kernel of truth to them. Depending on the stereotype, that kernel may be bigger or smaller. Merriam Webster defines stereotype as, “a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment.” Obviously, stereotypes are not always true. If they were they’d be called “facts” or “truths” instead of “stereotypes.”

Hence the cringe-inducing Maureen Dowd article I read in The New York Times this morning while eating breakfast. (Dowd’s columns are not available for free online, thus I am not linking to it.) In “How Carly Lost Her Gender Groove (And Will She Get It Back)?”, Dowd documents the trials and tribulations of Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard. The opening sentence hurts: “Carly Fiorina prided herself on being adept at succeeding in a man’s world without whining about sexism.” Dowd notes that in her new memoir, Fiorina swallowed her pride and went with executives to a business meeting at a strip club, where oddly enough, she felt uncomfortable and excluded. (I am not saying that women can’t enjoy strip clubs; it just is utterly inappropriate place for business meetings in my mind.) Somehow, I doubt that complaining about this meeting would constitute “whining about sexism,” but I clearly am not Ms. Fiorina.

At any rate, Dowd continues to document Fiorina’s current beefs against the media and the board of Hewlett-Packard, which she now implies were sexist. Blah blah blah. Not that she doesn’t have a point, but what interested me even more was the next part of Dowd’s article:

With several of the few high-profile women at the top tanking, it’s interesting to note that Columbia Business School has introduced a new program that teaches the importance of a more empathetic and sensitive leadership style in globalized business… Students learn to read facial expressions, body language and posture, and get coaching on their brains “mirror neurons” – how what they’re thinking and feeling can affect others.

“This less autocratic leadership style draws on capabilities in which women are as good as men,” says Michael Morris, a professor of psychology and management who is running the business school’s new program.

Daniel Goleman, whose new book “Social Intelligence” is being taught in the program, points out that “while women are, in general, better at reading emotions, men tend to be better at managing them during a crisis. Women tend to be more sophisticated in reading social interactions but also tend to ruminate more when things go wrong.”

Hmmm.. so how is that going to change anything? Is it going to stop the media from calling women in power “bitches” when they make hard decisions, while praising men for doing the same thing, as Fiorina complains? No. Is it going to help women cope with sexism and discrimination in the workplace, or foster a workplace that does not discriminate in the first place? No. Does it reinforce the idea that women are overly emotional and can’t make rational decisions? Yes. Yes, it does. Can someone please explain to me why this is being hailed as developing leadership?

And don’t you love how the qualifiers “tend to” and “in general” are always used to turn gender stereotypes into facts about women and men? So skillfully done!) Worse, women students are buying into this bullshit (or at least the one student quoted in the article is). I need to take a deep breath before I quote this, but I’ll be brave and here goes:

Neenu Sharma, an MBA student in the new Columbia program, says the more of the story is that leadership works best with both sexes involved. “You need the woman there to know what’s actually going on, but you need the man there to deal with the critical emotions at the time.”

Oh, that hurt me to write. Seriously, I just want to scratch my own eyeballs out over things like this. Sure, it is great to have both sexes involved in running things. But dear goddess, does this not reek of women needing to be the behind the scenes manipulator and men staying out front, getting all the credit?

It seems that the world wants to continue to promote the idea that behind every great man is an even greater woman. Why that greater woman has to always stand behind the man is based on nothing more than hideous gender stereotypes. You’ve come a long way baby and all that stuff. Pardon me while I move to a cave and live in solitude from these things for the rest of my life.

Suzanne blogs in a different type of hysterical (as in ha ha) manner at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants

Submitted by Suzanne Reisman (view blog) on Wed, 10/11/2006 - 07:49

Comments

 

Strip Clubs For Biz Meetings

I agree. My husband, a pastor, was once in direct sales. His colleagues drove him to a strip club about 11pm one night after a meeting to continue the discussion. I got a frantic call from him outside the strip club asking me to come get him.

They had all ridden together and they wouldn't bring him home. Needless to say I got the kids up and went and picked him up in the minivan at 11 at nite. Poor guy...

What makes some men (yes, I know it's not all of them, bless their heart) think that a titty bar (excuse my language) is ok for a business meeting? Grrr...
Practical Blogging

Submitted by Robyn Tippins on Wed, 10/11/2006 - 06:01
 

Women: idiots? or merely dumb?

Maureen Dowd's articles make me ill. WTF is her problem, always framing "questions" like this in exactly the way to reinforce patriarchal stereotypes. Even suggesting that Fiorina is "whining" for mentioning that she experiences sexism... Does Dowd really think she's doing women, and herself, any good? It's like she makes a special effort to point out one molecule of feminism while denying the entire ocean exists, and expects to be patted on the head for it.

-----------------
Liz Henry
lizzard@bookmaniac.net
Badgermama - personal & mommyblog
http://liz-henry.blogspot.com

Submitted by Liz Henry on Wed, 10/11/2006 - 07:44
 

It is strange that a country like

the UK (sexist to the extreme) had a powerful woman run the country and in America the stereotypes keep showing up and it is women too who believe this stuff or accept it even.

I keep reading how women are too emotional to handle the big issues..the tough stuff...like being a CEO or the president for example.

isn't this just plain wrong?

and why do we keep buying into it

Submitted by Crunchy Carpets on Wed, 10/11/2006 - 08:37
 

the UK..I wonder if it's

the UK..I wonder if it's because there has always been a queen in the UK. Even if the general public is more sexist, they have always had strong queens throughout the country's history...just ruminating.

decision-making...I love my husband...but he is horrible in an emergency! :-)...he can be very indecisive...it drives me crazy!! I don't make lightning-quick judgements, but I tend to be much more willing to make the decisions. I think it is more of a personality thing rather than a gender thing.

strip clubs...first...EWWW!..second..that seems like a really dumb thing to do...anyone ever heard of sexual harrassment lawsuits?...now that is a bad decision!

Terri

Submitted by Terri987 on Wed, 10/11/2006 - 09:31
 

If the baseline to measure against is the
status quo

Then yes, on average, perhaps women aren't good fits for management as it's practiced today, by men. But what kind of management is it? What kind of corporate cultures dominate? Is the male-dominated, largely autocratic, hierarchical management structure, by whatever gimmick of the year, really the best way to go? Assuming that women in fact do manage differently, is that necessarily such a bad thing?

Forget the touchy-feely arguments. Let's look at the facts:

University of Michigan Business School professor Theresa Welbourne studied management teams of both large and small companies in a variety of industries from 1993 through 1999.

Her research found that for rapidly growing IPO companies, the initial stock price, stock price growth, and growth in earnings over three years were higher with women executives.

In the study -- which analyzed over 1,400 companies -- upper management teams were defined by executives listed on the company's pre-IPO prospectus, including, for example, CEO, CFO, CTO, and vice presidents of marketing, sales, finance, and human resources.

Analagous benefits can be seen in countries that embrace women's equality:

Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has argued that nothing is more important for development today than the economic, political, and social participation of women. Increasingly, women, who were long treated as passive recipients of aid, are now regarded as active promoters of change who can help society at large. And various studies specifically show that the benefits of promoting women are greatest when assistance focuses on increasing their education, their control over resources, and their political voice....

...It is no coincidence, then, that in the last half-century, the regions that have most successfully closed gender gaps in education have also achieved the most economically and socially: eastern Asia, southeastern Asia, and Latin America. Conversely, regions with lagging growth -- southern Asia, the Middle East, and sub-Saharan Africa -- have also lagged in their investments in girls' education. Today, illiteracy among adult females is highest in southern Asia (55 percent), the Arab world (51 percent), and sub-Saharan Africa (45 percent). Simulation analyses suggest that, had these three regions closed their gender gaps in education at the same rate as eastern Asia did from 1960 to 1992, their per capita income could have grown by up to an additional percentage point every year. Compounded over three decades, that increase would have been highly significant.

Giving women more control over resources also profits the community at large because women tend to invest more in their families than do men. Increases in household income, for example, benefit a family more if the mother, rather than the father, controls the cash. Studies of countries as varied as Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, and the United Kingdom suggest that women generally devote more of the household budget to education, health, and nutrition, and less to alcohol and cigarettes. For example, increases in female income improve child survival rates 20 times more than increases in male income, and children's weight-height measures improve about 8 times more. Likewise, female borrowing has a greater positive impact on school enrollment, child nutrition, and demand for health care than male borrowing.

These differences help explain why extending microfinance (small-scale lending with little or no collateral) to women has become such a powerful force for development.

Maybe there is a yin/yang benefit from female/male collaboration in business. Yet I doubt it's the patrician theory offered by Neenu Sharma, who's really describing women as management secretaries, and not managers.

Laura Scott
design, snap, blog ... admin

Submitted by Laura Scott on Wed, 10/11/2006 - 09:56
 

Agreed!

Better corporate cultures are definitely needed, and I would not call the new culture "male" or "female." Just one that better recognizes the needs of employees and values people at every level for what they contribute and how they do it.

Suzanne, BlogHer Contributing Editor - Feminsim & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Submitted by Suzanne Reisman on Thu, 10/12/2006 - 06:01
 

There is a pluralistic world.

Dear blogher thank you for give us a free talking about feminism here together. I am a common solitudinarian. I want to got converse with someone for dawn on each other, and mend my thoughts.

Sorry for I have said "feminas" western and eastern.
Increasingly, Normal Men's Cultures who were long treated as condemned by feminas (sometimes find a quarrel in straw in articals I always read them) in modern times.
I appreciate that feminism (as a second gender in the last half-century), who has improved and changed our social ideas in the world, and I appreciate those enlightened aids from men's culture whiches specifically show that the benefits of promoting women.

I often think Women's (corporate) Culture should basically care for women--women's new relations, but it is not gender-sex again and against. It include new discussion about Famliy-Procreate culture internaional, new education, ect. but except lesbian! Because the Heterosexual-Relation is the subsystem depend on the basic Gender-relation/culture-----Is this the first charactor of women's culture? Will it be true if remove men's aids? If we ask general women what is primary blessedness really ?

On the other side, the Heterosexual-Relation (yang/yin) is concordant by nature and more free, Is that necessarily a equal thing or as adversary?-----This is the second charactor of women I think.

... (omit)...

~~An Original EarthFem want to broadcast an Openmind thought with poor Language~~
Welcome to communicate our basic thought of "a woman --- women's" eudemonia!

Submitted by Dawnon CommFem on Thu, 10/12/2006 - 19:22
 

female's tow characters

what ever yin/yang management, I always think feminism do not see a thing:

Through the history of "women's culture" (especially in my nation)>>>The relations between females are empty/short of collaboration and communication in any facet/layer. It seems the relations betweem women maybe are more unfair by emotion and by idea of men's culture(or education, or say stereotype)------ which is one of the reasons why female is a soft sexist (the second "sex" ) in history, as it's practiced today, by men!

I think many forms of organizes between women are issipated by the old stereotype of women's Famliy-Procreate, enven by the stereotype of the men's world (men created the world) now----- these disturb women's collaboration, communion, and creativity, and all the fuck feminast.
While men made up our establishment/army, administration/country, ect.thousands years ago, even in science, in bussiness, ect.

I want to say: Wemen Need Collaboration and a Fair, Openmind, ... communion. This is the key for the feminisms, I think. Why we can not ? who knows?

hi, I post a blogher about a new stereotype of female yesterday, but why it can't be published

yet ??? ???

~~An Original EarthFem want to broadcast an Openmind thought with poor Language~~
Welcome to communicate our basic thought of "a woman --- women's" eudemonia!

Submitted by Dawnon CommFem on Wed, 10/11/2006 - 20:41
BlogHer

© Copyright 2008 BlogHer | Terms of Service