Both Emily and Wendy wrote very thoughtful and reflective posts this week which I think require some extra consideration. They both raised some crucial questions for our consideration:
- Have the authors of these books stood up for a reason?
- What does a woman have to stand up for?
- Why do some women make it to the top and others cannot?
On the surface I think it may seem as though these questions are only related through our course discussions, but if you dig deeper I think they are all interconnected in an important way. Specifically I think that one of the main issues and obstacles that women face is the lack of a good culturally condoned outlet for communicating. We talked about this before hand in class when we discussed women trying to get into "men's clubs" but I think it is actually something slightly different than that. While exclusive clubs do function to communicate and share vital ideas they are not necessarily resources of support.
To address Wendy's question about the authors of the books we read, I realized that none of the books we've read have addressed in too much specific detail if the author or subject had something that they felt they had to step up for, we kind of see how different events and experiences lead to their decision to lead or to pursue leadership careers - but, correct me if I am wrong, but none of the books really addressed why they felt they had to stand up, just how it came to be that they were there. I think the reason that has not been explained in any of the books is because it is not an easy thing to communicate. It is not natural to say "I chose to lead because I felt strongly about something" - or is that the wrong way of looking at things?
With Wendy's second question I decided to look back through my notes from class and back in May we discussed Five Reasons Women Make Better Candidates from Phil Van Treusen. At the time when we first discussed that idea I was not sure if I personally believed that their was something inherently biologically different about women that made us better leaders or more effective candidates, I just assumed it was something based more on how women are raised. I think since that class my opinion has really changed, I think now that their are tangible differences in the way that women naturally lead, as evidenced by all of the reading and discussion from class -- so what is their to stand up for? I think the encouragement of a diversity of approaches. I think every woman should feel empowered by the fact that they have that different biologically determined perspective.
So, when finally looking at Emily's very poignant question - I started to think about these things all together. I think Emily was spot on in saying that some women reach it to the top because they are able to balance life and work and goals and needs, but in addition to that I think that is a skill that has not really been integrated into everyone's upbringing. If only their were some way to educate every young girl to recognize their own capacity - if only their were some way to share tips on those balances to everyone.
I wonder if an early education leadership program would do the job? Or would creating actual networks for women to share and communicate help. I am a part of one such network here in D.C., but it is mainly focused on people who share my personal political beliefs (the Women's Information Network). That network functions as a sort of e-mail list serve with group meetings and different interest based networks - all designed to give women an outlet and a network of connections here in D.C. Do you all think something like that could work for all women and not just those who share similar political beliefs? I am leaning towards yes, but I wonder what the first steps could be.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment