Learning to Be Tough Beneath a Hardhat

The link in the headline is attached to an interesting question and answer story in The New York Times about a female CEO of a construction company. Halfway through reading it I wondered why the short sentence on the paper's homepage advertised the article by focusing on her role as a woman because the questions did not focus on it at all. However, the second half of the question and answer session does focus more on her gender. I find both the questions and answers alarming and interesting at the same time.

First, I was absolutely appalled that the reporter asked her if being a female and a minority helped her to win government contracts. I do not think a reporter would ask a man this question even if the man happened to be a minority. I also was somewhat appalled when she answered that it may help her with a couple of points. Does it set women back to acknowledge that sure being a woman and a minority has some benefits (can you even call it benefits?) when it comes to quotas? At least she mentioned that this was not the only reason she received the contracts.

Next, I found it very interesting that she was CEO and her husband was a Vice President within the company. I wonder how they decided who would take on what responsibilities and titles since they opened the company together.

I was appalled again when Ms. Warrior admitted that she used to take one of her male employees with her depending on the group that she was going to talk too. Again, helpful or hurtful? Obviously Ms. Warrior is brilliant and strong enough to build her own company so why does she need a man to help her navigate particular groups of people?

Finally, I appreciated that she is looking for other women to fill the vacant leadership roles in her company. We have discussed in class that it often seems like women do not take care of other women and it is nice to see that taking care of other women is one of her priorities.

I think this article is a good illustration of a woman trying to navigate a profession that has typically been considered a man's profession. In fact, I would argue one of the "manliest" professions. I think it proves that women are interested in all kinds of professions and are able to be successful in all kinds of professions. However, I also think this article begs the question - are women our own worst enemies? When we admit that we take men with us to navigate certain situations or when female news reporters talk about other women's clothing are we simply perpetuating the problem? I think if we are not necessarily contributing to the problem we are certainly not helping it.

Dee Dee Meyers - Jumping to Conclusions?

I am still working through, Dee Dee Myers' book, Why Women Should Rule the World, and I do like the writing style and flow -- I have begun to develop some concerns with the rational behind her cry for inequality and abuse while working in the political arena. Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are many ways that women are much more challenged than men when it comes to succeeding in politics. The one that seems to standout the most is, the double edged sword that women are judged by, one that constantly puts them at odds with the voters, this idea that they should be judged at a higher standard then men, and that they have to prove that they are tough enough -- where men are assumed to be able to handle it.

We have seen this theme through each of the books we have read and in our class decisions. What was so interesting is that most of us did not realize that we did this (hold women to a higher standard then men) until we discussed it in class. It took many discussions and personal pondering to bring about the realization that I was just as guilty as all the people that are discussed as prohibiting women from being treated equally in all areas of our society. Quite the eye opener...

BUT, back to Dee Dee Meyers -- she does touch on the notion of women being judged differently then men, but her personal examples do not seem to substantially back her plea that she was mistreated because of her sex. When she described the conversation between her and Stephanopoulos and Seidman about the opportunity to come and work for Clinton in the White House as his press secretary. Yes, the job would be different than she had originally expected, and yes, her role was not as high profile -- but she was the first to admit that she did not have a great deal of experience and high profile wins to be a top candidate for the job. To me it seemed like she was being offered her dream job, and she was ungrateful because it was not being served on a silver platter. The situation to me seemed to have nothing to do with her sex but everything to do with her experience and qualifications. Clinton wanted to hire her -- so his team was going to make that happen. The problem was not that she was a female it was that her resume did not match up to candidates (and past office holders) per-usual of such an esteemed position.

Maybe I missed something, but to me she was offered the opportunity to launch her career at the young age of 31, and she was ungrateful about it.

I would love hear someone's counter to my personal opinion, because I have always really respect and admired Dee Dee Meyers, and some of the points she rises in the book are important and extremely well thought out. I am just irked by her personal saga of strife and oppression.

A possible discussion topic?

So, I had an epiphany today when the "UPS Man" came to my door with lots of big boxes and he was a woman!! Actually a few times lately the FedEx or UPS deliverers have been female and it has made me have an epiphany that perhaps I was wrong that women do not want the tough, dangerous, dirty, physical hard jobs, etc that are traditionally considrered male, as expressed in my diatribe on political correctness over the conversation of "manhole covers" language and the discussion it prompted on this matter from Sharon's views on women who would want jobs working in sewers, etc. Perhaps the epiphany for me was just discovering I was wrong about something, ha ha ha. Anyway, those UPS/FedEx ladies do a darn good job at a hard job.

And to make a complete non sequitir lacking any kind of a segue, I thought maybe we could discuss the changing role of marriage (as it has come up some in class, plus with our professor being a family lawyer I would like to hear her view on this too) and how things are shifting in society in general and perhaps with women's changing roles and lives. It has only been perhaps about 150 years (and really only in westernized cultures) that the idea of marrying for oh a little thing called love or marrying for gosh, dare I say happiness, has been fashionable and prevalent, and it will be interesting to see where it goes in the future.

I just leave that out there to start a discussion...

The Age of Nancy

I'm not posting this article to start a partisan discussion on Speaker Pelosi's merits, but I am posting it because it was interesting to find an article that doesn't mention her sex as it relates to her successes/failures in her post. Aside from the quote about heels and blow-dried hair, there are only two words that the writer uses that identify the Speaker as a female: "Grandmother" and "woman."

We talk all the time about whether we should emphasize our leader's sex - or not, in order to enforce a level playing. This article proves that (maybe) it's possible that our politicians can be rated based solely on their accomplishments or lack there of, versus on their outer appearances - especially when it comes to women. I appreciate that this NYT reporter was able to write a piece that avoided gender biases, more than most other articles we've read about the Speaker.

Likability versus Competence?

Thanks again to the NY Times Style section for a VERY interesting article about the science behind listening... Whoever thought that GPS voices were an area for sex-related division?!

The article, linked above, looks at the varying effects of the GPS voice selected, both on the driver and the passenger.

"Female voices are still used for warnings in many airplane cockpits and have earned the slang term Bitching Betty among pilots. Patricia Hoyt, who recorded the voice-overs used in many planes, recently revealed herself as Betty in a YouTube video in which she recites common phrases like “auto pilot” and “landing gear.” When GPS devices first appeared in cars, manufacturers chose male voices, which according to studies, command more respect than female voices. “When the key dimension is competence, the male voice is better,” said Clifford I. Nass, a communication professor at Stanford University and a consultant to many car companies. “When the key dimension is likability, the female voice is better.” As confidence in the technology grew, the primary consideration switched to friendliness.

“The main reason you have female voices in cars is not the technical qualifications like hearability,” said Dr. Nass. “It’s that finding a female voice that is pleasing to almost everyone is infinitely easier than finding a male voice.” Humans are more attuned to female voices from birth, he noted. “Even in the womb, a fetus will be able to distinguish a mother’s voice from all other voices and will not be able to distinguish the father’s voice.”"

How do these realities about voice and sound influence politics? Do Americans walk away from each political commercial swayed just by voice? Are women always less credible? How do we train ourselves to let go of these natural notions?

Tiny But Tough

"It’s anybody’s guess why these anti-archetypes are striking a chord. Perhaps Americans feel powerless in an era of gushing oil, ongoing wars and a slippery economy, and want to believe that the little people can vanquish the big bad guys. If so, it might be a good sign for the small-stature Elena Kagan, who is, after all, said to wield a mean gavel."

That quote is from the conclusion of an article in today's Fashion & Style section in the New York Times. Of course, that section is somewhat notorious for its "observations" of the physical standards by which society judges women (and occasionally men), but I guess I found this one to be particularly interesting. The article implies and argues that now is the time that the "plus-size" and the "tiny" are embracing their inherent power. At one point in the middle of the article it describes how the tiny girl who can pack a punch, a.k.a the "violent femme", is "an enduring male fantasy." I was pretty disappointed that they felt it necessary to point out how the empowerment of women can be instantaneously sexualized as opposed to being important on its own.

What struck me the most about this article though, was something far more personal - it helped drive home one of those examples of how we are socialized to believe certain things. I am lucky enough to have a very strong-willed woman for a mother. Both her brothers and her parents were born in Macedonia, but she was born here. English was not her first language and by any account she was raised in a very Macedonian culture which became hybridized with U.S. culture in her teenage years. One of my favorite benefits that I have experienced from her background has been the funny bits of "Old Country" advice which was imparted to her, and which she occasionally imparts to me. One example of this is my mom's continual adage that "short women are the most powerful", now, I will admit that I never believed that... and kind of thought that she clung to that one because she is under 5'2". She was always very careful to give me a balanced perception of reality (like "tall women can be very powerful too") - but somehow despite the balance I managed to rarely embrace any of this "Old Country advice.

Despite my not-embracing it, I realized while reading the article above that my mom's "tiny but tough" was an idea that had in some way seeped into my being. I was, at least on some level, socialized to believe that "Tiny But Tough" was a common archetype -- not an "anti-archetype". It was one of those rare moments where reality and my personal ideas did not add up - thus revealing the importance and impact that upbringing and socialization, and variations therein, can have on our perceptions.

I guess it is moments like this where you can realize that perhaps the best chance we have for impacting cultural perceptions and changing the way "archetypes" are formed is if we can deconstruct our own beliefs and learn how to thoughtfully deconstruct the thoughts and beliefs of others in a way that would be beneficial to everyone.

Continuing the Hillary discussion....

Of course we are all aware of the now infamous Rolling Stone Magazine article that got Gen. McChrystal fired. Interestingly, Gen. McChrystal did not include Hillary Clinton in his deprecating remarks about the Administration. Instead, his anonymous aides praised her, as she strongly supported McChrystal's plan for Afghanistan.

I think it is very interesting that Clinton received praise in the national security realm, which is typically not considered a female strength. Certainly Gen. McChrystal was not afraid to speak his mind, and she obviously impressed him. In the campaign, she did try to highlight her positions and experience on this front; and obviously in her role as Secretary of State she is only improving her credentials here. I don't believe those that say she is going to challenge President Obama in 2012 (although I would love it!!); but if she did, this could be a very useful angle for her to pursue, especially if U.S. foreign policy is still as dismal as it is at the moment.