An article in Forbes last week was brought to my attention; “Why Millennial Women Do Not Want To Lead” by Julie Zeilinger, founder and editor of FBomb.org. In it, she concludes that despite “impossibly high” standards of achievement for women vs. “upsettingly low” standards for men, women should not shy away from leadership for “their intelligence and integrity are more than enough”.
OK, but part of women’s trouble is that they are pigeonholed for their intelligence and their integrity: perfect for constituting the dossier, and then have others take all the credit. Or being outcast for being overly ambitious.
There’s no doubt that women are given a harder time (as Ginger Roger summed it up, “I did everything Fred Astaire did but backwards and in heels”). But the problem goes much deeper, for it touches on a societal trait that transgresses questions of gender and sex: it’s our societal love affair with shows of power, of domination.
It’s suggested that women lead with intelligence and integrity. But are we socially prepared for such a switch?
Do we collectively value integrity? Not so often; or at least we waive it when it’s a figure we like – why else do mafia sitcoms and movies make blockbuster ratings? A couple of years ago, there was the joke what if Lehman Brothers had been “Lehman Sisters”? But safe bets and risk-taming measures and regulations do not have rock star kind of value and are systematically refused by half of the American population.
Do we value intelligence? Street smarts, maybe; business acumen that can make someone rich and powerful, sure. But nuanced thinking? It’s often seen as “weakness” – just consider the last couple of presidential debates and elections. Critical thinking? It’s slowly disappearing from educational curricula increasingly focused on skills and trivia rather than a solid, well-rounded education rooted in knowledge and critical thinking.
And what about some of the other values Americans learn in kindergarten: kindness? Sharing? No, we still trump with whatever will stoke the dream of making it rich, fast, with cold razor-sharp calculations or with no effort at all. No, in our current mores, fame and fortune are exciting; kindness and sharing are for the suckers.
For some of us, it’s a no brainer. Cooperation is a key asset for performance and for survival. It’s a key part of Darwinism – survival of the fittest is not only about competition but knowing how and when to cooperate. But explain that to a conservative American who accuses any positive collective measures put forth by Obama of being “socialism” (as if it were a great evil!). The truth is we are societally in awe of the powerful and aim to get there ourselves, at whatever our level.
Love is often leveled out to sex which is leveled out to domination
Work, which used to include loyalty toward a company-wide endeavor and allegiance to the workforce, is all too often leveled to outsourcing, productivity fragmented into individualized skill sets so that some few individuals can get ahead while the many more get ever lower
Profit, which used to be reinvested into a company to improve R&D (research & development) and boost its employees, is now often leveled to a few wealthy shareholders’ returns, widening the gap if the figures are good… and widening it further if the figures are bad as they will choose to cut heads before lowering dividends.
We are letting it happen because of our awe of the rich and powerful
And/or out of fear for our own personal survival, attempting to be part of the elite so as to not find ourselves entirely disenfranchised.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. We can have a very productive and healthy society if we move away from such dogma (performance society, still-life identities, monotheistic beauty…).
One of the legs of the women’s movement was making the personal political. But we’ve lost control of what makes up “personal”. At the time, it meant using collectively each individual’s experience to help society progress. But through the 1980s, then on through the 90’s and 2000’s, the “personal” because a very “personal” singular recipe for making it on one’s “own”. Every person has been composing with his/her “own” to get ahead, make it big, make a break… or just make it through the day!
And where has this left us? “Every second’s a calculation”. Each woman strives to live the archetype of each facet of a woman’s life, simultaneously… locked into her “own”.
And our current societal model is exacerbating that: Nuclear family as opposed to community. A walking portfolio of skills as opposed to a company of people. A still-life, projected identity for others as opposed to a solid self concept with a sense of our individual and collective worth. Personal/individualized intelligence and integrity as opposed to having higher expectations of our society for an environment conducive to collective progress.
It’s even got to to the extent that a single mother in the US is one of the most isolated members of our society as described in the NY Times. And firing-up the debate as to whether women can “have it all”. But how can we when we’re set up for every woman to take on the entire battle single-handedly and separately, individually? Another article showed mothers proudly taking no breaks (no maternity leave), having babies for whom they’ll have no time and for whom they have no intention of making any space… because they’re going to try to do it all… individually. And, with such models, how will those children cope? Individually!
The solutions we need now is to get back to the original call for the personal… A shift for making the “personal”… collective!
What does that mean?
- Continue protecting family planning and pushing for universal healthcare.
- It means reconsidering the nuclear family and how we can raise future generations more collectively (to at least give them a more collective mindset while freeing up more time for parents to balance career and family). As says the Nigerian proverb, and taken up by Hilary Rodham Clinton, “It takes a whole village to raise a child”. This is a great way of summing it up – we cannot do everything each on our “own” – economically and energetically, it isn’t sustainable. Even these powerhouse, “superwomen” cannot sustain indefinitely doing it all on her own.
- It also means reconsidering work, collectively. As says one mother who took very little maternity leave, “there is no way to have a ‘blissful maternity leave and also stay in the game’”. Work is more cut-throat than ever and, she’s right, a short absence can be an irretrievable set-back. But, is that necessary? Must it be this way? This is our society, our world, it’s up to us to demand change – but we must do it collectively. There is enough scientific research to convince us that a company is most productive when its employees are in a trusting and empowering environment and feel a certain amount of security and motivation. If a woman wants to have a baby and not miss a beat at the office, why can’t she do it from a distance?
We must break out of this narrow-minded idea of individual gain and remember there’s little lasting individual gain without collective progress.
Let me know what you think.
Talk to you soon for another bite from the apple,
Eve
No comments:
Post a Comment