The Wheaton News from Wheaton college reports:
May 17, 2008
NORTON, MASS. — Giving the keynote address at Wheaton College’s 173nd Commencement held on May 17, 2008, Wheaton alumna Katharine T. Bartlett marveled at the dramatic social, technological and scientific advances that have occurred over the past 40 years, and called attention to how far we still have to go.
“We could not know in 1968, even, that in our graduating class was the future governor of New Jersey, and future head of the Environmental Protection Agency, an agency that did not exist in 1968. We could not know that at another all women’s college 35 miles away, was a student who would be running for the democratic nomination for president 40 years later. Nor that her primary opponent in the primary would be a then seven-year-old son of a black Kenyan father and white mother from Kansas,” said Bartlett, the A. Kenneth Pye Professor of Law at Duke University and a leading scholar on gender issues and social change, and an advocate for children’s rights.
Click here for full speech
Here’s an excerpt from an interesting article from today’s Menphis Commercial Appeal:
Our minds are wired to perceive differences, make assumptions and put people who don’t look like us into easily stereotyped categories. And only now are researchers beginning to dig into how we might rewrite the software and perceptions of our unconscious selves and begin to alter the innately racist and sexist wiring of our minds
Click here for the full article
Being a gender issues expert, I’ve been watching the campaign and reactions to Hillary, even me, shocked that in 2007 people and pundits were still holding up the double-standard. But now it’s ridiculous. It amazes me that people try so hard to find fault that they would accuse Senator Clinton of faking or forcing tears. Good grief that is polar opposite behavior for her! So now these same people would say, “exactly, she was desperate after losing in Iowa so she pulled out all the stops.” Please! And by the way, just so you know, I have not always been a Hillary fan, I was always pretty much on the fence. She did win me over long before the tears in New Hampshire, however, with her experience, knowledge, and two-for-one situation.
The best leaders in business are those who are both tough when needed and humane too. Those who can show their emotion, yes, preferably in moderation, so that we know we’ve got a friend at the top who really cares. Hillary’s tears were completely natural, in my expert opinion, and I could also feel her trying very hard not to cry. I have been there. I can be tough and outspoken and direct. I also cry very easily, especially when I am touched, including patriotic issues.
This is the “can’t win” dilemma HIllary faces in this race. When she’s tough and direct, no one likes her. When she lets her guard down and shows her sensitive side, then she’s too soft, a crybaby, a phony. WHAT DO YOU WANT HER TO DO? Make up your minds.
I would love to have the opportunity to coach her from a gender perspective. To help her discern when to be tough and when to be a little vulnerable. It’s subtle, it’s tricky, but it wouldn’t be turing her into someone she’s not. Everyone has these two sides - masculine and feminine. It’s a matter of learning how to apply your balance of those characteristics, how to read what people want to see and respond appropriately. It’s communicating with people in ways that make sense to them, not to you. A step beyond the Golden Rule.
Hillary, my unsolicited advice to you is to become even more aware of how harshly your toughness is being judged. Let your nurturing side, and your love for your country, come through just a little more. Generally, your admission of hurt feelings during the debate, and your emotion in the diner were beneficial, and both of these instances were examples of vulnerability. Be proud of the woman in you and let us see her. In moderation, of course.
Get GenderSmart®! – Successfully Managing The Double-Edged Sword
Yes, things in the corporate world are getting better for women. And yes, we still have a ways to go. Women in leadership and executive positions stare down a double-edged sword daily. If their style is primarily assertive, decisive, task vs. relationship oriented, etc., they are labeled as too tough and masculine. So that means don’t act like a man. If a woman’s style is predominantly collaborative, supportive, and friendly, she is perceived as nice but incompetent. So that means don’t act like a woman if she wants to advance. Now what?
Eliminating gender stereotypes is a valid but lofty and, for the foreseeable future, completely unattainable goal. Studies have shown that regardless of the country or culture, when people see someone walking toward them, the first thing they try to determine is gender. It’s an instinctive natural reaction. Male or female? Not race, culture, religion.
So instead of focusing on eliminating stereotyping, the world would be better served becoming aware of gender styles, accepting them merely as differences rather than right or wrong behaviors, and learning how to work with them more effectively. This actually is a form of eliminating stereotyping anyway.
The fact is that the best leaders employ a balance of masculine and feminine styles. In the context of my work, masculine does not mean macho and feminine does not mean girlie. The best companies recognize, encourage, and reward collaborative leaders who nurture and develop their employees while making the tough decisions and getting the job done.
Getting back to the double-edged sword, women must walk a fine line in the corporate world, especially in longer-established industries such as financial services, insurance, automotive, and manufacturing. They will get the best results by recognizing that they are being watched more closely, and by interacting and working with a balance of masculine and feminine styles. Using solely one style or the other will backfire, much more so than it would backfire for a man because this inflexible behavior will illicit stereotyping and misperceptions of competence and personality. Such behavior by men would cause judgment too, but less often and less severe, with milder consequences.
Alternatively, interacting with a conscious balance of both masculine and feminine styles is much more beneficial to all involved. This balance looks like a blend of collaboration, decisiveness, risk-taking, nurturing, acknowledging good work, delegation, open communication, and planning – and helps avoid labels and perceptions.
Of course both men and women would achieve better results with teamwork, management, and leadership if they consciously used a balance of masculine and feminine styles. They don’t need to change who they are naturally, as all people are already a blend of both styles (although many people, especially in business, get off track from their authentic blend). By balance I don’t mean equal amounts – I mean a flexible blend that uses each style at the appropriate time. But that takes me to another article…
Bottom line:
Women (and men) – Use a blend of masculine and feminine styles…be trustworthy, honest, approachable, open, collaborative and supportive; while also taking risks, being assertive when necessary while also being courteous, delegate, make the tough decisions, and promote yourself appropriately.
Men (and women) – Be aware of how you may be judging women more harshly and holding them to different standards. They may be more friendly or have an otherwise “softer” style, but look at their performance, the results of their work, and the effectiveness of their employees. Likewise, be careful not to assume that women with a more masculine style shouldn’t be promoted. Don’t many successful men you know have the same style?
