A respected writer asserts that men in power are liked and women are uniformly hated.
Let’s just stop and think about that.
My twitter feed is abuzz with comments on Jessica Valenti‘s article today in The Nation, “She Who Dies With the Most ‘Likes’ Wins?” The gist of the article is a feminist call to action that women stop trying to be liked so much, because it undermines their power, and accept the fact that their ambition may make them, by definition, unpopular. Ms. Valenti states: “When Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg gave a TED talk in 2010, one of the issues she talked about—and later expounded on in her 2011 commencement speech at Barnard—was likability. ‘Success and likability are positively correlated for men and negatively correlated for women,’ she said.”
She goes on, “the implications of likability are long-lasting and serious. Women adjust their behavior to be likable and as a result have less power in the world. And this desire to be liked and accepted goes beyond the boardroom—it’s an issue that comes up for women in their personal lives as well, especially as they become more opinionated and outspoken.”
I really try to stay away from these gender debates. Honest. And generally I feel like despite having founded The Good Men Project and been a passionate member of our community for four years now, I know very little about the essence of men (or women). But articles like Ms. Valenti’s and comments like Ms. Sandberg’s really stick in my craw because they seem to me to be moving the ball backwards down the field of gender enlightenment and equality rather than forward.
One of the things I have become crystal clear on, the hard way by running my mouth when in ways that caused a justified backlash, is that talking about gender in universal terms is problematic at best. There is something that theorists call gender “reductionism” that means that if you say that women are always X and men are always Y, any man who is not Y or woman who is not X will be left out of the sweeping generalization. Often this is used in reference to the way that sexism reduces women to a false stereotype. But I refuse to accept that it is a one way street. Both men and women come in a rainbow of shapes, colors, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. There’s no box big enough to hold them and say, that right there is a real MAN or WOMAN.
So let’s come back to this idea that women in some generalized way attempt to be liked at their own peril. I am perfectly willing to accept that we have a glass ceiling that we need to continue find ways to break. And that gender, racial, and sexual preference discrimination does still go on. But a flat comment like Ms. Valenti’s rallying cry:
“Women’s likability is something feminists use as proof of inequity—he’s a boss, she’s a bitch—but not something we’ve put on par with standard feminist fare like reproductive rights or pay inequality. Because there’s no policy you can create to make people like successful women. There’s no legislation to fight for or against, or even a cultural campaign that would make a dent in such a long standing double standard.”
…just doesn’t make sense to me. Do I view every woman in a position of power as a bitch? Do you? How is that possibly a fair comment to anyone who thinks carefully about what it means to lead effectively. I have had plenty of male bosses who were roving assholes who got none of my respect. I can think of ten women in power from Hilary Clinton to Indra Nooyi (CEO of Pepsi) who I like and respect. Hell, I think Mark Zuckerberg is a raving lunatic asshole who is out to take over the world. And for the most part I think the only good thing about Facebook is Sheryl Sandberg. She’s likable, tough, rational. She doesn’t walk around in flip-flops and pretend that the entire world is her inferior.
Towards the end of Valenti’s piece she quotes Sandberg again as saying that women need to “lean in.”
She was referring largely to professional ambitions, but I think it’s good advice all around. We need to lean in to who we really are—not who we think people would like most. We need to tell young women that not being liked, as hard as it may be, is often as sign that they’re doing something right.
I ask again, why is this a gender issue at all? Isn’t a core part of becoming an successful adult, and authentic human being, shedding what people might think of you and having the courage to take off down the path of “who we really are.”?
I’d appreciate your thoughts on this. As always that means not just men but women readers of the GMP. Whether I like you or not I will listen carefully. I promise.
###
Image of Indra Nooyi, CEO of Pepsi, by AP
About Tom Matlack
I think Valenti’s article does describe something that is still too common in the workplace. It’s overhyped and overgeneralized, as you rightly point out, but there’s still some basis in reality.
I think about this a lot with some of my more difficult coworkers. Would I find this person as offensive if she were a man and not a woman? Honestly, I admit sometimes the answer is “no,” so I do have a double standard. But, many times the honest answer is ”yes,” this person is just offensive regardless of gender.
What concerns me a lot is that fighting this stereotype can lead to another extreme. I work with some women who seem to be convinced that being female means that they have a license to be as obnoxious, petty, and manipulative as they want to be, with the rationale that if a man acted like that no one would complain. They seem to assume that all men do whatever the hell they want to, therefore it is completely fair, just, and progressive to do whatever they want to.
Articles like Valenti’s may inspire women to stand up for themselves in order to do the best job possible. They can also inspire some women to become even more obnoxious bosses.
Some of the women bosses I’ve had have been the best. On the other hand, some may have been far more invested in what I’ll call “attitude adjustment” than male bosses. As someone who is really straightforward and analytical in management situations, I found this type of boss to be awful. I was fired by two of them for being “negative.” I believe that I was mainly being analytical. The last one was before I returned to grad school and became a professor. I had doubled the business for the hospital for which I was marketing director, right before I was let go. This type of female boss seems to like to confer overmuch with other female managers, and has no boundaries between operational behavior and gossip. I can’t imagine a male manager doing this. (Well, maybe the ones in The Skulls.)
The worst boss I ever had was a male sociopath– he was clearly a sociopath– though.
The obvious problem with Sandberg’s position is that maybe women in power are perceived as bitches because they act like bitches. Look at other areas where women are in positions of power. 50% of rape in adult prisons is staff on prisoner. 80% of that is female staff abusing male prisoners. In juvenile detention where the power dynamic is arguably greater, 95% of staff sexual misconduct is female staff abusing male detainees.
Men have never been taught how to handle victimization. Could it simply be that women as a group have never been taught how to handle power?
Another aspect that is missing from the assumptions made about powerful women being perceived as bitches, while powerful men are perceived as bosses, is that it relates only to direct business related activities and only to the activities in a “standard” business. A female boss placing her hand on a subordinate’s shoulder is showing concern. A male boss doing the same thing is a perv. Unless it’s been changed, the last time I looked, this was codified in the law, the reasonable woman and reasonable man standards.
I’ve heard of female executives entering a professional male athletes locker rooms, but have not heard about the reverse. That doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. Female professional athletics doesn’t get the sports coverage, but I also wouldn’t doubt that it was another gender double standard. Women whether bosses or not get away with behaviors that would not be tolerated from men.
Wellokaythen:
I disagree. I think women being likable in and of itself holds a lot of power. For instance, when the layoffs come rolling through due to down-sizing a likable women may be spared whereas a man (likable or not) may be less likely to be spared.
Women have a same gender preference, men do not. If anything men have a women-centered preference.
So what you see is that both men and women would rather be waited on, or interact with women (men because with a man you may or may not have to deal with a macho ahole, and it’s always fun to get face time w/even marginally attractive women, and women because it gives them a break of having a friction of sexual tension in the air (to quote chris rock, women are always offered dick, but men are never offered pussy) ).
When women leave the shelter of assistant level positions (kind of like a quarterback leaving the protection of the pocket) it’s a free for all. These female CEO’s may feel like the men hate them, but what it is most likely really about is that the “kid gloves” the woman may have experienced at an assistant level are now off, and competitors (against the woman) for the next higher up position now STOP treating her deferentially.
In other words women in assistant positions are sheltered (in a way that men in assitant positions on balance probably are not. Coming down hard on a female subordinate is viewed as tacky or rude, whereas men are viewed as tough enough to take it.
When highly motivated women leave this shelter and are spared no punches and treated *EQUALLY* with the men, the women view it as “hate” because they thought the sheltered environment was equality (and goes a long way to show how confirmation bias goes a long way to erase the male on male bullying that goes on in workplaces, which I have been personally suggested too. Both men and women seem oblivious to this problem).
It’s pretty similar to all the feminist articles on anti-girl behavior in gaming. It’s not that the behavior is anti-girl, it’s misanthropic behavior that uses hateful language against EVERYBODY. A girl may be called a bitch or c*nt, but men will also be called homo or fag. If you pay attention, you can see hatefully behavior for all being labeled as anti-girl.
The reasons for this is obvious: in the real world men are polite to women (more so than women) most of the time. If they are not polite they risk the chance of being labeled a brute, fired, sued, or having the crap beat out of them as in the youtube video “how can she slap”.
In an anonymous nameless world where real world dangers are removed (and the benefits of real world politeness–the thankfulness and attention of a live woman), women are treated by men just as poorly as these men treat other men most of the time in the real world.
You can’t look out of your sheltered perspective fishbowl and expect to see the world as it truly lays.
In general, women want to be liked because that is a primal, female, savannah brain legacy. Like it or not, men still hunt and women still herd. Men form triangular hierarchies, women form circular groups. A woman’s greatest fear is exclusion from the group and her instinctive smile is her defence against this. It was ever thus and it always will be.
It’s an interesting and even contentious idea that all women have a proto-brain programmed by evolution and that it always ends up in Pointy triangular things. My response to that is Balls!
I say balls because they are Three Dimensional and as soon as you step out of the mind limits needed to have a flat and two dimensional view of the universe that third dimension starts to make everything look like balls. Some of the balls may even come with a pointy bit (Just Look at the NFL), but I do find that no matter how flat some people want to amke the world, if you look at reality everything is a lot more rounded than people allow!
So I do get your two dimensional ideas and how they play out, but really It’s more balls and more rounded.
PS – when you mentioned the Savannah Brain it reminded me of one of my favourite books of all time “The Descent of Women” – Elaine Morgan. Some scream it is wrong, some that it’s pseudo science – but for me it’s brilliant as it re-frames so much of the debate into a way that people can get and understand. … and I still laugh my head off over the leopards breakfast. Elaine Morgan has not just a fascinating look at the world but a dry and highly ironic whit – she takes gender stereotypes, puts them through the laundry and sends them back Starched and Pressed.
As a female teacher I confront this issue daily. My most powerful ‘disciplinary’ tactic especially with boys is to be liked. This contrasts entirely with my male colleagues who have size, voice, and general physicality with which to create a sense of respect and control in the classroom. This becomes even more apparent when dealing with students I don’t teach (ie those I just encounter in the yard) who find it particularly easy to ignore and dismiss me but do not do the same thing to my male colleagues. I find that I need an existing relationship with the students ie to be ‘friendly’ with them in some way and therefore to have some level of respect from them in order for them to comply willingly (or even at all) with requests. It disappoints me no end that these kids are still seeing the men around them as the ones who they “really” have to listen to!