From a New York Times article today:
For much of her career, Mrs. Clinton served in largely advisory or collaborative management roles -- as a law firm partner, as chairwoman of the board at the nonprofit Children’s Defense Fund and as a director of three public corporations.
Since when are law firm partner, chairman of the board, and director of a corporation "largely advisory or collaborative roles"? Oh, that's right, when they're held by women.
In this article, the Times expends nearly 2,000 words on Hillary Clinton's management style -- mostly comparing it to the less-strict attitude of her husband. And it occurs to me that one way women get ahead in business (and in the business of politics) is to be way more organized and generally more on top of their shit than male managers. As a female editor recently put it, one of the best ways around sexism in journalism is to just do an absolutely phenomenal job in all your work. Be twice as good, and maybe you'll be treated as an equal.
Also, when you're trying to establish yourself as a leader or an authority, men have the luxury of being chummy. Women, all too often, do not. (Insert "ball-busting bitch" stereotype here...) They might have a great sense of humor, but many have learned through experience that it won't get them anywhere. To be sure, the no-nonsense female boss is slowly becoming less prevalent (to a point where I'm not sure women are more "serious" in the workplace than men anymore), but I think some women -- mostly those who came up through the ranks in the '80s and early '90s -- still assert their authority this way.
When I read about Hillary's management style, and when I see in the debates that she knows her stuff backwards and forwards, I see echoes of female bosses and editors -- especially those who came up through the ranks a few decades ago -- who know every single talking point, who leave no detail unaccounted for, who had to be twice as good to be treated as equals. In my mind, that type of president would be a welcome departure from the bumbling, sloppy, nicknaming, joke-cracking demeanor of George W. Bush. But I also know that there are a lot of men (and a few women) in this world whose greatest fear is to have to work for a woman who's strict, competent, and all business. And I'll be interested to see if that affects how they cast their votes.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Hillary Sexism Watch: Management Edition.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/6241
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
"Be twice as good, and maybe you'll be treated as an equal."
As a young woman, I've learned already that it's more along the lines of being twice as adept to be seen as half as good.
What the fuck??!!
That "advisory roles" line makes me so angry I want to spit. Because I know now I'll be hearing from the Hillary-haters that she's never held a real job like a man would and so she's not fit to be president. Director of three public corporations? Compare that to "tanked three oil companies" or whatever George has to tout himself for.
This is exactly why I want a female president, even if she's maybe not the most progressive candidate. I really do think it'll make a difference for women's public image. Not an end to sexism, obviously, but an important difference.
Sappho -- I couldn't agree more. Your comment seems a great rebuttal to all those (mostly conservative) pundits who keep blathering on about how we shouldn't vote for her just because she's a woman. Not only do I think she'd do the best job as president, but yes, I am also voting for her because she's a woman, and I'm sick of seeing women get denied what they deserve. Plus, maybe she'll pay more attention to problems that disproportionately affect women.
On a side note, I found it very surprising that the article consistently referred to her as "Mrs. Clinton." I commented to a friend that thought they should be using "Ms." when a couple of friends pointed out that they should be using Senator!
This is very intriguing, particularly given the fact that I just got done studying Schaef's "Women's Reality" for a, of all things, Criminal Justice class. One of the key points Schaef pounded into our skulls was that women's leadership styles ARE more collaborative and peer-seeking, and there is NOTHING wrong with this. Personally, I could do with a little more collaboration and humility from our government, couldn't you?
This is very intriguing, particularly given the fact that I just got done studying Schaef's "Women's Reality" for a, of all things, Criminal Justice class. One of the key points Schaef pounded into our skulls was that women's leadership styles ARE more collaborative and peer-seeking, and there is NOTHING wrong with this. Personally, I could do with a little more collaboration and humility from our government, couldn't you?
androidqueen, this comes up almost every time we link to a New York Times article about Hillary Clinton. The answer is that the Times' style is to refer to everyone by Mr/Mrs/Ms -- whatever their preferred title is -- but not to use courtesy titles like Dr/Sen/Rep etc. So it's not sexism, it's the newspaper's style guide.
This is very intriguing, particularly given the fact that I just got done studying Schaef's "Women's Reality" for a, of all things, Criminal Justice class. One of the key points Schaef pounded into our skulls was that women's leadership styles ARE more collaborative and peer-seeking, and there is NOTHING wrong with this. Personally, I could do with a little more collaboration and humility from our government, couldn't you?
UGGH. So sorry for the multiple comments. :(
Hmph. NYT style sucks, then. "Dr." is a courtesy title. I worked my ass off for that damn degree. Do they have the same policy regarding religious titles, like Reverend?
Hmph. NYT style sucks, then. "Dr." is not a courtesy title. I worked my ass off for that damn degree. Do they have the same policy regarding religious titles, like Reverend?
Wow, I could NOT agree more with the humour in the office article. My boss (the most miserable guy ive ever worked with) once did a bit of stand up, and occasionally likes to crack a joke in the office. He HATES it when I do the same, HATES it. He classes me as being "extremely sarcastic", likes its a curse... I just got massively promoted (in another company) and you can see the disgust in his eyes when I joke around. He hates not being The Funny One.
All the reference (by conservatives) to Senator Clinton getting votes because she is a women is bullshit. My boyfriend aptly pointed out that many of his gender won't vote for her because she is a women and yet they get no reference. I also don't see anything wrong with a more collaborative management style. It would be a nice change.
Not to be too pedantic, but being on the board of directors of a corporation is at absolute *best* an advisory role.
The board usually meets a handful of times a year to rubberstamp executive raises and sign off on the financial documents they've been handed. In exchange for this, they get paid more than most people do in a year.
It's a nice racket if you can get in on it.
Wow, I never knew that about the NYT style guide. Thanks for clarifying, Ann. I always wondered why they referred to Condeleezza Rice as "Ms" when she should be "Dr."
If folks are interested, Fortune this week (month?) has its 50 Most Powerful Women in business issue. The cover story is about the #1 and #2 at Xerox, both women, and the transition they're making for #2 to take over. It's the first time, I think, that company leadership will go from woman to woman.
I know women are hugely under-represented at the exec level, on boards, etc., but it's cool seeing stories about all these bitchin' women.
The NYT applies its style sheet erratically. "Senator Reid," for instance, has appeared in the paper. Some academics get quoted as "Professor" and some don't, and the Times calls medical doctors but not doctors of philosophy "Doctor," even though the PhDs got there first.
Posted too soon, oops. Medicos are "Dr.," not "Doctor," in the Times. The medical profession, which started out as a barber-level, men-only guild, appropriated the title Doctor for itself because it envied the prestige of philosopher-scholars (like EG!).
As a corporate lawyer (and a woman to boot), I have to actually disagree with this a bit. Someone above already explained that a "director" IS an advisory function (as opposed to an executive officer, who actually runs the company on a day to day basis). So, not unfair.
Second, when I try to describe what I do, I often distinguish it from the more well-known (at least in pop culture) litigation-oriented fields by noting that what I do is a collaborative process, where all sides are trying to get a deal done, as opposed to conflict-oriented litigation. I think most of the men I work with (and they are mostly men) wouldn't disagree with that assessment (don't get me wrong, there are fights a-plenty). In addition, a significant amount of my work consists of advising company management on various aspects of the securities laws.
So describing someone who has spent a good portion of her life as a corporate lawyer and director as someone who has held advisory and collaborative management roles is, well, accurate.
I'm with you EG. One reason I got the PhD was so I would not need to explain to my students every friggin' semester why Ms is appropriate and my marital status was not part of my interaction with them. Now, it's Dr. thank you very much. If anyone ever calls me Mrs. or Miss, I hate it.
Back on topic, the papers would NEVER explain a man's work in this way regardless if he held the exact same positions. They may be nominally apt, but they are used because of gender.
From the NYT stylebook:
"Others [besides physicians] with earned doctorates, like Ph.D degrees, may choose to use the title or not; follow their preference."
So I'm assuming it's Condi's choice.
But on the topic at hand, I'd wager a guess that it never occured to the writer (and editors) in the first place that the phrasing came off as condescending, and that's a reflection of how ingrained those biases are.
And since when is "collaborative management" less commendable than, say, dictatorial management?
I agree with Sam's point that much legal work really is largely advisory. It's the dismissive tone of the NYT article that's annoying.
But worse was the hostile intro about a woman rising above class expectations:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/fashion/28fame.html
oops, a little late to this. Ann, I really enjoyed this post. It does seem to be true that much of the work she has done is providing counsel (more advisory), as comments above have already mentioned. But that aside, I like the way you put everything else. Your post and the NYT piece about how organized Hillary is, and what little tolerance she has for disorganization, makes me think of all of the meetings (often male-dominated) I have sat through that just feel like a waste of my time. Poorly planned meetings are worse for women, who often aren't the ones in control, because they end up being these shoot-the-shit conversations that women can feel left out of. When you get to where Hillary is, you must have so little tolerance for that kind of thing.