I read this article earlier, and I must say that the message I got from it is that the perception of women at work is what needs to change, not the women working.

I can't get past the fact that every article about women appears under "Fashion and Style." Excellent catch, Vanessa. It's not like our lives are real or anything, just stylistic impressions.

"Some of what we are learning is directly helpful, and tells women that they are acting in ways they might not even be aware of, and that is harming them and they can change,' said Peter Glick, a psychology professor at Lawrence University in Appleton, Wis."

Knowing Peter Glick's work (which is strongly pro-feminist, staunchly anti-sexist, and anti-patriarchy), I don't think he meant it the way it was interpreted.

I don't think he meant that women should change their behaviors to fit gender-conforming roles. That would be completely contrary to his general perspective on gender.

I think he meant more that women should be aware that they are being judged in this specifically sexist way, and that women can help work to change the system. I doubt he means that this is women's responsibility, but rather that women can proactively work to change this.
Sometimes it can be hard to get across your meaning exactly when being interviewed.

pickle, i agree. i read the article online earlier before coming here, and although that line about the perception needing change is close to the end of the article, i was glad to see it.

The most challenging double standard at work seems to be that women can't talk about their families, take time off with their kids, or in any way talk about their home life without people getting the impression they don't care about work and would rather be at home doing dishes or something.

Also, overly sensitive people-- who are emotional, who are easily offended, or who assume everything said is a slight against their gender or race or religion-- never do as well as people with thick skins.

Yes, being sensitive and understanding other people's as well as your own feelings "never" helps you on the job. Every job is always the same and the tactics should never change.

I agree with Pickleberry, ccchild, and UCLAbodyimage.

Regarding "nuggets of advice," is it really so bad that women might want to adjust their behavior to advance their own careers? Certainly, they have much more control over that than they do over the global perception of what makes a good leader of a company. And it's certainly true that men have to behave in "masculine" ways to be taken seriously.

And while it would be very nice to see employers suddenly all start recognizing their anti-woman bias and work to change it, it's just not very likely. We're much more likely to see change when the gender ratio for powerful executives is more equal, so if women can boost their own individual careers and even out that balance a bit more, while changing their behavior and recognizing that it is not their fault that people may perceive femininity as weakness, I say more power to 'em.

What's really amazing about this research is how long it's been around. Peter Glick (and others) wrote an APA amicus brief in 1988 for Pricewaterhouse vs Hopkins that details basically the same findings that are reported in that article. Obviously the work has been fleshed out somewhat since then but the basic catch-22 described in the article (feminine = incomptent = not getting promoted vs not feminine = a bitch = not getting promoted) was basically accepted knowledge even then. Now, 20 years later the Times reports it in the Fashion section like it's news. Not that they'll take any action on this front, I'm sure.

Very good points. And it is easy for someone's quote or work to be taken out of context. I think that the article had an intention of critiquing these stereotypes and double standards, it seemed that the language put some blame on employers but responsibility to change onto the women. I think that's problematic. I'd just like to see some advice as to how to address sexism in the workplace rather than conform to it.

I am currently doing my dissertation, and one of the factors I am looking at is Ambivalent Sexism, which comes from Ambivalent Sexism Theory, which Dr. Glick (and Dr. Fiske)came up with. The entire body of that literature/research is extending the idea of sexism as it is most commonly known (purely hostile, e.g. abuse, name calling such as bitch, objectification, etc.)to include benevolent sexism (which is a form that is perceived as benevolent because of its subjectively "positive" views of women). It contains the idea that benevolent aspects that most people dismiss as just the way things are(i.e. women are nurturing and should be protected) are also harmful to women because they reinforce the dominant ideology. I cannot believe that Dr. Glick was doing any victim blaming, because his work is so strongly against this and he is obviously a well-read feminist whose views are systemic in nature (not liberal or cultural feminist). I was glad to see that UCLAbodyimage had the same take on him as I did.
Also, I wanted to respond to what androidqueen wrote. I don't think the problem that is being talked about is women choosing to adopt more masculine means to operate more freely/productively in the world if that is what they choose to do. The problem is that women should not be blamed for the problem when it is systemtic if they do not choose to do so. It isn't a critique of what women try to do to get by in the world, but a critique of those who would argue that women SHOULD do those things and if they don't that they should be punished.

The problem is that women should not be blamed for the problem when it is systemtic if they do not choose to do so. It isn't a critique of what women try to do to get by in the world, but a critique of those who would argue that women SHOULD do those things and if they don't that they should be punished.

I absolutely agree. I'm just defending (perhaps poorly) the "nuggets of advice" comment in the article because I think that, while Dr. Glick offers up this practical advice, as you said, he is not blaming women for the systemic problem. I think it's important to differentiate between making women aware of behaviors that may hurt their careers (which is what Dr. Glick is doing) and claiming that it is their fault that these behaviors hurt their professional advancement (which I don't think anyone involved with this article has done).

I read it online, so I didn't notice that it was in the style section. WTF? NYtimes has a business section too, wouldn't this be more appropriate there? After all, they do have an article on black executives there, as well as one on toxic costume teeth, and another one on the suspension of Dog the assho- uh.. bounty hunter's show.

Racial issues (as well as much more frivolous ones) apparently rate a spot in the business section, but not sexist perceptions in the workplace.

Honestly, as a woman, I am glad to know that men tend to argue salaries more aggressively and that if I want fair pay I will have to fight to get it. Sure, on a large scale, companies and organizations need to change the way they do things. But my individual job is ultimately my problem to deal with. Not my fault, just my problem. That's what I got from that quote.

I do however have a HUGE problem with the NYTimes' persistence in putting every single freaking article about women or queer people or transgender people in the Fashion and Style section. HUGE.

"Their assertion, according to the author, that "women don’t advance as much as men because they don’t act like men," seems to place the blame on women when there are so many more factors that incorporate into gender inequality at work."

Whose assertion are you referring to? That section of the article specifically points out some groups assert that message without delving further into the issue - and then the rest of the article devotes itself to the groups that DO delve further. Seriously guys, please don't misquote articles or just assume they're sexist and then skim them for sexist-sounding quotes...I actually thought this was a solid article, and this is at least the second time in a few days a quote in an article's been taken out of context.

This is Peter Glick. Thanks for the kind interpretations of my comments -- it's certainly the case that when a phone conversation lasting some while gets distilled down to soundbites (as is inevitable) the context gets lost and meaning becomes ambiguous. The comment about "what women can do" was in response to the reporter asking that question. My research with Laurie Rudman shows that if women strive to present themselves as warm as well as competent, they may be able to avoid being seen as "bitchy" (but I also noted that this places an unfair extra burden on women to walk a finer line than men -- a point that got lost). I do think that the article sounded too pessimistic in some ways -- women are still subjected to a variety of subtle biases, but there are things they can be done to combat them, including careful attention to how corporations evaluate female employees. -PG

Everyone talks about need for change, but what is being done to actually MAKE change? I'm not pointing fingers or anything, I'm honestly curious. What are the options? How can this be fixed?

I was told when I was hired that salary at my company is pre-determined based upon position and education. I later discovered that men who were hired had argued for a better salary than they were offered. I am hardly able to survive upon my current pay, and I feel cheated and insulted. How was I supposed to know I could have argued against a salary they essentially told me was set and inflexible? Is this something I should have known, or was I told that because I was a woman? Grrr. Can't win.

This reminds me of the coverage Hillary is getting. I hate Chris Matthews for lying about Hillary using the 'gender card.' He says she did this after she gave a speech at a all-womens college (I think it was a college), where she said something like, "going to an all-womans school helped prep me for the all-boys club later on in life."

Duh, politics IS an all-boys club. Stats support that. Its also been shown that girls superexceed academically when boys are segregated from girls in the classroom. Its also been shown that girls/women who go to all-female schools DO end up having more influence than those who dont in society. Watching the debate where one of the politicians said 50% of the population would not vote for a woman, you can see how uninhibited they are about expressing sexist outlooks! She was right!

I cant wait till Matthews diatribe is featured on feministing. What an arsehole he is!

Thanks, Peter Glick, for explaining your position yourself! ... and for the great research you're doing.

Understanding the context in which you said this helps a lot:

'Some of what we are learning is directly helpful, and tells women that they are acting in ways they might not even be aware of, and that is harming them and they can change.'

And how great will it be when we all understand the same thing about MEN!!! Behaving in ways we're not aware of, that do harm, that we can change... Not just in the workplace, but in every part of our lives!