I think that there will always be more men than women in prominent
positions of power. I think there will
always be more male CEO’s, more male leaders at the head of government, and
more men in the really big-buck salary positions.
I am not saying this because I believe that opportunities
for men and women will always be unequal.
I am not saying this because I believe that women will always be the
victims of discrimination. I am certainly
not saying this because I believe that women are inferior. I am saying this because I believe that men
and women are inherently different—specifically, that men and women tend to
prioritize their lives differently.
I think that men are inherently more likely to pursue careers that lead them to
positions of the greatest power and the highest possible income. From a genetic standpoint, they are more
likely to pursue dominance, authority, and to want to be the one supporting the
family financially. Women, on the other
hand, are more likely to pursue something that they simply enjoy or find
fulfilling, whether or not the position comes with prestige or a high salary. Also, I believe that women are more
genetically hard-wired to prioritize bonding time with their family, and with
their children especially.
This is not to say that women can’t want the high-powered
jobs or that men can’t want to be stay-at-home dads. I don’t mean to say that men and women can’t both want to have balanced lives that
include a healthy dose of challenging work on the job and time spent with the family. Many men and women do want that kind of balance and it is often possible to achieve it
at some level or another.
I am simply saying that on average, men are
more likely to put that CEO job at the top of their priority list, while women
are more likely to choose a job that allows them to spend more time with family
and friends.
That being said, I do believe in equal opportunities. If a woman does want to put that CEO job
first on her agenda, then there is absolutely no reason why she can’t do
that. She should be given all the same
opportunities that any man would have to achieve that. In contrast, any man who wants what would
normally be considered a “woman’s” job, either as a stay-at-home dad, or a
kindergarten teacher, or a beautician, should also be given equal
opportunities, and no one should be looked down upon or derided for stepping
outside their gender’s traditional roles.
What’s important is be yourself. Pursue what fulfills you, and what allows you
to be the best person that you can be. If
your position in life is making you miserable, then it’s obviously not right
for you, and it’s not good for the other people in your life either. If you are unhappy, if affects your
relationships and everyone around you that you care about. A woman may want to prove herself and achieve,
say, a high position in government. She
might achieve it, and she may love that job, but in the end, if she realizes
that she would honestly be happier spending more time with her children, or if
her children simply need her to be
there more, there is no shame in walking away from that job. If a man ends up being a CEO, and yet he finds
himself becoming deeply stressed, irritated, bitter, losing touch with his family
and himself, then there is no shame in walking away from that job either.
There is no absolute bar for what you have to achieve in
order to be successful. Everyone’s version of success in life will be
different, because we are all different, and we need different things in order
to be strong, and good, and happy. And if
there are never quite as many women
in the leading high-powered jobs of the world, then that’s not necessarily a
failure of the feminist movement, or a failure to produce an equal opportunity
society. It may simply prove the point
that men and women are different, and that’s okay.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sources of inspiration for this post:
The Female Brain by Louann Brizendine
“Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” by Anne-Marie Slaughter, published in The Atlantic
My experience switching from girls softball to boys baseball at the age of 13.
My parents (when I was little, my father was a stay-at-home
dad and my mom was the breadwinner—it worked perfectly for them)
My wonderful variety of friends, some of whom want to be
housewives and some of whom want to be the high-powered woman, and everything
in between. I respect all of them
deeply.
Interesting post, kicking off the blog with the big topics! So, do you believe we are measuring the progress of women in the workplace by too superficial a metric?
ReplyDeleteFrequent critiques of the studies that compare women's salaries to men's is that they do not account for common variables such as experience or position in the office hierarchy. You've detailed some aspects of the chicken and egg argument above as to why you see men over-represented in the upper management positions. So there's less need to go into that.
Would a better measure of the progress of women be surveys of job satisfaction? It could highlight if the ladder-climbers are feeling stifled, and if the more domestic-oriented are feeling pressured out of the home in order to maintain a standard of living.
Yes! That is a good way of putting it--we're measuring it too simply, without bothering to find out if women in mid/lower paying positions feel like they *can't* go any higher, or if they're simply happy where they are. Also, simply comparing the average salary of an American woman and an American man, and using that to argue that women do not receive equal pay for equal work, is a foolish way to go about it. Like you said, it doesn't take in other important factors like who has the most high-ranking jobs!
DeleteThe idea of measuring job satisfaction is interesting! Although harder to measure objectively (since it all depends on what people say about themselves of course) that could show some interesting data. If there's a big gender gap in job satisfaction, that could be indicative of a real problem that could actually be solved.
I wonder if job satisfaction would be higher or lower as you go up the corporate ladder? Or if people at the top would ever even admit it if they're not satisfied.
It really is unfortunate that it's so difficult to measure not just job satisfaction, but happiness in general. In truth, I think most people (men or women) don't like to operate at either extreme, but we somehow still say one is "better" than the other: time at home with family or doing something "great" with yourself at work. Men are berated for being away from home so much, and women are told that they "must" have a career and compete in male fields. I suppose that's why I wish there were still more apprenticeships out there; in some ways it allows for more of both.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, that dichotomy is a big part of why I haven't pursued my career as aggressively as I could, despite being a perfectly comfortable woman in a "man's world". I'm sure I could climb up the corporate ladder more quickly than I am, but I'd rather spend my free time making a cozy home for myself and my husband. I like cooking new things, decorating for the holidays, and spending my evenings curled up together rather than studying or working all night long to get a bigger bonus. I realize I'm extremely lucky that I'm allowed this kind of luxury, but it's hard not to feel a bit guilty for enjoying it. Like anyone who would "throw away" opportunities that other women fight hard for, having that viewpoint doesn't exactly inspire love from most feminists pushing for their version of equality.
Personally, I just like to see people happy in whatever capacity they can manage at work and home. Most seem to spend all their energy focusing on the power and wealth they want and how they don't have it yet, rather than what they already have or the paths they can take to get there. I feel like we need to have a one year ban on complaining for more than 5 minutes about non-critical life matters just to help shake the "I'm not getting what I deserve" mindset. Work specifics aside, we're all just trying live our lives however we can. We can't pretend the same thing is best for everyone, and trying to do so just breeds more discontent.
I know what you mean about feeling guilty for not working as hard as you "could." That's something that's followed me around for much of my life, especially when I was in school. I always knew that I could have done more--but the fact is, it's always give and take. If you put more effort into grades, then maybe you have to give up some extracurriculars, or time spent with your friends--and I honestly believe that those things are no less essential. It's just that the society we grew up in tends to value the "harder, faster, better" approach, where you give it "everything you've got" to succeed in just a few areas, or even just one area. But that approach to life is not realistic. If you pour everything you've got into one area of your life, then you're necessarily making huge sacrifices in other areas of your life.
DeleteI guess what it comes down to is that it IS possible to work hard without running yourself into the ground and/or turning into a one-trick pony; but it can be hard to believe that in your heart of hearts when so much of the world around you keeps warning that you'll "fall behind" if you don't give more, and more, and more.
You also make a great point about learning to be happy with what you have. Our society focuses a lot on PROGRESS--especially America, but also Western culture in general, and now the rest of the world (i.e. Asia) is following suit. Dissatisfaction is essentially the catalyst for all progress. If you are making progress, it's because you want to make something better, which means that you weren't satisfied with the way it was before. I think sometimes simply being able to stop and say, "This is enough," is a very good thing.
I think our society focuses more on productivity than progress, but maybe it does both. There's definitely a culturally engrained sense of guilt to those who are unemployed (which is why people actually STOP looking for work after a certain amount of time--the sense that they have no place in society drives them to quit trying).
DeleteThough I don't agree with everything in your manifesto on women/men, I actually do agree that there will always be more men than women in positions of power. I have experienced first hand how people will listen to men and not women, not because they're sexist against women, but because when a man is talking, he is able to exert a different flavor of authority than women do. It's not that women CAN'T speak with great authority, but (maybe our culture is to blame) it seems to be much harder for them to learn to do so.
I read somewhere that higher testosterone means you are more assertive. Maybe that's why.
Your comment about men being able to speak with greater authority is interesting. I think generally that's true, but I would generally blame culture for that. I think something like speaking with authority comes from confidence, which men have in far greater quantities than women. (I know that "quantities of confidence" can't really be measured scientifically, though some studies have certainly tried--but I think many people's personal experience of the world will support this).
DeleteAs for the higher levels of testosterone making you more assertive, that's definitely true. It's part of what Louanne Brizendine was talking about in The Female Brain. It's a big part of why I think men will always be more likely to pursue the high-powered jobs!