22
Gender Equality's Final Frontier: Ourselves (womensenews.org)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/womensstuff@piefed.blahaj.zone
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The roots of the problem run deep. When women show confidence and assertiveness, they are often seen as competent but unlikeable, a tradeoff known as the “likability penalty.” Meanwhile, those who conform to traditional expectations of humility and modesty may be socially rewarded, but they are less likely to be recognized or promoted professionally. External dynamics, interruptions, dismissed contributions, or condescending explanations further erode women’s voices. The final frontier of gender equality may not lie in law or policy, but in these subtle, corrosive habits that continue to hold us back.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 3 points 11 months ago (6 children)

I helps to read the whole thing. It does address social factors, implicit bias, and does not say the problem is with women.

"External dynamics, interruptions, dismissed contributions, or condescending explanations further erode women’s voices."

"...Part of this gap is undoubtedly structural: bias in hiring, evaluation, and promotion continues to limit women’s progress. But external barriers fuel internal doubt, breeding hesitation, self-surveillance, and self-silencing."

"...Nor is this an argument against external action to address gender bias. We still need inclusive policies, strong mentorship, and institutional accountability. We must continue to address bias in hiring, harassment in the workplace, and inequities in pay."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago* (5 children)

    she says there are external factors that play a role, but the thesis of the article is that internal factors are primary and women need to do more to overcome them; her conclusion is all about how women need to take responsibility and cultivate masculine traits in girls:

    But we must also be willing to name the ways in which we undermine ourselves, and to do something about it. We can start by normalizing confidence in women the same way we normalize it in men. That means celebrating ambition and leadership from an early age. It means teaching our daughters not just to be nice, but to be bold, and teaching our sons to value and respect that boldness in others, regardless of gender. Second, and perhaps more importantly, we must stop waiting until we feel 100% ready. Men rarely do. The path to excellence is not through perfection, but through trial and error. Finally, we must learn to trust ourselves. There is a quiet power in intuition, an inner voice that knows when it is time to leap. The world needs more women willing to follow that voice, wherever it leads.

    It's great she acknowledges it's not all internal, and I agree the women play a role in the social factors she calls external (in that sense they are both external and internalized), and I also agree women can and should recognize internalized sexism and work against it, but I don't think that starts with adopting masculine norms like over-confidence and "ambition" ... in a sexist society, these traits are rewarded in men (she already acknowledges women with those same traits are punished for it), but the solution is to change what is valued, not to socialize everyone as men and to make that more acceptable.

    The article comes across as having and underlying femmephobia, and feels a bit ignorant of how social issues work, which makes sense given her background is in physics and not the humanities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

    She never says internal factors are primary. The headline reads "...the final frontier." In the article itself:

    The final frontier of gender equality may not lie in law or policy, but in these subtle, corrosive habits that continue to hold us back.

    And, jesus, are we calling Ambition masculine now? Am I acting like a man by wanting to achieve things?

    She doesn't say women need to adopt masculine norms, or that they have to be over-confident. Furthermore, ambition and confidence are just positive qualities for anyone. And, as a woman, I think it's kinda bullshit to separate unequivocally positive traits on a gender binary.

    Actual quotes:

    "This is not a flaw of individual character; it is the cumulative effect of biased socialization. From an early age, girls are often praised for being polite, agreeable, and well-behaved, while boys are praised for being strong, active, and independent."

    "...teaching our daughters not just to be nice, but to be bold."

    The habits she says are negative...

    "...internal doubt, breeding hesitation, self-surveillance, and self-silencing."

    And you said, in a women's community:

    "The article comes across as having and underlying femmephobia, and feels a bit ignorant of how social issues work, which makes sense given her background is in physics and not the humanities."

    I don't even know where to start. The article is a commentary on her experience as a woman, not a report. Every argument you made was a straight up misrepresentation of what this woman wrote, and you just went on to say she's got underlying femmephobia and discredit her experience and her credentials? Experience she backs up with sources in the article? And most of those sources were written by women? AND most of those women have backgrounds in the freaking humanities?

    Goddamn. Girl just can't fucking win, can she?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    I'm not sure we're reading the same article, throughout the article her central point is that women self-silence, doubt themselves, and so on, and she claims the internal barriers are "one of the most persistent" and argues women need to do more to work on themselves - the central purpose of the article is to argue this point ...

    And yeah, I think "ambition" here is a euphemism for the socialized, masculine trait of over-competition. Actual ambition is obviously not masculine or feminine, but in the context of women being shut out of leadership and drowned out in meetings or debates, the "ambition" she is talking about that women supposedly lack becomes willingness to talk over others and be anti-social, to put others down. Having been a STEM major and spent decades in offices where meetings are conducted according to who can be loud and rudely interrupt the most, I do tend to think this kind of ambition is masculine. But unlike the author, I think the problem is with that toxic culture, not with women.

    I would like a culture where people are humble and kind, and where people are given the ability to speak even if they don't interrupt or exude confidence. My point is that the values she thinks women should embody are one-sided, and while it's fine to suggest some women should be allowed to pursue joining the boy's club, I think the problem is more with the fact it's the boy's club than with women's difficulty with embodying that boyish behavior that grants them entry.

    This doesn't mean her experiences are not valid or should be discredited, but I do think she draws the wrong conclusions (and yes, I do think this is a common, almost stereotypical, situation - physicists and scientists make poor philosophers and sociologists, and yet they feel confident to jump in anyway).

    Even her article seems in tension, she admits the problem is external:

    External dynamics, interruptions, dismissed contributions, or condescending explanations further erode women’s voices. The final frontier of gender equality may not lie in law or policy, but in these subtle, corrosive habits that continue to hold us back.

    But then brings it back to the individual and internal in the end.

    I guess it's fine, this is a commentary article anyway - it doesn't have to be perfect or consistent, but I guess you saw my reaction because of how personal this is for me. I'm so sick of the corporate culture that promotes toxic values, and I feel like she embraces that rather than calls for a change in the culture. It feels very Lean In to me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

    The article repeatedly argues that society has forced women to be submissive, to minimize their achievements, in self-perpetuating ways that saps their drive and confidence. It repeatedly points out the professional and social barriers that cause this and calls for social change, but asserts women need to be part of that change.

    Your reaction was inflicting your own bias on this woman, because of her field, and misrepresenting her words entirely? As you continue to do here? I read the article as-is, a few times, and checked every source.

    No one gets a pass for misinformation because they've experienced the toxic patriarchy. This is a women's com. We ALL experience patriarchy.

    You're arguing with the version of the article you made up. It's not a matter of interpretation, she does not say the things you decided she wrote.

    I'm not interested in fact-checking you anymore when we read the same short piece, as I'm almost positive you're just doubling down at this point.

    edit: Just gotta add that the divide between arts and science is arbitrary and made up. The most accomplished scientists have been notable philosophers, and vice versa.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    The article repeatedly argues that society has forced women to be submissive, to minimize their achievements, in self-perpetuating ways that saps their drive and confidence. It repeatedly points out the professional and social barriers that cause this and calls for social change, but asserts women need to be part of that change.

    Agreed, this all makes sense and I see it in the article, too.

    Your reaction was inflicting your own bias on this woman, because of her field, and misrepresenting her words entirely? As you continue to do here? I read the article as-is, a few times, and checked every source.

    I'm not sure I entirely misrepresented her words, since her headline, opening and closing thoughts are still all indicating a central point about internal changes women need to make (which isn't entirely wrong, but definitely did bother me).

    Yes, my reactive behavior was due to my experiences and bias, I can own that.

    No one gets a pass for misinformation because they’ve experienced the toxic patriarchy. This is a women’s com. We ALL experience patriarchy.

    I'm not sure what I'm saying constitutes misinformation as much as a kind of simplification (basically taking the article at its headline and conclusions, rather than including all of the nuance the author attempted to include to balance out their call for women to become more confident, aggressive, etc.).

    And yes, we all experience patriarchy, but the reason I raised my personal experiences was to take ownership for my reactivity (which I poorly communicated, I admit), and to also provide context for why I might have taken the author the way that I did.

    I’m not interested in fact-checking you anymore when we read the same short piece, as I’m almost positive you’re just doubling down at this point.

    I'm definitely doubling down on the idea that the author's message is overall about how women should change and embody more masculine norms so they can take on leadership roles. Yes, she says more than this, but I still think that's an accurate summary.

    But I don't want you to feel the need to fact check me at all, I'm sorry for the way I've approached this entire interaction - I was hasty, thoughtless, and reactive when I could have been reflective, patient, and open instead.

    edit: Just gotta add that the divide between arts and science is arbitrary and made up. The most accomplished scientists have been notable philosophers, and vice versa.

    Agreed, especially historically when science and philosophy were not as separate as disciplines, but in the context of contemporary academia this is not as common, primarily because the way a PhD specializes someone in a field, and the way requisite education up to that point is increasingly specialized as well. For example, if you are a physicist it's unlikely you are taking women's studies classes at any point during your college education, let alone other relevant classes that would make up a humanities education. Usually you get boxed into a science undergrad that may have opportunity for a few humanities electives, but in my experience STEM majors tend to try to get out of these as much as possible, and the required electives tend to be on vocational writing, rhetoric, composition, etc. and not focused on social theory, etc.

    Regardless, I think that's too high of a bar (something I was trying but failing to communicate earlier) - I don't really want a society where scientists can't put in their 2 cents on social issues when it's the context of a commentary or op-ed, the concern I have is more when those scientists are taken as a serious authority and their (problematic) opinions start to get misinterpreted as coming from a place of expertise in those issues. I don't think that's happening here, though.

    Regardless, sorry for the distress I created with my comments. I appreciate the time you have taken to challenge and respond to me, and for sharing the article in the first place - as you have pointed out, the author was more nuanced than the headline and first and last few paragraphs imply, and that's worth taking more seriously than I did.

    I'll try to be better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 11 months ago*

    I'm always surprised and humbled by people like you, who can disagree thoughtfully and with self awareness. Despite a little frustration on my part, I love to see women stick to their guns.

    And I appologize if I came off abrasive. I rejected feminine social norms early on because I'm very stubborn, which led to questioning my gender until ultimately realizing I get to decide what it means to be a woman. I'm direct and I challenge people, but it comes from a place of compassion and a desire for truth. Yes, I know truth is relative. Anyway, that's part of why I don't agree there are masculine or feminine personality traits.

    Which is why I don't think the qualities the author wanted women to embody were masculine, rather she pointed out that men have an abundance of confidence where women are lacking. But I can agree to disagree.

    You're right that academia, especially at higher levels, is increasingly specialized. I meant that a person has more experience than just work and school, and we don't know what electives she took. This author seems interested in sociology from the sources she links.

    Either way, I enjoyed this conversation. I like being challenged and it's important to question everything. You gave me another perspective to consider, even if I didn't agree with it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent