[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Yet More about sexism and division of labor

[Amanda Geist]

Prequel: I said
> >Women, *in general,* like to interact via cooperation and
> >consensus; men, *in general,* function more competitively in a
hierarchichal
> >approach. I think it's hardwired. So men tend to challenge the system for
> >more compensation (i.e., kick and scream), and women tend to want to feel
> >there is a consensus that they deserve it (i.e., wait to be rewarded).

Laura responded:
> I guess that must mean that my hard-wiring is hopelessly flawed, then.
Or, perhaps I'm just the mannish type.

Me:
This reaction is precisely why I put those *'s around *in general.* Maybe I
should have put them in caps. I mean "in general," in the same way you can
say with reasonable accuracy that women are less muscular than men, or
smaller, or more flexible. As a rough measure, it's true. When you start
looking at individuals as opposed to broad generalities, it is not
necessarily the case.

Laura:
> First, because it runs so contrary to everything that I know (i.e.
observed throughout my life).

Me:
Actually, in my experience I have found it to be broadly accurate. But
again, in a very general sense; individuals are individuals. These styles of
interaction are not mutually exclusive, and everyone has the ability to use
both, and every situation will be different as well.

Laura:
  Secondly, because although *I* know you didn't mean to imply that women
who act in the way you described as male are somehow abnormal, the net
result of the expectations that I feel result in this viewpoint is that
women who do *not* act in this way are viewed as somehow masculine (and vice
versa for men).  And being viewed as having a "male" attitude about
something when one is female almost inevitably leads to accusations of
either being "Butch" (as in the lesbian stereotype) or bitch.  Basically, a
guy can be aggressive-competitive, but a women has to make due with working
hard and hoping someone notices.

Me:
There's always going to be people who label others. Personally, I have found
this broad generalization to be a useful tool to help me interpret someone's
style, and it helps me to more easily interact with them. I don't have time
for value judgements, and if someone wants to label me as a lesbian because
I can handle competition and confrontation, fine. Hell, there was a rumor
around one place I worked that I was a lesbian, because I wore a certain
kind of *boots.* Why does this matter?

Nor is consensus-building necessarily a passive thing. It can be active and
aggressive as all get-out. It requires a different *style,* that's all.

Laura:
> And you know what?  Being aggressive-competitive *isn't* necessarily a
respectable or honorable thing to be.  But in a competitive society such as
our own, just because you *deserve* something doesn't mean that you're going
to be handed it on a silver platter.  Mostly, you're going to have to speak
up and *make* people notice your value, because in every situation there's
bound to be someone else just as valuable.  And as far as I can see, society
has little problem with men who understand this.  They get dubbed things
like "Go-getter" or "Leader".  Women, on the other hand, who behave like
this tend to be considered heartless or unfeminine or hard.

Me:
And so what? The women who are go-getters and leaders probably understand
what's operating here. Do you want the results, or do you have to have the
results *and* the happy labels? The results, but only phrased your way? I
know loads of men who are labeled rather unfriendly things because of their
competitive natures, too....your "society says" and "society feels" comments
are as much a generality as my gender tendencies, you know.

Laura:
> And that's what I feel is my biggest argument against your reasoning --
the fact that if a women *does* happen to buck her "hard-wiring", she gets
put down for it.  She gets ahead where the more passive women wouldn't,
yes -- but she loses her femininity in the process.

Me:
Loses it to who? Herself? I doubt it. And to whom else does it matter? Loses
it to her friends? No. Loses it to her lover? No. Loses it to her
co-workers, boss? Why the hell are they worrying about her femininity? They
should be concerned with effectiveness or ability. Again, you aren't saying
she can't move ahead, you're saying she can't move ahead with the
terminology you'd like.

Laura:
> As far as I can see, things like being aggressive or competitive or
hard-working or intelligent or friendly or funny or charismatic are all
*individual* traits -- brought on in the *individual* by nature or nurture
or a combination of the two.

Me:
They are. I never said they weren't.

Laura:
  It seems inherently wrong to me that any of them would be hardwired or
gender-specific.  The tendencies you describe probably exist, but I believe
that they are they product of a society with the left-over expectations and
biases of the past (a VERY recent past, I might add, so no wonder) -- that
feminine is defined as soft, motherly, emotional, and unassuming; while
masculine is aggressive, strong, stable, and competitive.  And God help the
person (male or female) who has too many of the traits attributed to the
opposite sex.

Me:
Actually, I think some gender tendencies are hard-wired; I've seen them
manifest in very, very small children. You may say that they had already
managed to be impressed somehow with our cultural values and were acting
accordingly, but I'm talking very, very small, just over a year or so,
hardly aware of gender at all. But clearly, this is going to be an
unanswerable thing.

Personally, I think the hard-wiring is there and real, but that as I said,
neither style obviates the other being used and individualism plays a
tremendous and overarching role.

Laura:
 How *dare* a woman fight to further herself, and any man who would rather
stay home to cook and clean instead of braving the competitive business
world must be either homosexual or brow-beaten by his over-bearing wife.
Most people would bristle at the suggestion that they think like this, and,
indeed, most people don't.  But what I do believe is that vestiges of this
thinking remain lodged in our society, and will probably do so for a long
time to come.

Me:
No question. But again, I point out that you are speaking in the same sort
of generality as I was. Broadly, men and women have different styles of
interaction. Just as broadly, society is a factor in emphasizing those
styles and society often disapproves of those who depart from them. But in
any specific situation or any particular individual, these broad
generalizations cease being as useful as considering the particulars.

--Amanda, hoping this clarified a bit