"Women are also less competitive, in a good way. They're consensus builders, conciliators and collaborators, and they employ what is called a transformational leadership style - heavily engaged, motivational . . ."
Ahh, fearless reader, it looks like we've found the new femininity. Is this really biologically determined? It sounds like the authors are suggesting that women are nice; men are mean. Women are group oriented, men are individual oriented. Right?
It's in the genes.
Or is it all bullshit?
I vote for the latter. Women are human, oh, and btw, so are men. And that particular fact says a lot more about our commonalities and is the biggest argument against this essentializing crap that sells books, defines culture but doesn't represent Truth (big T). I might concede biologically defined differences between men and women on some level, but to suggest that these differences then define men and women is a different story. Especially when you consider the fact that all of my female friends complain more about their female peers' cattiness and backstabbing ways than about the men in their lives.
People are competitive, period. Thanks Time magazine for reminding me how entirely bourgeois and culturally normative you really are. Gotta love ya.
1 comment:
I think women are not allowed to be overtly competitive. It's not biological, but it is a tacit cultural expectation--probably enforced by the judgment of women on each other as much as by men. If a woman admits that she wants to win, she is also admitting that she wants to advance herself at someone else's expense, and you're just not supposed to admit to things like that (next you'll be claiming you're genuinely more qualified than someone else and deserve to win! How gauche!). But we are allowed to pursue our own ends by serving (or appearing to serve) the group. In public, you seek consensus and conciliate; in private you sabotage your opponents. Everybody's miserable, yay!
Post a Comment