According to Dr. Virginia Valian, Professor of Psychology and Linguistics at Hunter College and author of Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women, where you look during social interactions clearly indicates your status, and more often than not, women tend to come across as "subservient" when talking with men.
I learned this and a whole lot more about the state of gender equality in the U.S. during a lecture at New York University last week. Valian -- backed by studies and data from psychology, sociology, economics and biology accumulated over many years -- posed this question:
"Why do so few women occupy positions of power and prestige?"
During her lecture, Valian concluded that:
Of course women have "come a long way, baby" these last few decades, working through glass ceilings instead of those made from marble ... but her research clearly shows that gender stereotypes are so deeply ingrained in our psyches that even the most ardent supporters of gender equality can run into trouble.
Men and women unconsciously cling to stereotyping that creates small differences in how we evaluate and judge men and women, Valian told the audience. Those small imbalances accumulate over time, giving an advantage to men and a disadvantage to women. The most important consequence of gender schemas for professional life is that men tend to be overrated and women underrated and undervalued.
With research culled from hundreds of studies to support her premise, Valian asserts that both men and women assume men are automatically more competent. Competence is seen as the "norm" for men and something that women must work very hard to prove. Further, women are viewed as "less likable" as they became "more competent."
The end result? Women continue to be underpaid, underemployed and are given fewer opportunities for advancement and promotion. This is across all sectors, and is especially apparent in fields that are considered "traditionally male," such as engineering.
One might automatically assume that women are offered fewer opportunities for advancement as a "natural byproduct" of raising children, but Valian's research shows that even women who are childless are sabotaged.
These real life dramas are often played out in a common professional setting -- the meeting. Valian's research, and the experience of many of us, supports that women, generally, are listened to much less in meetings than are their male counterparts. The "accumulative advantage" to men vs. the "accumulative disadvantage" to women is clear. In her book, Valian describes a typical scenario:
Through observing the group dynamics, I learn who has high status and who does not. By the time the meeting ends, people who were equal in my eyes when it began are now unequal. Those whose remarks were ignored have suffered a small loss in prestige, and their contributions have been labeled, implicitly, as low in value. Because they now have less prestige, they will be listened to less in the future; they will carry their previously earned labels into the next professional encounter, losing a little more standing with each negative experience. The gap between them and people who are gaining attention for their remarks will widen as their small initial failures accrue and make future failures more likely.
Women will often remain silent during meetings, adding to their accumulative disadvantage, because they've learned that being ignored can be humiliating and painful.
Of course, this is not true of all women, or all men, and Valian went to great pains to make that clear during her talk. There are many powerful women who have built incredibly successful careers, and there are many men who are not in favor of ignoring women. However, she strongly advises that we not be lulled into thinking that all is well by these success stories. It is not. The problem is still very much a part of the social, psychological, and economic fabric of American life.
What can we do?
Interestingly enough, in a social interaction between two people, the person who is considered the "dominant" one will look at the other person more when she/he is the one doing the talking, and will more often look away when the other person is talking.
Conversely, the "subservient" one tends to look away frequently when she/he is the one doing the talking, but will fix on the other person's face when the other is talking.
Not surprisingly, according to Valian's referenced research, women are usually in the "subservient" position when engaged in a social exchange with a man.
Far too often the response women get when they complain about these scenarios is: "That's not a big deal. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill." But, what this advice fails to recognize is that mountains are just a bunch of accumulated molehills ... piled one on top of the other.
Eventually the mountain of molehills will tumble.
Follow Barbara Hannah Grufferman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BGrufferman
http://www.womenwintoo.blogspot.com/2011/11/feminists-have-become-anything-but.html
The male in the first couple tends to joke more, give more orders, take the lead, dominate the conversations and a little of that goes a long way and I find myself ignoring much of his conversation. His wife will sometimes give opinions, but most are parroting his opinions.
The second couple is more open to different viewpoints, willing to discuss instead of lecture. That, to me, is the deciding factor and makes conversation with them both interesting and informative.
Both couples worked together in trimming my big trees and clean-up of my yards - with the husband of the first couple giving orders that I sometimes countermanded. He does have enough respect for me to listen, but it wasn't without a fight. Eventually he did grudgingly admit I was right in most cases.
Love both couples - just have to make my wishes very clear in the one situation and then be as insistent as a very independent old broad (74) can be - and that is VERY INSISTENT!!
I am so tired of these articles that perpetuate a myth that women are subservient or have any inadequacies, and the basis here is the ability to maintain eye contact?
Eye contact in some cultures can be interpreted as rude or aggressive but more important people who are confident about their ideas speak up.
Plenty men lack confidence or even interest and don't speak up at business meetings, I've witnessed it personally. It comes down to culture and temperament. Why not just write an article that focuses on eye contact rather than adding the gender twist, based on some study?
ALSO Maybe we should consider what the qualities are of the people and families who currently 'OCCUPY' positions of power and prestige in our world and ask ourselves whether or not these are honest people? And do we want more of them?
As you stated, power is the ability to inspire and evoke change, however, your tag about empowering individuals to “live a free life without violating the freedoms of others” is not relevant to the subject, and has some strange religious or even anti-establishment concepts inter-woven. I am not saying it is a bad idea, only that it is more about individual choice and control over oneself rather than influence over others.
But, my main concern about your comment is when you indicate fatigue over the presentation of articles that perpetuate the subservient/inadequate woman myth, and that the conclusions within those articles are supported by poor or limited eye contact: if referring to this article, you missed the mark. Ms. Grufferman did not say women are subservient or inadequate; she did say that a presentation by a noted Professor indicated that one of the markers – specific eye contact patterns during social interactions – tend to be perceived by men as a sign of subservience.
That in itself supports the negative problem reflected in Dr. Valian’s gender stereotype “schema,” but is not at all causally complete; as Ms. Grufferman indicated, there are other molehills. The status of many women, even in this age of “enlightenment” is the result of the “death by a thousand small cuts.”
I am sure she believes in the potentials and “adequacies” of women… that is what she is all about!
Respectfully,
Lawson Meadows
You think my ideas are strange and anti-establishment? Thank you.
But religious?
My comment on living a 'free life without violating the freedoms of others' is based on the criminal code.
Many dominant businesses and political power positions in our society participate in ongoing violations of the criminal code, environmental law, sound banking practices and international law. Why do we want to worship the power positions that direct these companies? IF you haven't noticed it's a system that is inherently leading to many problems the world over.
We need to ask the right questions.
As a female entrepreneur and founder of a tech company, I've come to the conclusion that the reason why women are not promoted as often as men into these said 'Power' positions or that they don't receive as much venture capital comes down to mirror neurons.
The discovery of mirror neurons supports the idea that it's easier to identify and understand one's own gender, race or culture. Being able to identify with someone results in building more trust and confidence over time in a work environment.
It has been a slow turn over for women as with black men or black women to occupy these said 'power positions', because the people passing the baton to the next generation have been mostly been white men.
Be sure to download my FREE 'ArtCards by Elizabeth Boylan' iPhone app or visit my anti-establishment blog elizabethboylanDOTcom!
I realize I'm going to be flamed all over the map for saying this, but I honestly think that most women are less interested in power than most men.
Knowledge is power and the freedom to choose how we spend our time is power, no matter what our gender is.