Recently, the financial gurus at Motley Fool ran a provocative piece on financial prowess. Their prime assertion: Warren Buffet invests like a girl. Indeed, author LouAnn DiCosmo attributes Buffet's monumental success to his gender-bending ability, doing what women investors have long been shown to do: trade less often, conduct more research, and not limit their investment decisions to numbers alone.
If Buffet's feminine investment strategies have been key to his financial achievements, they mirror what happens when women take the lead in the corporate sector: Catalyst has found that companies with greater numbers of women directors outperformed their peers by 53 percent in return on equity, by 42 percent in return on sales, and by 66 percent in return on invested capital. Astounding what women bring to the table, isn't it?
Leading like a girl isn't only good for business; as the democratic race for the presidential nomination has shown, it's good for practicing politicos as well -- at least if you're a man. The 2008 campaign has been an interesting experiment in gender roles, as Barack Obama's leadership style, oft-touted as feminine, has been largely instrumental in shaping his popularity.
Yet while men seem to be incorporating the best of what women already know and do, women themselves are still feeling the pressure to deny traits associated with their gender to get ahead. From the New York Times to Salon, it has been widely noted that Obama has embraced his feminine side to great effect. Clinton, meanwhile, has often been forced to eschew the same in order to prove that she really is "man enough" for the job -- a stylistic approach, some would argue, that has worked to her detriment.
The lesson? Boys can be boys -- and now they can be girls, too. But attach those en vogue traits to the body of an actual woman and suddenly the dynamic changes. Clinton's dilemma is particularly important to consider because, to some extent, it is the dilemma of all women in leadership. Men can now add the feminine virtues of inclusivity, sensitivity, and an eye towards thinking outside the box, and be lionized for it. Women, however, rarely are given such latitude. They must first prove they are lions -- or risk being tossed aside, and into the den.
Of course, it is a real testament to the women's movement that the embrace of feminine traits is now being espoused by enlightened men -- and that they are being celebrated for it. But what about the women? Under what circumstances can women finally claim these attributes for themselves and not be punished for them?
I am on a crusade to have women risk revealing their authentic selves. As a group who bring important attributes to leadership, who can also be tough and in control, women's leadership, having been honed at the foot on the table, has lessons and positive possibilities for us all. We have made it safe for men to play like the girls. Now is the time to claim our own ability to do the same.
Follow Marie Wilson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/twhp
methinks
being hateful, vengeful, deceitful and aggressive
are traits of both genders,
and methinks
we've had enough of THAT
from both genders
.
Some are no longer HIllary fans as Obama seems to have walked away with the Femininity Prize in Political Astuteness? But pause!... Obama and surrogates have used every (un)feminine trick in the book to 'trash' Hillary! Remember Iowa? Hillary reached her hand over, touched him in a genuinely-felt moment, obvious to us all, and asked: "You do find me likeable, don't you Barack?" Hillary was genuine. Instead, the arrogant neophyte looked sideways at his opponent, in his famously contemptuous 'snubbed you, Hillary' look, saying: "You're likeable ENOUGH, Hillary...."
He snubbed her at GW's Speech, when he was caught sneering, contemptuously turning to look away from her--an "Obama Snub" moment immortalized and debated ad nauseum at the View --bucking the trend of MSM official anti-Hillary Policy!. Jesse Jackson Jr. (Barack's campaign co-chair, Iowa) questioned if it would be "attractive" for "Obama to knock down a White woman like O.J. Simpson did..."! Yet Hillary's campaign did not go after this incendiary commentary...Don't forget Obama's atrociously misogynist comment throwing his grandmother (who actually never said she was afraid of blacks when catching the 6:30 AM bus and her unemployed husband didn't feel like driving her ) under the bus of his politically expedient Speech: Hey , grandma's "Just a typical old White woman"!
Yet women are still conned buying into the argument that Obama's 'feminine qualities' make him more attractive presidential material!...
I can't tell you the number of times in my life when I've endured comments that I think "like a man."
Thanks be that I was born petite. LOL*
Otherwise, I'm sure I'd be one of the "bitter" crowd.
I just learned to smile, take it as a back-handed compliment.
Really? You can't be serious. Who exactly has "forced" her to do this? No one. She has chosen this particular leadership style -one that does not work BTW. No one forced her to do so. If she thinks that she has no choice in the matter, then that confirms that she's not the one to lead.
I am a woman who has been in leadership roles. With the exception of my current position, I have always worked for women leaders. The successful ones were the ones who understood leadership concepts (just like Barack Obama) and didn't feel they had to posture (like Hillary).
Still, stuck on the Hillary correlation. I question how much she has been "forced" to exhibit or emphasize masculine traits and behaviors for this race when she has in fact seemingly been rewarded for her moments of vulnerability (in which there is often great strength) and feminity, regardless of whether those moments were real or contrived. Her poll numbers shot up and her female base came out en masse when she got even the slighest bit emotional and it was perceived that the media and the other candidates were piling on her. I'd like to blame Mark Penn, and the questionable advisors she has chosen to surround herself with, but in the end it is her campaign.
Re: Obama's remarks that Hillary is "likable enough" and "can stay in the race as long as she wants"...well, I wish that he hadn't sounded so dismissive but to me these comments are much less of a transgression than Hillary stating that Obama, unlike she and McCain, has failed to meet some non-existent Commander in Chief threshhold or that she and McCain "truly love America" thereby implying Obama does not (but I believe this last one was uttered by Bill during one of his far-too-many off-leash times).
Hillary IS a fighter, and I greatly admire that. But she is a dirty fighter, not in any way adverse to lying, exaggerating, or obfuscating to gain advantage. By invoking and exploiting the sisterhood of women, she embarrasses us all.
I completely understand your argument for women to be allowed to play like men but I also support women because they are women - not men. I whole-heartedly support and very vocally argue for women's full and equal participation in all realms of society as well as the traits that such participation often requires - strength, intelligence, and an utter unwillingness to submit or acquiesce to the oppression of male-dominated culture. I do not, however, support women adopting the worst traits of masculinity - excessive aggression, a win at all costs mentality, and disrespect for others - in order to get ahead and be accepted in the "boys club."
I heard on CNN this morning in passing, maybe in relation to the Buffett story you reference, that the current state of the economy may be attibutable to testosterone because while men often do well initially in investing and managing money due to their generally more aggressive natures, poor performance is the actual long-term trend with such aggressive, performance chasing, emotional investing. Hillary would do well to take note if it weren't already too late.