More than you might think.
Especially for women, who are often sabotaged by words in ways most of us don't even recognize. Language, says Santa Clara University professor Laura Ellingson, an expert on gendered communication, can shape our thoughts and perceptions, uphold double standards, and reinforce stereotypes.
Half the time, we don't even notice.
All this came to mind this weekend when I came across a piece in the New York Times by business writer Phyllis Korkki, who explored the reasons why women's progress into the top tiers of the workforce had stalled. Many of those reasons related to entrenched -- and often unconscious -- sexism. No real surprises there. But one paragraph in particular caught my eye:
[Ilene H. Lang, president and chief executive of Catalyst] maintains that unintentional bias is built into performance review systems. Words like "aggressive" may be used to describe ideal candidates -- a label that a man can wear much more comfortably than a woman.
One of the first contenders in my double-standard category -- after aggressive, of course -- is "ambitious". An ambitious man is the type of guy most parents want their daughters to marry. But an ambitious woman? Think Miranda Priestly in "The Devil Wears Prada." The media tell us ambitious women are calm, cold and conniving. They not only lose their friends, but their bedmates, too. Which may be why, as longtime Vanity Fair contributing editor Leslie Bennetts once wrote in a piece titled "The Scarlet A" in Elle magazine, owning our ambition may be the last taboo:
Over the past three decades, I've interviewed some of the world's most celebrated women: queens and princesses, senators and rock stars, moguls and movie legends, first ladies and fashion titans. Some were barracudas whose appetite for power would make Machiavelli look like a pushover, but only one ever owned up to being ambitious.
Santa Clara University communication professor Charlotta Kratz, whose area is the portrayal of minorities in the media, points out that performance evaluations are often based on the measurement of what are generally considered to be male traits. Organization -- think linear thinking -- is one. Another is the fact that while women process -- we talk things through -- men act. "Process is female, action is male, and the female talk gets looked down upon as unnecessary," she says.
True, that. And then there are words used to characterize our moods. When a male colleague goes wiggy on us, we're likely to say "he's lost it." As in, momentary aberration. When a woman does the same, however, she's often dismissed as "emotional" (read: bad). Or "menstrual" (read: worse). Or even menopausal (read: worse yet). In any case, not to be taken seriously.
Let's not forget the tear factor. When Speaker of the House John Boehner wept on "60 Minutes" a while back, he was "sensitive." When Secretary of State Hilary Clinton cried back in 2008 when she was on the campaign trail, she was portrayed as "emotional" -- there's that word again -- as in, not presidential.
Other double standards have to do with parenthood. As we point out in "Undecided", studies show that a female employee who wears her mom-hood on her sleeve is likely to be perceived as a flight risk. Other studies, however, show that when a man plays the dad card, his stock often rises. He becomes a "family man". To wit: what a guy! What's funny is that when that same mom stays home with the kids while dad takes a business trip, she's, well, home with the kids. Turn the tables, and dad is babysitting.
Language slaps our personal lives into submission as well: A woman without a mate is either unmarried -- as in, poor thing -- or a spinster. Ugh. A man in the same boat, however, is single. Or better yet, a bachelor. We all know what that means. He's a catch. Throw sex into the equation and we've got another humdinger of a double standard. When it comes to bedroom action, as Jessica Valenti wrote in the first essay of her book of the same name: "He's a stud, she's a slut." Enough said.
The list goes on. When a man takes charge, especially in the boardroom, he is forceful. A good thing. When a woman does the same, especially at home, she's often called controlling. Likewise, when a man pushes his staff to the limit, he's a good leader. His female counterpart? Excuse the term: A ball-breaker. Even clothing carries it's own weight. As Ellingson points out, when a male prof wears an old pair of jeans to class, he's cool. When a woman does the same: sloppy.
Back to that piece in the New York Times, Korkki hits on another double standard that comes to kick us in the bank account: the ability -- or lack of same -- to self-promote. It's a plus for men, who are expected to "showboat a little." But women? Not so much. We're expected to be modest, to praise others instead of ourselves. Or else we'll take a dive on the likability scale. Which might, in fact, jeopardise our position. But you know what's coming next: if there's a promotion to be had, you can guess who's most likely to get it.
Ahem. Word.
Follow Barbara & Shannon Kelley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@undecidedbook
You can make anybody feel like a victim if you talk about it enough. For example in the face of the worst economy in generations we have the wealthy feeling like they are victims. Look to fox news for the correct ways to address them using wealth sensitive language.
The point of the article, and my post, was that we need to stop using gendered descriptives. If you are unable to address that point, please do not respond to my comments. You are not adding anything to the conversation when you avoid addressing the stated issues.
You're off the hook with this one, ed. A new low even for you. Don't you see what you're saying here? That the way to treat men as equals is to insult men the worst way possible - by calling them women! If being a woman is seen as something degrading and insulting, then CLEARLY we still have a fundamentally sexist society.
I'm glad to see someone else calling you out. I think most people just ignore you at this point. Month after month you write the same post and nothing budges your perspective. Your obsession with this topic indicates that it is a matter of personal importance to you. Why not try and let your thinking EVOLVE from the ongoing dialogue? Think about it. Why keep talking about the same topic when you're immune to being influenced by anyone else's point of view?
Men have been waging war, exploiting resoursces and human labor, taking slaves, and the rest of the mess that has gone on for thousands of years. Considering the time line from barefoot and pregnant situation that women faced for thousands of years and their lack of social power, voting, all in all, on that time line, the situation for women has advanced rapidly.
With women on the supreme court, federal court,congress, state legislature, in positions of corporate power, numbers in college, in that frame work compared to opportunities that most females confronted just a few generations ago, changes have been significant. Considering that opportunities that exist today for young girls as compared to what their grandmothers/great grandmothers faced, life is light years ahead. In another generation or so women will be eqaully responsible for war, famine, enviornmental damage, and the rest of the ills the world and humans face. It won't be that long and women will no longer be able to blame it those damn men.
Those who command respect don't require a steady stream of reassurance from those around them. I don't know why you think men a receiving all this coddling and special treatment when most of these efforts have been devoted to boosting the self esteem of women. Ironically that reinforces the very stereotypes you are fighting. It's sad you promote men giving women the soft treatment as if they are too weak to manage without male paternalism.
The reason employee evaluations reflect male traits is because those traits are associated with people who are competitive. This is why feminist encourage masculine traits in women so they can be more aggressive and effective in their work. Don't let your antagonism towards males blind you to the their ability to build and lead successful organizations like they have for the entirety of our civilization.
Collaboration is not a female trait it's a human trait. Aggressiveness is not a male trait it's a human trait.
BTW, studies have shown that the few companies that have female CEOs seem to be doing better financially these days. Are they more collaborative or competitive?
Here is a another article that says CEO's with wider faces do better statistically:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031823/Measure-success-Study-shows-width-CEOs-face-predict-companys-financial-performance.html
So we have to be careful playing this game. I think we all are more than happy to accept women are equally capable managers, CEO's and employees.
It's not so much about the characteristics that women attribute to themselves as it is about the perceptions that are placed upon them and how those perceptions can be used against them and limit their opportunities. This also works for men as well, because when men exhibit decidedly "feminine" traits, they are discriminated against as well. I think this article is an attempt to reject those gendered traits and see women and men in the same light.
You often speak of feminist theory but seem unaware that there were movements aimed to free men of stereotypical roles and traits as well. Feminism is not just about equality for women; current feminist theory is geared at equality for all.
Instead of framing this conversation in terms of the work place being a kinder gentler place for us all they would rather make it a women's issue where men need to do special things to make women happy while women are under no obligation to do anything for men. It encourages a climate of entitlement for women and resentment in men.
If men have to treat women as soft creatures with fragile ego's then that hurts women in the long run. Better women learn to manage as the men around them do. Strong women have always existed and they were respected for their strength and competence. They did not require special treatment nor did they expect it. Better to expect more of yourself than to call yourself a powerless victim.
Even if you had a environment with only women these same issues come up. Some women and men are too emotional and would be better served if we told them that such outburst are unacceptable. Telling them to keep a cool head might be a better solution instead of trying to embrace bad male behavior.
What is most exciting about this time is that the double binds are being addressed, as they are in this article. The more we bring voice to discuss the need to reframe, reclaim, and reinvent the best possible way to use language we are ahead of the game.
Sylvia Lafair, author "GUTSY: How Women Leaders Make Change"