Bio
Unwilling to fully abandon my Chicago-area upbringing, I live in Manhattan with my husband, my teddy bear, and a 10 lb. rabbit, but insist on calling...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

Recent Comments

I Hate "Positive" Female Stereotypes

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 16
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

I love Ellen Sirleaf Johnson, I really do. As the first female president of Liberia, she has done amazing and wonderful things to heal her country from the violent civil war that destroyed so many lives in the most brutal, animalistic ways possible. I couldn't help but cringe, though, when I read a New York Times article about female peacekeepers in Liberia. President Sirleaf Johnson explained that female peacekeepers bring important qualities to their work:

What a woman brings to the task is extra sensitivity, more caring... I think that these are the characteristics that come from being a mother, taking care of a family, being concerned about children, managing the home.

And here's where my little brain shuts down. Forget the fact that not all women are mothers, and therefore the attributes ascribed to women through motherhood then render some women not women. Even more troubling to me is the idea that the caring people concerned about children are only women. To me, caring is the characteristic of a decent person -- a quality not inherent to any gender, but learned through social interactions, social influence, and environment. If that is not the case, then there is essentially no hope for men. They are brutes and animals, and there's nothing we can do about it.

The day before I came across the article about female peacekeepers in the Times, I nearly threw my copy of New York Magazine across the room when I opened it to a story titled, "What If Women Ran Wall Street?" "NOTHING WOULD BE DIFFERENT," I yelled to my empty bedroom and stomped around in a huff. "Are women not people? Are we somehow immune from the human desires to be powerful and successful and sometimes greedy? ARGH!" Then I swore a lot and weighed my options to flee from the stupidity of the world and live by myself in a cave.

What is hilarious, though, is that the article starts out with two male traders who explain that women they worked with:

... never got ruffled, never got upset... Losing their temper? Never.... Women respond to stress differently... Rather than throwing a phone across the room, they cry.

(Which reminds me why I stopped using Degree deodorant -- the label says, "Extra responsive in emotional moments" on women's sticks, but "Guaranteed odor protection" on men's.) Yes, people, women and men are so different. All due to our brains! Nothing at all having to do with how men are punished for crying and women are punished for being aggressive and taking risks.

But back to the New York Magazine article. See, apparently women only invest in things they understand. But men are reckless fools who like to brag about things, so they pretend to understand things, and that's why there was a financial collapse. I love that none of these people have ever worked with the people I have -- because some of the organizations I've worked for were run by egomanical women with seriously bad tempers. Some even also had children, and were not extra sensitive or overly caring. Sometimes, they even took some crazy risks that didn't pay off. But I guess that just means that they weren't women.

My favorite part of the article, though, is the fifth-to-last paragraph, which notes that not all men are impulsive douchebags involved in territorial pissing contests, and not all women are conservative and rational decision makers. In fact, "being reductionist about hormones and gender is a sure way to misjudge a complicated individual." What? You don't say! It's too bad that the thousands of other words in this article point to why we should be reductionist.

Dudes, I am so over this ludicrous assertion that women are somehow more moral, or nurturing, or logical -- or whatever is considered a good quality due to hormones, or the ability to give birth, or whatever. We are all people. We are profoundly influenced by the social restrictions and permissions under which we live. If women had the same power that men have historically wielded, I don't believe that we'd be any different from them. We are not incorruptible. We don't randomly love fellow people any more. Only when both genders (or all genders; I'm not endorsing only two) can express themselves freely will we be able to see how this really plays out. I look forward to that day.

Other women's thoughts on these topics:

  • 16
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
zofem 5 pts

Dear Suzanne thanks for sharing this piece with us here. I always feel very embarrassed hearing adult and educated men minimizing the role of women, addressing women as the other--who can only do the left-away or works that they allocate. It is so frustrating.

yesterady, as i was reading through a newspaper and there was this article on men who stay at home to do the domestic chore, and according to the author, these men were called 'male housewives'i got so upset with the defination and decription/ affiliation. You can read about my reaction on the article posted on my blog at http://zofem.blogspot.com/2011/08/male-housewives-...

Maria Niles 5 pts

Forget the fact that not all women are mothers, and therefore the attributes ascribed to women through motherhood then render some women not women. Even more troubling to me is the idea that the caring people concerned about children are only women. To me, caring is the characteristic of a decent person -- a quality not inherent to any gender, but learned through social interactions, social influence, and environment. If that is not the case, then there is essentially no hope for men. They are brutes and animals, and there's nothing we can do about it.

And my crush on you just got more massive ... because I'm girly like that ;-)

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/maria-niles )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer )
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ )

Liz Rizzo 5 pts

Here's what I said on Facebook:

"I think of myself as an individual person and if anyone assumes anything about me came naturally with the vagina it makes my skin crawl. I hate that some of my qualities are "masculine" and some are "feminine." Just last week some guy said I have "man in me." No dude, I'm just a person with various individual qualities just like you."

And I will add that as a director, if you show up on my set expecting to be "nurtured" by a director who's acting like the "mother of the set" you are going to be disappointed.

Individualism is the answer!

Liz Rizzo ( http://blogher.org/blog/liz-rizzo )

I blog at Everyday Goddess ( http://everydaygoddess.typepad.com/ ).

Keira 5 pts

(sorry... really bugs me)
My partner is a fabulous, caring, sensitive man. He manages to do the housework, collaborate at home and work (we used to work together before we were a couple), and is frequently better at being patient and inclusive than I am.

He cries, he listens, he cuddles when I do, and he doesn't get inappropriately aggressive. And he doesn't work on it, or feel he is giving up his manhood.

He was just brought up that way.

If there were inherent male properties, I suppose he'd have to be faking it... but i don't think he is.

Keira 5 pts

I share your pain. That stuff drives me bonkers.

I left the WILPF (women's international league for peace and freedom) for exactly that reason. Great bunch of feminist women, but i just couldn't agree that the peace process would be better due to women's involvement because of their inherent caring/sharingness.

A week or so ago my partner and I were at a friend's house, and got into an enormous argument with them about gender being any basis for behavior.

They were actually suggesting that we should go back to considering the family unit as one entity, and that as such, and given that women are 'more caring' and therefor likely to look after children, it shouldn't matter that we earn less on average for the same jobs.

You know, because our husbands can earn for us, and we'll be at home with kids anyway. The fact that there are plenty of childless women, childless couples, lesbian couples, and single mothers didn't seem to have crossed their minds.

Seriously. From otherwise smart people (actual rocket scientists).

vomviersen 5 pts

Or maybe I shouldn't say "damaging," rather that positive stereotypes can be almost as limiting as negative ones, and not just female vs. male.

The Asian "good at math" (I'm not) and "model minority" stereotypes have been a thorn in my side forever.

vomviersen :: Kathi Wilson
http://rottweilers.brilliant-disguise.net/

Chicago, IL

Candelaria Silva 5 pts

I agree with your point but I also think that while a lot has changed, there is still something to our gender proclivities based in our biology. I don't think men and women are exactly the same and will behave in the same way. There are good people, bad people, peaceful people, violent people and most people have both/and. I love being a sensitive and caring, strong and daring woman.

http://blog.candelariasilva.com ( http://blog.candelarisilva.com/ )

Good and plenty!

iamBOSSY 5 pts

Luckily there are plenty of nasty female role models out there to balance out the perception that we are born and live saints.

And most of them are way more visible than Ellen Sirleaf Johnson, who Bossy has never seen on the cover of People magazine, for instance.

We seem to idealize women in one way while celebrating the worst of what womanhood has to offer in another.

You can find Bossy over at her place, i am bossy ( http://www.iambossy.com ). Don't even knock, she's always there.

JenDC 5 pts

You would think that in today' society it is more difficult to make these types of stereotypes about men and women. I do see that women can be more caring as a result of being a mother, taking care of the children, etc. But not all women are or will be mothers and can still exhibit these traits. I think this can also be said for men.

Bu why do women have to have these traits? I feel like women are sometimes judged if they don't exhibit those caring, nurturing, mothering characteristics. Maybe we just can't win in this debate!

Maria Young 5 pts

Loved this post. I've found that many people that reject the 'negative' stereotypes of women still embrace the positive ones and I'm just like...isn't that a bit backwards? The double standard is annoying, to say the least! I'm sure I'm guilty of it to some extent though.

I actually laughed aloud picturing you yell at your New York Times. Haha!

- Maria Young

immoralmatriarch.com ( http://immoralmatriarch.com )

@maria0305 ( http://twitter.com/maria0305 )

Suzanne 5 pts

I don't know. In my whopping 12 years in the workplace, I've worked with some women who are just amazing collaborators, and I've worked with some women who were tyrants. On the flip side, I've worked with some men who were amazing collaborators and some who were tyrants. And it wasn't based on their positions in the organization, either. Some of the best collaborators were in charge and some were minions like me. Some of the worst colleagues I had to deal with were in charge, and some were also minions. I could just work in a weird field, though. Generally, the organizations I dealt with were female-dominated in female-dominated fields anyway, so maybe that's why people were all over the place in terms of how they worked.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com ) and is the author of Off the Beaten (Subway) Track ( http://offthebeatensubwaytrack.com ).

Suzanne 5 pts

It's the whole nature v. nurture thing. Of course there are some differences in how people act based on our biological composition, but we are profoundly affected by the boundaries set for us by society. That's why a strict gender binary is so problematic. Women are not inherently more moral and less greedy or reckless than men - I think Cruella de Ville is a pretty good example of that. :)

It's also true that any place that insists on excluding others who are different for whatever reason sets itself up to the dangers of groupthink. A variety of perspectives should be respected and welcomed as good for business (and politics), not shunned.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com ) and is the author of Off the Beaten (Subway) Track ( http://offthebeatensubwaytrack.com ).

Virginia DeBolt 5 pts

"We are profoundly influenced by the social restrictions and permissions under which we live."

I've been walking around the planet long enough to see plenty of changes in our culture and the way we are influenced by it. It's hard to realize how much that affects behavior. You get it.

Virginia DeBolt
BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/virginia-debolt ) | Web Teacher ( http://www.webteacher.ws/ ) | First 50 Words ( http://first50.wordpress.com )

Denise 8 pts moderator

Hahaha.
I can totally hear you yelling that. ;-)
I can't disagree with you, but at the same time I can't help but see differences in how we work with others and think that some things would be different - sometimes.
That has nothing to do with the false notion that women are more moral or nurturing or logical or more anything else. That's not it at all.
I think it's probably more of a sociological outlook based on our experiences in society. And, the more women move into power positions - and maintain that power, the less likely we are to do anything different at all.
~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )

nowickedwitch 5 pts

"I think that these are the characteristics that come from being a mother, taking care of a family, being concerned about children, managing the home"  ---  may be entirely the case, but as women have fewer families, and take on more traditionally male roles we will see the differences disappear. 

It is environment, not genetics that predicts behavior. I say this, not due to my bias againt essentialism, but from what I have seen and studied.

  Society, culture, and environnent,  are the harbingers of future behavior, and though  women may handle something like war differently than  men, all things being equal — socially, cuturally and environmentally — women would have no less a predilection for war than a man.