Women: Darned if They Do, Darned if They Don't

Lisa Belkin added another article in what seems to be a never-ending series about women in the workforce yesterday in her article The Feminine Critique published in the New York Times.

The article explores the existing academic literature on why more women aren't in leadership positions despite moving into the labor force in large numbers over the last three decades. Studies show that "the view of an ideal leader varied from place to place — in some regions the ideal leader was a team builder, in others the most valued skill was problem-solving. But whatever was most valued, women were seen as lacking it."

"Respondents in the United States and England, for instance, listed 'inspiring others' as a most important leadership quality, and then rated women as less adept at this than men. In Nordic countries, women were seen as perfectly inspirational, but it was 'delegating' that was of higher value there, and women were not seen as good delegators."

Hum. . .

Here's some more:

"Joan Williams runs the Center for WorkLife Law, part of the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. She wrote the book 'Unbending Gender' and she, too, has found that women are held to a different standard at work.

They are expected to be nurturing, but seen as ineffective if they are too feminine, she said in a speech last week at Cornell. They are expected to be strong, but tend to be labeled as strident or abrasive when acting as leaders. 'Women have to choose between being liked but not respected, or respected but not liked,' she said."

Double hum. . .

Lastly she reports on studies that show that women simply don't ask for as much money, or are as skilled at wage bargaining as men, as explanations for wage or salary differences.

I wonder, if women acted more like men, and asked for more money, would they actually get it? Or would they be perceived as too masculine?