As an inquiring feminist and a woman on the cusp of a professional life, I spend a lot of time pondering my relationship to the professional world; where I see sexism, what I find personally rewarding, and perhaps how I will handle the challenges of being a woman in a field dominated by men. A friend recently directed me towards this article, recently in the New York Times, I was interested, and honestly, immediately a little put of by it's focus.
The article, or opinion piece, rather, titled, "A Sisterhood of Workplace Infighting," was written by Peggy Klaus, who runs corporate training program, and it examines, somewhat superficially, the practice of woman-to-woman conflict and competition in the workplace. I was immediately ruffled by the article, because I think that many stereotypes or assumptions of women as catty or nasty to each other are pretty over-blown and generally propagated by men. My experiences as a desk-jockey are pretty limited, but my experiences waiting tables and working retail, as well as being a woman aren't, and I honestly haven't found that women's own cattiness and destructive behavior towards each other is in anyway "one of the last remaining hurdles to gender parity."
This isn't too say that it isn't an issue or that it shouldn't be considered in light of more important workplace discrimination (or that my experiences are universal), but rather, if we are going to examine the woman-to-woman infighting in male-dominant or co-ed working environments, isn't is crucial that we look at the overall patriarchal nature of the environment rather than making sweeping assumptions about the emotionality and reactive behavior of women? The article is heavy-handed on both of these and relies heavily on theories sourced to "some people" unquestioningly.
I think that the article raises many important questions, but mostly indirectly. Reading behind the type, one has to wonder: really how prevalent this is, does it really exceed unproductive competition between men (and men and women), and is focusing on it as a primary reason to why women often have trouble in the workplace (without context) really productive? Unfortunately, the article is not introspective or self-examining, and instead chastises women without supporting their indictment, ultimately greatly undermining its usefulness and productiveness.
Feministing readers, I'd love your thoughts!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Women in the Workplace.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11436
Let me see if I can navigate this properly.
Sociologically (or whatever), I think our expectations work a workplace where men make up the majority of the work-force would be different than a workplace where women make up the majority of the employees.
I think that most people would accept that proposition on its face because men (socially, psychological, et cetera) are generally different in their interactions compared to women.
As an example, the movie Jarhead. My wife went out to see Jarhead with her female family/friends. I saw it separately with my brothers. My wife and her friends where shocked at how overtly masculine the interactions were between all of the characters. As a Marine myself I was able to confirm that yes, that is what being in the Marines is like. And that is what every male dominated field is like.
Compare that with women dominated fields. My mom, sister-in-law and mother-in-law are all nurses, which is still a very female dominated field. All of them complain about the cattiness (their words), back-biting and rumors that occur in each of their separate work-places.
I also had one work-place that was about 70% female and 30% male. The problems that the women had with their cliques and groups never really spilled over into the male spill over into into the male groups and cliques. And the male groups never really had problems with one another.
As for some of the questions posed by the OP:
does it really exceed unproductive competition between men (and men and women)
It doesn't need to exceed unproductive competition between men and women or men and men to be a problem that needs to be worked on.
[I]s focusing on it as a primary reason to why women often have trouble in the workplace (without context) really productive?
I think that acknowledging a problem that women face in the workplace is productive.
As the article pointed out, male work-place bullies are egalitarian in who they torment, but female bullies target women 70% of the time. That, I think is the problem she is trying to get at. Peggy Claus no doubt sees that as a violation of sisterhood. I see it as bullies singling out the weak.
Unfortunately, the article is not introspective or self-examining, and instead chastises women without supporting their indictment, ultimately greatly undermining its usefulness and productiveness.
If we really want to clear one of the last remaining hurdles to gender parity and career success, let’s start treating one another not worse or better, but simply as well as we already treat the guys — or better yet, the way we want our nieces, daughters, granddaughters and sisters to be treated. The article effectiveness is as a call to action. A call for women not to treat one another like shit in the work place. What is wrong with that?The article is a call to sisterhood. It ends with:
As the article pointed out, male work-place bullies are egalitarian in who they torment, but female bullies target women 70% of the time. That, I think is the problem she is trying to get at. Peggy Claus no doubt sees that as a violation of sisterhood. I see it as bullies singling out the weak.
The author only sites one study to claim that 70% of women bullies target other women. She does not give the logistics of the study, the name of the study, or the context of the study. So the figure 70% doesn't necessarily mean anything. 70% of how many women in this study? 5? 1,000? What were the confounds of the study? How was the study performed? Were there any confounding variables that may impact the outcome? How many people were actually in this study?
Another claim Claus makes is:
Research shows that, in general, women are the more empathetic sex and are by nature more attuned to their own and others’ feelings. This is a great advantage when dealing with the human complexities of the workplace. But there’s a downside: If women take things too personally when challenged or criticized, they are prone to overreaction. When that happens, there’s trouble.
That's a bold statement to make without any evidence. She doesn't even bother to cite any of this research. She's giving her opinion and attempting to frame it as fact by using throwing in the word "research".
I think perhaps Claus raises a few good points. But I think her argument is misleading and full of generalizations.
Also, I work in a male dominated field. I work in a research lab and I don't find it to be analogous to Jarhead...
Also, I work in a male dominated field. I work in a research lab and I don't find it to be analogous to Jarhead...
How many people work in the lab with you? You can't get large group dynamics with 5 people. It can be the field, but also the actual work-place is important.
In Jarhead the characters were in a all male squad that is part of an all male platoon, up to all an all male battalion.
In keeping with the nurse example from me mum and in-laws, you are talking about whole hospitals and large sized clinics.
That's a bold statement to make without any evidence. She doesn't even bother to cite any of this research. She's giving her opinion and attempting to frame it as fact by using throwing in the word "research".
The author did tell us that the research group was the Workplace Bullying Institute. A quick search and some surfing led me to the fact that WBI had over 7,700 respondents to it's survey instrument.
http://bullyinginstitute.org/research/wbiresearch.html
If you need even more information you can contact WBI or the research facility. The .PDF is a little skinny when it come's to sampling technique. Probably becuase the .PDF was written for general consumption, not for analysis by sampling wonks.
Also, you have to remember that the article was an opinion piece. You cannot expect the same rigor in explaining socially accepted ideas such as "women are more empathetic" as if the author had 50,000 words to use.
It can also be ok to make generalizations. If you say "men are taller than women" what you are saying is generally true. If you say "women are generally more empathetic then men" I think most people would say you are on strong footing in making that claim. They may bicker about the causes (biological, social) but it is still generally accepted.
Of course, much further than that and we are having a conversation about 'what is really true' and 'can anything be true at all.'
you said:
'Also, you have to remember that the article was an opinion piece. You cannot expect the same rigor in explaining socially accepted ideas such as "women are more empathetic" as if the author had 50,000 words to use.'
She could have said 'women, being socialized into being less aggressive and more caring,' instead of 'women are by nature more atuned to their own and others' feelings.' You don't need 50.000 words to get one of the most basic insights of feminism across. Explaining a difference with reference to culture or nature, why, that does make it difference for the rest of her argument, doesn't it?
The statement I am referring too is that "women are more empathetic" the link I clicked on gives numbers of people who reported they were bullied over an online survey, which has a lot of confounds. I'm not saying she didn't make some decent points that women may be targeted more often by bullies but she cites one study that has nothing to do with empathy and then goes on to claim women are more empathetic. Which is a bold statement.
Men being taller than women is not, in my opinion, analogous to making the generalization that women are more empathetic. Your height, for the most part, is genetically determined. Your level of empathy is a much more complex interaction of social, biological, and psychological factors.
I don't think it's fair to use generalizations such as "women are more empathetic" just because they are socially acceptable. This kind of thinking leads us to believe that generalizations are true and okay to make on many levels. For instance, I could make the generalization that "Asian people are good a math" or "gay men are more feminine" or "men are only interested in sex". All of these generalizations are socially acceptable, but they aren't true. Like Ziggy said, she could just have easily said "women are socialized in our culture to be empathetic", which would be a more thoughtful argument that may get the reader thinking.
Also, yes, I only work with a small number of people. But, you said that all male dominated fields are like Jarhead, and science and research are male dominated but the work is quite different from what you are describing. Hence, it's not like Jarhead.
I referred to workplaces and workfields. You could be in a male dominated field yet still have a female dominated work-place. That should be self evident.
I used Jarhead as an example of an extreme. Male to female ratio in a infantry battalion can be 800:0
Your level of empathy is a much more complex interaction of social, biological, and psychological factors.
Also I think that you can compare 'empathy' and 'height' with generalizations. Height is based off of genetic and nutritional factors. Just becuase the development is more complicated does not mean that the end result cannot be expressed "Generally speaking, women are more empathetic than men"
See, there is no causation in that statement. There is no "why" and there is no value statement in there (unless you wedge on in yourself).
Like Ziggy said, she could just have easily said "women are socialized in our culture to be empathetic", which would be a more thoughtful argument that may get the reader thinking.
Why would the article's author say that when that was not the point of the article? One of the points in the article is woman A should not make woman B miserable just because woman A was miserable when she started working.
No were in that does differential male/female expression and development of empathy come into play.
i've worked in a primarily female office and saw very little, if any "cattiness." i've also worked in primarily male offices and managed to not be nauseated by excessive jarhead/beer commercial type male behavior. so my anecdotal evidence is as good as yours, steven. there's no point in arguing with it.
it's cute that the author even (probably unintentionally) contradicts herself. she writes first that "research shows that, in general, women are the more empathetic sex and are by nature more attuned to their own and others’ feelings" and a few paragraphs later acknowledges how buying into gender essentialist stereotype nonsense is itself harmful, with "but when women are chained to stereotypes of being nurturers and cheerleaders, unexpressed and unresolved feelings of jealousy will surface — often in a far more destructive manner that’s reminiscent of mean-girl behavior from middle school."
steven, as for allowing an absence of citations for generalizations when they are socially accepted, why does that make it somehow ok? at one time it would have been socially acceptable to make statements like "research shows that, in general, white people are smarter than black people." those in power have been using "science" to justify treating certain classes of people unequally since like, forever.
What a delightful perversion of what I am trying to get at.
I am sure many people have had a class somewhere, high school, university, whatever, that covered how to right to different groups.
The finished product for an opinion piece is not written the same as an academic paper or in-depth treatise.
I am sure that the article's author could have gone in-depth about her philosophy of work-place dynamics. But it was an opinion piece and less than 1,000 words (you may be aware that print publications, of which the NYT is, has word limits).
Of course there are simplifications and generalizations when there are only 1000 words to get your point across. And completely throwing out the message the author is getting at is like throwing out a map that is 1:50000 for not being 1:1.
look, i get that it's an op-ed, not a dissertation but that in no way makes her generalizations that are opinion-based any more reality/scientifically-based. she should just say it's her opinion instead of alluding to this mysterious, but no doubt VAST volume of "research."
I'm in the army and this is a huge problem. There are many men in the army who don't think women should be able to serve with them, but none of them has ever given me as much bullsh*t as women do. There's an attitude of "I was harrassed because of my gender, so I'm going to make sure you have it just as hard as I did." Add to it the perception that women can't sexually harass other women, and things can and do get ugly.
I really wish I could find a good mentor, male or female.
I work in a male dominated environment. Some of the women I have worked with come together as a minority group to help each other cope with how difficult the environment is. Some of the women I have worked with are crocodiles who have a pretty smile but come up from the depths to drag you under and gnaw your femur for lunch. I think it's a mistake to assume that a woman will be empathic or sympathetic to other women in male dominated environments. I think it's a mistake to assume that a woman will be empathic or sympathetic, period.
I've been working in the corporate environment for over 15 years now & the running theme with women is hostility.. hostile because they discovered that work is, well, work- it's not fun & games or a place for constant socializing & can be very dreary, mind-mumbing and uneventfull for them. (As a man I don't need these constant external stimuli). So then comes the passive aggressiveness so thick you can cut it with a knife and women will go out of their way to make everyone just as miserable as they are.
As a man I'll let all of you in on a secret- the vast majority of men today don't harbor the old attitudes of my father's generation. Men are not a woman's enemy. A woman's greatest enemy in the workplace is herself and other women.
The new attitude for men today towards women in the workplace is to simply smile at females in the morning- be polite and then completely ignore and avoid them the rest of the day. Women in the workplace are only going to either bring you down or worse if there is any kind of conflict with them they will turn it into a ridiculous and pointless fiasco that could end up getting you fired because their thinking is so 'backbiting'- they are 'anti-team players.' So it's importatnt to avoid women in the workplace just for job security alone.
The good part is that most women are always AWOL one way or another- they're either out 'sick'- have to leave early or come in late, work part time, always taking some kind of leave- whatever the excuse is for whatever reason they just always seem to be gone half the time which is always great so you can just concentrate on work.