Crucial Followups

GFR semi-answers my question about gender balance in traditional media to gender balance in blogs, but says you can't really do direct comparisons because the structures are different. Here she says:

My experience in Washington is that virtually every woman who is in charge of anything has a reputation as either crazy or a bitch. It’s really striking how many times people preface their remarks about women leaders to me with, “She’s crazy, but,” as a kind of apologetic move they feel is necessary before they can quote a female figure, and as if they would somehow be tainted by quoting or referring to her without first running her down. It’s a tiresome tic.

But this, sure, has nothing in particular to do DC or political circles in particular rather than the treatment of women in leadership roles in general. If anything, I've found this somewhat less true of Washington than of other places where people are less politically conscious.

Comments

Here's my theory:

To get to the top of an organization, it takes certain personality traits which are seen as positives in men, but negatives in women. (Drive, ambition, competitiveness, etc.)

The double standard is obviously a problem, but the question, I think, is if we should see these traits as positive in anybody, or negative in anybody.

Personally, I vote the latter.

Posted by Karmakin | August 11, 2007 2:15 PM

This seems to be the opposite of most of my experience from non-profit and community activist organizations, in which men and women both seemed to have an extra reverence and admiration for the kick-ass, super-brave women who often led them.

This wasn't universal, but it was pretty common.

Posted by El Cid | August 11, 2007 2:51 PM

http://whippersnapper.wordpress.com/2007/08/11/assertive-women-girls/

I don’t have to ton to add to the entire blogosphere diversity debate, except that anyone who’s surprised that a solitary, narcissistic activity like blogging that involves early and enthusiastic use of technology is heavily male hasn’t really been paying attention for the entire history of the internet, but I digress.

Posted by jonathan | August 11, 2007 3:01 PM

I don't know about you, but after TPM, I think firedoglake is the most informative thing going on the internets. Go over there and see what they have to say about this male dominance thing.

Posted by bloix | August 11, 2007 3:18 PM

One explanation could be that these women are in fact crazy and/or total bitches since those people, whether men or women, may be more likely to rise to the top...I would doubt we should cut these women more slack on the grounds of it being sexist as some believe but instead cut the men who have those same traits less slack and come up with more negative feedback on them as well as on the women....Down with all crazy bitch-like beings, whether female or male...

Posted by v | August 11, 2007 4:47 PM

What about Pelosi? I'm not a DC person, so I guess I'm not privy to the real DC-insider gossip, but I've never heard her described as either crazy or a bitch, at least no more so than any other prominent politician.

Posted by Glenn | August 11, 2007 5:18 PM

A couple of commenters have suggested that the “crazy bitch” characteristics that make for managerial success are well regarded in men and ill regarded in women. I think these people have it backwards. Among those responsible for determining the career success of others, “crazy bitch” characteristics are ill regarded in men and well regarded in women. That is why the women who succeed are “crazy bitches”. Consider the observation that, among men in general, “crazy bitch” characteristics (by whatever name) are much more common than they are among women in general. Given those base rates, one would expect that such characteristics would be much more common among men in successful managerial roles than among women in such roles. If anything, the reality is the other way around: male bosses are, on average, nicer and more indulgent than female bosses. I would suggest that being a crazy bitch is the way to get through the glass ceiling.

Posted by knzn | August 12, 2007 11:41 PM

I think that there may also be some regional/local effects to the women as leaders stereotype. Anecdotally the West coast seems to be more open to women as leaders than the East coast (establishment). In fact I think it would be very interesting to compare rates of women in leadership postions of east coast vs west coast institutions. Another interesting question is how many of the "top" female bloggers in the netroots are located on the West coast.

Posted by RebeccaS | August 12, 2007 11:46 PM

Bloggers and managers or bosses aren't exactly the same thing. Bloggers ought to be judged by the quality of the material they produce, while bosses ought to be judged the the quality of the material their organization produces and the conditions within said organization.

But if we're talking about bosses, a rather depressing survey I remember seeing noted that a high number of managers, both male and female, were the stereotypical yellers and autocrats, and these people seemed to actually rise higher faster the more autocratic and "crazy" they appeared. So despite some lip-service otherwise, many of the higher ups in the world still think that's what it takes to be "boss"--perhaps because a number of them are like that themselves. Of course, the best leaders are neither wimps nor crazy.

Posted by JMS | August 13, 2007 12:33 PM