The blandness of women’s empowerment lit
Germaine Greer said, “I didn’t fight to get women out from behind vacuum cleaners to get them onto the board of Hoover.” Ah but you see Germaine, that’s exactly where we’re at now. So how to help women get on boards without succumbing to the mindlessness of the airport business bestseller?
I have stacks of unread popular books on women and leadership by my bed. Probably, you do too. I try to skim them because I want to learn how to be powerful, but sadly, lame business book-speak has infected the women’s empowerment genre. Jargon and overuse of the same old case studies and stats mean of the lot of the popular literature on women and leadership has less impact than it should. Trust me, I wish I could write a bestselling volume on women and power, but as long as I have to read them, I’d like to learn something new, besides the fact that women’s leadership style doesn’t jibe with business culture, which means we don’t make it to the big office as much. Also that we assume more of the childcare and household duties and we don’t network as much and presto! We’re less likely to become power brokers.
I adored Sandra Tsing Loh’s article this month in the Atlantic Monthly, “Should Women Rule?”
In a stroke of genius, Loh compares former White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers’ new book, Why Women Should Rule the World, with that of her contemporary and possible nemesis, George Stephanopoulous. Myers’ argument (which of course I haven’t read yet) is that women should rule because we’re better at so many of the things that make for excellent leaders. But women don’t rule, and Myers uses her own story as an example. Stephanopolous, from the sounds of it, was a complete little shit. And he won. A choice quote from Loh’s article:
So as far as women ruling in politics, the tally would appear to be: Women are smart, principled, professional, cordial—and just a bit dull (and let’s not even go into Nancy Pelosi’s book, Know Your Power, which her press release dubs, with a telling thud, a “keepsake”). Men are conniving, crude, backbiting—and lively. In Myers’s formulation, women leaders are grown-up Girl Scouts who work toward their noble, humanistic (and at the same time, deftly bottom-line-enhancing) goals cheerfully and with just a little bit of moxie.
Perhaps as long as we insist on portraying women who do rule as better than the rest of us, but maybe even a little bit blander, women won’t want to rule. It doesn’t sound like much fun. Maybe it’s all a vast male conspiracy to keep us chicks down! I loved Loh’s analogy of ruler Sally Ride once she’d been through Karl Rove’s lens:
So while Myers’s estimable high-minded-ness about women is understandable for a person who cites, as youthful inspiration, Sally Ride (though God help Sally if she ever decided to enter politics! Under a Rove whisper campaign, even Sally’s thrilling career would be brought down to a fishy silt: “You know those female astronauts—as they age, they get desperate! Lonely! Infatuated! They’ll drive 40 hours! In diapers! Click link to see the funny cartoon Rush Limbaugh just photoshopped!”), if we want women to compete as rulers, I began to think, shouldn’t we be able to do everything men do, succeeding if need be as competitive, manipulative, backstabbing, foulmouthed egomaniacs?
Hillary Clinton had too much of the Girl Scout in her public persona this cycle, and she paid for it. By the end of her campaign, Hillary had absolutely no edge. She too came across as a business book case study, or what Loh terms, “an in-flight magazine profile.” Sarah Palin of course, had none of these qualities, so while Palin repulsed many women, enough thought she was cool and even more men just thought she was a MILF. Now, it turns out, she may have been backstabbing and manipulative enough to compete with the big boys. Good for her??



