Women in Leadership, Those Bitches

A few weeks ago I sat in on an AP Psychology class where the students were discussing an article about gender as it relates to learning, education, achievement. I listened rapt, struck by how much has changed since I was in high school almost 20 years ago (girls out-matriculating boys into college, for example), and how much hasn't (still no female President of the United States). I came back to the class to talk about how my views of myself and my career, as well as my very ambition, have been altered by becoming a mother, and the kinds of thinking I continue to do about my present and future as a woman in a leadership role.

I remember that when my job as school administrator was open (but I hadn't yet thrown my hat in the ring), there was talk among the women in the school's office about preferring that a man take the position. I think if a similar position were open today, and despite my general perception that the women I work with enjoy working with me, they would still profess that they'd rather work for a man. My own empirical evidence suggests that most women would prefer to work for men, at least in theory, no offense intended for some of the real women they've worked for.

I explained to the class that women in leadership are easily characterized as "bitchy" (boy did they love hearing me use that word) and we explored some possibilities why: perhaps women assert more authority than necessary out of a sense that they need to establish it; man in control is a more acceptable archetype; the bossy, nagging woman is too easily associated with familiar "Mom" in her most negative incarnation.

Many of the theories and ideas I attempted to articulate were described in this editorial, which appeared in the paper last week. The author, Pitts, explores why it may be acceptable to the American public both that a woman can ask out loud about Hilary Clinton, "So, how do we beat the bitch?" and that in response, John McCain can laugh without retribution. In his article Pitts admits that perhaps he's part of the problem; he can't imagine himself "cuddling up to" any women in government he can conjure (with Nancy Pelosi, mother of five children, likely being one of Congress's more experienced cuddlers...) But my sense that the public, comprising men and women, is more comfortable with a paternalistic "daddy" president upon whose lap we can collectively cuddle makes me wonder if we aren't all just a little fucked up when it comes to gender and authority.

And I also wonder why, when the general consensus here in America is that we're more developed and progressive, countries like India and Pakistan and Great Britain and Israel and Argentina and Chile and the Philippines have already managed to choose (and survive, somehow) female leaders.

I recoil at the question "Is America ready for a female President?" and at the underlying notion that the election question is simply whether to vote for a man or woman. Would it were that simple, really.