Females, ranting

So Clay Shirky wrote this rant about women. Uh oh! Basically, he’s all mad and disappointed with us, because you guys! We’re not being obnoxious and aggressive like men are! We’re not demanding attention and lying about our abilities and getting in people’s faces enough!

I don’t want to make him sound like a total dick--I think his intentions were honorable enough--but he’s misguided and apparently completely in the dark about how much most of us hear this shit. Deanna Zandt brilliantly articulates the wrongheadedness of his argument, and you should read her post. Deanna designed the Let’s Panic site, and one of the best things about 2009 was getting to know her. Her response is a lot smarter and more inspiring and positive than anything I could conjure up, so you should read it in its entirety, but here’s a snippet:

Asking women to be more like men (which is different than what Shirky claims we're doing when we ask men to be "sensitive" and "listen" — that's just asking for a little humanity, there) falls on a spectrum of prescribing feminine behavior that is dangerous and unhealthy. We're putting the onus on women to fit themselves into a culture that doesn't value them enough to begin with.

Anna North over at Jezebel also had some great things to say, and while reading these two posts I just felt more and more stupid that I couldn’t manage anything smarter than ALICE SMASH. Ah, well. We’re lucky we have these other people to say it for us!

This "change-yourself-to-fit-in" advice has been given to pretty much every marginalized group over the years, and it sticks around because, for some individual people, it works. But those people still have to work within the existing power structure. The harpy/diva/bitch archetype isn't going to go away because a few women are allowed to sneak around it, and the culture of rewarding self-promotion above other qualities isn't going to become fair for everyone just because a few women manage to share the pie. Those who are marginalized by a system are often those best able to see its flaws, and teaching those people just to work around their marginalization is a great way to keep them quiet, and to keep anything from ever changing. Let's not fall for it.

Look at how shy and timid these women are! OH, WHY CAN’T THEY SPEAK THEIR MINDS?

I wanted to share a story with you, something that was stirred out of the dusty crevices of my mind when I read Clay’s post. When I was at Wellesley, I took this Shakespeare seminar that was taught by the college’s most popular English professor. In addition to a larger lecture-type class, we broke out into smaller discussion groups, which he led. Anyway, Wellesley, in case you don’t know, is a women’s college. What you also may not know is that students from MIT and Harvard can and do take classes there. And by “students” I mean “guys.” There were always one or two MIT guys in the English classes, and there was one in my discussion group. And oh, this guy was a blowhard. He completely dominated this group of maybe 10 or so women. He was the first to respond to every question; he started up gratuitous arguments and cast forth his opinions like they were inarguable and he basically annoyed the everliving shit out of all of us. And, I’ll admit, he was intimidating. He was aggressive and didn’t seem to care that his opinions sometimes made no sense, and anyone who challenged him was treated with a torrent of bullshit—as if the quantity of his words could make up for the absence of meaning.

A few weeks into the class, I met with the professor to discuss a paper I was working on. All he wanted to talk about, however, was why I couldn’t be more like the guy who was in the class. Why all of us couldn’t be more like that guy. He seemed to actually admire this asshole, and he regarded our failure to shout him down as our collective failing. As if he didn’t have some responsibility to manage the discussion or encourage a variety of opinions.

He seemed horrified, and pitying. “One man in the class, and you all shut up,” he said. A few times. So basically the only solution he could see was that we all emulate the asshole in the class. If we were all like him, we wouldn’t have a problem, and would have nothing to complain about. That was, oh, twenty years ago, and it is indeed wearying—and not surprising— that Mr. Shirky is still propagating the same nonsense.

In conclusion—here, let’s all help Haiti some more, shall we? I’d like to encourage you to donate to Partners in Health—which, incidentally, is run by fellow Wellesley Alum Ophelia Dahl. A WOMAN. How did she manage that? So curious.

Comments

[Suzy]

***Look at how shy and timid these women are! OH, WHY CAN’T THEY SPEAK THEIR MINDS?***

He clearly doesn't know any women in show business.

His critiques of women do not in any way apply to me and my ilk. I said ILK!

[Alice Bradley]

STOP BEING SO SHY, SUZY. Get out of the shadows! 

[Alex]

As a fellow alumna, I am wildly curious to know which professor that was. While you were reading Shakespeare, I was over in the Science Center, and I've had many discussions about whether women's lack of success in the hard sciences is due to the same damn thing: the inability to be a pushy jerk. Strangely, I also know a lot of men who are not aggressive assholes and who don't like this behavior either. Imagine that.

[J M]

And this is why the jerk running the Shakespeare class needed to sit down and read Mary Daly and any of the other radical feminists who talk about women's space and the way women interact. Rar.

[melissa]

I think perhaps if women were...liars? more like men?...as he seems to desire, he might be out of a job. So perhaps he should be careful what he wishes for.

[birdgal]

The question I asked myself after reading Clay Shirky's post was a simple one: did I WANT to be a 'pompous blowhard' and/or take the kind of risks that might land me in jail? The answer was also very simple: Hell. No.

[Gwynne]

I can't imagine wanting to emulate a behavior I detest and don't admire in the least. Shirky's rant seems to forget there's a difference between being confident and self-assured and being "willing to risk incarceration to get ahead." I'm with birdgal on this one. Hell, no.

[Michelle]

I just don't think it's as black-and-white as many seem to be suggesting. There are several degrees of difference between forcing yourself to be a noisy blowhard and toiling away in darkness and obscurity.

For me the heart of Shirky's argument came from his anecdote about the former student who (gasp!) dared to reach out and bring her work to the attention of a reporter. That didn't sound to me like being an aggressive blowhard; she was just actively making sure her efforts were on the radar. Yet how many women do you know who, when asked by a reporter (or recruiter, or whatever) for the name of someone doing awesome work, would think to suggest themselves?

[Andrea A]

I didn't go to a women's college, but I did go to a liberal arts college where women dominated the campus. and we had such a blowhard ass hole. he would somehow end up inexplicably in all my classy, doze through half the lectures. then pipe in forcefully with some asinine to say, mostly (I'm sure of it) to piss us all off. the only solace I have is that most of my profs were also women and barely tolerated him. I even once watched a professor have to leave the classroom in order to control her anger.

[hi kooky]

His is a classic case of self-centered thinking: "Everybody should do it the way I do it." (yawn)

Pompous blowhards tend not to notice that plenty of respectful, considerate people accomplish important things too. (Pompous blowharding(?) can be very noisy and distracting.) They also tend to have a hard time understanding why someone might not want to join their circle of pompous blowhard buddies.

Leave them to their folly, I say.

[Rachel]

Gah! I don't know how much more of this crap I can take! Just last week at work my male boss was giving me a hard time, but he even admitted he didn't know what for. I work harder than almost all my coworkers, I have had success in all my endeavors there, but he just said he wanted MORE, but he didn't know what he wanted more of. "Passion?" he said. "Energy?" But he admitted I had both of them. What he hesitated to say is that he wanted me to be more in-your-face...LIKE A MAN. Sorry dude, I don't think I have to pretend to be someone I'm not in order to be successful. I am successful, and if you can't recognize that it's your own pig-headedness getting in the way.

Grr.

Thanks for the post, I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way!

[Tina]

WOW...like you, I am at a loss. My brain is overloaded with all kinds of spirited and intelligent things to say and it just won't come out with the rage this guy invokes in me. That being said, since when is being an ASSHOLE to get ahead a positive character trait? Since when is that something to aspire to? And as for ROLE MODELS? Claiming that women have no role models to teach us to grow a back bone and be tough is the most ignorant comment I have ever heard. The list of women who risked their lives and their reputations is miles long. I'd like to give this guy a lesson in how my mother juggled 2 jobs and 2 kids while fleeing an abusive marriage to get what she needed for us. She lied to get a good job. At 5 feet tall and 90 pounds dripping wet she was lifting her own weight in a manual labor job in a factory so that she could get decent pay and benefits. She literally broke her back to get there and put up with the asshole remarks of men 3 times her size on the job everyday. How insulting to claim that women would be more ahead in life if we were more like men? Equal rights for women in this country is still very new. Isn't that similar to blaming any other oppressed group for situations of inequality? What a jackass. Must stop fuming...sorry to vent....

[Sarah]

First time commenter, long time reader.

This is a subject close to my heart so it is hard for me to resist saying my two cents. As a student I sat in on an inspirational speaker for women at a Professional Development Conference put on by my university. I am sad to say that this woman preached to us the same sort of propoganda that Shirkey touts in his weblog. How disappointing, for me as a student and as a woman. I remember struggling what to put on her evaluation form. She obviously had good intentions, but what I learned from her is that my highest goal in life should be to be more like a man. I am sure she would have put it differently, but that is what she said to a room full of mostly women passionately interested in working in a female-domintated field.

Anyway, I could go on, but I also want to say I appreciate being given some leads on some other, less mysoginistic, perspectives on the subject . . . and that you, Alice, as a person (who happens to be female) and as a writer . . . rock.

[Elizabeth_K]

It's sad that I am a bit of a blowhard/pushy/willing to lie woman and I still get a bit shoved aside, not to mention being called a bitch. I loved your view --- it was the PROFESSOR who should have controlled the class, not the blowhard.

[Erin]

The qualities he is discussing have nothing to do with gender, they're simply personality traits. Some women are outgoing, ambitious, and competitive. Some men are demure, highly emotional, and doormats. All he's doing is publicly admitting that he hasn't come into contact with many females who possess the personality traits he describes. It's not bad or good, it just means he leads a sheltered life. My guess is that he has spent very little time in economic communities different than his own, around large groups of women in other countries (specifically non-Western nations), among women of age groups different than his, and probably has few female friends. His initial basis for an argument is flawed -- personality and gender are not the same thing.

[Sassy Molassy]

Okay, I'm with you, I really really am. But when you talk about the class and the prof saying "One man and you all shut up," it just makes me wonder, did you all shut up? Because isn't there a difference between not acting like as big a dickwad as that guy, and telling that guy he's a dickwad?

[Alice Bradley]

That's the thing, SM, it wasn't even really accurate. He dominated the room, but it's not like we were totally silent... 

[Aimee Greeblemonkey]

Rock.

[Julie @ The Mom Slant]

Love this. Also loved the final line in Reason.com's analysis of Shirky's piece: "So I'm not sure we have a problem, other than the ancient problem that men continue to give women something they don't need: advice."

[Jen]

I love that the solution that men have for this "problem" is to implement their "solution." That is, "make the same argument, but louder. Lather, rinse, repeat." It's never, "slow down and listen." So, it's my fault, as a woman, that 50% of having a conversation is listening and he's failed at half the task? I'm pretty sure that makes him incompetent - not the other way around.

[Kari]

Bahaha, "Alice smash" made my day.

[Melodie]

Personally, I am happy I am not an "arrogant self-aggrandizing jerk." I agree with Kari - Alice Smash was hilarious!!

PS. I could barely get through Shirky's entire article... it was so long and drawn out. Why with all the laundry, cooking and cleaning I have to do - I just don't have the time to read all that nonsense! nyuck nyuck

[Isabelkallman]

Gosh-- that Shirky post made me livid.

Here is the comment i left for mr. shirky:

"Wait. Someone actually pays you to teach students?

You’re promoting moral hazard as a virtue. It’s because of this attitude of “i just don’t care” and wanton risk that we’ve had to deal with major financial crises stemming from LTCM (in the late 90s) and most recently the mortgage crisis. Gah.

Lots of (*cough*) men were in over their financial heads and couldn’t admit that they didn’t understand what they were dealing with. Result? almost global financial collapse both times (since i was in the industry long enough i can say with confidence that the vast majority of the executives in charge of this stuff were men– Zoe Cruz tried to sound the warning bell about the latest crisis and was fired for being too “risk averse.” BAH!)

Your argument sucks because you use the examples of careless risk takers and con artists to advocate for better self-promotion by women. Really? I would think you would be more skilled at getting your point across. (unless this is a big joke?)

(Your example of the female student touting her work to the journalist is completely different. She was confident in her work and wasn’t afraid to tell someone in a simple and professional manner. Now that is something I can get behind.)

Writing this was definitely a risk, and not your best at all."

[magpie]

I'm a little at a loss for words, not having read Shirky, and not having had that kind of experience at Wellesley (I don't remember any men in my major classes, ever).

More and more, as I get older and more curmudgeonly or something, I think that women are going to rule the world. Just because. The Shirkys feel like a last gasp of the old boys.

And - I love your hat tip to Dahl and PIH.

[k]

Sorry to interrupt this lovey-dovey agree-fest, but I think you're all sounding a bit hoity-toity here.

His point is clear and right, once you realize he's using hyperbolic language (pompous blowhard - come on, now, are you really going to take that seriously?). After all, men can be spirited and clever, too!

What he's saying is that self-deprecation and trying to kowtow to what negative things other people MIGHT POSSIBLY think about your actions results in a lose-lose situation:

"To put yourself forward as someone good enough to do interesting things is, by definition, to expose yourself to all kinds of negative judgments, and as far as I can tell, the fact that other people get to decide what they think of your behavior leaves only two strategies for not suffering from those judgments: not doing anything, or not caring about the reaction."

And, judging from the fact that almost all of you disagree with his strategy and almost all of you are ladies, I think his gender observations might be right, after all. (I'd like to point out, however, that his gender comments are DESCRIPTIVE, and that he's clearly making no normative claims.)

It really seems like everyone here is just jumping at the chance to be offended. That's what closes down fruitful discussion, people. I'd rather talk to a totally insensitive person who makes AND RECEIVES bold claims in stride than a sensitive person who can't see past their own sensitivities to really engage in a conversation.

Ok, ok, now I'm on a soapbox. Stepping down...

;)

[sac]

I think Shirky is exactly right, although he didn't make the best argument by using the main character from Six Degrees of Separation as an example. A better example is the one Shirky tells of himself as a college freshman. He wanted something, he knew he wasn't fully qualified for it, so he lied a bit to get in the door and learned on the job.

I can relate (a lot) to that. It's pretty much how I started my career. I think that is the kind of behavior Shirky wished he saw in more women. Of course, not every woman is averse to this behavior, just like not every man comes to it naturally. But in general, I think the gender difference Shirky describes is accurate.

This behavior is not always an objectively good thing for the group. But it's effective. I suppose it's up to the individual to decide which is more important: the process or the goal. And fretting about it does no good, as Alice's example of the Shakespearean blowhard shows. In that instance (and I'm going by your description, I'm sure there's more to it), an entire class was intimidated by one dude who not only wouldn't shut up, but more importantly, spoke as if his opinion was fact. Imagine if that was met with equal force. He wouldn't have been allowed to dominate the discussion.

So I think Shirky was merely saying that it's a fact that a lot of guys are over-confident, risk-taking and ambitious. In light of this, what is the best course of action for women to compete with them?

[Aimee Giese]

Oh. Um. I forwarded this to some co-workers. Let's just say that asshole is now considered "NSFW."

[sac]

Aimee, what about Shirky's post did you disagree with?

[sac]

This is pure conjecture, but I'd be willing to bet that Ophelia Dahl, the woman who runs Partners in Health, has many of the nasty awful qualities that Shirky writes about. You can't get much done without them, in my experience.

[Alice Bradley]

Sac, I must second your question to Aimee. I think calling him an asshole isn't really accurate, nor is it conducive to further discussion. 

As for saying that if the blowhard had been met with equal force, he would have been shut down: the reason I brought it up is that it was incredibly dispiriting, at a women's college, to find that the stereotypically masculine WHOEVER SHOUTS THE LOUDEST WINS model was totally embraced, and that it was OUR fault for not rising to the challenge. It was stupid and exhausting. And while we didn't sit there in total silence, those who DID try to shut him down were just ignored by the teacher. 

And Sac, I get tired of being told "be more like men!" because every time we ARE more like men we're labeled harpies and bitches. Every time. 

[Alice Bradley]

That IS pure conjecture, Sac. Way to go! But do you really mean the "nasty, awful" things, because while I didn't know her at Wellesley, I knew people who did, and from what I heard she was lovely. If you mean horrible qualities like "confidence," well, okay then. What's your point? 

Can you see how it might chafe to have a man (Shirky, or you, in this case) tell us ladies how to behave? I'm not saying his points are all completely out of left field, but do you see how infuriating it might be, while everything around us tells  women to behave and shut up and look pretty and be thin and not complain, how every time we speak up we're knocked down, for a guy to say, "Hey, you know what you women should do? You should speak up!" 

[Alice Bradley]

That IS pure conjecture, Sac. Way to go! But do you really mean the "nasty, awful" things, because while I didn't know her at Wellesley, I knew people who did, and from what I heard she was lovely. If you mean horrible qualities like "confidence," well, okay then. What's your point? 

Can you see how it might chafe to have a man (Shirky, or you, in this case) tell us ladies how to behave? I'm not saying his points are all completely out of left field, but do you see how infuriating it might be, while everything around us tells  women to behave and shut up and look pretty and be thin and not complain, how every time we speak up we're knocked down, for a guy to say, "Hey, you know what you women should do? You should speak up!" 

[sac]

"And Sac, I get tired of being told "be more like men!" because every time we ARE more like men we're labeled harpies and bitches. Every time."

Two things:

1) There's a difference between harping and walking around like you own the place. Now, I should mention that aside from lying my way into my profession, I have none of the assertive, aggressive qualities that Shirky writes about. But you can't deny they are effective, and effectiveness is the point.

2) The passage that k quotes is also relevant here:

"To put yourself forward as someone good enough to do interesting things is, by definition, to expose yourself to all kinds of negative judgments, and as far as I can tell, the fact that other people get to decide what they think of your behavior leaves only two strategies for not suffering from those judgments: not doing anything, or not caring about the reaction."

Your experience in that Shakespeare class was "dispiriting" so the class let the one guy run over them? This scenario only reinforces the stereotypes bandied about regarding women's colleges as being isolated from the outside world.

However, I agree, I don't want women to "be like men" either. Not at all. Gender differences are fantastic. But, I don't think a woman adopting certain aggressive qualities in the workplace is trying to be like a man any more than a man learning to talk about his feelings and listen better to his partner's is a man trying to be like a woman (and let me tell you, that is LEARNED behavior for most men, myself included).

I think Deanna Zandt's statement regarding this comparison is telling. She writes:

"(which is different than what Shirky claims we're doing when we ask men to be "sensitive" and "listen" — that's just asking for a little humanity, there)"

I couldn't disagree more. Being "sensitive" and "listening" in the way she means is, to most men, downright counter-productive. It gets in the way of...wait for it...solving the problem. At least in most men's eyes. However, as any man in a long-term relationship knows, you better give a little in this case and know that "solving the problem" means something TOTALLY different for women than it does for men. Now, who is right here? Probably no one. But a little compromise seems to be healthy to a relationship. But is "listening" and being "sensitive" empirically indicative of "humanity?" Christ, not in my opinion!

Anyway, hey, what's up? Long time! Ha.

[Marinka]

I am also a women's college grad, and I can't imagine such a response by a professor. (Although to be fair, I'm not very imaginative.) The male students we had from nearby Haverford and Swarthmore certainly knew their place.

[sac]

Yes, I meant that Ophelia Dahl is most likely confident and speaks up and doesn't take any shit. I've never met a person in a true leadership position who wasn't those things.

Of course, I understand that some dude suggesting how women might act in order to improve their chances in the workplace would rankle. But why? Because of the substance of the argument? It doesn't seem like it. Shirky's only crime in my opinion is that he targets women in his argument. His suggestions, I think, are valid for both sexes.

[Stephanie]

I graduated from Saint Mary's College last year which has a similar relationship that you described to Notre Dame University. You might be happy to know that when Notre Dame guys showed up in the all women Saint Mary's classes, they were the ones that shut up, sat back and didn't have anything to say. In the same strain, when women from Saint Mary's took classes at Notre Dame, they were often the only women speaking in the class. And, no one was mean or aggressive about it either. We were just women speaking our minds without feeling shy and intimidated by a man in the room. At least there has been some progress somewhere in 20 years.

[Alice Bradley]

Exactly my point, Sac. If I'm walking around like I own the place, I'm seen as an emasculating, overbearing bitch. 

[sac]

That is when the "not caring about the reaction" part of that quote comes into play. Tailoring behavior to elicit a desired response from others, particularly is the desired response is one of acceptance, is an exercise in frustration and inertia in the workplace.

[sac]

That last comment came off badly. Anyway, I hope you see what I meant.

[Jenny]

Thanks for the link to Partners in Health. I've been talking about donating to them for days and doing nothing active about it. Your link made it happen.

[Mary]

Bitch PhD did a response to this article as well. The response discussed more about why women don't speak up/lie/whatever - it's because in general, when a woman tries to "get above herself" she is punished in some way. Financially, emotionally, physically, you name it. The ones who make it to the top are the ones who can handle all the blows all the time. I don't think it needs to be like that.

I also hate having someone mansplain why I should be like him. Ugh.

[Margie]

Huzzah! What a great discussion! Thanks for giving my rusty brain something worthwhile to grind on!

[Andrea]

I find Mr. Shirky's rhetoric truly maddening, but sadly typical. What I don't understand is why there can only be one model of success. Universities and businesses tout diversity in the workforce, but the minute they hire someone "diverse" they expect this person to conform to the typical (male) model of success. Why not appreciate the unique talents and approaches individuals bring to society, instead of telling people there's only one way to do it right? It's frustrating that someone responsible for educating our young men and women offers such simplistic and short-sighted advice.

[willikat]

Aaaaaaaand, I love you.

[Alice Bradley]

Sac, I just think this is getting silly. You wrote, "There's a difference between harping and walking around like you own the place." No, there isn't. In the eyes of some, women behaving in the way you describe are seen negatively. Your response is that we shouldn't care. Uh, okay. First of all, I was responding to your point about there being a difference, and secondly, we should care because it impacts negatively on us professionally and personally. 

[Mary]

More mansplaining for you, right on your own blog, Alice. Because you're just not getting it that men and women treat problems differently, and that the men are right, but in the interest of the little woman not getting her panties in a knot, men "compromise."

ugh again.

[sac]

Oh come on, Mary. I said right here:

"Now, who is right here? Probably no one."

Men and women compromise all the time for the other sex in order to just get along sometimes. For the purpose of this argument, being a bit more self-promoting and aggressive is a compromise a woman can make, if she chooses, in order to succeed on a job. Being more vocal regarding feelings and zipping our lips while our partner vents is a way a man can compromise, if he chooses, in order to be more responsive to his partner's feelings. Of course, it works vice versa as well, but on average, I'd say the former scenarios fit pretty well.

Alice, I probably went overboard. I still agree with Shirky's main point that it's rare to find a woman who takes risks and jumps at opportunities outside of her comfort level, and/or openly promotes her talents. I don't find either quality to be a negative in a man or woman.

And thank you for "mansplain." I shall add it to my lexicon, right before "manties" and after "manscape."

[Joanna]

what pissed me off about Shirky's article was that he is too lazy to write his own recs, then bitches about how the students (men and women) don't do it right. Write your own damn letters of recommendation, jeez.

[Cameron Blazer]

Yeah. I thought the Fountainhead was great, too. And then I turned 18.

Seriously, if Shirky is right that these are the desirable or necessary traits for success, then he can have his success. The best female embodiment of his proposed strategy is Sarah Palin. If he's happy with how that's working out or fails to see where her parallels among the males have gotten us, more power to him. Sure, they're changing the world. But changing the world is not, in itself, a virtuous endeavor. Those of us who toil quietly and without fanfare may not stake claims to fame, but it doesn't mean we aren't changing the world.

And your professor sounds like a total douche.

[Alice Bradley]

"it's rare to find a woman who takes risks and jumps at opportunities outside of her comfort level, and/or openly promotes her talents"REALLY? If that's true, we are truly a timid, hopeless bunch. I see examples that contradict that assertion every day, all around me. And thank Christ for that.