The Myth of the Iron Lady: "Women vying for leadership roles are automatically assigned two labels."

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: The Myth of the Iron Lady
By Shankar Vedantam
Monday, November 12, 2007; Page A03

If you consult the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which is democratically created by Internet users, you will see a pattern emerge in the phrases used to describe the first female leaders of many countries. England's Margaret Thatcher, you will learn, was called "Attila the Hen." Golda Meir, Israel's first female prime minister, was "the only man in the Cabinet." Richard Nixon called Indira Gandhi, India's first female prime minister, "the old witch." And Angela Merkel, the current chancellor of Germany, has been dubbed "The Iron Frau."...

***

The driving factor in the way women leaders are perceived, experiments show, is not that they are any more ruthless than men who get to the top, but that people have strong and often unconscious conceptions about men, women and the nature of leadership....Experiments show that women vying for leadership roles are automatically assigned two labels. The first is to be seen as nice and warm, but incompetent; the second is to be seen as competent but unpleasant. Women stuck with Label A cannot be leaders, because the stereotype of leadership is incompatible with incompetence. Women who do become leaders get stuck with Label B, because if leadership is unconsciously associated with manliness, cognitive consistency requires that female leaders be stripped of the caring qualities normally associated with women.

"When people say Hillary has no heart or no sense of humor, they are saying she is not warm," said Susan Fiske, a social psychologist at Princeton University. Countless newspaper articles, for example, have asserted that Hillary Clinton falls short of Bill Clinton's legendary people skills. "People do not question her competence, but her trustworthiness and warmth."

The first hint that we might be perceiving women leaders as unpleasant even if they are not comes from Wikipedia itself. Before making the transition to leadership and Label B, members of the club of first female leaders often turn out to have been described with Label A. Before ascending to the chancellorship, Merkel was called "das M¿dchen" -- "the girl" -- by her mentor, Helmut Kohl. Before Indira Gandhi became prime minister, her chief political rival dismissed her as a "gungi gudiya," or "dumb doll." Did "das M¿dchen" become "Iron Frau" and "dumb doll" become "old witch" because Merkel and Gandhi changed personalities, or because the mantle of leadership changed how they were seen?

While individuals of both sexes can be cold, pushy, conniving and manipulative, those terms get attached to female leaders for no better reason than that they happen to be female leaders, said New York University organizational psychologist Madeline Heilman: "Just knowing they are successful and competent causes people to infer they have engaged in all these behaviors and to disapprove of them."...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101204.html?hpid=topnews

[jgraz]

1. So how do you handle a leader who actually IS conniving and manipulative?

People aren't bitching about Hillary's deceptive tactics because she's a woman.

[aquart]

6. Uh, yeah. That's exactly what they're doing.

She's a candidate. A really strong candidate. And she is doing what strong candidates do. The perception of evil manipulation is what she gets for having "the balls" to run for president.

Of course, many people don't really understand themselves well enough to know that. Well, at least they have each other for company.

[jgraz]

8. So what other Democratic candidates have done the following:

1. Hired a profession poll-rigger and huckster for totalitarian dictators as their chief campaign strategist
2. Attacked a working-class woman as a liar and a thief for an off-hand remark in an interview
3. Repeatedly planted fake questions in supposedly open town hall meetings

???

That's not a strong candidate, that's a corrupt political machine. Her recent slippage in the polls shows that the people are finally waking up to what the folks at DU have known all along.

[pnwmom]

15. People had formed this opinion of HRC long before any of the events

you mention.

For example, some condemn HRC because she forgave her husband -- as if she did it with cold calculation -- as if she's not a human being struggling with her own flaws, trying to love another flawed person.

[jgraz]

19. That's because this sort of behavior is not new for her

I saw this same kind of chicanery during the 1992 Wisconsin primary. She criss-crossed the state, lying through her teeth about Jerry Brown and anyone else who got in her way.

Hillary has a long history of questionable behavior so it's not really surprising that her reputation has persisted through this latest campaign.

[pnwmom]

25. She does nothing that male politicians don't do routinely.

But we have higher expectations for women, so we condemn them especially for it.

[DrFunkenstein]

27. Not Really. We Just Don't Trust Her to Be President.

I don't think there is any special condemnation for her. I just don't think we should keep nuclear weapons "on the table" to fight asymmetrical warfare with terrorists, or that it is wise to define Iran's military as a terrorist organization after giving the Bush administration a free hand to invade anywhere to fight terrorist organizations.

If she had some judgement and courage, I'd certainly applaud her and maybe even vote for her. But since she does not, I don't condemn her more intensely because she is a woman.

[cuke]

28. Tht things you mention are true of some other dem candidates

Not ruling out the use of nukes - Obama, Edwards, and I haven't heard the others rule it out
Designating the IRG as a terrorist org - Biden, Obama, and I haven't heard the others rule it out

but it's only wrong when Hillary does it

[rAVES]

30. Jesus christ.. what rubbish.

[pnwmom]

14. A lot of them are, whether they consciously know that or not. n/t

[babylonsister]

2. Ah, jeeze. "cold, pushy, conniving and manipulative"

Sounds about right imo. There are different kinds of women who might not fit that category, but we have a very capable woman who might fit that definition. I'll shut up now.

[pnwmom]

17. Show me the politician who isn't -- at times -- pushy, conniving, and

manipulative, and I'll show you a perennial candidate.

[On the Road]

3. Hillary Clinton is Feeling the Effect of a Lot of Unconscious Sexism

Most of her supposed character flaws would be hardly even remarked on in a male candidate. She can't be warm and she can't be cold. There are a different set of expectations and a lot of conflicting demands.

And I say this as someone who is not especially a supporter of her campaign.

[jgraz]

5. That's probably why she's so far behind in the polls

:eyes:

For every conscious or unconscious sexist who won't vote for Hillary, there are likely as many or more conscious or unconscious feminists who support her simply because she is a woman. You can't postulate one conclusion without accepting the other.

[Writer]

9. She wouldn't be receiving that if she WEREN'T ahead in the polls.

I don't recall Carole Moseley Braun's warmth questioned in 2004. She was simply dismissed as not being a viable candidate.

[jgraz]

11. An excellent point -- what other strong women get the "conniving and manipulative" label?

I only hear it used against Hillary. What does that tell you? I guess it can still be spun as sexist, but only if you assign Hillary her own gender.

[pnwmom]

18. What other woman is running for President?

But I've certainly heard Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi described that way.

[jgraz]

22. Name one non-DINO who has that rep

Many women with strong personalities are able to hold national office without gaining such a reputation -- Barbara Boxer, Barbara Lee and Eleanor Holmes Norton to name a few.

On the other hand, many of the male fifth-columnists have been subject to exactly the same epithets as Hillary. Just read some of the posts on Joe Lieberman, Rahm Emanuel or Harold Ford.

[pnwmom]

23. I can't, because "DINO" is the term DU'ers give to any woman politician

that they don't like, no matter how liberal her actual voting record is.

[jgraz]

31. Wrong on two levels

1) It's a label DUers give to ANY Dem they don't like, regardless of gender. Lieberman, Emanuel, Nelson (both of 'em), Bayh and many other men are hit with this regularly. The reason you may see it less with men is that DUers are more comfortable calling the men things like "asswipe" and "dickhead". With the women, they tend to stick with milder insults.

2) Voting record is a poor indicator of political values, especially if it's a naked percentage. Is there ANY Democrat who doesn't have a 90+ rating of voting with their party? What really counts is what they say about the vote and how they handle their votes. Fein$tein's recent flips have cost us far more than all of her supposed liberal votes have gained us. Hillary's silence on FISA, Mukasey, The Iraq Supplemental and more has shown her to be a tepid supporter at best of that allegedly progressive voting record she touts.

Finally, you can't argue that there are people who attack women politicians solely because of gender without also admitting that there are people who will defend women politicians solely based on gender. How would you like it if every time you said something nice about Hillary, we all accused you of doing it just because she's a woman?

Most of the people here on DU are better than that, and your inflamatory characterizations make it much more difficult to have a real discussion on the issues.

[pnwmom]

46. Your claims don't hold up. Obama, Biden, and Dodd all have weaker records

on progressive issues than HRC, both for 2007-2008 and over their Senate tenure.

Yet she's the only one who gets slapped with the DINO label, despite her current and lifetime voting record of over 90%.

There are many Dems who have voted the progressive position less than 90% of the time, either for 2007-8 or over their tenure.

www.progressivepunch.com

Democratic Senators who score less than 90% on progressive issues this year:

Barack Obama, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd, and sixteen others

Democratic Senators with lifetime scores less than 90% on progressive issues:

Barack Obama, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd, and 25 others

[jgraz]

48. Um...you did read my post, didn't you?

Go re-read item number 2. Hillary's voting stats are a farce. They say nothing about her real qualities as a progressive or a leader.

[pnwmom]

50. I did, but maybe you didn't. This is what you asked, and I answered:

"Is there ANY Democrat who doesn't have a 90+ rating of voting with their party?"

[Chulanowa]

51. If I'm reading you right...

Either you can believe that a woman in politics is completely without flaw, or you can be a sexist.

[cuke]

12. You just supported the OP's argument

The only difference is that you went the other way. CMB is not perceived as powerful, so she had no chance. Therefore, she can still be seen as warm

[pnwmom]

24. Exactly. Women with no chance of being President are allowed to be warm. n/t

[spooky3]

36. the article says she would fall in category A - "nice but incompetent"

the stereotypes place prominent women into one of the two categories - "nice but incompetent" or "competent but cold"

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. "People do not question her competence, but her trustworthiness and warmth."

Truth be told, I question her competence AND her trustworthiness and warmth.

Was she fooled by Bush on the IWR vote? If so, how is she competent. If not, well, how is she competent? Clueless about the vote, or clueless about the consequences of the vote?

Is she really as cold and affective as I see? Or is that just because she is really a very private individual who is uncomfortable in the public eye? If that's the case, will she, in office, withdraw into the office as likeminded presidents have before her, like Nixon?

Is she as angry and vindictive as the Travelgate and Dick Morris fights have indicated? I can see that it might be hard to get along with Dick Morris, what with him being a major prick, but does she carry grudges?

And does anyone think the RW won't use all these points, and a thousand more, in the general election?

[aquart]

7. Grudges? Show me the evidence.

And I do truly admire the flaming brass balls that would bring up the phony Republican-created "scandal" of Travelgate. I truly do.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Was it not claimed that she fired the travel staff because she was

pissed off at them?

Do you really think the repugs will NOT use that, no matter how manufactured it was?

They are READY for Hillary. It will be a shitstorm to make swiftboating look like a canoe paddle in the kiddie pool.

Grudges? I have no evidence. When has a lack of evidence ever stopped the RW? All they need is a suggestion.

[sandnsea]

13. She's the architect of the IWR vote

She decided she had to be a war hawk to win. Don't come whining sexism now.

[incapsulated]

16. lol, the "architect"?

Since when? Oh, you must have meant Edwards, the IWR shill, the Patriot Act writer. Now the populist pacifist.

She had to be TOUGH to win, as the article points out or no one would take her seriously as a leader. Because she is a woman. And because we are still in the middle of a war.

It's worked, despite all the groaning on DU because she is trusted more to deal with Iran, for instance than any other democrat and even most republicans. For a woman to do that, she can't be perceived as soft.

[cuke]

20. And even if she did, it doesn't justify sexism or any form of bigotry

The motivations of some Obama supporters are quite nauseating

[sandnsea]

21. No, the Clintons, leaders of the goddamn party

She's the one who was blathering about "stay the course" in Nov 2003, and winning strategies in 2004. This is HER damn war as much as it is Bush's. I can't help people can't connect the dots and see that the Clintons stand for imperialism too.

[DrFunkenstein]

26. So Why Do We Dig Nancy Pelosi But Dislike Hillary Clinton?

There are several of female figures of power that are not military hawks.

Like myself, I think that Democrats are very predisposed to vote for a female candidate. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton has proven herself time and again unworthy of that predisposition during her time in the Senate.

[cuke]

29. DU "digs" Pelosi?

Was that serious?

And Pelosi also has a rep for being tough

[jgraz]

32. Yeah, I'd like to know that, too

But, seriously, cuke..."And Pelosi also has a rep for being tough"???? Really? Do you honestly think people on DU are slamming Pelosi because she's too TOUGH?? :rofl:

[zulchzulu]

34. Barbara Boxer is also a strong woman of impeccable strength and leadership

She's a "strong" woman... why not hate towards her from even most Republicans?

:shrug:

[spooky3]

35. she's not running for Prez and is under the radar screen for most people

If she were running for Prez, I think you'd see the same biases coming out

[LWolf]

33. I question her competence.

I'm a person, and a woman, and my opposition has nothing to do with her gender. It has to do with her words and her actions.

[Romulox]

37. Ummm, it's just as sexist to SUPPORT Hillary because she's a woman as to OPPOSE her for that reason.

The bottom line is Hillary is not an impressive candidate in most ways, and if her name was Herbert (not Hillary) and Smith (not Clinton) we'd never have heard of her.

[Sparkly]

41. Is the same true for people who support Obama, excited about having a black man as president?

It doesn't automatically mean you're sexist if you don't support Clinton, or racist if you don't support Obama.

BUT...

I think it's all to easy to characterize women as sexist if it means a lot to them to have a woman as president. And it's no different in my mind from people wanting very much to have a black man as president. Who am I to judge those reasons for supporting either of them?

[Romulox]

43. Clarence Thomas for President! Lynn Cheney for VP!

All that matters is a person's plumbing and skin tone!. Anyone that mentions policy is either racist or sexist (I forget which!)


(need I add: :sarcasm: ? )

[Sparkly]

49. An extreme that goes without saying.

Consider the point one of weighing -- to some degree, heavily or lightly -- these factors among an acceptable field.

[noamnety]

53. I firmly disagree with that.

Affirmative action to even out unequal access to power is not "just as sexist/racist" as continuing to keep oppressed people out of powerful positions they've never held.

(That said, I won't be voting for Clinton.)

[Romulox]

54. The problem with that is that working class males do not have access to power

and upper-class women (like HRC) do.

But the standard cant is that working class men have "access to power", and the millionaire women are "oppressed". It's all very self-serving.

And surprise, surprise! The millionaire woman supports the same corporate interests as the millionaire men do! Who could've guessed?

[noamnety]

56. Your last line is exactly why I don't support Clinton.

Affirmative action, however, does not mean putting an unqualified person into place. It means giving priority to evening out the scales where one class of people has had less power than another class of people. So where women hold 16% of the congressional seats, we can look at that and say that's the result of bigoted policies and attitudes in our country, and given two comparable candidates, it makes sense to weight gender as a factor.

Given two working class people, one male, one female, (instead of comparing apples to oranges, a working class male to a millionaire woman as you did above), give the edge to the woman if it's a job that women have been excluded from. The effect goes beyond just the individual who gets the job, it affects the attitude of all other people exposed to the idea that gender equality in that job is a reality, not just a hypothetical.

Giving the edge to a member of an oppressed class as affirmative action, to undo a historical advantage given to men (or white people, or straight people) is not bigoted, whereas giving the edge to a member of the privileged class because they are in the privileged class is.

[Sparkly]

38. I was just talking about this the other day

re: complaints that Hillary Clinton isn't sufficiently "warm and friendly."

[Evergreen Emerald]

39. this is right on target--and this is why she will never win the nominee

I believe that people on here are so adamant in their hate for Clinton because of this. I think the vast right-wing conspiracy used these fears/stereotypes/sexist beliefs in helping to re-define her.

She is attacked by the media non-stop now. They are choosing our candidate for us. The last debate showed that the gloves were off and that the Republicans with the help of the media want to decide our candidate for us. Obama and Edwards gladly took the gift the media gave them.

Those who suggest that she is screwing up are only listening to the superficial accounts in the media--and they are non-stop.

It is a shame really. And most of us don't even realize it. It is stunning to me that people read this article and deny the truth in it.

[Romulox]

40. We're all blind to our own prejudices. Not being able to see someone's flaws because of her gender

is also a prejudice.

Perhaps (just perhaps!) it is possible that Hillary Clinton is not the embodiment of perfection? :shrug:

[Evergreen Emerald]

42. your post indicates a superficial reading of my response.

Your post completely dismissed that there could possibly actually be some sexism in our society that is run by a majority of men. And rather you dismiss me as someone who is irrational because I must think that Clinton is PERFECT.

I do not understand that logic. Who here has ever suggested that Clinton is PERFECT? Look at the world. Look at how women are objectified. Look at the responses to Clinton's message ("she needs a new voice, she needs a new suit").

Your refusal to see some reality in what this article says shows that there is alot more work to do for women before we could ever be a viable candidate.

[Romulox]

44. And your post completely dismisses that possibility that HRC is a deeply flawed candidate

who is counting on nepotism/name recognition and gender identification for the bulk of her support.

Yes, it is possible that Hillary Clinton is a better politician than any other living person such that any critique of her policies or performance is sexist.

But is it likely? It may appear that way if you have a great deal invested in a sexist worldview in which women (especially female politicians!) are made of purer stuff than their male counterparts... :)

[Evergreen Emerald]

45. I think you need to re-read both the article and my post.

Rather than simply dismiss the idea. But, I imagine there are some who rather like the status quo. And considering that there is a possibility that some of the critique is invalid and based on prejudices, may be too unsettling for some who benefit from it.

[Romulox]

47. And what do you need to read in order to consider the possibility that HRC DESERVES criticism?

Your own statement concedes the point:

"some of the critique is invalid and based on prejudices..." (emphasis mine).


What is also clear is that some of her support is also based on prejudices. I think that is on display here in this very thread!

[RoadRage]

52. Perception is Reality...?

I've been told this so many times in the business world - and it's true. Hillary does come across as cold & calculating - but I think she does that on purpose. It gets her some votes and pushes others away. But I'm not sure how much of a Handicap she can scream while she's leading the polls. Wait until she falls behind a few points in Iowa, and then she can scream sexism.

Obama, 08

[Katherine Brengle]

55. Old news, but definitely worth discussion - thanks for posting.

As women, we cannot win.

[laureloak]

57. If you call someone these you are insult ing women, not men.

Bitch
Son of a Bitch
Bastard

Can you think of any that insult men and can't be used to describe a woman?