Feminomics - gend...
Follow
Find tag "stereotypes"
657 views | +0 today
Feminomics - gender balanced leadership
New perspectives on leadership from a gender perspective - and its relevance to business, politics, economics, the environment and home.
Curated by Erika Watson
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Erika Watson from Gender-Balanced Leadership
Scoop.it!

Gender and Competition: What Companies Need to Know — HBS Working Knowledge

Gender and Competition: What Companies Need to Know — HBS Working Knowledge | Feminomics - gender balanced leadership | Scoop.it
Do women shy away from competition and thus hurt their careers?

"There's a strongly held assumption that men are competitive and women aren't, and our results show otherwise."


Via Marion Chapsal
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Erika Watson from Gender-Balanced Leadership
Scoop.it!

Women, Wealth, and Power: The Emerging Paradigm

Women, Wealth, and Power: The Emerging Paradigm | Feminomics - gender balanced leadership | Scoop.it

Let me make one thing very clear: I’m not trying to typecast genders or suggest one superior to the other. There are plenty of women operating in the Male Model, while increasingly, men are embracing the Feminine Formula.

What I am describing is an emerging paradigm shift, allowing both men and women the freedom to choose between the historical norm and what’s becoming a clear, increasingly preferred, leadership style. And we have women to thank for this shift.

“Today the old style command-and-control leadership has given way to a new approach to leadership.” says leadership expert David Gergen, a Harvard professor and former advisor to four presidents, in his introduction to Enlightened Power: How Women are Transforming the Practice of Leadership.

“When we describe that new leadership, we employ terms like consensual, web-based, caring, inclusive, open, transparent—all qualities that we associate with the ‘feminine’ style of leadership.”


Via Marion Chapsal
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Erika Watson from Gender-Balanced Leadership
Scoop.it!

When Pseudoscience Meets Gender Stereotypes

When Pseudoscience Meets Gender Stereotypes | Feminomics - gender balanced leadership | Scoop.it
What resisting a double fudge sundae has to do with Freud and defeating the Nazis.

Whether we call it “rationality vs. intuition,” as Albert Einstein, Anne Lamott, and Steve Jobs did, or “reason vs. emotion,” being human means being bedeviled by the near-constant polar pull of two opposing forces. And yet, we’ve seen the “divided brain” is a reductionist myth, and perpetuating it has dangerous sociocultural consequences.

In 1943, however, the clear-cut dichotomy between reason and emotion was not only perfectly acceptable, it was also a perfectly exploitable propaganda talking point. This animated Disney short film, created the same year as the now-infamous Disney employee handbook, enlists the same comically appalling era-appropriate gender stereotypes to deliver a steady dose of wartime propaganda against the Axis, portrayed as governed by unreasonable emotion, which the Allies could combat with the force of reason and restrained emotion.

As amusing as the gender treatment might be in its appallingness, one particularly appalling chasm is what happens to each gender when its bearer is possessed by emotion and negligent of reason: The man merely gets his sexual advances met with a slap, whereas the woman spirals into food binges, which promise an undesirable body, which in turn makes her unworthy of said sexual advances. In other words, reason ultimately serves the man in both scenarios, while emotion merely distracts from his most desirable outcome.

Red this fascinating article  ( & watch the video) on brainpicking.org)


Via Marion Chapsal
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Erika Watson from Gender-Balanced Leadership
Scoop.it!

Monty Python - Is it a Boy or a Girl?

The Hospital Sketch from Monty Pythons Meaning of Life...

“Is it a boy or a girl?” “I think it's a little early to start imposing roles on it, don't you?”


Via Marion Chapsal
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Erika Watson from Gender-Balanced Leadership
Scoop.it!

Study shows gender bias in science is real. Here’s why it matters. | Unofficial Prognosis, Scientific American Blog Network

Study shows gender bias in science is real. Here’s why it matters. | Unofficial Prognosis, Scientific American Blog Network | Feminomics - gender balanced leadership | Scoop.it

Whenever the subject of women in science comes up, there are people fiercely committed to the idea that sexism does not exist. They will point to everything and anything else to explain differences while becoming angry and condescending if you even suggest that discrimination could be a factor. But these people are wrong. This data shows they are wrong. And if you encounter them, you can now use this study to inform them they’re wrong. You can say that a study found that absolutely all other factors held equal, females are discriminated against in science. Sexism exists. It’s real. Certainly, you cannot and should not argue it’s everything. But no longer can you argue it’s nothing.

We are not talking about equality of outcomes here; this result shows bias thwarts equality of opportunity.

Here are three additional reasons why this study is such a big deal.

1) Both male and female scientists were equally guilty of committing the gender bias. Yes – women can behave in ways that are sexist, too. Women need to examine their attitudes and actions toward women just as much as men do. What this suggests is that the biases likely did not arise from overt misogyny but were rather a manifestation of subtler prejudices internalized from societal stereotypes. As the authors put it,

“If faculty express gender biases, we are not suggesting that these biases are intentional or stem from a conscious desire to impede the progress of women in science. Past studies indicate that people’s behavior is shaped by implicit or unintended biases, stemming from repeated exposure to pervasive cultural stereotypes that portray women as less competent…”

2) When scientists judged the female applicants more harshly, they did not use sexist reasoning to do so. Instead, they drew upon ostensibly sound reasons to justify why they would not want to hire her: she is not competent enough. Sexism is an ugly word, so many of us are only comfortable identifying it when explicitly misogynistic language or behavior is exhibited. But this shows that you do not need to use anti-women language or even harbor conscious anti-women beliefs to behave in ways that are effectively anti-women.

Practically, this fact makes it all the more easy for women to internalize unfair criticisms as valid. If your work is rejected for an obviously bad reason, such as “it’s because you’re a woman,” you can simply dismiss the one who rejected you as biased and therefore not worth taking seriously. But if someone tells you that you are less competent, it’s easy to accept as true. And why shouldn’t you? Who wants to go through life constantly trying to sort through which critiques from superiors are based on the content of your work, and which are unduly influenced by the incidental characteristics of who you happen to be? Unfortunately, too, many women are not attuned to subtle gender biases. Making those calls is bound to be a complex and imperfect endeavor. But not recognizing it when it’s happening means accepting: “I am not competent.” It means believing: “I do not deserve this job.”

3) As troubling as these results are, they are also critical toward solutions. That biases against women are often subconscious means people need extra prodding to realize and combat them. I’m willing to bet that many in the study, just like people who take Implicit Association Tests, would be upset to learn they subconsciously discriminate against women, and they would want to fix it. Implicit biases cannot be overcome until they are realized, and this study accomplishes that key first step: awareness.


Via Marion Chapsal
more...
No comment yet.