Cos we’ve never heard that one before.
THIS isn’t, apparently, a touchy-feely, “women are more emotional in the workplace” kind of argument.
No, instead it’s a ‘men are just emotionally incapable and LIKE to see others fail, while women make a good judgement not to get involved with aspects of business that require more commitment time-wise’
. . . .
Male performance is boosted simply by having to compete, while female performance is automatically lowered by competition, according to studies that tested fourth-grade schoolchildren under different running scenarios in gym class.
Because, of course, fourth-grade schoolchildren are perfect examples of working women and men. And anyway, why o why o why the generalisation?! Some women perform better when they have to compete (I sure as hell do), and some don’t. The same goes for men.
“More women than men think they’ll do poorly, even when they perform very well,” Dr. Pinker says in the book. “In the competitive sphere this can look like discrimination, when in fact women may be withdrawing from the race of their own accord, based on their faulty self-assessments.”
This, of course, is natural. Women expect to do badly. This couldn’t possibly be a learnt personality trait, could it?
Oh no, let’s not even suggest that. That’s crazy talk. Women just think like that, ok?
To be fair, I’m judging from the article rather than reading the actual book. But really, Dr. Pinker, shouldn’t we have learnt by now that all people behave/think/process information differently? What can we possibly gain from such ‘research’ other than a confirmation of this, which has been gendered? Surely the only thing that this book does, then, is promote the idea that it’s ok for there to be so few women in the higher jobs in business because some women don’t want it, and that men are incapable of real emotion/compassion?
Thus, the power of patriarchy is yet again affirmed - we’ve even got women saying that it’s natural for women to not want to be promoted/paid more! And while we’re at it, let’s confirm that idea of the RealMan - he’s masculine, he’s strong, he likes to compete and WIN, oh yeah, and he just doesn’t do any of that girly compassion bull.
Perleeease. Give me a break.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 31, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Jacob Ward
In recent years there have been more successful female entrepeneurs than male, and an increasing number of women in the ‘top’ jobs, which would presumably help in the compilation of a massive pile of statistics contrary to that relying-on-eight-year-olds tit’s findings WITH WHICH TO BEAT HIM TO DEATH!
…Always with the practical answers Jacob
March 31, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Caitlin
Her, my dear. Dr Susan Pinker.
And while there are more women than before in ‘top’ jobs, the statistics are still awful, actually. But that doesn’t mean that women don’t want them, or that by being more compassionate it’s natural for them to want jobs with more ‘contact’ - it means that we live under a patriarchy, and that it is made incredibly difficult for women to get to these ‘top’ jobs.
On a vaguely related issue - why are the ‘compassionate’ jobs paid so little? I think it’s a travesty that a professional footballer is paid more than a teacher. Or, perhaps a better example - students can earn in a day’s work at Waitrose what many teaching assistants earn in a week. And that, my friends, is the price we put on our children’s educations.
March 31, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Jacob Ward
I think it’s ridiculous that people are paid money to play a game. If I were in charge there would be a massive tax on all highly paid sportsmen, with penalties if they set particularly bad examples to their massive following amongst youngsters. There is no financial incentive whatsoever to become a teacher, which is why there are so few and we had such shit new recruits towards the end of Priory.
I’d assumed only a man could be so sexist, but apparently not.
I think things are improving, and this is reflected in the stats., but as ever, progress, however much you dislike the word, is slow.
March 31, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Jacob Ward
Also see this
What does her sex have anything to do with it? And why is Clinton now referred to with both her forename and middle names?
Bloody Guardian.
March 31, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Caitlin
I know, there really ought to be more of an incentive to be a teacher - not everyone is willing to do it out of the goodness of their hearts.
No, dear, a scary amount of women are very sexist. It’s a sad state of affairs.
Things may have improved, but I’m not sure that they are improving so much of late - so many seem to think that we’ve got equality so ‘what’s all the fuss about?’
Oh Jakey, surely you know by now that sex has everything to do with it in the American elections? It’s crazy, but it’s true. The middle name thing - never seen that un before. Weird…
But I’m afraid it won’t shake my view of the Guardian as one of the best newspapers produced - normally they have very balanced approaches to such things.
Oh and Cassie says ’she’s fine’ by the way - I have like zilch credit so I’ll say here, as I know you’re checking this more than you probably ought
Apparently it was something to do with boys - you know how it is. She was very touched that you were concerned though - I got the text when I was sitting with the family so they had to be informed, lol.
March 31, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Jacob Ward
Guardian=lefty rubbish
The Times, now there’s a proper paper. Joking aside (fuck me, I’m turning into Arthur! Aaah), I would have thought British newspapers would have been a little more mature about it.
I’d guessed it was to to with boys, but nevertheless…it still matters
The only reason I intend to go into teaching is because I’d like to be an historian and the only way so to do is to sit around in a university and teach the odd person from time to time. In order to pursue what I will call out of a small soft spot for cliches ‘my dream’ I am happy not to have piles of money, though I can see how this would discourage some.
New scheme…sequester footballers’ wages and give them to impoverished teachers