Thursday, November 11, 2010

Is discrimination becoming more subtle?

There's an interesting report over at PhysOrg.com which details ongoing research at Rice University regarding gender differences in recommendation letters.
A recommendation letter could be the chute in a woman's career ladder, according to ongoing research at Rice University. The comprehensive study shows that qualities mentioned in recommendation letters for women differ sharply from those for men, and those differences may be costing women jobs and promotions in academia and medicine.
Funded by the National Science Foundation, Rice University professors Michelle Hebl and Randi Martin and graduate student Juan Madera...reviewed 624 letters of recommendation for 194 applicants for eight junior faculty positions at a U.S. university. They found that letter writers conformed to traditional gender schemas when describing candidates. Female candidates were described in more communal (social or emotive) terms and male candidates in more agentic (active or assertive) terms...
"We found that being communal is not valued in academia," said Martin, the Elma Schneider Professor of Psychology at Rice. "The more communal characteristics mentioned, the lower the evaluation of the candidate."...
Words in the communal category included adjectives such as affectionate, helpful, kind, sympathetic, nurturing, tactful and agreeable, and behaviors such as helping others, taking direction well and maintaining relationships. Agentic adjectives included words such as confident, aggressive, ambitious, dominant, forceful, independent, daring, outspoken and intellectual, and behaviors such as speaking assertively, influencing others and initiating tasks.
The Rice study did not go so far as to demonstrate a link between recommendation letters and hiring decisions, but the implications of the research are no less meaningful without it.

The professors hinted that their findings represented an example of subtle discrimination.
"Subtle gender discrimination continues to be rampant," Hebl said. "And it’s important to acknowledge this because you cannot remediate discrimination until you are first aware of it. Our and other research shows that even small differences -- and in our study, the seemingly innocuous choice of words -- can act to create disparity over time and experiences."
I think this is fair, but I also think it misses a more important point. The fact is, until half a century ago, women were neither expected nor allowed to pursue meaningful managerial positions. The women's liberation movement only took hold in the late 1960s, and until that time women were widely expected to be nurturing mother figures, with a heavy emphasis on those "communal" traits.

The great legacy of the feminist movement is that it has created a significant amount of confusion within the female gender. For generations women have been raised in such a way that encourages the development of communal traits, and most of our society still pushes them in that direction (sometimes subtly, sometimes very directly). Women are still expected to maintain civility, grace, and of course great style, even after they have risen to positions of power. If they do not, we vilify them and brand them as "predatory lesbians".


When in the business (or academic) world, women face a contradiction that men do not. Men can be strong, aggressive figures in both their social lives and their professional lives, and thrive in both because of it. But women are asked to play both sides--be assertive and outspoken in the workplace, but check it at the door when you go home to the kids.

We can blame corporations or workplace dynamics for being discriminatory, but the reality is that studies like these reveal a broader societal issue. We're not yet ready to accept a different definition of femininity, so these contradictions are bound to persist. This is one of those times where I'm glad I'm not a woman.


[PhysOrg.com]

1 comment:

  1. The problem is not just how the letters are worded to emphasize different qualities according to gender, but the fact that nurturing qualities are not valued highly enough. In order for true equality to exist between masculinity and femininity, not just between males and females, the excessive glorification of aggression needs to end, the negative stigma associated with emotional sensitivity needs to be eliminated, and interpersonal considerations need to be recognized as important.

    Until that happens, this problem that we think of as sexism will always exist, because it will never be destroyed at its essence. It will persist even if women become become cold, calculating leaders, living up to the masculine ideal, following all of the same rules men are expected to follow. It will still exist even if women are treated with total equality, because the bodily differences are not the true root of today's sexism. Discrimination against femininity is the true problem, regardless of a person's genitals. A feminine man is as undervalued as a feminine woman. Only a masculine man or woman is given a position of privilege, and that is the problem.

    ReplyDelete