Gender Stereotypes

The problem with pop publications is their acceptance of definitions of success. The assumption is that women value, or should value, the same things as men. Gail Evans’ best selling Play Like a Man puts the point directly. “To a guy, everything counts. The size of his office, the size of his staff, the size of his salary, the size of anything that can be measured. And they’re always keeping score.” If women don’t do the same, they will be “perceived as losers.” Anyone willing to settle for a “cramped office and dumpy furniture” doesn’t “know the score” and won’t be taken seriously. Lois Frankel, in Nice Girls Don’t Get the Corner Office, makes a similar claim: “Money is power.” And girls who don’t fight for salaries are not only underpaid but undervalued. Almost never do these publications acknowledge the possibility that women could, or should, have a different set of priorities than pay and perks: more humane hours, better work/family and child care policies, greater support for community service, and so forth. Rather, the emphasis is on enabling women to score higher under rules not of their own making.
Women’s capacity to change the rules through collective action gets at best glancing attention in these publications. Their relentless focus on individual advancement diverts attention from institutional reform. The leadership lite objective is getting more women into positions of power. What they do when they get there is a matter of little apparent concern. Yet as the following discussion suggests, it is women’s leadership on women’s issues that is often critical in opening the opportunities that pop publications exalt.
Women on the leadership track have unique opportunities and corresponding obligations to promote changes that will make leadership accessible to others. As citizens, women can support policies, politicians, and practices that will advance gender equity. As professionals and community activists, women can make equalizing leadership