From HBR: “Feminine” Values Can Give Tomorrow’s Leaders an Edge (…good grief)

What to think about this kind of analysis and the descriptive terms they choose to use… And just who (read what “gender”) are those “leaders” that this article and research study are hoping to give this “edge”? Oy.

Are we perpetually stuck in this binary world of “feminine” and “masculine”? But then if we don’t label them as female traits, would that be more harmful to women’s forward (inch by inch) movement to equality? With the chart below, I can foresee that in a few years these valuable abilities may well be taken over by the patriarchy and it will be as if they (read men in power and the media that supports them) were always like that. I predict. Too many questions.

Curious as to how leaders could “think more like women,” we asked half our sample — 32,000 people around the world — to classify 125 different human characteristics as either masculine, feminine or neither, while the other half rated the same words (without gendering) on their importance to leadership, success, morality and happiness. Statistical modeling revealed strong consensus that what people felt was “feminine” they also deemed essential to leading in an increasingly social, interdependent and transparent world.

top10competencies

Check out this HBR Guest blog post.

Advertisements

Robson on “Dressing Constitutionally”

Robson on “Dressing Constitutionally”.

dressing_constitutionally

Coming to your library soon!

At this time, this book is not published. Coming soon!

Sunday Fun: Gendered Fashion Rules. From Sociological Images

Sunday Fun: Gendered Fashion Rules.  The suit is ALWAYS an option.  Are we all right with this?

Queen Bees, Princess Bees, and Phantom Bees

Going through my list of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Journals with close attention to the freely available and Open Access titles, I came upon this article on women working in Academia in the journal Advancing Women, Volume 32, 2012.

“QUEEN BEES AND MOMMY TRACKING: HOW’S AN ACADEMIC WOMAN SUPPOSED TO GET AHEAD? by DR. HELENE A. CUMMINS

“The Queen Bee believes that she got to the top by her own fortitude and through being savvy. Queen Bees are non-mentors and non-supporting of other women. In this thinking they believe women get to the top on their own. The Queen Bee has achieved high rank on the job with associated high pay and social success. These women according to Staines et al (1974) are often popular with men, have looks going for them and are married. These women do not work for equality for other women and might even oppose programs that do. Mavin (2008, p. S75) identifies the Queen Bee as “a bitch who stings other women if her power is threatened”, as she prefers to work with men (Cherne, 2003).”

There was no equivalent description of a male counterpart. Cummins speaks of the “good old boys network” where the men rise the ladder together (and will retire together which may hold promise for women in the future) but there is a lack of a “good old girls network.”

Interesting article. Nothing earth shattering but it smacks of the truth. Please commiserate or thrill us with your positive stories in your work!

What Liquor Ads Teach Us About Guys

Study shows people view women as a collection of body parts

From physics.org — a really great resource of all sorts of new research, NEW research on the objectification of women! Who knew. See the posting here:

Study shows people view women as a collection of body parts.

The article, which was just published, is titled “Seeing women as objects: The sexual body part recognition bias.” It’s a collaboration between international scholars from the U.S., the Netherlands, and Italy including Sarah J. Gervais, Theresa K. Vescio, Jens FÖrster, Anne Maass, and Caterina Suitner. They state:

In the present research, we introduced and tested the sexual body part recognition bias hypothesis that states that women’s (versus men’s) bodies are reduced to their sexual body parts.

The article is published in European Journal of Social Psychology, Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. (2012) by Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.1890

Here’s the link to article for UConn community http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1890/pdf (requires authentication)

The Points Interview: Gina Barreca | Points: The Blog of the Alcohol and Drugs History Society

The Points Interview: Gina Barreca | Points: The Blog of the Alcohol and Drugs History Society.

Interview with UConn’s own humorist, Prof. Gina Barreca, talking about her 2011 book. Enjoy! And get the book.

Barreca Book Cover

University Press of New England, 2011

Editor’s Note: Continuing the attention to gender and drinking that we mustered up for women’s history month, Points is excited to welcome feminist author Gina Barreca as our twenty-second interview, talking about her recent anthology of writings by women on drinking, Make Mine a Double: Why Women Like Us Like To Drink (or Not) (University Press of New England, 2011). Well-known as a syndicated columnist and radio commentator, Barreca is a historian of gender and humor as well as a gendered and humorous subject. Her past scholarly books include They Used to Call Me Snow White But I Drifted: Women’s Strategic Use of Humor (Viking, 1991) and Babes in Boyland: A Personal History of Coeducation in the Ivy League (University Press of New England, 2011). When not hoisting a glass, she teaches English and Feminist Theory at the University of Connecticut.

%d bloggers like this: