Double Standards
This world is full of them, I just can't help noticing.
Take for example, guys who sleep around are labelled as "playboys". In US comedies like Friends, How I met you mother and Two and a Half Men, they are glorified characters. But if a woman were to do that, "slut" or "whore" will be stamped all over her forehead by her fellow sisters (screw the sorority) faster than she can say "whooooooooops".
Maybe that's why we hardly see any female leads in any shows being portrayed as someone who sleeps around. The social backlash would cripple the film. Of course there are some but their roles are generally more minor and less attention is focused on their lifestyle.
I read an interesting article in Women Weekly some time back, focusing on the discrepancy between how male and female bosses are viewed. The gist is that if a male boss were to be assertive and demanding, he would be credited with being a natural leader, possibly strong-willed and confident. But if a woman were to employ the same tactics, she is labelled the "office bitch".
(BY THE WAY, I love Meryl Streep. Kudos to her for having the whole piercing "I'm going to scorch you alive" look down pat)
The article also spoke about a famous experiment called "The Goldberg Paradigm", in which a group of people are given a speech and asked to evaluate its effectiveness or persuasion. Each time that is run, the people would rate it higher if they were told the speech is by a man, than if it were by a woman.
I guess this is just a society stereotype and gender bias. From ancient times, women are expected to be passive and meek while men are the dynamic, dominating gender. So it doesn't matter if male bosses are aggressive, they are still viewed as leaders. The mindset will just be that "it's their way of ensuring the job gets done".
But if a female boss were to do that, nicknames and sulky glances will fly across the office. There is consistent evidence, based on surveys, that high dominance in women often translates to low likeability. Case in point, Hillary Clinton, during the presidential nomination race in 2008.
Apparently, aggressive women are viewed less than desirable. If a woman is too forceful, she is viewed to be less approachable and caring. That is why there is so much negative feedback to her, with her being judged more harshly on the "dominance scale" than then-senator Barack Obama. I'm guessing that to a certain extent, her gender has worked against her campaigns.
I have a feeling that if she were to become President, people would view her more as somebody to be feared rather than someone to be respected or adored.
People are comfortable with social familiarity and the moment something out of the ordinary happens (in this case, a strong, capable woman leader), we recoil and judge them. Women are expected to be the more emotional, caring and empathetic gender. Thus, most people (to be honest, me too) think that a firm, assertive female boss is synonymous with "bitch". Definitely not somebody to cross paths with.
Maybe it's because we are all aware, at some point or another, that women have it more difficult than men and have to work twice as hard to get anywhere. The fact that a female can emerge as a leader proves that she HAS got to be more ruthless and aggressive to get to her position.
Alright to be fair, I guess double standards apply to men as well. In a society where there is an increased in crossing of gender in jobs, men don't have it easy too. Remember the previous post I wrote about guys working in the fashion industry? The general stereotype is that they are gays. It doesn't matter that they are 100% heterosexual, but just happens to have a flair for fashion or is more concerned with their appearance than the normal guy. Any male in the fashion world will run the risk of being labelled a homosexual.
(Credits: http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/2/11/921/78593)
posted by -Me--mh- at
4:07 PM
<< Home