In a previous life I wrote a doctoral dissertation on working women, specifically those who made it to executive positions that had been exclusively held by men. It was in the early 80’s when interview studies had gained respect. I interviewed the handful of women I located, and tried to figure out what they had in common with each other. I came up with some interesting stuff.
In the earlier days, the women who made it closest to the top had features in common too. They were mainly bright, unmarried women whose work was the most important part of their lives. Most of them were favored daughters of fathers who had not had sons. It so happened that these women worked directly for a man who was on his way to the top of some company or some field, and he’d take her with him. She’d be first labeled his secretary and perhaps later his assistant, and once he got far enough ahead he’d promote her to a management position she was well qualified for. (There were also some women who inherited a business, and then headed the business.) Think Condi Rice, for a contemporary version of this woman. This early data brought about the idea of the queen bee, a woman who made it, but kept any other woman from following her up the ladder.
Then came Title VII, http://www.eeoc.gov/... when employers had to stop discriminating, to some degree anyway, in order to avoid lawsuits (think the likes of John Edwards). Then women were advanced to middle management positions, and a very few managed to make it to the top. These were the women in my study, and they had no connections, did not follow some man on his career path, and often started at the very bottom and worked their way up.
Not all were married, but some were, and some were divorced. Not all were white, not all were religious. Not all were tomboys, or had brothers and sisters, or were particularly close to their dads. Not all of them were bossy, or even showed group leadership skills as kids. Not all of them had been top students. Not all of them had mentors, and those who did didn’t stay with their mentors throughout a career. Not all of them had college degrees. Some had MBA’s.
I found that these women had certain characteristics in common. They all had amazing stamina, they could work many hours and also function at home All of them had been independent little girls who had been allowed, either overtly or because their parents weren’t controlling, to follow their own interests and make choices for themselves. They all had lots of interests, and they were all busy little girls, who greatly enjoyed their activities. This busy enjoyment of activity continued into their working lives.
All of the women liked learning and learned as much as they could in their fields. They were all good-looking women, who dressed well. They all had female associates they liked and promoted when they could. They all did things in their work lives that reflected or incorporated what they’d enjoyed as children.
Every one of them had what Hillary calls the ‘thick skin.’ This is because they had all put up with male humor and male stereotypical thinking, and they never took these things personally, although that doesn’t mean they liked it. Any of them would leave a position if it got to the point that they truly couldn’t stand it. They would also leave positions if it looked like their ability to do what they liked to do would be permanently blocked. They all liked doing what they were doing, and they did not work for community respect, or even peer respect, which could certainly be denied, they worked for the pleasure of continuing to follow their interests, and the pleasure of doing a great job. They had learned from children to enjoy work as if it were play.
What they did in their careers was to keep working, keep learning what they had to learn to be more effective. They got along with the men they worked with, but their advancement had to do with their own know how and luck (and they all admitted to luck, just as they all agreed to be interviewed because they wanted to help another woman (me) doing some research.)
I’m sure things are different now, in that there are far more opportunities for women to be judged on performance, and not held back because of old stereotypes. The glass ceiling has gotten higher, and more women are top executives, although of course far fewer than percentages would anticipate.
Hillary and I are almost the same age, (she’s a few months younger). When I finished college with a degree in political science, I had limited work opportunities. Men with college degrees could start in entry-level business positions while I had to learn how to type. After a few years of not getting anywhere I went back to school, and got a professional degree. Hillary went for a law degree and continued doing what she’d done as a kid, which was helping others, and being a bright hard working student.
At this time in history, when it’s possible to have our first female president, some have questioned whether the country is ready to elect a woman. Hillary is a different candidate, because she’s a woman. We would be hard pressed to find a woman who had had more critics and experienced more moronic hate than Hillary. From her husband’s entry into the presidential contest she has been vilified mainly for being a ‘not traditional’ first lady. Who can forget the furor over her admission that she didn’t bake cookies and her ‘hubris’ that she could work with her husband as well as any of his other advisors. The fact that the Clintons saw each other as equals rocked the nation and brought out offensive manifestations of misogyny. These have continued as “her negatives” which only means she’s often attacked, for what she does or doesn’t do.
I’m not going to speak of sexism at this time, it exists, and Hilary is not the sort of candidate that can defuse misogyny. She’s a hard worker, she’s got a great mind, she has an excellent memory, she stays focused, she can multi-task, no one can vote for Hillary and think they’re doing her a favor, cutting the girl a break, because she’s so clearly earned her front-runner position. But she could still lose, even though she’s the most qualified, and the most prepared, and her platform conforms most with what most Democrats want. That’s because she’s interviewing for a job, and those of us who chose who to hire, by voting, from the field of applicants, may not be ready to have a girl wonk as president, however much she’s worked to get this far, and however much her election will raise the ceiling for others. I hope she’s elected, I’m working for her, and if she doesn’t make it, I’ll be sad