Editor’s note: This commentary is by Elayne Clift, who writes about women, culture and social issues from Saxtons River.
[F]or many years, I taught gender studies in the U.S. and abroad. I saw minds open, career aspirations change, female students validated and empowered, and male students, newly enlightened, passionate about equal rights. I was just one teacher afforded this vital social change opportunity but I can attest to its impact.
There is another meaning to the term “gender studies.” It’s the one based on critical research that informs curricula, fuels discussions in gender studies classrooms, and raises awareness generally about gender discrimination.
Some years ago, for example, a study conducted by professor emeritus Deborah Kolb at Simmons College explained the phenomenon known as “second generation gender bias.” The term doesn’t mean gender discrimination among women whose mothers were Second Wave feminists. Rather, it refers to a subtle form of gender bias that leads to women persistently being blocked from leadership positions, especially in business.
The bias fosters powerful, often invisible barriers for women arising from cultural assumptions and organizational structures, practices, and patterns of interaction that inadvertently benefit men. As Kolb pointed out, how work is valued often gives men an advantage in terms of access to leadership positions. That’s because many organizations ignore or undervalue behind-the- scenes work like team building that women are more likely to undertake. Also, men’s informal networks often lead to mentorship and greater access to influential colleagues than women’s networks do. And the notion of an ideal leader is likely to be based on the view that men are decisive, assertive and independent whereas women are perceived as caretaking, or too emotional to make tough decisions. Studies have also shown that women who excel in traditionally male domains are seen as less likeable than their male counterparts.
A more recent study done by professor Katherine Milkman at the Wharton School looked at how professors respond to different students seeking mentoring from their professors. Milkman and her colleague created fake student emails with names that represented different genders or racial groups. These pseudo-students emailed their professors at top universities to request a meeting about their work. Professors – male, female and minority — proved more likely to respond, and respond positively, to white men.
Another pilot study found that the gender of professors influenced the evaluations they received from their students, even if their students had been fooled about professorial gender. (This kind of research is now possible because of online courses.) In this study, students gave better evaluations to professors they thought were male, even though the two professors involved, one male and one female, had switched their identities. While neither the actual male nor the actual female teacher received significantly higher ratings, they did receive different ratings when they “switched” genders. The male instructor received lower ratings when students thought their teacher was female and the female teacher had higher ratings when students were told their instructor was male. A similar phenomenon was seen in previous research that found gender bias in students’ evaluations of articles. Male-designated authors were seen as more qualified or credible.
Finally, a study conducted this year by a foundation interested political decision-making found that it’s harder to reassure voters that women who run for office can balance work and family life as well as men. Research carried out in five cities and online before the election explored voter reactions to several fictional candidates. Some were presented as married mothers of young children, as single mothers or unmarried women without children, as lesbians with children or divorced women, and some as married fathers with young children.
The double standards that afflict women in politics was blatant during Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and more recently when Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., was silenced on the Senate floor. Even voters who worried that fathers might come up short in terms of either their young children or their office obligations were reassured if the male candidates issued statements addressing that concern. But they continued to have strong doubts about married mothers of young children after they also issued statements. According to the executive director of the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, “We confirmed that traditional gender roles are still powerful, influencing what we perceive to be acceptable and appropriate behavior for men and women.”
There is some reason for hope, however. The same study found signs of changing attitudes. For example, voters balked at criticism of divorced candidates and didn’t seem to care about the dating lives of either male or female candidates. Lesbian women with children had grown more acceptable, particularly if their partner stayed home to care for the kids.
This kind of research, whether to expand academic literature and teaching, to assess voter preferences and biases, or whatever, is perhaps more important than ever, given the subtleties, assumptions and stereotyping revealed in these studies. Helping professionals and others, including women themselves, understand why women still struggle to “get ahead” and to realize their personal goals, be they political, creative, or otherwise, remains an incomplete task. We must address that task if we are to realize a truly level playing field.
