Elizabeth Warren and the double standards for female leaders

[DonViejo]

By Helaine Olen
Opinion writer
June 19 at 2:13 PM

At the end of a profile of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in this week’s New York Times Magazine, author Emily Bazelon asks the senator and presidential candidate how she plans to address attempts by President Trump and others to demonize her and portray her as something she is not. Warren replies with a statement female readers will identify with: “I’ll just keep talking to people."

It’s a statement offering both cheerful optimism — I can win people over! — and more than a hint of lived experience. Needing to win people over again and again and again so they can get ahead is something all too many women are very familiar with.

Academic studies of how the sexes are treated in the workplace show men are lauded for their potential, while similarly credentialed women are told they lack necessary qualifications. Women appear to believe they need to put in more effort on the job to be viewed as competent. They are less likely to be forgiven for their mistakes. Women typically don’t apply for jobs until they have checked off every box, while men send in a résumé if they meet about 60 percent of the listed qualifications. No surprise, women report working harder than men, something confirmed by analysis of time-use surveys.

Joan Williams, a professor of law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law and longtime expert on women and work, calls it the “prove-it-again” syndrome. In the book “What Works for Women at Work,” Williams and co-author Rachel Dempsey write that women are “are forced to prove their competence over and over.”

One proven strategy for getting ahead in a prove-it-again world: developing a unique niche. Williams and Dempsey cite surveys showing such a strategy can lead to a woman executive becoming “indispensable.” And here it could be said that Warren has been preparing for this run for the better part of four decades, even if she wasn’t totally aware of it.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/19/elizabeth-warren-double-standards-female-leaders/

[The Mouth]

1. My mom

commented that in order to be taken seriously "A woman has to do everything better, smarter, faster and with less fuss than a man. Fortunately that isn't very difficult". Gallows humor, with a side of snark, a Reynolds trait. I recall her telling my dad that 'Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, except backwards and in high heels'.

[marylandblue]

2. I've heard a lot of women say that. Warren's my second choice

because she is in fact better, smarter, and faster than any man in the race, except Buttigieg, but it's damn close between them.

[The Mouth]

3. Mine, too

I think Pete as VP with Warren (interesting that he's 'Pete', not Buttigieg?, I always wondered about the dynamic of calling her Hillary and him Trump, although having had a previous Clinton was a factor. Some interesting psychological dynamics there) would be a huge win.

I have Pete as primary because I was unabashed in my support of Secretary Clinton (to the degree I got called 'racist' in 2008) and would heartily laugh at anyone thinking I'm sexist, but mostly because my LGBT friends would be so insanely happy if he's even the VP.

Although in all cases, letting race, gender or sexual orientation be much of a guide is dangerous. I mean Margaret Thatcher was just like Reagan, only much, much smarter, and Herman Cain is most definitely of African descent and would be dangerous if in power.

We are fortunate to have several strong candidates. There are a few I really don't like, but I'll still celebrate their election with great relief.

[mopinko]

7. women candidate everywhere tend to use their first names.

i refused to let my sister do that.
pete does it because his name is strange, but women do it all the time.
they should stop it.

[The Mouth]

8. It's annoying as hell

I notice that neither Margaret Thatcher nor Sarah Palin is primarily identified by their first names.

And dislike them or not, they were consequential (IMHO had Palin a bit more cognitive capacity and gravitas, she could have been a major player for decades).

IMHO two of the brainiest and most powerful women of my lifetime were hardcore conservatives, Thatcher and Phyliss Schaffley. The damage they did, incalculable, their intent malevolent, but their intelligence, savvy, drive and political ability, undeniable.

[The Mouth]

4. I'd also say that Yang is incredibly smart

but pure brainpower isn't enough in this race, gotta be able to take punches and fight dirty and appeal to the lowest common denominator at times, at least in my opinion.

[marylandblue]

5. Well Pete has certainly shown his killer instinct when needed.

We may soon see how Warren does in action. If she keeps moving up, Trump will attack her. I suspect she has a new plan for that.

[The Mouth]

6. That's why brutal primaries are a Good thing

The winner gets to take on Trump

the winner against Trump gets to deal with *intelligent* evil sleazebags.

It's a tough game.

I love Elizabeth, I trust her brain power, common sense and basic ethos. I also think Joe can do nasty things if necessary (and they are always necessary in the POTUS gig).
.