In today’s New York Times, op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof confessed to being racist.
Well, not exactly. What he did confess to was taking a psychological test which revealed that he was more wary of black men than of white men (click here for full article). This kind of “implicit attitude test” is common in the field of psychology, and is also used to examine the attitudes that we have about gender. He cited a number of such gender tests, all of which pointed to the same conclusion: implicit sexism is harder to overcome than implicit racism. More importantly, these tests revealed that the majority of subjects were reluctant to attribute strong leadership skills to women. Here’s how Kristof explained this:
“The challenge for women competing in politics or business is less misogyny than unconscious sexism: Americans don’t hate women, but they do frequently stereotype them as warm and friendly, creating a mismatch with the stereotype we hold of leaders as tough and strong…Women now hold 55 percent of top jobs at American foundations but are still vastly underrepresented among political and corporate leaders — and one factor may be that those are seen as jobs requiring particular toughness”
Do the women of chick lit reflect these biases??? Definitely.
In Lipstick Jungle, Nico O’Neilly (or Reilly, as on the TV series) makes its furthest up the corporate ladder. This is fitting, as she’s the token ice queen of the trio. She’s striking, but neither inviting nor beautiful. She isn’t having sex with her husband, and she condescends to her male model boyfriend. She has a lukewarm relationship with her daughter in the book, and no children at all on the series. She has no trouble at all firing Mike Harness, her co-worker and nemesis. Wendy, her warm and motherly friend, admits to hugging a director after attempting to fire him. Nico reprimands her for this move. Check it out in this promo clip: Nico can move up in the corporate world because she acts like a male exec., i.e. because she lacks feminine warmth and friendliness.
On the other hand, Nan (from Nanny Diaries) exemplifies the femininity which Kristof describes. She’s studying to become an elementary school teacher. She feels warm and fuzzy about children. She’s cordial even to those who are undeserving ( like Mrs. X). It’s likely that she’ll one day head a non-profit organization. She may not be cut out for ibanking, but (unlike Nico) she ends up with the perfect boyfriend and relationship.
What does the dichotomy between these two women tell chick lit’s young female audience? It seems like all the reading that we’ve done thus far (Lipstick, Nanny, & Eat,Pray, Love) points to the same conclusion: that you can’t be ultra-feminine and expect to succeed in a man’s world. If you want to be taken seriously, consider playing down your traditional gender role. Mrs. X plays down her emotional side so that she can maintain her marriage. Victory Ford mimics her chauvinist boyfriend’s behavior to keep him interested. Wendy Healy tries to play mother and executive, and with disastrous results.
Nanny isn’t tough like these women, but she doesn’t need to be- she is the future foundation leader that Kristof describes. This is (stereotypically) a more womanly professional path. And interestingly enough, she gets to live ‘happily ever after’ with her man–Harvard Hottie, while her counterparts continue to make sacrifices to maintain their romances.
1 Comment
April 15, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Great post.