by
Dawn Foster
View all notes
Ambition is tempered not just by individual whim, but by the codes and messages people pick up on throughout their lives, fractured by gender, class, race, sexuality and levels of disability. Telling women to ignore their inner barometer of their own likely success is hardly a solution. A woman may be as ambitious as she wants, but the people hiring and firing have their own preconceptions, in a society that maintains that women are less decisive, logical and driven. If a women's ambitions exceed the ambition her superiors feel is appropriate, wanting can do barely anything--you're still stuck on the pay grade your managers have attributed to you.
[...] Sandberg never envisages an image of a woman as anything other than a worker, or a wife and mother. The alpha successful women in Lean In are always bouncing between boardroom and babies, and the Lean Backs are daydreaming about promotions, or longing for the perfect husband and fretting over imagined biological clocks. There is no room, in the corporate feminist world, for a civil life, a political life, an emotional life outside of the nuclear family unit, or even downtime. All time is accounted for, and if a woman is not putting in her full attention at work, the only possible explanation is that she is dropping out to procreate, rather than that--heaven forbid--she might not like her job, or may have outside pursuits that sustain her interest more fully.
The importance of "aspiration" over equality both focuses on individual success, and in turn attributes failure to individuals, rather than a system designed to promote a few, transferring wealth to the "aspirational" at the expense of many, many others. Rather than admit that life chances, and the lack thereof, stifle ambition and outright block financial and professional achievements for poorer citizens, a society that promotes "aspiration" must rely on outliers. Interviews with the newly rich from humble and disadvantaged beginnings reveal a tendency not to rail against the injustices systemic inequality perpetuates, but instead to turn inward, focussing on individual achievement as proof that these barriers do not exist for those who pull themseles up by their bootstraps.
the sheryl sandberg approach is to take an unfair and inefficient system and figure out how a few people can game it, rather than to question why the fuck we're using this system in the first place
Corporate feminism tells a story that is convenient to capitalism. If personal aspiration is the key to success for women, and emancipation is to be won on an individual basis for you and your hardworking family, then solidarity and the prospect of structural and legal chance becomes a pointless distraction. Focusing on individual success stories, rather than structural inequality, is politically helpful to the right-wing squeeze on living standards across Europe and the United States. If you're languishing at the bottom of the corporate ladder rather than hammering on the glass ceiling, blame yourself, not the power structures that conspire to shrink your life choices. [...]
[...] The subtext--that women are by their nature more reserved, less risk-taking, more responsible--props up the idea that the problem wasn't the economic system, but purely the individuals pulling the levers responsible for plunging most of the globe into a long-reaching recession.
when really the risk of global financial crisis is inherent in any highly financialised world-system, which is itself the end state of neoliberalism
[...] a lot of women were still in high-ranking positions in US banks and government, and still failed to regulate risky and illegal behaviour, not because of their gender, but because of the accepted narrative that capitalism flourishes when it is unrestrained. The free market is all. There are not simply two cultures in each society: male and female. Class, race, education and social status, as well as gender, all combine to build individuals and have compete interests.
[...]
[...] The employment of some women didn't act like an air freshener, subtly sweetening the culture. Establishments don't tend to welcome outsiders if they aren't willing to play by the rules, and fit into existing structures.
makes you wonder, though: can you imagine a world in which finance is more female-dominated but still highly speculative and risky? the few women in the industry who aren't pushed out probably have to exhibit more masculine behaviours just so they can fit in. does that contribute to the problem? would more traditionally feminine behaviour avoid the worst issues, or just postpone them?
[...] "Super Mums" appeared in glossy magazine features declaring that having seven children, a magazine catalogue-esque husband, a minimalist yet chic house, and a directorship or twelve was effortless, aside from a few light strategical negotiations. Super Mums are invariably wealthier than the readers of weekend supplements, and when asked about how they manage, they never respond: "I hired a number of women to work for low wages, cleaning and running my household, carrying out life admin, organising my diary, and raising my children." Mothers on minimum wage who manage to keep a job, raise children, and run households are never deemed Super Mums, only Irresponsible Mums for having the audacity to have children in the first place.
[...] Daring to hire from outside the traditional pool while non-traditional yourself, merely ensures the prejudicial stereotypes applied to your race or gender come back to haunt you.
which makes sense, since minorities who promote diversity are seen as less competent (she cites this study: https://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2014/07/21/women-penalized-for-promoting-women-study-finds/)
[...] Every colleague is competition. As a result you're constantly on edge, aware that the tiniest slip of the tongue or careless mistake could mean a fall from grace and attendant loss of income. In such circumstances, it's almost impossible to organise collectively. No one employed so precariously dare step out of line first, knowing the imevitable consequences. [...]
The benefit of having women in the cabinet remains to be seen for migrant, low-paid, or abused women. For now, it seems as though there is no difference: the powerful look after the powerful, with gender as an afterthought, or a bargaining chip when trying to deflect criticism for cuts that harm women.
[...]
[..] There is no intrinsic tendency for women to support other women when competing class and power interests offer far more fruitful personal rewards.
she also mentions that the women who get into these positions of power in the first place tend to be the ones who already fit the culture and won't ask for too much change (see: Margaret Thatcher)