Which did you notice first?
Which matters more?
There are people who’ll say I should insist you ignore the package that contains my brain. There are also people who’ll say I should insist you seek me out because I’m a woman, because there needs to be more of us working, writing, speaking, leading—and that you (the world, even) should learn from my gender-informed perspective and expand your worldview accordingly.
There are people who’ll tell me I should care—about which matters more, about which you notice first.
But you know what? I don’t care. I really don’t.
There’s been a lot of discussion recently, and this past week in particular, on various aspects and issues of “women in [whatever].” It’s a cyclical conversation, and one without resolution, simply because the label “woman” is too generic to be valuable.
I’m a woman, yes, but hopefully that’s self-evident. I don’t choose to label myself a woman, I prefer just to be one. And there’s a reason for that: when you put a label on yourself, people will use it. And not only that, people will use their definition of the label—not yours—and whatever preconceived notions and stereotypes they might associate with it.
That’s very dangerous.
I’d prefer my gender be an additional piece of information you know about me, rather than the primary one. That’s not to say I’m not glad to be a woman, nor that I deny my femininity or think I should. But the fact I’m a woman has never limited me in any way I’ve either noticed or cared about.
We see the world we think we do. If you think being a woman makes life harder, well then, it does. And if you don’t see it as a barrier, then it isn’t. I’m not saying women aren’t experiencing real discrimination or real hardship because of their gender. I know for many, many women their gender is a defining factor in their lives, and the struggles they experience are real.
But you can let what other people do and say define you, or not. You can observe their restrictions, or defy them. Or work within them. Or around them.
If you want to see change in the world, you have to make it. You have to look not only at what is possible, but at what you can and are willing to do. And, perhaps most notably given the tenor of recent discussions on the topic, you can’t build something great while pulling others down.
There are many, many paths to changing the roles, and prominence, of women both in this space and beyond:
Some will want to talk about it. Let them. That creates understanding.
Some will want to meet about it. Let them. That creates a network of support.
Some will want to write about it. Let them. That creates awareness.
Some will want to do something about it. Let them. That creates role models.
But all of it, all of it, creates change. The only thing that isn’t helpful is criticizing how we each choose to pursue that change (or if we choose to pursue it all). And yes, I’ll admit that this very stance is a change I’ve made, very recently.
So whether Tweetheart or Twitter Queen, a woman by choice or chance—let them all be. Embracing women in all their manifestations defines more powerfully than any blog, website, panel, or conference can, what it means to be a woman, and all the myriad forms womanhood can take.
That doesn’t mean that I identify with all the various forms. Why would I? Women are, and womanhood is, far more nuanced than that. The existence of one type doesn’t bring the others down, regardless of what much of the prevailing rhetoric might have you believe.
No, the more definitions of “woman” out there, the less and less meaningful—or useful—the “woman” label is.
And that, I think, helps us all. Woman or not.
What say you?
Tamsen, a passionate blog about a topic that I agree is cycling in many spheres at this moment. It interests me that your stance has changed recently. I can relate to your current position, and many other positions on this topic.
In Australia the ASX is about to publish new guidelines recommending reporting on gender diversity of Boards. Less than 10% representation by women on ASX200 boards has prompted such actions as companies seem unable or unwilling to make change without encouragement. There may come a time where Australia decides quotas are required, like they did in Norway. Yet, therein lies a danger of tokenism creeping in, instead of recognition that it’s the smarts (which may come with the boobs) that’s important.
Your comment that having a label means others will use it, and use *their* definition of it is sage. I applaud your assertion of the many paths to changing the roles and prominence of women and, while somedays I get sick of the rhetoric surrounding this issue, will welcome future opportunities no matter how they’re presented to further and deepend understanding, awareness and modelling.
Cheers
Michelle
Thanks, Michelle–obviously my thoughts and comments are informed by my experience with American culture, and largely East Coast metropolitan culture, at that. I take it as a sign of great progress that we don’t necessarily need the unified front anymore (though I’m completely aware that many will disagree with that statement…), but recognize that it the challenges, both here and abroad, are far from over.
Given your observation of Australian culture, how would you say the experience for women (of all shapes, sizes, styles, and forms!) differs there?
Tamsen, I feel your experience is a reasonable reflection of the Australian, which tends (for better or worse) to mirror American culture in business. I watch with interest and participate where possible as the debate and conversation on this issue rages on a variety of blogs and within other forums.
Spot on.
Although a lot of guys in this space have boobs too.
Very thought provoking post! I find that I am in agreement with you on most of it.
I spent 11years as a female officer in the US Army-and I don’t know if I was oblivious or what, but I always felt-in that extremely male dominated field-that when folks had a problem with me it was because they had a problem with *me*, not with my being a female.
Maybe that was true, maybe it wasn’t, but since I felt that way I didn’t spend a lot of time feeling “put down” by being a woman. I actually think that sometimes my inner assurance that being female had nothing to do with anything probably in it’s own way forced others to accept that viewpoint!
Along with that though, I do feel that there is a great deal of value to women sharing their experiences and mentoring each other in a professional setting. There is nothing to be lost and much to be gained by helping each other and supporting each other.
Jenn, thank you so much for adding your thoughts and sharing your experiences. I think when we use labels that challenge typical gender stereo types (and yes, “army officer” is still one of those) we make great strides in changing the larger and wider view of what “women” are. A label that doesn’t automatically invoke a gender–or even better, invokes the “man” one–is an opportunity to invite questions, stoke curiosity, and change opinions.
I completely agree on the topic of sharing experiences and mentoring. Sometimes we need to see and hear from others who are doing what we want to do so that we can then believe it’s possible for ourselves.
Tamsen, many of the arguments you make here could also be applied to other labels we see used in business: “veteran owned, “Christian,” “minority,” and so forth.
Business owners use those words as a signal to prospective customers that they are trustworthy, especially within their own demographics. So too women: “I’m a feminist,” the message seems to say. It’s a way both to attract ideal customers, and repel the non-ideal.
However, we all know untrustworthy people within those labels, and we know that our least “ideal” customers can often be our most valuable. By using labels to generate artificial trust, we may miss out on the very elements that can make ourselves and our businesses stronger; we don’t learn as much as we might otherwise have.
Long way of saying I agree — the more definitions of anyone out there (woman, veteran, Christian, minority), the more we will all come to see one another as people who come into our lives to teach and be taught. No more, no less.
Well said, Christa, thank you.
I think all human relationships break down into whether we find someone useful or fun or both. Although, to be honest, there has to be a minimum amount of both qualities to sustain the relationship–in college I realized that I couldn’t date a woman that couldn’t maintain a dinner conversation, but that I found intelligent people of either gender attractive.
If I’m using your expertise as a consultant, that’s my primary focus, with your gender much less important. In that context, I’ll judge you primarily based on results (which is a deep hole in and of itself as we may have different definitions and expectations). If there is no element of fun in our relationship, however, you’d better be damned good.
On the other hand, if I’m interacting with you socially, your gender will become more prominent in our interactions and my focus will be more on the fun we have. Again, fun is ambiguous, and for me involves some element of intellectual challenge.
Ultimately, your femininity (however you choose to embrace and express it) is part of you, not the entire definition of who you are. You have breasts, a heart and a mind. Focusing on anything less than all of them means that you’re being incomplete, and cheating yourself and others of all that you can be. And if I focus on anything less that your whole package, I’m cheating myself and seriously underestimating you.
“I’d prefer my gender be an additional piece of information you know about me, rather than the primary one.”
Aye. Nailed it.
Agreed – this statement nailed it mightily. However, spending the rest of the article talking about the thing that was meant to be minimalized works against that one sentence.
Tamsen, if you’d written the same article about hair color, and then at the end asking the reader to go back and read “gender rather than hair color” in the piece, it would’ve made the point you’re nailing.
Rick, I’m really glad that Tamsen said the rest and here’s why…
First because on the internets, people have a tendency to argue against what they *think* someone is saying using a brief sentence.
Second, because it’s an opinion I couldn’t agree more with. I have never had the experience of being held back because I’m female but that doesn’t mean that others haven’t had that experience. It’s very real for them.
To acknowledge that feeling is important because it’s not an opinion stating that what someone else has experienced is not real. It’s very clear that Tamsen understands that some women have struggled against some very real things in order to get where they are.
The above sentence nails it, but the statement deserves the rest of the blog post in order to make others hear the initial point she’s trying to make.
I know you aren’t arguing against the rest of the blog post’s points, but I don’t feel like it worked against the sentence but rather distracted from the arguments others could make against it. Qualifying statements, such as it is.
There are certain cultural expectations no matter who you are. Men are discriminated in their own way too. We are supposed to be the “leaders” or “protectors,” we are supposed to always be strong, and never cry, and blah blah blah…
I think the key to personal change FOR ANYONE, is to let go of these antiquated traditions and just seek what feels right to us as individuals.
Great post!
Agree. Thumbs up.
Tamsen, great post. I appreciate especially the fact that you embrace all the possible options ie: discussion, meetings, writing or action as working toward awareness. We all have different levels of interest and comfort in tackling issues such as this one.
I, too, have never been held back because of being a woman. I don’t know if that is because I eschew such issues or if I am just lucky, but I have never felt repressed by “the man” or any man, at all.
I do, however, rejoice in the sisterhood, whether it is twisted or not and appreciate your thoughts on this sensitive topic.
In college, a professor once made a point that he preferred not to be given a title he didn’t earn. To him, professor or doctor was fine because he had worked for those, but mister or sir or anything like that seemed stupid, because while being a man might be an important defining characteristic of him, it should have no effect on his interactions with the majority of people. I found that to be very interesting. He attempts to define himself (and have you define him) through what he does and what he stands for rather than what he simply is by virtue of being born as a male or female, disabled or not, one color or another, etc.
I should note that he was a philosophy professor. 😉
It has honestly never occurred to me that I couldn’t do something because I was a woman (because I’m short? Well, that’s a different story.) This is no doubt a result of growing up in a developed nation with unfettered access to education, under the care of parents who saw possibilities for me, instead of limitations.
But I also grew up in a very conservative Christian household, in a very conservative town where women got married young, and had large families. I guess I could have decided that my options were limited because so many women around me were following a similar path.
But I went to school instead of having babies right away, making me the first woman in my family in four generations that didn’t have a child by the time she was 21. This choice also led me to be the first woman in my direct family line as far back as anyone can remember to finish university, too. I made my own choices, regardless of history or environment, and I still do. That doesn’t make me particularly special, but in my own small way, I was able to see a different path in the midst of a fairly homogeneous community.
So few of us in Western society actually have an excuse to think things aren’t possible. If we’ve been held back or harmed or brainwashed into believing limits exist, then that’s something to overcome with a lot of hard work. That said, sitting around complaining that you haven’t been given the opportunities you deserve does absolutely nothing to change your circumstances.
It’s good to be aware of the barriers, I know — but it’s terrible to make them larger than they are.
The notion that I ought to get special attention or a leg up simply because I’m a woman has always bothered me. At the conferences that I attend, or in various discussions here, there (and everywhere, for that matter), there is endless chatter about “there should be more women on this panel” and so on and so forth. I want to be respected for and included in things because I’m good at what I do, not because I’m female. Yes, I am a woman (as you said above, this should be patently obvious), but that doesn’t make me any more or less qualified to do something than if I was a man. Maybe I’ll just start calling myself Ziggy Stardust … or Pat. Thanks, Tamsen.
Right on, Ziggy.
Such a confusing issue, isn’t it?
Regardless of what people think about Hillary Clinton, I thought it was so interesting to watch her during the presidential election a couple of years ago. It’s interesting to watch her interact with other world leaders in her current role. When she was running for president, there was literally nothing she could do right for women. She was too blunt, like a guy. She was wearing pant suits. Wait, why was she wearing pearls? That’s so girly.
Not many people argued for or against her because of her ideas.
I thought to myself, “Man…what would the ideal woman candidate be like in my eyes?”
Then I thought, “Crap, why should that matter?”
Us women need to get a handle on this before men can. What do we expect of each other? What do we expect of ourselves? Instead of beating each other down and/or having a complete love fest because we’re all “sisters,” maybe we could just look at each other as people. And hey, we have some body parts that those dudes don’t.
Great post. Bravo to you for posting it.