Is gender insulting to women leaders?

Sadly, gender denial by women in power seems to be seems to all too common in 21st century America. Responding to a question about her gender, Drew Faust, Harvard’s first female president, replied, "I’m not the woman president of Harvard, I’m the president of Harvard." N.Y. Times blogger Judith Warner agreed, arguing that attributing the newly appointed Faust’s notoriety as "a people person" to her gender "is to cut Faust off at the knees." A N.Y. Times reporter researching an article recently found very few female CEO's willing to say anything about gender. Could it be that women executives still regard their gender as a professional liability?

Yet gender is clearly an issue surrounding Dr. Faust’s appointment. It brings the number of female Ivy League Presidents to 50% - nearly to the percentage of women in the general population. Dr. Faust replaced a man who alienated many with his imperious style and his comments about gender differences. Dr. Faust, it is said, listens and makes people feel heard and included. Doesn’t it make sense that Harvard might want to bring on a woman as president at this time?

It’s time for female academic and business leaders to stop pretending that gender is irrelevant or unimportant. An increasing volume of scientific studies show that women and men’s brain structures, motivations and styles of interaction are, on average, a bit different. Yet many people, and especially feminists, remain convinced that if there are any behavioral differences between women and men, they are entirely due to socialization. The problem with continuing this difference denial is that it distracts us from the critical issue of what we do about differences.

It is time to explicitly recognize that we need more women leaders, and to take more steps to create opportunities for women at the top. This is not, as Judith Warner implies, insulting to women. We need to do this for the good of humanity.

No women leaders in the U.S. seemed insulted by a recent UNICEF report calling for more opportunities for women in developing countries. The report gave numerous examples of how with a greater role in family decision-making and with independent access to income, women make better choices for their children than men do. The same is true when women attain more influence in local or national policymaking: the people in their regions and nations are better off for the choices women make. To name just a few of the public policy consequences of placing greater emphasis on the welfare of children: economies are stronger, health care and schools are better, and wars are less likely. We could use more of this good judgment in the U.S.

Don't know much about politics.

(Second post in a series on the book Matrocracy. Link to first post.)
A recent op-ed by Linda Hirshman complained that women, particularly liberal white women, don’t know as much about current affairs, politics and government as men do. She cited polling data to back up her claim. Similar complaints have been lodged at minority groups in the past over the challenges of making societal reforms via the ballot box.

With only sixteen percent of the seats in Congress held by women, versus eighty-four percent held by men (see previous post), it’s no wonder the activities of that body and other legislatures don’t hold as much interest for women as they do for men. If you don’t think your voice is being heard anyway, and your expectation of actual participation in the legislature by you or others like you is low, you tend to tune out.

It is critical that we be proactive in increasing women’s participation in government. With more women legislators, governors, and presidential candidates, the political dialog will change to include more issues women care about. With rising expectations, hearts and minds will naturally follow. Then, what a wonderful world this would be.
Link to third post in the series.