This is why people are demanding gender non specific birth certificates.
"For too long"-- that for pretty much the entirety of Nancy Pelosi's political career until maybe the last election--"female power has been calculated using the arbitrary measuring stick of how men exercised authority."
Once again, merriment at the arrival of Ms. Tlaib and Omar without mentioning that they are bigoted anti-semites
1
It wouldn't be a day in the life of the NYT Op-Ed pages without a piece by an ardent feminist. Yawn.
3
Another stereotypical women are good, men are bad article which has become a staple of the the New York Times. Let's first not forget that 53% of white women voted for Donald Trump who has several women in his cabinet. Gina Haspel of the CIA who led the torture of suspects at CIA black sites. Kristjen Nelson, head of homeland security, who had no problem executing on orders to separate mothers from babies at the border without a plan to reunite them. Bold, strong (and amoral) women who do not fit the stereotype that the Times is promoting.
4
Your Leftist-nihilist attack on man's independent mind, ,man the individual, and individual rights is noted. You reinforce the Rightist attack on these life-serving values. That blood-drenched, unholy combination, national socialism, is increasing its deathgrip on America's Enlightenment origin. See _Atlas Shrugged_ for the radical alternative.
1
Wow. Such hostile comments !!
2
Oh dear. Women are such noble creatures all the time. How lucky we are that they are so glorious and wonderful. Every time they come into public office, let us praise them and remember they do not lie, cheat and steal unlike those, bad, bad, white men.
4
Thanks for your NYT article on women in power. It was one of the most satisfying things I’ve found in the news for some time. I am 78 years old and consider myself to have been a pioneer in achieving positions of power and authority in both the private and public sector and guilty of trying to be a better male model. In my defense, I knew no other way. However, I remember a wise woman telling me something that I want to share. I was horrified at the language of power—how male oriented it was. At one time I started ( but never finished) a book on “A woman’s guide to talking dirty and swearing in business.” I complained to this woman about expressions like “you gotta have balls to succeed” and “getting your tit in a wringer” and “it’s your turn in the barrel” and the like. She told me the day will come when it will be said that “you gotta be able to cry” to succeed. I never forgot. It made me cry to read about these wonderful women taking on our political messes and doing it their way. May they prosper and succeed! It is a good time to be alive. Thank you,
PS: I also smile when I remember the president of the consulting firm where I worked telling the other (all male, of course) VPs in the firm that “you gotta have balls like Welker to succeed” at the second sales meeting I attended.
2
Mark Twain:
Show me a self made man snd i’ll show you a self laid egg
Phonies all
Done
2
a truly mindmeltingly stupid article even by jill's industry leading standard. perfect liberal feminism where men are guilty both of insistence on being "self-made" and beneficiaries of a good old boy network that shuts women, minorities and the disabled out of power. Which is it? The latter, of course. Talk about duh. Its called the patriarchy.
maybe "feminist" liberal grifters like jill will have to have a reckoning with the fact that feminism is not about women vs men as gender stereotypes (which she peddles in exclusively because she's a hack) but about the people vs the patriarchy and until that day they will be adrift on their own island with their wonder woman collectors edition dvd set alienating 80 percent plus of the population screaming about how they deserve a promotion because they work harder than all these stupid men while the patriarchy just cashes the check off their hard work.
great job, that'll show em.
1
How surprising.
Another article/editorial explaining how the old white guys who created a country so wonderful that people walk thousands of miles for the chance to live here - even illegally - are horrible evil people.
Misandry is so politically correct - if your a liberal.
5
Please, the women identified as a Palestinian American has already identified herself as a rabid anti-Semite. If she was a white man she would be on the way out already. Women may or may not be better leaders than men, but all individuals stand on their own accomplishments and can hoist their own pitards.
2
Except for the GOP where 60,000 year old white men rule
"When Honest Women Replace ‘Self-Made’ Men"
So women are superhuman! So power will not corrupt women. Usual leftist feminist nonsense.
ALL politicians behave like 2-year olds; once you take your eye off them, they will misbehave.
1
"Power, for all of American history, has been white"
Tell that to Barack Obama.
1
I've tried to ignore the offensive title of this article, but it keeps attracting my disgust.
1
Is there any real evidence in this column?
1
When an honest-to-god capitalist male replaced a dishonest female who illegally enriched herself by selling government influence, then engineered a gigantic illegal coverup to blame the man, including a fake dossier she paid for (all the while corrupting countless intelligence and law enforcement officials), it finally convinced millions of citizen voters that the tale we've been fed about gender is worthless junk, and we voted for the male. It didn't help that the miscreant laughed mercilessly about ruining an entire African country, or called black youths 'super-predators'.
Enough with the gender malarkey. It instantly tips us off that everything you're selling is garbage. We've all moved on, even the Beach Friends.
2
1. All politicians are liars.
2. Nancy Pelosi is a politician.
3. Nancy Pelosi is the complete opposite of "Honest".
4. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has lied about where she grew up, and what schools she attended.
Where are the "honest women" this writer has declared exist?
1
Just look at that headline paraphrased "honest women replace power-hungry and it is assumed "dishonest" men". As if successful male politicians do not recognize the contributions of the people who support them (how many times do you see politicians drag the family out on stage at every opportunity). They also fawn over their supporters and voters constantly. If you think this is something new and exclusive to women or minority candidates, you are either a complete idiot or a dishonest person yourself. There is always a certain amount of corruption in any political system but if you think that is a result of "white men" I would really like to know where you went to school. Evergreen State maybe?
Personally I prefer our nation's leaders to be smart, well educated in Economics, International Studies, Political Science, etc.
I could care less what gender, religion or socioeconomic background they come from.
However, if we wind up with a Congress and Senate full of graduates with degrees in gender and diversity studies that don't understand the first thing about global trade, the monetary system and political theory then we are all in trouble.
But I guess they'll be honest unlike "white men" Sheesh
1
Spot on article!
This is hogwash. Women are just as conniving, backstabbing, lazy and worthless as men are. It is a human thing, not male versus female. This is a very sexist article as it does nothing but deride the male of the species. By the way, those who rose to the top of the "man's world" did so by competing against other men. If you think theirs wasn't a brutal battle, you are wrong.
3
In a word: baloney. This is simply a reification of the standard, men-are-selfish and women-are-team-players stereotype. There is no such thing as a typical man or woman. It's like saying all Italians like pasta or all Jews smoke cigars. It's simply a lot of ideological nonsense.
1
We have a president who lied about getting a small million dollar loan from dad when it was really hundreds of millions.
The woman who rises to power without a group effort but on her own merits--she will be the first Female President of the United States of America.
The women that are in Congress and the ones that just got elected do not know their History or Facts concerning our country and the world, BUT they sure know how to curse, lie and use foul language in front of children--this does not make a woman great.
The democrats made a huge mistake in 2014 by having Hilary Clinton run.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is regularly dissed by the woman named Nancy Pelosi, a congressperson who who is not honest and who supports the same Wall St controlled patriarchal capitalist system that confuses placing women on the board of Exxon with women's liberation.
SO NYTS.
More man hating from the liberal woman. First of all, the line of logic that forms the basis of the argument is fundamentally gender discrimination, at the onset, and has the additional flaw of subscribing to the logic of the most recent and well known woman politician, Hillary Clinton, who proclaimed through word and deed that if a man can achieve power through lying and crooked dealing then a woman can do also.
You see, at the national level, problems have no sex. Women expecting a woman to be elected is a fundamental corruption of the purpose of elective representation. The reason women want a woman in office is because the woman office holder will selectively use the power of office to benefit women, at the expense of men. Any woman candidate who plays the gender card during her campaign is advertising to the public that they are corrupt for the chosen interests of a particular segment of their constituency.
It's like a mafia don being elected and telling alla the guys that youse can count on me to take care of the boys.
1
Here we go again. Woman good, man bad. Use the exact same verbiage, but written as "When Honest Men Replace 'Self-Made' Women" and see what happens. Heck, just write 'honest men' and watch the fireworks.
Also, there is this cabal of humans known as white men. They are identical in every way, unlike everyone else who is diverse and distinct. Yes, of course.
To those who subscribe to this nonsense, remember that when you employ the woman-good, man-bad trope, you are also implying men of all races. Oh no! Better clarify, WHITE men or you'll be tripping on your trope.
1
Congrats Ms Filipovic, you managed to write a gender issue topic without starting to bash today's man at least until the end.
Let's go over it again. If today's women pols. want to succeed, rule as Americans and not women.
Hillary did not learn the lessen and it was fatal to her.
Obama learned the lessen and ran and ruled as an American and not as a black and served two terms.
I told my Hillary friends this but it was too late, like lemmings jumping off a cliff.
2
So if we elect a bunch of women and nothing changes, can we just admit Washington stinks?
Very well written, Ms. Filipovic.
In case you skipped the article for the comments, here’s a summary: “women are good, white men are bad.”
Sheesh, we can support women without tearing men down.
2
I would like to know if they are building more women’s bathrooms in the Capitol. That for me would be a wee milestone that underscores the arrival of these women in the corridors of power.
I'm female and glad to see women in power. But let's not kid ourselves--women are capable of being just as evil as men.
2
(1) “In American history, Ms. Pelosi....represent more than just Democratic gains: She will be a visual symbol of a profound shift in how those with power might wield it.” No. Pelosi is an exhibit of unrestrained power, and that man or woman, power corrupts absolutely. I do not know of one women under 55 who supports Pelosi. Why? Because she adds nothing of value to the new generation of Democrats and has a voting record of a big mouthy male in the GOP. The cynical myth now be woven is that she personally got all the 43 freshmen congresswomen and men elected to overtake the House. What a Trumpian lies!
“For too long, female power has been calculated using the arbitrary measuring stick of how men exercised authority; women, as a result, largely shaped themselves to these male-determined standards and norm.”
True be told many women do use manly tactics as a standard. Like a man, Pelosi arm-twisted congressional members to vote for billions of dollars that was needlessly and wastefully spent on the military budget(s) and endless wars. Like a man she prevented universal healthcare for all and got us a second rate class-based healthcare, instead. And women get the worst of that healthcare and its inane restrictions. Way to go lady!!!
Hi Jill - I would like to remind you that probably the two largest failures as leaders in my lifetime are the female presidents of Argentina and Brazil. Oh yeah, then there are also the atrocities in Myanmar.
Maybe failure or success isn't a gender proposition.
Regards,
William Cokins
1
Hillary Clinton said it best, "it takes a village".
The headline seems, in recent Times fashion, to imply that, while women are "honest," men are not. What a surprise from the NY Women's Times.
Remember the mittens romney and his merry band of hedge fund guys claim that “I built this?” All while ignoring the help they had from public investment and expense, including their education and maybe a SBA loan, but they wouldn’t want some facts get in the way of a wrong wing rant, right?
I cut out the Martin Schoeller Vanity Fair photo of some of the women of the 116th Congress, framed it, and it is now displayed in my girls' bedroom. I want them to grow up knowing what a leader looks like.
https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5c1d598d9264132ce61d6b03/master/w_900,c_limit/MAG-0219-Politics-Ender.jpg
This is from "We Did Not Come to Play" by Claire Landsbaum in the February issue.
1
Citing Rashida Tlaib as a positive example requires either blindness or antisemitism. A supporter of the BDS boycott of everything Israeli, she pretended to to favor a two state solution when she needed Jewish support to get elected, then abruptly announced support of a "one state solution with the right of return" which, translated means destruction of the Jewish state by supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah committed to eradication of Jews in the region. A good role model for another flavor of racism.
Woman are just as greedy and selfish as men. Whether in politics or not.
countries or cultures that marginalize, repress or enslave half their population (and the better half at that) are doomed to stagnation at best and total failure at the worst.
Hooray for misandry!!!
Beat that horse! Beat it good!
C'mon, the existing women in power have been just as good and just as bad as men. Both sexes are human. Both can have great stories and or silver spoons and skeletons in their history.
Yes, hooray for the upcoming wave in our congress. Yes the diversity and change is for the better.
Women can be and will be just as bad, or good as men.
Quit painting with the giant brush. A little nuance does wonders.
Not all males are your enemy. Many of us are your mates.
It's that kind of fashionable gender-feminist ideological nonsense that ends up discrediting the true cause of gender equality. NYT doesn't cover itself in glory by placing such pieces in the op-ed section.
Trump is with us because the progressives have latched on to ephemeral ideological concepts rather than hard, real life issues like healthcare, daycare, public education, etc.
This piece has no meaning in Missouri.
1
I fail to see how gender determines quality.
Women have been shown to be as disastrous as men in all walks of life.
The "gender" generalization is as wrong as any other.
This piece annoys this 60 year old woman. I know plenty of men who took up the mantle of fair play, are not tall dark and handsome, AND thanked the people who helped them along the way. Why demonize men and canonize 3 women who are definitely using their "cultures" as fist in the face...of a country that offers opportunity. In my book, they are also opportunists. Right? First rule Omar passed was to benefit herself.
Honest Women? Really? The mountain of lies that AOC spewed on her campaign rivels Trump's in it's audacity. When confronted about her recent exaggerations re Pentagon waste - she said " I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right." This is a line straight from Trump and his people.
*standing ovation*
We need to rename things like Traditional values, traditional male and female behaviors, adding of course Trans, etc. What is traditional anymore? By whose standards? White males? Female? Black? Rich and elite? Urban, rural, suburban?
There was another piece this week about "traditional masculinity." (and its toxic effects on boys and men) Every time I hear the term Im caught wondering why we still use these terms, when whatever it once meant is in reality long past us. Fewer and fewer men are the only wage earners in a hetero household, or the better paid, even better educated.
So to define "traditional power" is difficult to do. Sure the old white male, boys-club system lives, and holds power in some sectors. Even ruthlessly some times. But if it was so solid why is it so scared? And why are its traditional tools causing it so much pain?
That old-white-boys club knows its losing grip. Trump's whole shtick is IT gasping for breath. McConnells do nothing ('cept stack'n the courts) behaviors is like a vine choking itself off, and doing it with glee.
The Repub party, is like a bunch of frat buddies, drunk in a van and gleefully driving towards a wall. They seem to be willingly doing everything they can to waste their power, undermine it and provide Progressive candidates easy campaign talking points.
Candidates need only to be talking straight, and boldly right now. Not merely loudly and crassly, like Trump.
Honest straight talk - is either genders way to win.
1
This article is full on nonesence. There have been women (primarily white) in the US house and Senate for decades. What we currently have is the largest and most diverse influx of women but that is absolutely no guarantee that this group will do anything differently from the lesser number of women who held these positions in the past. Many women, albeit all Republicans, voted against the ACA and later voted to nearly gut this very important law. Democratic female lawmakers aren't perfect either. Hilary Clinton used the phrase "super predator" to usher in devastation in the black community; voted for war authority in Iraq and later led the charge in what is universally believed to be the biggest foreign policy blunder of the Obama administration - the catastrophic NATO led invasion of Libya. This is just the tip of the iceberg. The group of women who are now part of the 116 Congress should ignore the shower of platitudes that are raining down on them. The stakes are high. Many have high hopes. Now they must prove themselves.
All true, but I don't know any leaders other than total jerks like Trump who would say "I did it all on my own." I know women who are capable of great political infighting for personal, not communal, gain, too. This is a great nascent civilizational change that is finally coming to America and the discussion of the problems of "meritocratic" systems has really yet to begin. It has yet to be proved that tomorrow's billionaire women will be a less self-perpetuating class than white men are today.
Given that the self-made man is in most cases a myth, this shift is most welcome and long overdue.
1
The best part of powerful people knowing they did not build themselves up from scratch all alone is that they will also feel more accountable to the people who got them there, as they should. That's how we get politicians who actually represent the needs, wants, and opinions of their electors.
2
The essay begins noting white men have generally exercised power in America. True.
Then it claims women gaining power redefine what it means to be powerful. I don’t see how the essay demonstrates this assertion. Its truth is not obvious to me. But it’s reasonable to look into whether it’s true (it may be), and if so to wonder why.
Then it comes: “But as more women have entered the political realm, they have created more space for authenticity over self-aggrandizement.” Why should we correlate authenticity or self-aggrandizement with gender? Should we presume FDR and Ike were probably inauthentic and self-aggrandizing, if we only knew, while Hillary and Gillibrand can probably be trusted on this score because they’re women?
What’s up with this entire genre? If I spent my time trying to prove FDR, Ike, Bach, and men who organize to fight fires exemplify Man, while Sheryl Sandberg dealing with the 2016 election fallout, Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos, and Youtube videos of women fighting in Wal-Mart exemplify Woman, you might well distrust my reasoning and factual assertions and wonder about my character.
I also don’t see why we should analyze the relationship between individual effort, group effort, and the knowledge and infrastructure we inherited from the past in terms of gender. Post-1980 R talking points don’t represent Man any more than post-1980 American feminists represent Woman.
5
I don't care to be governed by people dominated by emotions and irrationality.
2
@JackC5
Not to put words in your mouth, but I'm sure you meant to say "governed by people—of either sex—dominated by emotions and irrationality."
Because if there's ever been a better example of someone "governed by emotions and irrationality," it's the dude in the White House.
And don't take my word for it. Just read the headlines.
Don’t put all men in the same category and the current collection of non-thinking Trumpbots.
"We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours." John of Salisbury
“If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." Isaac Newton
4
I just finished reading Sisters in Spirit and will leave you with this quote. ““Every woman present must have a new sense of dignity and self-respect, feeling that our mothers, during periods in the long past, have been the ruling power, and that they used that power for the best interests of humanity. As history is said to repeat itself, we have every reason to believe that our turn will come again”. Elizabeth Cady Stanton 1891
It’s been too long, if you ask me.
This column is full of disappointing stereotypes and disjointed, unconvincing arguments. For instance, there seems to be the suggestion that men working hard is bad (huh?) and women engaging in social networking instead is somehow superior. But how does any person of any gender actually accomplish anything meaningful without engaging in both of those things?
However, I find the comments from readers to be very encouraging because many of the comments reflect the concept that both men and women, as individuals, have a choice of making a positive or negative impact. This is the most important mantra of our age.
As for the column itself, misandry and misogyny are the same monster in a different mask and neither of them is, or ever has been, the solution to anything.
6
Somehow, this seems relevant. Boy Scouts have sold nuts, candy, and many other things to support their organization. Girl Scouts have sold cookies for a hundred years, since 1917. Maybe there's something to working hard together without being distracted by every possibility.
Pelosi is honest? With a net worth of over 100 million, on congressmans salary? Do you think she may have entered a grey area or two in her life? What about Feinstein and Harris and their respect for the law at the Kavanaugh hearings? Bresch of epipen? Holmes of Theranos? To say women are more honest than men is not honest or smart. It is placing them on a pedestal.
Have you ever thought historically women are not in charge because the might be worse than men? Not even a few ?
2
Thank you, Jill Filipovic, for this exploration of our culture's concept of power.
I idolized my doctor father and underappreciated the sacrifices and efforts of my 'housewife' mother. I was in my late 30s before I realized the amazing power of my self-educated mom.
To my beautiful daughter, who bought a business at age 23 and, at 37, continues to build its capacity--thank you for honoring your grandmother and women all over the world. And to my daughter's wonderful husband--thank you for being a team player and one of the best husbands and fathers ever.
This new narrative feels so much more 'real' than the old.
If there is one outstanding feature of the ascension of women, people of color, and those of different gender identity, that they bring into our new House of Representatives, it is that these new members do acknowledge the help, the web of support, the community, and the shoulders they stand on to have achieved their offices.
This alone is huge and opens the door for more people to see themselves in a political calling.
It also shows a completely different mind set about how they regard their supporters and what they can do for all their constituency in a political office. Do you see the inclusiveness here?
This alone, is very different from someone who too often thinks he got there primarily on his own. And this gives me hope!
K
@Owlwoman: People are people. You overrate the noble purity and aversion to corruption of politicians who happen to be women or minorities. At root level your cause for celebration reduces to a now standard, highly prejudicial "evil white man" type of argument. It's the system in place that needs alteration, not the gender or skin color.
I have worked with innumerable committees, commissions, councils, work groups, etc. The best decisions are made when there is a good mix of men and women.
I rejoice that women are coming into the mainstream of decision-making, but let us not forget that men still hold up the other half of the sky. We need women and men.
5
@Madeline - we are nowhere near forgetting that men hold up half the sky so to cry out for this seems premature, at best. We are still at the point where men are (falsely) seen as holding up most of the sky and, indeed, are still holding most reigns of power in the US and around the world. An article like this deserves to exist without a "don't forget the men" argument. Believe me, with all the inordinate influence men have on just about everything on the planet, no one is forgetting the men. We couldn't even if we wanted to.
2
The overall tone of the article struck me as too topical in its execution (e.g., old, white men bad), but there's no mistaking truth when I hear it.
I cannot wait to see what happens when women in power create stories that are not rehashes of that tired "I built this" (or more generously "We made this") meme. It's about time. But let it be honest, insofar as possible. Not "lean in." We need honesty, not merely something different from old, white men.
Great column. One of the most destructive attitudes pervading this country is that of the self-made man. There is no such thing as a self-made man or woman, and if these new members of Congress are pointing that out, more power to them.
1
While beautifully written and thoughtful, touching on so many aspects of a possible paradigm change, Filipovic has still reinforced the old paradigm by framing it as "female power" juxtaposing it with "white, male power" leaving me frustrated as a male who practices and so appreciates the new style of power she is describing as new and female. Sorry, just see this change as an understanding that the world is interdependent in every way vs. those who have been seeing the way the world works as transactional or as something to be acted upon.
1
"From these women, the message is clear: Their strength comes from collaborative, generational efforts to move toward the good."
Is has been proven that companies and communities fare better where more women are leaders. I assume that much of that success arises from women's historical tendency to collaborate and create coalitions. It would be better for everyone if more women were in leadership positions, AND if men who are leaders were more collaborative.
2
Quite a funny illustration, but rather true to life, isn't it?
Horatio Alger lives on in advertising and other mythology, but this narrative is mostly irrelevant to most of us. Decades ago some thought women to be incapable of management positions because we didn't play enough team sports in school. Now we think Title IX or some other unidentified factor has changed women and with them will change the world of politics? With all due respect to Title IX, please...
The more we try to layer in moral one-upsmanship toward men in the battle of the sexes, the more mud we splatter on our dresses and pantsuits. It's just not intellectually defensible nor productive to make the broad, gender-based assertions Filipovic does here. Can't we all try a bit harder to resist doing that? It feels to me like just one more way of shoving women into a mold, under the guise of vindicating us from a culture still disposed to male dominance.
The only thing that can be irrefutably said about women in Congress today is that they will add a lot more visual interest to the flock of penguins currently warming seats.
One could hope that they will also bring more clarity, fealty to voters' interests and originality of thought, as well as style. But that remains to be seen. And Congressional terms have a tendency to go on, and on, and on...
We'll have a long time to observe behavior, if we don't let the forest obscure the trees.
There have always been women who distinguish themselves in male-designed and male-dominated social, political and economic systems. Some excel within the system, some forge their way upward through courageous innovation and will.
There have always been men who are better at marriage, family and the home than they are in the workplace.
If we are to assume that women possess exclusive, unique gender traits that result in superior performance in certain roles, then that either opens the door to the corollary that men might also be superior at some things, or it relegates men to universal, gender-based inferiority.
I voted for my three female Congressional electeds, but nothing in their accomplishments over the aggregate decades indicates any noticeable movement toward a more high-functioning democracy. Still, we can hope that we only need to recognize one gender as responsible for the mess and the other as its enlightened savior.
1
I like to treat people as individuals.
Painting entire groups with a broad brush is what again ?
6
@Peter Edwards
Gender discrimination.
In my many decades on the planet working in industry and academia, for every man who has a big ego, feels superior, uses others and doesn't treat others with decency and basic respect, or acknowledge their contributions to the success of any major endeavor, there is a female version of the same.
Many of each gender are good souls with wonderful qualities, but a fair number aren't either. What else is new.
Let's vote in people with integrity, knowledge, skills, relevant experience and a kind of caring, common sense.
There are men and women that have these qualities.
Man or woman, those should be the one's we vote for.
But to me it is also self evident "Women" are not inherently made of better stuff. Some are but certainly not all. Some men are too.
It's the character and experience and abilities of the individual candidate that matters.
By all means vote for women when its evident they're the best running. But use discernment too.
10
I agree with your essential arguments, and I share your hope that the new group of Congressional women representatives will change the values of governing in Washington, but you seem to suggest that women are not, by nature, self-aggrandizing and inauthentic. Sorry, but I've met a few. I certainly found Hilary Clinton to be so and I am a Democrat who voted for her.
2
"Changing the way we tell the stories of how people achieve political power is much bigger than just more honest candidate...It has the power to change the outcome of what those in power do." It also inspires others who hear and see that it can be done.
1
How do I assert my female norms into workplaces and stories with established male only power norms? This is a dilemma of a lifetime.
When a girl knows the value of female norms they often reject the norms of the male power structure and an emphasis on the history of war.
As a little girl I could not see myself,,as a girl. in the story of the American Revolution as it was taught to me.
The history that American children learn in elementary school hasn't changed in decades - it is still the history of war.
How in 2019 do I reject the curriculum I am required to teach on the American Revolution with materials that are sexist, racist and cartoonish. I know that most of the students will be looking for meaning in the story and not find it.
This article by Jill Filipovic gives me strength. Though I am not a history teacher I spend much of my adult reading filling in the gaps in the story of America that I saw as a child. If my background was in history I would have been confronted with this dilemma of teaching the American Revolution sooner and may have made inroads to include female norms in the telling of the story.
While adults have access to documented, researched and well written history the materials for elementary students tell the old story the old way.
We can't teach children a history which tells girls and boys that the male power norms are the only story.
2
Thanks for a thoughtful essay. While somewhat generic in its conclusions, it is very hopeful Eventually we may arrive at a time when there is no longer a rigid male template for success and not a female template either.
The wholly separate characteristics of the women entering the political fray are every bit as important as their shared attributes - and that is not quibbling with the author so much as agreeing and supporting her arguments with a hope whose durability may finally be paying off, penny by nickel by dime and eventually much more.
Of course, evolved people have long known that open doors to success for women are a benefit to everyone.
Do you smart, aware Times readers recognize the cognitive dissonance a young woman hears as she grows up in America? Ms. Filipovic identifies "the promise that anyone can achieve political power and success if they are good enough and if they work hard enough," and then adds that because "elected offices have for so long so wholly rested in male hands [it] suggests simply that men have long been more worthy of them." That is what our children see, with only recently some progress. The effect on both young women and young men is profound.
2
As the father of three daughters and now three grand daughters I read Jill's piece with personal interest. My daughter's all learned their skills required for success from both my wife and me. But the life skill that perhaps is most important they developed from their mother. How to be the "rock" of strength that holds their families together. And as Jill stresses I have never in over 50 years heard one of them lie or even shade the truth, a trait their mother has. They all have successful careers; one runs a family owned insurance business, her sisters are a physician assistant and an elementary school teacher. The younger two have successfully competed and cooperated effectively with men in the workplace.
One relying primarily on her intellect the other her political skills. All three pursuing careers while raising seven of my granchildren and all still married to the same man.
My three grand daughters interestingly exhibit more instinctive independence, are obviously much more technologically literate and all seem to have a drive to succeed. But I must confess, occasionally shade the truth, especially if a reprimand is in the picture. They too have learned much from their mothers.
Finally, contrary to Ms. Fillipovic none of the six, representing two generations, seem to seek power; rather others have delegated it to my daughter's as a result of their performance. So my personal reflections confirm some of Jill 's observations but differ on others.
Such a beautifully written piece lends me to believe that you too, Jill, must recognize how some of the best female columnists in the past helped you to find your own voice, and made it easier to have your place in the most prestigious paper on the planet. Well done!
2
The go to narrative that men will somehow be displaced and overshadowed by the success of women must be rejected. Time to position the discussion around the benefits to be derived by honing in on the skills of the talents that are available. Roles are now being recalibrated and as research has shown, women do bring to the table complementary skills that can improve the agenda of sectors and industries that have been traditionally led by men.
2
This old bald white guy is overjoyed.
53
@William
I would guess you have daughters.
Strange...Ive never looked at power in politics as a solo effort. I always saw it as a guy, eager or not so much (think Pres. Carter) who gains successes because the power structure allows it. There have only been a few US politicians who ran up to the podium in the public square and took power without consent. Trump maybe be one of those. (Becoming a quasi-political unicorn and a national albatross.)
Meritocracy was rarely the reasons behind the rise of those The System pushed to the top. Charisma was always a huge factor, but not always needed. (think Nixon)
Kennedy, Mr Charisma and denigrated Roman Catholic, didn't just take the presidency, he had a lot of powerful help thru out his career.
IMO, this moment, this woman's and people of color moment, is an anomaly, but one that will be the norm, once we get past the over-analysis, and kudos. Voters are getting-it that voting results in being represented by those that look like them and speak about their problems in real terms. To overcome the status-quo; infiltrate and occupy!
Trump didn't win only because he looked like his base, but because he spoke, crassly and loudly, about the things (white racial fears) they needed someone to speak about. He was sent to infiltrate. To make the Swamp listen. Of course he's failed at that, lessened no ones fears, nor caused a more nuanced discussion to take place.
I look to the new women to force the hard discussions. To force the hard discussions that are long over due.
3
Yes, the American faux-meritocratic system was built by white males. But so was Soviet communism, European fascism, the industrial revolution, the United Nations, all major technological innovations and so on and on. Karl Marx was a white male, so was Lenin, the vast majority of great scientists, philosophers, engineers and inventors in history, especially in the last 500 years.
White males built our civilization, the bad AND the good parts. But please, continue spouting your hate for white men, so Democrats can go on to lose another election.
2
@GS There's that tired old narrative about "White males built our civilization..." again. That's usually the story when the white male is the author. You might want to investigate/read about people from all groups of society who built our civilization.
Do you never question your belief about WHY (according to you) the vast majority of great scientists, philosophers, engineers and inventors in history were white men? Nobody else had any abilities? Or rather, nobody else was given the opportunities. Your do know that during the history of this country it was illegal for slaves to learn to read or for Black people and women to vote...Go read a history book written by someone other than a white male and you might learn something.
Is there any problem replacing "sef made" men with honest people, men or women (or trans, or ...) ?
1
I get your point but Obama got more than his foot in the door.
After women become men, what’s left for them then? I sense a strange vacuum on the horizon.
3
The writer's assumption that women politicians, if they just "act like women" will be better more honest people and politicians is nothing more that gross sexism. Women are no better, honest, or ethical than men. Sexism is still sexism when it claims that one sex is better than the other.
10
@Jeff I beg to differ, given the disproportionate populations of men versus women in prison. When a woman does something brutal or dishonest on a large scale, it's headline news. When a man does the same, it's pretty much par for the course.
America has always been about the mythic lone ranger.
I can't wait for everyone to realize that all humans have the capacity for greed, selfishness, and corruption, not just white men. These are people we've elected, regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity. They are fallible. Be prepared for disappointment.
6
Would it have been possible to include any more claptrap and gender studies tropes/stereotypes in one article?
Let's just take one example: unlikability. Women suffer it more? Please. HRC and Warren are so characterized because they ARE unlikable, but you never heard that about notable/powerful women like Millicent Fenwick, Mia Love, Susana Martinez, Nikki Haley -- or even Tulsi Gabbard. And far from being a female only difficulty, consider Ted Cruz. Some women -- especially the strident types -- simply ARE unlikable.
Exactly like some men.
But the Poor-Me-I'm-Such-A-Victim narrative runs strong in the identity-obsessed left. It makes for an increasingly tiresome whine.
8
Contrasting "honest" women with "self-made" men is a meaningless and illogical comparison which reflects only the Times' incessant cheerleading. Were one to suggest that women of achievement were not "self-made", Ms. Filipovic would bridle. And the entire article is permeated with the by now well disproven argument that women vote alike, help each other and will usher in a golden new age of cooperation, love and justice.
3
As the shutdown has shown we’re a nation of people who see a trash can we know will not be emptied yet we’ll throw ours on the ground next to it anyway rather than carry it someplace else to get rid of it properly. Women, you’re welcome to take charge of it.
News ways to think about being, in a big open and free America.
1
If this article is any indicator, women will rule the same way men have -- with a smug dismissal of the opposite sex. I'll wait for something better.
4
“Power, for all of American history, has been white and male, and maintaining that monopoly has required a series of agreed-up conventions and plotlines.”
Last time I checked it was white men who passed laws to give women and people of color the right to vote.
Who gave their forefathers the right to vote? No one, they took their right by overthrowing the most powerful nation on earth, viz., the King of England and the British army/navy.
White men have given power willingly. Power their fathers earned.
Stop hating on them, and thank God you are the descendant of someone luck or smart enough to be born here.
1
@EWG From my point of view it was white men whom did not give woman and people of color the right to vote to begin with.
Riane Eisler, in The Chalice and the Blade, wrote of a dominator culture versus a collaborator culture. Many women and a lot of men, too, realize the old hierarchical, dominator culture structure isn't going to work anymore. No one wants to be at the bottom of the pyramid. The future is collaborating with each other and respecting and honoring each others' contributions. Patriarchy will have to give way to a more balanced and equitable way of organizing ourselves and sharing resources and power.
No one accomplishes goals without help. We're all interconnected. Some people are more aware of that than others are.
3
I am very happy to see more women in politics. I also worked in a public institution for over 20 years. For most of those years the institution had women at the head. Some were competent; some were not so competent. But every single one of them hired primarily women for the highest positions and some hired cronies of questionable ability.
Is it not possible to advocate for women in more and better positions in the workplace without resorting to the demonization of all men?
3
The biggest difference I see as a mental health professional is the notion of first person singular vs first person plural.
It seems partly biological: like it or not we men will never have quite the same experience women have where if they become pregnant it is near impossible to think in any terms other than "we". We men MAY experience that once we attain fatherhood but it doesn't seem as inexorable as what women describe to me.
This "we reflex" commingles with lots of cooperative learned behaviors it seems. One analysis post-2008 crash suggested the breadth of the damage would have been far smaller had there been more women working in finance because they work more cooperatively.
Women in DC can show us that we don't have to personify the executive branch but rather see the president as the leader of a large team of people working together, that cabinet members might see things differently from the Oval and actually say it outloud, that returning to constituencies to listen doesn't have to be a chore.
"Two heads are better than one" is the most fundamental difference separating monarchies from republics.
But in our bootstrap, male culture we men must show other men we're doing it all on our own. Nearly all of the men I work with for whom this is a central ethos struggle deeply with the shame of painful loneliness and both a huge fear they may be seen as mistaken coupled with a huge certainty that to ask for input and support would be worse.
4
Yes, but what folks aren't getting these days, and the MeToo movement doesnt recognize, is that there used to be a terrible incumbancy upon men that women only shared indirectly. This incumbancy was the way of the world until just recently. Here in the States until the mid-1970s. And that was that it was the men, and the men only, that had to go off and fight wars.
Think about it. Mothers, daughters, partners stayed home and had to worry about their men going off to unknown fates. Now that armed services are gender-integrated and voluntary here that's no longer the case. Many of us who grew up in earlier generations had different expectations of gender roles, and for good reason.
I welcome equal treatment and opportunities for women, if only to show that they can screw things up just as well as any man.
3
As the father of a daughter who is trying to figure out her place in this world and the son of a woman who was simply a force of nature, I think that we cannot make progress as a society unless we acknowledge the faulty system that is in place which has historically preserved power for white men, and excluded women, minorities and other marginalized populations. I have often had conversations with my daughter regarding the unfair standard to which women are often upheld (needing to be "likeable") and that men who act the same manner are characterized in a much more positive way and are more readily recognized as leaders or bosses. I am looking forward to a more open society in the future, where everyone gets a chance to participate and the leadership reflects the diversity in the population as a whole.
6
I’ve heard men say that fluffy, feel-good stuff too. Barack Obama come some to mind. It’s seems as though the author believes that gender is determinative of rhetoric. I wonder if she will hold her gender responsible when a woman does bad things in a position of power, because, you know, power corrupts.
Somehow, I doubt it. And that will be true sexism.
4
Trump lays claim that he is a self made billionaire but of course is isn't. If we are talking about successful business people than obviously no one can be self made without the support of their company and/or their family. Successful men and woman have always networked. Chambers of commerce is one example, religion and political parties is another. The difference between self made and group think is the core difference between men and woman. Men typically shoot from the hip and woman make decisions in groups. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and others drove their compa nies by a singular vision, I have yet to see a woman create a company in that way or that size. I am waiting. However and more importantly both kinds of leadership work. That is what is missing in these men hating ariticles. And for the record, I voted for Hillary, she was a terrible candidate and has zero charisma and shows virtually no strength. She is not a leader but she expected that her connections would pull her through. She is a top notch government employee but that is all. She depended on group think and over memorizing answers in debates, she just wasn't able to shoot from the hip. AOC is different and I don't see it as having anything to do with being a woman. She thinks faster than Hillary and oh by the way her story is oddly enough about achieving success by starting at the bottom. Isn't that then about pulling oneself up by the boot straps another term for self made?
Wow. Working with others and ability to compromise. What novel ideas.
3
Gender doesn't guarantee that someone will be cooperative and unselfish, neither greedy or corrupt. Think back to junior high school. We'll have nothing to celebrate if we elect the wrong women. Kirsten Gillibrand and Mike Pence both took turns defending the tobacco industry.
5
In discussions of this nature I enjoy pointing out that Queen Elizabeth is the sovereign to 2.5 billion people. That's an all time record, man or woman. If tomorrow she decreed that all subjects who would like to participate might at 4PM GMT take a step up and then jump off a chair, the Earth itself would wobble as clocks rung four. I credit talent and effectiveness more to character and will power than to gender.
2
@Joey Deveever But she didn't have to get elected. She was in no matter what. And, even she had criteria she had to follow to be likable. Like she couldn't be divorced 3 times.
3
That’s interesting about liberal women vs conservative women and winning elections. I haven’t seen this before. Can you provide some background on this?
"Women who are seen as individually ambitious or self-glorifying pay a price — unlikability — that men do not."
I heard many times that the main reason people weren't voting for Hillary was that they didn't like her. I didn't like 45 but that wasn't the main reason I didn't vote for him.
Hopefully, we have grown up upon seeing the circus that this "administration" is, sufficiently enough to overlook likeability as the main, or even sole, indicator of capability. I beleive the new term is Adulting.
That said, perhaps we can finally stop applying ambition, capabilty and power as negative criteria for women.
5
The way this article compares the behavior of women vs. men in congress is fundamentally flawed for a simple reason: liberal women from liberal districts are far more likely to get elected than conservative women from conservative districts.
The liberal agenda is more inclusive than the conservative agenda, so the women who get elected are more likely to be more inclusive. Surprise! But so are the men elected from those districts. Also, rookies tend to be more humble than veteran players. Let's see how they act after a couple of terms spent mostly hustling for campaign donations from corporate sponsors.
I'm a major skeptic of our society's leadership paradigms. We revere and revile our leaders too much, and this warps their leadership style, to the general detriment of society. Leadership is a job description, not a mandate from God.
If this change improves the way we select leaders and the way they act once they have power, hooray. If not, it is a nothing burger.
4
The paradigm of power in our society is white male and is a patriarchal archetype. Thus in choosing to use the word power, and to insist that is is the key decisive tool, for the largest class of women entering Congress is my opinion detrimental and counter intuitive to what these women may or may not be able to do.
Sadly too many women leaders such as HRC, Nancy Pelosi, Condoleezza Rice and other have embraced, and more often than not have promoted, this institutional paradigm and the neoliberalism policies required to perpetuate.
When I think of the strong women I know it is not power that first comes to mind but grit, self sacrificing ,and the strength and determination to persevere and complete the immediate tasks at hand.
More often than not they do this work with a complete detachment from self that is almost immune from, or rather required, our current political leadership.
Here a toast to the ladies who rather than lunch... actually get something done in Washington.
Our country can not grow, evolve and meet the challenges of the future with the status quo male leadership in Congress who can never seem to get anything done.
“A man does what he can; a woman does what a man cannot.”
― Isabel Allende, Inés of My Soul
1
@shiningstars122 "When I think of the strong women I know it is not power that first comes to mind but grit, self sacrificing ,and the strength and determination to persevere and complete the immediate tasks at hand. " Sounds like the description of women who do all the work at home after they get home from work. That needs to change.
1
There is a pitfall in replacing the toxic and fallacious myth of the self-made man with something more honest that credits the historic trailblazers, the family, the mentors, and the cultural community that leaders are nurtured and supported by. Of course there is no self-made white man because the culture of white males has always shut out competitors who are not white and not male, which reduces the competition by more than half. The white male cannot claim he rose to prominence and power by merit alone. But when women and people of color give credit only to other women and people of color for their success, they become symbols and representatives of a group and we have "identity politics." As we see in the rise of white nationalist rhetoric, "white male" is also an identity group and a very powerful one. In the story of every man, there are women. In the story of every woman, there are men. In the story of every person of a race, creed, color and national origin, there are formative persons of other colors and cultures. That is the story that all successful and powerful individuals should be telling. That is the American story.
1
@abigail49 Well said.
I began working as a Programmer/Analyst in Charleston, South Carolina, at the age of 20 in 1978. I was a victim and witness to painful, confidence-threatening sexual harassment and bigotry of people of color many times through out my 26 years in the field. I also found more and more companies not only willing to hire different thinkers like me but seeking us out. Thinkers who believe effective leaders inspire and provide their people with the motivation, skills and confidence to achieve a shared goal. Thinkers who get to know their people as individuals and work and sometimes fight to make them successful.
Many of my jobs started with a phone call from an unknown person saying, “you don’t know me but I know an awful lot about you and I want to get you a new job.” Diverse, collaborative, fun workplaces are best for the bottom line of an organization. Fundamental change comes slowly and painfully. Still, anyone with an open mind can see that patriarchal, authoritative rule is ineffective over time in business, politics, religion and any other area. At the age of 59, I’ve adopted Tao philosophy and believe that nature inside and outside of me works on the principle of energy flow between Yin and Yang. The more I learn to balance that energy without prejudice for one over the other, the happier and more successful I become in every area of my life.
1
I am troubled by the implicit assumption in this article that women are morally superior to men. My experience, history and the current political landscape where women are found across the political spectrum and with widely varying approaches to power would also undermine such a naive assumption.
Studies have shown that teams that are diverse, teams that have women, men, blacks, browns, different nationalities, etc., are the most productive. We need more diversity in business, politics and through out our society to have better outcomes from our institutions and to give all equal chance to pursue their dreams. More women, blacks, hispanics and other minorities are needed and they need special help due to historical and economic obstacles that have hindered their full participation in society.
That being said we cannot lower our values and standards for leadership that has been the foundations for what is best in America. We need leaders who are honest, have vision for all Americans, will listen to and cooperate, with others, and most importantly, put the common good back into the driver's seat for policy making.
No gender, race, nor ethnicity has a monopoly on good leaders who will act cooperatively in the common good. Let's help underrepresented segments of our population have equal opportunities but let's not forget what type of people we need to lead America.
5
Thank you for articulating so beautifully the hopes and dreams of my generation of women for a future of community and support, and leadership rather than power. With tears running down my face I write to share that you have given me a reason today to believe and be proud again.
4
And maybe if Congress could embrace the strength of collaboration, more would get done. This polarization is more like picking a football team to cheer for and never letting go, something that provides the sound track for 90% of bars, a popular hangout for guys.
4
A year or two back, I remember Anna Eshoo telling a crowd at a crowded art reception that "the best man for the job is a woman." The crowd cheered.
Was I the only one put off by this blatant sexism? I don't know; if there were any others, we all kept quiet. Speaking out against it would have destroyed our reputations.
Since then, I've been more skeptical about the whole thing. I'm all for things being fair, but dead set against replacing discrimination against women with discrimination against men, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
From what I've seen, women and minorities are no more or less prejudiced and sexist than white men. The main difference is that the white male prejudice was more prominent when they were in charge.
I say "was" because we're in transition now. Equality is a fact in some places, at some levels, and a work in progress in others. I've worked in those places, and thankfully I haven't seen the anti-male prejudice that Anna Eshoo was so glib about, so my skepticism is balanced by my observation that equality seems to work for everyone. I'm talking about the rank and file, not the leadership. I have no idea what's happening in the stratosphere because I wasn't up there.
If being in charge means you need to run roughshod over other people, then I don't care who's in charge. If this change improves our paradigm of leadership, I'm all for it. We need better leadership if our society is going to remain a good place to live. The color and sex is secondary.
4
@mlbex How you feel is how women have been and still do feel forever about men, especially white men and their privilege. Its not a good feeling is it?
1
Such a refreshing article. This should also come as good news to the 99% of the male population who never got a foot in the door either because their style was soft spoken and collaborative rather than self aggrandizing. This is not about women being "naturally" different from men, but about a paradigm shift that will finally acknowledge that populations have ALWAYS been diverse in age, gender, ability and ethnicity and that not everybody has the same opportunities to make the same kinds of decisions. Such populations need webs of support rather than dictators with unrealistic visions of what a country is or should be. A ray of hope.
4
This analysis should not be restricted to gender. Much has been made of the fact that ethnic Asian-Americans outperform other groups in school, yet fail to advance to the top ranks of management in significant numbers. A major reason for this is that most Asian cultures instill a deep aversion to self-promotion. I hear from many fellow Asians that they struggle constantly to overcome their own conditioning, knowing it is holding them back from proper recognition in a society which prizes chest-beating over cooperation. Perhaps instead of fighting that conditioning, we can join forces with women to change the rules of the game.
5
the writer is all knowing, apparently, and blessed with great belief in her own way of viewing the world. May we all hold our beliefs lightly, and spare others are generalizations about folks of any gender.
5
@RS Until women and POC are paid the same as white men for doing the same work, there is no equality. And that time better hurry up for all of us.
3
@pointofdiscovery It's just not equality of pay, it's equality of opportunity. That is where women fall even further behind.
1
When I was younger, the person who taught me that women and men can and will act identically in every way in politics was Golda Meir, the first woman Prime Minister of Israel.
This is no time for successfully elected women in the House of Representatives to start in with Hubris and The Pedestal. What we need is someone like Meir, with a cigarette hanging out of her mouth.
21
@Charles Coughlin - times change. Women don't need to be men to be successful any longer. That will enrich traditional institutions.
17
@Charles Coughlin Citing Golda Meir? You have one of the most ironic usernames around ;)
Though I assume you are paying tribute to his earlier arguments for social justice as a Catholic rather than his...ah, natsier later statements.
4
@Charles Coughlin "What we need"? Who is this "we" you're referring to? When you say things like that, do you at all step back to reflect that you aren't a woman? Maybe you should stop telling women what they need to do and instead accept them for who they choose to be.
2
"Power is the best aphrodisiac" - Henry Kissinger. Women in power at the highest levels in the Western world, e.g. Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel, have exercised it with level headed but tough minded benevolence but so have most of the men who have served in the same positions. Before that there were a few women who became queens or empresses by inheritance in the absence of a prince (Elizabeth I) or coup de'tat (Empress Catherine the Great). They were not as despotic as their male counterparts but they were no angels either e.g. Elizabeth had her political rivals imprisoned or executed and Catherine had her tsar husband Peter killed and waged wars on her neighbors. Perhaps I overstate my case and my examples are admittedly rare, they speak to the possibility that it is the attainment of power, regardless of by which sex, brings out the worst in both.
There were times past when the US seemed much greater than it is now. Times when significant legislation could be and was organized and passed into law. SS, Medicare, Great Society stuff, the New Deal, abolition, WW2, etc, etc.
In the current system, with the current bickering toady people who cannot see above a party line, fed by a rather indulgent if not ignorant public, we can observe no capacity for great state work.
This comes during the same time as all manner of liberation of women from previous levels of servitude. Two of three college students are female. There are huge numbers of female college presidents. Every state and federal level job is mandatory gender equal. Women hire women in droves.
Is there a correlation? Is there ever no correlation?
1
@Feldman Post-script: The brightest light we have seen in the past 8 years in legislation is the triumph that women have made is taking back the House of Representatives. For at least two years, we now have the ability to 'stuff' many really ugly Trump/Republican efforts to subvert our democracy.
When I grew up, in the 1950's and 60's, I was taught to share credit with those who worked with me and to accept blame when I was in charge and things went wrong. Since then, we have moved away from that ethic. Hopefully these women can demonstrate that shared credit is not weak, but actually strengthens all of us.
As I was told, sharing credit when you have been successful does not diminish your role but acknowledges the others who helped you along. The others will remember and want to help you in the future. And, it helps make us a community not just a bunch of loosely connected individuals.
Thank you to all these new Representatives!
6
There are many useful comments already, which further explicate this very complicated gender transition taking placing in our society. Of course the article itself cuts many corners to make a central point and can be criticized for that (eg, Hillary Clinton was hardly demonized because her narrative was "I made it on my own" . . )
But - to my mind - the central point that is missing is - are they going to exercise power differently? THAT is what matters to the rest of us . . . . Historically from Catherine the Great to Maggie Thatcher that has not been very evident . . . but the preponderance of support of women for the Dem vs Rep agenda, and the huge imbalance in sex-ratio of elected officials suggests that wth a much larger number of women in politics (including those from "humbler" origins) that might change that.
I am a physician. Of course the same transition has occurred in my profession, and the evidence does suggest - although only with modest strength - that women are better doctors and act as "better people" in positions of power. It does not appear, for what little I know, to be the case among corporate CEO's . . .
Personally I am skeptical that "women are kinder, gentler rulers . ." will play out in high-level power politics. The outcome, however, could have a profound effect on the future of our society. Well, all societies.,
1
@R Cooper: "The" evidence does not suggest that women are better doctors (whatever that is supposed to mean). As you state, some "modest strength" evidence has been put forward to make such assertions. My review of such "evidence" finds such not to be compelling at all. I too am a physician and have never found gender to be a very good guide as to the quality of any particular doctor. There are many wonderful physicians of both genders, and some awful ones of both genders as well.
2
Perhaps you need to be taught that misandry is good - misogyny is bad. Women are all better, kinder and smarter than men - you obviously missed the required political correctness classes.
The road to change will be rough. Too many American still think that the ones who cannot make their way to power by themselves don't deserve to have power.
Recently a former student of mine,teaching in Europe, wrote to me for advice. Under EU laws she must retire but she is quite a bit younger than me and I am not retired. She is wondering whether to move to the US. I offered suggestions, including that she consult some friends of ours, one of them female and a professor at a prestigious university. We are friends. I am her former adviser and also a friend whom she trusts.
My dentist is female. My GP is a Muslim. We work with each other as friends and mutual helpers.
This is the reality of male female relationships, FOR THE MOST PART. The NYT and Jill are stirring up hatred between men and women and this is extremely dangerous.
Of course more women will enter politics. Hopefully some of them will be pro-life and pro-male.
In the last election I voted for a woman, but not BECAUSE she was a woman. I simply liked her the best of the four candidates.
I will continue to treat my friends, male and female, Christian, Muslim Jewish and atheists, as friends.
I deplore the NYT's attempts to stir up hate, but hey, it sells. They are not going to stop.
5
From my life experience, the idea that women are basically cooperative and unselfish in their quest for success makes me feel kind of ill. This opinion is weak, in that it relies on a comparison of two genders. Women don't need to be defined through criticism of men. Onward and upward.
63
@Terry
Absolutely wonderful post!
4
@Terry
The fact that women are more cooperative and unselfish than man may come from the inferior role they have been assigned to for too long. That doesn't make this difference untrue.
5
@Roland Berger
Funny, I'm a woman who worked in a male dominated field for most of my life and I never paid attention that "assignment" of inferior role.
Many women I know did not.
Also "cooperative and unselfish" are questionable monikers. "Compliant and obedient" are more apt for many women fearful of their own power.
I do not care how many women bridle and bristle at that. Men have not been the only ones reining in women. Some women rein in themselves.
I'm gobsmacked thrilled to see how many young women are speaking up and acting out despite the animus directed in person and online.
They rock and, in many ways, they're far more vulnerable due to the ease of online derision, than women of the decades that came before.
14
I wonder sometimes, if some women invent hurdles crossed and barriers beaten, to aggrandize their achievements, rather than having overcome anything more than any one else getting to a space in Congress or business. Just a thought, but before you dismiss it out of hand as another misogynist who doesn't get it, consider Margaret Thatcher, who ran a big country very well but I can't recall her ever saying 'Phew, that was tough".
4
Makes you wonder, is attributing your power to the group a way to to evade personal accountability for your decisions?
4
And the group effort of investing someone with power,
is it power for yourself or power to impower others?
1
I, for one, will be glad when women have been a majority in Washington, say, for 20 years. The reason is simple: things won't be any better after they have been in control. Men and women who share the desire for power, psychology, have far more in common with each other than they do with unelected members of their own sex.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders is on television every day; yet, women insist on defining themselves by Kirsten Gillibrand!
Women put Trump over the hump! More than half of the white women who voted in the presidential election cast their ballot for Donald J. Trump: 62% blue collar; 45% with a degree.
American women are just like the men whom they would replace; so, I see no reason to regret they're going or women coming.
Only diversity coupled with character is deserving of our praise; in and of itself, it doesn't mean much except to spread the benefits of corruption. Look at Devin Nunes, he's Mexican, what does his "diversity" bring to
the table?
2
This men vs. women angle in the Age of Trump is the greatest thing to happen to commentators like Filipovic.
Take all the crude stereotypes that women spout around the kitchen table (or bar) and all the crude stereotypes that men spout around the bar (or kitchen table) and you've got an extremely basic lens to look at complex relations with.
It's probably not right but...yay women and boo men! Huzzah!
2
Where are these "honest women"?
Hilary Clinton, with her her deceit and duplicity?
Elizabeth Warren, with her 0.009% Native American heritage?
Women succumb to greed and power just like men do.
5
The “men are evil and women are virtuous” mantra in the media is getting stale and is outrageously sexist. One need look no further than women such as Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook or, frankly, Hillary Clinton to know that women have the exact same capacity for self-promotion, mendacity, and viciousness as men. No human—neither male nor female—is an angel. This includes female politicians. Just like their male counterparts, ambitious female politicians write autobiographies purely for self-promotion—and money—to help further their personal, individual, quests for power and wealth (see Kamala Harris‘s recent book for an example). Women are rightly increasing their access to power as old gender norms fade away. However, it is the height of sexism to imply that women acquire and use their power in a more virtuous and less individualistic manner than men. Ambitious men and women are two sides of the same coin—and defacing one side isn’t going to make the other side look any better.
8
How do you not draw that comparison? Self-made men are inherently dishonest but the women who replace are not?
This is just another sanctimonious idealization of women that have no evidence to back it up. There is no evidence that women who possess positional power are any less or more corrupted by it than men. Powers ability to corrupt is universal.
5
Filipovic, providing virtually no hard social science data of any kind, generalizes and stereotypes large numbers of both women and men. She offers no means of fact-checking her endless assertions, rendering her words quite meaningless. Describing her as an "opinion writer" is certainly accurate. The topic is important and fascinating, but this essay has more in common with cocktail party conversation than with serious sociopolitical discourse.
7
We can support women without taking cheap shots at men, no?
When Hillary Clinton took up the cause of the girl who lost class president by one vote, did she realize that the boy who won is a human being too, with parents, hopes and dreams?
44
@A. Simon -Saying that success is primarily measured in masculine terms is somehow a "cheap shot" at men?
For women to gain power, men necessarily have to lose some of it. That's just something we have to deal with. It's going to feel like men are being attacked, like they aren't being heard, like their feelings don't matter as much as they once did. All of these things will be true, and all will be completely necessary.
Once men make up less than 50% of the membership of Congress, then you can start to complain about how men are being attacked. Until then, save your defensive stances for groups who actually need them.
21
A. Simon, this whole idea that a human being is somehow better, and more entitled, because he has a penis must end.
My daughter was class speaker at her Community College two-year graduation and was so proud. A male friend of hers - the son of a doctor - tried to get her to give up the position to him. She, of course, refused. It was hard to imagine the arrogance of his even suggesting it but he did. When he came up to accept his diploma he gave a speech anyway.
Too many boys/men think this way. It's THEIR job. It's THEIR honor. It's THEIR promotion. It's THEIR world.
NO. It is not. It's OUR world - and courageous, Socially Conscious Women are stepping up to make sure it becomes OUR story. Not HIStory of white, male entitlement.
7
@A. Simon:" We can support women without taking cheap shots at men, no?"
No, can't be done.
As long as a female candidate for any position has GENDER as her running mate, she will lose even when she "wins".
Outside of the political bubble, where the overwhelming majority of people (including all five genders) live, there isn't this knife edge to all human interaction that there does seem to be among people who make a tidy living as pundits/commentators/partisan bureaucrats.
A quick fact check on the numbers that factored in the last three or four elections will throw cold water on many of the assumptions that are inherent in the broad generalities that appear to shore up the entire thesis here.
Just as nobody wins by themselves, nobody loses by themselves, either. Period.
1
Many women in politics are fully equal to men in their ruthlessness and dishonesty, riding lies like those of "mattress girl" and fabricated wage gaps for political gain. It's inherent in the process that exists today to produce such people.
7
There are millions of white males born poor with not only zero chance to end up elected in congress but also zero chance to get a decent job, but who are called privileged for absolutely no reason by Americans born in the truly privileged middle class.
When is the last time a male bartender, a male farm employee or any male working class employee got elected in congress ? Never.
5
As I come back to read this article, I realize that I had not given the title much thought, but as I now think about the choice for the title, I find it to be very condescending to men. The title compares “honest women” to “self-made men”! I read the title as openly contemptuous of men in that the self-made man must be therefore dishonest.
I had read the entire article previously, and had commented on it earlier, yet missed the derogatory title. I view the article and the title to be a whimsical attempt to demean men in some lame excuse to advance the “feminist agenda”. I have nothing against women being elected to political positions. I’m a Democrat and I vote for Democrats, be they male or female. However, I think it as despicable when the writer seems compelled to diminish men in order to advance women’s rights.
2
Let me womansplain this to you. The "self-made man" is inherently dishonest because he thinks he is self-made. He believes that he achieved solely on his own merits, totally ignoring the people (family, friends, teachers, etc.) who supported him along the way. That belief may be because his mom (and others) told him he was a special snowflake, or because she pushed him in a less-positive way. Either way, her presence affected him. Aside from the child raised by wolves, we are all affected by the people around us. ANYONE who succeeds owes at least some of that to the people around them. Apparently only women are able to acknowledge that.
5
President Trump frightens me. But I am even more frightened by the increasingly partisan reporting in the NY Times. This essay of Jill Filipovic exemplifies the trend.
Was Bill Cosby guilty? The media reported that guilt was clear. But how do we know for sure?
Democratic values, discovered by the Athenians, did not last uncorrupted for 100 years. They seem to have fallen into disrepute during the war with Sparta. Democracy was fourth in Plato's five regimes, just above number 5: tyranny.
Our constitution was a miracle. The framers had the good judgement to divide government into three quasi-independent branches, judiciary, legislative and executive. That separation of powers is what has enabled democracy in the US to last 200 years or a bit more.
But democracy is fading fast. Perhaps one bad step was taken by Obama who used an executive order to provide amnesty by illegal immigrants, the province of the legislature. Then he was unsatisfied with the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case, and asked that it be retried as a hate crime.
Politicians change. Now Trump is ignoring separation of powers in spades.
Another bad step is the Me Too movement which sets aside the presumption of innocence in order to achieve political ends.
Gloria Allred seemed to argue that 60 women cannot lie. But thousands of furniture movers lie on their taxes when they fail to report cash payments. Trump lies, and his behavior is all to common.
I don't believe Cosby's trial was fair.
4
@Jake Wagner
In this country people convicted by a jury of their peers are correctly termed guilty. So yes, the term is correct.
4
As a mother and grandmother, Pelosi is eminently qualified to deal with the toddler in the white house. Think of how he put himself on time-out at that meeting. She didn't have to say a thing. He knew he wasn't going to do his job, so he up and went to his room without any prompting.
7
We now have the very real possibility of our 1st Woman President.
I think Pence is every bit as tainted as Trump, and I hope Mueller rids us of both of them. That Pence didn't know anything is one of the biggest and earliest Trump Administration lies.
And that would lead to the Speaker of the House being President for the remainder of Trump's term.
Madam Speaker turning into Madam President?
I think the nation, and the world, would breath a huge sigh of relief. I know I would.
3
It's been Adam versus Eve for millions of years, centuries of mutual warfare. We've created separate niches but we're still here.
Hammering the gender divide is clearly the travail du jour for women having to produce copy. The consistent message boils down to "women are virtuous and men are scavenging brutes".
Of course, this is true. But it is becoming less true, as women scramble to conform to the rhetoric.
My summary is -- be sure that what you want to gain is worth what you can expect to lose. ie, 'careful what you wish for'.
My suggestion is: "birth control is your best friend, and the best friend of the human species". No one in this world needs to subdivide multiple times over.
5
I have never met a successful candidate, no matter what their skin tone, gender, gender preference or religion who did not win office without the same ‘fire in the belly’.
The insane desire that makes one work 18/7 from January through August building or restoring a war chest, and if an incumbent, legislating/administering and if legislating, spending almost every day the legislators were not in session at home, with a harder-working staff helping solve the problems of every constituent with a state or federal government problem.
And from August 1 through Election Day working 24/7 Running For Office. Catching sleep going from one speech to another.
Stopping at a pre-arranged location for a shower and fresh clothes identical to the ones worn at the last stop, least the Fourth Estate notice.
Spending late nights studying “opposition research” where they were preparing to come down on you, and counters (for the honest ones, the truth; for others, something that sounded great) and loading ammunition for everything from minor challenges to outright grenades to use against the opposition.
Who didn’t hire the best political operatives affordable.
Neither gender, family ethnicity or skin color mattered. The winners were usually the ones willing to give their all to getting there or preserving their seat after they did.
It is the only way to win.
No Sisterhood or matching skin color or ethnicity bound together individuals scattered across nation or state.
Candidates run for themselves
It is inconceivable that a female candidate for office could have been married 3 times & have 5 children by her 3 different husbands. Yet, these facts were rarely mentioned during the campaign of 2016.
I think it's telling that Americans were willing to vote for a black candidate for POTUS, but they would rather vote for a loud-mouthed, misogynist, racist male than for an amazingly qualified female.
I hurt for the plight of African-Americans in American society. Often overlooked are the many barriers erected in the path of females. It's nice to see a little progress in the equality of women - emphasis on "a little."
330
@Bernie Oakley -- well, I am a scientist in a field of geophysics -- and let me tell you about a most-remarkable woman in my field. She died awhile back, but she married 5 presidents of the major scientific society in the field, divorcing four of them, of course. And she became a president of the society - I voted for her in that capacity ... I confess largely for the novelty of it.
The science that came from her own efforts was competent but unspectacular.
Her last marriage endured until she died (the first four were pretty shocking by the standards of the day), and it was to one of the great politicians of science in the field, who advanced her substantially.
9
@Bernie Oakley Goodness, you are very compassionate and kind. I fervently wish this country was "great" for all too - it is not, and I seriously doubt it will ever become that for African-Americans or even women for that matter. But there are some great people here, and they do make a difference.
8
@Bernie Oakley
Statistics (I like facts) from the very tight Trump/Clinton election tell us black voting was down eight points from the 2012 election. That could have made all the difference. All of us need to act on the fact that our votes do count.
So in what way was that voter change "telling?"
14
"This narrative of American political power is pervasive enough to be largely invisible. "
The great thing about writing about "narratives" is that your argument can be entirely devoid of facts. Is it true that successful men more often claim their success to be the result of their own efforts while women more often credit forebears and helpers? That would be difficult to determine - but why bother digging up facts when you can, in the interest of identity politics, spin a narrative? For that, the standard is far lower: "sounds plausible to those who already agree with me."
2
Female politicians show that rising to power is a group effort... There is NO such thing as a "self-made" man or woman. EACH rises out of the existing society. In America that means having been offered some level of public education, public safety, public infrastructure, public system of justice,... It is upon these and other COMMUNAL offerings and norms that a person continues up a ladder they were given by virtue of being a US citizen. For some that means starting on rung two others on nine of a ten-step ladder. But no one is entirely or even mostly "self-made."
3
Ms. Filipovic, what you say most clearly and articulately is all true. Also, though, the qualities and strategies and tactics used by more and especially newer candidates for office have been learned from grass-roots efforts dati ng from the Labor movement and civil rights to community organizing and social assimilation of these new people and ideas.
This is not to disagree with what you say. I do believe you are correct that the mode of accepted ladder-climbing has been one of power and connections. The new order has been shaped by new candidates such Beto O-Rourke and Conor Lamb but also Bernie Sanders and numerous unrecognized local candidates. What is striking is that the magnitude of women working together and with their supporters haqs been so successful and as you say, these new candidates, as well as most incumbents re-elected have given service to their visible and behind-the-scenes supporters.
This sea change is an epic monument that should have marker in the timeline of achievement and how people implement and promote how many in concert can succeed where a few who try to use just money and underwriters will not succeed.
1
It's not how we "change the way we tell the stories of how peole achieve political power etc etc ..." what matters, but rather how society enables those it considers worthy to represent its interests i.e. what means it puts at their disposal to achieve the power. It is a well know fact that women were treated far less generously in this respect throughout history. Therefore, all solidarity - male and female - will be needed to reach a desired and fought for political equality as well as social justice.
2
Margaret Thatcher and Aung San Suu Kyi are examples of women who have risen to power. In both cases the record is a mixed one when it comes to the use of power. When power is the goal, when power is the game, all players will show up as equal. Why? because women are equal and inclined to the same power dynamics as men. Women and men are vulnerable to greed, egotism, and self interest. It is not a gender thing it is human one.
2
"Women shouldn’t adapt to the existing lie; men in the political realm should be more honest."
What the women discussed in this essay share is, indeed, honesty about the precedents and networks that benefit everyone.
Contrast this to Brett Kavanagh, who benefitted not only from being white, straight, and male but also from his connections at Georgetown Prep a grandfather who had attended Yale, insisting that he had earned everything through hard work alone.
The myth of the self-made-man is part of what props up current systems of power. I hope that this essay will be but one instance of public challenges to that myth and its discriminatory effects. Thank you.
8
"Honest Politician" is still an oxymoron for me.
Claiming women to be naturally more honest is just too much of a sexist stretch. Just consider the behavior of a few of these women, Kelly Anne Conway, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Susan Collins, House Republican women ...
Remember who said one of the most memorable sound bites of the Trump era: "Alternative Facts."
6
@NeverSurrender I agree. For me it is sexism to claim that women are honest and self-made men aren't. My experience says that there is no real difference in powerful people. Time should be over to see women mainly as victims and as the better human beings.
3
Kudos to all these empowered young women getting elected to Congress. Now do something for your constituents.
3
True empowerment comes from engagement, transparency, honesty and open communication. Those are all by definition things that require larger engagement than just the self. There are men who have done this equally well as apparently have the women being mentioned in this article. Therefore, i think it is both imprudent and rather arrogant to presume that this virtue is gender specific. That kind of stereotyping is how we got to this place. Let us avoid it.
1
The new face of the Democratic Party is women and minorities. African American women and Latina women. Feminism and civil rights.
But I say: "It's the income inequality - the root of all evils - o' ye of short sightedness."
You need to win votes to get political power. Women's votes? Lookin' good. Minorities? OK. Maybe. But a lot of them voted for Trump, and so did a lot of the women.
Try this one: "How do you get ordinary people to vote for you in this 50-50 polarized nation?" Go figure...
1
That's always been a pet peeve of mine. Literally, no one is a self-made person and literally no successful person was not also lucky, regardless of how hard they worked or talented they are!
4
A lot of women I’ve known seemed more comfortable as groups than men did, but it was just as often a quality used for evil as good, like any other.
1
Barack Obama said the following in his second inauguration:
"preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation and one people. "
True privilege is getting to write whatever unsubstantiated claims you want in the world's most important newspaper.
2
@CB
Did Barack Obama really write that speech or did a speech writer do it for him. That's the rule of the land nowadays. no president ever writes his own speeches.
We are a heterogeneous hodge podge nation. It's an aspect that has always confounded other nations, and often made a fractious mess of our own politics. But it is also what has made us the most powerful nation on this planet. It's about time our legislative body began to more accurately reflect our character. Doing so can only serve our future well.
John~
American Net'Zen
1
Despite some of the comments here, I really don't think that the writer is saying all men or all women are a certain way. Rather she is saying that we have a pervasive myth in this country that says if you make "good" choices and work hard enough you can climb the ladder. And if you don't make it in society, the fault lies with your own choices alone. That myth is implicit in many aspects of our society even if it's not spoken. It is implicit in the way that Donald Trump never says "I was one of the lucky ones. I was born rich. Other people's money helped make me what I am. " It was implicit in the outrage that ensued when Obama said "You didn't build that." It was clumsy wording, but I think he meant to say that growing a business depends on roads, utilities and more that were build by other people. You couldn't have done it alone, really.
7
Politics and power (and ways to get it) is fluid and "open sourced." Clearly the author is correct that women have found a new way. What she does not seem to understand is that people copy good ideas. And what looks unique now will not look unique at all in 2-4 years.
I wouldn't attribute personal modesty as a characteristic of many politicians. Few from either sex can refrain from making themselves the hero or heroine at the center of any story, whether it is their own personal history or as a participant of a larger group. It starts when they first run for office and re-surfaces at regular intervals whenever they need to make a point. Jill may have a point that female politicians might be a little more reticent initially to make grand claims that self reliance and hard work moved them to the head of the line, but the longer they are in office the more they mirror their male colleagues. The worst politicians of either sex, when newly elected reach back and give themselves personal props for overcoming all kinds of obstacles to get to where they are. Those in that category or those who just showed up on the scene and have a large enough ego that they believe they are embarked on a lifetime career, likely are cut from the same cloth and more often then not I suspect they will be putting their interests in front of their constituents.
1
I’m with Jill till she starts describing crediting others as an act of being oppressed by sexism, stemming from fear of unlikeability. We take credit for what is ours, but we are also proud to be able to give credit.
1
This article reminds me of a Ronald Wright quote:
“Capitalism lures us onward like the mechanical hare before the greyhounds, insisting that the economy is infinite, and sharing is therefore irrelevant. Just enough greyhounds catch a real hare now and then to keep the others running till they drop. In the past it was only the poor who lost this game; now it is the planet.”
Perhaps it’s fortunate that women were left behind when men competed in capitalism, perhaps it’s because of that we are now the ones who truly believe all should share in the benefits of a prosperous economy.
5
The 'self-made man' is a myth. No one attains success or makes it to 'the top' without receiving help, in some form, along the way. For instance, through a quality public school system, a teacher or teachers who believed in a child and helped that child to progress. The police officer who gave a young offender a second chance.
Here in Wisconsin we have US Senator Ron Johnson, a proclaimed 'self-made man', who takes all credit for making his business a success. By calling himself a 'self made man', Johnson seems to ignore some very important facts: he married the daughter of an already wealthy business man; his father in law set Johnson up with a business (along with the father in law's son - the bride's brother).
From outward appearances, Ron Johnson's business was successful. But a 'self-made man' he is not.
Ron Johnson is just one of too many men in business and government who claim to be 'self made men', when in fact they are not. There's another man, sitting in the dark in the White House, who also makes this same claim; or rather, this same 'fake claim'.
13
Defying all the facts makes his narrative all the sweeter.
1
It's curious that the author, a journalist and woman's rights activist has never served in a government post or elected office and she sees elected officials, members of Congress, with the title of 'Representative' who serve in the 'House of Representatives' as people who achieve and wield POWER. This is what she sees. She sees men as those struggling for and achieving POWER and when women become POWERFUL the discussion is one of tactics in how they achieve that power. It doesn't seem to matter that even men who strive for POWER in a representative government also have it wrong. That's not their job, really, Their job is to represent their constituents. Even Nancy Pelosi, who supposedly wields great man shaking power can be voted out of office and the very next day would be "powerless". Their so-called power is an in-house intra-office politics thing. The illusion of POWER in our representative government is a shorthand illusion for the media to make news over.
As for women not taking credit for their contributions and accomplishments, especially in government, that's another outright delusion seen through pink tinted feminist glasses. Civil servants throughout government, both male and female are conditioned and expected to make great contributions to our nation without a whisper of who is actually responsible. It has nothing to do with women's inequality.
2
Marcus Aurelius started his journals with a lengthy list of thanks and acknowledgements to the people who helped him. It’s wasn’t written for their sake, but for his: to remind himself of the debts he properly owed.
The myth of the self made man is just that. Those that believe in it are, properly, delusional.
16
Excellent article. I think that women do tend to think about power collectively rather than individually, and that so far this has been to their detriment. This is because thinking about power collectively and collaboratively is seen weak and not really as an exercise of power at all. Also, thinking about power collectively and collaboratively requires compromise and working to build trust and consensus, it cannot survive the onslaught of those only obsessed with competition, domination and winning.
So far the token women who have been allowed to succeed in business and government have had to conform to the competitive male individualist mould. It also a system which advantages women who are childless and are more like men because they do not have direct family or household responsibilities. Further, I agree that the male competitive individualist model has “put off” many women who don’t fit or like that mould from pursuing power. Systemic change that causes to people to focus on what they have in common as much as what divides them, looking for win-win rather win-lose solutions, and power sharing will benefit everyone not just women.
6
Claiming the women recently elected are more honest vs the men is no different than men claiming to be 'self-made.' Still, there's a historic basis for the self-made concept. It derives from those who worked to build a nest egg vs. those who inherited theirs. The working man vs. the aristrocrat.
Coincidentally, republican women also buy into the 'self-made' concept. So it may be more appropriate to compare women republicans vs. democrats.
3
People who rise to power because of the civil rights movement or involvement with unions (or political machines) already know that rising to power is a group effort. The group source of their success delegitimizes them as well as women in the eyes of those who see themselves as self-made.
3
Wonderful! The group effort and the reliance upon others is the truth and the sooner men start realizing it the sooner they will vote for a government that reflects it.
I hope your colleague David Brooks reads this article. He is well-intentioned and thoughtful but he doesn't seem to grasp the fundamental truth that these women are enunciating and thus he remains puzzled by the societal breakdown that a political philosophy of rugged individualism ends with.
10
This is a wonderful articulation of a perspective that I share wholeheartedly. In fact, I think it can be expanded to include other aspects of our common life besides political power. The most cogent example of the "I did it all by myself" is the belief that if you are rich it's because of your individual efforts, and if you're poor, it's because you personally have failed to make the necessary effort. The same issue is relevant to family life: Does it take a village to raise children well, or is it the sole efforts of the parent(s) that make the difference? This article asserts that women tend toward a communitarian perspective and men toward an individualistic one, but rightly says that this is not a hard and fast distinction. In any case, the critical task for both men and women is to raise the issue of which world view best reflects reality (the point of the article) and which one shapes reality into a world fit for human life.
9
I really tried to get behind this story, but after six paragraphs, didn’t understand - under than the ranting - what this person’s point is (although, clearly it was going to be against old white men).
As an old white man, I think I’m still open to constructive thought from a wide range of perspectives, but this isn’t the way that one affects change.
Regards,
William Cokins
10
Not, you do not understand. You probably didn’t get where you are without some help from the government or the community. Military leadership skills, GI Bill, parental support. I am an old woman and I think you got a lot of help that I did not get.
2
I find it disingenuous to characterize any politician of any gender as "honest."
8
Does it always have to be like this? Men vs women, they do that, we do this--and oh, by the way, we're better?
Do you seriously think any Kennedy or Bush says "I did it all on my own"?
Wasn't the objection to men playing golf on their own or having men's only clubs that they weren't giving women same the networking and mentoring opportunities?
Isn't that that the supposed power of Skull and Bones, the private dining clubs at Princeton, etc--that men use them to open doors for each other?
If women want to acknowledge the women who helped them succeed, great.
But it shouldn't be a new mandatory, and we shouldn't pretend men don't do the same.
113
@Talbot
Conflict, particularly the contrived kind, fuels a lot of what we see and hear today. Sound and fury that signifies very little of significance. But it fills space and draws clicks.
32
@Talbot When the day arrives that white men admit their personal success was built on generations of other white men's efforts to exclude all others from power, then we can have a real conversation about equality.
188
@Talbot: Yet we do have the cultural phrase "self-made man.' Interesting, no?
66
Brilliant and dead on.
I would only add that women have been programmed to deny their essential nature of cooperation and collaboration so that we could be pitted against each other based on looks, possessions, and status we didn't have. That was just one more way to keep us scrambling for scraps from the table.
15
Essential to success in any field of endeavor, including and perhaps especially politics, is being mentored, and then mentoring others. And since we mentor and are mentored by those LIKE ourselves, it’s no wonder that American politics has been overwhelmingly occupied by white men. When I saw the recent photograph of the female House members about to take office, I felt a great surge of hope. FINALLY, it seems the tide has turned, and there are enough women in the system that we can look forward to the long-overdue collapse of white male hegemony.
108
@vb
Which tells me the hegemony of rich people will likely continue, albeit with enablers who are female, non-white, non-Christian and non-heterosexual. This is what I keep in mind when I tell my daughter to look up Rosa Luxemburg and not Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
3
@vb Brava! Cannot wait!
What a fun column! I cannot express how happy I am that the House of Representatives begins to reflect this extraordinary nation that we share. I am also delighted that many new House members acknowledge the shoulders of the past and present that support opened paths and sometimes reinforced their trajectories.
Networks of powerful white males have been supporting each other in the United States for centuries, both in the public square and in industry. Some have been effective and well-meaning, others not so much. However, it is important to note that they have frequently not included working class white men.
Over the last thirty years, I have seen new networks of women, working-class individuals, and people of color develop in many workplaces. Some follow the old rules of networking but many are seeking new paths and strategies.
I suspect that we will see many kinds of politics develop among the upcoming generation of political activities--many of them evident in the House. If we have tolerated the political shenanigans of the past, we owe the new cohort a chance to see what they can do.
I wish them the best, and hope they can affect the tenor of politics in DC. It is a great way to start 2019.
75
I am a successful screenwriter in Hollywood, and because of the genres I write, work with slightly more women than men.
Many of the people I work with are quite wealthy and powerful, and some are famous as well. I have worked with many, many of these people over the years and I have seen no behavioral difference between men and women. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Some are decent, some are not. Some are bullies, some are impossibly clever at getting what they want. Some hold grudges, some are more pragmatic.
Perhaps things will be different in Washington, but my experience is that those who seek wealth, power and fame are far more similar than different.
227
@Sparky
My experience in 36 years of work. Men and women in management were identical.
13
@Sparky I think your observations can certainly hold true for other industries, and they can be more or less true depending on individual organizations. The whole "lean in" proposition was perhaps the most visible example of women being exhorted to adopt the worst of behaviors as a path to success.
In my work experience, I have met women who very carefully and successfully balanced their exercise of power with a gentle, more typically feminine, touch. I have also met women who were bullied by men above them, and partly as a result, ended up bullying their own subordinates.
5
@Sparky
It's amazing what you've noted is not an axiom, but the notion that women are all nurture, all the time and that men are all rapacity, all the time is deep and long-standing.
5
I don't know how anyone can say they achieved what they did by themselves while growing up as part of a society. I'm male and considered successful in my field and I give all the credit to the others around me: I was just lucky IMO.
54
@RamS
Hmmm, I'd say the present occupant of the White House believes he's achieved his "success" by himself.
2
@RamS
Trump says it. If he could get away with it he'd say he started out as a shoeshine boy.
@RamS That's why the entire argument is so silly. Everyone in society gets things from others, that's why we form societies in the first place. I don't have to spend time growing my own food, because it can be trucked in to the area where I live from somewhere else. And I can use the time that I save not growing my own food to pursue my own success. That is me benefiting from society, even though I'm still working hard.
I think we somehow developed this idea in America that a person can't be a hard worker and ALSO receive help from others at the same time. You can work your butt off and end up a millionaire, or you can work your butt off and end up with nothing. Oftentimes, the support around a person can be a major deciding factor in their success. And that support doesn't mean that they didn't work hard to succeed, but somehow we've come to this toxic conclusion this that people who get help don't work hard, and vice versa.
"The lines we have drawn around power, and the stories we tell about it, have kept many people from seeing themselves in their political leaders." It's more important, however, to acknowledge that those lines have kept the political leaders from seeing their constituents in themselves. Far more commonly, those leaders see their fellow "self-made" elected colleagues in themselves—justifying participating in lock-step as an exclusive tribe to maintain power, with the common good and the nation's values a secondary responsibility.
29
One might hope that legislators who see themselves as products of their community, rather than as macho lone wolves, will also take more seriously their responsibility to represent that community, rather than to use it as a stepping-stone to purely personal power. The gods know we have a bellyful of current legislators who think they owe nothing to anyone but their donors.
6
Nancy Pelosi has has been speaker of the House before (in 2007) when she was unanimously selected by the Democratic representatives of mostly MEN. We need to stop this absolutely crude stereotyping of men and women. Democratic men have been fighting for women's rights while White women have been voting for Republican politicians for decades. Doesn't make men good and white women bad, but the reverse isn't true either.
32
@Sipa111: It's not stereotyping, it's fact that men have been way over-represented historically in our government. Pelosi is an exception, not the rule.
10
I just helped elect three wondeful women to the top jobs in Michigan's state government and a woman who defeated a GOP congressman in my district (MI-8). However, When I vote for women (and men), I hope for acievements and good policy-making and that they will be sensitive to the dangers of over-exposure.
1
@arp
In my last voting ballot at the mid-term elections there were three woman to a man. I has only one choice for state senator: a woman. My vote, as far as gender is concerned, was predetermined.
I'm hoping both my new congresswoman, Mary Gay Scanlon, Speaker Pelosi, and all the other newly elected women will highlight dealing with toddlers as part of their resume and not only the mothers, but the Democratic men who've ever had toddlers will discuss that during strategy sessions. Because right now the President reminds me of a toddler having a meltdown in public. He wants what he wants, right now. I think this means anyone in Congress should harken back to their parenting or babysitting experience and use that for the next 2 years. (Unless, of course, Robert Mueller has a smoking gun with Cyrillic letters that will get rid of Trump sooner.)
8
@Letitia Jeavons > the President reminds me of a toddler having a meltdown in public. He wants what he wants, right now
That's the Pragmatism taught by Leftist professors.
It is surely worth pointing out that Nancy Pelosi's rise to power was a group effort ... of mostly men.
13
@Lee Harrison Well, it's a moot point whether they were more of a help or a hindrance.
3
@Oriflamme --had they wished to hinder Ms. Pelosi, she would not have been Speaker, plain and simple. They are the majority, by far.
And one can presume almost all of them had ambitions of their own.
I find your snark baffling, and a bit pathetic.
Both parties will have to be careful..... a lot of these women actually want to represent the folks that sent them to congress...And NOT moneyed interests...
15
@henry Gottlieb If not moneyed interests, then the "interests" of thieves.
I just commented on Brian's post and left out a word but couldn't edit in time.
The sentence should have been, "They're bred NOT to..."
Conservatives, by definition--and patrimony, don't allow women power, so a "conservative" woman, wouldn't be allowed true power.
3
I don't think that refusal to take individual credit for success is so much a female thing as taking such credit is a symptom of a particular type of masculinity. That type of masculinity, the desire to be alpha (if you will), becomes ultimately a pernicious feedback loop.
Efforts to exceed others in the masculinity contest are commonly fatal.
Agricultural societies encouraged male individualism to an extent not seen in tribal societies. We can hope that post-industrial society will bring an end to that malady. Empowerment of women all over the world helps us all.
14
@Justin Notice the sleazily contradictory package-deal of independent judgment and power over people. Ayn Rand exposed _your_ powerlust in _The Fountainhead_.
The constant efforts to ascribe higher morality to women just because of their sex is getting absurd. Success in any field is a matter of luck, timing, grit, ability and collaboration. Personally, I think luck is the biggest factor, and I suspect many hugely successful people will acknowledge that. But collaboration is probably the next most important. People know this, and have always known this. I look at many successful women - on both sides of the political spectrum - and I see the same traits that successful men have. And my contention will be quickly proven. With Senators Warren, Harris and Gillibrand running for president, I don’t expect collaboration to be front and center in their campaigns.
13
@Shiv >Success in any field is a matter of luck, timing, grit, ability and collaboration.
You "forgot" the free will choice to focus one's mind onto reality.
1
@Shiv: "The constant efforts to ascribe higher morality to women just because of their sex is getting absurd."
Almost as absurd to the constant efforts, historically, to ascribe higher intelligence to men just because of their sex.
2
While I agree completely with the sentiments involved in appraising the progress being made in sexual equality, we will only really have got there when we no longer feel obliged to marvel at a woman's having "got there". It should be the most natural thing in the world for instance, that my wife decides which male students get a master's degree in computer science - and people should not feel the need to marvel at it. When she took her exams almost forty years ago, she was indeed a rarity, and had to fight tooth and nail to be accepted simultaneously as a woman and a computer scientist.
Today we should perhaps concentrate on supporting those women who still live in primitive societies, where asking for liberty can literally cost them their lives.
9
@Bill George "While I agree completely with the sentiments involved in appraising the progress being made in sexual equality, we will only really have got there when we no longer feel obliged to marvel at a woman's having "got there".
Agreed. I look forward to the day when articles like this will no longer be written because they're irrelevant. In the meantime, let's cheer with our loudest voices the people who bring that day closer.
5
A most powerful--and hopeful--expression of the transformation that began with the Women's March. The cruelty and vacuity of the old way of power is so, so clear right now. Time for a sustainable, decent, connected alternative.
7
I really hope that greater involvement of women in politics improves the country. We will see. I assume nothing about the nature or social agenda of women. We don't need to assume that women will necessarily perform any better than men. Many of us have wives and daughters, and that alone is reason enough to reward articulate women who run for office, depending on their policies.
Greed and lust for power are tempting forces. I look forward to seeing how women perform in office.
E Warren may be the first case in point. Hopefully, based on her policy agenda as clearly stated in many venues.
1
@slowaneasy > I look forward to seeing how women perform in office.
Medea, Lady Macbeth.
I can't help but wonder whether it is testosterone fueled aggression that seems to give men the upper hand in so many power control situations. Because I have no doubt that women are just as smart (if not smarter) than men, and just as ambitious, and just as creative and just as caring/moral. And for the most part, we all spring from the same culture. And although the societal barriers are different for men and women, all people face significant challenges in the struggle to obtain power in modern society. So why have a grossly disproportionate number of men traditionally grabbed the reins of power?
There does have to be a reason. And I'm not sure that most of simplistic PC explanations really hit that nail on the head.
4
Oh come on! Adult women in this day and age are all highly influenced by their upbringing. I don't expect that women politicians will be any more moral, honest of sensitive as politicians than men. People in positions of power pretty much ack all the same.
3
I wonder how she would feel about conservative women taking power. My guess is thier gender would become irrelevant and they'd be a target.
7
@Brian
Conservative woman won't be gaining much power in America.
They're largely unelectable and the few that are conservative are already in the shrinking dinosaur Republican House caucus.
26
that's a non-starter--they can't. They're bred to and the conservatives wouldn't give it to them.
@Brian
3
It's not male vs female issue, even though most White women see it that way.
It's more like established majority and powerful clan vs minority and less powerful people who has the dream and ability to go ahead in their lives and career demanding equal rights and like to take equal responsibilities. Now the the terms like "majority" and "minority" can be defined in many ways including gender, besides race, religion, age, and many more.
7
As a man who grew up and grew old supporting the women's rights movement, I often had one regret; That the workplace had not become more feminized (for want of a better word).
I can't begin to express the thrill I feel at these fresh new voices in our halls of government. I've seen the power of collaboration and teamwork in my various places of work. I've always believed it could work at the highest levels. I wish these women, and the lucky men who work with them, the very, very best. They have the power to bring the women's movement into brilliant maturity, and in doing so make the world a far better place.
Please! Do not let anything stop you!
17
I am thrilled that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Presley, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar have taken rheir seats in the House. (I should be: though none represents me, I contributed to three of their campaigns.) But honestly, media and pundits, are there no other women in the freshman class whose stories are worth telling?
6
Why write an article that fully embraces divisiveness when you purport to embrace how women are so collaborative?
Do you really believe that Nancy Pelosi is not about self-aggrandizement?
Many men suck. Many women suck. Many men do it right. Many women do it right.
There is bad history (some of which continues) of men oppressing women and modeling terrible behavior. Let's look forward and strive for both women and men to do it right.
118
@RS: "Let's look forward and strive for both women and men to do it right."
We can do that when both men and women have equal reorientation. There's nothing divisive about women and POC wanting to see themselves better (more equally) represented.
41
@RS I agree totally. But I'd like to add using the word honesty in the same sentence as Mrs. Pelosi is a naive-rookie mistake.
2
@RS
Nancy Pelosi was instrumental in gaining healthcare for 20 million Americans and eradicating the inhumane 'pre-existing' condition rejection by insurance companies. Hillary Clinton was instrumental in implement CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) in 1997 which gives health insurance to 9 million children.
What have Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump done for Americans ?
Tax cuts for billionaires, more pollution and stacking the courts with corporate supremacists and religious patriarchs.
No contest.
It's the men who suck...not the women.
175
Women can be group-oriented and supportive of one another - but they can also be cutthroat competitive and self-serving. It is an unfortunate kind of equality that women can be just as ruthlessly careerist as men.
13
Of course they can be immoral, etc. however, women, as a rule, have had the burden of needing to standing behind the man and to stoop. It's getting to be ok to be a smart woman who knows what she'd doing without having to apologize and pretend it's the guy next to her or take a step back when a guy enters the room. We're not talking morality here, we're talking sexism.
@NM
I do believe the concepts of "networking" and "horsetrading" far predate the presence of a female voice in politics.
It seems the new narrative is that criticism of female leaders, and their goals and tactics, is invariably sexism. What a brilliant way to ensure female dominance in politics! Or at least dominance in a party purged of white men.
1
With tiny little men like Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan flushing America down the urinal, thank goodness a woman's time has finally arrived in Washington, DC.
And let's not forget that Hillary would be in the White House today without 2016 Republican voter suppression.
As a white man, this female news is terrific.
Sock it to those old crusty white guys who have utterly trashed American democracy and civilization with their wretched old boys club.
184
@Socrates
Those crusty guys also built this country. Socrates was a white guy. So was Pericles, and Democrates, the founder of democracy.
1
Look, I think it's great that there are so many women in Congress. But this editorial is ridiculous. Contrary to the theme here, there are many men grateful for those who helped them achieve power, and many women who are proud of their achievements. And there should be! Do we really want all women to feel pressure to adopt the meek posture that Ms. Filipovic desires? Of course not!
18
The New York Times has an editorial position. It allows essays like this, but never the alternate point of view.
One can argue that society advances because of the efforts of INDIVIDUALS who defied group efforts which tried to maintain the status quo.
Michelangelo's David was the product of a single person's creative mind. The symphonies of Beethoven broke the conventions of the day.
Charles Darwin had to fight the group efforts of the day which held that the world was only 6000 years old. Albert Einstein had to fight the entrenched prejudices of those who held onto Newtonian mechanics as received wisdom from former times.
Groups can do good things. But they can also make bad collective judgments. The group of all Americans chose to become involved in a war in Vietnam that cost 58,000 dead. The group of New York Times journalists and New York Times readers were wrong when they believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The list goes on.
The New York Times contributes to the abasement of the individual and the belief that the group is always right.
Thus the New York Times supports the Me Too movement which replaces the constitutional protections that an accused has a right to due process with trial by media followed by public shaming.
And above all, the NY Times avoids the most important issue of our day:
Too many children lead to global warming and systematic poverty in the third world.
The NY Times NEVER allows that message to be told.
17
@Jake Wagner "...involved in a war in Vietnam that cost 58,000 dead." Make that 2.5 million 58,000 dead. Those 58,000 were transported halfway around the world to kill the 2.5 million in their own land who couldn't threaten America if they wanted to. They had no navy or air force. They were merely in the fatal position of violating our American leaders' anti-communist mythology.
3
@Jake Wagner -- remember "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
It's most commonly attributed to Newton, but it goes back at least as far as Bernard of Chartres.
Einstein also said it later in explicit homage to Newton -- likely also to Maxwell, Planck, and the collective of early quantum mechanics (Niels Bohr prominently) of which Einstein was part.
2
@Jake Wagner I agree that individuals DO make a difference. I think this article also exemplifies all the hurdles that women must overcome because of our patriarchal society.
1
“But the fact that this version of a hero’s journey grows partly out of sexism doesn’t make it any less true.”
Why is the hero’s journey something which is considered engendered, to begin with? There is a word for a female hero. Coincidentally, that word is ‘heroine’.
“Changing the way we tell the stories of how people achieve political power...”
Like the story of what ‘polity’ is? Seems a bit more straightforward than some people would have you believe.
1
Why no coverage of Young Kim, first Korean American woman to be elected to Congress? It's a simple answer. It's politics, and she's Republican.
5
@Observer of the Zeitgeist
Young Kim LOST her 2018 campaign for Congressional Representative and consequently, has never been elected to Congress.
.
9
@Observer of the Zeitgeist Uh, no. It's about a group of women entering Congress. They're all Democrats. When the GOP elects significant numbers of women in one go, then they deserve a story too.
5
@Observer of the Zeitgeist asks "Why no coverage of Young Kim, first Korean American woman to be elected to Congress?"
It's a simple answer: She lost!
1
Thank you for an insightful and thought provoking article. Perhaps it needs to reach its peak for narcissism to be fully exposed so that its terrible lessons can be humbly heeded to.
1
Aside from the fact that it marginalizes women and minorities, another good reason to reform the meritocracy narrative is that it is largely myth. So many of the self-made men from our history were not really self made at all.
Some married well (e. g., Lincoln), some excised the women in their lives from their narrative (e.g., Douglass), some downplayed their inherited wealth to appeal to common folk (e.g., Clinton, Trump, Edwards, Romney). As a woman--but more importantly, a human who hates artifice-- the perpetuation of this mythology by our political elite, both living and dead, is so inauthentic that it is not only uninspiring, but alienating. It is high time for us to weave a different narrative where we all acknowledge that we got where we are through the support, love, and teachings of those in our orbit and those who came before us.
7
@MBD -- Lincoln "married well?" Really? You ascribe Lincoln's success to "marrying well?"
Mary Todd came from a well-off (and slave-holding) family, was considered witty and well-educated, and amusingly was courted by Stephen Douglas, but chose Lincoln. Mary was one of 7 children -- not much wealth came from the Todd family, nor did Lincoln need it.
The tragedy of Mary's later mental problems were a major personal and reasonably-serious political problem for Mr. Lincoln, as well as a hardship on the children.
4
@MBD
You remind me of the phony Carly Fiorina myth--she "rose from Secretary to CEO" --when actually she was from a prominent California family, and her father was a CA State supreme court justice. She went to Stanford, and did secretarial-type duties when she had a summer internship. Hardly the rags-to-riches story she pushed.
6
@Lee Harrison
Both strands of Lincoln’s life were true. His wife’s wealth helped AND her mental health issues were a burden. These need not be mutually exclusive.
And I take nothing, nothing away from Lincoln’s truly impressive ascendancy. He was a marvel. But having a well connected wife who knew and dated Stephen Doutlast) certainly *didn’t* hurt.
2
I would agree that women are likely to have the same innate trustworthiness as men, but that as a society we seem to do a better job of holding them accountable.
Look at Christine Lagarde, Dilma Rousseff, Park Geun-hye, and Shirley Sherrod. Would any of them have had to face the same legal fights or forced resignations if they had been men?
I’m sure there were men who called Michelle Obama an ape. Did any of them have to resign like Pamela Taylor? Colin Powell used AOL for his email, which seems a lot less secure than a well-managed home server (though as the exception that proves the rule, I believe Madeleine Albright was able to use personal email and get away with it).
The answer is that we should be holding men more accountable too, but in the meantime, the fact that woman have to walk on egg shells when they’re in office ensures that they are on better behavior.
5
@EG Um, Lula is in prison. I think he was held accountable too. Think of how many men have been driven from their positions because of accusations of sexual harassment...
If fact, women are far more likely to be forgiven their transgressions then men. Ask any black man.
It is evident that leaders who project themselves as "self-made men" have been less than honest, regardless of the challenges they may have overcome. However, what if more honest leaders, exemplified by the new wave of female politicians to which you allude, prove to meet the needs of a democratic society more effectively than leaders of the more traditional style, not just for the next few years but from here on out? Could it not make the question of society's willingness to elect female leaders who project their image along traditional, male-styled modes moot?
2
Great article. You go easy on men in power, however. You should name it what it is: a huge Lie that is under all those sucessful men. Like Kavanaugh, they go to the elite schools, they write each other recommendations, they hire one another. They are far from self made and use it like a baseball bat on those in the "out" group.
27
The belief that power and progress come from a collective effort is not a weakness, not from sexism, it is a strength. Working class minority women have to rely on family, friends, and community to achieve their goals, and in return they offer loyalty. Filipovic doesn’t get that individualism is a privilege denied to most women. Professional class feminists should do less preaching and more listening to what minority working class women experience and believe in.
3
I have often said that if women were represented in all levels of power directly proportional to their numbers in society, that we would have a much more equitable and peaceful world.
I teach all of me daughters that very maxim.
Beyond that, there are women of color and men of color that are being represented more and more, and that is also a good thing.
We are in a pause in many instances as the last throws of a white male backlash to all of this ''change'', but it is merely temporary. What many females (and others) in power are going to show is that governing is going to be for all of the people, and not just all of one kind. (as it has been for millennia)
A good thing.
22
Jill, you seem to remain true to yourself, and humble enough to recognize that nobody, 'nadie', makes it on his/her own, without the concerted effort of others and society's infra-structure and serendipity (luck); it is true that some individual effort, and basic education, and knowledge, and honesty, and at least a bit of decency, are pre-requisites; but we men, raised in a 'macho' society, have taken for granted women's subservience for far too long. No more, unless our hypocrisy in trying to maintain the status quo 'a la Trump' gets further traction. I have the inkling that male domination is a desperate attempt to at least maintain gender equality...when, deep down, we know that women are better, and certainly more down to earth. If women remain cooperative, the world shall be theirs, and we men would benefit from it, however undeserving. Gone are the days when the Bolivian Andes (via their Aillus, small native groups in the mountains) considered true equality of the man-woman duality, opposites working side by side in perfect harmony, and where a man would always consult with her before making a decision. Can you imagine such a human bind where we are in awe of each other, able to work cooperatively instead of sowing discord for a power grab... and abuse our station for lack of scruples? We have a way to go yet, so to transcend our pettiness, but the future may allow for redemption and the prudence to do what's right. And our conscience 'knows' right from wrong.
8
@manfred marcus Speak for yourself. Not me.
Much of the “ difference “ is in how the genders are used to being treated. Think about the Gym Teachers/Coachs in Schools, and the Instructors/NCOs in the Military. Traditionally, Males are trained by using bullying and brute force. Because it WORKS, for them. Women, not so much. Unless we can turn off our compassion for others and turn on our extreme self-centered ego, we are at a disadvantage. Is it worth the trade off, or do the training methods need changing ??? Think about it.
8
While your examples are narrowly defined and approximate the conventional wisdom of make/female strengths and weaknesses, you ignore the matter of expected norms such as the differences in treatment of employees between a white shoe law firm and a mom and pop auto repair shop.
1
@From Where I Sit
I’m speaking about the training and experiences of younger people. After that, of course many other factors come into play, especially
“ class “. Understand ???
1
@Phyliss Dalmatian So, it's just how the genders are treated? Do you think that's why so many more women are in college today compared to men? Or why 80% of violent crime victims are men? Or why men are 3x more likely to commit suicide? Or why 90% of the people in prison are men? Or why men get harsher sentences for the same crime? Or why 90+% of workplace deaths are men? Or why men are the victims of 95% of all combat casualties? Or why men die 5 years earlier than women?
2
I love the stories. I've been cheering for more women getting involved in politics since the Seventies. At this point, for me, it's not who you are anymore, it's what you do. The American people want to see results from their leaders, period. The Democratic party needs to position itself to retake the White House and the Senate, and we need to restore our democratic institutions. Thank you for your powerful words, but let's see the results.
7
Really? So there is a male script that is so self-centered? I'm not sure what book you are reading from. I think most of my male friends would agree that being a team player and team work are keys to success, and that we stand on the shoulders of giants. It goes back to the days when men had to go bring down those over sized furry elephants.
Perhaps you missed the memo about the good old boys network? Just kidding! I'm certain you know about that vestige of the patriarchy. Very few of the lone wolf types make it far; they are just too weird.
But I'm glad to see that women are starting to realize the importance of team work and working together for a common cause, this can only make humans stronger.
7
"The gift of power requires the responsibility of appreciating who came before you and how you might do your part to push forward." This sounds like the basis of civilization to me. Those who don't appreciate the past or care about the future are civilization wreckers. It's always easier to wreck tham to build and to wreck you only need to strike out.
Except for those who lived alone in the wilderness from a young age the self-made man is a myth. The myth is often created and sustained by those who need you to believe that they are special. That they alone can solve the problems.
It seems you are speaking of "men of power". Not every man is a man of power and not every woman is a force for good (we have several examples severing in the White House).
While it seems natural for most women to work together and acknowledge those that helped them, they aren't alone in acknowledging this. Scientists, especially it seems, have an appreciation for "who came before you and how you might do your part to push forward" especially in quests for knowledge that spans lifetimes. And it may surprise you to learn that two of the best examples of appreciating their achievements came with the help and support of others were two men for me. One retired as a major from Air Force and the other a colonel from the Army.
Given an opportunity women will define their own space and success and I look forward to it. We've done it organizations around the world we can in business & government too.
7
Whether female or male people in powerful positions can become self-serving leaders rather than servant-leaders, albeit as the author accurately seems to point out, there's a stronger inclination for men to become self-serving leaders. Nonetheless, "the proof is in the pudding" so we'll have to wait 'n see what these female leaders do once in office.
6
I've been saying that the tendency to lionise individuals for the contribution of many is a human flaw that will only lead to human suffering (along with things like greed, worship of money, etc.). This goes along with celebrity worship. No one does things on their own and after living a portion of my life following my ego, I've realised that true contentment comes from minimising its influence on my life (from myself and from others).
In some ways, this refers to the broader problem of ego, and listening to it at the expense of your true self. Ego-driven actions are the cause of the world's problems today.
8
This argument is stereotypical and therefore unhelpful. The notion that women are social while men are rugged individualists is grounded in familiar gender stereotypes. But Congress is both collaborative and hierarchical. Success requires the ability to work with others as well as the ability to lead.
So-called female characteristics and so-called male characteristics are both necessary to get ahead. If anything, Pelosi is probably more the rugged individualist and Schumer is more the collaborator. But they both have diverse personalities and exhibit both supposed gender characteristics.
There is not a female and a male road to success in Congress. If you want to get ahead, you have to be a sharp tack who can play together with others. Talk of a male and a female road to success is unhelpful and is grounded in preconceived notions and prejudices.
37
@michjas
I am guessing you are a white man over 40 who has learned that there is a certain way to attain power and who fits the mold for that, that you have likely followed that path with some success without looking around for other pathways or observing the path has not served certain groups well. I certainly could be wrong but then I don't feel locked into rigid social constructs that have narrowed the road to a fuller life for everyone.
7
I love this because it goes against the grain of the idea that women are catty and out to get each other. That is not my experience at all. I'm surrounded by intelligent supportive women and I'm not unusual in that experience.
65
@Anne
Like most of us, you're probably surrounded by people who think mostly the way you do.
I think that it’s quite naive for you to consider that younger women and younger minority politicians will not fall victim to the desire for power for the sake of power. I’ve seen that power is a common denominator that eventually corrupts even the most well-intended people. The influence of power to corrupt the human spirit is not limited by age, sex, ethnicity nor color of the skin.
41
Let’s test this theory and give women all of the power. It can’t be any worse than the Congress and President we have now.
4
Sounds like socialism - you didn't earn what you have, someone else did and hence everyone is entitled to the fruit of your labor.
This has and will never work. Lots of things influence and help you along your journey but at the end of the day you are responsible for execution and achieving.
5
Sure. Just think of that grreat computer programmer Bill Gates who bought QDOS and turned it into DOS - all by himself! NOT. And his rival Jobs, who designed a computer-- oh wait, that was Wozniak.
Ever heard of teamwork?
1
@Western New York
Clearly you have no idea what socialism is.....
Have you ever heard the phrase "(S)He is a good politician"?
It's been around for a while. It means someone who can marshal different groups together for a goal.
Spoiler alert - Nancy Pelosi, while being an excellent leader and politician, isn't doing anything new or different.
I guess I just don't buy the idea that men and women are so different.
6
Go see the movie “Roma”—it is a matter of focus.
The biggest fear of Trump's base is starting to come into play in politics where they decide who gets what. The IVY league fraternity of straight white Christian men who are selected to rule over us is being threatened by aggressive women politicos. In so many areas of American society women are rising to influential positions previously held by white men this trend has given Trump the road to power as a white nationalist populist. Claiming Obama was born in Kenya was Trump' s entry card to politics solidified with his escalator speech calling out Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers. Women politicos will bring down the Trump regime and squash his dream to be our first dictator. Cannot come soon enough.
13
I don't buy the premise of this column for a second. The reason so many Irish households had pictures of JFK, for example, was because he was the Irish Catholic boy who made good. He was theirs. Ditto Fiorello LaGuardia and his Italian ancestry. Or take Theodore Roosevelt, the ultimate do-it-yourselfer, who used his group membership in the Rough Riders to help magnify his credentials.
However well-intentioned Ms Filipovic may be, she's reducing entire demographic groups to cartoonish stereotypes to try to prove a point. It's wrong when Trump does it to demonize immigrants and it's wrong here, too.
18
It will be interesting to see if female politicians are as corrupt as male politicians. My guess is most assuredly so but I'll keep an open mind as we go down the road.
If men and women are equal, which they certainly are, I see no reason for the level of being corrupt to be much different. Women have certainly struggled to reach these heights of political power so perhaps the games that get played are substantially different.
3
If humanity has a future, it will be led by women. No one's perfect, but their competitive cultural instinct is generally not to go for the jugular. Whereas with men, it's the opposite. If humankind is going to survive we will need to adapt to avoid even more conflict and it seems women can do that better than men.
22
@Larry Bennett not sure this sweeping generalization is true. I've worked for some great women, but also some that definitely went for the jugular. The worst boss I had some 25 years ago went for the jugular every time and slept her way to management. Many women I work with go at each other like crazy, while the men let things roll a bit more. Not sure what world you're living in, it's not my experience.
5
@Larry Bennet Its naive to say women can do better when its based on a generalization. There are plenty of meek men and plenty of cutthroat women.
6
@TRS
I am a woman, and in the workplace women are just as adept -- if not more so -- as men at ravaging their peers. What you speak is the truth.
1
Bravo, Ms. Filipovic! This is a real high point for a contributor whose work I always appreciate. Less bootstraps garbage, more focus on how no one gets to the top without climbing over a lot of bodies, whether with permission or without. "With permission" being the most relevant moral factor.
5
That was funny. I have known and know many women of power, and they got their through their own efforts. Were they collaborative? Sure. Were they unique? Very. This article makes the issue sound like any woman who wants to assume power needs simply to collaborate and it's a done deal. That's utter nonsense.
Drive, ambition, intelligence, incredibly hard work, suffering, and desire dictate success.
10
@Ernest Montague: Historically, being a white male helped, too.
Please remove the gender identity politics focus. For every Ocasio-Cortez and Pelosi fighting hard for their constituents, there's a poisonous Coulter and Palin fanning the flames of hatred, and a seemingly diffident Collins and Murkowski - who vote with Trump approximately 80 percent of the time - standing uselessly by with a rubber stamp, fighting for their constituents too.
Honest PEOPLE taking the reins, and the soapbox, from corrupt PEOPLE.
THAT'S the story.
61
@common sense advocate. I am generally sympathetic to AOC's politics, but she seems second only to Trump in her thirst for the limelight. And I voted for Clinton and was devastated she lost, but she was certainly no saint with power.
People are incredibly complicated, and the vast generalizations of this article are sophomoric.
8
@common sense advocate
I think inherent in the premise of the piece is that unlike the women you listed, the women mentioned in this piece aren’t conservative right-wingers beholden to a radically destructive base.
5
@Josh Wilson, absolutely, the collaborative woman are more typically progressive, even liberal!!
1
When more dishonest women like Sheryl Sandberg enter politics, it will both disprove your point and mark a new era of equality between men and women.
10
Fantastic piece
11
Some pretend to be self made but nobody is, particularly the current president, who has lied consistently and for decades about his gilded slide into generational wealth
16
“I worked hard, and so I got here by myself.”
then you lavish praise on Ocasio-Cortez.
The lady was in the Bernie campaign in 2016, then gets elected to the US senate after a brief career as a bartender.
That hardly qualifies as 'I worked hard'.
Give her a few years in Congress and she'll fall apart due to her lack of experience working hard anywhere.
7
@AutumnLeaf: I think she's going to do great. She's smart and savvy and likeable on top of it.
3
@Anne
And completely inexperienced,
She her entire life time work experience is 2 years, and now she leads the country?
Her Resume:
Student, childhood to 2016
Profesional experience, 2016-2017
Bar tender in Brooklyn
Waitress in Brooklyn
Bernie Sander Campaign in Brooklyn
Took a sabatical after the campaign to travel the USA
2019- US Congresswoman
To me it would seem she cannot hold a job for more than a year.
Yet people think she should lead the country.
No wonder we are in the dire situation that we are in. Compared to her, Sarah Palin was experienced and educated.
5
@AutumnLeaf
Go back and read that sentence again. I think you misread it.
Today’s rising female politicians tell a very different story than “I worked hard, and so I got here by myself.”
The author was not inferring that Ms Ocasio-Cortez believes she got here by herself.
1
As the great Madeleine Albright said: “I'm not a person who thinks the world would be entirely different if it was run by women. If you think that, you've forgotten what high school was like.”
48
Well, speaking as a white male voter, you will not get my vote or support by spouting prejudiced, sexist diatribes against me and those like me. So, until they can represent me, as well as all those fair-minded, modest women, they will not be ready or capable of achieving power.
15
@Bryan
"fair-minded, modest women"? Exactly do you mean by modest?
"adjective: modest
1.unassuming or moderate in the estimation of one's abilities or achievements.
"he was a very modest man, refusing to take any credit for the enterprise"
synonyms: self-effacing, self-deprecating, humble, unpretentious, unassuming, unpresuming, unostentatious, low-key, free from vanity, keeping one's light under a bushel; More
antonyms: boastful, conceited
2.(of an amount, rate, or level) relatively moderate, limited, or small. "drink modest amounts of alcohol"
synonyms: moderate, fair, tolerable, passable, adequate, satisfactory, acceptable, unexceptional, small; More
antonyms: great, runaway
3.(of a woman) dressing or behaving so as to avoid impropriety or indecency, especially to avoid attracting sexual attention.
(of clothing) not revealing or emphasizing the figure.
"modest dress means that hemlines must be below the knee"
synonyms: decorous, decent, seemly, demure, sober, severe; More
antonyms: immodest, flamboyant"
How many male politicians would you call modest? The very definition calls for someone who does not stand out, make waves, or calls attention to herself/himself. Clearly not the way to develop political power in this country!
3
The 'glass ceiling' remains fixed, even if it is harder to see. If it weren't, Hillary Clinton would be president now. The extenuating circumstances of 2016 and popular vote outcome notwithstanding, this should not have even been close. And can you imagine if a woman who was deeply ignorant, a political novice, had a shady business record, was a pathological liar and foul-mouthed to boot, ran for president? Well, look where her male counterpart ended up...
16
@NM The things Hillary did were worse than what Trump did, another factor was that Trump wasn't a politician. As for Hillary she flip floped on issues for years so of course they wouldn't trust her to be president.
2
@NA....and DT hasn’t “flip-flopped” on issues?
1
@NA: Imagine if….
1. Hillary had called working class Americans good and decent hard working people whom she would protect….not "deplorables in a basket".
2. If she had come out strongly for a single payer health care law, to supersede the lousy worthless Obamacare with HIGH DEDUCTIBLES!
3. And/or a public option at the minimum, to be added on Day One of her Administration.
4. Imagine if she'd run classy ads, rather than cheap sleazy "Trump attack ads". (You get down with dogs, you get up with fleas.)
5. Imagine if she had not used a private email server, nor scrubbed 30,000 emails without explanation.
6. Imagine if she'd gotten Nancy Pelosi's personal stylist/shoppers on speed dial and never ever worn a Mao pantsuit.
7. Imagine if she'd told the coal miners of W. Va that "she would see they were taken care of, and got equally good jobs with benefits and were not thrown to the wolves".
8. Imagine if she had told the American people she would protect our borders and deport every illegal alien.
9. Imagine if she had told the American people that "I am going to claw back all your jobs….bring them home from overseas and Mexico….take back what is rightfully yours and the third world can to go to heck."
10. She would be President today.
1
It is foolish to discard the idea of Meritocracy it has had a "white male" hue. Few people think that women are inherently inferior or that women and minorities have not attained high office in "representative" numbers because of lack of merit. Most understand that the role of women outside of the home has evolved and that equality of opportunity and recognition mean increasing numbers at all levels in every field of endeavor, including Government. Women and minorities should be applauded for making such long overdue progress and for doing so in a MERITOCRATIC way.
5
My comment is not directed at the column per se. I read many of the comments and none appear to be opposed to the author's viewpoint. Why not? Is she all knowing? NO. The majority of the readers are liberal and will never really disagree with this attitude. That is a very sad commentary on the readers of the NYT. I thoroughly enjoy reading the NEWS on a daily basis. I have to stop reading all the editorials as they only profess the liberal angle. I would subscribe to the WSJ but they do not have a Sunday edition.
3
Just because power has been "male-centric" doesn't mean all the powerful men didn't deserve it. Yes, some of the them took undue advantage of it, but lets us not throw baby with the bath water.
6
@Jack
Yes, many of them worked hard and earned their places, but we can still recognize that others worked just as hard and were denied the same position based on factors outside their control, like gender or race. The playing field is becoming more even, but we're not there yet. Just look at the unequal coverage of female candidates, what do you think would have happened to a female version of Trump or even Sanders?
5
@Jack Power corrupts. The smart and wise person is one who eschews power. Humility and wisdom go a longer way than power.
1
Thank you for this.
3
Thank you for this perspective. Frankly, the road to power for men is exactly the same as for women, hard work and support networks. Men enjoy a broader range of support than women in family, wives, daddy's golf buddies, greased pathways into elite colleges, and all the other 'old boys club' benefits. The difference is that men don't actually believe these benefits made a difference. In that mind set, the obvious conclusion is "I did it alone through hard work." Pull that carpet of infrastructure out from underneath men and they would go whining back to their wives and family about how unfair the world it. Le pauvre.
23
@Lisa Ann Carrillo
You forgot the contributions of these men's wives to make them successful.
I think its great that women are more involved in the political process at its highest levels.
I just don't expect them to behave any differently ( or any better) than their male counterparts. And past history from many countries would support that expectation.
12
You've written and insightful and elegant article, Ms. Filipovic, and I thank you for the enjoyment of reading it. I'm writing this first because what I write next is not a critical view of this particular article.
I have been trying for a while now to convey my thoughts on the importance of giving the appropriate words and names to people. I believe it is important that we call each other what we are. I really dislike the term 'Women' and 'People of Color' etc.... By accepting these, and other similar terms, we are distracting ourselves and others from the debate at hand. We are, men of various ethnicities and women of all ethnicities have lived in a Republic that proclaimed it prided itself on inclusion. It does not, and never has. It has always prided itself on those men who were able to rise within its' rankings only because those it chose were white males or those who conformed to the Powerful Male syndrome.
That may have been the norm far back in early community building in some places but it is no longer the norm. We know we have been disenfranchised and we are grateful to our forebears who worked hard and fought to set us free. We don't come to disenfranchise those in power. We come to be counted and to invite the powerful within our ranks. We are one people and it's in our differences we find our greater strength.
3
Interesting read. I'm trying to overcome my own biases here so allow an observation:
The republican base is fundamentally scared that power will operate as it always has: those at the top give something (jobs, physical security) to THEIR people and in return are given carte blanche to satisfy their personal whims (money, philandering etc.)
These indiscretions are tolerated because the alternative is a leader who gives these spoils to their group, not yours. Compounding this fear is that leaders now are building explicitly racial/religious coalitions. Thus, its only logical that a multicultural voting coalition be given the spoils, not the losing white one.
I somewhat sympathize with this point of view: if that is how power works, you would be not only foolish but ENDANGERING yourself to vote for someone who wasn't tied to your personal group/tribe.
I think that's the entire underlying fear of our time.
Its not fair, but liberals are going to have to prove that they really are different if Ms. Filipovic's assessment of a gentler, more enlightened coalition is correct.
9
There are certainly many falsehoods and distortions in current form of meritocracy. The critical assessments, like those put forward in this article, are so important to bring to light. But lets not forgot the essential notion in that messy concept of merit that one's identity should not define one's lot in life.
By framing an ascent to power as a group effort, it puts a greater emphasis on identity … and creates de facto another group (in this case one which is being encouraged to stop acting like a group). I understand the appeal, the camaraderie, but I believe we're already seeing the ill effects of this instinct. His name is Donald.
1
If you're going to lead with that headline you better be sure they get it right and don't get sloppy with the details. I'm all for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but she made a huge, HUGE mistake doubling down on her $21 trillion misquote on the subject of Pentagon spending with her response that people were "missing the forest for the trees". She's young and I'm prepared to let her make a few mistakes while she cuts her teeth in the political world, but this can't be the standard by which we call "honest Women", or men. I feel the same way about Elizabeth Warren. She could have my vote now if she hadn't defended of her (1.5%) native American heritage as means of political leverage. I don't care about age or charisma but I'd like to see Warren conduct a squeaky clean campaign and not resort to such ploys. I voted for Hillary but she lost my real confidence the moment she failed during the debates to chastise Trump as he paraded around behind her podium while she spoke and had the floor. It was a moment that revealed a weakness that a president simply cannot have, and her past has more than a few genuine fact-checked episodes that could make a person hesitate before using the word honest. So if you're going to talk about honesty let's be honest about it.
10
@Erich Richter
It sounds like you're looking for excuses NOT to support these women.
Creating an unrealistic and fickle standard of perfection for women politicians is a form of misogyny and gender discrimination.
And unfortunately, a common one among men and some women in democratic / liberal camps.
That's a big part of why we're in the mess we're in and I'm concerned that the bias is so engrained that we're in danger of things playing out similarly in 2020 rather than learning from mistakes that led to the election of our current president.
17
@Erich Richter Making an error about spending is not "dishonesty". It is dishonest to accuse Warren of defending her heritage "as a means of political leverage", rather than a response to Trump's racist remarks. Hillary not responding to Trump's stalking in the way you wished was not "dishonest". Let's be honest -- you have a problem with liberal women politicians.
12
@Nicole You're unhappy because I dissected your champions. Some of them are my champions too but this article is about women candidates. And my critique is that while I like new champions I'm not willing don't lower the bar simply because Trump did it, or men did it. There is nothing unrealistic or even misogynistic about that standard.
4
I agree with most of this, but I think you have overlooked the gender-based biology of power. This is a complicated but essential component of the story that is too long to get into here. Suffice to say that the emergence of safe and effective birth control in the 1960's is the single most important political/social event of the 20th century. Until we go through 3 or 4 generations (about 90-120 years) in this new context we will not see the full effect of this change, but I at this point I am optimistic.
20
@Herodotus YES! The secret no one mentions: population explosion. Too many people have too few resources, with the impoverished fleeing their poor countries.
Safe and effective birth control frees us all, to share in our dwindling resources and to empower the women who want to have careers outside the home.
4
Does anyone think that after prolonged tenures in any government or private industry positions, women won’t turn out to have the same shall we say foibles as their male counterparts? As we’ve been told time after time that women can do the same jobs as well as men, the capacity to develop bad and unwanted (by themselves and the public) habits and demeanors as their male countertops will only increase. Articles like this are just different types of pedestals on which to put women, setting them up for the falling from grace etc., that men have experienced ad infinitum.
30
I see you are aware of the Lord Acton's quote attributed to Lord Acton. I rather follow along with the Caroline Kennedy and Chris Gardner. Of course I could choose to look on the dark side, but it is so much more pleasant to linger in the sunshine.
2
@Alan Chaprack Actually we can answer that question. In American business, women have held positions of power in large numbers for the past 30 or so years. Numerous studies have been done and the results have shown that women do use power differently than men do. They are far more collaborative, more interested in power sharing and helping others. Sadly we are only now starting to see women in positions of political power in sufficient numbers to see trends but there’s no reason to think the same gender differences won’t apply in that realm, too.
And it’s interesting how often men want to argue that women will do no better than men at something rather than letting them try and see what happens. Two and a half centuries of male rule in this country and you don’t want to give even 100 women in Congress a chance for awhile before dismissing them?
12
@Alan Chaprack Indeed.. the so-called 'feminine' qualities of collaboration and consensus were also male-determined standards that were thrust upon the female social role, regardless of whether or not any particular female fit that model. Beneficial stereotypes (e.g. females are more ethical) are still patriarchy unless we are willing to acknowledge that some traits may be rooted in Biology.
In that case maybe stop the universal shaming of male traits.
2
Can we get over the overly generalized gender-ing of what is broadly considered to be bad behavior? I agree that women tend to be more consensus driven, community oriented than men, but it isn't as though they monopolize those behaviors. A big problem is that men who don't exhibit typically masculine behavior tend to be dismissed - by men and women alike.
Most powerful people are men, but not all men are powerful. For every Bill Gates, there are millions more who exercise very little authority. And the large number of men who would be perfect allies are frequently punished for not exhibiting domineering behavior. You'll notice that most arrogant men are rarely single. This is not just a problem of men supporting other bad men, but that humans in general - men and women - tend to reward the most aggressive among us. We more readily identify them as being capable of leadership.
I applaud and welcome a more female and diverse congress, and hope to see it reflected in industry as well. I also hope, though, that rather than just reduce the number of men, we replace them with people who share values that extend beyond being domineering and aggressive. There are plenty of good men out there - don't let them go unnoticed.
102
@Kirby: "There are plenty of good men out there - don't let them go unnoticed."
Of course there are! We're just tired of their over-representation. We like to see over selves represented, too.
45
@Anne Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I share your goal for more female representation as well. And you're right that men are heavily represented, but I'm not sure that GOOD men are well represented.
I see men as a whole being criticized for the effects of "toxic masculinity". The problem is that the guys that don't exhibit those qualities end up being ignored. They end up being treated as wallflowers who aren't even on people's radar. Humans - men and women alike - need to be honest about their own part in propping up that system. I think the result will be positive for all parties.
28
@Kirby: Thanks for your reply. I agree. Personally I'll take a wall-flower man over a grand-stander any day. Many women feel the same.
15
Something that I've observed is that men tend to use power as a tool to enrich themselves in any number of ways. Women have a greater tendency to view power as responsibility. Ironically, I think this is a big part of the reason that few women seek power and those who do tend to behave more in the traditional male mold.
If newcomers (women or men) can begin to shift everyone's view of political office away from power and toward responsibility, we will ALL be better off.
139
@Carla
It's very difficult to lead a team of men if you don't conform to their idea of a leader.
Something I know from experience.
9
@Carla These characterizations of men have made their way into mainstream discourse of women in politics. 5 years ago I would never have looked at a woman candidate and wondered if she had such unfavorable views of men ... I have voted frequently for women with no (conscious) consideration of gender. Today, it doesn't seem like unreasonable question for men to ask. I don't want a leader who would judge me on my demographics, and neither do you.
12
@Carla I think it's fair to say that those that don't see power as a responsibility tend to be male. But I don't think it's fair to say that men in general don't see power as responsibility. We've seen plenty of men to do see power that way.
Unfortunately, those that see power as an opportunity for enrichment are usually the ones trying hardest to achieve power.
5
I hope they're focusing on being good representatives, and not on being part of somebody's "hero's journey".
The author sees Nancy Pelosi as a powerful symbol. I see her as an old product of the establishment, daughter of a powerful politician, and bereft of new ideas for a new century. I am happy for the symbolic value of a female speaker, but wish far more that we had a better speaker. Let's not get caught up in symbolism; let's vote for the best candidates irrespective of gender and elect those most likely to make a positive change.
19
@Tom: Oh, please. you do realize the whole 'hero's journey' has always been a male-focused story/myth? S
16
@Tom I'm not sure what or who you are hoping for as "a better Speaker" than Nancy Pelosi. She is a true leader, as evidenced by the quote from Former Democratic congressman from Wisconsin David Obey (Wisconsin) - please read the article by Robert Draper in the NYTimes magazine November 25, 2018.
9
@Tom
I think it is best that Nancy Pelosi has stayed so that she, and others in the House of Representatives can have available to them a bit of experienced mentoring before they grasp the reins. Let's not be confused. Many of the people elected were elected because they didn't seem jaded and obsolete. The House of Representatives is staunch and divisive. Nancy Pelosi has been a outstanding member holding the Democrats together through the good and bad times. Her experience will be invaluable to the newest members in the seats. Perhaps you see her as a woman taking a MAN's job, but she has performed well. I wouldn't want to play a game of chess with her and I have won games against every male I've played.
11
Thank you for this excellent article, Ms. Filipovic. It perfectly outlines the obstacles women have faced for centuries - and many have overcome!
Socially Conscious, smart, courageous women are stepping up across America and around the world to take one-half the power. Partnership governance, where Socially Conscious women and men share power equally can exponentially change the world by bringing it into balance.
It's not a male-female contest. Matriarchy is no better than patriarchy. Balance. Relative peace. Social and economic equity for all human beings. That is what most human beings want. That is what women and men sharing power and working for 99.9% of us can do.
What a wonderful, remarkable way to begin the second millennium. What a wonderful, remarkable way to rewrite HIStory to OUR story of inclusion and prosperity for all.
18
@njglea
I think that it has become very easy for people to mistakenly view the past through the lens of our comfortable lives today. For the vast majority of human history, "adult" women - meaning those past the onset of puberty - spent a large portion of their lives dealing with menstruation, pregnancy, and caring for young children. There were no tampons, discrete pads, or indoor bathrooms. There was no birth control pill. There was no medication to treat PMS or to lessen the effects of the monthly period. Birthrates were high, as was infant mortality.
I would like to see the NYT do a thoughtful, historically-accurate analysis of the impact that such factors had on women and the roles that they could play in society rather than reflexively blaming everything on the "oppressive patriarchy"!
11
@Citizen I too would like to see this history but not for the reasons you suggest. I would like to see it, so that everyone can see the feminine issues as well as the huge patriarchy women have had to overcome. I would also like to see more history of women. I am guessing they did a lot more on the frontier than pop out children, cook and do laundry. I am guessing they wore pants, brought in game, broke horses, branded cattle, handled finances and plowed fields. "History" has been written by men for men. I would like to see more true history.
4
@njglea Econimic equity: you get something even if you didn't work for it, sounds like communism and like communism its never going to work.
The group effort includes the majority of men. Enough with the identity / divisive rhetoric and politics.
42
@Bhj: White men have traditionally supported and mentored white men. That, too was, 'identity politics.' It just wasn't called that because that's how privilege works; it was invisible and unnamed. It only becomes problematic to white men when other identities seek to be heard and represented.
261
@Bhj Was there anything in this piece that suggested that men were not part of that "ecosystem" the author referred to? It's telling that you see an article about how women do things differently as somehow "divisive rhetoric".
27
@Bhj
I will stick with the 'identity politics' until I see more women and POC in positions of power. If it really annoys you, vote for more inclusive representation and the 'divisive rhetoric' will cease eventually.
10
Not for nothing- but I saw the Kamala Harris interview on Morning Joe this morning ... With all due respect, she may have intelligence and political savvy but she isn't ready for prime time.
She accomplished very little while serving as California's AG and spent most of her term campaigning for Boxers seat. Her message is straight off the shelf "hope and change" with very little substance.
She may make a great Senator someday .. but POTUS? No way..
15
Really, Aaron? You would start propganda against her now?
STOP. Every candidate has something to say and we must listen to them all. Ms. Harris has an amazing background and is committed to working for 99.9% of us. Pay attention to core values - not who is the "best" speaker. Often "stories" are full of lies.
15
Yeah, how can she ever possibly live up to the high standard being set by the current president?
23
@njglea
I just said she's not ready to be President. If it makes you feel any better neither should Elizabeth Warren.
3
After working for thirty years in the field of engineering, I am finally seeing a glimmer of hope that we are addressing the real issues of gender inequality. For my granddaughters and grandson, I have hope for an more egalitarian and saner future.
29
I am glad that more women have been elected to Congress. I am glad that more women and men of color now serve in Congress. I agree that women and people of color may redefine how power is gained and wielded--but that remains to be seen. Power, as is well-known, corrupts. Example: my one complaint with this essay is Jill Filipovic's paean to Nancy Pelosi. I admire her career in many ways, and I hope she continues to stand up to President Trump. But in other respects, Pelosi represents exactly the sort of old-fashioned power that Jill Filipovic claims to reject. Speaker Pelosi is descended from a political family. She is a multi-millionaire. She built her career, and continues to maintain her influence, by raising millions of dollars for the Democratic Party, and thus embodies the single worst facet of our politics: the influence of big money. She plays hardball, not some new, consensual feminist sort of politics. Finally, Pelosi is a career politician, who has served in Congress for 30 years and prevented younger Democrats from attaining positions of power in Congress. So I hope that Jill Filipovic's optimism proves correct, and that the newcomers to Congress begin to change it. But, as I say, power corrupts, and it could be that today's rebels will become tomorrow's establishment.
19
@Chris Rasmussen agree. Women are not immune from the corruption that so oftentimes goes hand in hand with power. Only time will vet these newcomers and see who will keep standing tall and eschew the potential corruption that can so easily happen.
5
Exactly. I have nothing against Nancy Pelosi, but I think it’s odd that the author included her in this article. Her background (super powerful father, etc) doesn’t represent what the author is trying to say.
2
@Chris Rasmussen
"She is a multi-millionaire. She built her career, and continues to maintain her influence, by raising millions of dollars for the Democratic Party, and thus embodies the single worst facet of our politics: the influence of big money. She plays hardball, not some new, consensual feminist sort of politics. Finally, Pelosi is a career politician, who has served in Congress for 30 years and prevented younger Democrats from attaining positions of power in Congress." OK Chris, now change every she and her to he and his, and then change Democratic to Republican, and...ta da... you have Mitch McConnell! Do you think maybe Nancy Pelosi figured out that she had to step up to the plate and mix it up with the boys? I am so glad that she will be there to mentor a younger generation of Democrats on how to use all of one's wits and strength and courage to defend what defend what they believe in.
5
"From these women, the message is clear: Their strength comes from collaborative, generational efforts to move toward the good. "
Well, we shall see. Lofty rhetoric is cheap, especially prior to having engaged in political sausage making. Let's see if such sunny and avowedly egalitarian idealism can survive the political process.
The evidence is not yet available and so it is surely premature to do a victory lap for these women.
Worse, this is a species of sexism: women are the empathetic, cooperative, fair minded, socially astute, humane group while men are the self-centered, run by self aggrandizement and blinded by zero sum competitiveness, group.
What evidence there is for the nature of successful female politicians does not point in the direction of gentleness, fairness and compassion. Thatcher, Meir, Ghandi, Bhutto, Kirchner, anyone?
77
That's the whole point, Econ. Until now, until enough women got personal power, women had to assimilate and act like men to succeed in the male power-over-dominator model. That's why so many women dropped out near the top of the ladder. They simply cannot be as brutally competitive, morally bankrupt and socially unconscious as the systems require.
Socially Conscious Women sharing power equally with men will change the model. Of course, there will be healthy competition but it will be combined with social good, starting with the family.
That model will strengthen us all - not make us "weaker". The male power-over-dominator model is as antiquated as The Con Don's border wall. They must go.
54
@Econ
It's true we shall see, its way to early to know. Maybe 50 or a 100 years from now when we have adequate numbers of women in positions of leadership we will then be able to make an accurate assessment of leadership style. Thatcher et al, were part of the very tiny beginning of women in leadership. We have a long way to go. But go we will.
8
@Econ Your comment is exhausting. We can certainly celebrate that 100 hundred years after earning the right to vote, we have elected more women into office than any time in our history. Women, who make up half the population have fought for every right they have; owning property, opening bank accounts, the right to higher education (women of color x2). Nobody has to prove to you that women are "better" leaders than men.
29
Women have changed, for the better. My generation felt men had to be copied, and other women not supported (to say the least). Today’s younger women are much, much more supportive of each other and it’s a beautiful thing to behold.
136
@Andy
I have a 23 year old female family member that would disagree with you.
My point is, it hasn't changed everywhere and on ever social strata. We still have a very long way to go.
3
@Andy I don't know what your generation is, but I turned 21 in 1975 when the demographics of the workplace were very different & women in politics were a rarity. I don't agree that younger women are more supportive of one another than in the past. But now that there are more women in the workplace, especially now that women don't necessarily drop out of the workplace after having children, young women have a chance to see how other women navigate the complexities of the workplace, how to get ahead, etc., how to negotiate for what you want, etc. And what has not changed is that how those things are done is still different for women than for men. I remember at my first job after college as an entry level copywriter, my supervisor (a man) cautioned me about becoming "one of the girls". No one, he said, would take me seriously if I was seen to network with any of the few women on the staff. I doubt that anything like that still goes on, but since most powerful positions are still held by men, I'm sure that in sectors where men still predominate, it's still seen as more advantageous to hitch one's professional wagon to the successful man. I think that will change. At least I hope so. But we aren't there yet. Maybe my granddaughter will see a country where it's so common for women to be in elected office that it's not even commented on.
5
@Andy
Men had to be copied in the workplace because women were considered second-class citizens. If you're going to play football, you gotta wear the uniform.
I am so excited to be living through this. I believe that including women in the halls of power will bring about a profound change. This is the the blossoming of the women's movement. I hope to live long enough to see the fruit.
72
@Mary. #metoo! Herstory
Leave it to women to appreciate and honor those who came before them while men take all the credit for themselves no matter who else participated. Despicable and unforgivable. It's way past time for change. Let the women take charge and watch the love and compassion and reason flow outwards to our very neediest. I stand behind all the new representatives and senators in office now. It's going to be people like Ms. Oscasio-Cortez and the younger, more diverse colleagues who will make actual, real change towards the positive. It takes someone who has been oppressed for a lifetime to understand the need for change and that time is NOW.
21
@Trouble Mandeson
I thoroughly agree with you. I have to point out that Barack Obama said much the same but was jeered by all the "self-made men" in the Republican party.
4
Such music to my ears. I am amazed how men seems to feel they have accomplished everything on their own, whereas many women acknowledge how other people have made things possible for them. I am saddened how men compete with and tear down each other on Capitol Hill, whereas these new women are mostly bonding together. I am relieved that with this fabulous crop of women running for office, we aren’t facing crass name-calling, debate stalking and dirty tricks.
I am happy that my teenagers are alive for this.
50
@CousyYes, and it's amazing but true that women not only honor their ancestors but accept the responsibility to maintain a legacy that includes high standards of honest and integrity. It should go without saying, but I will mention, that women's ambition doesn't seem to leave the wreckage of sexual predation in its path.in its path. (
6
@Mary K O'Brien And I am truly amazed by the black and white depictions of gender in these comments. Women maintain a legacy that includes a high standard of honesty? I guess you're not referring to Susan Collins or Kellyanne Conway or Elaine Chow or Condoleeza Rice, and on and on and on. And @Cousy, you honestly have never heard a man thank his family and supporters for the efforts made on his behalf? I would suggest you listen to some speeches. This is just another article that paints all women as benevolent and all men as inherently bad. Why is it impossible to discuss the changing demographics of power in this country without resorting to exaggerated gender stereotypes?
12
@MD. Couldn't agree more.
1