The pus-filled sore of women and Union leadership has now been scratched by many, so I figure it's my turn to take a stab at it.
There appear to be a number of questions at hand. A few of them are:
1. Do women and men have different roles/purposes in leadership?
2. If so, is this appropriate?
3. What should the Union do about this?
etc.
Are women being relegated to weak administrative positions instead of being allowed to develop intellectually? I say no. There are many very fine female speakers in the Union, just as there are many fine female administrators in the Union. Indeed, they are often the same people. The former President, Ms. Homer, was a fine example. As is the former speaker, Ms. Rittelmeyer. As is the current speaker, Ms. Lee. There are plenty of other examples. Does this mean that the Union is not inherently structured as a masculine-styled "old boys club?" Not at all. In the sense that it is most commonly meant, the Union and its agressive style of debate and socialization is exceedingly masculine. What these and other women have shown is that an organization's "masculinity" does not mean that it is impenetrable to women.
Ah, but as Kate says, the real power lies in the parties. While I would dispute her on this point alone (the past election cycle has indicated to me that there is clearly ideology and inspiration in Union leadership), I will go down her path. In the past two semesters alone, during my time at Yale (and hers), there have been six female chairmen of parties. Out of 14, that isn't bad, especially considering the male majority in the membership. Were these women inspirational leaders? I think their parties would say so. Kate's party, the Party of the Right, which has not had a female chairman since the fall of 2006, has its own roadblocks to overcome (or not, if it so chooses). But this is indicative not of a general failure of the Union system, or even of women as a gender to fulfill the dominant role in an organization.
It seems that there are a number of people, regardless of gender, who seek leadership roles for whatever reason, and fight until they assume them. Some have a harder time than others, either because of personal or environmental setbacks. But I would add that we have the great fortune of residing in a microcosm of privilege where practically everything is voluntary. If you choose to take part in a system that keeps you down, be prepared to fight harder or accept your assigned role. While the world may be big and bad, Yale is small and pretty, and your narrative is one that you have a part in writing, if there is a narrative at all.
Leadership is a trait, or perhaps a number of traits. Some women possess it, others do not. Some men possess it, others do not. Associating this trait with the realm of masculinity may be informative, but it is not a rule. At this point, I am willing to say that gender roles exist as an anthropological observation, but not as a cultural imperative.
And so I say to the postmodern world: know the power structure. Learn it. Embrace it, reject it, do with it as you will. But if you feel nurturing, nurture. If you feel dominant, dominate. Only the reactionary nature of the culture you embrace, coupled with your own self-doubt might hold you back. For the rest of us, we will live the world as we see it, honoring the victors and forgetting the weak.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Next time you feel like sucking up, make sure you're sucking up intelligently. No one thinks Helen's an administrator, including Helen -- in fact, I got flak for my original post for failing to note that a woman without a lick of administrative skills such as Helen could make it far.
And while I agree with your sentiments regarding the mizzes Homer and Lee, the intellectual prowess of the former and the administrative skills of the latter were certainly called into question in their time.
I think people were more concerned about the intellectual prowess of the latter than that of the former. Aside from that small quibble, I endorse this comment wholeheartedly.
Dara, the intellectual or administrative skills of ANY leader have at times been called into question. I challenge you to name just two or three chairmen OR Union leaders who have never had shots taken at them.
While I wasn't there while Helen ran the PoR, she ran it, and from what I hear she ran ResComm, too. Carmen ran the IP perfectly fine, even if she wasn't the best administrator ever. The point isn't whether one person is more perfect than another, it's that gender doesn't come into it at all.
You forget that the other important aspect of leadership is inspiration, which Helen has certainly done both in her speechmaking and her speakership. Carmen hasn't yet, but as I recall we all expect to be qualified to fill the position.
With sincere respect to everyone involved in this discussion so far:
I think part of the problem here is that title is being conflated with leadership. It seems like much of the intellectual prowess metric has to do with giving speeches, but that's only a pantomime we put on at the front of the room. As a former Speaker, I think it's an incredibly important performance, but I'd be naive to say that more intellectual work isn't done in the rehearsal and the chatter out in the lobby before, during, and afterwards. It's the GUIDANCE of that discussion provided by the administrative side that is so important. (Of course, I do think that our current model whereby we set guests first, not topics for discussion, is backwards, but that's a topic for another day)
I'm still a little confused, despite talking this over with some people, as to why so many in the PoR seem to think that intellectual leadership requires speech-making. If the personal really IS political, then why isn't the role of orchestrating the thing, then standing by the side and critiquing why it did or didn't go well, intellectual leadership? Why does a very public leader of the Union's intellectual contributions have to be in the form of formal speeches? *
I am not asking these questions rhetorically. I hope for genuine illumination from my friends and frenemies.
(Please note, Helen and others in the "norms in drag" school, that I don't claim that transgressing the norm of not speaking while holding office can't have rhetorical power, etc. I think Noah's decision to drop the gavel and give a speech on whether or not gays can vote Republican was particularly powerful because he was playing with nitroglycerin. I mean, I was FLR.)
Post a Comment