Why no women's scandals in Congress?
Sonia Pressman Fuentes just brought to my attention an article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg in the NYT on June 11 about comparative scandals from male and female polticians. In her email, Sonia commented, "I went to law school because I considered being a lawyer a noble profession; the men in my class went as one might train to be a plumber." Of course, there are some cases where women have also done over-the-top sexual activities and been caught. But not nearly as often as men. Is this because men are sloppier in their pecadillo management or because women don't misbehave as often?
In the article, Stolberg quoted Debbie Walsh as follows, "The shorthand of it is that women run for office to do something, and men run for office to be somebody," said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. "Women run because there is some public issue that they care about, some change they want to make, some issue that is a priority for them, and men tend to run for office because they see this as a career path." Women don't seem to hunger for the job as much, and if they do consider it, they are well aware that they will face more scrutiny because they are different from the majority of politicians. They know all women may be judged by their own behavior, so they guard themselves from slipping.
The article continues with another quote, saying men thinking of a political career look at their predecessors "and say, ‘I'm as good as that,' " said Jennifer Lawless, director of the Women and Politics Institute at American University here. "Women hold themselves up to this hypothetical standard no candidate has ever achieved."
This article is not about science, or course, but do you feel a resonance with how women in science are percieved and their reasons for going into the field?
cheers,
Laura
Duh! There are hardly any women in Congress. And only a few men in Congress are involved in scandals. So a few [scandals per man] times a few [women] is, statistically, none! This is such a Straw Woman argument! I'm ashamed to be a woman, reading such nonsense woman-science as this.
Hi,
First follow up from Montreal University. Dr Helene boisjoly on June 15 2011 the first dean of the faculty of medicine in more than 150 years. Congratulation to her.
As for the comment on your present topic
Women have different core values and stick to it.
I suggest the reading of John Collins : Good to great in the social sectors.
But there is always two sides at a coin and some women prefer to resign than doing things that will prevent them to stick to their core values.
They achieve more often the level 5 leaderships.
On the outside women do appear to have "higher motives" than men. I do think they have better impulse control. You can see that even in toddlers. Gender differences appear early and often.
But at its core women are just as capable of misjudgement and bad choices as men. I think the images of women portrayed in the book and upcoming movie "The Help" about white women and their black housekeepers in Jackson, MI in the 1960s shows the dynamic well. The housekeepers in the book are much more afraid of what their women bosses will do to them than of their male bosses.
And I would agree with that representation. Angry women are capable of much more thoughtful and destructive retribution because of that impulse control than most men will ever be.
Hi Laura,
I don't think it's about sexual desire but about self-control. Women seem to be better at controlling their impulses to me, although I see hmcbride does not think they are different. To me, they seem much more reasonable, more grown up, more mature. My mother used to say that girls grow up faster than boys and take responsibility. Her evidence was the car insurance rates for boys vs girls. Makes me wonder if men vs women have different amounts of wrecks. My mom told me women used to be thought too emotional to drive, but it seems just the opposite.
Hi Christi and Helen,
I think it's interesting that researchers found an early tendency but the women at Helen's company didn't seem to distrbute according to that tendency. Perhaps we have tendencies that then interact with our environments to give us pushes in different directions. That would make sense to me.
cheers,
Laura
Hi Laura,
I think this is a really interesting topic. I know that when we researched Why So Few? we found good evidence that when asked, girls express more of a desire to make a difference, even to help people, than boys do, on average, and this is found at a pretty early age. Boys, in contrast, are more motivated by external factors like power or money. It seems that this average gender difference would be found in science, then, as well as politics.
Christi
We had an interesting management workshop at my company recently that had us do an exercise at the end on what motivates us: power/influence, achievement or affiliation. There were an equal number of women in each group. I do believe that women have the same complex motivations as men. I don't think we're any more "pure" in our motives.
I think women are just a lot more careful and what we choose to be unethical about is not necessarily sex. Recall nanny gate from the 90s and the scandal in California with Meg Whitman and her illegal housekeeper.
Women have ethics issues, just not the same kind as men. Arnie's love child drew no more attention than Meg's housekeeper scandal...which is fair in my opinion.
Ethics is ethics after all and if you want to have high standards, those should reach across all aspects of life. I wouldn't trust a male scientist who cheats on his wife to be ethical with his lab notebook. Nor would I trust a woman who cheats on her taxes with my research project.
Women are more careful because they simply have more to lose. If a woman makes a mistake, she is hounded out of the fraternity of science. Men, well sometimes that happens to them, but often they just get a slap on the wrist and a wink. In politics, I'd say that the stakes are rising for men. Now all the Democrats are calling for resignation of the internet flasher. It didn't used to be so strong against men. FBP
Well, the sexual revolution has passed and gone, and women are not supposed to be any more inhibited than men, so we need to look at reasons they are either more careful to hide their liaisons or just stay back from them. Women are not supposed to be any less interested in sex than men. Perhaps they are happier with a lack of variety of sex than men are? I dont' really know that literature very well, but it has been studied in detail.
Hi Small Science Woman,
I have had some experiences along those lines, but in one case it was a woman, one of those FF type women, who just had to publish first. It's an ego thing, and whatever gender, if you believe it's a war and you have to win, you behave one way. If you believe it's a quest and you want the truth, you behave a different way.
cheers,
Laura
I do think women are motivated differently. I think men want to win, whether or not they get the science right. So they are more willing to publish when they aren't sure. I had a bad situation early in my career with someone (a male) who pumped me at my poster and then scooped us, making me more or less start a new project from scratch when I had been almost done. I puzzled over his motives a lot but decided to him, being first to publish was all that counted.
Hi Miranda,
Of course, those discussions are just the opinions of people who read this forum, not necessarily good social science data per se. Laura once said she hoped social scientists would look at this blog and pick up topics to test here, and that's what I hope too. We do need things to be tested carefully before taking action to fix them.
MKS
Hi Laura,
I think if you look back at the good guy of science discussion, you'll see evidence that women are more into the understanding but men are looking to "succeed" more. I think that's been my experience. Also take a look at the discussion we had on the tournament model of science. It's pretty clear. MP
