The Double Bind
"Doing what men do, as well as they do it, does not seem to be enough; women must additionally be able to manage the delicate balance of being both competent and communal."
- Madeline Heilman and Tyler Okimoto
People tend to view women in "masculine" fields - such as most science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields - as either competent or likable but generally not both, according to Dr. Madeline Heilman, an organizational psychologist at New York University. Heilman and her colleagues found that when success in a "male gender-typed" job was ambiguous, a woman was rated as less competent than an identically described man, although she was rated as equally likable. When individuals working in this type of job were clearly successful, however, women and men were rated as equally competent, but women were rated as less likable and more interpersonally hostile (i.e., cold, pushy, conniving). This was not found to be true in fields that were "female-type" or gender-neutral.
Of course, both competence and likability often matter in terms of professional advancement. In a follow-up study, Heilman and Tyler Okimoto found that successful women in "masculine" occupations are less likely to be disliked if they are seen as possessing communal traits such as being understanding, caring, and concerned about others. Heilman warns not to overinterpret this finding, however, and cautions that the bigger obstacle for most women in male-type work environments is being perceived as competent in the first place. If women emphasize their communal traits when it's not absolutely clear that they're competent, it might only feed into the notion that they're incompetent.
Heilman points out that whereas there are many things that might lead an individual to be disliked in the workplace, including obnoxious behavior, arrogance, stubbornness, and pettiness, it is only women, not men, for whom a unique propensity toward dislike is created by success in a nontraditional work situation. This suggests that success can create an additional impediment to women's upward mobility in male-dominated fields even when they have done all the right things to move ahead in their careers.
Any thoughts on this interesting research?
Wow! I loved this article. In my Human Geography class we were recently learning about the perception of gender. After some research, I found that there are stereotypes based on not only gender but gender and race/ethnicity. So, for example, an asian woman in the United States is perceived as being especially "feminine." (for more info: http://austinche.name/docs/gender.pdf) As a result, I wonder if she would face even more prejudice (perceived as less competent/more hostile/ less ability to communicate) than a white woman.
I also wonder how such a strong stigma against women in math/science fields has arisen. Women and men are equal in math and science abilities (http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/10/13/Men-and-women-have-equal-math-skills/UPI-51951286946442/).
So why is there such a difference between how men and women are perceived in "masculine" fields. According to another recent Time article, it is a female preference for subjects that involve communication that sparks female interest in subjects other than math and science: http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/28/the-complicated-women-math-formula/. Perhaps that is a reason for the prejudice/social stigma.
