Hillarysworld

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Hillarysworld -> Hillary 2012 -> Is Hillary Clinton pathologically ambitious? (Psychology Today 10/06/10)
Post Info
TOPIC: Is Hillary Clinton pathologically ambitious? (Psychology Today 10/06/10)
Jen the Michigander


SuperModerator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1788
Date:
Is Hillary Clinton pathologically ambitious? (Psychology Today 10/06/10)
Permalink  
 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/are-we-born-racist/201010/is-hillary-clinton-pathologically-ambitious
This perception of Clinton has always bothered me. The reason is gender inequity. The last time that I checked, nobody has accused other presidential candidates or presidents (all male) of being too ambitious, despite the fact that gunning for the job of "leader of the free world" would seem to require--by any standard--some degree of extraordinary ambition.

In my experience, arguments such as "sexism plays a role here" or "race was a factor in this incident" (see, for example, Lebron James' recent claim about race factoring into reactions to "The Decision") when dealing with specific individuals or events tend not carry much water when trying to convince people about group-level inequities. This is generally because at the individual level, it is often easy to find alternative explanations and attenuating circumstance. No question, Hillary Clinton has ambition; LeBron James' drawn-out announcement that he was "taking his talents" to Miami could have been handled better (see, e.g., Charles Barkley's perspective here).

Why would Hillary Clinton in particular be vulnerable to perceptions that are-- I suspect unconsciously-- sexist? The answer lies in the fact that Hillary Clinton was forging into a territory that is overwhelmingly associated in people's minds with men -- the presidency in particular, and leadership roles more generally. As noted in the New York Times recently, women continue to lag behind men in appointments to position in leadership. And here is why these kinds of strong mental associations matter for the perpetuation of inequities.

Have you ever heard a remake of a song you are used to, and find yourself not really caring for the remake? This happened to me just yesterday; I was watching the "new" Pink Panther on Netflix and the new musical arrangement of the original Henry Mancini theme was now faster, louder, and played with electric guitars. I hated it. Only after watching several episodes (they are short, like the original) and hearing the song every time did I sort of get used to it. But only sort of.

Cognitive science will tell us that part of my reaction to the new musical arrangement has to do with what is known as expectancy violations. In other words, as a result of watching the original Pink Panther all through my childhood, I developed a certain familiarity with one particular rendition of the theme, and the violation of my expectation of how the theme should sound led me to dislike the new tune. The same thing has also happened to me in reverse--I'll hate the original rendition of a song because I have gotten used to--somehow attached--to a newer version. There is probably nothing inherently better or worse about one musical arrangement over another; it's just a matter of taste. But expectations factor hugely into our taste. Expectancy violations are, quite simply, aversive, and are often associated with strong negative emotion.

My colleagues Sang Hee Park, Alex O'Connor and I recently published a paper in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (vol 44, pg. 971-982) showing the downstream effects of expectations and expectancy violations for perceptions of men and women. The results directly parallel the battle for equitable perception that Hillary Clinton is fighting.

In the study, we had a fictitious man and woman behave assertively in a variety of situations--speaking their minds, providing an opinion, laying down the law--and asked judges to rate how assertive they thought the "targets" (we use this word because the fictitious characters are the targets of the study participants' judgments) actually were. The behaviors were exactly the same across the two targets. However, we also varied the contexts in which the assertive behavior happened. We chose some of these contexts to be strongly associated with men in people's minds (e.g., at the mechanic, in a conversation about Wall Street), and other contexts to be strongly associated with women (e.g., planning the children's birthday party; choosing the color of the curtains).

The results are striking--in male dominated contexts (e.g., at the mechanic), the female who spoke her mind was rated as being much more assertive than the male who had shown the exact same behavior. However, in female dominated contexts (e.g., at the curtain store), the man who spoke his mind was now rated as much more assertive than the woman! Same behaviors, same targets, but the results flipped depending on the context in which the two targets spoke their minds.

In male dominated contexts, we already come into the situation with an expectation (you might it even call it a stereotype) that a man will behave assertively--let's say, a 7 on ten-point scale--and that a woman will behave passively (let's say, a 3 on the scale). You then have a man and a woman speaking their minds--let's say this behavior is a "7." Compare 7 to your expectation of 7, and you end up saying, "this guy is moderately assertive." Compare 7, though, to your expectation of 3, and suddenly you're saying "Mary Jane is extraodinarily, irrationally assertive, even aggressive. What IS her deal??"

The critical thing for the study was to show that exactly the opposite happens in female dominated contexts. At the curtain store, we now fully expect the woman to be the decider (the 7), and a man to say, "uh, OK." (the 3). When they both speak their minds (a 7) in this context, one would fully expect just the opposite to happen--the woman's behavior is seen as normative but we ask why the guy cares so much about the color of the curtains anyway. And this is exactly what the study showed.

The study involved many people making judgments about these targets, so it's not a finding that is isolated to any one perceiver, any one target. There is a systematicity to people's judgments that involves both the gender of the target, and people's associations of certain genders with certain contexts. This interaction leads directly to unequal perceptions of gender-- gender inequity, invisible and not necessarily ill-intentioned. Yet it is rooted in structural inequalities in the home and the workplace that our efforts towards diversity can and need to address.

__________________

4145952823_2e0edce16f.jpg

Nobody puts THIS baby in the corner!
reddirtgirl


Platinum

Status: Offline
Posts: 112
Date:
Permalink  
 

This topic really burns my *ss. The assertive woman is called a *itch, and the assertive man is just 'taking care of business'. Will society ever change so that men and women are seen, and treated, the same way? I wonder.

And to call Hillary pathologically ambitious is just ludicrous.  All because she's a woman.  Once more we see that ambition is essentially a disease  when it comes to women, but a positive character trait when it comes to men.

-- Edited by reddirtgirl on Friday 8th of October 2010 05:16:45 AM

-- Edited by reddirtgirl on Friday 8th of October 2010 05:21:00 AM

__________________
Sanders


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
Permalink  
 


No Rodolfo, she is "pathologically" FEMALE and you are PATHOLOGICALLY sexist.

It is a "pathology" to be female in the U.S.

Fortunately for the women in this country, Hillary has shown that a woman can be a terrific performer in her work and stand on her own, forge new ground.  She has earned every bit of ground she has gained, all on her own. The ONLY time she did not have a regular paid job, was when she was the first lady, and she volunteered full-time in professional capacity, quite different from any other first lady before or since.

And if you cannot accept those facts you have the PATHOLOGY of being sexist.. which is pretty normal in this country, so I am not surprised, you Mr.PhD-Prof-in-UCB cannot recognize/accept it.  Come to the 19th century already!  We women do have brains and holy cow, we have ambition!  Do you?  Oh, correct, you are a man!!  Duh!

Oh, try getting a law degree walking in a pair of high heels and being ridiculed by all in your class. Then do the work she has done, wearing heels and skirt, and dont forget, your PERFORMANCE will be judged by your hairstyle, how nicely you smile, and the thickness of your legs -- and then when you are admired for what you are, you get ridiculed by a professor in Psychology Today no less, for what you have accomplished as "pathological ambition" - ask yourself if you deserve equal treatment in this country.  How's that for a different pair of shoes?

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!
freespirit


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1695
Date:
Permalink  
 


It's no surprise that gender inequality is invisible, nor that it's "rooted in structural inequalities in the home and workplace".  Most of what we believe about life is absorbed from our home environments, and from society, itself.  And, maybe, as the author says, it is "not necessarily ill-intentioned."  Maybe most "isms" aren't.  But we would not say that racism is "not necessarily ill-intentioned" just because one learns to be racist in his childhood family and the culture in which he was reared.

This study confirms some important, concrete concepts - particularly, that women who have ambition to excell in traditionally male dominated pursuits will be judged harshly when they act in ways necessary for successs (being assertive, candid, and OMG - even ambitious).  As the author notes, this problem can and should be addressed.

Yes, of course, it can and should be addressed.  Women have attempted to address it for years.  It's time for society as a whole to do so.  But, it is infuriating that this gender-bias or even blatant sexism and misogyny are so easily tolerated in AMERICA.

Where's the damn outrage?  The super-libs in this country who will go to great lengths to condemn Americans they believe to be intolerant of Islam, and who are very quick to lable Americans as racist if they differ in opinion from them or from their king, Obama don't give a damn about the blatant sexism and misogyny with which Hillary Clinton and all women are treated.

Yes, I'd say it's time to "address it".  It's time for women to do more than address it.  It's time to get the damn ERA ratified.  It's time for some damn equality.

The fact that it isn't "ill-intentioned" doesn't mean that gender-bias is not every bit as evil and destructive as racism or religious prejudice.  In fact, anyone who tried to explain racial prejudice by saying  that racism wasn't "ill-intentioned" would be sharply criticized, and rightly so. 

While I don't think this author was necessarily "ill-intentioned" when he entitled this "Is Hillary Clinton Pathologically Ambitious",  he could have certainly selected a less inflammatory title.



The study involved many people making judgments about these targets, so it's not a finding that is isolated to any one perceiver, any one target. There is a systematicity to people's judgments that involves both the gender of the target, and people's associations of certain genders with certain contexts. This interaction leads directly to unequal perceptions of gender-- gender inequity, invisible and not necessarily ill-intentioned. Yet it is rooted in structural inequalities in the home and the workplace that our efforts towards diversity can and need to address.

__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.  ~Susan B. Anthony
Sanders


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
Permalink  
 

Really wish he had titled it better.  He made it so ripe for the sensationalism-driven media to pick it up and make a big deal out of it.

Yeah, where's the outrage? Really!

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Hillarysworld -> Hillary 2012 -> Is Hillary Clinton pathologically ambitious? (Psychology Today 10/06/10)
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard