Who wears the pants in your household?
Now there’s a loaded question. The issue of who is boss – if such a word even applies – seems prickly in the context of a relationship. Theoretically, aren’t most of us looking for equal partners? Mutual respect and shared decision-making?
Ah yes, there is the old school approach: a man’s home is his castle, there’s a good woman behind every successful man, and peace is best kept by acquiescing to the stronger personality, which leaves the “little woman” to maneuver as she can, generally behind the scenes.
And when a woman appears to be boss in the relationship? Don’t we have a few choice terms for her, and a slew of derogatory labels for the man – as though he’s somehow less aggressive, more compliant, and these qualities are deemed “bad” in the male of the species?
Am I assuming less aggressiveness and greater compliance, biased by my female view and personal experience of raising children?
SAHDs, Who Wears the Pants
I recall the 80s sitcom, “Who’s the Boss?” in which Judith Light and Tony Danza play out an amusing role reversal. Light is an ad exec who hires macho softie Danza as her housekeeper. We watch an entertaining gender push-pull, in a scenario that seems as far-fetched now, 25 years later, as it did then.
Still, we’ve certainly become more accepting of Stay At Home Dads. Or have we? Just how few SAHDs are there? How “out of synch” and unappreciated do they feel in the primary caretaking role? Does it take an especially sturdy sense of male self to run a household? And what about the woman in front of the man (rather than behind), and does that expression raise your hackles more when the pronouns are switched?
How muddled are the mixed feelings for some Stay At Home Dads – or am I assuming there are mixed feelings?
The world of organizations offers another view of the boss. When’s the last time you had a female manager? If you didn’t like her management style, did you make disparaging remarks about her sex? Did you generalize about women?
Good Boss, Bad Boss
Personally, I’ve had great female managers and lousy ones, just as I’ve had great male managers and lousy ones. Most bosses fall somewhere in between, don’t they?
Nicholas Kristof’s brief column in the Times, “She’s (Rarely) The Boss,” written from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, reflects on the fact that among the executive elite, only 17% are female. He cites COO of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg, who says that women are at least in part to blame, for lack of pursuing opportunities aggressively.
We internalize the negative messages we get throughout our lives, the messages that say it’s wrong to be outspoken, aggressive, more powerful than men. We lower our own expectations… We continue to do the majority of the housework and child care…
Kristof goes on to cite other statistics that are telling, including a McKinsey survey that found
36 percent of male employees at major companies aspired to be top executives, compared with 18 percent of the women.
When he references MBA graduates and negotiating initial salary offers, the gap is startling: 57 percent of the men tried to negotiate as compared to 7 percent of the women.
Bias For / Against Women in Leadership
I admit to a certain bias when it comes to women in leadership roles – in politics or in business: I don’t expect less; I expect more.
When I hear other women deride female managers, I’m sorely disappointed. Would they say the same of a lousy male manager? Would they invoke any reference to sex whatsoever?
When it comes to raising girls to be confident enough to set their sights high, where do we begin? How do we teach our daughters that competing is not “unfeminine” and that winning feels good?
Can we begin to address core issues of self-esteem and confidence early enough, focusing less on appearance and more on who the child is, how she thinks, her sense of self-ownership? Can we focus on critical communication skills, not to mention, negotiation?
Adding Motherhood to the Managerial Mix
Where does motherhood fall in this mix – in particular when we aren’t talking about the upper echelons who can afford to pay for help, theoretically freeing women up for “whatever it takes” involvement in their careers?
What about the pressures from society – subtle and not so subtle – that the only “good” mother is a devoted mother, and that means a very hands-on, self-sacrificing, ever-available presence?
Sure. Our infrastructure in the workplace is not conducive to the reality of most women’s lives. Even “flexible” jobs frequently make demands on employees and contract workers both, which may spiral out of control – especially when trying to juggle domestic responsibilities. Performance at the workplace or at home is degraded. Too often, so is self-confidence, as women begin to feel that the stress of conflicting expectations and priorities – that they should excel in the job, be loving romantic partners, and naturally – engaged and nurturing mothers.
Workplace Infrastructure
The Kristof column does not ignore deficiencies in our infrastructure, though I rarely see any article address them in a comprehensive way. I will cite one of my own articles, with recommendations on what would help:
… Teaching managers how to effectively assign tasks, assess progress, and communicate with remote workers…
… Health care that doesn’t drop you over the cliff when you lose a job. Child care that doesn’t end at age 6 or 7 or 8. A school schedule that better fits a standard work schedule.… Not disregarding the millions in the workforce who are not in “an employment relationship” and work as contractors or independents, and therefore, have none of the benefits associated with other workers – including any improvements we may eventually make in the employment environment.
Managerial Models? Relationship Models?
There’s no doubt in my mind that we need to raise daughters to believe in themselves in ways we’re clearly not addressing. “Permission” to speak their minds is a good start. But don’t we need to model and encourage that behavior as parents – as mothers and also fathers? Civil and respectful exchange?
Is greater respect for the Stay At Home Dad an essential piece of this picture? And the fact that we seem to have lost respect for the role of the Stay At Home Mom?
As for more women bosses?
A poor manager helps no one; gender is irrelevant in that regard. We need better managers of both sexes, a diversity of styles, and foundational skills remain a must: the ability to assign work rationally, to communicate clearly, to assess equitably; to encourage development, to foster teamwork, to inspire excellent performance.
Unless we encourage women to spread their wings more fully and at younger ages, I can’t imagine we’ll see equity in pay, much less improvements in representation in the board room.
Does it really matter if the one wearing the pants is wearing a skirt – as long as she’s a terrific boss?
You May Also Enjoy
You raise so many important issues here…I have my MBA and worked for 8 years in a corporate environment. Once I had kids, I left that world because there wasn’t enough flexibility in hours, job structure, etc. for a working mother. I know things have progressed in that area, but there are so many companies that are still very behind the curve on this.
There’s so much hypocrisy in the workplace when it comes to the gender and actions. A man is assertive and driven; a woman is a bitch and cold. SAHDs get a bad rap for not being driven enough to be primary income earner, yet when women aspire to careers, many times they’re criticized for not raising their own children. I find it very sad that no matter what the position, there’s always criticism.
My SIL said of her twelve-year-old-daughter’s relationship with her first boyfriend: “You know who wears that pants in THAT relationship!” And she was referring to my niece. She thought it was hysterical that her dautghter was the dominant one in the courtship…
Honestly, control freak that I am, even I want a partnership with my spouse. But the reality is this: I have based my employment decisions around my children’s schedules. I wanted to be there for them, to be a homeroom mom, to help with the PFO and school plays and parties and to volunteer helping out in the classroom. After we lost our business to a fire, part time work just seemed to fit my life the best.
But Motherhood has played only a part in my decision making. Though I loved what I did and loved being known for my work in our small community, I decided after the fire that I wanted life to be a little more low key, and that I wanted to puruse some of my life’s dreams, rather than chase the almighty buck.
And, yet, even though that was a conscious choice, to move forward into less corporate work, there have been times when I felt as if I weren’t an equal, a bit ashamed even, that my “job” is quite mundane…
Ultimately, however, I came to realize early on that I didn’t want to spend a lifetime in a field I didn’t enjoy. “Find what it is you love to do, find a way to make a living doing it, and then live within your means,” is one of my many mantras. I hope I’ve modeled that for my kids. And as far as the money goes, with two of my three children out of the house, I’ve been slowly grooming my future for the best that is yet to come… 🙂
Losing your business to a fire? That must have been dreadful, Annah Elizabeth. Hard to come back from.
I think many of us schedule employment around our kids, so we can do the job – and it is a job – of raising them. Sadly, that job doesn’t seem to be valued as it once was, whether you do it along with paying work or without. I do think our kids are better off when they feel the presence of a family member there for them – mother, father, grandparent. It isn’t always possible, though I think most of us who sacrificed to be there don’t regret doing it.
I suspect we might have regrets if we hadn’t done it.
That doesn’t mean we don’t have issues during and after… the reality of less visible positions (and lower pay, and no / fewer accrued benefits), not to mention less marketability 5 or 10 or more years later. I do agree that a conscious choice is better – whichever way a parent directs his or her efforts. And I think the “live within your means” is a crucial part of your mantra, by the way!
I think this is a subject that could be discussed and writen about for a long time. Therefore I will be brief at the risk of being misunderstood. In relation to business, the fate of women is subject to the law, culture, history of the place they live, and education of the populace.
In the United States the laws and education of the population clearly indicate that women should have equal rights. That said, history and culture have the effect of disparate treatment of women. While universities graduate more and more women in once male dominated fields (e.g. medicine, law, engineering) and sometimes more than men, corporate and government culture have yet to catch up. It is happening but not quickly.
That said, and know this is not a popular notion among women, but often other women are their worst enemies. Women tend to be hard in relation to their treatment and criticism of other women. It seems as if this a competitive reaction and also they do not want to be seen as allowing favoritism to other women. In my mind this is wrong headed. My experience is mostly with a certain profession, multinational corporations and large government agencies. The trend among men advancing in these organizations is that when they advance they bring their team. These are people that are talented, reliable, loyal and they have a bond with. Women don’t tend to do this and when they do, it is usually one woman. This action alone ensures many women don’t get the experience or near the top.
Second, women are …..well, women. So they should not try to be a man or like a man. They need to approach the situation as who they are and use certain male traits as well. In my mind there is nothing more effective and successful than a woman that can embrace and use the effective traits of women and men. It is women that sometimes think they need to be something they are not that almost always draw criticism.
In reference to relationships, there will always be an imbalance. While personal traits such as intelligence, strength of commitment, etc may all play a part, dare I say that the person who loves most or has the most to lose is always working from a position of weakness?
Further, different cultures have different traditions. Asia provides stark examples and variations in gender roles in the marriage. This is a generalization, but for example Japan is very male dominated publicly and privately. Whereas in Hong Kong I feel sorry for those poor husbands. While publicly they are in control, at home the women are quite in control. If you ever go to Hong Kong you will notice a difference in quality and expense of the women’s jewelry. While it is traditionally an indicator of wealth, it is also an indicator of control.
In a relationship, does it matter who has what level of control as long as there is love, understanding, one does not lose self and both parties needs are being met? Will there ever be a perfect balance?
Finally isn’t employment and work different from personal relationships? What I mean is while we want better and more equal relationships, don’t women want men to be men and vice versa? Do we say we want something different but cannot change the years of evolution and hard wiring? Just some thoughts.
I agree, Curtis. This is a subject that could be discussed at length. I find it an interesting (set of) topic(s) in part because culturally, we seem to be struggling with gender roles, and have been for some time.
As to the imbalance that can exist in personal relationships, perhaps that’s normal and not a problem if it’s not extreme. Relationships seesaw to some extent as situations change, but ideally, one isn’t in a position of weakness relative to the other. Of course, that’s ideally; the reality is that in many marriages that is exactly what occurs over time.
As for the subject in general, or rather, subjects – around control, decision-making, equity (of various sorts), I think talking and seeing the variations in how people interact is helpful.
As for that hard wiring, my sense is that some of us enjoy what is hard wired (or soft wired), but don’t allow it to limit us, picking and choosing what suits / fits from conventional gender roles.
As to (some) women wanting “men to be men,” I imagine you’ll get as many different interpretations as to what that means as there are women…
It can depend on who has the better skills for the task at hand, so it switches back and forth for Fran and me. (Of course, sometimes we evaluate out comparable skill sets differently.) She’s the better writer and grammarian. I keep things from slipping through the cracks and compensate for her sometimes tunnel vision. She may have a need to be a boss when I am comfortable simply going for a walk, so where does that leave your question of who is the boss? Indifference can be powerful.
Sex is balanced — it seems to just come out naturally that way for us, fortunately. We seem beyond issues of dominance and submissiveness in that arena, unlike for some folks.
I missed the first two episodes, but enjoyed the third of a series called She Wolves of England, presented by Helen Castor. It’s about the earlier Queens of England. Women and Power are uneasy partners it seems.
So much to say and so much to think about here, BLW. One thought that immediately went through my mind as I was reading this was the fact that perhaps management/top management doesn’t appeal to a lot of women. I look at my own girlfriends, all well educated and at an early age groomed to head to the top or at least to near the top, and most have chosen different paths. I don’t think that a single one of them regrets it or feels in any way that she was squeezed out because of gender. Then I thought, of course, maybe it is the way we were raised (you had mentioned starting early with little girls) – to share rather than to lead, to be equal rather than superior. And, perhaps, if the top echelon of executives didn’t look like a boys’ club, maybe more women would be inclined to strive for it…I headed up a high profiled department in my field in a male dominant company for a few years, but despite all the encouragement and support (my male bosses and male board of directors and fellow female colleagues all loved me), I just didn’t enjoy the work. It was definitely due to personality and I suppose that was part genetic and part environment.
I don’t have a daughter, but like one of your readers above my husband and I are trying to model for our son how to lead the life that is most fulfilling for us. My husband and I both co-own a business and work from home, and we’ve ended up mixing the gender roles, just out of who is good at what and who has more time to do x at any given moment. My husband is good with food shopping and cooking, and I have been taking care of the finances. In my 8 year old’s mind it is perfectly normal to have a dad at home all the time and standing over the stove. Of course, behind the scenes, my husband and I have struggled over imbalances in power, but it hasn’t been because of gender…education is “my” field and I tend to be more dominant in decisions in my son’s education, so I am learning to make room so that my husband can also have a voice. I remember writing once on Facebook that I felt guilty for overburdening my husband while I was laid up with a broken leg, and a (single) woman friend commented that thousands of single mothers go through this all the time, and that I should not feel any qualms about my husband handling all the work. I believe that she was looking at my situation through a gender lens, whereas I was simply seeing my husband. I felt guilty not because he’s a man and somehow shouldn’t be doing this work, but because he is my husband and partner and I love him and I did wish I could have been helping. I believe that if we really loved our partners and valued our family unit, we would do what is in the best interest of that unit and gender becomes irrelevant.
I let Fran think she secretly rules. She lets me think I secretly rule. Privately, we each think we’re pretty clever.
Paul – I think you two have a great deal figured out!
As a follow up. I spoke to a friend of mine that indicates if you are under 45 there are more women graduates and more women outperform men with grades. Okay we all know that academic performance and real world performance are different. That said it seems that there is enough of a gap that more women should have better jobs and remuneration if we want our economy and society at peak performance. Hmmm. I think I just made a great economic argument to reduce the gender earning gap.