Why women still feel persecuted

FOR SEVERAL DECADES now, we have been witnessing tremendous energy and momentum towards the betterment of women's lives. Sexual stereotypes that long served as accepted wisdom have been debated, deconstructed, and dismantled. In the 30-plus years since I finished my graduate studies and embarked on a career--not a particularly long period of time, as historians generally measure it--there have been women astronauts, four-star generals, newspaper editors, corporate CEOs, and Supreme Court justices, as well as a female Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, and Attorney General.

When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the nurturing professions, teaching and nursing, were the main fields of choice for the majority of women who worked outside the home. Females were so rare among tenured faculty and leaders of colleges and universities that it was news when I was hired in 1970 as the first female junior faculty member in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Chicago.

The range of careers available to women steadily has expanded, however, and today they are found in professions and positions that would have been unthinkable a generation ago--at the front fines of battlefields and among the strategists of both major parties' presidential campaigns. With greater options in education, many women have satisfying careers and higher pay.

Females remain, however, a long way from equality in the workplace. Men still cover the rent with their own paychecks far more easily than women can. Nor has there been any significant expansion in the ranks of women as political office holders. In fact, the U.S. record on this score is abysmal. According to the International Parliamentary Union, which provides data on the proportion of women in national legislative bodies, America ranks 58th in women's political leadership worldwide, tied with Andorra. The Czech Republic, Sierra Leone, Latvia, and Portugal are among the countries ahead of the U.S.

Many Americans want to believe that equality for women no longer is an issue. They tend to ignore major evidence to the contrary--even the overwhelming percentage of men in Congress or the fact that, while it is a record to date, only eight women currently serve as governors. (The number stands at 26 female governors through the nation's entire history). It is interesting to note that political leaders and observers, male and female alike, continually assert that a woman will be president in their lifetime. Perhaps these people have great expectations about how long they will live, because the fact is that 20 years have passed since Geraldine Ferraro became the first--and still only--woman on the national presidential ticket. Since that time, only two women have run for the nomination of either party--Republican Elizabeth Dole and Democrat Carol Moseley Braun--both of whom faced great difficulty raising financial and other support.

The first step toward addressing the problem of women's place in the worlds of work and politics is admitting that a problem exists. The second step is agreeing that it is a serious and consequential one. Those who do not take the gender gap issue lightly tend to begin by arguing that having more women in leadership positions will have a significant impact on the institutions of society. This is an unfortunate strategy and deflects attention from the fact that no one ever feels the need to present reasons for men to be leaders. It is taken for granted, and this must come to be the same for women. Women are half of the world's population. They have an equal right--and responsibility--to attain important leadership roles.

This is not to say that there are no gender-related differences in how women and men go about the business of work and politics. However, let the questions be asked more evenhandedly. It also should be clear which differences can be documented, taking care to note their level of statistical significance. For example, research in political science seems to indicate that women and men tend to behave similarly in the role of head of state. On the other hand, the sexual composition of a legislative body does seem to make a difference in what kind of issues get dealt with. The greater the proportion of women, the more likely greater attention will be paid to health care, child welfare, family policies, and the needs of women--or, put another way, the greater the preponderance of men, the greater the likelihood that these issues will get short shrift. The most parsimonious explanation for this is that women and men, statistically speaking, have had differing life experiences.

The choice of whether to emphasize gender differences or similarities will affect proposed strategies for achieving sexual equity. Let's leave that aside for a moment, though. Unless the cadre of women who serve at all levels of government is expanded, they cannot be expected to rise to the highest political offices. Until they become far more numerous in positions such as mayor, governor, and senator, women are not going to have a decent shot at the presidency. If females cannot move from middle to upper management in corporations, they will not be able to wield real authority. Unless women assume important leadership roles in the major institutions of society, those institutions are unlikely to reflect whatever special interests females may have.