Women Have 600 Types of Tears

Yovanovitch, Hill & Kaplan: A question of Likability or Value?

So which of these would be more important to you as an investor, an executive or employee? If your money is on the line, your job future is uncertain, if you are fully invested in seeing a business dominate its' market place, bring amazing products to market or disrupt and shape an entirely new market, what matters most between these two values? Would you want someone who was likable, or deeply able to deliver shareholder value?

Why are we even having this discussion, and why is it a relevant debate? Over the past several weeks, you cannot deny, regardless of your political affiliation, a curious contrast in watching women of logic, education, common sense, expertise and presence, be treated wholly differently from their male counterparts, for exhibiting the very same values that men are respected for having, sought out for exhibiting, and applauded for showing.

Let's break it down, because in no uncertain terms, any man reading this, who has a daughter, wife, sister, mother, aunt or female relative, a woman who holds any blue collar job or white collar job, must recognize that women doing the same work, get treated differently than men and unfairly so. You would have to be living under a rock to deny that or be unaware.

Whether it is the women working at McDonalds who had to appeal to a celebrity chef to highlight outright abuse and sexism in the workplace, whether it is Christine Blassy-Ford or whether it is your family member denied a promotion, or fired for needing a flexible schedule for her kids; as a man it would be near impossible to talk to any of your female relatives or friends and not find the same experiences.

The reaction to these three women testifying these past weeks, has been fascinating, maddening, glorious and cliched all at the same time. So let's break it down, and ask ourselves why it matters.

Why Do Female Emotions Scare People

The craziest of crazy things is this. If a woman who is logical, smart, expert and trained, exhibits the slightest bit of emotion regarding a situation, or her analysis, or opinion, she is labelled. Here is your menu of choices that women in this situation regularly hear; crazy, emotional, out of control, hormonal, overly sensitive, irrational, thin skinned. If a man exhibits these same emotions when involved in a high stakes meeting, decision or discussion (and US global policy is about as high stakes as you can get), he is lauded for being; passionate, confident, forthright, courageous, committed, honest.

At the heart of it, we label people with negative tags when we are scared or intimidated by their behavior, when we want to shut it down, close it off or de-legitimize it. The reason we do this to women, logical, smart, expert and trained women, when they exhibit emotion in service to their work, is because it is the quintessential 'disempowerment' of something that scares us. And because it is a tool that has been effective in disempowering generations of women.

Label them crazy, gaslight them, blame them and marginalize them, and during past decades where women didn't have the vote, were not in positions of power and authority, this was one of the most effective ways to prevent them from accessing that power.

So why are men of logic, smart, expertise and training, still so scared of female emotion when exhibited by women in leadership roles or positions of power, when men are encouraged and lauded for showing the same.

It is simple, it is history: We have all been socialized to find ways to build bigger obstacles and walls around these women, because it is not just a matter of decades or generations of women being marginalized, it is a matter of millennia. Since we were nomads in the Middle East, we have in every culture been socialized (even women) to marginalize women of power, of smarts. It is a knee-jerk reaction, showcased with brilliant edges these past few weeks, that even in a western democracy where women have almost risen to the very pinnacle of power within government and business, our natural state is still to cut back and shut down that power, and marginalize these voices. Because when you have done something, generation after generation, for thousands of years, it is really hard to break a habit.

Bottom Line: These women are assets. Female leaders who speak truth to power, in in government, in business, in the board room, in the management offsite, in the shareholder meeting. They are assets. What we should be doing, is learning where our fear comes from, understanding the micro behaviors that marginalize these women and their power, and learning, educating and changing, every single day. So that perhaps in a few more decades, or generations, our granddaughters might be the first women not to feel marginalized for being logical, smart, courageous and powerful and using their voices and emotions in the exact same way men do.

When Women Push Back

What was even more curious about the testimonies these three women gave, was our collective reaction to their moments of courage, assertiveness and authority. What I found deeply interesting, was that in this.....both sides of cable TV were united. Both the 'liberal" and the "right wing" press, seemed totally captivated (in positive and negative ways) by the audacity of women pushing back. On some TV shows, these women were labelled "mean". In other TV shows they were labelled "heroes". What I found curious was that none of these women were behaving in ways that were any different from some of their male counterparts. They used logic, data, process, protocol, expertise, smarts and insights to respond to questions. They pushed back where their position or expertise told them they should, they spoke directly and confidently; they were not going to let anyone misrepresent them, speak for them, twist their words, shape their testimony or question fact. They were doing exactly what many of the men around them were doing. Yet we all sat back in surprise that they had the cheek, or courage (depending on your politics) so stand their ground.

Why are we surprised? Who is your mother? How have you been raised? Who are your sisters, your daughters, your wife? Who are your female colleagues? Who are your female employees? How do you work with your female doctor? Are they not strong women with opinions? Do they not push back? Do they not use fact, opinion, data, logic, common sense to push back on people when they see fit? Of course they do. So you are surprised because....?

Why are we captivated or shocked when women do this, in settings like the impeachment hearings or the boardroom?

Bottom Line: It is because what we acknowledge to be so in our own homes and offices, is an enormous leap to tolerate in our society, government and communities. It is okay that your mom "wears the pants" inside the home, in the privacy of your home. But for everyone else in the neighborhood to know or think your mom wears the pants, well is that too much to admit? Why is it okay for us to accept and encourage female empowerment in the small spaces in which we live, yet we react with shock (positive or negative) when we see it in the big spaces? Perhaps it is because we are okay with women playing small, it doesn't disrupt or challenge millennia of habits learned. Perhaps those millennia have created protected comfort zones for men and women alike and seeing these women, writ large on cable news, contributing to some of the most momentous decisions ever to play out in our civic and national life, is far beyond our those small spaces in which we are expected to play.

When Women Face the Double-Standard

At the end of the day, this is all about a double standard. For those who wish to see the behavior of Fiona Hill, Marie Yovanovitch and Pamela Kaplan, as hardened histrionic liberally biased women, emotionally triggered and presenting biased and irrational testimony, there is little anyone can do to disavow you of your partisan lens. But I think more of the reaction is that - they are women. Even the testimony of their male counterparts, that supported their same views, was labelled broadly as "professional" and "thoughtful".

Even those supportive of the testimony of Hill, Yovanovitch and Kaplan, still seemed surprised, shocked and taken aback by the so called 'courage' of their testimony? As if because they were women it took more courage to do the same job their male colleagues had undertaken? Does it take more courage as a women to do the same job? Or is it simply harder because you are up against greater obstacles? Are we confusing 'courage', with 'tenacity'?

We must acknowledge, recognize and address this dangerous double standard. We must normalize any and all acts of leadership from women. Whether it is done in quiet, logical ways, using data and objectivity and collaboration. Whether it is done in firm, assertive, loudly clear narratives, or whatever unique form and style women leaders chose to use. None of it should be surprising, none of it should be evaluated any differently from the men who use the same tools and styles, and none of it should be shut down and denigrated because it came from a woman.

Bottom Line: There are massive double standards, and what better way to highlight them than through women at the top of their profession, in the highest roles and high stakes leadership positions that affect nations, and the globe, on cable TV. Sometimes even the best advocated for women in power, still undermine the process of normalizing their power, simply by labeling these women 'heroes'. They are not heroes for doing their job, they are women like thousands of other women out there, in blue and white collar jobs, fighting for the right to be taken seriously and be as bad-ass a leader, or as nurturing a manager, as they see fit, without being labelled or lauded for it.

Likability Over Competence

What strikes me the most as apparent in the reporting on these three women, is essentially down to likability or value. In business, like government and most places in our lives, women are expected to be likable. Don't rock the boat, as you will be labelled difficult. Don't speak up or out, as you will be labelled opinionated. Don't push hard, as you will be labelled aggressive, don't push back as you will be labelled mean, or unlikable. Be successful, be smart, be competent, but don't use those hard edged skills men are allowed to use at liberty, be softer, win hearts.

That is too often the narrative we hear as female business leaders. Now lets look at Fiona Hill, Marie Yovanovitch and Pamela Kaplan, and imagine for a moment they were women in the business world. Maybe a CFO, a CEO and a COO? From our brief exposure to them these past weeks, would we think for a moment that they were smart? Driven? Competent? If you were to hire one of these women (and to be fair the testimony they gave, provided us with as many hours exposure or more, as an interview process would), would you think they could add value to shareholders and the bottom line? Of course you would! You would have to be blind or deeply partisan not to see the competence and know-how of these women in their expert profession. This is were the rubber hits the road, in the context of their roles in government, or women like them in business leadership roles. We are too often judged and labelled for our likability, versus our competence and ability to drive share holder value. Think on that. Here we are, seeing commentary broadly about the 'likability', 'mean', or 'aggressive' behavior of these women, but in a heart beat, any business leader with common sense would hire women like this to drive outcomes to the top and bottom line. Yet we, and they, are still judged on likability.

If you take anything away from the testimony and back stories of these three women, think on this (and you don't have to be partisan to do so).

Women have 600 types of Tears.

In the Amazon rainforest, the tribes have over 600 words for the color green. Because they live in green, nuanced variations of green, that can mean life of death, each has to have a name. Women have 600 types of tears. Angry tears. Tears of Justice. Tears of Frustration. Tears of Confusion. Tears of "F-You". Female emotion isn't female weakness. It is the power of forthright, honest, meaningful expression. And it might be time you looked deep down inside yourself the next time a female colleague or your spouse, gets angry, tears up, shows emotion. Much like inherent racism can be discovered in the most enlightened of people, inherent bias to women in power who show emotion, might be right there, lurking under your own skin. Ask, discover and check yourself if you find it.

Paternalism Dressed Up.

If you saw a well spoken, polished, highly effective and expert African American man talk at a hearing or a conference, and turned to a friend and said "Isn't it wonderful that an African American Man can do so well," you would be (or should be) immediately called out for your white paternalism and condescension. Because such a statement would reflect an inherent assumption or bias that you think all African American men come from a background that is socially or economically challenged and that to rise to such levels, is an almost impossible accomplishment worthy of a pat on the head. Again, white paternalism. It is the same when even with the best of intentions, we pat women on the head because we are so surprised when they show up with logic, smarts, common sense, expertise and leadership. Women do not need your paternalistic praise. They do not need a pat on the head. They need a voice, they need decision making power, they need the promotion they earned, an equal wage, and to be equally represented in positions of power in the Congress, the State Department and the Board Room. Don't pat them on the head, give them real opportunity. Because by doing so, you eschew paternalism; you show that your faith, confidence and belief in their equal competence is something that doesn't even garner an 'eyebrow raise', it is simply met with an invitation to succeed.

Final Word With Your Daughters

If there is a mother or father out there, reading this tortuously long blog, do this. Let your daughters watch these women testify. As much as your daughters need examples of female scientists, astonaughts, CEO's, explorers, activists, politicians. They need examples of strong female role models who serve. They serve behind the scenes to help make our society, our communities and our world a safer and more stable place. Every chance you get to explore these female role models with your daughters, you should. And instead of paternalistic praise, try this, ask your daughters....

What did you think of her?

How did people react to her?

What did you think she was feeling?

What do you think other people were feeling?

Was that a tough situation she was in?

How did she handle it?

Do you think she was treated differently, if so why?

Do you think she should be treated differently?

Do you think she sees herself as different from the men who are her colleagues?

How do you think we should treat, speak of, report or react to women like this?