Women Don't Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide
by Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever
Things have been so crazy and busy in my professional and personal life lately that I haven't blogged in a while. I don't really have the time to blog tonight either, but I wanted to just jot down some nuggets of wisdom I got from the book. I've been meaning to read this book for the past two years and am so glad I finally did! The following are quotes from the book. I think they speak for themselves. If they sound interesting to you, I encourage you to get the book and read it.
Women are more likely than men to perceive their fate to be influenced by internal rather than external factors
The message to little girls could not be clearer: being coy and indirect about what you want and waiting rather than asking is an effective strategy - more than that, it is the appropriate strategy, and superior to directly articulating your wants and wishes
For women who want to influence other people, research has found that being likeable is critically important - and that women's influence increases the more they are liked
Other studies have shown that men (and sometimes women) react negatively when women adopt styles or communication patterns expected of men, such as acting assertive and self-confident rather than tentative. But research also shows that women fare no better if they don't self-promote because men judge women who restrict themselves to more gender-appropriate behavior as less capable and "unsuited to management."
Women seeking to assert authority can mitigate the legitimacy problems they face by combining their assertive, highly competent behaviors with positive social "softeners"
When women go into a negotiation, in addition to arming themselves with information, ideas, and resolve, they must also bring along an arsenal of "friendly," nonthreatening social mannerisms; they must be prepared to be cooperative and interested in the needs of others; and they must avoid being confrontational
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
race -the power of an illusion (part 1)
I was recently reminded of this great three-part series shown on PBS a few years ago called "Race - The Power of an Illusion." I had only seen the third episode of this series and decided to search YouTube for the first two episodes. In this blog entry and the next two I will post links to these three episodes and write about my thoughts on them. This series totally blew my mind! I encourage you to watch the episodes when you have the time (each is about 1hr) and share your thoughts on it.
The first episode is called "The Differences Between Us." You can find it on YouTube divided into six 10 minute segments.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcWxHUtIpEY&feature=related
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G-OR47BV6c&NR=1
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rbWgyAiZik&NR=1
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc_bsbeTjwg&NR=1
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsIpDh1RSvo&NR=1
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5YGNZMpuag&NR=1
The main theme of this episode is that race is not biological, it is a social and historical concept based on perception and ideology. While most people have an easy time separating people into racial groups based on appearance (i.e. black vs white), there is no biological basis. It may seem apparent that skin color, eye shape, and hair texture can be used, but there is no one characteristic or gene that can be used to distinguish all of the people in one race from all the people in another race. There hasn't been enough time for humans to evolve into separate subspecies.
This first episode follows a multi-racial and multi-ethnic group of high school students as they do some genetic testing on their DNA. The students think that they will have more genetic similarities with other students in their own race. The results surprised them. They were just as likely to be similar with people from other races as their own. One of the white teenagers had genetic similarities with samples taken from a large database of people in the Balkans (where his great, great grandmother was from), Iceland, and sub-Saharan Africa. So while it may appear from outward appearance that people of different races are very different, those differences are only skin deep. Beneath the surface, we humans are all very similar. In fact, even diseases which are traditionally linked to race really are not. Take for example sickle cell disease. It is mostly associated as an African or African American disease. However, whether or not one has sickle cell disease is not based on one's race, but on their ancestors. The mutation that causes sickle cell disease makes one more resistant to malaria. This mutation is found in people whose ancestors come from malaria prone regions like central and western Africa, the Mediterranean, and India, which include people of different races.
Another important point they made was that science is not only informed by data, but by society. In the early 1900s, science supported that there were indeed biological differences behind race. Blacks were considered to be an inferior race because of the high incidence of sickness and death in this group. However, these scientists ignored the society they were living in. They didn't take into account that blacks were much more likely to be poor and live in unsanitary conditions. Interestingly, today the stereotype is that blacks possess natural athletic superiority. Such stereotypes are not based on biology.
The next two episodes take a closer look at how this non-biological, social construct of race was developed and has changed with time and how this powerful idea has real consequences on people's lives.
The first episode is called "The Differences Between Us." You can find it on YouTube divided into six 10 minute segments.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcWxHUtIpEY&feature=related
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G-OR47BV6c&NR=1
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rbWgyAiZik&NR=1
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc_bsbeTjwg&NR=1
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsIpDh1RSvo&NR=1
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5YGNZMpuag&NR=1
The main theme of this episode is that race is not biological, it is a social and historical concept based on perception and ideology. While most people have an easy time separating people into racial groups based on appearance (i.e. black vs white), there is no biological basis. It may seem apparent that skin color, eye shape, and hair texture can be used, but there is no one characteristic or gene that can be used to distinguish all of the people in one race from all the people in another race. There hasn't been enough time for humans to evolve into separate subspecies.
This first episode follows a multi-racial and multi-ethnic group of high school students as they do some genetic testing on their DNA. The students think that they will have more genetic similarities with other students in their own race. The results surprised them. They were just as likely to be similar with people from other races as their own. One of the white teenagers had genetic similarities with samples taken from a large database of people in the Balkans (where his great, great grandmother was from), Iceland, and sub-Saharan Africa. So while it may appear from outward appearance that people of different races are very different, those differences are only skin deep. Beneath the surface, we humans are all very similar. In fact, even diseases which are traditionally linked to race really are not. Take for example sickle cell disease. It is mostly associated as an African or African American disease. However, whether or not one has sickle cell disease is not based on one's race, but on their ancestors. The mutation that causes sickle cell disease makes one more resistant to malaria. This mutation is found in people whose ancestors come from malaria prone regions like central and western Africa, the Mediterranean, and India, which include people of different races.
Another important point they made was that science is not only informed by data, but by society. In the early 1900s, science supported that there were indeed biological differences behind race. Blacks were considered to be an inferior race because of the high incidence of sickness and death in this group. However, these scientists ignored the society they were living in. They didn't take into account that blacks were much more likely to be poor and live in unsanitary conditions. Interestingly, today the stereotype is that blacks possess natural athletic superiority. Such stereotypes are not based on biology.
The next two episodes take a closer look at how this non-biological, social construct of race was developed and has changed with time and how this powerful idea has real consequences on people's lives.
Monday, August 23, 2010
pretty mad martini
I had a crappy day. So I concocted an antidote: a martini. For those martini purists out there, what follows is not a "real" martini (which I do enjoy), but preparing a drink with a martini shaker and putting it in a martini glass is just more fun!
Ingredients: 1 oz. each of vodka, Bacardi coconut rum, Godiva original liqueur, Godiva white chocolate liqueur.
Very yummy and potent. And I'm feeling much better.
Ingredients: 1 oz. each of vodka, Bacardi coconut rum, Godiva original liqueur, Godiva white chocolate liqueur.
Very yummy and potent. And I'm feeling much better.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
girls' night out
I love girls' nights out! After a long week of working hard (or hardly working, depending on the week), it's a real treat to put on a cute top, some makeup, and high heels and gab away with the girls over martinis. When I was a grad student, most of my girlfriends were non-scientists. Now that I'm a postdoc, most of my friends are in my field. (Maybe one day I'll write about the hostile environment in my grad department, which led me to look elsewhere for friends.)
Having a girls' night out with scientists in my field is a very different experience from my old girls' nights out. Don't get me wrong - I have tons of fun! It's just that some things that come up are pretty depressing. The stories of sexual harassment and discrimination we tell are so sad. We're lucky we have each other to talk to about it, but it's not fair that we have to experience them in the first place!
One friend was at a luncheon sitting next to another female postdoc. That female postdoc was sitting next to an older, more prominent male scientist. The male scientist had his hand on the female postdoc's lap and it was clear the female postdoc was very uncomfortable. However, she didn't do or say anything. My friend didn't know what to do either. So nothing was said or done. I would like to think that if that happened to me I would have slapped the male scientist's hand off and told everyone at my table what he had done. But it's easy to think one thing but do another. For example, one time I was out at a bar and this guy just came up behind me and squeezed my ass. I was in shock. I would have liked to have cursed him out and I like to think that's what I would do if it ever happened again, but in the actual situation I just panicked and froze. So what would I do if some slimy male scientist put his hands on me? I hope I never have to find out...
There were a handful of other sexual harassment stories like this that we exchanged (like being asked point blank by a male colleague to have sex!) as well as general frustrations about being not being taken seriously, etc. We all agreed it sucked. There was one issue though on which we were divided. There is this married tenured male professor (TMP) in our department. He's just an all around perve, flirting with any woman that crosses his path: postdoc (gross), grad (double gross), undergrad (OMFG gross). Well, supposedly a single female postdoc (FP) is reciprocating his affections. The number of FP's talks has increased recently and many suspect that TMP is helping FP get these talks by pulling some strings. Everyone else thought that FP was such a slut for engaging in this kind of behavior period. The fact that she was getting talks as a result of it was even more enraging to them. My opinion was that first there is no way to know that TMP is getting FP talks. I mean, she's good, damn good at doing science. I think it's more likely she got them on her merit. Most important of all, why was everyone ganging up on her? Everyone would preface their statements by "TMP is a bastard, but FP is XYZ" And the XYZ was a pretty long list! I just didn't think it was fair. All of this gossiping about the personal life of a fellow female postdoc is toxic and not really any of our business if she really does like him. What I want to know is if she really likes him or if she's just playing along out of fear of retribution from TMP and people blow it out of proportion. Going back to my previous story about the guy in the club grabbing me, I just stood there. What if she is just smiling back, thinking "holy shit, what do I do?" I feel it's not my place to talk to her about it, but it makes me so angry that she just can't win in this situation because people have already made up their minds about her. I wish I had said what I wrote here aloud but whenever I tried to disagree with what people were saying, they were quick to say things like "oh no she definitely knows what she is doing and likes it." Besides, they saw them interacting, not me, so I gave in but I felt guilty for doing so. If this ever comes up again, maybe I'll say some of what I wrote here.
So like I was saying, I love girls' nights out! But from time to time a girl scientists' night out reminds me of the uncontrollable circumstances that we face and it makes me pretty mad.
Having a girls' night out with scientists in my field is a very different experience from my old girls' nights out. Don't get me wrong - I have tons of fun! It's just that some things that come up are pretty depressing. The stories of sexual harassment and discrimination we tell are so sad. We're lucky we have each other to talk to about it, but it's not fair that we have to experience them in the first place!
One friend was at a luncheon sitting next to another female postdoc. That female postdoc was sitting next to an older, more prominent male scientist. The male scientist had his hand on the female postdoc's lap and it was clear the female postdoc was very uncomfortable. However, she didn't do or say anything. My friend didn't know what to do either. So nothing was said or done. I would like to think that if that happened to me I would have slapped the male scientist's hand off and told everyone at my table what he had done. But it's easy to think one thing but do another. For example, one time I was out at a bar and this guy just came up behind me and squeezed my ass. I was in shock. I would have liked to have cursed him out and I like to think that's what I would do if it ever happened again, but in the actual situation I just panicked and froze. So what would I do if some slimy male scientist put his hands on me? I hope I never have to find out...
There were a handful of other sexual harassment stories like this that we exchanged (like being asked point blank by a male colleague to have sex!) as well as general frustrations about being not being taken seriously, etc. We all agreed it sucked. There was one issue though on which we were divided. There is this married tenured male professor (TMP) in our department. He's just an all around perve, flirting with any woman that crosses his path: postdoc (gross), grad (double gross), undergrad (OMFG gross). Well, supposedly a single female postdoc (FP) is reciprocating his affections. The number of FP's talks has increased recently and many suspect that TMP is helping FP get these talks by pulling some strings. Everyone else thought that FP was such a slut for engaging in this kind of behavior period. The fact that she was getting talks as a result of it was even more enraging to them. My opinion was that first there is no way to know that TMP is getting FP talks. I mean, she's good, damn good at doing science. I think it's more likely she got them on her merit. Most important of all, why was everyone ganging up on her? Everyone would preface their statements by "TMP is a bastard, but FP is XYZ" And the XYZ was a pretty long list! I just didn't think it was fair. All of this gossiping about the personal life of a fellow female postdoc is toxic and not really any of our business if she really does like him. What I want to know is if she really likes him or if she's just playing along out of fear of retribution from TMP and people blow it out of proportion. Going back to my previous story about the guy in the club grabbing me, I just stood there. What if she is just smiling back, thinking "holy shit, what do I do?" I feel it's not my place to talk to her about it, but it makes me so angry that she just can't win in this situation because people have already made up their minds about her. I wish I had said what I wrote here aloud but whenever I tried to disagree with what people were saying, they were quick to say things like "oh no she definitely knows what she is doing and likes it." Besides, they saw them interacting, not me, so I gave in but I felt guilty for doing so. If this ever comes up again, maybe I'll say some of what I wrote here.
So like I was saying, I love girls' nights out! But from time to time a girl scientists' night out reminds me of the uncontrollable circumstances that we face and it makes me pretty mad.
Friday, August 13, 2010
conference talks
I saw an announcement recently for a conference I would like to go to. I am planning on applying to give a talk, but will do so without high expectations of being accepted to give one. I have not been invited to give talks at conferences. Nor have any of my applications to give talks at conferences ever been accepted. This worries me. As a postdoc I must not only publish (or perish) but I have to advertise my work. Conferences are a great way to do this but I can't get my damn foot in the door.
Okay, I just realized that I lied. I have been invited to give one talk at a conference. It wasn't even in my field though and they wanted me to be a part of a "Promising Young Minority Scientists" session or some crap like that. And they weren't even willing to pay to fly me across the country. Seriously? I said no. Why? Don't get me wrong. I appreciate what they were trying to do, which I assume is help young minority scientists like myself gain visibility. But how is my giving a talk about my research during a conference that is only remotely related to my scientific field going to help me in my career? Maybe if the purpose of the whole conference was to seek ways to increase the number and retention of women and minorities in the physical sciences while having some young women and minority scientists come in and give their views in a panel, I would have considered it. But asking me to give a scientific talk during a session that wasn't centered on science for a conference that wasn't even in my field seemed silly.
The fact that I have only been asked to give a talk because of my race/gender is disheartening, but I have hope that I will be asked/accepted to give a talk at a conference one day because of my research. I have a good number of papers that are well-cited. Hopefully, it's just a matter of time. I also try not to be too hard on myself and realize that part of it is politics. I have had friends on the talk selection committees that said they really pulled for me, but X and Y banded together in their votes to get their former students talks, etc.
So maybe I'll get a talk at this conference I just heard about. Maybe not. In any event, I worked my ass off to get where I am today, and I have no intention of stopping anytime soon!
Okay, I just realized that I lied. I have been invited to give one talk at a conference. It wasn't even in my field though and they wanted me to be a part of a "Promising Young Minority Scientists" session or some crap like that. And they weren't even willing to pay to fly me across the country. Seriously? I said no. Why? Don't get me wrong. I appreciate what they were trying to do, which I assume is help young minority scientists like myself gain visibility. But how is my giving a talk about my research during a conference that is only remotely related to my scientific field going to help me in my career? Maybe if the purpose of the whole conference was to seek ways to increase the number and retention of women and minorities in the physical sciences while having some young women and minority scientists come in and give their views in a panel, I would have considered it. But asking me to give a scientific talk during a session that wasn't centered on science for a conference that wasn't even in my field seemed silly.
The fact that I have only been asked to give a talk because of my race/gender is disheartening, but I have hope that I will be asked/accepted to give a talk at a conference one day because of my research. I have a good number of papers that are well-cited. Hopefully, it's just a matter of time. I also try not to be too hard on myself and realize that part of it is politics. I have had friends on the talk selection committees that said they really pulled for me, but X and Y banded together in their votes to get their former students talks, etc.
So maybe I'll get a talk at this conference I just heard about. Maybe not. In any event, I worked my ass off to get where I am today, and I have no intention of stopping anytime soon!
Thursday, August 12, 2010
hello world
I am new to the world of blogging and don't think I'll be very good at it, but I figured what the heck. I have nothing to lose, hopefully. My goal with this blog is to just talk about my life experiences - mundane, scandalous, and all. An important part of my identity is that I am a scientist... a woman of color in the physical sciences to be exact. I love my life, but sometimes the uncontrollable circumstances around me regarding my race and gender make me mad, pretty mad. A pretty mad scientist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)