July 2020 - Mating Straight Talk

Double Bind Dilemmas for Women in Leadership

by Steven Fearing | Jul 27, 2020 | Gender Politics, Women's Issues

On July 20, Republican Representative Ted Yoho called Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez “disgusting” and a “fucking bitch” on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. Ocasio-Cortez eloquently rebutted Yoho on the House floor saying, “This issue is not about one incident. This is not new. And that is the problem. It is cultural. It is a culture of lack of impunity, of accepting violence and violent language against women and an entire structure of power than supports that.”

When Carol Moseley-Braun was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992, she was the first female African American senator. As she recounted to listeners of NPR’s Hidden Brain in 2016, Braun assumed that racism would be a more formidable obstacle to her success as a U.S. Senator than gender bias. But that is not what happened.

When Braun made impassioned pleas on the floor of the Senate supporting her positions for voting rights and gun control (to name a few), all her male colleagues heard was the voice of a shrill black woman — at least that was the disappointing and humiliating narrative Braun felt in her soul.

“I think in some regards the gender biases are more profound and more central to our culture than even the racial ones, and that to me was a surprise,” she said.

Damned if You Do, Damned (or doomed) if you Don’t

I have described potential double binds in the context of women’s mating strategies in Double Binds Imposed on Men.

But what about the double binds that women face?

Women face double binds that involve the biological, evolutionary, and cultural application of mate selection and relationship dynamics. (See chart at end of post.) I will address them another time. For now – let’s address a pressing concern: There are double binds facing women in American leadership.

Caution Ahead

Braun’s experience was a cautionary tale. Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential candidacy appeared to underscore the problem. Leaders must sometimes be strong, tough, assertive, and decisive. Yet women leaders are expected to be accommodating and likable (even sweet), and never shrill, abrasive, or angry. This is an untenable dilemma.

The double bind that challenges women in political and corporate leadership affects all of us. It not only impedes the advancement and service of individual women, but it also reduces our nation’s capacity for problem-solving, policymaking, and innovation. Women leaders in politics and business bring sensitivities, interests, and emotional intelligence that improve our decision-making and enhances our health and cultural well-being.

There are evolutionary roots to this double bind. They include sex differences, preferences for spheres of influence (group systems vs. family), and adaptations for the division of labor.¹ But we can and must move beyond the “shadow” of our evolutionary causations in order to secure the future health of American democracy.

Biases that Women Face – Embedded Societal Expectations

A Pew Research Center study (2017) asked people: “what traits or characteristics do you think society values most in women and in men?” Respondents said men were valued (in rank order) for their honesty and morality (33%), professional and financial success (23%), ambition and leadership (19%), strength and toughness (19%), hard work (18%), and physical attractiveness (11%). Women were valued for their physical attractiveness (35%), empathy, nurturing and kindness (30%), intelligence (22%), honesty and morality (14%), ambition and leadership (9%), and only 5% for strength and toughness. Notably, when asked what trait women should not have, 28% of respondents mentioned traits related to ambition, leadership and assertiveness, far more than any other trait or characteristic.

These are very strong headwaters of bias to swim against for women aspiring to and serving in leadership roles.

Research on Gender Stereotypes

Research by Madeline Heilman (Professor of Psychology, New York University) focuses on gender stereotypes and bias, particularly when it comes to leadership. In one study, Heilman asked volunteers to evaluate a high-powered manager who was coming into a company. When the candidate was presented as a very ambitious and high-powered women, the person was seen as unlikeable; but not so when the very same person was presented as a man. Heilman says “we have conceptions about these jobs and these positions and what is required to do them well, and there’s a lack of fit between how we see women and what these positions require.” Double binds arise in our minds because our minds are trying to align our stereotypes about men and women with our stereotypes about leadership.

These biases are not just held by men. They are held by both sexes, which explains why female leaders encounter derision and suspicion from both men and women.

Gender Attributions about Emotions

Researcher Lisa Feldman-Barrett at Northeastern University (How Emotions Are Made, 2017) had subjects look at faces of men and women and assess their emotions and the context of that emotion. When looking at male faces expressing emotion, respondents said the man was just having a bad day – or something bad had happened to him. Whereas, when women expressed emotion, they were described as neurotic or unstable. Men’s emotions were attributed to what was going on around them, but women’s emotions were seen as shaped “by their nature.”

Feldman-Barrett found that if women expressed too much emotion, they were seen as unsuitable for leadership or unstable in some way. Emotional men were seen as mostly rational or level-headed. But if a woman did not express enough emotion, they were seen as not warm, empathetic, or trustworthy (the “Hillary effect”). Apparently, a woman can get in trouble for expressing emotion and for not expressing emotion. This is a toxic double bind.

“Women Take Care and Men Take Charge” — Redefining Leadership Itself

Although the Pew survey results align with an understanding of biological sex differences and mate selection trait preferences, what is “natural” is not necessarily good for us. Even if gender stereotypes have a deep evolutionary past, they cause no win-situations for women leaders in our present-day politics, and that hurts all of us.

“The female gender role is based on the stereotype that women are nice and kind and compassionate,” says social psychologist, Alice Eagly (Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women Become Leaders, 2007). By contrast, “in a leadership role, one is expected to take charge and sometimes demonstrate toughness – make tough decisions and be assertive in moving the organization forward, and sometimes fire people for cause.” The good news, says Eagly, is that our views of men and women are changing, and our ideas about the meaning of leadership are changing.

Indeed, it is time to redefine what it means to be a leader in the American political arena. The less we see leaders as alpha males, the easier it will be to see women as leaders. Fortunately, that redefinition has been going on in the corporate world for many years.

Three Predicaments

Catalyst²is an organization that supports “workplaces that work for women.” They have identified three “predicaments” (double bind dilemmas) that women leaders face:

1. Extreme perceptions: too soft, too tough, and never just right. When women act in ways that are consistent with gender stereotypes, they are viewed as less competent leaders (too soft). When women act in ways that are inconsistent with such stereotypes, they’re considered unfeminine (too tough).

2. High competence threshold: Women leaders face higher standards and lower rewards than male leaders. Women have to prove they can lead over and over again and constantly manage stereotypical expectations.

3. Competent but disliked: Women leaders are perceived as competent or likable, but rarely both.

The Hillary Trifecta

Hillary Clinton embodied all three predicaments. She was seen as shrill, cold, and not emotional. (But not in private.) The standards for judging her performance as Senator and Secretary of State were always very high. And her competence, while arguably beyond reproach, made her somehow unlikeable. From the seven-minute standing ovation she received as the first student to speak at a Wellesley College commencement, Hillary had the additional problem of being one of the first women of her generation to break with the traditional role of wife. She was the first First Lady to have an office in the West Wing of the White House.

Strategies to Dismantle the Leadership Double Bind

Catalyst suggests three strategies for dismantling the women’s leadership double bind:

1. Interrupt bias. Speak up if you hear colleagues use words that reinforce negative gender stereotypes such as, “she is abrasive”,” “she is so emotional,” or “she talks too much.” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spoke up.

2. Use the same standard for women and men when evaluating employees. Reverse the gender of the person you are evaluating to see if it makes a difference in your language or assessment.

3. Be a visible champion. Promote the accomplishments of women and actively advocate for their development and advancement, thus serving as a role model for others to do the same.

Redefining Leadership is Actually Old News

The field of organizational development has been redefining leadership for 50 years. Beginning in 1970 with the ground-breaking Center for Creative Leadership, the field gained momentum with such landmark books (and practices) as Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline (1990), Roger Schwartz’ The Skilled Facilitator (1994), and William Isaacs’ Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together (1999). The science and art of participatory decision making and teamwork has been clear in its message: the process of generating information and making decisions (process leadership) are as important as content, task, or subject matter expertise. Women arguably have a more natural affinity (both interest and skill) for process leadership than do men. It is, of course, totally within the capacity of men to do this. I certainly did in my career as a facilitator and group process designer.

Busting the Double Bind Paradigm

A Zen master says to his pupils: “If you say this stick is real, I will beat you. If you say this stick is not real, I will beat you. If you say nothing, I will beat you.” One pupil, however, found a solution by changing the level of communication. He walked up to the teacher, grabbed the stick, and broke it.

A redefinition of leadership includes (as in the practice of process facilitation) a redefinition of the double bind itself. A double bind is built inside a box of “either/or” thinking. Collaboration is built on “both/and” thinking. There is an entire discipline of problem-solving and thinking skills for generating collaboration and consensus. As a fun warm-up, organizational development consultants sometimes facilitate comedy improv exercises to practice a variant, “yes/and” thinking. Can we get Mitch McConnell and his buddies into a month-long retreat?

Interdependent Polarities

A double bind can often be seen as an interdependent polarity.³ There is a sweet spot between likable and strong, in a “dance” of situation and context. Whereas men tend (on average) to be more binary thinkers, women (on average) are good at “both/and” thinking if left to their own devices. Organizational consultant Tim Arnold (The Power of Healthy Tension: Overcoming Chronic Issues and Conflicting Values, 2017) encourages leaders to embrace a healthy “tension.” Perhaps double binds are not a problem to solve but instead a tension or paradox to manage.

Signs of Progress – Membership Has its Privileges

The 116th U.S. Congress (2019-2021) has 127 women (23.7 percent) — the highest percentage ever. But less than 1 in 4 women lawmakers does not make new a political “culture.”

The New York Times recently addressed the seven biases that women face: “In Her Words: 7 Issues, 7 Days.” “Women in Politics” (day 6) noted that in 2019, Nevada became the first state legislature to have more women — 23 out of 42 seats in the Assembly. Women make up 40 percent or more of the legislatures in Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Vermont, with Maryland almost at that percentage. A balance of more women in political leadership should help reduce the prevalence and toxicity of double binds that women face.

Beyond the “Pantsuit”

A year after Braun was elected to the U.S. Senate, she and Senator Barbara Mikulski broke the unwritten rule that women were not allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor. In what she calls the “pantsuit episode,” Braun explained: “I was wearing my nice outfit, I thought, and I walked onto the Senate floor and gasps were audible.” That was in 1993 – only 23 hears before Hillary Clinton would become the first female presidential nominee for a major political party, pantsuits and all. Leadership had a new look. But biases and double binds? Not so much. We still have work to do.

1. Gender/sex-based spheres of influence and the development of human culture is a very important area of focus and will be explored more in this space at a later time.

2. Founded in 1962, Catalyst is a leading research and advisory organization that works with business and professions to build inclusive environments and expand opportunities for women at work using practical tools and proven solutions to advance women into leadership.

3. There is much more to be said about interdependent polarities in relationships (and not just heterosexual relationships). As explored by Esther Perel and others, here are some key polarities: predictability vs. novelty, security vs. adventure, autonomy vs. surrender, comfort vs. excitement, and freedom vs. commitment.

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text.

Origins of Mating Straight Talk – Reasons and Reflections

by Steven Fearing | Jul 14, 2020 | Steven's Story

The Sleeping Lord of Manhood

“Look at me. I am a male human being. I came from Woman…the origin of my life, the source of all nourishment, support, safety, and love. I am a male human being. I cannot emulate the Woman-Source to find who I am. I have no choice but to turn my back to Her. My maleness wears separation like a scarlet letter. I am different …but what am I?

This search hurts a lot. Do you know? Will you try to understand? God does not demonstrate in my body. Newborn life does not come out of me! I am asked to manipulate the natural world and join other men to fight over finite pieces of Earth. Woman is Earth! But what am I?

It is said there is an infinite supply of love. But there is not an infinite supply of Earth. I want my share of Earth. I want my share of Woman returned to my body! Is it enough for you if I just Be? All this striving, striving, to build your nest….it makes me so weary. I try to construct your pedestal. My body becomes rigid and dead under the weight of it.

And now, you have your groups and your rituals. Feminine manifestation is easy to see and understand…. and you recognize one another. But where is the Sleeping Lord of Manhood? Only a few of my brothers even ask this question. I find most men drunk on acquisition. They report that partitioning the Earth and creating false needs is very sexy. I don’t belong to their club any more than I belong to yours.

Listen to me. The patriarch is a shell of a human being. I am a male human being unlike most of my brothers and I want your acknowledgment and support. If I discover a new kind of male power, will you honor it, will you desire it, will you desire me?! Or will you only notice the amount of security available for your archetypal child?

Admittedly, I speak from a particular and personal psychological context. For the time being, spare me your spiritual teachings, spare me your list of exceptions. I expose my projections. I expose my sour grapes. I expose my battle with the “laws of prosperity.” Just hear me out and be honest. It is time for women to tell the truth. It is time for women to look at men in a new way…..for the Earth calls out to you, to its own kind, to welcome the awakening of the Sleeping Lord.”

~ Steven Fearing (May 1985)

The Jung and the Restless

The Sleeping Lord of Manhood was written 35 years ago. I was a young man, an aspirant for an unfolding new world — carrying the dreams (albeit pipe dreams in the near term) of cultural transformation birthed in the late ’60s and ’70s. I was attempting to integrate the teachings and “spiritual” impulses of the human potential movement, the explosion of body-mind therapies, and the profound resonance of my humanistic psychology graduate program. (A program developed by a colleague of Abraham Maslow.) I could still hear the echoes of Joni Mitchel from the human potential “Mecca” — the front porch of the Esalen Institute and the land of Big Sur, California. Joni pleaded, “we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden.” And we are still trying to do that.

The Sleeping Lord was a personal journal musing, perhaps indulgent and naively “self-important.” Yet, it revisited an ancient question of metaphysical and biological essentialism: what is the primary essence of a male human being? The Sleeping Lord was written in the time of Ronald Reagan’s America; the hopes of structural change engendered by the human potential movement seemed to be dimming. I searched for meaning as the fledgling men’s movement awaited Robert Bly’s Iron John: A Book About Men (1990) and the men’s mythopoetic movement. This version of the New Age men’s movement largely sought meaning through ideas from Jungian psychology and Jungian archetypes – the King, the Warrior, the Magician, the Lover. Many men were lost, and for good reason. The “old masculine” — the stoic, self-controlled, body-armored, emotionally reticent patriarch, seemed done, finished, and not desirable. What the hell was next for men? I was mostly on the side-lines, but succumbed to the search for male initiation, the “Father,” and the “deep masculine” or inner self. Initiation into manhood was a central deficit and wound for boys in modern America. (Arguably, the plight of boys and men in 2020 has gotten worse.) My Father, Frederick Nelson Fearing, was a lovely man of little means and a lot of unexpressed emotional depth. He had much pain and guilt from a failed (and quite undiscussable) earlier marriage, and a failed marriage with my mother. I was not properly initiated into Manhood, or so it felt in 1985.

A Hero’s Journey

The “Hero’s Journey” – a search for noble masculinity in the ‘80s, was an attempt to ease the soul, or find the soul, of men who were (to use a phrase poetically delivered by Jean Houston), “between dreams” of the old and “new male”. Feminism and feminist voices were in full throttle and criticized the men’s movement with a direct assault – born of a misunderstanding of the movement’s inherent focus on psychological work, and it’s supposed lack of attention to issues of political power. In reality, these particular men were nearly 100 percent behind all empowerment positions of the women’s movement, and still are. (The feminist/academic assault on contemporary expressions of men’s rights is a part, albeit a small part, of what Mating Straight Talk will explore going forward.)

Disappointment and Feeling Betrayed

Ultimately, what was revealed (it seemed to me), unspoken but acted upon, was that the “old male” was still very much desired by women for the security they delivered. And the original men’s movement faded over time from the weight of men’s disinterest and the structural intrasexual competitiveness between men. For heterosexual men at least, women remained the priority. The fledgling “soft male” was not as unmoored as depicted in the media, but he brought mostly disadvantages to the mating game. My keen interest in evolutionary psychology and mate selection science was born out of these conditions.

Time to Get It Out

Mating Straight Talk is an important narrative in my life story. (Not the only one by any means.) I have cataloged and collated thousands of pages of articles and research, written many words, and read dozens of books on a broad range of topics related to evolutionary psychology, relationships, and sexuality. Before I wrote The Sleeping Lord of Manhood, I designed and facilitated a workshop, “Intimacy as a Path to Wholeness,” based on the work of Susan Campbell’s The Couples Journey. In 1991, I sponsored a workshop, “Sex and Power in the Workplace” (prescient of things to come) at the University of Texas Graduate School of Business. Recently, I designed and delivered experiential workshops for male-female disclosure. This website, at launch, is but a fraction of what I want to say. As the “About” page might suggest, I have a long list of blog topics in the queue. But this is also a conversation with the reader. I hope to engage and learn from others. And the relationship-sex-love-gender conversation keeps evolving with more speed than ever.

Why I Created this Website and Blog (also see About):

There is a conversation happening about sexuality, relationships, and the politics of gender, and I want to join it; I want to lead some of it.
I have a fairly unique “voice” to share with the world. I am a political progressive, post-new-age-sensitive-guy, heterosexual, humanistic “psychologist” who wishes to promote (among many other things) understanding and respect for male sexuality and male stewardship of the planet beyond memes of toxicity, and do so outside of strident positions and speech of the so-called “manosphere.”
I blog to legitimize the science of sexuality, relationships, and especially mate selection in humans. I blog and have a website to defend evolutionary psychology.
I have a website and blog in order to explore the evidence of evolved behavioral differences between men and women.
I blog and have a website in order to be a “truth-teller” – to bring a dose of honesty about our mating behavior and decision-making; to combat mistruths and political correctness, and expose the collusion of deceit held by men and women about mate selection and the mating economy, and share observations about the “gravitational forces” of money and physical attractiveness from an evolutionary and modern perspective.
I blog to share my observations about unexamined misandry and the failure to apply issues of socio-economic class and intersectionality perspectives to white men. I will promote a balanced, rational approach to “being woke” while my athleticism allows me to dodge incoming rotten tomatoes.
I blog to promote “power equity” between the genders, acknowledge that equity is not “sameness,” and encourage my audience to become friendly (like “blending” in aikido) with the underpinnings of biological hardwiring.
The counselor/therapist in me wants to explore the intersection or integration of evolutionary psychology with couple’s psychotherapy and sex therapy/sex education.
Blogging and this website help me discover and understand myself and consolidate a large part of my life’s work.

Who Cares?

In all of this, I am curious to discover who will be interested. Those in long-term companionate partnerships may think this website has little to offer them. Yet there may be some useful, practical insights for those not officially in the mating economy. Those privileged in the mating game (as with most elements of privilege) are not excited to listen or talk about mate selection. I hope to engage with them anyway. And defending the truth of evolved behavior sex differences is generally out of touch with the current feminist zeitgeist and not attractive to most women. That tends to create silence and avoidance by me and other men. For a heterosexual man, the need to connect with women is an intractable imperative. (As a “courtship display,” this website/blog is mostly stupid.) I want to hear from women – what is your experience? And, I definitely want to hear from relationship/psychotherapy professionals and folks in the field of evolutionary psychology.

The Heart of the Matter

MatingStraightTalk.com has finally launched. And now I am suffering from diastolic heart dysfunction. Seems I literally have a broken heart. The contents of this website are somewhat related to my story of a broken heart in the conventional sense of romantic disappointments, loss, and pain in the mating game, although I have had a few stable, relatively long-term relationships. My experience of relationship disappointment (finding a true partner) is admittedly a catalyst, but my attempt here is to deliver the science, “the why” of human mating behavior. I want to deliver insights that may assist others who feel confused, alone, or ashamed. I could outline the actual science about romantic heartbreak and how the absence of partnership affects health issues and longevity, but I will leave that for another time; suffice to say, they are connected, especially for men.

More than a Little Help from My Friend

At times, I have been overwhelmed by the depth and complexity of the content and by the technical issues that plagued the execution of this site. It has not been good for my heart, and yet I could not let it go. With the help of my dear friend Tom Carroll, I persevered. My debt to Tom is incalculable. Tom kept me going with his technical skills, creative brilliance, natural curiosity, childlike excitement, and support.

Going Forward

One of the true loves of my life, Jodi, met me in 2010 when I was successfully dealing with heart-related A-fib. She said, “I can’t date you if you’re dead.” So true. I hope to survive diastolic heart dysfunction* long enough to get most of my story and thoughts into this blog — into “Steven’s Stories” and the other nine blog categories.

Years ago, I created a “Sleeping Lord of Manhood” album-cover with song titles that marked significant life events and challenging conditions that shaped me. Each song is a story perhaps worth telling (another time). There is also an “album” of stories more aligned with the pursuit and science of happiness, excerpted from my writings on the “Seven Domains of Well-being.” Taking a cue from the ancient Greeks, I will uncover the “True,” the “Beautiful,” “the Good,” and “the Pleasurable.” There may be a few stories about my family: “Kansas City Home,” “Brothers Four,” “Beary-Bowl Bred,” and “Jayhawk Nation.” (These song titles only make sense to family and close friends.) Ultimately, the focus of “Steven’s Stories” will be less about the past and more about the present. But here’s a loving peek at (my) youthful “Brothers Four” – from left: Max, Me, David, and Greg. The Sleeping Lord of Manhood shows up and calls forth.

Thanks for reading this long post!

Steven

*I am quite optimistic about healing my heart physically through renewed (post-COVID) fitness and a functional medicine protocol to fortify heart mitochondria.

A quick addendum: My diastolic heart “dysfunction” was apparently healed by my aerobic regimen and other health protocols, or perhaps never really existed. My follow-up echo in September showed no problem.