BIOETHICS

The Bioethics Imperative XXXI
Does Gender Matter?

“Mokita”: The truth we all know and agree not to talk about. Papua New Guinea

This two-part column addresses issues of gender discrimination in the workplace.

Scenario 1: A woman in the last years of her graduate studies goes to her field site to collect data. She returns to her car and, seeing that a truck is parked next to her in an otherwise empty lot, decides to walk to the nearby military academy instead. She returns to her car with a military escort, and the truck roars out of the parking lot. When she relays these events to her adviser, he worries that he has put her in jeopardy and wonders if he should adopt a double standard, sending his male students into the field but not his female students.

Upon hearing this true story, my first thought was that a sexual predator was being described. However, on reflection and in conversation with others, I realized that I had no idea why the truck was there, who was in it, or the intent of the occupant(s). It could have been a benign circumstance that the truck left at that time—maybe the occupants suddenly realized that they were late for an appointment. The person in the truck could have been a woman, a robber, or someone taking a nap from a long drive. Maybe a woman in the truck parked there to protect herself from being exposed and alone in the empty parking lot and was scared off by the military men.
Why was my first instinct to assume a sexual motivation? Many women are more sensitive than men when there is something fishy going on. Why? Because we are raised to be aware of our surroundings and to process that information to make decisions about our immediate safety. Right or wrong, my upbringing taught me to be more leery of men than of other women: “They are bigger, stronger, and sexually motivated” was the message I was given. Hence, in this scenario, I assumed a sexual motivation. Would my reaction have been any different if the car had been a Volkswagen Beetle rather than a truck? You bet.

The adviser in this case must understand that no matter how much he may want it to be, this situation is not in his control. His student is an adult who understands the risks of being female whether she is doing fieldwork, walking to her car at night in a big city, going to an urban bar, or doing an extreme sport. Is he responsible for all these events in her life? Of course not. He can make her aware of the risks her fieldwork poses and express his concern, but he should not curtail her career just because he feels that she is at greater risk than a male student in the same situation. Would the reaction of the adviser have been any different if the adviser were female?

It surprised me that although the ombudsman’s office at the University of Washington sees 300–500 gender-based informal cases per year, it has dealt with more than 800 cases of sexual harassment from 1982 to 2004, a rate of only 38 per year. With the caveat that many cases go unreported, sexual harassment in this institution is only roughly 10% of the gender-related caseload, far less than I expected. (We will deal with sexual harassment in the next column.)

What are these gender-based informal cases? For faculty they mostly involve promotion and tenure, teaching assignments, sabbaticals, grants, committee work, and pay-related issues. Staff cases, on the other hand, usually concern job responsibilities; general performance; how well a staff member keeps confidentiality; and how he or she is perceived in terms of trustworthiness, likability, and competence. Student cases deal with grants, teaching and research assistantships, and opportunities that lead to internships—that is, “service/learning” experiences.

Scenario 2: A very attractive, fully qualified female faculty member is excluded from a committee in her department. When she complains to the chair, she is told that she cannot be on the committee. As a result, her status in the department declines. She retools for a new career in a different field.

A sad but true story (see also reference 1 below), this is a classic example of assertiveness being perceived as pushy or bitchy. If one has any doubts that assertiveness in females is perceived as aggressive behavior in the United States, just take a look at Hillary Clinton’s reviews in the newspapers. Despite her intelligence and demonstrated competence, she is almost always labeled as aggressive (negative) rather than assertive (positive). Politics aside, assertive behavior in women is not rewarded in the same way it is for men. The perception is that female assertiveness disrupts relations, people, and process—in other words, that it is aggressive—whereas male assertiveness fosters them. In our scenario, all it took was one person to derail this woman’s career (and no, it does not have to be the chair).

The cultural roots of this attitude are profound. Where the female style is perceived as nurturing, educative, and collaborative, the male style is punitive and preventive. Just think of the stereotypical phrases you have heard: “This is why your father will punish you” (female is educative) and “Just wait until your father gets home!” (male is punitive).

Next time: "Does Gender Matter?" continued

Dina Mandoli
dina.mandoli@gmail.com

Acknowledgments: I thank one anonymous faculty member and one anonymous staff member for their input and discussion surrounding this topic. I thank Vidhi Tyagi for editing a draft of this column.

References

1. Johnson, D. (January 30, 2007). Ex-professor, prostitution suspect dies. She apparently killed self as trial neared. Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012900654.html
2. Loller, T. (January 27, 2007). Income higher for immigrants with lighter skin, researcher says. Associated Press. http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=skin27&date=20070127
3. Sandoval, S. (April 21, 1998). Pay equity: Not only a women’s issue. The Daily News Bulletin of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/News/042198.html
4. Schrieber, R. S., Nemetz, E. (2000). Pay equity and nursing in Ontario: Ten years later. International Nursing Review. 47:97–105. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046 /j.1466-7657.2000.00011.x
5. Professor says seminary dismissed her over gender. (January 27, 2007). New York Times. http://select.nytimes.com /search/restricted/article?res= F30C16FB3C5B0C748EDDA80894DF404482