Whenever I am involved in a discussion about feminism and women’s rights, there is often a comment from the floor that more women in leadership positions would be good for everyone because women are more caring and kinder than men.
I am usually expected to wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment but I never do. In fact, this view of women makes me deeply uncomfortable. Firstly, I think it is sexist. Women do not have a monopoly over kindness or niceness, just as men do not have a monopoly over energy and assertiveness.
Secondly, it creates an impossible and unfair standard for women who do achieve positions of power. Not only do they have to fight longer and harder than men to get there in the first place (see Hillary Clinton), once there they face harsh judgment if they are not constantly nice. Woe betide them if they make any difficult or unpopular decisions.
WATCH: David Koch shares his tips for managing money. (Post continues…)
This double standard is tough on women seeking power but it is how this attitude negatively affects us common, garden-variety females that interests me the most. And – make no mistake – this deceptively flattering idea that we are naturally noble and self-sacrificing is crippling to us, particularly financially.
Top Comments
The real reason older women are in such a mess financially is that when superannuation was first introduced, women couldn't be involved- blokes only. For those women who then later divorced, super was still considered the property of the bloke- and was not included in any property settlement. That meant starting from way behind the 8ball. Add to that lower wages, time off for the 'baby years' and it has been impossible to catch up. Now - those on a 'widow's allowance or pension' which was originally set up to counter these issues a tiny bit, have now been relegated to Newstart, and this is the result http://thehoopla.com.au/?s=...