Are women more moral than men?

Are women more moral than men?

There have long been the stereotypes of the “nurturing mother” and the “strict father”. But what does this mean in more real circumstances?

Jooa Julia Lee, a doctoral candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, recently presented some of her work, with David Tannenbaum of UCLA, on just this subject. In “Gender and Moral Decision-Making,” she looked at how women and their decisions are perceived in society.

Off the bat, there’s the idea that when a white man is “agentic,” he’s seen as assertive, authoritative, ambitious and, fundamentally, a leader. But when a woman is agentic, she’s seen as bossy, aggressive and emotional. Accordingly, when people think of competent managers, they tend to think of males and masculinity. Women, meanwhile, are expected to be “communal”: empathetic, gentle, and compassionate.

Lee wondered whether these associations are driven by the actual decisions that leaders make---particularly when there’s a moral conflict between doing what’s best for the greater good (utilitarian choices) and doing no harm (neutral, deontological choices).

After a series of simulations and psychological tests, they found that when individuals were asked to suppress their emotions, they were more likely to make utilitarian decisions; that cognitive and emotional processes are in conflict when moral decisions need to be made.

How does this affect perceptions of gender? Well, when told about a hypothetical Mayor Edward Jones making massive lay-offs, people saw him as a decisive, moral leader who could make the best decision for the city. But when the name was changed and Mayor “Elizabeth” Jones made those same lay-offs, she was seen as an immoral, bad leader.

Because of these biased perceptions, female utilitarian decision-makers are not given as many leadership positions. To overcome this, Lee suggests that women use the system while advancing what needs to be done: blend agentic and communal leadership styles by making the tough, utilitarian decisions that must be made, while also being empathic and building strong relationships.





Photo Source

Collective recruitment limits discrimination in hiring

By Julie Battilana, Associate Professor, Harvard Business School
Originally published in French in Le Monde

February 11, 2013

If the last decade was marked by the willingness of businesses to fight discrimination against women and ethnic minorities, both in hiring and promotions, it should be noted that good intentions haven’t always been followed by results. In fact, far from it.

Among active women in France, only 6% occupy top managerial positions, the same proportion as... 1995. As for ethnic minorities, although the collection of statistics concerning them is not allowed by law, an examination of the French leading class is enough to note their poor representation.
To end discrimination, stereotypes must be eliminated. Yet, these die hard, as a recent study conducted by three researchers at Havard University ("When Performance Trumps Gender Bias : Joint versus Separate Evaluation" working paper published on Social Science Research Network, www.ssrn.com) reveals.

Wanting to better understand hiring and promotion decisions, Iris Bohnet, Max Bazerman and Alexandra van Geen conducted a series of experiments, the results of which suggest a direction for effectively fighting discrimination.

Neutralizing Predjudices

Among the 654 participants in their study, which included men and women, some took on the role of employers and others that of potential employees.

The latter completed a task that tested their aptitude in mathematics. Their performance levels were, afterwards, communicated to employers so that they may choose an employee who would perform this task once more, this time to the employer’s benefit.

The results showed that employers had a negative bias against female candidates when their performances were presented individually and independently from other candidates.

Male candidates whose scores were slightly inferior to the average were selected, while female candidates whose scores were at the average were not. The stereotype according to which women would be less competent than men in mathematical tasks thus heavily skewed employer’s decisions.

Avoiding Selecting Candidates One After the Other

Interestingly, a simple manipulation allowed to do away with this bias: when the performances of female candidates were presented not individually, but at the same time as those of their male counterparts, those with performance levels greater than the other candidates were selected.

To effectively fight against discrimination, businesses should thus avoid selecting candidates one after the other, and instead use a collective method. This approach is being used more and more in recruiting, but it is less widespread in promotion decisions.

This approach is, however, essential because it forces decision makers to rely on the comparative analysis of objective information, which neutralizes prejudices. It is time, for all private and public organizations, to recognize the importance, still today, of these prejudices and to act on them.


Translated from French by the author. 

The Stories We Tell Ourselves

Photo courtesy of Forbes.com

“Most of us think that we’re better drivers than the average person, and we really think we’re more honest and morally upstanding than the average person,” says Michael Norton, Associate Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School. He has been studying how people can lie and yet think that they are perfectly great, honest individuals. You might think he is interested in politicians or car dealers, but actually this is about regular people like you and me. We are quite prone to engaging in questionable behavior, yet we are very good at finding excuses for problematic decisions and even tricking ourselves into believing that we did not cheat.

He described a simple experiment – college men were asked to pick between subscriptions to two sports magazines. The magazine descriptions were identical except for the fact that one offered more articles per issue and the other covered a broader array of sports. The preferences split half and half. However, when one of the magazines also offered a swimsuit edition, that magazine became the overwhelming choice. They were then asked to explain why they picked the magazine. The men in the group whose “more articles” magazine offered the swimsuit edition explained that they valued having more articles, while the men whose swimsuit issue was packaged with the “more sports” magazine were equally emphatic that they liked reading about a wider variety of sports.

Perhaps the guys just did not want the researchers to know their true motivation, but what if they were not even aware of their choice process? And what if their decision was more consequential? In a similar experiment, hypothetical managers of a cement manufacturing company (a stereotypically male field) were asked to select between two applicants – one had more education, the other more experience. Those ‘employers’ whose more experienced candidate was named Lisa, overwhelmingly chose the other candidate named Dan, citing the importance of education credentials. But those whose Lisa was more educated, hired Dan because he had more experience. When told in advance that they would be accountable for their decision, the subjects simply became more vociferous in explaining the importance of whichever non-questionable characteristic they picked, sometimes writing whole essays about their choice and how they never took gender into account.

These experiments have implications for hiring, promotions, political recruiting and college admissions, among other fields.  Are we really guided by objective criteria when we read an application, interview someone or consider them for promotion? All signs point to people making the biased choice and then justifying it with the most conveniently available “objective” information. Perhaps even more troubling is the notion that you and I might be completely unaware of our own questionable behaviors, whether they are gender-biased, race-biased or simply dishonest. After all, we are more morally upstanding and more enlightened than the average person, right?  

Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.

Older Women’s Rights are Human Rights

The Women: Judy Lear, Gray Panthers; Ferdous Ara Begum, Gender Issues Specialist

The Talk: Older Women Gain a Foothold: Reaching for Full Human Rights on Paper and Beyond

The Question: Where is the inclusion of older women in CEDAW? 

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
-- Margaret Mead.

Ms. Judy Lear opened her speech with this Margaret Mead quote to preface discussions around the inclusion of the protection of older women in the international Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, CEDAW. Ms. Lear provided the opening remarks for Ms. Ferdous Ara Begum, a CEDAW Committee Expert from Bangladesh who was intimately involved in the process. 

What is CEDAW?

CEDAW is the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979, and it is referred to colloquially as the “International Bill of Rights for Women.” Out of 193 UN member states, 186 have ratified all or part or all of it. Unfortunately, the United States, largely for economic and political reasons, is one of seven countries to have not yet ratified CEDAW. 

What does CEDAW do? 

CEDAW is an international declaration holding governments responsible, and partially accountable, for the equality of women and girls. In countries that have ratified CEDAW, groups have often been able to partner with the government to change laws and policies targeting women and girls. These include: creating economic safety nets, increasing access to healthcare and education, encouraging laws around violence and domestic violence, ensuring rights around voting and inheritance, and many, many more. 

However, CEDAW is not without its faults. Because the United States has not ratified CEDAW, its legitimacy on the international stage is mitigated. Additionally, countries can partially ratify the Convention, which often removes some of its strongest articles. 

Why target older women specifically? 

Older women are often invisible in societies. Former CEDAW Committee member, Ferdous Ara Begum, discussed the negative stereotypes towards women as they age. Deeply rooted cultural and social biases marginalize this group; older women are often viewed as a burden to their families as they are no longer economically or reproductively useful. Furthermore, as a group, older women are more likely to be homeless, have unattended chronic health issues, or limited access to property and land. 

How does CEDAW protect older women? 

In October of 2010, CEDAW adopted Recommendation No. 27 to protect older women and their human rights on issues related to access to social pensions, education, adequate housing, inheritance laws, violence, and social biases (among other).  It compels, “State parties [to] recognize that older women are an important resource to society, and have the obligation to take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to eliminate discrimination against older women.”

Going forward. 

Including older women in CEDAW is an important step in protecting marginalized rights. However, and perhaps more importantly, this inclusions encourages governments -- and societies -- to recognize and appreciate the contributions of older women.

Click here to read the full recommendation on the protection of the human rights for older women, available in six languages. 

Melissa Sandgren is a MPP1 at the Harvard Kennedy School and a participant in WAPPP's From Harvard Square to the Oval Office program.

Feminism, now stalled (Harvard Gazette)

Law Professor Nancy Gertner says Second Wave needs a second wind

Reposted from the Harvard Gazette

By Corydon Ireland

Harvard Staff Writer

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Nancy Gertner is a former federal judge, the author of a recent memoir (“In Defense of Women”), a professor of practice at Harvard Law School, and an authority on sentencing, jury system discrimination, forensic evidence, and other legal areas.

But go back to June 1971, the month she had a loud argument with her mother in their kitchen in Flushing, Queens, N.Y. Gertner was about to graduate from Yale Law School and assume a prestigious clerkship in Chicago. But her mother wanted her to take the test to be a Triborough Bridge toll taker — just in case.

For a young woman lawyer at the time, “just in case” wasn’t a bad idea. The law was a man’s world. But just a decade later, the culture seemed to swing toward what feminists worked for: parity. By the late 1980s, first-rate law firms were hiring men and women in equal numbers. “We thought the numbers would do everything,” Gertner said during a lunchtime talk on Feb. 23 that was sponsored by the Women and Public Policy Program at the Harvard Kennedy School. (Weekly talks there are part of the program’s mission to create gender equality.)

But faith in the raw numbers turned out to be “dramatically wrong,” said Gertner. “Advancement has stalled.” Half of all new lawyers are women, she said, but only 16 percent of equity partners in law firms are female. And of lawyers who leave the profession, most are women — and most do it because of family and social concerns.

Gertner used the lens of the legal profession to speculate why, after earlier rapid advances, feminism’s cultural agenda seems to have stalled. (Universities, she said, are in an analogous position, with plenty of women graduating as Ph.D.s, but few getting to the top of the academic game.)

During her years on the bench from 1994 to 2011, Gertner got used to being trotted out at events as an example of progress. “You’re supposed to say: ‘Things are fabulous,’ ” she told her audience at the Taubman Building’s Cason Seminar Room. But they are not. The women’s movement was not just about having more choices, she said, but about “revolutionary” changes in the workplace and at home that have not happened yet.

In today’s “imperfectly transformed world,” said Gertner, it is social expectations and an “unfriendly workforce” that mean a woman — if anyone — usually will stay home with the children. (She called this reality “the maternal wall.”)

Gertner cited one study that showed 30 percent of women leaving the law, including 15 percent of equity partners, those with a financial stake in a firm. Another study, she said, showed that 34 percent of female law graduates have worked part time, compared with only 9 percent of their male counterparts.

So without a corresponding transformation of family responsibilities, feminism is likely to stay stalled, she said. “We’ve hit a wall.”

It’s not a situation that discrimination lawsuits can correct, said Gertner, because so many women are “leaning out” of their professions — that is, anticipating future pressures and so choosing career paths that enable them to leave the workplace more readily. (She gave as an example the woman who chooses a small family-practice firm over a larger one that presents more challenges and opportunities.) “If women are leaning out” of their own volition, said Gertner, “then their failure to advance can’t be the subject of a lawsuit.”

Besides, she added, overt gender discrimination in the workplace has gone the way of discos and bell-bottoms, “a world that no longer exists.” What is left, said Gertner, is “implicit bias,” which has the same stalling effect on feminism as the maternal wall.

There is also an issue with executing the law itself — a denial of the power of context. The gender discrimination lawsuits that do make it to court are weakened by a tendency to “slice and dice” the circumstances of alleged discrimination, said Gertner. “You don’t look at them as a course of conduct,” but as separate events. “Discrimination in the real world does not fit into the legal models we have.”

One way to counteract this tendency in the law is to have judges on the bench who are aware of the way the world works. “I had an appreciation of context,” said Gertner of her time as a judge. “I never saw the law as legal rules on the page.” (That appreciation, in part, was biographical. Her judicial tenure was influenced by her early childhood in a tenement on Manhattan’s lower East Side, by championing unpopular clients as a young lawyer, and by becoming a mother at age 39.)

In the absence of overt gender discrimination, it is hard to get legal redress, said Gertner. For young women in the workplace today, “it’s the opacity of discrimination” that makes advancement difficult, she said, instead of the stark realities of discrimination in the 1970s. Gertner said, “It was easier for me.”

With feminism stalled by social pressures at home and the workplace, she offered a radical idea. “The government needs to step up to the plate,” Gertner said, beginning by providing incentives for day care that would make it easier for women to combine career and work.

After all, there is a “business case” to be made for gender equality in law firms and workplaces, “beyond the obvious need to tap a rich vein of talent,” said Gertner. In a diverse world, workplace diversity adds to “the texture and the richness of the dialogue,” she said.

In the end, feminism’s mission of workplace parity has been stalled by the three factors of the maternal wall, implicit bias, and the opacity of discrimination, Gertner said.

She said advocates have a list of things to do: parse workplace discrimination by collecting the right data; engage in collective action; and challenge the government to underwrite day care and other engines of cultural change.

But all this is not enough. “The most important thing is: We have to be unsatisfied,” Gertner told her largely female, professional audience. “We have to not believe that this was the accomplishment of the women’s movement — that I’m here and that you’re here is somehow all we can achieve.”