If 1992 was the Year of the Woman, 1993 will be remembered as the year in which she lived dangerously. For although unprecedented numbers of women were elected to public office and many others were appointed to significant leadership positions, the path to success has taken an unexpected turn. Women have definitely arrived. But when they discover themselves in a man’s world, they want to earn their place rather than learn it.
A curious thing happened on the way to the Capitol. Women who got there through ability and talent now find they are being judged on their gender rather than their job. It is not an M.B.A., J.D. or Ph.D. that counts; it all comes down to DNA.
Take the case of Janet Reno. Touted as a folk heroine, here was a female who might prefer polyester but was definitely no Pollyanna. Suddenly, however, the Queen of the Everglades fell from grace. Blunders on the job caused her reputation to sink.
She might legitimately be criticized for her performance as attorney general. Did she vacillate on the Waco assault? Should she be more vigorous in pursuing the civil rights investigation of the killing in the Crown Heights area of New York? Has she been slow to define an overall agenda on anti-crime legislation? Is she doing justice to the Department of Justice?
Rather than a substantive analysis of her job performance, however, Reno has been subjected to the attack of the gender offenders in a recent New York Times article.
Formerly she was thoughtful; now she is “undecided.” Once she was candid; now she is “crusty.” Before she was authoritative; now she is “intimidating.” She has evidently surprised some dinner companions on the Beltway party circuit by her “blustery” table talk. Imagine, all this in a town where an occasional senator has had to be fished out of the Potomac.
The attorney general does have her defenders. Her chief spokesman, Carl Stern, retorted: “It’s not as if she’s up there in her office watching soap operas.”
Would such a statement ever be made about a male public official? Who would disparage his physical appearance and personality traits when there is so much real bungling to criticize?
Other public persons fare no better. New Jersey’s recent gubernatorial race tells the tale. When Democrat Jim Florio debated Republican Christine Todd Whitman, it was reported: “Seated within touching distance of each other, neither candidate looked directly at the rival. . . .” There was no touching quotient for the presidential debates nor should there be. So why is it important to maintain the proper distance between Connie Chung and Dan Rather when surely no one cares if MacNeil and Lehrer get too close for comfort?
Now that Whitman has been elected she deserves the right to be judged by her public works, not her personal quirks.
Why should women on the job be judged differently than men? Women are no longer “the weaker sex” or “the second sex.” They have earned their place but they require a fair place in which to earn it.
If equality is to be achieved, several things are clear. Men must stop talking down and women must continue to speak up. It is our professional skills that should determine our worth, not our personal traits. For today’s flatterer could be tomorrow’s fault-finder.
Men need to apply the same standards of professional performance to male and female colleagues, and they should express them in equal terms.
In the meantime women must constantly develop their professional abilities. Because they are newcomers in many fields they will sometimes be held to higher standards and double standards. This is known as paying your dues.
We may as well realize that men and women are different. Most people believe that women not only can do the job, but also can contribute something unique. But the fulfillment of difference demands equality. And to attain a fair share, we must all share fairly.
