Her.meneutics: Why Every Workplace Needs Feminine Bosses

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

email to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« Why Teens Drift Away from Faith | Main | The Bible, Gender, and the ‘Dad-Mom’ Debate »

November 18, 2011

Why Every Workplace Needs Feminine Bosses

Just because I'm in a position of authority doesn't mean I should try to act like a man.

Margarita Mooney, guest blogger

Do women have to act like men when they enter the professions?

The person who has most helped me to ponder this question is Edith Stein: an intellectual and a woman of deep faith who worked in philosophy and education. Stein was raised Jewish in Germany, became atheist, converted to Christianity and became a Carmelite nun, then was killed in WWII for her Jewish heritage. She was canonized a saint in 1998.

Stein points out that women’s temperament will likely lead them in greater proportion to certain professions like art, history, and the humanities. But she insisted that some women will also shine in physics, medicine, politics, and diplomacy. Stein is right on when she says “there is no profession which cannot be practiced by a woman” (Woman, p. 47).

But beyond saying that women can shine in every profession, Stein calls women to exercise their professions as women: “The participation of women in the most diverse professional disciplines could be a blessing for the entire society, private or public, precisely if the specifically feminine ethos would be preserved” (Woman, p. 49). What does this mean?

In a summary of Stein’s life and teachings, Laura Garcia writes:

[Stein] did not argue that biology is destiny, but that the physical differences between men and women profoundly mark their personalities. The woman’s body stamps her soul with particular qualities that are common to all women but different from distinctively masculine traits. Stein saw these differences as complementary and not hierarchical in value, and so they should be recognized and celebrated rather than minimized and deplored. There are two ways of being human, as man or as woman.

Some recoil at assertions about biologically based differences between men and women, and understandably so. Such claims have been used to limit women’s public roles (i.e., “a woman’s place is in the home”) and to excuse men’s behavior (i.e., “boys will be boys”). Put in the proper context, however, it’s important to talk about differences in how men and women carry out their professional work. In particular for women who are not yet married or who may not get married, it’s important to point out that being a woman, even a good Christian woman, is not only about relationships with men and children—we relate to everyone with our specific gifts as women.

Unlike some feminists of her time and today, Stein did not try to liberate women from motherhood. Rather, Garcia explains, Stein believed that “motherhood is a universal calling for women, and so not simply a task to be exercised with one’s biological children.” Stein herself was never a biological mother, but she was an educator and later a nun. As a sociologist and demographer, I know that, compared to previous generations, many more American women will never be biological mothers.

Although Stein points out that motherhood may be rooted in biology, she adds that women can live out their call to motherhood in myriad ways: mentoring, advising, caring, and inspiring. Stein went so far as to say that women should not give up their feminine ethos when they enter male-dominated professions; to do so would leave them profoundly unfulfilled.

Please note that not only women are called to mentor and care for others. Men are certainly often wonderful mentors and very caring, but women feel a greater loneliness if the relational aspect is missing from their daily work. Women can do their work as well as any man, and they can still live out their femininity—and here, feminine does not mean high heels and high voices, but the spirit of caring for the whole person, as a mother would.

There are many ways I try to live out my vocation as a female professor. One particular way is with undergraduate students. When I find a well-intentioned undergraduate student performing poorly in class, I ask why. Often they share deep personal problems, which gives me the chance to refer them to campus resources that can help—such as the dean of academic affairs or the mental health clinic. This semester alone, four undergraduate women have told me that they suffer clinical depression.

In other cases, disgruntled students (mostly young men) often challenge my authority in disrespectful ways. After one such unpleasant encounter, I commented to a very respectful male graduate student, “You know, I just don’t think my students treat me like a 65-year-old white male.” He responded with a loud laugh. “Obviously not!” Perhaps the fact that this particular student comes from a society with much more traditional male-female roles than the U.S. helped him to see the naiveté of my comment; yet his respectful behavior also shows male students from any home or national culture can learn to respect professional women.

His laughter also made me stop and think: Why would I not expect students to notice my age and sex? Is it not the same thing—their sense that I’ll listen to them and try to help—that leads some students to disrespect me and leads others to trust me? Can I establish my authority with those disrespectful students while not shutting out those who need my advice?

Yes, I can and I should, because being caring and open does not mean surrendering a position of proper authority in the workplace.

Stein’s life and work can help women in all walks of life reclaim a feminine ethos without saying that biology is destiny, or asserting that women can only be fulfilled as biological mothers and companions to men, or claiming that to earn respect women have to act like men twice their age. Relationships with men and children may be vitally important to most women, but women also have a role to play in society. In every profession there is, society needs women’s gifts for helping, serving, listening, and instructing. Our female and male colleagues and students need our example as professionals who know our dignity as women. That is my vocation.

Margarita Mooney is assistant professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a faculty fellow at the Carolina Population Center. She writes for the Patheos blog Black, White and Gray, where this post originally appeared.

Comments

I like this post! And I am going to learn more about Edith Stein -- wow, what a woman! The church and the world at large need women who are not afraid to be who they were created to be in every area of life. Women, we need to be strong!

So women should be free to be feminine in in the workplace. And feminine in this case means "the spirit of caring for the whole person" But some men are also "wonderful mentors and very caring." So it follows that some men can be feminine. It should also follow that some women are not feminine, even by this definition. Neither are some men. (You can see how gender stereotypes of any kind - positive and negative - start to break down when you think about them longer than a minute or two.)

Instead of qualifying this personality trait as feminine, why wouldn't you have simply called for more caring and nurturing in the workplace, so that men and women who have these gifts can use them freely?

This post resonated with me a great deal. As a woman in leadership both at work and in my church, I try to do this. It is so affirming and empowering to think about how my mentoring and caring for my staff is a way for me to be a "mother" (I am married, but no kids). Thank you so much for encouraging me today!

kristen, thank you for saying so clearly what had been muddling through my brain as I read the article.

Tim

I just wanted to correct something you stated at the beginning of your article. Edith Stein was a Jew who became a believer in Jesus. There is no conversion needed for this to happen. I am also a Jewish believer in the Jewish Messiah,Jesus.

It's important to remember that the early church was made kup of Jews who recognized that Jesus was the fulfillment of all their prophecies. The use of the word conversion can create problems for Jewish people who are interested in Christianity because it may cause them to believe they need to give up their Jewish identity. In my case I truly learned to love my Jewishness only after becoming a believer.

I realize that was not the point of the article, but it seems like an issue that never gets addressed in Christian circles.

BTW..thanks for bringing attention to Edith Stein and her refreshing perspective on women. It is wonderful to realize that God was at work throughout history setting women free to be all they were created to be.
Blessings,
Alicia

I loved this post--thank you! There is definitely a pressure in many professions to act and communicate in a way that is typically considered "male." And while the usefulness of such gender-based language is debatable, I think most of us understand that functionally, in America, that means a more cut-and-dried, fact-rather-than-feeling-based, competitive-rather-than collaborative ethos. I believe it was Einstein who said that you should never depend on generalities when you're dealing with individuals, but if you couldn't take generalities into account when you're working on a broad scale, you'd have a hard time classifying, and therefore beginning to develop an understand of, anything. (Only he said it WAY better than that!)

Margarita,

Thank you for this thoughtful post. It is something we need to think about more and more in the church. You are helping us to more fully develop these thoughts.

One reader wrote:

"Instead of qualifying this personality trait as feminine, why wouldn't you have simply called for more caring and nurturing in the workplace, so that men and women who have these gifts can use them freely?"

The key point to clarify is that I wrote about average characteristics of men and women, a point that is not at all contradicted by acknowledging that some men and women do not fit those averages.

On average women tend to be more caring and nurturing than men. Hence, compared to most men, women will tend not to feel fulfilled unless they express these gifts in their professional life. In addition, on average, the people one encounters at work expect women to have and use different gifts than men.

Not wanting to talk about average gender differences in personality because of a fear of stereotyping often leads to a denial of real gender differences. Hence, women often imitate men's average behavior at work and do not express or value their particular gifts.

Margarita, it is possible to discuss average gender differences without implying that they apply to every women. The problem here is with the wording and with the use of the term feminine to mean certain characteristics as if women who don't fit those characteristics aren't feminine and aren't really women. You can say something like "most women are..." and then say that if they fit those traits, they should stop being afraid to express them.

Yes, some women feel they have to imitate men, But some women actually have the character traits that are usually stereotyped as male. That doesn't make them any less feminine, any less woman, or any less who they are as human beings.

The thing we have to remember first is that when you look at the statistics, the truth is that there are more differences within a gender than there are between the genders. Also, personality is mostly socialized rather than biological. We teach girls and boys how they are supposed to act, right from the beginning, often even without meaning to. If personality were really biological, then all women who are biologically female would fit those traits. The truth is, there is very little of our personality that is based on biology.

There is nothing wrong with fitting the female stereotypes if you do, and women should be proud and embrace those things if that is who they are. But too often, women who don't fit into that mold are made to feel inferior, told that there is something wrong with them, told that they are really just trying to be men and should start being more feminine, and told that God doesn't want them to be who he has made them to be. And that just isn't okay. We should all feel comfortable in our own skin and be free to be who God has made us to be, whatever that may be.

And the truth is, women in our society get it from both sides. They are told they aren't feminine enough on the one hand and told that being feminine is bad on the other. Both extremes are bad, and in my personal opinion this article veers too much into the first side and judges women who don't fit the female stereotypes.

Thanks Anna! You and I seem to be on the same page. The only thing I would add is that we are still up against a culture that doesn't value caring and nurturing in the workplace - for the most part. And I agree that this should change. But holding these traits up as feminine is not going to make it any more likely that they will become valued. I would suggest that instead of trying to use/redefine gender stereotypes that have been employed to devalue the feminine (and women) for generations, we should be break the cycle completely by disassociating personality traits from a person's sex. By all means, let's start recognizing the intrinsic value of caring and nurturing in the worplace - without engendering them as feminine.

I echo what Anna and Kristen said.
“motherhood is a universal calling for women," really? I am so not a mothering person at all. I really tired of reading posts about feminism that make me feel like I'm not a real woman.

I appreciate the feedback. I did not mean to imply that women who are different from the average woman are somehow inferior.

There is great discussion about the causes of gender differences--the old nature versus nurture debate--but to say that nearly everything about personality is socialized and not at all rooted in biology is not well supported in the research I am familiar with.

For example, studies of twins separated at birth show overwhelmingly how much of our personality is rooted in biology. Although biology is not destiny, to say that biology does not matter much to women's psychology or personality seems to me misleading.

I don't see how we can we call on people to be who they are if we do not want to talk about average differences between men and women.

Magarita, I don't see how we can call people to be who they are if we keep trying to conform people into the gender stereotypes. Because you certainly aren't calling me to be who I am, you are calling me to be that average woman, to that feminine woman who has like every other women has a universal calling for motherhood.

Of course people need to reflect on their own personal vocation. My statements should not be taken as calling every woman to be the same.

The quote you built your article of off, “motherhood is a universal calling for women," is saying that all women are called to the same thing, at least variations of it.

Re: Jane - The article defines other forms of mothering as "mentoring, advising, caring, and inspiring." Unless you do not interact with other people at all, aren't you called to do some form of caring for the people that God has placed in your life? Whatever God is calling you to may not look like stereotypical mothering, but I'm sure it fits into loving your neighbor.

Dr. Mooney,

I pay you the same respect I pay your white-haired male colleagues when I assume that you wrote what you meant and meant what you wrote. If you meant to talk about average women rather than about "women," about SOME women's temperament rather than about "women's temperament," about ONE WAY of being feminine rather than about what "femininity" "means," or about A feminine ethos rather than about "THE SPECIFICALLY feminine ethos," then that's what you should have written. (Emphasis added.) When you proffer quotes such as "[t]he woman’s body stamps her soul with particular qualities that are common to ALL women but different from distinctively masculine traits" and "[t]here are two ways of being human, as man or as woman," it's hard NOT to conclude that you are, in fact, denigrating women who fall outside your definition of femininity or that there is only one way to be a woman.

Further, if the twin studies you cite are the ones in which identical twins raised apart are studied for their personality and other traits, it's hard to see how such studies of identical (same gender) twins have anything to say about gender differences. The twin studies document how such traits can have some genetic, hereditary basis(which we all inherent from from both our male and female biological antecedents), NOT that such traits are gender-related.

Finally, those who "on average ... expect women to have and use different gifts than men" in the workplace may want to chat with their Human Resources Department. Having heard once too often as a young woman the supposed compliment that "you're very logical -- you think just like a man," I can testify to the real harm that such careless assumptions and careless use of words can bring. If a boss begins to assign or review work based on such assumption about gifting, that boss is likely to be a sex discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen.

@ Jennifer - "Unless you do not interact with other people at all, aren't you called to do some form of caring for the people that God has placed in your life?"

--Then why call it "mothering" as opposed to "fathering" or "parenting" or "caring" or "loving your neighbor"? As Kristen says, it's the engendering of these traits that turns them into judgment or denigration of those who do not conform.

There's obviously a LOT of passion about this topic. In an effort to understand, can I ask, are those who disagreed with article saying there are no differences between men and women - in general? That it's all nurture, not nature? From what you wrote, my interpretation is that you are saying there is nothing about personality that can be defined based on gender. That stereotypes are not based on even a thread of truth.

Your statements say that everything should be gender-less: not mothering or fathering, but parenting, caring, or loving your neighbor. It would seem, if that is what you are saying, that there is nothing special and unique about women . . . or men for that matter. We are all the same. Gender differences, from how I interpret your statements, do not exist, which, if true would mean that neither bring anything unique or different to the table based on their gender. Which, if that is the case . . . . it would seem to support statements / arguments made by those in support of homosexual agendas. Is that what you are saying?

I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. If we can't engender traits, then we can't distinguish differences between the genders, which means we can't say that each brings something different to, say, marriage based on gender. If that is the case, if we can't engender general personality traits, that there are no differences based on gender - we can't really support the idea of Biblically based male/female relationships. At least, not the way I understand them.

I believe there are intrinsic differences - in general - between men and women, that are entirely gender based. I'm not saying there are not exceptions to that rule, or that those exceptions are in any way "less than."

In response to the statement that recognizing such differences would bring about a sexual discrimination lawsuit doesn't mean that those differences exist. It just means that our society doesn't want to acknowledge them. Ignoring truth doesn't make it any less truth. If we, as Christians, can't acknowledge God created differences between the genders, while honoring and valuing those differences, without interpreting those differences to mean "less than," how can we expect non-Christians to value women as women? Or to value the differences between the genders?

As far as denigrating those who do not conform . . . making such a statement seems to denigrate those who do not conform to your way of thinking . . . at least on the surface. If someone doesn't conform to the idea of genderlessness when it comes to all personality traits, who is conforming and who isn't? and to what worldview?

"Do not conform any longer to the standard of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." If there are no gender specific traits, why are women and men addressed separately in the Bible? The Bible acknowledges differences, without denigrating anyone, between men and women. The general worldview of the current society does not.

I would love to hear a biblically based reasoning as to why you support the idea of a genderless view. I know the legal arguments about discrimination - but that is not biblical, it is societal. What is your biblical basis for your position?

@Lisa --

With respect, I don't see anyone here making the argument for what you call a "genderless view." Even most secular feminists don't believe that. In fact, most feminists support the idea that women bring unique voices to the workplace or to any setting. And, with that, your entire house of cards falls.

As a feminist, I believe that, while gifts and personality traits are not gender-specific, men and women who share the same gifts and traits may not always express them in the same way (tho' sometimes they do), that even among women who share the same gifts and talents, their life experience, their culture, and their personality will bring something unique to bear on how they express those gifts, and that all those differences are inherently valuable.

For example, as an attorney, I have the gifts and skills that make a good lawyer, as do my male colleagues, but I have my own voice. I had the benefit of learning from a bunch of senior male partners, and a very few female partners, and they were all characters in their own right. None of them were much like any of the others, yet they were all successful advocates and counselors. Sit in a courtroom for even a day and you'll see that there isn't just one way to communicate, and there certainly isn't one "male" way and one "female" way.

Gender is one of the myriad things that bear on one's personality, but it certaily doesn't dictate what gifts and talents one may have. The Bible doesn't limit gifts and talents by gender, and the parts addressing men and women separately (just like the parts on homosexuality and abortion) are miniscule when compared to the great and over-arching themes of justice and mercy, despite some Evangelical groups' focus to the contrary.

When the Church formed its views on women, it was conforming to the standards of the day, and the Church continued to conform to the standards of the culture down through the centuries. Why is it only now that complementarians want the Church to be counter-cultural?

We are all made in the image of God, and whatever pale reflection of God that I am as mere mortal, I am a reflection of "God," not just a part of God. THAT'S the truth of what the Bible teaches, and that, rather than "different but equal," is how we truly value women and men.

Christian Lawyer, thanks for your input.

I want to note that when women nurture their family - primarily their husband and children - they ARE playing a huge role in SOCIETY. You say, "Relationships with men and children may be vitally important to most women, but women also have a role to play in society." Do you mean women who don't have children have a role to play in society, or women have a greater role to play in society beyond their family? I feel that there's a gross misunderstanding of the powerful role that plain old moms have in shaping culture, through both their family and their lifestyle of missions at schools, in their neighborhoods, and in each relationship God brings into their sphere of influence. Though it may be seen less publicly, it very much affects the public.

@Lisa -

at the risk of running down a rabbit trail, a counter-question: The Bible repeatedly gives different instructions to slaves and masters. Does this imply that slaves and masters are thus divinely created as fundamentally different types of people, with immutable God-given roles that are ignored only at the risk of cultural chaos and dishonoring their Creator? Or does the Bible address social groups that are dealing with different circumstances, challenges and responsibilities in the cultures in which those people lived?

I do not deny that there are obvious physical created differences between men and women. Nor do I deny there are innate general personality differences; though what these specifically entail, their source (nature vs. nurture) and pervasiveness are far from clear. What I do deny is that there are overarching divinely ordained archetypes of Feminine and Masculine that ordain hard distinctions between women's participation in the image and work of God and men's. I think that this idea represents an intrusion of pagan/worldly frameworks into Christian thought and a distortion of Biblical interpretation.

Re: the article -- I appreciate the insight and exploration of the truth that women are called to serve, teach and lead *as women,* without apologies or need to deny their identities and gifts. Unfortunately, as some of the comments have illustrated, we struggle to define and navigate what exactly that means.

My hope and prayer is that eventually, Christian women's gifts of leadership will be accepted and celebratedin their manifold glory among all God's people, without need for either apology or apologia. Blessings!

I am a mother of three but not the "motherly-nurturing" stereotype even though I breast fed. However, I would argue I am motherly and nurturing; it looks different. My husband is all mercy, compassion, and feeling oriented, but he is a man, nonetheless. I am more justice, judging, and analytical, but I am a woman, nonetheless. Our personalities, like our biology, complement each other well. He has nudged me more than once to just love or be tender in the moment and not use the moment as a teaching one.

Also, I wonder why we don't hear that based on their biology men are universally called to be fathers, not simply a task to be exercised with one's biological children which by implication requires mentoring, guiding, caring, and inspiring, unless of course, those are uniquely mothering behaviors?

The way in which you suggest you help your students doesn't sound uniquely feminine but sounds like a responsible professor doing her job well and seeking the success of her students.

Lisa,

To another commenter: "Your statements say that everything should be gender-less: not mothering or fathering, but parenting, caring, or loving your neighbor."

I've noticed when a mom has her kids, she is caring for, loving, teaching, etc. her kids. When dad has his kids, he is baby-sitting. I disagree. A father doesn't babysit his kids, he fathers, whether well or poorly. So, yes, mothering and fathering whether it is watching, caring for, loving, teaching, bathing, feeding, mentoring, guiding, advising, etc. is parenting. This is not genderless. The very fact that we call it mothering or fathering makes gender inherent in that activity as females are only mothers and males are only fathers.

I am not sure what you mean by engendering traits in them. Regardless, I don't differentiate the gender of someone by engendering or developing in them traits. I distinguish between the genders long before observing specific behavioral traits being discussed here. I differentiate based on appearance which has been thus far 100% accurate, as far as I can tell, because the biological differences between the genders is usually easily detected in the face and reflected by dress, fashion, etc. Inherent in the "biblically based male/female relationship" is not behavioral gender differences but the sex differences, thus two becoming one, a reference to the physical union made possible because of the sex differences.

The thing is, when we say that stereotypical motherly-nurturing or mentoring or caring, is intrinsic or essential to women, then those who don't exhibit those naturally are somehow less than womanly, or female. Likewise, when a woman naturally exhibits something considered stereotypically male (i.e. confident influence) she is considered to be acting more like a man than the true woman she is.

I want to add one thing to what has already been said. I think every church board should have a woman on it. Women understand things that men do not (and vice verse). Why not get the best of both worlds. I've seen a lot of mistakes made by church leadership that would not be made if a woman was included in discussion and decision-making.

Lisa -

I would respectfully suggest that you take some time to inform yourself about the difference between sex (biological) and gender (cultural). In your comment above you make a few statements that I would agree are completely true if you had used the proper word - sex, instead of gender.

The problem with Western culture's gender stereotypes is that they have been developed in our society within a binary and as a hierarchy. What is masculine is valued; what is feminine is not. Men are strong; women are weak. Even though the author of this article is trying to say that "feminine" traits are a good thing, by working with the same old stereotypes, her argument falls flat. There is a better approach, which you see reflected in some of the comments.

"The thing we have to remember first is that when you look at the statistics, the truth is that there are more differences within a gender than there are between the genders."

As a female with stereotypically "male" characteristics (bluntness, straightforwardness, deeper voice, even short hair until a couple of wks ago), I can say wholeheartedly that the above statement is false. There are definitely more significant differences between genders than within a gender and even masculine females or feminine males still display characteristics respective of their natural gender. Unless of course these individuals are homosexual, then things change. Perhaps this is due to social conditioning, and maybe that's what Anna was speaking about.

Nonetheless Margarita, I think assuming average gender qualities is problematic. I agree with Anna that you should have emphasized that everyone have more caring and nurturing qualities in the workplace as opposed to women having more feminine qualities in the workplace. But if you had did that, the article wouldn't have been so original because there have been countless articles on this topic. Interestingly enough, a lot of them include titles like "The Feminization of the Workplace" Just google this term and you'll see what I mean.

An intent to "Serve", needed in every person especially women, is greater than an intent to "Rule". When
Hell clings to the latter word, heaven loves the former word. For the Son of man Himself came to serve & not to be served.

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Why Every Workplace Needs Feminine Bosses

Comments

recent posts

Archives

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Why Every Workplace Needs Feminine Bosses

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives