The roots of the problem run deep. When women show confidence and assertiveness, they are often seen as competent but unlikeable, a tradeoff known as the “likability penalty.” Meanwhile, those who conform to traditional expectations of humility and modesty may be socially rewarded, but they are less likely to be recognized or promoted professionally. External dynamics, interruptions, dismissed contributions, or condescending explanations further erode women’s voices. The final frontier of gender equality may not lie in law or policy, but in these subtle, corrosive habits that continue to hold us back.
I’m always surprised and humbled by people like you, who can disagree thoughtfully and with self awareness. Despite a little frustration on my part, I love to see women stick to their guns.
And I appologize if I came off abrasive. I rejected feminine social norms early on because I’m very stubborn, which led to questioning my gender until ultimately realizing I get to decide what it means to be a woman. I’m direct and I challenge people, but it comes from a place of compassion and a desire for truth. Yes, I know truth is relative. Anyway, that’s part of why I don’t agree there are masculine or feminine personality traits.
Which is why I don’t think the qualities the author wanted women to embody were masculine, rather she pointed out that men have an abundance of confidence where women are lacking. But I can agree to disagree.
You’re right that academia, especially at higher levels, is increasingly specialized. I meant that a person has more experience than just work and school, and we don’t know what electives she took. This author seems interested in sociology from the sources she links.
Either way, I enjoyed this conversation. I like being challenged and it’s important to question everything. You gave me another perspective to consider, even if I didn’t agree with it.