Alpha Females

There are still gender stigmas in this country dispite all our progress. Never the less, why should a woman feel she has to be aggresive anyway? I think that the traits particular to women would work great in leadership roles. In fact more, and more studies have been done that show aggresive leadership styles, from males or female can do more to hurt productivity than help it. Females often do feel they have to be extra aggresive to make it in a man's world, and even men feel they have to be extra aggresive to prove themselves. I say both genders should find the courage to learn, and use real interpersonal skills. Being in the military I have seen aggresive leadership styles from both male, and females. Sodliers of both genders have alot of pressure to seem aggresive. Yet, I have seen that when a leader gives in to that insecurty it hurts the mission, and the soldiers. Not a popular stance the the military, but I am speaking as one of those soldiers.

This reminds me of something Madeline Albright said in response to being asked about whether she had faced difficulties in her career because of her gender. I can't remember the exact quote but she said something about how she always tried very hard to avoid showing any emotion, whether positive or negative. She felt like anything she showed emotionally, whether smiling or crying, would probably be held against her.

So is it your take that American men with power have more flexibility and can now show softer female attributes, while women with power can not?
What do you think would happen if Hillary shed a few tears on the campaign trail--Would the campaign concequences be worse than if Obama shed a few tears?
Thanks,
Jonathan Kroner

I think one of the main things holding back women professionally is thier belief that they must portray aggression to essentially differentiate themselves from other women. It seems like if a woman is crying at work it is more often another woman that will criticize her and make note that crying is unprofessional. Why can't women help other women by showing the mentioned compatability between emotion and success? People are encouraged to both be passionate about thier work and display detached behaviors. How is this possible? Both women and men in the work force should be allowed passionate expression to the fullest extent that it does not harm others ( like screaming at a co-worker). I have a friend who worked with special needs kids. Everyday after the kids left she would sit in her classroom and cry. Her boss ( a female), expressed that she needed to pull herself together. Why? The kids weren't there to see the breakdown and she was the best teacher in that school because she cared the most. Burnout is more of an issue when emotions are encouraged but do you really want an employee who stopped caring years ago?

My boss is a female who commands respect and protects the best interests of her subordinates, AND has strong positive working relationships with the higher ups. How about a version of feminism that defends traditionally "female" qualities like empathy as traits that male leaders should have too, instead of defending emotionless, distant female bosses as similar to emotionless, distant male bosses, and therefore good? It's not really feminism if all you want is to get into the boys' club.

What is the need for thinking of oneself as an "alpha"? Why the need to be "first" or a "leader" of others?

I'm not lost; where do you presume to lead me?

I admire paragons; I also think a lot more women delude themselves that they are one.

After a jealous, hateful woman who could not differentiate between standing up for her valid rights and violating others verbally attacked me for using a phone, and was called an "alpha female", I got to defining this thoughtlessly bandied-about phrase.

I wrote to another columnist about women who mistake being being bossy or controllers for being strong and in mastery of themselves. They mistake manipulating someone else into following their rules for how to live his or her life, for a life of self-knowledge and inner strength. They mistake random acts of kindness meant to give themselves a feel-good thrill for steady, ethical character that is always present to do the hard things, and is anything but senseless and random.

Anyone can call herself a "warrior". But after all, any infant can yell and scream for what it wants!

Becoming a strong, complete human is a long, hard job compared to being infantile and congratulating oneself that "I don't take crap from anybody". (But how much do you give and dump?) As John Wayne said in "The Cowboys": "You'll never get the job done with your mouth."

The problem is that women can behave assertively (not aggressively) and it is more easily interpreted as aggressive while a man might be correctly interpreted as assertive. This is a very big problem and feminism sees it as such because modern feminism is about everyone having equal opportunity. If women are seen as caustic and bossy for being good, assertive leaders while men are seen as strong and competent, there is not equality in opportunity.

I really do like the points about the need for more traditionally feminine leadership characteristics. We do need that for both men and women, but traditionally masculine leadership characteristics are still good. Different situations call for different leadership styles. Sometimes individual women happen to be better at what societies associate with masculine leadership qualities (and vice versa). That doesn't mean she should leave her strengths and try to act in a way that people think of as feminine. The goal is that both genders have equal opportunities to be authentic without pressure to play out a role society chose for them based on gender.

Female leadership gets criticised & judged harshly, by both men and women alike.

It comes from a feeling within individuals that female leadership does not 'sit right'. Female leadership feels 'wrong' at a primal, 'gut' level.

Female leadership feels 'risky'.

Humans don't have an evolutionary experience with women leading groups.

I couldn't agree anymore with this article. Even if we talk about aggressiveness, let me tell you a real story.
On Saturday night, my friends and I went out in a bar night. It didn't go well because one boy touched my ass and I ended up beating him.(Seriously, I got very angry, what's wrong with men today?!)
So next day, one boy says to me that : I will never ask you out.
I don't have any problem with this because he is my friend. However, if a boy would be beating someone in a night club, every girl around would fall for him! I wondered...
My point is: no one wants to change the taboo on gender issues. Men have their position in the society, while women have their position in the HOUSE!
My apologies, but who led to global financial crisis? Kids of Wall Street who make up around 90 % while girls(the other 10%) are stuck in technical works in the financial institutions. In Iceland, women are leading the rescue because their husband screwed up the banking sector.
Thank you for your attention. I am not a feminist, I am for equality. But if people don't change their opinion, I need to defense right? :)