“Oh actually I think women should run the world. There’d be fewer wars, for sure!”
Oh do you? Thanks. I’ll get cracking then, shall I? You pop over there and sit in a corner and I’ll roll my sleeves up and apply my tidying skills to the world’s problems. For I am woman: meek and mild and gentle and peaceful yet also great at multitasking and international diplomacy.
When you think about it, it’s weird that women haven’t been running the world all along, isn’t it? When so many men in power think we’d do such a bang-up job. After all, they’re really keen for us to take over the world, so why on Earth have we not yet stepped into the powerful jobs that they have no doubt left, because they genuinely believe that a woman would be better at it?
Oh, right.
I read an article today by Stephen Colbert, and it annoyed me. Not – because I know I’ll get comments – annoyed enough that I have flown into a total rage and launched a petition calling for his resignation. Just annoyed. In the same way as I get annoyed when guys go:
“I’m not sexist – I adore women!”
The quote in the title, by the way, comes from a good friend of mine who occasionally tries to get me into rants by aping this particular kind of benevolent misogyny: “Of course I love women,” he cries. “I’ve seen all of their films!”
This attitude that ‘women would make things better’ has a similar ring to it.
Stephen Colbert says:
“To be honest, sometimes I wonder whether the world would be a better place if women were in charge. It would be pretty easy to make that happen. Simply tell the men of the world that you’re trying to start a campfire. While we’re all arguing with one another about proper kindling placement and whether using lighter fluid is cheating, women can just quietly start getting stuff done.”
I agree with him in principle: women should be in more positions of power. But not because we’re naturally better at things, just because everyone should be equal regardless of gender, so the people who are genuinely best at things, regardless of their gender, get the chance to show how kickass they are. We should have equal opportunity and an understanding of the ways in which society fucks over people who don’t traditionally have power, we can build a better world. Utopia doesn’t necessarily have a 50/50 gender ratio on Fortune 500 boards – Utopia recognises that gender does not make any given individual naturally better at being on a Fortune 500 board. Ruth Bader Ginsberg (a supreme court judge in the US) is often asked when she thinks there’ll be ‘enough’ women in the supreme court.
“And I say ‘When there are nine.’ [i.e. all of them] People are shocked. But there’s been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that.”
In principle, there’s nowt wrong with saying ‘I’d like to see powerful groups/boards exclusively staffed by women’ – but not because women have any innate superpowers that make them better at running this stuff, just because if we genuinely don’t care about gender then this won’t be something we question. Unlike now, when guys tend to dominate boards and still some people argue that each and every one of them is there purely on merit. As Lindy West so eloquently put it:
If you think we live in a meritocracy, then, by extension, you think white men are just naturally better at nearly everything.
— Lindy West (@thelindywest) June 10, 2015
Special womanly world-running skills
Now for the obligatory part where I say that I understand Stephen Colbert is joking. But the way he intertwines jokes about inequality with lazy stereotypes doesn’t exactly help to squash those stereotypes:
“I love all the things women love: exfoliating microbeads, period costume dramas, Joe Manganiello’s second row of abs, pay commensurate with my skill set, York peppermint patties, Legolas, the respect of my colleagues, and being warm.”
“And physically women can relate to me. I have womanly hips—soft and grabbable, and they really fill out my low-rise Levi’s.”
He even ventures into ‘I’ve got all their films!’ territory:
“I love women. I’m married to one, I was birthed by one, and I played one in my high school production of Romeo and Juliet.”
Yay.
Look: I’m not saying Stephen Colbert is a sexist – I’m guessing he’s a bloody lovely bloke. As are most bloody lovely blokes who use the fact that they have mothers and sisters as shields against any possible accusation of misogyny. But the problem is if you’re making this argument then you do not in any way understand.
I’m a misogynist, to a certain degree: I subconsciously expect women to behave in certain ways, and men to behave in others. I make judgment calls about women that I would never think to make about men. I almost certainly treat people differently based on their gender all the fucking time. This isn’t because I’m a horrible, evil person: it’s because I have internalised a lot of the messages that society has given me about what women want versus what men want, and it takes a fairly huge effort to actively strip that away.
I also have a mother and a sister, and some of my best friends are women (I’ve seen all their films!). None of these things prevent me from making knee-jerk judgments or statements which belie an ill-thought-out prejudice. What they do prevent me from doing, though, is saying ‘women should run the world.’ Because I’m aware of my prejudices, and aware of the exact and fundamental way that statement is arse. It’s arse in the same way as a statement such as ‘men are only after one thing‘: it endlessly begs the question – using gendered assumptions to try and challenge gendered prejudice. Like worrying that girls aren’t as represented as men are in tech-related subjects then deciding that the solution is to paint computers pink.
Stephen Colbert’s solution
I don’t know the guy personally – like I say, I’m sure he’s lovely. And he’s clearly got a laudable aim:
“I’m going to do my best to create a Late Show that not only appeals to women but also celebrates their voices. These days TV would have you believe that being a woman means sensually eating yogurt, looking for ways to feel confident on heavy days, and hunting for houses. But I’m going to make a show that truly respects women, because I know that there’s more than one way to be one. Maybe you’re a woman who likes women. Maybe you like women and men. Maybe you’re a woman who’s recently transitioned. Maybe you’re a guy who’s reading this magazine because your girlfriend bought a copy and it looked interesting. Whoever you are, I promise: I’m going to lean in on this.”
Long story short: he’s going to have some more female guests on his chat show. That’s lovely. There are plenty of amazing women who could certainly do with some screen time, and I do hope he lives up to that promise. But… umm… am I the only one here who thinks this isn’t quite such a dramatic and exciting gesture? After a column in which he professes a belief that women should ‘be in charge’ and that he’ll ‘fight for’ us, saying he’ll get a couple more of us on telly is hardly chaining himself to the Houses of Parliament.
In fact, sorry, I’m going to go even further here and say that there’s something insidiously shitty about this whole thing.
Colbert spends a long time in his column praising women – We can be funny! We can be fascinating! We have interesting stories to tell! We should run the world! – before bringing the ending round to a rousing speech about how brilliant he is for ‘leaning in’ and inviting some women onto his show. Sorry, mate, but I’m not buying it. Either you genuinely think that women are fantastic, in which case you should be honoured and delighted to have them on your show (and you possibly should have had more of them on before you were asked to write a Glamour mag column about it?), or you think that you’re striking a valiant blow for equality.
Inviting women on your show by saying ‘they’re actually surprisingly good!’ is like telling us we should run the world, while patting us on the head for being patient enough to wait for the Fortune 500 board to realise it. If you think women are awesome, and you genuinely want to see more of us in charge, then recognise that women being in charge doesn’t just mean more ‘compassion’ at the top or more tidying of the planet: it means women who are angry, women who make bad decisions, women who sit in secret board meetings smoking cigars and plotting corporate evil. It means women coming on to your chat show and having stories that are sometimes funny, sometimes heartwarming, sometimes cringeworthy and sometimes utterly boring – just like the men. You may love women, but seeing all our films just isn’t enough. Saying ‘you ladies are great!’ isn’t enough. Saying ‘my mother’s a woman!’ isn’t enough. Accepting women means not just pretending that we’re special or magic – it means understanding that we’re human in the same way as you are.
And if you’re reading this and you think I’m wrong, or humourless, or that I’m taking this whole thing too seriously? Please direct your complaints to Stephen Colbert. After all, he’s the one who thinks I should run the world.
26 Comments
Hello Girl on the Net,
Though the thrust of the article could easily be articulated against thousands of men in media, I do want to note that Streven Colbert is not just a comedian, but he is a satirist. As such, he poses as a caricature of conservative television presenters, so pretty much everything he says is slapdashed with irony and is skewered the views that he articulates. Given this, he would pretty much agree with the misogynistic sentiments you argue against. A good example is his speech here about immigrant farm labourers: http://youtu.be/k1T75jBYeCs.
He really is very good! As is your blog!
Best wishes,
Alex
Yeah, I get that he’s applying heavy irony. But I don’t think you get to skewer people who believe these things while also congratulating yourself for inviting women onto your talk show. If it were *all* ironic, then it’d be weird and unfunny, but I get it. I don’t think that’s what it is though.
He performs entire shows in character, among many other things, it’s not such a stretch to suggest he would write an entire article ironically. Can’t help but feel that while you equate Colbert with the ‘I’ve seen all their movies’ faux-feminists, he is actually mocking these people just like your ‘good friend’. Maybe you lack familiarity with Colbert’s work, I don’t mean to ‘mansplain’ but it was quite clear to me upon reading the article that it was meant in jest.
Best Wishes,
Patrick
OK, I almost didn’t reply because maybe we just need to agree to disagree. But if the whole thing is in character, then this surely makes no sense…
“Point is, I’m here for you, and that means I’m going to do my best to create a Late Show that not only appeals to women but also celebrates their voices. These days TV would have you believe that being a woman means sensually eating yogurt, looking for ways to feel confident on heavy days, and hunting for houses. But I’m going to make a show that truly respects women, because I know that there’s more than one way to be one. Maybe you’re a woman who likes women. Maybe you like women and men. Maybe you’re a woman who’s recently transitioned. Maybe you’re a guy who’s reading this magazine because your girlfriend bought a copy and it looked interesting.”
If that’s also him being ‘in character’, then at the same time as he’s mocking this casual sexism (which I don’t disagree he’s doing, by the way – he has a lot of digs in there about the stereotypes, as I mentioned above), he’s equally mocking the idea that we should listen to women’s voices, and his declaration that he wants his show to welcome women is done similarly jokingly. Which would be worse than my initial interpretation – that he was trying to be funny to make a serious point about gender inclusion that happened to miss the mark. Basically if you’re right then he’s either genuinely ignorant of these issues or a deliberate misogynist, and I don’t think either of those would be a fair interpretation.
I believe he is new to running the late show, and his previous show, ‘the colbert report’, was almost entirely in character satire.
If he is promising his new late show will be different from the old one, then it is because he has just taken over.
I was also confused at first by whether he was talking in or out of character…
Women should run the world.
Naked.
But, but Joe Manganielo! And Legolas! Yum!
Comments like this always have me rolling my eyes. They’re the kind of soft, friendly sexism that’s meant well, but in practice just comes off as patronising at best.
As you say, perhaps the problem is really in the gap between the sentinent and the behaviour. It would be one thing if someone said “I think women should run the world… so I’m never voting for a male political candidate again.” (I mean, it would still be weirdly gender essentialist, but at least it would be logical.) But no one says that. These comments come from people who are happy to express empty gratitude, but not to do anything to actually undermine their privilege.
Those tweets by Lindy West are fantastically unsubstantiated – which is a problem that twitter has in requiring one to be quotable, but not substantive.
The problem I have with them is that one can’t really offer a counter reply – because no real argument has been made, so any argument one tries to make against the assertion as stated (in 150 characters or less) is all too easily a strawman argument since we can’t know the deeper position the author holds.
See it’s not that ‘white men are better’ – because in other regions the skin colour of the men involved changes and where the population ratio shifts – so finding a white woman in a senior position in the Costa Rican government would be unusual. But also that in many cases the ratio of men applying for a position vs a woman apply for a position varies from industry to industry. You literally can’t throw enough incentives at female bodied people to join the STEM fields – including hiring preferences that make them nearly twice as likely to be hired over men in those fields – but you still have trouble finding female bodied people in those fields.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract
Why? Well it can’t be the education system any more since we know that statistically less men are going to Universities then women
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/
So the question of whether a ‘meritocracy’ favours one gender over another is not as simple as “Oh white men are clearly favoured because bias” and might simply be that for what ever reason women don’t pursue careers in certain important industries as much as men. Politics for example, STEM fields for another. Why? No idea. The systems often incentivize women to go into these areas, but the working conditions may not appeal to them.
Which is fair, it takes a certain type of person to be willing to become a coal miner and live away from home for long stretches, working long hours and in dangerous conditions. Or to become a baker or butcher – long hours, mostly graveyard shift work with lots of messy or backbreaking labour. Or even programmers who work 12-18 hour days during crunch times for weeks at a time and dealing with a tonne of stress. Or hell, become sherpas on the slopes of Everest.
I’m sure high ranking political jobs are no different in terms of intensity. Women absolutely can do those jobs, so why aren’t they swarming into those fields the way male job candidates are?
A meritocracy doesn’t favour men over women, especially not in fields like STEM, nor in many other fields where there are gender quotas. But gender quotas mean that people get chosen because of sex, as tokens, even though they might not be as qualified or have the same level of experience.
Blimey. Not entirely sure what to say here, as you seem to be arguing that there is no such thing as structural race or gender bias. Couple of points though:
“in other regions the skin colour of the men involved changes and where the population ratio shifts – so finding a white woman in a senior position in the Costa Rican government would be unusual.”
That’s incredibly simplistic. How do you account for the fact that in the UK a massively disproportionate number of our MPs/CEOs etc are white, in a way that does not reflect the mix of the population?
“You literally can’t throw enough incentives at female bodied people to join the STEM fields – including hiring preferences that make them nearly twice as likely to be hired over men in those fields”
OK. So why do you think people throw hiring incentives at women? Is it perhaps because traditionally women have been discouraged from entering those fields? I think so. And given that, there’s a huge amount of cultural weight here to overcome. The research you cite was released this year – this year! And even that states that ‘the ratio has now flipped’, meaning that for all the years before this research, men were given precedence. To ignore the importance of this is to believe that society can change almost overnight.
“Well it can’t be the education system any more since we know that statistically less men are going to Universities then women”
People have education before University, and during their education (high school, middle school, junior school, kindergarten, and from the moment they first start picking up toys) boys and girls are told that they’re different and that they’ll naturally be drawn to different things. That they’re innately different kinds of people and there’ll be some things girls just can’t do, or don’t want to do. Which brings me on to this:
“it takes a certain type of person to be willing to become a coal miner and live away from home for long stretches, working long hours and in dangerous conditions. Or to become a baker or butcher – long hours, mostly graveyard shift work with lots of messy or backbreaking labour. Or even programmers who work 12-18 hour days during crunch times for weeks at a time and dealing with a tonne of stress. Or hell, become sherpas on the slopes of Everest.”
The phrase ‘a certain type of person’? You’re saying that women don’t want to do this kind of work, and that kind of makes it sound like your overall point is that Lindy West *is* right that most positions are held by white guys, but that what you’re saying is they’re held because women don’t want to do them. Correct me if I’m interpreting this wrong. As I say, I’m a bit confused because you genuinely seem to be arguing that there is no such thing as structural racial bias or gender bias.
People have education before University, and during their education (high school, middle school, junior school, kindergarten, and from the moment they first start picking up toys) boys and girls are told that they’re different and that they’ll naturally be drawn to different things.
It starts even younger than that. I was ranting to a friend about the Aptamil advert – the one that shows a baby girl in a white dress with a long skirt doing ballet, and a baby boy looking serious with an abacus. These are children whose most recent academic achievement has been to learn to sit up unaided. FFS!
Both men and women were more likely to vote to hire a male job applicant than a female job applicant with an identical record. Similarly, both sexes reported that the male job applicant had done adequate teaching, research, and service experience compared to the female job applicant with an identical record.
Totally agree with your position, GOTN, but the big problem when discussing why women aren’t better represented at the top of organisations, where it matters, ISTM, is deciding what makes a good chief exec or top bod.
Those skillsets are culturally defined, they depend on what you think power looks like and how it will interact with others in the same position (because that’s what you want for your organisation, right?). And here – although perceptions are changing, and I’m old enough to remember when the automatic shape in my mind, as a culturally defined creature as we all are, of a chief exec was male – we’re sadly not there yet. Steps such as the Equal Pay Act and others have undoubtedly helped as has the election of a woman as PM. Not the right woman for sure as she did nothing – was positively antithetic to – women’s rights and the cause of feminism but at least she showed it could be done. (Gulp: I think that may be the first positive thing I have ever said about Thatcher.) So that’s what we need, IMHO, role models, as they will help pull young women through into fields where they’re under-represented, especially in professions where STEM is required.
I agree – not sure where your ‘but’ comes in. I think that having role models in high-profile positions is really important. It’s not the one solution: I think there are a number of things that will help to change perceptions, but it’s definitely an important one.
Re: Thatcher. She’s a brilliant example, thanks for bringing her up. I almost mentioned her at the end of the blog, but she lost out in the edit. You’re right – Thatcher did a lot of stuff that I’d strenuously object to (or would have, if I’d been more than a kid at the time), but I wouldn’t expect her to act exactly as I would simply because she was a woman.
Most women do have a built-in drawback to achieving high status. Pregnancy.
I’ve see no end of women in good positions leave to have their child and not return to their profession for several years. Being a good CEO requires living and breathing the business sector. A gap of several months can be a problem and several years can be terminal to a career.
Assuming the best person should be chosen for the job, absence to raise a family is likely to cost points during the assessment for a senior role, so we should expect more men to hold those positions than women. However, as we see more men taking on the house-husband-father role to free the woman to pursue her career, the problem will shrink, but never to equal numbers in my opinion.
As for us ruling the world – Margaret Thatcher gave us all a chance to see that we can be equally bad at running a country. Surprisingly none of her feminine attributes managed to overcome her megalomaniacal tendences.
The situation is improving, but it will never equalise and all we can hope for is a better proportion of women in key roles.
Blimey – that’s depressing Angela. I think I’m a bit more optimistic than that. Yes, as men take on a greater share of the childcare responsibility then we should see things even out. And I’d go a bit further and say that as men take on more childcare (and with changes such as those to the UK parental leave rules) we should see more men doing it. As more men do it, then barriers which previously made it harder for women re-entering work after parental leave (i.e. cost of childcare etc) will be seen as more important, because they’ll be issues that affect everyone. I think it requires more than this though – a long-term cultural change that means society gradually stops seeing family/childrearing as a ‘female’ responsibility and conceives of it as simply something that some humans choose to do, and others don’t. For instance, there are plenty of people (of all genders) who choose not to have children, others who choose to adopt or foster or what have you. I think we’re often quite limited in the way we think of our individual life options, because we’re always going to be influenced by what’s happened in the past. Call me a rose-tinted optimist but I think we genuinely can be equal in the future =)
You are right, of course. Roll on 2215. Let’s review it then. LOL.
It has been wonderful to see the changes during my lifetime, but you might be a tad optimistic to think such changes will happen in your grandchildren’s lifetimes. So far we can’t even get men to stop wolf-whistling and cat calling. Intelligent people will change quickly, but not those steeped in the dogma of religion and misogynism who will undoubtedly still be clinging to their ancient ways for two centuries at least. It is the world which needs to change, not just the ‘west’.
Good grief, we can’t even stop FGM despite our improved communications and media. Culture has extraordinary inertia – just look at religion. Despite all of the evidence to the contrary people still hang on to deities and convince themselves relations are sitting on clouds keeping an eye on them. While that continues how can we overthrow the bonds which bind us?
I suppose this is depressing, but I think it is also realistic. I wish it were not so. Now I need a good fuck to cheer me up, “Peter, leave the washing up and come to bed!”
A very timely article: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2015/aug/20/why-should-women-run-the-gauntlet-of-harassment-while-out-jogging?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2#comment-57918978
You discussed the #notallmen problem before and made the point well ( ie how stupid it is). But this critisim of colbert just seems like that in reverse – #notallwomen could run the world. I can see there’s some internalised sexism showing in parts, but as you say we all internalise sexism to some level no matter how hard we try not to. Why should Colbert be exempt from making such failings? In any case on the subject of women running the world, there’s a great article by Lucy Ellman that does a better (and funnier imo) job of doing what i think colbert is really trying to get at. If you haven’t read it you bloody well should http://thebaffler.com/salvos/three-strikes
Thanks for the link, I’ll check it out later.
Re: not all men. I have no idea why you’ve drawn the link, but ‘notallmen’ is a defensive reaction aimed at derailing the conversation when women discuss their experiences with e.g. harassment/discrimination etc. This is me pointing out that someone is using gender stereotypes to try and challenge gender discrimination, and why it’s inconsistent. I don’t understand the link.
I don’t think Colbert should be immune from making the same mistakes many of us do – but he also shouldn’t be immune from criticism. If no one ever pointed out our mistakes, we’d just keep making them, after all.
The link I was trying to make was that people use the #notallmen to make the point to women not to stereotype all men as rapists. Yes it derails the debate (sometimes deliberately sometimes not, but we all know not all men are rapists). By pointing out Colbert has stereotyped women derails the debate in the same fashion. Colberts gender bias shortcomings don’t need pointing out here, because he’s clearly making a rare and much more important point out the greater problem of sexual inequality in media. He gets it. Not all of it. We are all a little bit sexist. Even Colbert, but his irony and satire is complex, so I am still not sure his sexism is as you say it is. Of course nobody actually thinks only women should speak/run the world. Even when we say they should.
This is the first time I have ever felt moved to comment on an article – usually because your opinion pieces essentially make me nod a lot before sending the links to friends.
Let declare a bias – I believe Colbert is something of a comedy genius.
I don’t think the article is written “in character” per se. The new Late Show is not going to be what the Colbert Report was – a fictional character designed to subvert American media cults (could swap the ‘l’ for an ‘n’ there). BUT – he still deals HEAVILY in irony. And his comedy style will frequently drop in real points with ridiculous ones. Having been a fan of his for years, I got the impression that this is a guy making fun of “I like all their films” while also pointing out some real issues. This is a great example:
“I love all the things women love: exfoliating microbeads, period costume dramas, Joe Manganiello’s second row of abs, pay commensurate with my skill set, York peppermint patties, Legolas, the respect of my colleagues, and being warm.”
He does this a lot. Reminding us we’re not genders, we’re humans – and a shot about equal pay, buried in the cliche list of “girly” things that a poser might come up with.
And I don’t think he is just talking about guests. From what I hear, Colbert is determined to make a show informed by diversity behind the scenes – and has taken steps to make sure a show like this (which is heavily reliant on a team as well as the cult of personality) is shaped by different voices across the board.
I think I am right in saying Colbert was also one of the first guys to give Anita Sarkeesian a mainstream platform. His blow hard character was a perfect vessel to highlight the plight of women as depicted in games and the issue of Gamer Gate. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L_Wmeg7OTU).
Anyway, again this may just be agree/disagree territory and I have flirted with mansplaining for which I apologise, . I certainly think it can be read either way and I agree with all your points – I just don’t think he’s necessarily a fair target for them. I feel like I have seen him be too progressive and too celebratory of diversity for too long, and that makes me want to give him the benefit of the doubt. My feeling is the elements you’ve picked up on are a subversion, not a stance.
NB: on the comment about having mothers: Colbert lost his father (and two brothers) in a plane crash when he was ten years old. His mother had to raise the remaining 9 children alone. I won’t pretend to be intelligent or insightful enough to know how that must have affected his view on women. But I remember he gave a moving tribute to her on his show, which might provide some clue. You can see it here embedded in the article (the only way to get around the region lock)
http://www.ew.com/article/2013/06/20/stephen-colberts-tribute-to-his-late-mom-lorna-get-ready-to-cry-video
I’m so tired today, and I’m sorry I don’t have time to go into detail. I feel like quite a lot of the comments I’ve got on this have been because I do not have enough love for Stephen Colbert. So yeah, we should probably agree to disagree. But do you at least kind of see the point I’m making? That if you congratulate yourself for including women in your show, while also trying to say how great women are, then you *are being a bit inconsistent*? Would anyone ever write any article, satirical or not, praising themselves for having a team of blokes, because of their important voices?
Ah, I don’t know. You don’t really need to reply. I’m just a bit gutted that there are so many comments on this that seem to not get what I’m saying, and given the sheer number of them I’m guessing that’s my fault for writing it badly. Fuck it. Sorry.
Crumbs sorry GOTN I didn’t mean to bum you out.
As is said before, I do totally see where you’re coming from. I just personally see the inconsistencies you mention as being part of his design. Given the pattern of his work, it’s easy for me to believe his intentions aren’t quite what your reading of them are. Had someone else written it, this article would probably have been another nod-and-share and I wouldn’t be bumming you out with the comment (Which was not my intention)
Girl on the net – I could not agree more.
There are a lot of “womanly” women surrounding me. Meaning, “oooooh, new haaaandbag, and I only have forty of them at home”.
And then there is my wife. Who, despite the fact, that there are things she can do that I can’t, is simply “just” a person. And I treat her as such. Does she have to do the washing-up because she is a woman? No. Does she have to do it cause I did it for the previous meal and we agreed on it? Hell, yeah! Does she have to cook for me? No. Does she want to cook for me anyway because she likes it? Yes. (Which is why it is only fair if I do the washing up in return. I prefer baking btw.)
And only when we really overcome all those stereotypes and stereotypical behavior (reinforced by advertisements) and stop forcing gender roles (shooooping vs. caaaars) on our kids, only then will women be truly equal. And then it does not matter if there are nine men or nine women on the board because it will simply be 9 people. The best nine people.
Oh, great. They get even more unpaid labor to do. : – /
How about women running the parts of the world they want to and not being impeded or conditioned out of those choices by our collective, historically gender-imbalanced upbringings?