Reihan Salam, in last week’s Foreign Policy, argued that this recession represents “The Death of Macho.” She cites an unemployment rate that is hitting male workers much more severely than female, and criticizes a culture of high risk, high leverage tactics which she associates with the macho business culture.
She does have a few salient points. On the one hand, the end of the housing bubble has brought the booming construction (male dominated) business to a halt, while federal stimulus packages have promised a new focus on healthcare and education, more historically gender balanced fields.
While the gender-relevant numbers do pose some interesting questions, I’m less convinced that high risk business strategies are characteristically male. Salam seems to be making the “women as hobbits” argument, that women are somehow intrinsically less corruptible by the workplace than their male counterparts. This, I just don’t buy. I have a hard time believing that a female CEO will resist the whims of her stockholders any more than a male CEO.
As a Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher was most beloved for her violent defense of the British Empire. Her victory against the Argentine army, in the Falklands, solidified her status as a great world leader. Of course, not all female heads of state take on conservative, war-mongering positions, but I don’t think whether they do or not is a gender issue.
Certainly there will be more women legislators, CEOs, and presidents over time, as we adopt more egalitarian, proportional cultural norms. But that seems to me more of a function of increased eduction for all, than some sort of surrendering of a macho ethic. Stupidity doesn’t come via chromosomes — well, at least not those chromosomes.
