...
Q: You lay out what you see as innate sex differences between boys and girls very clearly in the book. Now what do we do with this information?
A: We have to be aware of what seems to be innate. If we are aware of that, then we can overcome it. We are not slaves to our biology. If I go into a room and it’s full of people my instinct is go over to the person I like there best and get involved with a deep conversation with her. But then I say, “That’s what I really like to do, but I’m not going to do it. I’m going to go around and I’m going to say hello to all the women here and I’m going to purposely introduce them to one another and I’m going to do things differently than I would feel most comfortable with.” That is how things will change. And on top of that I would add that if women can realize, “Hey, even though this other woman is at a higher or lower status level in this organization than me I’m going to make an effort to talk with her even though it doesn’t feel that comfortable at first.” That is how it would change for women in non-family contexts.
Q: People will look at this data and use it to argue that women aren’t fit to lead, which obviously isn’t the case. Are you concerned about that take-away?
A: That’s a good point. I’m writing this is to say, “Hey, women, let’s be more conscientious, let’s be more aware of this. Now they become aware of this and they think, “I’ve got to make more of an effort,” and in the end, if that happens, then women are going to do better than men.
It’s not that I don’t want women to do better; what I’m trying to do is explain it, to go before, when did these structures arise that are keeping women in this place, which is what Sheryl Sandberg has been criticized for not talking about. Well, I’m trying to go before that, and that’s what the children give me because, you know, most classrooms don’t have a structure set up where the boys are officially at a higher status level. In fact, boys do really poorly in school: girls are at the highest status level.
...
Q: If women are enmeshed with maternal worry – perceived as always anxious about their survival and that of their children – how does translate into the sense that women are capable of leadership?
A: Well, a mother is a leader; that’s a natural role. tried to make the point in the book that I think women are actually more hierarchical than men are.
Q: But isn’t that a very outdated Victorian conceit: that the woman runs the government of the home whereas the man works in the public sphere?
A: I’m looking at kids on the playground and I’m seeing boys trying to figure out who’s better at this and who’s better at that and whatever, and by doing so they’re honing their skills. I see girls not wanting to do that at all, and I think, “But if they play house then they’re perfectly happy to say, ‘I’m the mother and you’re the baby.’” Nobody wants to be the baby, they want to be the mother.
Q: That’s because the mother gets to boss everyone around.
A: Exactly, mother gets to decide what to do and mother gets to put her interests ahead of the baby’s interests – as she has to do in order to keep the baby alive. Women are certainly very much leaders all the time, and I would say naturally they are spending more time in the developing world leading than men are. So I don’t see it as Victorian. In fact, I think girls love to lead. The other girls don’t like to be led, though. They’ll be led by the teacher and they’ll be led by the mother, but they don’t want to be led by their peers. So how do you figure this out so that women can be leaders?
