Last night, while having drinks with some ForbesWoman friends, one made a statement that stuck with me. While describing a falling out she had had with a cofounder of a recent startup and the subsequent attention it received in the press, she said, “If it had been men, it would have been all business. But because we’re women, it’s always portrayed as a catfight.”
The problem was, having read the coverage of the story, the version of the narrative in my head looked much more Mean Girls than Social Network.
Are women really catty and superficial, or is this a fallacy perpetuated by the media and everyone else that I’ve been duped by, to the point where I actually seek out petty behavior in smart, driven women I know and respect?
So this morning, when my editor recommended I write up a study released this month by the psychology journal Aggressive Behavior that seems to once again use science to reinforce the stereotype of superficial bitches, my interest was piqued. What, if any, is the value of research that “proves” the bad behavior of women?
The study, authored by University of Ottowa professor Tracy Vaillancourt, shows that women are evolutionarily programmed to act aggressively, even “bitchily” towards women who we perceive as “sexier.” It measured the behavior of 86 Canadian women in reaction to a young woman who entered the research room. When dressed conservatively, in khakis and a t-shirt, the woman was largely ignored. But when she dressed sexy, in a tight skirt and low-cut top, 97% of the women in the room reacted “inappropriately” on a “bitchy-behavior scale” of zero to 10.
"When women present themselves as being sexually available, it compromises the power-holding position of the group," Vaillancourt told ABC News. It's in the group's best interest, therefore, to punish women who violate the unspoken rule. Measured, of course, on a “bitchy behavior scale.”
If “bitchy behavior scales” are science, I’m of the opinion that this sort of study should not be published.
Listen: I know that women are often competitive, rude and aggressive to other women. Vaillancourt’s research tells me nothing new. You know it too. But to me, adding credibility to these stereotypes about women gives artillery to our detractors who use this sort of information to reinforce why women will never become CEOs. This sort of information—putting numbers to some of the most base and yes, shameful behavior of the fairer sex—acts as nothing short of cinder blocks chained to our ankles as we try to rise in the world.
So why would a female researcher be responsible for putting this out there? “I certainly would never want to hurt my community of women who have worked hard to achieve all they have. And it’s certainly something I knew I’d get chastised about,” Vaillancourt told me by telephone this morning. “There are comments out there that I’m adding fuel to the fire. I’ve been accused of setting women back a few years.”
“We do act this way, and it does hold us back--so let’s acknowledge it. It’s not a stereotype but a truism, as uncomfortable as that is,” she continues, defensive of her research and determined to make me see eye-to-eye. “Because you can’t change what you don’t acknowledge.”
The hope of revealing prejudices to change behavior involves something called a confirmatory bias, she says, or the human proclivity towards seeking information or evidence to support a viewpoint we already hold. In this case, “sexy-looking women are a threat and should be treated that way.” But by calling attention to that attitude, we’re better equipped to overcome it. In this case, “sexy-women may or may not be a threat and I shouldn’t treat them poorly until I know better.” (Or something along those lines).
“Maybe the next time someone is dressed in a way you think is inappropriate,” Vaillancourt suggests, “Instead of making snide comments or thinking derogatory thoughts, you’ll be more inclined to give her a chance.” Women need to start monitoring and self-censuring themselves, she says, and she sees her research as an early step towards that goal.
As for me, I’m left unconvinced that the potential benefits of research like Vaillancourt’s—or the numerous other published studies on female competitive behavior, social aggression and why women make terrible bosses—outweigh the negatives of handing incriminating statistics about women to haters on a silver (and scientifically-backed) platter.
Last night over drinks I toyed with this same question. Do I see my friend’s founder fallout as a catfight because women are socially aggressive bitches by nature and so that’s simply the way it went down? Or am I imagining it that way because I have so many social, cultural and scientific touch points that tell me that’s the truth?
And worse, if I were to write their story, would I be doing women a disservice by calling it how I see it?
But enough about me. What do you think? Should the (admittedly sometimes true) bad behavior of women be studied and publicized in hopes it helps us mend our bitchy (and supposedly evolutionarily-rooted) ways? Or by lending gravitas to these uncomfortable truths are we doing more harm than good?
Talk to me on Twitter @Meg_Casserly
