Women, know your limits: Cultural sexism in academia

Despite the considerable advances of the feminist movement across Western societies, in Universities women are less likely to be promoted, or paid as much as their male colleagues, or even get jobs in the first place. One way in which we can start to reflect on why this might be the case is through hearing the experiences of women academics themselves. Using feminist methodology, this article attempts to unpack and explore just some examples of ‘cultural sexism’ which characterise the working lives of many women in British academia.This article uses qualitative methods to describe and make sense of just some of those experiences. In so doing, the argument is also made that the activity of academia is profoundly gendered and this explicit acknowledgement may contribute to our understanding of the under-representation of women in senior positions

Learning from leading women's experience:towards a sociological understanding

Conceptions of leadership draw largely on the leadership experiences of a limited population, and of those in a restricted range of organizational settings. This article begins to address some of these biases by examining the experiences of six leading women in differing sectors. In researching the `how' of leadership there emerges a web of four inter-related factors that connects these leaders to their community and that plays a foundational role in their lives: upbringing, environment, focus and networks and alliances. The ways in which leadership is experienced and constructed by women, the article therefore argues, can be made more sense of through a sociological lens, and raises questions about how tendencies in research sites lead to gendered and individualistic understandings of leadership. In illuminating the need to make the distinction between representations of leadership and our experience of leadership, the article concludes that leadership is not just about leading people, but is often pioneering and can include the leadership of ideas, communities, and the representation of issue

Transforming masculinist political cultures? Doing politics in new political institutions

In the devolved legislative assemblies of Scotland and Wales the proportion of women representatives is approaching parity. This is in marked contrast to Westminster where one in five MPs are women. In this paper we explore the extent to which the masculinist political cultures characterising established political institutions are being reproduced in the National Assembly for Wales or whether its different gendering, both in the numbers of women representatives and in terms of its institutional framework, is associated with a more feminised political and organisational culture. Drawing on interviews with half the Assembly Members, women and men, we show that the political style of the Assembly differs from that of Westminster and that Assembly Members perceive it as being more consensual and as embodying a less aggressive and macho way of doing politics. AMs relate this difference to the gender parity amongst Assembly Members, to the institutional arrangements which have an 'absolute duty' to promote equality embedded in them, and to the desire to develop a different way of doing politics. We suggest that the ability to do politics in a more feminised and consensual way relates not only to the presence of a significant proportion of women representatives, but also to the nature of the institution and the way in which differently gendered processes and practices are embedded within it. Differently gendered political institutions can develop a more feminised political culture which provides an alternative to the masculinist political culture characterising the political domain

Queen bees, wannabees and afraid to be bees: no more "best enemies" for women in management

There is a lack of research that problematizes solidarity behaviour and the Queen Bee label for women in management. Few studies contextualize the propensity for women to support each other to reach senior management or surface the shadow side of relationships between women in management. Underpinning assumptions of solidarity behaviour and Queen Bee focus upon individual women's behaviour. Neither questions whether women are enabled 'natural allies'. It is assumed that women align themselves with women; in senior management women are responsible for the 'women in management mantle', and when they do not conform they are pejoratively labelled Queen Bees. Queen Bee 'blames' women for not supporting each other, constructs women as out of place in senior management and maintains a gendered status quo. This article provides a conceptual critique of solidarity behaviour and the Queen Bee as labels researchers and the popular media attach to women's behaviour in organizations. The aim is to challenge assumptions and inherent contradictions and highlight the negative impact of the sexist Queen Bee label, prompting us to reflexively question and challenge our own assumptions about solidarity behaviour and use of the Queen Bee label, to prevent unrealistic expectations of senior women and continued pejorative construction of women in management