Is Marissa Mayer, Yahoo's new (and six months pregnant!) CEO, a feminist trailblazer if she doesn't want to be one?
Just when we'd finally determined that women can't have it all, 37-year-old Mayer announced her new role as President and CEO of Yahoo — and soon-to-be mother. A pregnant CEO of a Fortune 500 company? That would have seemed unfathomable a generation ago. (And, unsurprisingly, still seems impossible for some.)
But although Mayer, who was Google's first female engineer, is only the 20th female CEO of a Fortune 500 company, she doesn't think the feminist movement contributed to her rise to the top of the tech world. In fact, she doesn't even consider herself a feminist. As she told the PBS-AOL series "Makers":
"I don't think that I would consider myself a feminist. I think that I certainly believe in equal rights, I believe that women are just as capable, if not more so in a lot of different dimensions, but I don't, I think have, sort of, the militant drive and the sort of, the chip on the shoulder that sometimes comes with that. And I think it's too bad, but I do think that feminism has become in many ways a more negative word. You know, there are amazing opportunities all over the world for women, and I think that there is more good that comes out of positive energy around that than comes out of negative energy."
Many writers who do consider themselves feminists are understandably disappointed and angry that Mayer could be so ignorant about the movement unarguably responsible for her success. "In a world where a hiring decision like this one is momentous, groundbreaking, trailblazing news, being a feminist is not having a chip on your shoulder. It is simply an awareness of reality," wrote Feministing's Chloe Angyal. "Marissa, it is too bad that feminism has become a negative word. You know what's also too bad? Your failure to acknowledge that without feminism, you could never have become the CEO of Yahoo."
Over at Salon, Joan Walsh noted that, while Ann-Marie Slaughter blamed feminism for being too "positive" and thus dishonest about the struggle between career and family life, "Mayer, who takes that right for granted, blames feminism for being too negative. Where is this feminist Borg they speak of? There are as many versions of feminism as there are women. Leave feminism alone!"
At first I felt like Mayer's dismissal of feminism was disappointing but not the biggest deal; after all, 71% of American women don't identify as feminist, a statistic Caitlin Moran touches upon in How To Be a Woman, her UK bestseller which just came out in the US. "What part of ‘liberation for women' is not for you?" she asks. "Is it freedom to vote? The right not to be owned by the man you marry? ‘Vogue' by Madonna? Jeans? Did all that good shit GET ON YOUR NERVES? Or were you just DRUNK AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY?"
So what part of the feminist movement isn't for Mayer? Is she loath to call herself a feminist because she wants to be taken seriously by her mostly male peers? (Who, it should be noted, are never asked by journalists if they are feminists.) It's frustrating that Mayer doesn't want to proudly proclaim herself a feminist, but getting riled up about her unwillingness to "thank" her foremothers kind of proves her "chip on their shoulder" point. As Susan B. Anthony once said, "Our job is not to make young women grateful. It's to make them ungrateful."
However, the Makers' interview wasn't the first time Mayer distanced herself from feminism; she once told Slate that she was "much less worried about adjusting the percentage [of women in the industry] than about growing the overall pie.… We are not producing enough men or women who know how to program." This, to me, is shittier than propagating hurtful feminist stereotypes — and that's what we should be angry about, instead of getting all butt-hurt that she doesn't want to be one of us. We can't force Mayer to identify with the feminist movement, but it's irresponsible for her to pretend that equality for women in tech isn't still a huge issue.
The goal of the movement is equal opportunity, not gratitude, and actions speak louder than words. There are tons of female anti-choice leaders like Sarah Palin who love calling themselves feminists, which bothers me way more than women like Mayer who shun the term; I'd pick a "non-feminist" Marissa Mayer over Palin as a role model any day. But I think that now's the time for Mayer to accept that she's a role model for women whether she likes it or not, and her words have real power to make a difference in terms of the women who want to follow in her footsteps, self-described feminists or otherwise.
The New York Times' Claire Cain Miller wrote that it "was a good day for women in Silicon Valley — and women in business everywhere" when Marissa Mayer became Yahoo's CEO and announced her pregnancy, but that the news is a "blip" since:
There remain distressingly few women among Silicon Valley engineers, start-up entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and computer science and engineering majors, for reasons including the technology industry's girl-repelling image problem, the tiny number of powerful women role models and the insular Silicon Valley deal-making boys' club.
Miller believes that Mayer's two new roles "mean that Silicon Valley, the heart of American innovation, could become the place where a more progressive attitude toward women and work takes root" and that "whether or not it's fair to talk about her pregnancy in the same breath as her new job, it's a chance to figure out how Yahoo and other Silicon Valley companies can make sure that women at every level have the same chance to prosper both professionally and personally." She concludes that "This is an opportunity."
She's right; it's a huge opportunity. But Mayer needs to accept that she's not just one of the boys and therefore has a responsibility to acknowledge that her rise to the top is noteworthy. You can choose whether to use the word "feminist," but you don't get to choose whether to be a feminist role model.
I suppose it sucks to be scrutinized at every turn, but I find this way more deserving of censure than taking less maternity leave or working through it.
i'm sad to think that she apparently associates "feminist" with buzz cuts and man hating, but i think she is because, um "I think that I certainly believe in equal rights, I believe that women are just as capable, if not more so in a lot of different dimensions" sounds pretty damn feminist to me. this is the kind of thing women say that makes me eyeroll them. while i care how she labels herself and am sad, i mainly give a shit that she's worked her way up at google to the point where she was seen as the right person to take over yahoo, despite her ovaries.
i don't give a shit how long she's on maternity leave or what she does during it. this new job isn't a "job", it's leading a gigantic company. her leave has nothing to do with my leave, only a fool would think that a CEO--what do new CEOs get now, max, to prove themselves? 6 months? a year?--would cut down any of her precious time NOT to get fired to spend 12 weeks at home not working. she can be an amazing mother and kickass CEO and not take lots of leave.
"I don't think that I would consider myself a feminist. I think that I certainly believe in equal rights, I believe that women are just as capable, if not more so in a lot of different dimensions, but I don't, I think have, sort of, the militant drive and the sort of, the chip on the shoulder that sometimes comes with that. And I think it's too bad, but I do think that feminism has become in many ways a more negative word. You know, there are amazing opportunities all over the world for women, and I think that there is more good that comes out of positive energy around that than comes out of negative energy."
Well yeah, it becomes a negative word if you associate words like 'militant' and 'chip on the shoulder' with it. You know. Like she just did.
I don't really care that she doesn't want to call herself a feminist. I do care that she defined feminism the way that she did and rejected feminism based on that definition.
Post by downtoearth on Jul 19, 2012 11:10:48 GMT -5
I still hope her success and am surprised she wasn't more prepared for a question like this since she is one of only 20 women going to be leading Fortune 500 companies.
I secretly hope she has a girl. You know one of those stong-minded, smart types that advocates through her life and actions for "social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men"...oh yeah, is that a feminist?
And suddenly, I want to make sweet sweet love to Marissa Mayer.
I think it's really quite hard to argue, as many on this board have, that the definition of feminism is much more than the idea that men and women have equal rights---that it's about empowerment and victimization of all people--- then tie every action, cause, and issue back to feminism, women, and how we are still so maligned, then get all up in arms when some don't want to be attached to the movement. Such thinking is militant. And it does leave a big chip on ones shoulder.
No where does Marissa say that feminists are buzz cut man-haters. No where does she say that she doesn't want to be a role model for women. These comments are all hyperbole. Not wanting to be thought of as a feminist has nothing to do with not being thankful for the efforts of women who came before, but there are some (like me, and apparently like Marissa) that feel that yourself as capable as anyone else in what every you choose to do is the best way to appreciate the movements accomplishments.
Perhaps if we could get back to the more fundamental definition of feminism, rather than this over-blown, over empowered franken-theory where women become victims, martyrs and much MORE important than men, people like Marissa would have less issue with the label.
she once told Slate that she was "much less worried about adjusting the percentage [of women in the industry] than about growing the overall pie.… We are not producing enough men or women who know how to program."
This is true, though. We aren't turning out enough men and women who know how to program. That's why jobs are being fucking outsourced to countries where they ARE. This past summer my alma mater graduated TWO PEOPLE with a BS in Computer Science. TWO!
There remain distressingly few women among Silicon Valley engineers, start-up entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and computer science and engineering majors, for reasons including the technology industry's girl-repelling image problem, the tiny number of powerful women role models and the insular Silicon Valley deal-making boys' club.
This is also true. And obviously if make an effort to get more women to go into the industry, more of them will start rise to the top. But this starts in KINDERGARTEN, not in high school and sure as shit not in college, by encouraging young girls to pursue math and science. By not continuing the fucking stereotypes that girls are bad at that sort of thing.
But Mayer needs to accept that she's not just one of the boys and therefore has a responsibility to acknowledge that her rise to the top is noteworthy.
The difficulty here is that Mayer rose to the top BY pretending to be one of the boys. That's what you fucking do when you're a woman with a Computer Science degree who wants to move up in this industry. You play by the rules or you get run over. And that's not going to change until we address the two prior issues.
It annoys me that she's being held up to some standard that a male CEO never would. It especially annoys me that it is mainly coming from other women.
Agreed.
And I wonder if that frustration isn't where her opinions are coming from.
Bingo. I'm thinking she has a problem with the kind of feminism that has random Internet strangers wanting to slap her for determining her own schedule post-baby.
Oh. And. I think it's a bit rich to expect MM to define a word that over 70% of american women apparently have a negative opinion of.
I fixed that for you...it's not a new definition, it's just "defining it" b/c like you said, it's the connotation that people disassociate with not the definition. MM actually said and agreed with the definition => "equal rights." Doesn't matter if she doesn't think she's a feminist to me - she defined it as her befief in her quote, so I think it's okay to label her as such.
And I wonder if that frustration isn't where her opinions are coming from.
Bingo. I'm thinking she has a problem with the kind of feminism that has random Internet strangers wanting to slap her for determining her own schedule post-baby.
On the other hand, if you've been able to achieve goals that just wouldn't have been an option without the efforts of the women's movement over the last 100 years--and especially 50 years--don't you owe it to the movement and to women still struggling to give it some props?
Just like Obama would have looked like a real assface if he'd never acknowledged his position historically and the debt he had to the civil rights movement, MM looks like a real assface here. To me.
But I also think surrendering the label "feminist" to the redefinitions of misogynist fucks is a lame cop-out for women to make, even if that includes 70% of my compatriots.
ETA: It'd be different if we'd achieved equality, if congress looked totally different, etc. In that case, no you don't have to constantly nod at history. But we're still in the thick of the women's movement, which is made evident by the fact that MM's rise to CEO is even news.
When this issue broke, I was very irritated that she was being held up as a role model when she's obviously not representative of the typical American woman. But I didn't like all the judgment against her, either. It's her life, and she shouldn't have to stay home for six weeks just to buttress liberal arguments for family leave. She's a person, not a symbol.
I find fault with the way that feminism has been portrayed in recent decades, so I was not very bothered with the article. I don't feel like she has to take a certain stand on issues because of the historical importance of the feminist movement any more than I think that I have to love and embrace our union because of the historical work of unions through the years.
Bingo. I'm thinking she has a problem with the kind of feminism that has random Internet strangers wanting to slap her for determining her own schedule post-baby.
On the other hand, if you've been able to achieve goals that just wouldn't have been an option without the efforts of the women's movement over the last 100 years--and especially 50 years--don't you owe it to the movement and to women still struggling to give it some props?
Just like Obama would have looked like a real assface if he'd never acknowledged his position historically and the debt he had to the civil rights movement, MM looks like a real assface here. To me.
But I also think surrendering the label "feminist" to the redefinitions of misogynist fucks is a lame cop-out for women to make, even if that includes 70% of my compatriots.
ETA: It'd be different if we'd achieved equality, if congress looked totally different, etc. In that case, no you don't have to constantly nod at history. But we're still in the thick of the women's movement, which is made evident by the fact that MM's rise to CEO is even news.
One with penis chiming in: I don't think she should feel very oblitated to thank the movement with words considering she thanked them, rather loudly, with her actions. I can see why some would like it if she did, but really. She should be seen as a template - as the results of the moment - not someone that should be compelled to look back in gratitude while she's doing so well looking forward... as, my penis imagines, is kind of what the whole point of my view of Feminism is.
I fixed that for you...it's not a new definition, it's just "defining it" b/c like you said, it's the connotation that people disassociate with not the definition. MM actually said and agreed with the definition => "equal rights." Doesn't matter if she doesn't think she's a feminist to me - she defined it as her befief in her quote, so I think it's okay to label her as such.
I'm sorry but why does she need to be labeled as anything? Let's look at the real reason this is a high profile news story in Two Thousand Twelve.
Let's look at why we're nearly a century from when women received the right to vote in this country and MM's the 20th female CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
Let's look at why this country STILL balks at the idea of a female president when PAKISTAN, for example, had a woman prime minister nearly twenty years ago.
Because the two are absolutely connected. This isn't just a tech industry problem. It's not even a problem with the definition or connotation of a word, as much as people love to get all shriek-y about it. Those things are just surface ripples of a much larger, much deeper problem this country has.
And anyone who thinks otherwise is missing the forest for the trees. This whole dialog about MM is a smoke screen and it's starting to piss me off.
Just like Obama would have looked like a real assface if he'd never acknowledged his position historically and the debt he had to the civil rights movement, MM looks like a real assface here. To me.
I'm not sure where you're getting that she's not acknowledging the role of feminism in her success. She's simply connecting with and thanking many aspects of feminism while rejecting or bristling under the notion that she has to fall in line with every single thought ever associated with feminism.
To me, this would be like lambasting Obama for thanking the civil rights movement but voicing frustration with the Black Panthers.
And I wonder if that frustration isn't where her opinions are coming from.
Bingo. I'm thinking she has a problem with the kind of feminism that has random Internet strangers wanting to slap her for determining her own schedule post-baby.
Bingo. I'm thinking she has a problem with the kind of feminism that has random Internet strangers wanting to slap her for determining her own schedule post-baby.
Yup, this.
Tritto. And, why does every women who has a success of this nature have to say "I am a feminist"? Cant it just be implied? Do I have to do so when I receive my doctorate? If so, I need to add it to my list of things to thank.
hyperbole ON THE NOTNEST?!?!?!?! i've never heard of such a thing. EV-AH.
i'm disappointed that she has what i perceive to be feminist views and does not want to call herself a feminist because of, in her own words, the "negative" "militant" connotations. i want to take "feminist" back, like i guess we all decided we could take "bitch" back in 1987.
i think it's ridiculous that she's even asked the question, and i can certainly sympathize with a woman taking on an already fraught job (while pregnant), resulting her her being thrust into the role of female icon, wanting to redirect the conversation.
But I also think surrendering the label "feminist" to the redefinitions of misogynist fucks is a lame cop-out for women to make, even if that includes 70% of my compatriots.
BTW, this sort of comment is why some women rebuff the term feminist. It isn't "surrendering redefinitions to misogynist fucks" it's feminists claiming that any negative connotation to the cause is due to misogynist fucks. It's not. You can disagree about how women are viewed/treated/act without hating them. A difference of opinion does not equal hatred. The biggest issue I have with the current state of feminism is that it seems very derisive and "if you ain't with us, you against us" and that does nothing to help equality at all.
Also, I absolutely agree with HaB on the civil rights/black panther comparison. To infer that because Mayer doesn't identify with the current state of feminism doesn't at all mean she doesn't appreciate the movements historic accomplishments that helped her get where she is today.
But I also think surrendering the label "feminist" to the redefinitions of misogynist fucks is a lame cop-out for women to make, even if that includes 70% of my compatriots.
BTW, this sort of comment is why some women rebuff the term feminist. It isn't "surrendering redefinitions to misogynist fucks" it's feminists claiming that any negative connotation to the cause is due to misogynist fucks. It's not. You can disagree about how women are viewed/treated/act without hating them. A difference of opinion does not equal hatred. The biggest issue I have with the current state of feminism is that it seems very derisive and "if you ain't with us, you against us" and that does nothing to help equality at all.
Also, I absolutely agree with HaB on the civil rights/black panther comparison. To infer that because Mayer doesn't identify with the current state of feminism doesn't at all mean she doesn't appreciate the movements historic accomplishments that helped her get where she is today.
And suddenly, I want to make sweet sweet love to Marissa Mayer.
I think it's really quite hard to argue, as many on this board have, that the definition of feminism is much more than the idea that men and women have equal rights---that it's about empowerment and victimization of all people--- then tie every action, cause, and issue back to feminism, women, and how we are still so maligned, then get all up in arms when some don't want to be attached to the movement. Such thinking is militant. And it does leave a big chip on ones shoulder.
No where does Marissa say that feminists are buzz cut man-haters. No where does she say that she doesn't want to be a role model for women. These comments are all hyperbole. Not wanting to be thought of as a feminist has nothing to do with not being thankful for the efforts of women who came before, but there are some (like me, and apparently like Marissa) that feel that yourself as capable as anyone else in what every you choose to do is the best way to appreciate the movements accomplishments.
Perhaps if we could get back to the more fundamental definition of feminism, rather than this over-blown, over empowered franken-theory where women become victims, martyrs and much MORE important than men, people like Marissa would have less issue with the label.
And suddenly, I want to make sweet sweet love to Marissa Mayer.
I think it's really quite hard to argue, as many on this board have, that the definition of feminism is much more than the idea that men and women have equal rights---that it's about empowerment and victimization of all people--- then tie every action, cause, and issue back to feminism, women, and how we are still so maligned, then get all up in arms when some don't want to be attached to the movement. Such thinking is militant. And it does leave a big chip on ones shoulder.
No where does Marissa say that feminists are buzz cut man-haters. No where does she say that she doesn't want to be a role model for women. These comments are all hyperbole. Not wanting to be thought of as a feminist has nothing to do with not being thankful for the efforts of women who came before, but there are some (like me, and apparently like Marissa) that feel that yourself as capable as anyone else in what every you choose to do is the best way to appreciate the movements accomplishments.
Perhaps if we could get back to the more fundamental definition of feminism, rather than this over-blown, over empowered franken-theory where women become victims, martyrs and much MORE important than men, people like Marissa would have less issue with the label.
You know, I don't much care about flippant opinions on my character when it's seen as negative, and I certainly don't need a patronizing pat on the back when I've performed to expectations. I appreciate that I'm seemingly agreed with here, but why not just say that, rather than call me out for a decidedly normal Emmy response?