A rant about how society recognises talent
Clay Shirky’s “rant about women” has been on my mind this weekend. Although the blog post is intended to advice women on how to become more successful, there’s something about it that made me feel very uneasy.
Clay’s rant about women begins with his former male student’s request for a recommendation. Clay asks the student to write down what he thinks Clay should say about him. The student returns with his draft peppered with praise, which Clay then tones down a notch “…so that it sounds like it’s coming from a person and not a PR department” before sending it off.
Right. If you ask me, this whole practice of writing your own letter of recommendation is dodgy, but that’s entirely another discussion.
Having signed the letter, Clay is left feeling annoyed. The interesting bit is that he’s not annoyed at himself for getting into this situation, or the student in question for being cheeky – no, he’s upset at us women.
Hang on. “What have we done to get the pointy finger?” I thought to myself reading this. Apparently it is not what we’ve done, it’s what we haven’t done, or will not do. Women, he says, would never write a letter overstating their abilities. And that’s because…
… not enough women have what it takes to behave like arrogant self-aggrandizing jerks. It’s not that women will be better off being con artists; a lot of con artists aren’t better off being con artists either. It’s just that until women have role models who are willing to risk incarceration to get ahead, they’ll miss out on channelling smaller amounts of self-promoting con artistry to get what they want, and if they can’t do that, they’ll get less of what they want than they want.
Clay admire the con artists. Why? Because a risk taker have bigger wins than those who are not. But they also fall harder. With a touch of admiration he mentions David Hampton who pretended he was Sydney Poitier’s son to make people give him money, but also points to the fact that these kinds of lies are not sustainable for long and inevitably lead to failure and “jail”. It’s the risks we can live up to Clay promote: ‘harmless con artistry’, such as lying about your skills in an interview.
It’s just that until women have role models who are willing to risk incarceration to get ahead, they’ll miss out on channelling smaller amounts of self-promoting con artistry to get what they want, and if they can’t do that, they’ll get less of what they want than they want.
I’m left with the feeling that until women dare being like men, we’re simply mediocre.
This is why I felt upset after reading Clay’s post. I too agree that being able to speak up for yourself or promote yourself is desirable & necessary qualities. Being able to say “I’m proud of my work” is crucial for someone who wants to advance in their career. It’s just that I fail to see how ‘con artistry’ solves what I think is the real problem:
How do we recognize real talent, accomplishment, skills and ambition fairly?
We’re not getting anywhere by favoring ‘male’ nor ‘female’ behavior. If at all possible, the only way forward is to kill the idea that one of the two sexes is more successful or more right in their actions than the other: Women’s effort and work will never be recognized fairly in society, in the arts or at the work place until we accept the ridiculously simple thought that women should not have to become men in order to be successful.
I’m going to put my hand up and say what I feel: I want to be great and I want to be me. I’d rather not have to become a “Moustache McMasculine” to succeed.
Clay, your rant is not really about women – you’re not annoyed about women’s behavior. You’re annoyed at one student overstating his abilities and upset that you’ve signed a letter that’s not entirely reflective of the truth. And perhaps you realize that by supporting this behavior, you’re part of a culture that is so difficult to change.
11 comments
Clay Shirky is a highly talented troll. He even managed to flush Tom Coates out into the open. Otherwise, I’m not sure his rant deserves further attention.
Excellent post, Elin. Let’s hope we can collectively breathe a little sense back into these sorts of discussion!
Well said — especially that last paragraph. Thanks.
I have to respectfully disagree with your take on Clay’s post. It seems you missed his point, and added some of your own in between.
I didn’t see any language in Clay’s post about him being “upset” with women, or saying that they are in any way inferior, just that the behavior they do (or don’t) engage in doesn’t open as many doors as the self aggrandizing behavior that men are more apt to engage in. That’s all. There’s no “upset”, in fact there is much language about his “worry” for women who are equally as deserving but won’t speak up for themselves, and thus get passed over. The genie that stays in the bottle never grants any wishes, and it doesn’t help if YOU know you’re good in your own head but never tell anyone.
I myself teach musicians and run into a very similar problem, and yes it breaks down on gender lines as well. The males tend to enter more contests, they perform more, they volunteer for more things, they generally put themselves out there, so they get noticed and they get asked to play more. Is it ONLY men who do and ONLY women who do not? No, but it’s significant enough to concern me, and should concern you as well.
You ask “how do we recognize real talent, accomplishment, skills and ambition fairly?” but how do you first measure such intangible things? Often we are measured on the grounds that we just get the job done, and you can’t get the job if you don’t open some doors. Clay makes a great point that more men put themselves out there and open more doors, by any means possible, and they get farther because of it. That’s the begin all and end all of the argument, reading more into that is dishonest and could be seen as self-serving.
And I have to disagree with the other commenter about your last paragraph. It projects your own uncomfortableness with the letter of recommendation situation on to Clay and then dismisses his entire point because of your discomfort. He made a good point, I would hope that you can see beyond your offense and see how that point can make things better, because being honest and recognizing this as a real issue will go a long way to producing the recognition of real talent and accomplishment that you desire.
Hi Ace!
Clay’s post has sparked a lot of disagreement. I don’t think I’ve missed his point, nor do I think Clay intends to discriminate against women.
I’m not sure if you missed the title of his blog post? “A rant about women”. I’ve yet to experience ‘rants’ coming from people who are not upset.
My blog post is a response to his worry. I too think Clay wants to show concern for women, and wish for us to get noticed. I just don’t agree with him when he promotes lies and loudness as the best way to achieve this – to be perceived as skilled, great, talented, more qualified.
Yes, I see that society works this way. I am not entirely naive. But is it not time that we raise the question: Is this how society SHOULD work?
If it is, then why did Clay feel upset when his student overstated his abilities?
We have to realize that people ARE different. Not all people have it in themselves to raise their voices and shriek ME ME ME. Should we then sit back and say hey, that’s life, or should we use our intelligence to try to see through the bluff? What’s a better result in the end? Do we not need a bit of diversity?
I am lucky to have plenty of men around me who do not raise their voice, do not promote themselves at all times, and do not lie about their abilities. They don’t need to, because they’re not insecure. They create peaceful work environments where you don’t have to worry about your colleagues getting better opportunities and more attention. You don’t have to worry about anything but collaborate, get better at what you do and deliver great work. And surprise surprise… they are extremely successful.
I’ve also been in places where some people use all the dirty tactics they can and would climb over dead bodies to get attention. In those scenarios, the work delivered has always been mediocre.
It’s interesting that you mention music as an example. I played the trombone in brass bands in the past – I NEVER had to brag about myself or lie about myself to get ahead. As a musician, you’re either shit or great – and you can’t lie about it, because when you pick up the horn to play, you have nowhere to hide. Nowhere.
I’ve been a music teacher too. In that role, it was my job to nurture and support talent, regardless of sex. If someone isn’t brave enough to take the next step on their own, it is YOUR job to help them gain this confidence, or assess if they’re not really serious or ambitious enough about what they do. Don’t confuse ambition with lying and cheating.
Question to you, though. You’ve chosen to comment under a pseudonym. Are you afraid of putting yourself out there?
It’s also kind of hilarious that Ace used music as an example as that’s where some of the best evidence of explicit gender-based discrimination in hiring has come from, due to orchestras moving to blind auditions in the 70′s and 80′s: http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/5903.html
http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/5903.html
-Leigh
Indeed!
:)
I totally agree with your point, but I am not so sure that Shirky would not agree with it either – after all he admits that he does not know what to do about it and the rant is more a statement of fact than a prescription.
Nice post Elin! I think Clay’s post touched such a nerve because on the one hand, there is a truth to it. Without wanting to stereotype, women do seem to be generally less comfortable with self-promotion than men. Which is a big and thorny enough question without bringing in the added problem of self-promotion without substance-it just seems to muddy the waters.
On the one hand no organisation can thrive where everyone is simply interested in their own PR. And naked self-interest seems to mitigate against so many of the values we find increasingly important for success: collaboration, generosity, open-ness, humility.
On the other hand women’s reluctance to say hey, look at me, I’m awesome can prevent them from progressing as quickly as more vocal counterparts. That can frustrate individuals and it doesn’t benefit corporate culture as a whole which remains relatively masculine as a result. So there’s a vicious circle at work to some extent. So what can those women who don’t feel comfortable self-promoting (and it makes me squirm) do about it?
To start with I think the social web does help us out here. I genuinely think the Blogosphere and Twittersphere have created some environments where women feel comfortable sharing ideas and where colleagues and peers (male and female) do collaborate together and are exceedingly generous with their thinking and with credit. So something is arguably changing.
Moreover, while we may not be comfortable with self-promotion, women are pretty damn good at peer-promotion….to finish where I started, Great post, Elin!
Thanks, Pats – and thanks for the link on your blog!
I’ve just stumbled across this study that confirms the view that this is a ‘social’ issue:
“This isn’t about fixing the women,” Bowles said. “It isn’t about telling women, ‘You need self-confidence or training.’ They are responding to incentives within the social environment.”
Read more here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900827.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900827.html
If Clay really wants to advance the careers of talented women, why doesn’t he simply adopt a policy of only writing reference letters for his female students?