Why is it always women who are accused of careerism?
I am not going to name names, that wouldn’t be fair. But I am fed up with people accusing prominent female activists of being careerists.
It might just be that I’ve noticed it more, but in the last few months alone I can think of a number of times in which someone has said to me that one of the prominent woman in one of the various progressive organisations I’m involved with is ‘a bit of a careerist’, or insinuated such.
In the same period, I don’t remember anyone saying this to me about a man. Now, this isn’t a scientific study, and it could well just be coincidence. But I don’t think it is. So, here are a few thoughts in response.
When we say ‘careerist’, I take this to mean they are seeking a career within the movement – whether in elected politics, or as a journalist, or working for an NGO. More to the point, there is an assumption that they are willing to put their career before what’s best for the movement. Clearly there is no implication that they are only interested in money or power – it would be easier to be a banker or a Blairite. The accusation is that they seem a bit too keen on these things.
Why would people accuse women of this more often than men? It seems to me that there are three reasons.
First, we are not used to seeing women being personally ambitious. Everyone has an ego – some display it flamboyantly, some hide it away, but we all have one. Men are encouraged to display ours. Women aren’t. So when women do, we notice it.
I suspect that, subconsciously, we are brought up to find it a little more distasteful when we perceive women to be looking out for their careers. In this sense, calling a woman ‘careerist’ is a little bit like calling her ‘a slut’. When men are promiscuous, famously, people don’t really mind. When women are, society frowns on them. The role of the woman, we are brought up to believe, is the loyal wife, the loving mother. Promiscuity is a challenge to that, as is the ambition to have a career.
Of course, in most types of career, people accept that their socially constructed discomfort at women’s ambition is sexist, and so they don’t openly express it – or even admit it to them(our)selves. They(we) just find every possible back channel through which to discriminate, whilst convincing them(our)selves that they are in favour of equality. But in the context of left activism and politics, where careerism is generally seen as a bad thing, the distaste at women being ambitious or successful can be masked in the general distaste of ambition and success. We are to careerism what the Catholic church is to promiscuity: because we theoretiaclly object to it in all cases, it’s OK to cricise women for it in particular.
This is perhaps accentuated by the ways women are pushed to behave. In order to have a career in, well, anything, women need to work harder at it than men do, and perhaps to be more ‘competative’. Given that careerism is an accusation levied as a result not of success, but of visible effort, it is no surprise that women are seen to work harder. If you wish to have a job doing what you love, and what you love is your political activism, and if you happen to be a woman, then you probably do need to work harder at securing and keeping that job than does a man. And so you are more likely to be seen to be working for your own career.
Whatever the reason, it is a dangerous trait. If we throw rocks at women who seek leadership positions, or who stumble into them, or who become prominent for whatever reason, how will we ever get enough women in leadership positions?
People with angina who take labetalol should not
stop taking the drug suddenly; instead, they should gradually taper off use over a period of a week or two.
Unexplained hair loss should always be checked
out by your doctor to determine if any of these factors apply.
-Butterfly-shaped rash (malar rash) on the face that covers the cheeks and bridge of the nose.
my web site – lupus natural cures
Careerism applies to both sexes and I make no distinction. Most parties are riddled with it. Usually well-to-do types who dominate discussions, debates and the party structure and end up as candidates and part of the party furniture. There is no room for you if you disagree with them. People groomed for the top from their early school or university days. And they know it.
Much as you’ll hate it, there are probably one or two here.
hmmm this is a hard one i never noticed any gender bias in the use of that term and the people i most suspected of it in recent years were men. i think that on the left people shouldnt really serve more than two or three terms in prominent electoral positions that would really root out carearists and stengthen the movement. i have to say i find it impossible to think of leftists who work for the guardian and independent as anything other than carearists. than doesnt meean they are bad people just that they work for the corporate press and so cant be trusted one hundred per cent.
Perhaps we’re just used to men being self centred, egotistical (insert rude word here) whereas we’re tend to look to women to be more collegiate and nurturing.
The underlying point however is that careerists, male or female, tend to miss the point of leadership – it’s shoudn’t be all about them, it’s should be about everyone else. One only needs to look at our largest political parties to see what those who put personal ambition and belief above the needs of the whole did to the organisations they led.
Thatcher’s dominance and singlemindedness may have delivered three election victories but it meant that the Tories failed to bring forward a new generation of credible figures and spent years in opposition (and even in government only managed to secure just over a third of the vote.
Oh, sorry, and, Darcy, on your longer point – yes, I agree. I am not saying that there is no such thing as careerism, and I am not saying that it isn’t a bad thing. It’s just that, in my experience, women seem to be more accused of it than men, and that raises a flag for me.
I think I have the opposite experience. Of the few times in lefty circles I’ve heard it used, it’s always been towards a man. It’s much more often used for Blairites, though.
Darcy, indeed – I think it is wrong to accuse most of the Blairites I know of being careerist – it is just that they are genuinely *that* right wing. I just mean that the easiest way to get a political career is as a centrist.
PS I think even Blairites (and most people) believe they are are motivated by more than money and glory!
Adam, I think you define out what’s really at issue here. Is careerism merely wanting to work, perhaps in an evolving way, in a certain field? For me, ‘careerism’ is more than this. It is about the fetishisation of the ‘career’, and its ‘advancement’, both prioritised over and abstracted from the specific work at hand.
Whether this is incompatible with the spirit and principles of activism will vary depending on the sort of activism. However careerism seems to me to be, by definition, not motivated by that spirit or those principles – but, again, by the advancement of an abstracted sense of ‘career’.
I also don’t think it’s as simple as saying that if people were only in it for money and glory they would be Blairites, so clearly people involved in leftwing or green or whatever activism are in it for some more principled reasons. The abstraction of the career does imply that careerism could be fulfilled in some other line of work. But this is combined with all sorts of things including the individual’s ideas about and access to different forms of careers, money and glory.
This is not to say that ‘activists’ shouldn’t pursue fulfilling lives, including fulfilling jobs. In fact, this is a central principle of my activism! But I do think there is an important distinction to be made between ‘careerist’ and ‘wanting to work in x field’.
This is also not to say that there is no sexism at play in perceptions of female activists. Rather, I don’t think we should conflate the two issues. We should absolutely challenge sexism wherever we find it, but we shouldn’t ditch (or celebrate) the notion of ‘careerism’ in the process.
Good article. I think it also applies to ‘feminism’ as a movement. People who are usually fairly good at seeing how movements are distorted by the media often still criticise feminism in particular for selling-out and being ‘all about equal pay for ceos’ etc.
I have generally heard it more commonly attached to women as a negative. But also heard it more and more attached to young activists in organisations too.