Psychology Journal #1
Journal #1: Maxim. Cosmo. Playboy. Playgirl. Elle. Men’s Health. Vogue. These magazines spend millions of dollars researching the male/female mind so that they can market to it…to you. How well do you think that they understand the male or female psyche? Do you think that you fit in the average demographic to which they are marketing? Why or why not?
In this information age, we Americans have been increasingly raised by media moguls and advertising conglomorates. Behaviorism is alive and well in the marketing sector. The hypothesis that you can make anyone do anything has been tested and proven true time and time again. Marketing has been distilled to a science. Just as experimental psychologists research humans to answer questions about their behavior and mental processes, so to do marketing psychologist, using the same empirical processes. The only difference is the motivation for their research.
Consumer psychology targets consumers in general, then works to stratify the group into every marketable niche imaginable. Demographics are often constructed on the basis of age, sex, income, occupation and education. I’ve not one shred of doubt that my number has come up in countless consumer studies. Americans have been enculturated to doubt ourselves which causes us to perceive a need for products that will help us feel valid. The aforementioned magazines feed on this human tendency to feel unworthy. These publications market insider information that will put us ahead of the game and help us to stand out as a supreme mate.
Although I am not one to partake in such mindless reading, I must admit that from time to time I have been intrigued by some novel spin on fashion, a sexy tip list or an inspiring cover girl. Those millions of dollars have yielded results, the numbers prove the effectiveness of the marketing. That being said, it is my hope that as we evolve, an increasing number of individuals will realize that there is so much more possibility than these adverts with editorials offer.
Dear Economist: WTF? - GOOD Blog - GOOD »
GOOD Blog > Amanda M. Fairbanks on January 8, 2010 at 10:00 am PST
This week, The Economist looks at the progress that women the world over have made in the workplace. Answer: Some advancement, but still a ways to go. And then it reports the following as fact:
The cost of motherhood is particularly steep for fast-track women. Traditionally “female” jobs such as teaching mix well with motherhood because wages do not rise much with experience and hours are relatively light.
Image via
Geek-aversion May Explain Lack of Women in Computer Science - Best of Treehugger - GOOD »
Best of Treehugger > Nikhil Swaminathan on December 16, 2009 at 12:35 pm PST
A new study by University of Washington psychologists may help explain the dearth of women in the field of computer science. According to their findings, it may be the trappings associated with coding and troubleshooting that deter females, not the actual coding itself.
More specifically, it’s the geeky surroundings they find off-putting: the Star Trek posters, the junk food, gaming paraphernalia, the bras that CS dudes wear on their heads when they try to bring Barbie dolls to life, etc.
The scientists asked a group of male and female students a battery of questions to probe their interest in computer science while they sat in one of two rooms: one that was geeked-out and another that was not (decorated with art instead of sci-fi posters, dictionaries in place of computer games, and coffee mugs in lieu of soda cans). Women who answered the questions while sequestered in the room with the nerd motif were significantly less interested in programming when compared to women in the neutral room and men in either locale.
The study adds some color to the findings of a Cornell team that recently reported that the lack of women in advanced positions in math-related field was not due to ability. Rather,lifestyle concerns were largely responsible for the effect, though the Cornell team highlighted relative inflexibility of scientific fields as a barrier to women who want to start families. (I wonder if there is something about Star Wars figurines that screams “not conducive to child-rearing?)
Still, there’s something about the Washington study that bothers me: If the (relatively harmless) environment where a trade is practiced is enough to deter someone from pursuing something they’re interested in, how are we supposed to get more women into the field?
Photo by Sapna Cheryan, U. of Washington
Shout out to Andrew Price for pointing out the study.
Q&A with Gail Collins - When Everything Changed - Cosmopolitan.com »
Cosmo: It’s hard for our generation to imagine what it was like not to have equal rights (that’s what makes watching Mad Men so shocking at times!). If we take our rights for granted, do we risk losing them?
Gail: I think it’s important for people to know their own history, but not because there’s any danger that if we aren’t vigilant, Congress will repeal our right to have credit cards in our own names. This generation of women have their own challenges and problems.
Cosmo: What are the battles left to be won?
Gail: The top challenge is to join forces with women in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East who are fighting for equal rights. If you want to change the world, that’s the best possible way.
Cosmo: In your book, you mention the way television has mirrored the changes the country went through in regards to women, from That Girl to The Mary Tyler Moore Show to The Cosby Show. What TV show best describes the state of women in these times?
Gail: For the early part of the decade I might have said Gilmore Girls – it was so drenched in guys, career, single motherhood. I don’t know if I’ve got a good one for you now. I just hope it’s not Cougar Town or Gossip Girl.
Cosmo: Despite all improvements that have been made for working women, we still make 77 cents for each dollar men make. What do you think it will take to close this gap?
Gail: There are lots of reasons for that gap between men’s and women’s wages but to me, the big one is the work-family issue. Trying to juggle children and a job is tough under any circumstances, but especially if you’re shooting for the kind of career that involves long hours at work and being on call 24-7.
Cosmo: How have guys handled the career progress that women have made?
Gail: I think younger guys are mostly comfortable working with women as peers in business and having girlfriends who work and maybe make more money than they do.
Cosmo: In the book, you make several jokes about the fact that no matter how far women have come we still wear “silly, impractical shoes.” Many Cosmo readers (and editors) also wear Spanx and tights, which seem to be only a slightly more comfortable version of pantyhose and girdles. Has fashion played a role in the women’s movement?
Gail: When the women’s movement started in the 1960s, there was a vision of a future where women didn’t wear makeup or worry about how their hair looked, and everybody worse sensible, comfortable clothes. It ran into an absolute brick wall. The vast majority of women wanted a future in which they had equal rights, along with really cool clothes and great hair.
Cosmo: In your opinion, do people feel as sexually free now as they did during the sexual revolution? Do you think there will be another sexual revolution?
Gail: The sexual revolution of the late 1960s and early 1970s wasn’t just a time when we knocked over the old rules about women saving their virginity until they married. It was also a totally unique moment in which sex carried very little physical danger. There was one little window of worry-free sex, before the herpes plague, and before AIDS. So people went off to sex clubs and did whatever they wanted with as many people as they wanted without a care. We probably won’t ever experience anything like it again.
Cosmo: How have the unofficial “rules” of dating changed since 1960?
Gail: I think the “guy asks you out to dinner” dating was still a lot more common in the 1960s and 1970s than it is now. For all the talk about the sexual revolution, I think young women now are way more sophisticated about sex than we were back then.
Cosmo: Is it possible to get your boyfriend to see you as an equal and still expect him to hold the door and pay for dates?
Gail: That does sound perfect, doesn’t it? I know a lot of women feel strongly about having the guy pay, but I have to admit that it doesn’t seem totally fair — unless he’s got a lot more money.
Cosmo: What’s your advice for women who want to have an amazing career and a great relationship?
Gail: The key to success for any woman who wants to have a really serious career and a family is to marry a guy who is going to take at least half the responsibility for the house and kids – and sometimes more than half. When I read all those Victorian novels in which a woman’s entire happiness hinges on finding a suitable husband, I think well, in a weird way that’s still true.
Ms. CEO: A Rare Commodity : College Candy »
December 2, 2009 - 11:00 am By Melanie - Northeastern University
Working on Fifth Avenue at New York City is nothing short of glamorous. Every day, I walk to work on one of NYC’s most famous streets, cutting through Central park, walking by the Plaza, passing Saks and finally entering the headquarters of one of the largest beauty companies in the world to work on photoshoots and press kits while bumping into celebs (and their stylists) in the process.<
Finally being dropped into the “9-5” has me thinking a lot more about my future. What if I want to be the chief executive one day? How feasible is that? What would my income be?
Although it is possible for a woman to become a CEO, out of the “Fortune 500” (the USA’s 500 biggest publicly traded companies), only thirteen of those CEOs are female. That’s only 2.6%.
We’ve had our first female presidential and vice-presidential candidate in the past year and higher education for women is on the rise, yet women are still not holding top positions in companies. The cherry on top of all of this? Even the women who have managed to make their way to the top are still the worst paid out of all CEOs.
Aside from the incredible income disparities, the issue we should be focusing on is why women CEOs are such a rare commodity, not necessarily the size of the paychecks. In 2005, Sheila Wellington was interviewed by Anne Fisher (CNN Money) on this exact issue. Wellington was no stranger to gender discrimination; she was forced to sign an agreement when she accepted her first position after graduating from Radcliffe that stated that she must not get pregnant for at least her first two years.
Wellington went on to become the president of Catalyst, a non-profit research group and is now a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business. When confronted with the question of the lack of female executives, Wellington stated, “I think we are in the midst of a cycle right now where there is a widespread perception that women aren’t fully committed to their careers. It tends to happen every time the spotlight is on a high-ranking woman who flames out, like [former Hewlett-Packard CEO] Carly Fiorina. You start hearing all kinds of people analyzing ‘what women are doing wrong.’”
Wellington goes on to say that the corporate perception of women must alter before women can reach high levels. She blames sexist perceptions such as, “women don’t like to travel” or “women don’t take risks” as platitudes that cloud judgment when hiring female executives. The antiquated mindset that females won’t succeed because of familial obligations, emotional reactions, high drama and lack of critical thinking hinders women from succeeding. Don’t think those perceptions are still out there? Just ask Neil French who resigned as WPP Group worldwide creative director after saying women in advertising “don’t make it to the top because they don’t deserve to.” This sentiment is common according to Wellington.
Does this mean that I can’t become a CEO one day? Working for a Fortune 500 has pushed my desire to do just that. But when I do get that position, do I have to give up my femininity, desire to have a family in the future, penchant for emotional outbursts once in a while, and indulging in guilty pleasures like Gossip Girl? I think not. The mentality around females in executive positions needs to be changed, not the female executives themselves.
Once the archaic stereotypes of women have left the workplace, then companies will realize that women are valuable assets in executive positions. It’s up to Gen Y to break those stereotypes, put much more than just cracks in the glass ceiling and finally finish construction on that bridge to somewhere.
Notes: My thesis was semi-inspired by some of these numbers and shocking realizations about the social context. While the salary and CEO numbers might be increasing, there are still VERY real and very different expectations about what women should do and the roles that a woman can take on (simultaneously and in order to do well in/at both). Basically, the numbers might support people who believe that gender is no longer an important issue worthy of study, but only if you ignore the psychological side and any statistics that really attempt to slice into the phenomena and explore where women are CEOs, how they got to those positions, and the so-called mommy track…
