Sex & Power

by Susan Estrich

Updated with a new introduction by the author. At the dawn of the 21st century, women in America are richer, more educated, and more powerful than before. So why is it, Estrich asks, that they account for a minuscule percentage of the nation's top executives, politicians, lawyers and professors? A "searing" report ( Rocky Mountain News ), filled with personal stories and startling statistics, Sex & Power dares to tell the truth about men and women, and how power is divided between them.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction

320 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1901

About the author

Susan Estrich is a Professor of Law at the University of Southern California. She has worked in politics as a congressional consul and a presidential campaign manager. She is a commentator on law and politics for FOX News.

Reviews

[Farrah · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'd probably actually make this 4.5 stars. There were a few sections that I wasn't totally in agreement with and I about halfway through reading this I found out that Estrich is a long-time Fox News contributor who had put out a statement defending Roger Ailes against sexual harassment claims by Gretchen Carlson and others, which kind of made me sick. However, if I set that aside, I thought there was much fascinating content in this book and it was very thought provoking and worth reading. It was especially crazy that it was published in 2000, yet felt 100% relevant and timely for today - actually that was just sad. She talked a bit about Hillary Clinton and perceptions (or misperceptions) of her which were just as relevant today - also sad. Best quote: "Motherhood doesn't need a movement anywhere near as much as ambition does."

Some of the other quotes/passages I marked as being of note/special interest to me:

"What sets tongues wagging is women who are 'too ambitious." Women who put work ahead of family, women who marry for ambition, or stay married for it; these women make other women uncomfortable. In my generation, there's a name for it - Hillary. One way to look at Mrs. Clinton's aspirations to public office is as a role model for other fifty-somethings who have put their ambitions on hold while supporting their husbands' careers. There is a genuine 'my turn' aspect that you'd think women would find appealing. But many of them don't."

"The New York Times Magazine reported in a 1999 issue that, at the rate we're going, it will be another 270 years before women achieve parity as top managers in corporations and 500 years before we achieve equality in Congress....I understand that women have made progress and I don't mean to suggest otherwise. But those who think 'the problem' is solved, or that time will solve it, will have a very hard time explaining those numbers. My goal is not to prove how far women have come, but how far we have to go; my aim is not to make us pat one another on the back, but to shock the complacent who think feminism is unnecessary in the twenty-first century."

"It may be true that mothers work fewer hours than men while their children are young, but they also drink less, abuse drugs less, commit fewer crimes, live longer, have fewer heart attacks, get into fewer fights at work, are less driven to make costly business decisions for the sake of ego, are less likely to be sued for sexual harassment, or to quit for a better job. Looking at children as simply a handicap to a parent's career ignores the fact that many of us get smarter when we become mothers, more mature, more responsible, more adept at handling people, all of which may make mothers for efficient, effective, mature workers. Military men and women are valued when they make the move to the private sector, even though training for armed combat is not exactly useful in the private sector. Why is military experience, or government experience, considered more valuable than raising children or running a household? Judging qualifications solely on the basis of public world accomplishments is neither neutral (it is certain to favor men) nor inevitable. It is not objective; it just seems that way because we've all been doing it that way for so long. If the problem is that we don't know how to put a value on experience in the private world, shouldn't we figure it out?"

"There is a strong case to be made that more second-tier choices for mothers (i.e 'mommy track' and more flexible jobs) undercuts rather than furthers change: Why make a mother a partner, if she'll settle for 'senior counsel'? If she'll say thank you to any promotion, you don't need to give her the better one. Talk to individual women and they will tell you that they feel they have no choice but to accept what is offered, even if it involves making less money and forsaking future opportunities.
As Professor Lawrence Katz of Harvard explains, the fear that a generous leave policy might attract employees with no long-term interest in the company means that 'even employers who want to provide generous benefits will not do so.' Now, I might argue that women who are offered a generous leave policy are likely to be very grateful, and that women in general are too loyal to their employers, and demand too little in return, but Katz's calculation comes closer, no doubt, to the way employers see it."

"When researchers asked senior corporate officers what they thought was holding women back, the most often cited answer by the male officers was that it was a pipeline problem: just a matter of waiting for women in the pipeline. The response of the female officers was notable different. The most often cited answer was the 'comfort factor': that is, the comfort of the men at the top with having women in their midst, or at least the particular ones who make it through the door. Similarly, when asked what they considered essential to success, the female executives cited 'developing a style with which male managers are comfortable' second only to exceeding performance expectations...Developing a style that mean are comfortable with does not mean dressing, acting or behaving just like a man.
Ann Hopkins discovered that the hard way when she came up for a partnership at Price Waterhouse. In a strikingly candid evaluation, Hopkins was told that while she had brought in business for the firm, her style weighed against her. She was too aggressive, particularly for a woman, she was advised to be more feminine, get new clothes, get a haircut. She brought a suit claiming sex discrimination and won...Once employers learn that a certain kind of frankness counts as discrimination, they won't be so frank...The more manly a man is in corporate America, the better. The same is not true for women. Whatever the real differences between men and women as managers, the perception that women are weaker managers creates a reality in which they must be even stronger, without straying too far and becoming too 'masculine' in the process." [Sidenote: this reminded me very much of criticisms of Marcia Clark.]

"The desirable characteristics of a women are not perceived by either men or women to be of equal value to the desirable characteristics of a man. Masculine characteristics were considered more desirable - men could succeed simply by being masculine, while women could not succeed simply by being feminine. Indeed, later research suggested that masculinity produces more positive outcomes for individuals in American society than androgyny, which means that even the woman who manages to combine the best of both sets of expectations will still be at a disadvantage as compared to the man who simply meets the expectations.
And therein lies the rub for female managers seeking to get ahead by developing a style of being and leading with which male managers are comfortable. The challenge for women is to find the acceptable band that represents the overlapping portion of the two hoops - the masculine and the feminine. According to findings from Ann Morrison (Center for Creative Leadership) for women to succeed, it is essential that they contradict the stereotypes that their male executives and coworkers had about women - they had to be seen as different, 'better than women.' But they couldn't go too far, to forfeit all traces of femininity, because that would them them too alien to their superiors and colleagues. In essence, their mission was to do what wasn't expected of them, while doing enough of what was expected of them as women to gain acceptance."

It is natural human tendency to gravitate to those who are most like you, to be most comfortable with those you can relate to, those with whom you share the most in common. Take away sex, which most smart and ambitious men and women mostly do at work, and men are more comfortable with men, women most comfortable with women...What makes men most comfortable is women who don't challenge them, not women who do; women who aren't like them, not women who are. This is not true of every man, to be sure, but the number of men who duplicate themselves over and over again in one corporation after another, the number who surround themselves with male confidants and then react with anger at the very idea that they have excluded women suggests that it is true of many of them.
So does the experience of one woman I met who was a scratch golfer, a better player than all but a few of the men in her work circle. 'Does it help you at work?' I ask her. She laughs. 'You think they like me better because I can beat them?' she asks. 'No way. Besides it's not really about golf. It's about riding around and talking dirty and being guys. I spoil it for them when I come.'"

"There are any number of perfectly good reasons not to support Hillary Clinton for Senate that have absolutely nothing to do with gender. But what is striking in all the efforts to explain Hillary's 'woman problem' is just how personal it is. It's not really about ideology or geography; almost no one says anything about competence. They talk about life choices: hers and ours, and what hers say about ours, which is certainly not how we usually judge male politicians.
I happen to know Hillary. She is just as smart as everyone assumes, but she is also warmer, funnier, and plain nicer than her public image...but most people don't know her and what they are talking about is not the person, but the idea of Hillary Clinton. The idea of Hillary Clinton is the idea of a woman who puts her career first; who will do anything, put up with anything, sell her soul if necessary to keep her hands on the levers of power. Of course there's Madeleine Albright, in many ways far more powerful than Hillary, and the most popular member of the Clinton cabinet. Rooting for Madeleine is easy. Her rise to power came after her college sweetheart left her for a younger woman and after her daughters were adults. Older than most men she worked for, she hung in there when others might have given up and paid every penny of her dues, and then some...
Hillary is a trickier heroine. She isn't looking for a prince or recovering from losing one. She seems content to use the frog for all he's worth, which is hardly the fairy tale we grew up with. The only thing worse than the notion that she loves him despite it all is the idea that she doesn't and that all she's cared about from the beginning is getting power. Her happy ending seems to be only about winning. To want power that badly is not something most women empathize with. It's not the choice we made. But it is precisely for that reason that we need to support other women who live their lives differently.
Not every woman who gets elected to office cares about the issues that most women do; there are men who do more to support families than women. And there is not reason a woman should feel constrained to vote for a candidate with whom she has fundamental disagreements, simply because she is a women. But is there any doubt that a Senate half-comprised of Hillarys would do more to further the agenda of suburban women who question her values than the one we have now?
In one report on NPR, a group of suburban women had been gathered to talk about Hillary Clinton. After listening to the conversation, the reporter asked whether the women were setting the bar very high for her. One of the women answered, 'I think being a woman, the bar's always set higher for us. We cannot function like men do and get to the same place because we would be called bitches and avaricous and everything else. So yes, the bar is set higher, but I think we've all had that in business. And why shouldn't she be held to the same standard we are?'
Instead of seeing our common agenda, we are eating our best alive. Most of us would never dream of running for Senate were we in Hillary's shoes, which is one of the reasons there are so few women in high elective office. It takes a level of ambition that most of us don't have. But that should be a reason for supporting those who do, not opposing them."

"We have taught our children that motherhood is a miracle. The version of feminism that saw the burden, the unfairness and not the fulfillment, the limits and not the possibilities, was wrong. We may not have wanted to be our mothers, but most of us who have discovered feminism also discovered that motherhood had been sold short; those of us who were lucky, blessed, discovered it in time. The message we are sending, very clearly, is that being a mother matters, and it does. But motherhood doesn't need a movement anywhere near as much as ambition does. Hallmark celebrates women who are mothers; who celebrates women who want power?"

[Dennis Littrell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Feminism at the highest level

This is a splendid book and Susan Estrich is a very sophisticated person, the kind of person who judges each case on its individual merits. Thus she could be for Anita Hill and against Monica Lewinsky. She is also the kind of person who is exquisitely sensitive to political power and its exercise, a person who knows both the importance and the limitations of political correctness. Thus she can defend Bill Clinton and find fault with Al Gore. She is also a terrific writer who can be vivid, candid, self-expressive and revealing, and very sharp with what she finds unacceptable. Thus she can lecture women on the necessity to speak up when they feel harassed or overlooked for promotion while recognizing that the "nuts and sluts defense" to rape (her coinage) sometimes has validity. She is not the kind of person you can pigeon hole. Thus she can write a book about Sex and Power that really is about sex and power, with herself as participant from her experience at the Harvard Law School and within the Democratic party at the highest level, a friend of both Hillary and Bill Clinton, to being a victim of an ice pick rapist. She can brag about her legs (p. 207) and admit that she calls her interns "sweetie," touches them and has them run for coffee (p. 191) while making the most cogent arguments about the reality of sexual harassment in the workplace and how it harms both women and men. She can be as political as the wiliest pol as she references a goody portion of the pantheon of feminist writers from Christina Hoff Sommers to Catharine A. MacKinnon, usually without letting us know where she might agree or disagree with them.

She begins with the observation that despite great strides made by women toward complete equality in our society there is still a tremendous disparity in the number of men and women in the top positions in corporate America, in the law, and in academia. Estrich makes this clear beyond any shadow of a doubt as she cites the numbers. The question is why. The implication is that sex discrimination is still rampant at the top and the old boy's network and conspiracy just as intrenched as ever. However, a more careful interpretation of the very statistics and observations that Estrich uses suggests that it is not sex discrimination alone that accounts for the lack of women at the top of Fortune 500 companies, but something else.

Call it smarts; not the lack of intelligence, but the possession of it.

The plain fact of the matter is that women have wisely chosen to put themselves and their families first, the pursuit of power and superfluous wealth a distant second. Estrich has not. That is her choice, and she wears it well, but it is not for everyone, or even for more than some of us.

Estrich understands this. She has managed a splendid career, but she hasn't given up motherhood to do it. She has a family, a son and a daughter. She argues that women have to be extraordinary to receive the same pay and rise to the same level as men. She laments that some women don't want to rise to the top, and she chides her sisters who have risen for not helping other women climb the corporate ladder, wisely pointing out that women together weld more power than a woman alone. She presents an agenda for "Changing the Face of Corporate America" (Chapter 7) by overcoming "Motherhood as Destiny" (Chapter 5) and easing the old boys off their "Comfort Factor" (Chapter 6).

What I think she may not completely understand is that women in general gain no reproductive advantage by being in positions of power. Men do. In fact the pursuit of power by men is largely motivated by a semi-conscious desire to maximize their reproductive power. In today's world this may not work as well as it once did, but the desire is still there within the male psyche, to some extent an evolutionary hangover. Even today with the extra money a man might make he can afford a second marriage and a second family, whereas a man of more modest means cannot. He can afford a mistress. In previously times, of course, he could, if he accumulated enough power and resources, acquire a whole harem. A woman, however, can gain a reproductive advantage only by conceiving and giving birth to and raising more children. Therein lies part of the reason that many women are not buying into the "success at any cost" mentality that corporations demand of their top executives.

In the latter part of the book, Estrich focuses on sex and political power, per se. She acknowledges "the route to power when all others are closed," when a woman may, like the "great dames," use her sexuality (p. 206). But she warns, "sexuality takes you only so far. You don't run the world when you're on your knees" (p. 207).

She ends the book with a clarion call to feminism and a tribute to what feminism did for her. She laments the fact that many women today are choosing to be selfish and pursue their personal interests and needs before the "mission," as she calls it on page 265.

Estrich writes with great fluidity and power. She has the ability to express herself so that one understands every word. She cites statistics and spins stories in a way that makes her points vivid and the implications and impacts clear and accessible with little effort on the part of the reader. She is a great spokesperson for women's rights and feminist issues and she is someone to look up to and admire.

--Dennis Littrell, author of the mystery novel, “Teddy and Teri”

[Noorilhuda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Analysis of successes for women's movement and hinderances that still exist. Informative. Influential.

[Kelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Book really spoke to me about women and the nature of the battle between the sexes.

[Leyla · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great motivating book for women with many arguments that women can face during their everyday life. Book has references to other feminist writers and their work.