One of the panelists, Susan Athey, a Stanford economist, said she had bought “khakis and loafers” to fit in with the men in the lunchroom of her first economics department, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She did so even though the department was the “most supportive environment” she has encountered in her career.
“I spent all my time hoping that no one would remember I was female,” said Ms. Athey, a past winner of a prestigious award for young economists. “I didn’t want to remind people that I’m a sexual being.”
This is from Ben Casselman and Jim Tankersley, “Female Economists Push Their Field Toward a #MeToo Reckoning,” New York Times, January 10, 2019. By the way, she’s not just some economist. She’s a heavy hitter in the profession, having won the John Bates Clark Medal, which is arguably on a par with the Nobel Prize, in 2007.
I don’t know how to interpret these comments. Of course, I’m assuming that the two reporters are quoting Professor Athey correctly, and I’m assuming that their words “even though” reflect what Professor Athey said. Those assumptions could be wrong.
But on the assumption that they are right, why the “even though” after the first quote about khakis and loafers? Professor Athey seems to be saying that she both wanted to fit in and wanted not to dress in khakis and loafers. My guess is that she’s saying that she both wants to fit in and wants to wear more-feminine dress.
Now go to the second quote. Professor Athey is saying that she didn’t want to remind people that she’s a sexual being. One way to do that would be to wear “khakis and loafers.” So here she seems to be saying that she wants to wear khakis and loafers.
And it’s difficult to tell from any of this whether Professor Athey would want people to notice that she’s female or would want people not to notice.
Consider, then, the questions that a male colleague of Professor Athey might ask himself about how best to deal with her. Let’s say she’s wearing a dress or even a nice pant suit. Let’s say the male colleague notices and thinks it looks nice. Should he say it looks nice? Does that show he recognizes she’s a sexual being? Does she like that? And remember that given her status in the profession, if this male colleague doesn’t have tenure yet, he needs to think about the implications for his tenure of any direction he chooses.
If I were her colleague, I would be genuinely confused about how to deal with Professor Athey around issues of clothing. By the way, I know what I would do because this is what I tend to do. I would go directly to her, show the quotes, and say, “How do you want me to treat you? What do you want me to say I notice?” I don’t know her and so I don’t know how she would receive that.
Now take some guys who aren’t like me in this respect, which is probably most guys. They probably won’t dare ask what I asked because they could fear that direct questions are risky. Maybe they would fear too much, but the stakes are big.
These are serious workplace challenges nowadays.
READER COMMENTS
Tom P
Jan 17 2019 at 5:10pm
May I suggest the following interpretation: Professor Athey believed that, if she wore more feminine attire, she would not be taken as seriously as an academic and might be subject to (in her view) unwelcome comments. She wishes that were not the case.
It’s true that what is an unwelcome comment is, by definition, subjective. It depends on what the person receiving the comment believes is unwelcome. But it seems reasonable to me to begin by not making any comments that might be considered unwelcome — the cost of saying nothing isn’t, in my mind, too big. (I disagree with the implication that an untenured faculty member would be putting his tenure case at risk by refraining from complimenting Professor Athey’s clothing style.)
As you get to know someone better, sometimes one learns (possibly through direct questions) what type of comments they would consider appropriate.
David Henderson
Jan 17 2019 at 5:16pm
May I suggest the following interpretation: Professor Athey believed that, if she wore more feminine attire, she would not be taken as seriously as an academic and might be subject to (in her view) unwelcome comments. She wishes that were not the case.
That’s a reasonable interpretation. Notice, though, that you needed to interpret.
I disagree with the implication that an untenured faculty member would be putting his tenure case at risk by refraining from complimenting Professor Athey’s clothing style.
I’m not sure how you got that implication. I was thinking more the opposite: someone like me, who likes to comment positively on the nice clothing (since I rarely wear nice clothing) of both men and women, could easily get into trouble.
As you get to know someone better, sometimes one learns (possibly through direct questions) what type of comments they would consider appropriate.
True, and sometimes you learn it the hard way. The fact that there was actually a panel on this at the AEA meetings, and that at that panel, presumably, Professor Athey made those points, suggests that this is not just a small issue.
Tom P
Jan 17 2019 at 5:30pm
Sorry for misunderstanding you on the “implication” thing. When you said that an untenured faculty member had to be concerned about “any direction he chooses”, I assumed you meant that he would worry about not making a comment, too.
I agree that sometimes you have to interpret and we do not have a clear norm that everyone can follow. It would be great if we did, definitely.
I’m not sure I’m too optimistic about that coming about, however; if people truly have different preferences as to how they want to be treated, then the only “safe” course of action — as I see it — is to refrain from comments that might be perceived as unwelcome by default, until one learns otherwise.
David Henderson
Jan 17 2019 at 6:06pm
Actually I did mean “he would worry about not making a comment, too.” I misunderstood you and thought that you were saying, which I now see you weren’t saying, that that was the implication rather one implication.
Joshua Gans
Jan 18 2019 at 7:20am
David, I am completely dumbfounded as to why you would think all of this stuff and take it away from the NYT article.
The point the article was making was very simple: here is someone who turned out to be one of the finest economists of the generation, who, despite that, spent cycles thinking about the gender implications of what she was wearing to work every single day. In other words, you should draw from that, that every single woman you encounter in work is doing the same thing.
Now contrast that with the men. I don’t know about you but for me right there on the ‘plus’ list of being an academic was NOT HAVING TO SPEND ANYTIME THINKING ABOUT CLOTHES. I sometimes quote that as the entire reason for becoming an academic in the first place. And I grumble whenever I have to ‘dress up’ for something.
In reality, however, it is not about the clothes but it is about freedom and liberty which seems to be in your friggin’ blog title. The clothes are symbol of the type of freedom we get in our academic jobs. Moreover, whenever a woman has to catch herself, dress differently or behave differently because she is concerned that some man will infer a stereotype, it is a violation of that. In other words, it is worse, much worse if we believe anything about equality of opportunity.
On now to your who dilemma with regard to how to behave around women. Let me give you a simple rule: if you want to comment on someone’s clothing, think about whether you would make the same comment if it were a man. That’s it. Believe it or not, you can sometimes comment on men’s and even women’s clothing. In those times when I have been forced to dress up both my men and women colleagues have mentioned it and, you might find it hard to believe, complimented it. I have not read it for anything more than it is. Now the fact that you will need to think about it first comes from the fact that you are the sort of person we want to think about it. So think about it and behave decently. It will eventually come naturally.
And to any assistant professors out there worrying about how to treat senior colleagues. It is a pain but you will never, ever be thought of less if you say nothing. The risk equation is clear: don’t say things unless you have thought about how the other person might feel. Chances are you are much, much better off not saying anything that is unrelated to research, teaching or how to fill in an administrative form.
Finally, David, what the whole video of the AEA session. She actually talks about people like you in it. Enjoy.
RPLong
Jan 18 2019 at 8:52am
Just because someone thinks a thing doesn’t mean her thoughts are correct or well-founded. If Ms. Athey has evidence of women’s being unfairly stereotyped in that work environment, that’s one thing. But if all we’re talking about is her worrying about it, then I wouldn’t want to bias my opinion of “every single woman I encounter in work” based on somebody’s private worries.
I strongly disagree with this. Just because a person has a concern doesn’t automatically mean that concern is well-founded. I know I’ve had a few unfounded concerns in my time; you probably have, too, haven’t you? Being worried about being stereotyped is quite a bit different from actually being stereotyped. (I, personally, have experience with both.) If we conflate those two things then we end up in a futile battle to hold the world responsible for our own private thoughts.
Meanwhile, David presents a very reasonable, empowered, and assertive solution to the problem: Rather than getting caught up in what we privately think people might want and might do, he suggests simply asking people how they want to be treated, and then obliging them. Not only is that reasonable, but it’s also consistent with the recommendation of clinical psychologists: stop worrying about what people might think and just ask them outright (politely, respectfully) what they think.
A
Jan 18 2019 at 9:32am
Asking doesn’t yield a straightforward solution either. If there are power dynamics involved, then the lower status person must consider the likelihood and capacity of negative consequences. I’m not going to ask my employees whether they enjoy me complimenting their clothing (because I am interested in clothing), or their bodies (because I am interested in fitness). We don’t have the relationship where they can forecast me confidently. Knowing that, I don’t comment on their clothing, bodies, or other nonsense.
Being evaluated by an institutional superior is stressful enough for work related matters. Why add unnecessary stress with unnecessary evaluations?
RPLong
Jan 18 2019 at 10:28am
I don’t disagree with you per se, A. I guess I see it better to attempt to deal with people in a straightforward manner, versus attempting to act solely on my own assumptions about what other people might think and feel. I don’t think there is an unequivocal correct answer, which might be why David referred to them as “workplace challenges.” Often times, when dealing with people, we just do the best we can do. My only point is that communicating with people is often better than guessing at what they think. It is, at the least, more assertive, and assertiveness is one way we can gain control over situations in which we feel less-empowered.
David Henderson
Jan 18 2019 at 9:49am
Joshua,
You write:
Now the fact that you will need to think about it first comes from the fact that you are the sort of person we want to think about it.
Who is “we?”
So think about it and behave decently. It will eventually come naturally.
I’m not sure if you’r addressing me, but if so, I do think about it and behave decently. It has come naturally for a long time.
Mark Z
Jan 18 2019 at 3:43pm
Building on what RPLong said, it is a mistake to assume a concern is well-founded. But not only that: there are reasons to expect men and women will, on average, react differently to identical situations. Women tend to be more risk averse than men; more extroverted; pay greater attention to detail, etc. Referring to risk aversion, if you put a man and a woman in an identical situation with equal risk of harm, the woman is more likely to worry about it, and the man more likely to shrug it off indifferently. This is the problem with trying to infer differences in how men and women are treated from differences in emotional reactions.
In this case, by her own admission, Dr. Athey’s department was “the most supportive environment” she’d ever worked in. If that’s the case, why does she still seem to insinuate that it’s the fault of the men in her department that she feels discomfort about how she dresses? At this point, she ought to consider that maybe the problem is not external but internal. Not every subjective feeling of indignation corresponds to an actual wrong, not every fear corresponds to something that one should actually be afraid of. And given that all but the most die-hard social constructivists acknowledge that men and women, on average, tend to have different emotional reactions to similar situations, differences in behavior, including what one worries about, cannot be taken as proof of differences in treatment.
Nor, I would not, can the disparity be assumed to automatically disadvantage women. For example, while it may be less comfortable for women to worry more about how they dress or nuances of how they interact with co-workers, it may render them less likely to violate rules or taboos and suffer the social or professional punishments concomitant with those violations. An analogy: if one person worries more about following the law than another, sure, the former worries more, which is a minus, but they also are less likely to end up in jail, which is a plus. The bottom line being, men and women likely tend to react differently to similar situations, partly for reasons that are innate, and it isn’t clear that one way of reacting is necessarily more or less detrimental than the other.
Miguel Madeira
Jan 18 2019 at 7:47am
I don’t see nothing special in that – this is nothing more than the trade-off associated with a job: for one side, I want to do certain things (go to beach, sleep at noon, update my blog, etc.); for other, I want to have a job, meaning that I can’t do somethings that I want to do.
Mark Z
Jan 18 2019 at 3:58pm
Realistically, a man should, for his own sake, avoid making any comment or question to a female coworker that relates to physical appearance, or make any joke or pun that isn’t rated G. Of course, one consequence of seeking to impose higher expectations on men to avoid potentially discomfiting female colleagues is that they will be treating women they work with more differently, not more equally. Men are – in my experience at least – already far more casual and less reserved (including making risque jokes or facetious insults, often related to appearance or sexual matters) with other men than they are with women. The more cautious men have to be around female colleagues (especially when the prevailing mood regarding vaguely defined sexual harassment is ‘better the innocent hang than the guilty go free’), the more they’ll disproportionally socialize with other men, and the more workplaces will become socially segregated along gender lines. Whether we like it or not, telling raunchy jokes and making fun of each other are things people do normally, and even in the workplace, people will likely tend to prefer to interact with those with whom they behave like they normally would than with those they feel they have to be ‘hyperprofessional’ with. Some of the expectations many seem to favor under the auspices of the ‘metoo’ movement seem less conducive to equality, and more conducive to a sort of Victorian environment where, the moment a woman enters the room, all the men stand up, take off their hats, and stop swearing.
john hare
Jan 18 2019 at 7:26pm
There are times in the work place when it is not possible to say anything that couldn’t be taken wrong. A few times a female coworker has either accidentally or on purpose(I don’t know and won’t ask) exposed more than I would see on the beach. Mentioning it at all is asking for trouble, even as an attempt at a cautionary word.
Mark Bahner
Jan 18 2019 at 4:15pm
I don’t read that one way or the other with respect to whether she wanted or didn’t want to wear khakis and loafers.
At my former employer, I wore dress slacks my whole career. When I first came in the early 1990s, slacks were pretty much a requirement. (And even a tie…the bad old days!) By the end of my time there, a fair number of people wore jeans. I stayed in slacks, because they were no less comfortable nor more expensive than jeans. And of course dress slacks looked more formal in the office environment.
So I would say that I continued to wear slacks “even though” the environment was very supportive.
Hazel Meade
Jan 18 2019 at 4:56pm
I wear khakis and loafers all the time. I would feel weird in a dress. Maybe I’m subconsciously trying to fit in, but since it doesn’t bother me, I’m not going to put too much thought into it.
Hazel Meade
Jan 18 2019 at 5:10pm
I think younger generations may have evolved an alternative to this problem, wherein rather than trying to dress attractively, you just try to dress in a unique style. So when you see someones clothing, instead of complimenting their appearance and saying “you look nice in that dress”, you can say something like “that’s a really cool shirt”, or “I love those boots”. If you compliment their sense of style you’re complimenting their personality not their appearance.
David Henderson
Jan 18 2019 at 5:38pm
Interesting thought.
My own story that supports this but I had never put your interpretation on it: In all but hot weather, I wear a Golden State Warriors hat that my wife bought me as a present. I get lots of comments. What I thought I would get, given that I live in Warriors’ country, is words to the effect, “Go Warriors.” What I actually get about 90% of the time people comment is “I like your hat.”
Nina Blackwell
Jan 19 2019 at 12:47pm
David – I want to go back to your original post. It is supremely disappointing and concerning that you – as an educated professional – would reduce an incredibly important debate about the significant power imbalances in the economics profession (and in many other professions, mind you) to a conversation about whether you should comment on a woman’s attire. In one post (and in several comments) you have demonstrated short-sightedness (nearing pettiness) and – more importantly – a lack of leadership. This has nothing to do with what people wear to work and you – of all people – should know that. As a previous commenter suggested – that “dilemma” (if it ever was one) is easily answered by basic awareness, by adopting a universal perspective of respect for all colleagues and by being thoughtful about how others approach their work. (You seem to have given your own approach to work a significant amount of thought so I would suggest you turn some of that energy towards thinking about others.) The bigger and MOST IMPORTANT point here is that significant power imbalances exist in a field that has a significant impact on all of our lives – gender, socio-economic, race, perspective. This impacts not only the people who consider (or don’t) economics as a field, it impacts how people feel valued at work every day, and that impacts productivity, risk-taking, collegiality, teamwork and so much more. Even more, it biases research, findings and recommendations which then impacts entire economies and billions of people’s lives. Please use your amazing platform and intellect and leadership to dive deeper into that challenge. Or you will continue to contribute to the problem and it won’t matter WHAT you say about what your colleagues are wearing.
David Henderson
Jan 20 2019 at 10:41am
You wrote:
This has nothing to do with what people wear to work and you – of all people – should know that.
The reporters, and Professor Athey, certainly made it sound as if it had something to do with what people wear to work.
Olga Kramar
Jan 19 2019 at 8:40pm
Just because a woman is obsessively worried about how to dress in the workplace doesn’t mean that society or her workplace is to blame. In the early 80s I worked in a commodities trading firm in Europe where out of about 100 traders (not retail brokers, actual traders) only two of us were women. Back then all of us American women were doing our best to look like men with the little suits and bow ties; that’s how they coached us in business school. She being Swiss, on the other hand, dressed what I can only describe as fashionable, flamboyant, weathly, woman. And guess what? She was an outstanding trader and that’s all that mattered. She got as much respect as the guys. Looking back on it years later I realized how ridiculous it is to try to gain respect by attempting to look like a man. It’s job performance and ability that gets you respect. As far as compliments, I’ve had bosses comment on my looks, my legs, my flat stomach “I can’t believe you’ve had three babies” etc. NEVER did I get offended. It’s a compliment; take it as such, say thank you and smile. Never had anyone make inappropriate advances.
Comments are closed.