Negotiating Equality Does Not Mean Being the Same

Same_As_You

Source: Cottonbro/Pexels

Women have been negotiating for public, privte, and workplace equality for some time. While progress has undoubtedly been made, the reality is that women still make less money than their male peers.

While there is an increase in female participation in many industries, there continues to be a profound gap in equity partnerships. For example, over half the students entering law school are now women, yet the number of female equity partners is still low, and the equity shares are typically lower for women partners.

Not only is income disparity still an issue but the perception of women in power is still negative relative to male counterparts. Study participants shown photos of two boardrooms, the only difference being that one has a male at the head of the table, the other a female, consistently describe the male-led table in more complimentary terms than the female. Equal positions do not generate the same treatment.

It's important to recognize that equality does not mean being the same. Feminism once advocated that anything men can do; women can do too. If men can exploit women, women can exploit men. "Equality" was mistaken for "same."

Not to denigrate the feminists of that era., but an unfortunate byproduct of that approach was that in order to be seen, heard or taken seriously, women felt they had to give up much of their feminine power and adopt a masculine version—from big shoulder pads to aggressive negotiation style, to balking at door-holding. Success was defined based on a masculine competitive model. To negotiate a successful life, it was believed one had to negotiate like a man. To be equal, one had to be same.

The cost to women was authenticity. Perhaps now it’s safe to try to redefine feminine power and allow each woman to choose what that looks like for her.

A recent article chastised women for wearing active wear instead of dresses and heels. The author (a woman) suggested that wearing yoga gear or leggings was a misguided feminist statement. One would assume that, to the extent that women can wear what they want, they have taken a step forward. It’s a stretch to conclude that wearing active wear is somehow a feminist challenge, when it may be a comfort choice, a style choice, or a celebration of the body.

If the point of the article was intended to be that how women dress affects their confidence, that makes sense. But to suggest that women need to doll up to be taken seriously is a step backward.

If any woman chooses to dress up to feel more empowered, hurrah to her. But judging other women for their choices seems disempowering and problematic. In fact, the sooner women stop judging other women’s choices the faster they’ll be able to rise and step into their power.

There is no one way for a woman to show up. Women can be powerful and sensual at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. But women can also be strong and vulnerable, or quietly influential, or softly commanding, or fierce and formidable. Any and all of these approaches can be highly effective. Sometimes women take charge, and sometimes they cede control.

Women are beautifully complex, multifaceted and multitalented creatures, and intentionally choosing which of the many facets to adopt in a given negotiation can be a source of power. Women need to learn to embrace and express all the various elements that make them whole, for that is women’s strength. The key is choice. To be equal, one does not have to be same.