Birute Regine2013-05-21T22:26:37-04:00Birute Reginehttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=birute-regineCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Birute RegineGood old fashioned elbow grease.The Next Evolutionary Step: The Power of Circletag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26389202013-02-08T18:00:32-05:002013-04-10T05:12:01-04:00Birute Reginehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/birute-regine/breakdowns, but we can also see them as breakthroughs, where an opportunity for a new, stronger order can emerge. In that sense, it's a very exciting time, when things can really be different. This applies especially to women, who, unlike any previous time, now have an opportunity to take their rightful place in the new order as leaders. Depending on the choices we make, we will either evolve to a higher level of consciousness or devolve and regress to old outdated but familiar structures.
As we go through this social transformation, how can we feel secure when the ground beneath us is shifting? How can we stay clear and centered when all around us is ambiguity? In our interconnected and interdependent work, security lies within our positive connections to others, in being part of a community. From these positive connections, we women have an opportunity to realize our collective power to impact the things around us; we can be agents of change if we stick together.
How do I get there from here? Start a power circle.
When I was in Australia doing research for my book Iron Butterflies: Women Transforming Themselves and the World, I had the good fortune to interview an aboriginal elder, Violet. Well, actually Violet said I didn't need to interview her, saying I already knew what I needed to know. Instead, she would initiate me in her ways. In the end I got much more than I imagined; as she initiated me she also told me her story, so I got my interview.
The initiation was powerful; it rattled me to my core. At the end I had a vision. I saw a circle of women elders smiling at me, and behind them stood Violet laughing. Feeling their powerful, good humored presence drew a gasp from me and I felt my eyes well up with tears. The sense of support that they emitted connected me to how much I missed the support of women, in circle, in community with each other. I was missing sisterhood.
Circle is not anything new. Circle is an ancient process of consultation and communion, a place for slowing down, respectfully listening and being heard, a place to change the conversation and a way of being together that taps into the deep well of wisdom and creative thinking that is so needed in this time and place in history. Being in Circle is a matter of remembering our original way of being in community.
Some people are resistant to circles, such as one business executive who said he wouldn't sit in a circle because it was "too democratic!" All the more reason to take what some may regard as a radical step.
Circle is a place women can come home to themselves and feel the support of other women. In circle, women are not "empowered." Instead, they have an opportunity to remember their power and to discover that being an agent of change is not about doing it alone. In fact, part of the shift I am talking about is learning to do it together and developing our skills of cooperation, necessary skills for leaders in the future. In order to do it together, women need face-to-face time with other women in order to connect to the magic that circle energy releases. Online communities are a great support for on-going groups, but they don't replace the face-to-face experience.
Everyone is so busy, I know, but two hours a month could be the best investment of time you could make for yourself. Many of you are already in community. Maybe it's a book club or girl's night out. How about changing the conversation and explore the meaning of success, courageous vulnerability, leadership, power, peace? When we take a deeper look at the forces that affect our lives and our responses to them, amazing things can happen.
As a convener of over 200 circles, this is Susan Lucci's (no, not the soap opera star) experience.
Circle is one of deep connection, mutual respect and creative collaboration. This resonant field energizes, inspires and supports each of us to see and be seen, to hear and be heard, to become a better version of ourselves. By deliberately changing the conversation in the safe container of a Circle, we are modeling the new, emerging culture... and it is beautiful to behold!
Power Circles become a vehicle for women who want to participate and be agents of change but don't quite know how to go about it. Power Circles create an opportunity for women to practice the art of collaboration and support each others leadership. Power Circles are a place to connect to your highest self and to collective wisdom.
Take a leap of faith into the future. Start a circle. Model the future. Be the change we are seeking.]]>What About Love?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26186792013-02-05T18:46:13-05:002013-04-07T05:12:01-04:00Birute Reginehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/birute-regine/With Valentine's Day coming up, there's lots of talk about love. Well, what about love?
If I asked you that question, how would you answer? If you can, write down your answer.
That's a question I did ask when I was conducting a longitudinal study at the Project on the Development of Girls and Psychology of Women at Harvard University some years ago.
Ken, a 36-year-old insurance agent, answered the question in this way:
I believe in love. I think everybody should have some. I use to have love, but I lost it. I didn't realize what a precious commodity it was. I guess I took it for granted, and didn't realize that it's more difficult than I thought to obtain it from another individual. I think I should have some again. I think I should go out and find some.
In contrast, Sarah, a 40-year old mother of three, answered in this way:
When I think about love, I think about my husband, when things were good between us, and really wanting to be with him. I just really enjoyed being with this person. I just thought he was so funny. We really laughed about things and when we laughed together about something, it was like looking into a mirror. It made us feel real close when that happened, like loving. That stopped a long time ago.
The qualitatively different way Ken and Sarah speaks of love breaks down to the most elemental difference -- parts of speech.
Ken speaks of love as a noun, a quantifiable thing that ought to be equitably distributed. For him, love is part of the world of objects: a static and fixed thing that he would acquire if only he could find it. Like a precious jewel, love is something to cherish, find, lose, replace, forget, take for granted.
Sarah, on the other hand, refers to love as a verb, as a dynamic process that happens between her and her husband, joining them to each other and felt within each person. Love is a moving experience -- she is moved by him and he by her. Unlike Ken who is concerned with finding and losing an object love, Sarah looks for opportunities to start an experience of love and regrets love stopping. One captures a static quality to love, while the other refers to love as in motion
OK, that's interesting. Two approaches to love -- love as an object, a static commodity-oriented view, and love that moves, a fluid, felt experience-oriented view. Gary Chapman wrote about The Five Love Languages, but my research shows that it can be reduced down to these two.
These two ways of speaking of love shape two different worlds that come with two distinct sets of assumption. These worlds, so tacitly different, for instance, have a different reference point -- who are they relating to when they speak of love? Ken, for example, places himself in relationship to an idea he has about love, which objectifies experience. Sarah, on the other hand, refers to love in relationship to another person, which locates her in the stream of fluctuating and changing experience.
If we objectify love as Ken does, then we create a static world of objects. Security is an acquisition of things; the beloved is a love object, predictable with certain characteristics; support is fixing someone as if they are broken; sex is working the right mechanical parts; problems with love circle around issues of performance (producing love) and control.
When we think of love as a connection with another that flows and changes with time, then security is felt as a continued sense of attunement with another; the beloved is an emerging, changing other; support is collaborating, cooperating and being with each other; sex is a changing journey towards a body/mind connection with oneself and another; problems are events that people move through rather than cope with.
These two ways of approaching love can be seen in the marriage vows themselves, in the Book of Common Prayer: "To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part." Having and holding a person presumes that person is static, like an object. And, like a precious object, something to cherish. But love is also defined as an experience in the flow of life, where people gain and lose status and health. Love changes as people change.
The implication of this difference is that when people are having a conflict and feel misunderstood, they might be arguing about one topic but there is often an unconscious and subterranean struggle over the meaning of love itself.
So how do you think of love -- as an object, or as a felt experience? In a consumer-oriented culture most people tend to objectify love, like the size of a diamond ring can be seen as an indicator of how much you love and are loved. Love as "in motion," on the other hand, is not as reinforced in our culture. Some people are bilingual in love, weaving in out of objectified and experiential love.
Listen to how you speak of love and how your loved one speaks of love. Are you living in the same worlds? Maybe this Valentine's Day you can ask each other, "What about love?"]]>Finding Our Way Hometag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22778172012-12-12T13:50:31-05:002013-02-11T05:12:01-05:00Birute Reginehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/birute-regine/
Well, not quite.
Despite our good intentions, what we imagine as wonderful family gatherings don't often meet up to our expectations. A moment comes along, perhaps several, an elusive, opaque moment of feeling disconnected from the ones you want to be most connected to.
A moment, perhaps, when imminent intimacy seems palpable and suddenly evaporates -- leaving you behind in a desert of isolation. How did what was meant to be a comment suddenly morph into a criticism that was not of your making? Or that joke that leaves you wondering if they are kidding or truth-telling. Or an offering you make somehow gets twisted into being taken as intrusive. You begin to question yourself, wondering if you are being too pushy or a pushover.
Then of course, there are the hot button moments when you grit your teeth as that certain someone has to take control of everything, or that other someone just can't keep quiet about their biases or stop bragging about their kids. Or you feel resentful that you have to walk on eggshells around someone because of their defensive or explosive nature. Or everyone is a wee bit stressed from our ridiculously-busy lives and therefore a wee bit touchy. Or maybe you are becoming part of a new family or circle of friends and don't quite know how to find your way in. In the midst of all these holiday hopes of feeling more connected to others, when disconnection happens instead, it feels even starker, more barren.
When we think of home, we often look for home outside ourselves. It sounds trite, but home really starts with yourself. When we are feeling misunderstood, angry, annoyed, or upset at how people are reacting or not reacting to you, or when we feel excluded, shut out, invisible, how do we find our way home to our better selves?
There is a kernel of truth that opens a path to home, a truth that is our shared humanity: Our shared need to love and be loved.
People's unhappiness can often be traced to a failure in being loved, a failure that creates disconnection from self and others and results in a feeling of isolation. Much of our personality and behavior choices can be traced back to how we were or were not loved.
When we are caught up in feelings of being shut out, we need to reframe this feeling. Rather than being an orphan in need of rescuing, we can include ourselves. How do you do that? When a person is being rude, or dismissive, overreacting, or unresponsive, remember that this person, like yourself, wants to be loved. And although you can't make someone love you, you do have the power to love another.
Asking yourself, "What can I love about this person?" gives you an intention to be in the moment, rather than brooding about how you feel left out. Asking this question engages you in an intention of discovery. Ultimately this discovery of what you can love is a gift for yourself because you feel and are your best when you are in a place of love. Love is home.
At home with yourself you can now pursue that feeling of home with others. Appreciation opens the door, light spills in and overrides the ultimately-petty differences that impede that feeling of closeness. Rather than thinking, "What is this person's problem?" see what you can appreciate about them. Appreciation is such a powerful gift we can give, and people are so hungry for it. A small appreciation holds the potential for quieting the most cantankerous bear. When you think about it, it takes so little, really, to find your way home to yourself and to others: a little self love, a little appreciation of others. Here we can find a place of mutual care and appreciation. Here we are finally home.
For more on emotional wellness, click here.]]>47 Percent and Beyondtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19399332012-10-04T16:18:36-04:002012-12-04T05:12:01-05:00Birute Reginehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/birute-regine/
To me, Romney came across as antsy, aggressive, amped up, and entitled in his general disregard for the moderator's limitations. Obama on the other hand seemed tired and not fully present and not going into the ring with his fists up, Traditionally we identify being aggressive and pushy as strong leadership because it is a way of winning the game of domination. That style of leadership is so not about real change; that's about maintaining the status quo. I'll take a good listener and a calm presence in my leader any day.
What was most striking was not just what was said at the debate but what was missing. Romney's infamous "47 percent remark" was practically missing in action. (Obama mentioned it only in passing.) Without Obama bringing it up forcefully and effectively as he did on the campaign trail, will we forget how Romney got caught red-handed saying what he really thinks to an audience who think the same way, that he doesn't care about 47 percent of people who don't pay taxes and described them as lazy victims and leeches? This of course is said by someone who conveniently has offshore accounts to limit paying his taxes, and being said to people who do the same. So exactly who are the people leeching off the system here?
Voters have two different world views to choose from. Curiously, and I suppose fortunately, both candidates agreed on what had to be done; how they would go about doing it was where the paths departed: Romney's would reduce the (already modest) financial burden on the wealthy while increasing it on the middle class, while Obama's plan is the obverse. But what drives these different world views? Economics has a lot to do with it.
Romney is a white man of privilege born into wealth, who doesn't even see his own privilege. Wealth can give you an illusion of independence and autonomy, that you don't need any one and that you do it alone, all values that don't necessarily lend themselves to being compassionate to the less fortunate. It's not that Romney hasn't worked hard as well, but he had more help than most in achieving his success, despite the tuna casseroles his wife spoke of at the GOP convention. Romney's lack of empathy, at times a mean-spiritedness towards those not doing as well as he, reflects an attitude not uncommon among the far right: "I had to do it on my own, what's wrong with you!" attitude. Their struggle doesn't seem to generate compassion but rather revenge. Whatever happened to the compassionate conservative!?!
Obama on the other hand is the realization of the American dream. A mullato child raised by a single mother, with the help of grandparents, manages to go to Harvard and then become the President of the United States! There was no entitlement or safety nets for him growing up that would give him the illusion that he was doing it all on his own. He saw how he needed others. Nor would he find security in a wall of affluence to the degree Romney does which in a way explains each of their choices about tax cuts for the wealthy.
I was at a fundraiser for a Himalayan school just recently in New Hampshire, where teenagers from a local private school spoke about their experience while visiting the school in India. These kids, living a life of privilege to some degree, were struck by the kindness, the level of attunement to their needs, and generosity the Indian students consistently demonstrated towards their visitors. They were blown away by how much they were cared for. These Indian students, who had all their worldly possessions in a small box under their thin cots, had such a spirit of generosity. Students who had so little, yet gave so much.
Why is that? The Indian students were connected to their vulnerability. Because they had so little, they were aware of their need of others, and that need connected them to the interdependent nature of web of their existence. Being kind to others is a survival tactic. In an interdependent world, we don't stand alone or fall alone.
I often talk about our interdependent, interconnected world to audiences, but I often wonder how many people are really connected to their sense of interdependence. One of the obstacles to connecting to that reality is often, but not necessarily, wealth and materialism. When you are enormously wealthy, like Romney, you don't really see your need for others. Instead others are something to leverage to attain your goals so that you can be top dog. The price of that world view is an inability to empathize and feel compassion. When you don't have a lot, it is easier to see how you need others and how they need you. They see themselves in others. As the word "Namaste" illustrates: I honor the light in you that is also in me.
Our society continues to reward narcissistic leaders who are easily corrupted by power because of the emptiness they feel and try to fill ineffectively through materialism. I think it's time to change that game and begin to embrace the global view of interdependence and the power of empathy to help a world in so much need of healing.]]>50 Shades of F***ed Uptag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.14652942012-04-30T16:10:26-04:002012-06-30T05:12:02-04:00Birute Reginehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/birute-regine/Fifty Shades of Grey is pretty hot.
Sure, it's not that well-written; it's pretty hokey at times (how many times can you say, "He's so hot" in a book. Apparently a lot). It's an escape book, a naughty book, a remind-you-of -your-passion book, a nothing- new-erotica-book because dominating women has been a subject since the earliest erotica.
I also think it's flying off the shelves because it hits a deeper knowing, a chord of reality, perhaps unconscious, in women.
If you take away the titillation aspects of the book, what we see is the existing paradigm of our culture: domination that uses power over others. We live with it in business; we see it in politics, and in religion. (For example, the Pope demanding radical obedience from nuns?!)
I find it interesting that the author, E.L. James, wrote this book while going through midlife crisis, a time when you stop and reassess your life and the forces that have shaped it. I think on an unconscious level E.L. James was trying to sort out the power dynamics in our society and looking for a way out of a domination-based culture. Maybe the women readers on some level are struggling with the same question and how to get beyond this use of power.
In my research I saw this domination paradigm beginning to shift. Women in power, not all of course, are transforming the meaning of power from power over to power with, creating more mutual, collaborative environments. This use of power also faces much resistance because it challenges the status quo and requires skills that people who dominate don't generally have.
What ticks me off about Fifty Shades of Grey is not the book itself but the media's spin on it and the questions it raises and doesn't raise.
At a time when women are coming into their own power, have more economic control over their lives, sometimes earn more than their husbands, for the first time compose more than half the workforce, and have an opportunity to change the domination game by claiming their power, some in the media are using this book to ask questions like, "Are you sure you want control? Isn't it sexy to be out of control?"
As women come into power there are forces trying to pull them back in time, as we see in the assault by the GOP on women's self-determination over their bodies, where they are denied certain health benefits on one hand and then forced to do unnecessary procedures on the other. And then they are being asked, "Isn't it hot to be overpowered? Isn't this what you really want?" It makes me think of women saying "no" to sex, and being told it really means "yes."
Now this book is not going to undermine women's power, but these questions plant insidious seeds of self-doubt. By the way, Ana, the main character, is full of self-doubt: If I'm powerful will I not be sexy? Must I be submissive to get what I want? Is this what I have to be to be desirable?
This spin isn't about sex, it's about power. The bondage narrative moves women back from little power to no power. It may be played out as sex games behind the bedroom door, but it's the same aim to dominate women and maintain the status quo.
It's not just the questions that are being raised that bug me; it's also the questions that are not being raised. Why aren't we asking what's wrong with men that need to control, own, dominate, assault women? No mention of the other side of this game. I just read that domestic violence is up during the recession. So economic pressures force men to beat up their wife or girlfriend? What's that all about?
A domination culture obviously doesn't serve men either, as we see in Christian Grey, who described himself as, "fifty shades of fucked up." Men are under such enormous pressure to be dominant, king of the mountain, to be in control, to emulate strength. Christian takes this imperative to be in control to a perversion, formalized in his "room of pain." The domination game tells women that their pain is their pleasure, and for men, her pain is his pleasure. There's a bit of cross-wiring going on. Why isn't the media asking men, "Are you sure you want to hurt her?"
Ultimately, FiftyShades of Grey says more about men than about women. Christian Grey captures a transition in our understanding of what it means to be a man in our society and our need to expand that meaning. His need for control doesn't come from strength but from vulnerability and a fear of addressing those feelings. Hope lies in his emerging nurturing side as we also see his care for Ana, a path that can lead him to becoming a whole person and toward a meaning of manhood that includes being able to hold feelings and love, and therefore be vulnerable.
Domination and submission: two sides of a dysfunctional coin.]]>Desperately Seeking Gloriatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13652252012-03-21T13:44:54-04:002012-05-21T05:12:01-04:00Birute Reginehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/birute-regine/
Wrong questions. Let's look at the assumptions. The media love the hero story, stars are sexy, always have been. This "Lone Ranger" style of leadership, with its emphasis on the all-conquering, all-powerful individual, is a masculine-infused model that has dominated corporate cultures for decades, and still does. The media imposed this model on the articulate and attractive Gloria, dubbing her as spokesperson for the movement despite her protests otherwise, that the movement had many leaders. Women's power is not a singular power but a collective power, she insisted, where leadership is distributed and everyone has an opportunity to be a leader.
This media blindness to another kind of leadership reminds of a story former Prime Minister of Canada, Kim Campbell, told me. When she was minister of Justice she had the task of getting a gun control bill passed through Parliament. She worked hard behind the scenes, engaging people in lots of consultation, inviting people to talk to people they usually didn't talk to, negotiating the dissent. When the bill passed by a large margin, Kim Campbell expected to hear praise for delivering on her pledge. Instead she saw a bewildered media who scratched their heads and wondered how Campbell could get such a contentious bill passed. She must have been watered it down, they snidely suggested. She had done no such thing. Instead she had adopted a different, collaborative, inclusive style of leadership, and a very successful one. The media, with their traditional assumptions about what "real leadership" looked like, just couldn't see Campbell's different way. It was completely invisible to them.
A seismic change has been going on in what makes corporations successful, in what successful leadership demands. Gone is the traditional command and control, mechanistic approach, where one individual really could steer the corporate to chosen destinations. It worked well once, but no longer. In today's fast-moving, always connected world, individual leaders have much less control, and corporate success rests increasingly on interlacing networks and distributed leadership and creativity. Today's world--and future worlds--look like Google and Facebook, whose org charts look much more like fluid webs than stacked hierarchies. And yet the media still look for heroes, lauding Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and Mark Zuckerberg as if the ultimate success of their protean, organic enterprises was theirs alone. They forget the power of distributed leadership and creativity, and let's not forget luck. But the hero model is simpler, and easy to make into headlines.
As long as the media keeps looking for the hero to come to the rescue, to triumph in the face of Olympian challenges, they are going to miss a profound event underway, where collaboration is the source of great futures. This is the world of today's women, where many women stand together as one, and where every woman is a leader in shaping justice for all. It is a world where Palestinian and Israeli women's organizations are working together to build peace, rather than posturing in sclerotic positions of antagonism.
There is such a plethora of similar women's organizations across the globe, working to close challenging chasms, reflecting the kaleidoscope of diverse interests that can be defined under the umbrella of feminist leadership. Momentum is building as women come to realize their collective power, but we have a ways to go. Feminist leadership will not manifest in one woman, but in a collective force and voice that will change the world.
Matthew Arnold, the nineteenth century British poet and cultural critic said the following: "If ever the world sees a time when women shall come together purely for the good of humanity, it will be a power such as the world has never seen."
Wonder what that headline will look like?
]]>Recognizing Women, the Changemakerstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13212642012-03-06T11:29:04-05:002012-05-06T05:12:01-04:00Birute Reginehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/birute-regine/
I was reminded of this while watching Water in Tigray, a video from Oxfam America, where water has saved lives. It tells the story of women in Tigray in Northern Ethiopia, who would walk 11 miles, every day, to get water. Why? Because that was the closest water source. Can you imagine that? Eleven miles there, 11 miles back. And the five-gallon jugs they'd fill would weigh about 40 lbs, so they were trekking 22 miles... a day... and carrying 40 lbs on the way back... a day.
Perhaps the toughest part of watching the video was hearing about a woman who went into labor while on the trek; somehow, the other women managed to get her back to the village, but her baby died after a week.
Fortunately, thanks to a partnership between the local government, the Women's Association of Tigray and Oxfam America, they now have a dam and lake much closer to their village. So now they can get water much more easily, which leaves time for other essential activities, like cooking. And the animals are doing better, because with more water, they're producing more milk, which means more food and income all around.
Poverty is a hot button. Ask pretty much anyone if they think it should be eradicated, and chances are they'll say yes. But you know what one of the solutions to poverty is? Empowering women.
Did you know one in seven people go to bed hungry every night? And this isn't because there isn't enough food to go around. It's because there are deep imbalances in access to resources like fertile lands and water (like the story I just shared with you). In fact, more than 40 percent of the world's population -- 2.5 billion people -- live in poverty, and most of them are women.
But, if women were given the same level of access to resources that men have, they could increase yields on their farms by 20-30 percent. Hunger and poverty are about power and inequality, and women and girls face the biggest inequalities of all.
This International Women's Day, how about showing women everywhere you appreciate their contributions to our world, contributions that often go unacknowledged and unrecognized? Oxfam America is giving you a couple of really easy ways to do this:
1. Send an International Women's Day eCard to a woman you know, to say thank you for all that she does. Better yet, send it to several women who've made the world a better place.
2. Give the Oxfam America International Women's Day 2012 award to a woman you think has made a difference in your world, in the world. She could be a teacher, your mom, a non-profit leader, a woman entrepreneur, the neighbor who always checks up on you when you're ill... the possibilities are endless.
To give your award, just fill out the PDF file with the awardee's name, and your name and date. You can then save it as a PDF or JPG (JPG if you want your readers to see the actual award) file. Then just publish a post to your blog, or to Facebook (make sure to tag her so she sees it), or wherever you'd like. You can even print it out and give it to her as a tangible reminder of your gratefulness.
International Women's Day is also an opportunity for women to come together and realize their collective power to create change in their homes, their neighborhoods, their communities and in the world.
The poet Matthew Arnold wrote in the 1800s, "If ever the world sees a time when women will come together purely for the good of humanity, it will be a power as the world has never seen."
Now is our time, and we are the women. ]]>Sex Appeal and Strutting our Stuff: Sexual Power or Real Power?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12997642012-02-26T10:01:06-05:002012-04-27T05:12:01-04:00Birute Reginehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/birute-regine/
Now I'm not saying it's not fun to be sexy, and if you have a beautiful body and work hard to keep it that way, why not show it off. But if sexuality is a vehicle for actualizing personal power, that's a limited and superficial path, a pursuit of power where women can end up making themselves into sexual objects and sabotage their real power.
The confusion is apparent in the recent phenomenon of the SlutWalks that have erupted around the world. They started in Toronto after a police officer told female students if they didn't want to be victimized, they should stop dressing like sluts. Whoa! Kind of misses the point, doesn't it?
How about the fact that one in five female students have been sexually assaulted or a victim of an attempt? How about the fact that students who have been raped are rarely believed and encouraged not to file charges? How about the fact that aggressors are rarely expelled or suffer any serious consequences? Women rightly reacted with ire to another example of blaming the victim: the aggressor is not responsible for his impulses, the victim is responsible for keeping his manly urges in check.
In response to this injustice, young women in a show of solidarity marched together skimpily dressed, proclaiming their power to dress any damn way they pleased. But I'm scratching my head. I have a whole issue with the word "slut" but that's a tar baby I'm not going to address in this blog. Is SlutWalk an example of women realizing and demonstrating their real power? Or did it undermine their real power?
Who does this highly sexualized version of woman belong to anyway? The ads in images targeting women and featuring women teach us to see ourselves not through our own eyes but through the eyes of fantasizing men. As a result, many women internalize a male perspective of themselves, which represents not our natural sense of ourselves but a sense of ourselves being lusted after by another. John Berger said it well in his 1972 book, "Ways of Seeing": "Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female."
Women are often fighting a battle they don't even know they are fighting. As they internalize these images subconsciously and try to look like them, sexual power and titillation gets confused with real, personal power. How we are supposed to look replaces the question of how we want people to see us.
I'm not knocking being sexy. It can be fun to be sexy. But when the perception of a woman is limited to her sexuality, she paradoxically becomes invisible, in spite of all she is exposing. By emphasizing and spotlighting her sexual power, people see her but never know her. I remember walking down the cobbled streets of Lamu, a resort island off the coast of Kenya. The culture is Swahili Muslim and women dress in black burqas with everything covered except their eyes. Mingling with them were American women tourists wearing halter tops, short shorts, and big sunglasses revealing almost everything except their eyes.
In a strange way, these two modes of dress are two sides of the same coin, the positive/negative image of each other that shared a commonality. Neither was seen for who they were. The burqa blinded the observer to the woman. The emphasis on body parts also blinded the observer to the woman.
So when I'm watching the Academy Awards this Sunday, there are two categories I'll be paying attention to: sexual power and real power. And the winner is?
]]>The Girls of Egypt Are Heretag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12088612012-01-16T16:55:34-05:002012-03-17T05:12:01-04:00Birute Reginehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/birute-regine/
What really struck me was that as these women asserted their civil rights, men holding hands encircled them to keep them from getting harassed. It immediately conjured up a memory of a moment during my interview with Violet, an Australian aboriginal elder. At the end of our time together she said, "Women hold the wisdom, men hold the love. That's how it should be."
What's your reaction to that statement? It completely took me aback; it seemed our culture emphasized the exact opposite. It became a guiding light for me in writing my book. Why do I need to uncover women's wisdom? What has prevented men from holding love? I think what Violet was implying was that both men and women hold the love and wisdom, but in order to achieve that internal balance women need to embrace the wisdom they hold. and men need to identify with holding love. With that internal balance hopefully comes a cultural balance where women's wisdom receives the respect it deserves and men are free to take on a role of giving love.
The image of this protest seemed to visually illustrate women holding the wisdom and men holding the love. What a powerful and hopeful image it was for me.
If only it was that easy.
Men protecting the protestors was a mixed bag for many women. "If you are calling for men to protect you, that is bad, because then they define you and they stick to the traditional role," said Mozn Hassan, executive director of Nazra for Feminist Studies. And the traditional role is that women aren't leaders and are subjugated by men. Indeed, men had no trouble taking charge of this demonstration that had been initiated by women, directing the crowd and leading its chants. Women have often colluded in undermining their power by giving their power away to men. And men have no trouble at all in taking it. No this time, as we see a healthy resistance in women like Hassan.
Although women had originally been in the forefront of the uprising in Egypt, they have since been side-lined and marginalized with hardly any leadership roles. Fewer than ten women were elected to hold a place in the 500 seats in Parliament. However the recent demonstration gave them a collective voice that could not be silenced, one that elicited an apology from the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.
It's a complex dance for Egyptian women -- and all women -- to find their rightful place as leaders and to hold the wisdom. As Hassan points out, the girls of Egypt want to be heard in their own terms, and as separate. How can they engage like-minded men to stand with them without being overtaken by them? How to transform a system that fosters women's dependence to one of interdependence? How to stand separate from men and not alienate them?
To hold love, by its nature, demands a certain vulnerability. To not rush in and take control, to hold the space of women's emerging leadership is a vulnerable place for many men, who are used to dominating. For men to hold love flies in the face of a traditional meaning of masculinity as invulnerable, an inhumane meaning that denies men the opportunity to connect to our shared humanity, that we are all vulnerable. Instead of holding the love, they resort to violence or taking control.
And yet, that image of men holding hands as they encircle women who are realizing their collective power in their demand for justice, lingers with me and fills me with hope. Although psychologically and culturally much has to change to realize that image, a shift has begun, as if the body is speaking ahead of the mind, showing how things could be. And will be because the girls of Egypt are here to stay. ]]>2012: The Gate to the Garden Is Opentag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11232802011-12-01T14:59:31-05:002012-01-31T05:12:02-05:00Birute Reginehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/birute-regine/
Given that I look at organizations as complex systems, which are non-linear and highly unpredictable, I'm not a fool who rushes into these things.
But one prediction did capture my imagination. Despite their geographical distance, Mayan, Mongolian, and Hopi predicted that 2012 would be the end of an Era of Man. For some, this seems like the end of the world! But actually it marks an evolutionary shift in consciousness. The Era of Man was defined by the use of power: power over others. This use of power generated a domination-based society, defined by hierarchies, frontier mentality, celebrating the Lone Ranger style of leadership, and revering those qualities of independence, autonomy and individuality. Using power over others also is at the heart of racism, sexism, war, terrorism, environmental degradation, sex slave trading.
With 2012 a new Era begins, the Era of Women. Men, don't worry. In the Era of Women, women won't exclude men from the table of power as men excluded women in the Era of Man. Instead they will work together to create a more equitable and just world.
The late Congresswoman Bella Abzug predicted that in the 21st century, power would not change women, women would change the nature of power. This is what I found in my research on women leaders. Women are changing the nature of power from power over to power with and for others. In this way, they are midwifing a new era of collaboration and cooperation, what I call a revolution hidden in plain sight.
So, back to my prediction. It is my prediction that this revolution hidden in plain sight will become visible in 2012. For the past decade I have been watching women learn to collaborate and support each other in a way they have never done before -- it is revolutionary. Like smoldering coals, their behind-the-scenes work is ready to catch fire. At all levels we will see women taking their place as leaders, within organizations, as entrepreneurs, in politics. As they transform the nature of power, they transform the nature of leadership.
All those soft skills -- relational intelligence, empathy, intuition, holistic thinking, inclusion, consensus building -- will no longer be viewed as soft, but rather as powerful because these are the very skills needed to create effective collaborations.
In the past, women felt they had to develop their masculine skills in order to be successful in a man's world. Now they will fully balance those skills by embracing their feminine skills. Like Michele Bachelet, former President of Chile, and Ellen Sirleaf Johnson, President of Liberia, they will embrace the nurturing, strict mother within their leadership style. At a global level, being a leader will also mean being a healer in a world traumatized by the use of power over others, as these two women so clearly demonstrate.
The world is weary of male posturing disguised as leadership. I for one am done with the Putins, the Netanyahus, Boehners, not to mention all the Middle East dictators. Although the revolution I am talking about is led primarily by women, there are like-minded men who remain equally as invisible as the women in their leadership style.
I was talking with a Republican recently who said Obama is a failed leader. It all depends on what you mean by leader. From where I stand, I think he is part of this movement to move our society toward a more collaborative one. Unfortunately for those who identify posturing as leadership, they don't know how to respond to an open hand when they are used to fists. We have two mind sets at work and if you look at any models of organizational development, moral development, adult development, then you will see that a collaborative approach is the more evolved approach and a step toward evolving rather that devolving.
Here's a small example of the invisible becoming visible. A group of women, part of a women's leadership initiative in a large American corporation, decided to meet twice a month to discuss my book, Iron Butterflies. In the course of their discussions they began to know each other better, discovered what mattered to them, and began supporting each other in a way they had never done before. The outcome for one woman, who had a way of holding herself back, was to start a very successful initiative to help a women's shelter. Another woman, who was reluctant to speak out at meetings found herself speaking out more than ever. Women gathering together in support of each other become bold and visible.
A similar phenomenon happens with SheEO, a by-invitation-only organization, started by the founder of ZipCar, Robin Chase and Bettina Hein, founder of Pixability, a video marketing company. These primarily GenX women were once in corporate America and decided to leave and start up their own businesses. The group is all about women being honest about the obstacles they face, and supporting each other in making their businesses successful. One angel investor, who in starting her own company didn't have such support, said that she felt like drooling when she heard of women so profoundly in support of each other.
One last prediction. The poet Matthew Arnold made a prediction in the 1800s: "If ever the world sees a time when women will come together purely for the good of humanity, it will be a power as the world has never seen." That time has arrived. That time is now. Let's celebrate the New Era of Women in 2012. The gate to the garden open.
]]>On Being 'Nice'tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11063572011-11-23T18:17:16-05:002012-01-23T05:12:01-05:00Birute Reginehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/birute-regine/
Part of the problem with this argument is in how it is framed. It implies that being nice (or feminine) is ineffective and being not nice (masculine) is effective. Since most of our images of leadership are masculine-infused, women are under tremendous pressure to emulate those qualities, and yet as soon as they do, they are derided as bitches. So part of the problem is that we do not associate the feminine and nice as qualities we attribute to effective leadership.
There is a problem of perception here, and the biases we bring to the word "nice," such as being compliant and eager to please. In reality, isn't there something deeper to being nice than this stereotype? Aren't we being "nice" when we listen deeply? Aren't we being nice when we are inclusive? Aren't we being nice when we are being empathic? Aren't we being nice when we are utilizing our relational intelligence? Aren't these feminine skills effective in leadership? Research on the generation of collective intelligence suggests that the answer is, Yes they are!
Social scientists, such as Christopher Chabris at MIT's Center for Collective Intelligence, and Anita Williams Woolley at Carnegie Mellon University, have recently begun to systematically examine what they call the "collective intelligence" of groups. Collective intelligence is a measure of how smart the group is, as a whole. Chabris and Woolley's paper, "Evidence for Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups", was reported in the journal Science in October 2010.
What they discovered in their research completely surprised them; it was not something they expected or were looking for. They learned that collective intelligence is not tied to either the smartest person on the team nor to the average intelligence of the members of the team.
Rather it is something that is greater than any individual contribution or the sum of contributions. It is an emergent property that results from the interactions among the people in the group. What emerges is almost magical: something greater than the sum of its parts. You can call it evolved thinking.
The current research on collective intelligence gives us two key results. The first is that the phenomenon is real, that groups can indeed perform at a higher level of creativity than any single individual. We knew this intuitively, of course. It is the second result that is the surprise, and this has to do with the one single predictor that a particular group will have high collective intelligence: namely, at least half the chairs around the table should be occupied by women. Surprised?
What do women bring to the table that catalyzes evolved thinking? According to Chabris and Woolley it is a superior social sensitivity in reading non-verbal cues and other people's emotions, and a fairness in turn taking. In other words, it is relational intelligence.
Couldn't assuring everyone has a turn be perceived as being nice? Couldn't being sensitive to the emotional undercurrents be perceived as being nice? But is this ineffective? No, in fact, these are the very skills that facilitate the emergence of collective intelligence.
Being "nice" could include a bevy of feminine skills that have been marginalized and demeaned by being called "nice." However, they are actually the opposite from ineffective and soft; they are very powerful and effective and difficult skills to learn. I think of dancers. If a dancer is really talented, she really makes it look easy when in fact it requires a tremendous amount of skill. I think we often take for granted the amount of skill it requires to make things "nice."
So what's a girl to do? Step out of the dichotomy: nice can also be a very effective skill. It's not an either/or argument. Transform that perceived weakness and embrace it as a strength that can give you an edge as a leader. Being nice when it includes those feminine skills such as relational intelligence, inclusion, empathy, collaboration, deep listening, and consensus building is a very effective way to achieve your goals in our increasingly interdependent world. Eventually even the "not nice" bosses will take notice when you deliver and wonder how such a nice person got to accomplish what she did.
]]>Women CEOs: Bold Enough to Be a Woman?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.10636712011-10-28T14:48:25-04:002011-12-28T05:12:01-05:00Birute Reginehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/birute-regine/
Studies from McKinsey to Catalyst continually find that that companies in the US and Europe with the most women on their boards, and who have a higher number of executive women, perform better organizationally and financially. This is obviously not always the case: Carly Fiorina is an example, whose tenure ended in acrimony when she was forced out in 2005 over disappointing financials.
However, the 25 Fortune 500 companies with the best records for promoting women to senior positions have 69 percent higher returns than the Fortune 500 median for their industry.
The results of a McKinsey Global Survey in 2010 found 72 percent of executives "believe there is a direct connection between a company's gender diversity and its financial success." The study showed that the companies that had the highest levels of gender diversity also had higher returns on equity, operating results, and growth in market valuation than the averages in their respective sectors.
Research from other organizations, such as Catalyst, support these findings.
So what exactly do women bring to the table that makes such a difference? Recent research on collective intelligence sheds some light on the issue.
Social scientists, such as Christopher Chabris at MIT's Center for Collective Intelligence, Anita Williams Woolley at Carnegie Mellon University, have recently begun to systematically examine what they call the "collective intelligence" of groups. Collective intelligence is a measure of how smart the group is, as a whole. Chabris and Woolley's paper, "Evidence for Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups," was reported in the journal Science in October 2010.
What they discovered in their research completely surprised them; it was not something they expected or were looking for. They learned that collective intelligence is not tied to either the smartest person on the team, nor to the average intelligence of the members of the team.
Rather it is something that is greater than any individual contribution or the sum of contributions. It is an emergent property that results from the interactions among the people in the group. What emerges is almost magical: something greater than the sum of its parts. You can call it evolved thinking.
Complexity science shows us that in complex systems, which human groups are, for a positive emergence to occur there must be conditions of mutuality and a level playing field, diversity, and trust. If not, the potential for collective intelligence can easily devolve into group think, where everyone dumbly follows the boss's lead.
The current research on collective intelligence gives us two key results. The first is that the phenomenon is real, that groups can indeed perform at a higher level of creativity than any single individual. We knew this intuitively, of course. It is the second result that is the surprise, and this has to do with the one single predictor that a particular group will have high collective intelligence: at least half the chairs around the table should be occupied by women.
What do women bring to the table that catalyzes evolved thinking? According to Chabris and Woolley it is a superior social sensitivity in reading non-verbal cues and other people's emotions, and a fairness in turn taking.
From my research on women in business, I would characterize their "secret" as the possession and use of what may fairly be called feminine skills. By this I mean relational intelligence, emotional intelligence, holistic perspective, inclusion, empathy, intuition. All those skills that have been largely marginalized or dismissed as "soft" in the business world are really powerful for facilitating the emergence of collective intelligence. Such skills are not exclusively held by women, of course. But on average they are more developed in women, and women are generally more willing to use them.
When we think of leadership it is often masculine-infused, rewarding behaviors like decisiveness, goal-directedness, linearity, and performance-orientation. I don't think Rometty, Whitman or Burns could have attained this level of power without demonstrating these abilities two-fold. I'm sure they have proved they are man enough for the job.
The real question is, are they woman enough for the job? Will they take this opportunity to wield the power of those feminine skills, by demonstrating a more collaborative style of leadership? In a world begging for a different kind of leadership, will they depart from the lone ranger model of leadership that reveres those qualities of independence, individuality, and autonomy? Will these women transform the meaning of power by distributing power rather than holding onto power for themselves, by engaging people rather than dictating to them, and by seeking to bring the best out in people rather than focusing on themselves as center stage heroes?
If they do, Bella Abzug's prediction will be fulfilled, and a much needed new era of cooperation has an opportunity to be realized.
]]>Wall Street Retro: The Two Question Interviewtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9292472011-08-17T12:39:20-04:002011-10-17T05:12:01-04:00Birute Reginehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/birute-regine/
Her daughter's roommate, however, managed to get a high paying internship on Wall Street. Her roommate happens to be at the top of her class, a very ambitious, very capable young woman, hungry to get into the game. But it turns out that all those admirable qualities alone were not enough to land the job.
After several interviews, she finally landed a phone interview with the top honcho of the Wall Street firm. "He said, 'I have two questions for you.''" My friend said to me, "Can you guess what they were?" When she told me, my jaw dropped open.
"He said, 'First question. Do you have a boyfriend?'" The roommate said no.
"The second question. 'Do you want to have children?'" Again she said no. They hired her.
My first reaction was that she should have told him it was none of his business. My second reaction was to turn it right back on him, "Do you have a girlfriend, wife? Do you have children?" Bet he does.
My friend's reaction was how could a twenty year old know if she will never want children?
But what did these questions really ask of this young woman? You can have a job in the Big Time if you deny being a woman? If you deny having a life outside work? If you hang out as a boy?
It made me think of Marsha Firestone, one of the women I interviewed for my book, Iron Butterflies. Marsha is the president of Women's President Organization (WPO). Originally, however, she had wanted to be a lawyer. After she had graduated from college, she applied to law school. During an interview, the dean of admissions said to her, "You have a boyfriend, don't you?" She said, "Yes, I do." He said, "Why should I give this spot to you when I can give it to some guy who can support his family? You're just going to get married and have babies anyway."
Marsha had been a straight A student and involved in lots of leadership activities at school. She didn't get into law school. The dean apparently considered Marsha's being a woman who might have children reason enough to turn her down, despite her obvious academic qualifications. Had she been a man, it would have been a breeze. Although the dean stopped Marsha from becoming a lawyer, it didn't stop her from becoming successful. She went on to get a doctorate in communications, and founded WPO, a global collaborative peer learning organization for multi-million dollar companies run and owned by women.
Many ambitious baby boomer women have encountered such barricades in their time. It was bad enough then, but we thought we were past such in-your-face discrimination in 2011. Aren't we past that? Apparently not, as my friend's story about the Wall Street hotshot's blatant questions attests. Stopping women advancing in business because they are women and potential mothers?
Young women don't often encounter the blatant gender bias the way baby boomers did. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. After the interview, the roommate called her friend and said, "You won't believe what he asked me!" This young woman knew there was something wrong with this type of questioning, but also recognized she wasn't really in a position to challenge someone in a position of power. Sometimes moving on to a better work environment is a better solution, which is what the roommate eventually did.
When my friend told me the story, Barbara Boxer's remark at the 2004 Democratic Convention came to mind: "Women have to fight and work for our freedom, and every generation has to do it again. If you want freedom, we cannot rest."
There is something to be said for learning to play the game, as this young woman was eager to do. However, when do women together and of all generations, change the game of the two question interview? ]]>Vulnerability Management: Required Course for Leaders?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8926312011-07-08T16:02:00-04:002011-09-07T05:12:01-04:00Birute Reginehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/birute-regine/
Really, I thought to myself? No leader wants to think about managing vulnerability? It's not a question of going there. It's a matter of already being there. In a complex, interdependent global reality, low predictability and low control define today's reality. These uncertain times by nature are vulnerable times. How you deal with vulnerability has a lot to do with defining your character and leadership style. If leaders and managers deny their vulnerability, what does that say about their effectiveness and ability to learn from mistakes? How can you expand your understanding of things if you can't admit you're wrong?
Michele Bachmann's embarrassing faux pas about the Founding Fathers (she said that they worked tirelessly to end slavery) is a case in point. Here's a person with a staff who sees herself as a future president, and is either intentionally revising history or doesn't care enough to know the facts. But even worse were the contortions she went through to justify her statement when she was brought to task. Is it so hard to simply say, "I was wrong, I made a mistake"?
Sarah Palin's comment on the Paul Revere ride and making it a case for the Second Amendment is a similar example. What's wrong with saying, "I didn't get it quite right, but I've got it now"? Instead, we get all this rationalization, victimization and fast footwork. And admitting a "misstatement" comes short of owning up. Rather than "man up," how about we "own up" to all the false and misguided statements we've made?
It's not to say that we haven't seen leaders and politicians admit being wrong or making a mistake. The mea culpas keep coming from philandering husbands, from Edwards to Spitzer to Ensign. Admitting wrong for personal issues seems to have more approval than for a professional issue.
To make a wrong right, you have to start out with admitting you are wrong. That's the problem with many of the lawsuits that get settled behind closed doors, such as the sex discrimination suit filed against Morgan Stanley (now Morgan Stanley Smith Barney). Making sealed deals with no admission of wrongdoing is not progress; it's denying a vulnerability and therefore not addressing it in an effective and constructive way.
In order to manage vulnerability effectively, you have to be strong enough to admit that you are wrong and care enough to do something about it. Admitting you are wrong is not just about a weakness but also about an opportunity to learn and grow. It requires a special kind of strength: humility.
We need our leaders to model managing vulnerability in a constructive way. Of course, there is always the fear of being diminished or demeaned, and in a culture that so heavily denies vulnerability, this is certainly a possibility. But our future as a society rests in how we deal with all the vulnerabilities we face individually and collectively and how we respond to others being vulnerable. When we can transform vulnerabilities into learning opportunities for everyone, and cast them in a positive light, then that can lead to new strengths.]]>Ending Hunger Starts With Womentag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8266852011-02-25T12:30:23-05:002011-05-25T18:35:25-04:00Birute Reginehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/birute-regine/
When he next saw his mother he asked her about the mystery of the uneaten tops of the boiled eggs. She told him that when he and his two brothers were growing up, not very long after the end of World War II, there usually weren't enough eggs for everyone. She therefore cut the tops off the boiled eggs, gave the bulk of the eggs to her three sons, and took the leftover tops for her own breakfast.
Woman as caregiver manifests in many amazing ways, and not least around issues of food. When food is scarce, women usually eat less so that other members of their family can have enough.
Women have always played a central role on issues of food production for domestic consumption, household food provision and distribution. Anthropologist Adrienne Zihlman and others have noted that for 25,000 years in the preagricultural band societies, 80 percent of their sustenance came from gathering and 20 percent from hunting. Rather than the stereotype of Man the Hunter as provider, Woman the Gatherer put food on the table.
Because they are major players around issues of food, women are also key to overcoming hunger problems faced by poor and marginalized communities. If we want to fight hunger, empowering and supporting women is crucial. We know that when we invest in women, we get the biggest bang for the buck because that investment goes right back to the family and community. It's also true around issues of hunger.
This is what the international relief and development organization Oxfam America says about hunger: "Hunger isn't about too many people and too little food. Hunger is about power." Indeed, there's enough food being produced now for every woman, man and child in the world, but about a billion people will still go to bed hungry tonight, many of them women. Because women still face so many inequalities and don't have access to as many resources, they suffer the greatest burden. But with this challenge comes an opportunity, and many women in poor countries are rising to the challenge and fighting back to end hunger in their own innovative ways.
It's often hard to know what exactly we can do. Oxfam, however, presents an opportunity for us to stand together to raise consciousness around this issue, and help eliminate hunger by supporting these women. As we approach the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day, this is the perfect opportunity to make a difference by a simple action. Take a picture of yourself with your declaration "Ending Hunger starts with Women" and post it on Oxfam's photobook.
Doing this you join a community of people who care about ending hunger. Imagine seeing all those who stand to be counted with all the mothers who only give themselves the tops of eggs.
I did, and I even got my nieces in on the act! Generations standing together; we can do it!