Translator: Ellen Maloney
Reviewer: Denise RQ For how many of you does
the following situation sound familiar: you are with a group of friends,
you are all dressed up, and someone whips out a camera. There is mostly girls in the group. You are going to see
a little something like this. (Laughter) Now imagine there is
mostly guys in the group. Same camera comes up. You are going to see something
more along the lines of this. (Laughter) Interestingly enough,
probably with my having said anything, you could have told me which gender each
of these behaviors is associated with. Even more interestingly,
this is hugely consistent across boundaries,
across nations, and cultures. Why is it that we can categorize these two
behaviors as distinctly male or female? Is there something evolutionary about it? Is there some benefit to us,
whether we have XX or XY chromosomes, to act one way or another? When I think about behavioral
or cultural analysis, the first resource I look to is Facebook. This is me on Facebook. As you can see, I am portraying
a lot of the female stereotypes that we might think about. I am tilting my head, such that my inner
ears are misaligned from the upright axis, which puts me off-balance. My legs are crossed in such a way
that if you even pushed me a little bit, I would probably fall to the ground. Further, this little cultural phenomenon
made an appearance in my pose; it is clearly not helping me,
but the "Peace" sign is there. Taking a look at the other end
of the spectrum, this is my dad. He would be amused to know
that he is in my PowerPoint. (Laughter) This is the smile I was trying
to talk about earlier. You know that, "I want to act
like I am here, I am interested, but I really do not want to seem
like I care too much what I look like so mostly I am just having this mental
struggle and I am uncomfortable. Please just let this photo be over." Same thing with his body
language; he is leaning back. Thank goodness he had
a pocket because otherwise, his hand would be going through
the same mental struggle. (Laughter) As we can see, none of these gender
norms, none of these behaviors are actually helping either gender. They are just for aesthetic reasons, so the biological explanation
seems unlikely. What we know from social psychology is that this is very much
a cultural phenomenon. We are a culture, are socialized into
the norms that our society expects of us. As men and women, there are expectations
for how we will act in society in order for it to run smoothly. We are taught that from a very young age. As a dancer, I have to be hyper-aware
of my body language and what it means. For women, these social stereotypes are things like kindness,
friendliness, and cooperativity. For men, the cultural stereotypes
are assertiveness, power, taking a stand. As a dancer, whatever I do,
whatever movement I make, is very calculated,
and it is always for a purpose, to try to get a specific
perception from the audience. When I am doing something
like hip-hop for example, I notice that I spread my legs out wider. I lean forward a little bit more,
and I am definitely more aggressive. Something a little bit like this. (Dancing) ( Chiddy Bang-"Pass Out") Like that. (Applause) That was what I would do
as a hip-hop dancer. As you can see, a lot of the things
we saw in my dad, or in the spread-out, - leaning forward, aggression -
is what I was doing there. Whereas, when I contrasted it
with something more balletic, like lyrical or contemporary, I realised that I took on
many of the feminine norms I was talking about earlier. That coy, kind of flirtatious look; definitely more sexualized form. Something like this. (Dancing) (Lorde - "Royals") That is what I would call
a lyrical form of dance. (Applause) Thank you. All these things came to me and I realised
that when I am choreographing, when I am thinking about
hip-hop versus a lyrical piece, what I am actually doing is deciding what
gender I want the audience to see me as; what stereotypes I would like to activate
in all of you when I start dancing. Then it occurred to me that there is no way that this is limited
to the stage, or to Facebook. If my leaning forward, and spreading
my legs out, and being aggressive activates in you the stereotype
of power, of confidence, then what does it mean
when I sit in class like this? Which is probably something you see in
a lot of women in public spaces, offices. It is a pretty common default position. I certainly sit like this, usually
with my thighs over my hands. It is literally a physically
compacting position. If leaning forward means confidence,
then I started to wonder what this means. Probably the opposite. Then I started to contrast it
with my male colleagues. I would look around me in class
and see boys sitting like this, which is something we would expect of men. But this activates something
that is consistent with leadership. Power, assertiveness,
"I know what I am doing". I realised that these things
cannot be limited to dance, or the stage, or to Facebook. And that they must have consequences. The fact is that they do. A recent Harvard Business
review article told participants to read a script to an audience. They were given identical scripts, but half the participants were
placed in power positions. The other half were not. Those who were placed in power positions,
at the end of reciting the script, reported that they felt more confidence
in what they were saying, that they believe they deserved
the position they were going for more. Further, they were judged by the audience as being more competent,
and more fit to lead. Finally, they even had
a physiological response, such that their testosterone levels rose. What I started to see
is that body language it's just the tip of the iceberg. Body language is the symptom
of a much deeper problem which is that in our society, the gender norms and stereotypes
that we ascribe to men and women differentially place them to succeed
in society and to be leaders. For example, the norms associated
with women; commonality, friendliness. These are not consistent
with what we need in a leader. Those that we see in men;
power, assertiveness, that is what we want in a leader. In order to see these phenomena
come out in an interview-type setting, Dr. Moss-Racusin and her team
ran an experiment where they created a mock interview. They had participants watch
a male or a female actor being in an interview setting,
saying the exact same script. They found very different responses
from their participants. What they found was
they had them watch identical videos. The actors had the same intonations,
they said the same words at the same time, and for the same amount of time,
and had identical resumes. What they found from audience
members were reactions like, "The woman was too arrogant." "She talked about herself too much." But the man was considered
bright, a leader, someone I would want in my work-space. But this is not only a problem for women. This is a problem for men as well. The same experiment was repeated, expect now, they had the actors
act modestly on purpose. They told them to emphasize
teamwork, togetherness instead of their own personal attributes. This time, the results were reversed;
people liked the woman more. They said that she seemed like someone
they would want in their workplace. But the man was considered
weak, incompetent. What does this mean
about what we value in our leadership? Studies have shown again and again that teamwork, cooperativity,
that is what leads to innovation. But that is what we are selecting out
of our population. Especially for men. What I am trying to get at with this
is that men and women act differently, but it is largely
because of our cultural constructs. It is not genetic. What this means
is that there is a silver lining. We can change our cultural constructs,
we can change our expectations, and that will change behaviour. Why this is a problem and why this is
something we need to pay attention to? If we are limiting our pool of innovation
by essentially 50% because of gender bias, we are not getting
the most qualified people into the positions where they need to be. It is statistically impossible. People like Jane Goodall, Alice Stewart,
would have been left out in history had gender bias kept them from
getting the opportunities they had. Jane Goodall revolutionized
the study of primatology. She found an entirely new approach
to study the chimpanzees: she decided that breaking away
from the traditional form where the researcher
would come in and assert themselves in the community of chimps, she would slowly inch in, a much gentler
approach, very conservative, and found observations
we couldn't have found any other way. The grant that she got, was originally
not going to be given to her because it was not considered proper
for a woman to go into the jungle alone. How do we solve this problem? I propose that we start
where the problem starts. Research has shown the gender stereotypes
are already ingrained in children at the age of three and a half. I think this is where
the intervention needs to begin. I propose that we instill early
childhood education and training programs for educators and parents alike. This way we can let them know the subtle
behaviors that they might be showing, with children, that perpetuate harmful
gender stereotypes into the future. For example, one study showed that if a kindergarten classroom
is recorded for the entirety of a day, even if teachers know
they are being recorded, they tend to call on boys
significantly more often than on girls, even if equal numbers of boys
and girls are raising their hands. Further, when girls blurt out answers
without raising their hands, they are disproportionately
scolded for doing so, whereas boys tend to be
recognised for their insight. Girls, on the other hand,
are most often complimented on their shoes, their hair,
and their dresses. One can only imagine what effect
this has over a lifetime. If you are told what matters
is your appearance, and you are often not recognised
for trying, for taking a risk, you see what we saw before;
women literally, physically shrink. They make themselves small. They say less. They hesitate more. They speak softly. Men, on the other hand, feel
that they can't talk about their feelings. They feel that it is wrong
to ask for help, and that they need to figure
everything out on their own. We know that this is not OK for mental
health and for many other reasons. What I propose is that we let
teachers know from an early age, "Just be aware, you might be turning
slightly towards the boys in the classroom in math class, and towards the girls
in the classroom in English, due to a subconscious expectation." Further, I would hope that this would
expand to corporations and organizations. Letting interviewers know,
as potential employers, that they should pinpoint exactly why they did not like
an interviewee or liked an interviewee, before they write them off, so that we can avoid
letting gender stereotypes dictate who we let into our organizations
more than merit. If there are three things
I hope you take away from this, it is one: that the gender differences
that we see in behaviour are cultural constructs, so we have
the power to change them. Two: the reason it is important to change
them is because we are limiting our pool of innovation by nearly 50%,
and we have so much more potential. And three: there are so many ways that each of you, today,
can begin solving this problem. Next time you see a parent or a teacher, or anyone interacting
with a young student, think about what they might be reinforcing that could help perpetuate gender
stereotypes that we want to eliminate. Think about it next time you are
on a hiring committee: Why you did not like that applicant
or why you loved that applicant? Is it something specific
about their merit? We have narrowed down a problem,
we have a lot of ways to solve it. All we need is action. Thank you. (Applause)
