Aside from blogging at this site, I have an art page. Getting to it just requires going to the headings section under the “Kathleen Kelley Reardon” poster at the top of the page and clicking on “Artwork.”
Also, I’m posting art from a current exhibit I have ongoing in Ireland at www.facebook.com/kathleenkelleyreardon. Stop by if you have a few minutes.
If you’re interested in the paintings or seeing more, just leave a message. K
As I wrote in It’s All Politics, you have to be visible, central and relevant (VCR) to be promoted in most organizations. And this advice doesn’t just pertain to young women. For a while, young women are often “cute-and-little” and draw attention and mentoring. But this time is brief. Then the ability to have your ideas heard and attributed to you diminishes. Apparently, the White House is no different. Even early on in the Obama administration, women had to learn to help each other be heard, to assure that ideas they advanced were attributed to them. Fortunately, the women who worked with President Obama influenced a change of culture, and it didn’t hurt that people who thought little of women’s contributions eventually moved on.
Would a female president make a difference? Would a Hillary Clinton presidency change the White House culture that certainly precedes President Obama as is clear in this article. It’s worth a read.
When a man gets ill, he’s ill. When a woman gets ill, it’s a threat to her career. Take it from someone who had breast cancer at an early age and had to knock herself out to keep it from questioning whether she could teach, be promoted to associate and full professor.
Look at Stephen Hawking. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. He’s brilliant. He’s in a wheelchair. But we don’t doubt his competence. Pneumonia would’t change that. But for a woman, illness can be used against her. That’s what is going on right now. There are ample articles about Trump’s mental health. He is older than Clinton and not the picture of fitness himself.
Women in business and government know you can’t let people know when you’re ill. It shows up in your promotion package, as it did in my case even though breast cancer had occurred years prior to that promotion. It’s disgusting to see the media frenzy on this issue that would have been just pneumonia had she been a man.
I’m angry. Very angry. I hope people don’t fall for this media attack for which so many journalists are being paid handsomely. They are using the gender disparaging card that a woman’s brief ill health can provide. If you use Google and type in “Donald Trump, health,” you’ll get very little about his physical and mental health. Do the same for Hillary, even before pneumonia, and the situation is quite different. It’s despicable.
Words and phrases matter. If we slip into accepting a way of talking that threatens our basic values, we contribute to their downfall. And so it is with the all-too-common tendency to use “my” when presidential candidates refer to admirals and generals who will be on active duty during their administrations. They aren’t the president’s generals. They are “our” or “the” generals. And the distinction matters.
The Supreme Court is not peopled by the president’s justices. We’d be shocked to hear a president refer to the SCOTUS as “my justices.”
“My generals” moves us away from democracy where such people work for the people. In the U.S., the president has a Cabinet. He or she may refer to these selected advisors as “my Cabinet” without deleterious effect. The same is not true of military leaders. The president is their commander-in-chief, but they ultimately work for the people.
I’m waiting for a press interview where a presidential candidate is asked: “Will they be your generals?” The answer will tell us a lot.
We’re not surprised that olympians differ in their overall capability or ability to perform on a particular day. Yet, when it comes to communication there is a tendency to not think in these terms. Nevertheless, effective communication, persuasion and negotiation take learning and considerable practice. Essentially, natural is not natural in these arenas. For some of us, it just looks that way. Here is what Hillary Clinton had to say about why she isn’t as natural as Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Some of the problem is gender expectations. Some is that we all have different learning experiences, coaches, predispositions and opportunities for practice.
“I’m not Barack Obama. I’m not Bill Clinton. Both of them carry themselves with a naturalness that is very appealing to audiences. But I’m married to one and I’ve worked for the other, so I know how hard they work at being natural. It’s not something they just dial in. They work and they practice what they’re going to say. It’s not that they’re trying to be somebody else. But it’s hard work to present yourself in the best possible way. You have to communicate in a way that people say: ‘OK, I get her.’ And that can be more difficult for a woman. Because who are your models? If you want to run for the Senate, or run for the Presidency, most of your role models are going to be men. And what works for them won’t work for you. Women are seen through a different lens. It’s not bad. It’s just a fact. It’s really quite funny. I’ll go to these events and there will be men speaking before me, and they’ll be pounding the message, and screaming about how we need to win the election. And people will love it. And I want to do the same thing. Because I care about this stuff. But I’ve learned that I can’t be quite so passionate in my presentation. I love to wave my arms, but apparently that’s a little bit scary to people. And I can’t yell too much. It comes across as ‘too loud’ or ‘too shrill’ or ‘too this’ or ‘too that.’ Which is funny, because I’m always convinced that the people in the front row are loving it.” (Source: Humans of New York – Facebook)
If not, you may be causing offense. Then again, smiling too much or at the wrong times could suggest that you lack conviction. That you’re soft. Maybe an airhead. Republican National Committee Chairman, Reince Priebus, criticized Hillary Clinton for not smiling enough during a national security forum. That’s playing a gender card. Sure, he’d love to have us equate situation appropriate smiling with low likability.
Research indicates that women smile more than men. It’s expected. Think about it. If you’re a woman, you probably smile at people as you enter an elevator or as you pass someone in a restaurant.
At work, however, credibility can be undermined by frequent smiles. They can soften the impact of a serious statement or even contradict it. The catch is that subconsciously we tend to be more comfortable around women who smile. We like them more. Men often subconsciously interpret female smiles as gestures of appeasement rather than friendliness. You’re sort of damned if you do and damned if you don’t. But if you want to be a leader, you can’t walk around smiling about and at everyone.
Sure Priebus would like Clinton do that. Then his boss could accuse her of not being presidential. Oh sorry, he’s already done that!
Whether you support Hillary Clinton or not, these kinds of tactics are lowbrow. They deserve to be revealed for what they are — gender expectation cheap shots. It’s enough to make you not smile for a week!
The latest attempt at derailing Hillary Clinton’s campaign is about emails sent to her Secretary of State staff recommending the hiring of influential people who are purportedly connected to the Clinton Foundation.
In The Secret Handshake, I wrote about favor banks. And it’s true that they can be requested and granted at the wrong times. But, equally true is that hardly anyone gets anywhere without asking for and granting some favors.
It’s important to make connections in business and government. In fact, many people use connections when getting their children into colleges and universities.
While favors are more subtle in the U.S. than in many countries where “greasing the skids” (bribes rather than favors) may be required to take a taxi from the airport to a meeting, most careers, at some point, involve the granting and receiving of favors — both large and small.
It would be surprising, at best, to learn that favors were never requested of any previous presidential candidate. It would be naive to think that people who put their hearts and souls into an election are simply given a wave and a thank you when the campaign is over.
I could tell students who ask for letters of recommendation: “If you’re all that smart, get the job on your own.” But, why wouldn’t I put in a good word for a good student?
It may be different when big donors get involved in asking for favors, but the process of requesting favors goes on everywhere.
Anyone who thinks favors aren’t asked of people in high or powerful places is politically naive. When requests are too much to ask (e.g., qualification for a job are not adequate or another candidate is highly qualified) or if they put one or the other person in a compromising position, then ethical considerations are important. Knowing the lines not to cross is critical.
It’s important to learn the limits of favors. But it should never be surprising that requests for them are regularly received by people in positions of influence.
I heard the first few minutes of Hillary Clinton’s speech on the radio. I was worried. It was stilted. Seeing her on television didn’t initially assuage those concerns, as her eyes were wide and her words did not flow smoothly. But a few more minutes in and she was on a roll. It wasn’t the transcendent rhetoric of Barack Obama or the smooth delivery of Bill Clinton. But it was good — damn good! She began to smile and exude warmth. She was no longer alone up there. When that isolation subsides, good speakers emerge. And she did.
She began to embrace the audience and they her. It will be referred to as a “workman” type speech and “effective.” It was these things. But, it was also a speech about who she is and what she wants to do. It was about where she came from and the values instilled in her by hard-working parents. There were no gratuitous stories, only real ones. She lambasted Donald Trump, not simply because he is her adversary, but because he is not who he claims to be.
Hillary Clinton focused on the positive, credited President Obama and Vice President Biden and all leaders who’ve made America stronger. She did this while skillfully sharing what still needs to be done.
She did not seek to please everyone by playing it safe. “If you believe” she said before each pillar of her platform, “then join us.” She laughed, she connected, and while I would have had her smiling sooner, the result was a much needed look at the real Hillary Clinton. Tonight we heard from a woman who wants us to know that we can trust her with our futures. She did that well and looked radiant in the process.
The first female presidential candidate from a leading political party gave a strong speech, intellectual and from the heart, about her but more about us. It was history in the making, and it was memorable — a long time coming and worth every minute of the wait — a credit to so many women who worked to make this possible — who would no doubt love to have been on this earth still to witness what we did tonight.
The term “class act” came to mind repeatedly tonight as speaker after speaker stood at the Democratic National Convention podium and reminded us of what truly matters. And we probably needed it. Last week we witnessed consecutive rants about fear and strangers trying to steal our livelihoods. Not tonight. This evening was about America already being great. It was about coming together to do what’s right — no matter your political party affiliation, about trying, as President Obama said, even if it means making mistakes. Tonight was about the bigger picture presented to us with sincerity, piercing the bubble of hype. It was about rejecting “malarkey,” as Joe Biden labeled the kind of faceless fear dished out daily by Donald Trump. It was a breath of fresh air. Most of all, it was good to see and hear exceptional speeches presented with admirable sincerity. Tonight we saw one class act after another. Let’s hope young people were watching because class is passed on. It’s something we learn from the people who raise us, who teach us and who inspire us. Tonight we were reminded that it is not a thing of the past.
Meryl Streep starts this introduction of Hillary Clinton by mentioning how tough we can be on women. That’s not sour grapes. It’s supported by extensive research. Our choices in clothes, facial expressions, gestures, and walk, to name a few, are subject to far more criticism than typically levied at men.
Our choices are “marked,” as Deborah Tannen has pointed out. We are punished socially for tooting our own horns — and so we often start demurring at a young age and continue to do so during adulthood. Streep reminds us of this. She doesn’t say or imply “poor women.” Not at all. She simply points out that it’s tough being a female role model. We expect so much. We notice so much that isn’t to our particular liking.
That doesn’t stop Hillary Clinton. On that alone she is a role model for girls and women. You should view this video and perhaps ask yourself if you’ve fallen into the habit common in our society, across the world, of being especially critical of small choices women make that shouldn’t matter at all. Then take that knowledge to your work and volunteer endeavors. If you’re a woman, let some of these criticisms roll off. If you’re a man, try not to let the cut of a woman’s hair or the choice of her outfit influence your impression for long. Look deeper. That’s the challenge we all face with gender biased perceptions. Meryl Streep issued a much needed wake-up call on how they can inadvertently cloud our judgment and distract us from seeing what truly matters.
