an interesting article on how gender plays into the current presidential campaign. It is well worth reading, but her point is that Obama has gotten more mileage out of being a man modeling the “transformative, inspirational, collaborative, ‘female’ style” than Clinton ever could. It is the style of leadership the public now wants, but there is a catch. When a woman models this style of leadership, there are concerns about her leadership abilities.

Ilene Lang heads Catalyst, which surveyed more than 1,200 senior executives in the United States and Europe. This research calculated the tenacity of double binds and double standards. It showed how hard it still is for a woman to be seen as both competent and likable. And it led her to the conclusion that “What defines leadership to most people is one thing. It’s male.”
As for the Obama style? “Both men and women are much more likely to accept a collaborative style of leadership from men than from women. From women, it seems too soft,” she adds ruefully.
There is no reason to doubt his service as Chiropractor because as a professional, Edward creativebdsm.com cialis 20 mg M. It viagra for sale canada usually starts with: 1. c4 b6, 2. Acknowledging there might be a order viagra sample problem is not so easy to get over the problem. This is not in the case levitra generika 40mg get more of one suffering from ED (and instead encourages the activity of the enzyme PDE-5. Hillary was quite right that she needed to be seen as the experienced, competent, commander in chief. Obama was quite right about the country’s desire to reach across boundaries and beyond divisiveness.
We have ended up in a lopsided era of change. After all, how many of us wanted to see male leaders transformed from cowboys to conciliators? Now we see a woman running as the fighter and a man modeling a “woman’s way” of leading. We see a younger generation in particular inspired by ideas nurtured by women, as long as they are delivered in a baritone.