Women, Whistleblowing, and Rankism
As the media grapples with how to present CIA-whistleblower Mary McCarthy, I can’t help but group her in the pantheon of whistleblowing women enshrined by Time Magazine in 2002. The gist was that women are more likely to be marginalized by rankism, so taking an ethical stand is their route to dignity.
Even though McCarthy is in an unusually good position as whistleblowing goes (visible to an interested public, able to afford an attorney and invoke whistleblower protections), she will surely pay the price that society exacts on those who make a stand. Rush Limbaugh has already been spamming Google News in an attempt to remake public opinion in the Bush administration’s favor and isolate the troublemaker. Even more disturbing, prominent bloggers have been taking potshots.
In the end, the truth about any dust up is always complex. The media does the public a disservice when they construct cardboard heroes or villains. This is not only a cheap tactic to whip up emotions and increase circulation, the decision to spoonfeed people “what they want to hear” shows a profound disrespect for their intelligence and willingness to engage with difficult, multi-threaded events. Bloggers sometimes do a good job of balancing out media agendas, but in this case it looks like they want to get on the smear bandwagon. My heart goes out to McCarthy. Whether she’s a whistleblower or not, whether she gains public character approval or not, it’s clear that she’s now at the mercy of the media. I hope everyone remembers that if she was already shafted in the workplace, it would double the injustice for press and the public to pile on her now. Let’s all take a step back and see how the facts unfold.
In my experience, my male colleagues are more about self promoton through the club. Club rules are you don’t expose the wrong doing of others. My female colleagues typically have more of a concious. Hence, they’re more inclined to be whistle blowers and distrusted about being the keepers of secrets. Yet it’s my experience that male collegues are more inclined to stab you in the back.
Intrepid Liberal Journal
Comment by Intrepid Liberal Journal — April 27, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
I think the idea of the “club” (whether it actually exists or not), is the whole point of the Time article. Women often feel like they’re outside the club, and playing by the rules doesn’t yield the kind of results or rewards that accrue to men. Women respond by looking for a set of rules that will apply.
Note that we’re not talking about an essentialist difference between game-playing men in groups and touchy-feely women. BOTH men and women feel more secure in rule-bound situations, and both are willing to play by the rules to see what happens. As I see it, the difference is that the power players, usually men, are more willing to break promises to women. Think of rules as a sort of promise. Once women see that the rules don’t operate for them, they don’t seek chaos or violence - they seek an alternative, larger set of rules. The ticket to the larger set of rules (the legal system) is selling out the boy’s club.
One of these days organizational leaders are going to get hip to the fact that all they have to do is make sure the game looks fair to women. I’m not sure society would be better off for that, though - I think whistleblowers are necessary power check that protect the public good.
Comment by Elisa — April 28, 2006 @ 12:21 am