Literature Review

*For whomever is editing this: my primary issue is that I have no idea how to wrap this up, but I'm also not sure if I'm confronting my research questions with enough gusto or if I'm being direct enough, so if you could look back at them and give me suggestions from that side, in addition to whatever other comments you may have, that would be wonderful.

My research topic, broadly focusing on women and entrepreneurship, and more specifically, on small business ownership, the procurement of capital, and patriarchal institutions which, intentionally or unintentionally, gender behaviors to determine objective value, is contextualized within a framework primarily consisting of business studies, interest in the more “fratriarchal” culture of corporate America (that is, that successes are determined by bonds and the ability to form homosocial, masculine relationships inside and outside of a work setting, creating a sense of occupational segregation, not a force that asserts power through “fatherly,” authoritarian rule), and correspondingly, the glass ceiling. These are not my research interests. However, I must acknowledge the limits of what is offered to me and work within a rather restrictive context of ideas and discourses. Among these limits are that most of my studies are statistical business journals and governmental reports, which do not have a theoretical framework and require quite a bit of reaching on my behalf to make the pieces fit together, and that which does relate directly and has a more concise, discernible framework is severely dated and may not apply in the same ways it once did (“Bank Loan Officers Perceptions of Men, Women, and Successful Entrepreneurs”), but is still cited in some of the most pertinent sources I found elsewhere. These limitations are both disconcerting and encouraging, as delving into the discourse and creating my own framework is a very exciting task.

As Allan G. Johnson points out in his essay, “Patriarchy, the System,” patriarchy is “organized through social relationships and unequal distributions of power, rewards, opportunities, and resources” (75). The inequality inherent to both the successes of women seeking longevity and career advancement in the corporate sphere, as well as those seeking to maintain small businesses, is where the discourses converge and become relevant.

Primarily, the theories I’ve studied closely relate to the distinct difference in perception regarding the capacity for women to succeed, and the numerous pitfalls the anticipation of their failures will present. Among these are that according to a study done by Rebel A. Cole and Hamid Mehran, “Gender and the Availability of Credit to Privately Held Firms: Evidence from the Surveys of Small Business Finances.” The primary assertion this study makes is that “female-owned firms are significantly more likely to be credit-constrained because they are more likely to be discouraged from applying for credit, though not more likely to be denied credit when they do apply” (3). Families are worried about women taking on supplementary debt from creditors, as their ties to the family unit are much more cemented, in terms of roles and responsibilities. In addition, as in P.G. Greene’s chapter in New Perspectives on Women Entrepreneurs, it is noted that “the institutional structure of many homes and financial institutions still results in the registration of many family assets in a male spouse’s name” (7). This androcentric reading of the value of women as unequal partners in the home carries over to the ways in which they are perceived elsewhere, especially when these factors are examined and coupled with a rather large wage differential, which would prevent them from being able to procure capital for “technologically sophisticated” businesses, even if they were so inclined, as their lower pay rate would prevent the offering of large amounts of collateral. Evidence of the perception issue is included in Buttner and Rosen’s 1986 study, “Bank Loan Officers’ Perceptions of the Characteristics of Men, Women, and Successful Entrepreneurs,” which concludes that behaviors are gendered and perception hinges on sex stereotypes wherein the behaviors most readily associated with entrepreneurial prowess are also associated with masculinity, not typically androgynous masculinity, but that which is the specific province of men. This conclusion is drawn through a sample of one hundred six bank loan officers, which Buttner and Rosen examine with respect to how positive entrepreneurial qualities are distributed. One thing I find interesting about the title is that it implies that examines men and women generally, not within a context of those who possess the drive and skills to become entrepreneurs. Within a general context, it could be reasoned that these gender stereotypes might apply. However, within the context of a subset of people who are driven to create businesses in the first place, one could be asked to assume a level of marked optimism on behalf of the abilities of both gendered parties, yet men clearly benefit from gender privilege in this discourse, while women do not.

To answer my first research question, the discrepancies between the successes and longevity of male and female-run small businesses can be attributed to a number of factors. It is my opinion that women are not only socialized into a subordinate role, through a lack of leadership training, roles models, and encouragement from peers, but also perceived in accordance to preexisting sex stereotypes. I want to make the distinction of saying “sex” rather than “gender” here, because I believe that most people outside of the academic community do not view gender as a fluid continuum, but rather a series of hardwired behaviors, and hence the disconnect in perception. In addition to a lack of leadership training and encouragement, according to Cole and Mehran, women are more “risk-averse” than men (3). This could mean a number of things, either that women make safe choices, and that that is a good thing, in terms of longevity, or that they don’t take risks in businesses, which is decidedly the opposite. The context in which it is written implies the latter.

Because my frame of reference is from feminist theory, I cannot justify believing that women exhibit gendered behaviors in a vacuum, that it is nature, not nurture, that creates these behaviors that are termed inviable. In addition, the path of least resistance teaches women that a certain set of behaviors are acceptable, and expects them to act according to this, perhaps contributing to the aforementioned “risk-averseness,” though I do not feel situated in the discourse well enough to speculate on whether this is a valid and distinct possibility. I believe that women seeking entrepreneurial endeavors need to work to be more assertive, and that there needs to be training to make this possible. However, as far as the attitudes possessed by the arbiters of patriarchal power systems (i.e. bank loan officers), putting the burden of responsibility on the women to shape their pitches and justify themselves in terms of a context in which persons in power situate them, as suggested in Buttner and Rosen’s aforementioned 1986 study, is incredibly counterintuitive because it brands entrepreneurship in one specific manner and views deviation from this formula of value as a recipe for disaster. It views “feminine” behaviors as softness and an inability to create a functional workspace, rather than acknowledging the possibility of strength in difference. The ways in which we stress that women negotiate a sphere in which they have just recently been invited to share implies gendered assimilation, that women must take on male behaviors in order to succeed and achieve longevity.

Works Cited

Greene, P. G. "Feminist Theory and the Study of Entrepreneurship." New Perspectives on Women Entrepreneurs. M. J. Greer. 1st ed. Information Age Pub., 2003. 1-13. Print.

Buttner, E. Holly, and Benson Rosen. "Bank Loan Officers' Perceptions of the Characteristics of Men, Women, and Successful Entrepreneurs." Rep. Vol. 3. New York: Journal of Business Venturing, 1988. Web. 11 Nov. 2010. 

Cole, Rebel A., and Hamid Mehran. "Gender and the Availability of Credit to Privately Held Firms: Evidence from the Surveys of Small Business Finances." LexisNexis Statistical. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.

Johnson, Allan G. "Patriarchy, the System." 1997. Women's Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 68-76. Print.

Service Learning Activism Log, Entry Four.

1) Yesterday, I tabled at Diva Invasion for Animal Safehouse. We only kept our table up until the pre-show at eight, and this was probably not the best event for raising awareness about our cause or collecting donations, since generally, people were just trying to get seats, so while almost all of the progressive organizations on campus were represented, from NORML to College Democrats, the most we did was pass out a few cards, with a severely truncated accompanying verbal description to accomodate the lack of time. Regardless, this event was aimed much more towards creating a supportive presence for a great cause, which benefits one of the organizations I care about most, Zebra Coalition, than any efforts of self-promotion, so I was happy to lend my support. I still need to get in touch with Abigail to set up some times to work on grant-writing, but for now, this event puts me at seventeen hours towards Animal Safehouse, so this is my last log for this class, though I may add any grant-writing I do in the future towards my other twenty-four hours with ASH I plan to do this month.

2) Animal Safehouse's financial structure is such that it relies entirely on the kindness of others to remain operational. As mentioned above, this event was not the best choice for fundraising, or even gaining volunteers, compared to, say, VegFest, but creating a presence in solidarity with RSOs on campus, in lieu of gaining that status ourselves, enabling us to table and raise awareness on campus, unattached to major events, is best way to bring about a level of understanding about the vitality of women's issues. Violence against women will always be a huge issue, and there is little visibility for what is an incredibly large problem. I've noticed a pattern when explaining Animal Safehouse to people. Almost everyone comments on what a great idea it is, but for the most part, compassion to the point of contribution comes from a personal place, be it a profound love of animals, or some sort of experience with gender violence. I've begun to examine financial endeavors, even those in conjunction with non-profit organizations, in terms of what people think they stand to gain from contribution. Hopefully, that isn't too cynical, but it certainly informs my lens for perception of capitalism as a system in which we all unwittingly operate. Women in these situations will often be helpless, as they have "'learned' that it is impossible to escape" (Kirk and Okazawa-Rey 264), and it seems that many people have first-hand experience with this level of desperation. As long as there is intimate partner violence and ways of one person asserting dominance over another in what should be a loving relationship, this will continue to be an issue.

3) I had a really great time at Diva Invasion. As volunteers, my partner and I were in priority seating, and she and I found out we're most likely taking a sociology class together next semester. I don't know what else I'm doing with Animal Safehouse, other than tabling at Publix two weeks from now, but I feel as though I've gained a lot, in terms of marketing a cause and promoting it within certain subsets of people (the animal rights activists at VegFest, the progressives at Diva Invasion), and that is invaluable life experience.

Works Cited

Kirk, Gwyn, and Okazawa-Rey, Margo. Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010.

Word Count: 575

Essay Outline.

My original topic was very sparse. I had developed a probable problem, that women are inherently less likely to gain capital than men are, but I had read nothing to support that, and had just based it on what seemed to me to be a logical hypothesis, and planned to read more about entrepreneurship once I started this project and form my hypothesis from my evolving findings. I didn't write my hypothesis until after I had read, obviously, so it is generally based on my early findings and has only become broader and better supported with time.

My focus changed to examine more specifically that women generally do not apply for capital at all, that they are discouraged from the highly technological fields and instead, operate in even smaller small businesses, which are inherently less profitable (say, restaurant ownership, cleaning businesses, or the assistance of any number of other services), and why there is insufficient leadership encouragement and support. When this becomes a thesis topic, and the scope can be expanded extensively because of the lengthened word count, I'm going to focus specifically on why women are still much less apt to go into highly skilled scientific positions, based on the ways in which they educate themselves, if this is a sex difference or a socialized gender construct, and how this disadvantages them financially when starting their own businesses. However, for now, I just want to focus on the aspects of how and why women are socialized into depending on friends and family for economic agency, when these resources are available elsewhere. Of course, usually, the help of friends and family is altruistic, good, and may not even require that women feel dependent. However, my focus is on expanding options for women, rather than socializing them into a specific function or role in society. This reading is especially supported by the report from LexisNexis, as well as my New Perspectives on Women Entrepreneurs text.

I'm also fascinated with the idea of systems of power, specifically that patriarchy works with the women seeking white collar positions (or if you want to read it through the lens of Marxist feminism, the Proletariat) as players. Since the beginning of women having access to white collar work, assimilation into a male-dominated scheme required the downplaying of traditionally "female" personality traits, which assumes that they can be gendered in the first place, and thereby put into a context of hierarchal negotiation of value. Put more simply, this assumes that the ways in which we read traditional masculinity is apropos to successful negotiation in the economic sphere. Also, to clarify, my choice of verbiage when I say "female" rather than "feminine" personality traits was made because even if men were to exhibit similar gendered traits, they would not be under a microscope in the same ways women often are in the workplace. Capitalism and patriarchy as systems advance themselves symmetrically to one another, inextricably linked in terms of how they perceive men, women, and value. My research does exhibit that people in power perceive women in terms of gendered stereotypes, but regardless of my research, the power differential would be obvious to anyone who took note of how few minorities are offered powerful positions (example: only fifteen Fortune 500 companies have female CEOs). The interplay between women subordinating their own priorities in favor of the path of least resistance and the way patriarchy works systemically will comprise a very large section of the way I'm theorizing these issues.

Everything emphasized in the paragraph above just refers to corporate America, but as evidenced by the Buttner and Rosen text, "Bank Loan Officers' Perceptions of Female, Male, and Successful Entrepreneurs," these disadvantages extend far past that sector. The two issues I've yet to look into even nearly enough are the glass ceiling, since I've yet to be able to outline in my head how I can make it relevant, and work/family conflicts and how they are alleviated and complicated by small business ownership, specifically for women. I don't hate my topic yet at all, but I do need to figure out how to theorize all of the disparate issues I'm examining.