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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePatricia, I tried to post but couldn't because of the word count limit... What's you're e-mail address? I'll send you a doc.
ReplyDelete