Where Racism and Sexism Intersect

Who has it worse: women or people of color? Black women or Black men?

During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, speculation swirled around which of the two non-prototypical Democratic candidates—either Barack Obama, a Black man, or Hillary Clinton, a White woman—would secure the party’s nomination and potentially go on to be the first person who was not a White man to secure the most powerful leadership position in the world. With relatively few substantive policy differences between the two candidates, political commentary frequently turned into a debate about whether race or gender would confer greater social disadvantage. Would Obama be at a greater disadvantage because he's Black, despite being a man? Or would Hillary be more disadvantaged because she’s a woman, despite being White?

It would be a gross oversimplification (and misrepresentation) to reduce the outcome of the 2008 Democratic primary into a referendum on race versus gender. After all, the results had as much to do with the unique traits of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as they had to do with the social categories that the two represent. However, this example does illustrate the quantitative way in which we tend to discuss social disadvantage: the oppression Olympics where we ask only who suffers more social disadvantage. 

However, this might not be the best way to view the problem. Rather than asking which group has it better or worse, a more constructive and instructive question might be whether and how the quality of social disadvantage differs for people from different social groups.

In this newsletter, adapted from a chapter I co-wrote with Ashleigh Shelby Rosette for the book Inclusive Leadership: Transforming Diverse Lives, Workplaces, and Societies, I argue that there are at least three distinct types of social disadvantage: stigmatization, subordination, and marginalization. I further argue, using the intersectionality of binary gender and Black-White racial categories, that Black men, White women, and Black women are affected by each of these three types of social disadvantage in different ways. Simply stated, Black men are stigmatized, White women are subordinated, and Black women are marginalized. These terms will become clearer in the sections to come. 

Categorizing social disadvantage

To understand social disadvantage, we have to examine social advantage and privilege. In our society, that means viewing advantage from the perspective of the White hegemonic patriarchy.

It’s no secret that, in the United States, White men have long held the vast majority of top leadership positions, in both the public and private sectors. Occupying roughly 90% of all CEO positions, more than 72% of corporate leadership roles, and all but one U.S. presidency and vice presidency, they hold disproportionate access to power compared with people in every other ethnic group and gender category. 

It’s also no secret that individuals who don’t fit the prototype of the White male leader face hurdles when seeking to attain or maintain leadership roles. But often we tend to compare one disadvantaged group with another (for example, Black women vs. White women, or Black men vs. Black women) in a “one-size-fits-all” approach that assumes a hierarchy of hardship between them. This approach does little to advance our understanding of the unique disadvantages each group faces, or the ways in which organizations can create greater inclusion for all socially disadvantaged groups.

A more productive approach to understanding inclusive leadership requires adopting an intersectional lens. We must acknowledge that our identity markers are inextricably linked to each other; our race is not independent of our gender, and vice versa. Using an intersectional lens involves investigating the nuanced distinctions that exist among socially disadvantaged groups in addition to considering the mechanisms that regulate the dynamics between the dominant group and the groups that must interact with it to access power and leadership.

There are at least two factors at play when the dominant group’s (White men’s) power comes into question: perceived threat and perceived interdependence.

Threat is the degree to which the dominant group perceives the outgroup as having the ability or intention to challenge or undermine its power and privileged position atop the social hierarchy—regardless of whether the ability or intention is real or imagined. 

Interdependence is the degree to which the dominant group perceives the outgroup as necessary or important from a social, biological, or functional perspective—which is often linked to the interest or survival or empowerment of the dominant group. 

The levels of each group’s perceived threat or interdependence interact to determine the quality of social disadvantage they have, creating the following four categories:

• Stigmatization = high threat + low interdependence

• Benevolent Subordination = low threat + high interdependence

• Hostile Subordination = high threat + high interdependence

• Marginalization = low threat + low interdependence

In the sections that follow, I attempt to succinctly describe the key characteristics of each.

Stigmatization

Stigmatization, with the combination of low interdependence and high threat, causes people to be “marked” by society, leading to both higher visibility and social devaluation. Like the brand of  the scarlet letter in Hawthorne’s classic novel, stigmatized people “stick out,” and not in a good way. Because they’re considered high-threat, they are subjected to high levels of surveillance and vigilance from the dominant group. 

This is akin to the classic image of the Barbarians at the gates of Rome, or the image of Native Americans in the 18th and 19th century when they were considered to be a “threat” to European settlers. In contemporary American society, Black men are highly stigmatized—often viewed as a “menace to society.” stigmatization. The same is true for Arab/Muslim men and some immigrant groups (e.g., Mexican men who were unfairly branded by the prior administration as being “thieves,” “thugs,” and “rapists”).

Stigmatized groups are often the targets of violence and terror campaigns. Because of the low level of perceived interdependence, they are treated with particular brutality.

Subordination

When there is a high level of interdependence between two groups, combined with the assumption that one group should have more power than the other, we see subordination. However, there are two types of subordination: benevolent and hostile. Which type occurs for a group or individual depends on their level of perceived threat.

Benevolent subordination comes from the combination of high interdependence and low threat (produced by the voluntary acceptance of subordinated positions). Generally, White women have experienced benevolent subordination. If they go along with the patriarchy and accept their subordinate position to men, they may elicit positive emotions from men and are often “rewarded” with affection and protection—the classic role of chivalry. 

However, when interdependent, subordinated groups resist White male dominance and authority, thereby presenting a high threat, White men’s positive emotions can turn to anger and resentment, resulting in hostile subordination of White women. Because of the high level of interdependence between the two groups, neither elimination nor separation is a viable option. Therefore, the dominant group’s goal shifts to getting the subordinated group under control. 

Research on ambivalent sexism theory by Susan Fiske and Peter Glick shows that men generally feel positive emotions toward women who accept subordinate roles but feel negatively toward women who resist them in pursuit of equality, power, and opportunity. Across multiple cultures, they have shown that women sometimes choose to conform to traditional gender roles in order to receive benevolent sexism instead of hostile sexism. While benevolent sexism seems to be a kinder and gentler form of subordination, both hostile and benevolent sexism serve a similar function: the disempowerment and subordination of women.

It’s clear that White men have to work with White women due to the high level of interdependence. The only question is whether White women will go along with the tacit patriarchal social contract by not challenging White male power. If so, they’ll be treated with what appears to be excessive, and even patronizing, care and compassion. However, if White women try to “wear the pants,” they’ll be met with disdain and hostility. In the end, sexism is all about power, regardless of whether it is accompanied by positive or negative emotions.

Marginalization

Finally, the combination of low threat and low interdependence produces marginalization, which can be described as treating someone as if they are not important. Unlike subordinated groups, marginalized groups aren’t seen as necessary or relevant to the dominant group. And unlike stigmatized groups, they’re not seen as a formidable threat to the dominant group’s power or position. Instead, marginalized groups are “invisible.” They barely register in the dominant group’s consciousness, which means, somewhat ironically, that they can experience unique advantages in addition to disadvantages.

Compared with Black men, Black women do not represent the same level of rivalry or threat to White men. Compared with White women, they do not represent the same level of interdependence. Therefore, White men aren’t as compelled to police Black women’s behavior, nor are they compelled to show particular care for them. Instead, Black women are often seen as being irrelevant. Columbia social psychologist Valerie Purdie-Greenaway has written extensively about the intersectional invisibility of Black women, and how this invisibility can confer both advantages and disadvantages.

It’s also important to recognize that one’s social disadvantage is fluid and context-dependent. Individuals or entire social groups can move from one category to another. For example, a woman can quickly shift from benevolent to hostile subordination if she rejects prescribed gender norms. Historically, Black people have shifted from subordination (both benevolent and hostile) to stigmatization as perceptions of Black power have increased and interdependence between Blacks and Whites present in the colonial South have decreased. Lastly, Native Americans’ social disadvantage shifted from stigmatization (in colonial America when they were seen as a realistic threat) to marginalization after being decimated, and thus relegated to invisibility, by White people. 

An intersectional approach to leadership

Given White men’s hyper-representation, they become the de facto gatekeepers of access to leadership positions. So, how can we utilize the aforementioned categories to better understand the lack of stigmatized, subordinated, and marginalized group representation in leadership?

We have to ask:

• How does the White patriarchal establishment perceive individuals from socially disadvantaged groups who aspire to hold leadership roles? 

• What are the strategies that enable otherwise socially disadvantaged group members to succeed in their quests for leadership?

• What are the constraints put on them and their behaviors as leaders, if any, once they attain these roles?

Black men and stigmatization

The primary measure of social disadvantage facing Black men in contemporary American society is stigmatization, as evidenced by multiple indicators of social devaluation in the dominant culture, including police shootings and mass incarceration. Black men also experience a particularly high level of scrutiny and oppression from the dominant White male group compared with women from subordinate groups. In fact, the subordinate male target hypothesis (SMTH) proposed by social psychologist James Sidanius and colleagues asserts that inter-racial conflict is primarily a male-on-male phenomenon because the men from the outgroup represent the biggest threat to the hierarchical structure. 

As a result, Black male leaders are punished for showing too much dominance, confidence, or agency because it exacerbates White male patriarchal anxiety. 

On the other hand, Black male leaders benefit from traits or behaviors that make them appear more docile, harmless, and controllable. Our research shows that more dominant Black male leaders were perceived more negatively than White male leaders with identical behavior. However, Black male leaders who were more easygoing and compliant were not perceived more negatively than easygoing and compliant White leaders. 

As it turns out, the benefits of docility extend beyond behavior: Black men with a docile, gentle appearance (or “babyfaceness”) have an advantage gaining leadership roles compared with Black men who don’t because their babyfaceness functions as a disarming mechanism, making them appear less threatening to White men in power—a phenomenon called the “Teddy Bear Effect”. 

Looking at the numbers of Fortune 500 CEOs at the time of the study, the data shows that the Black male CEOs were significantly more babyfaced than the White male CEOs, even though there’s no statistical difference in babyfaceness between Black and White men in the general population. The opposite pattern was the case for White men: White male CEOs who were more babyfaced were at a disadvantage compared to mature-faced White male CEOs; they tended to earn less money and run smaller companies. 

These findings suggest that disarming mechanisms like a babyfaced appearance and docile behaviors benefit Black male leaders but not White male leaders, and, if anything, undermine the authority of White male leaders, who are seen as entitled to power and don’t need to be disarmed. 

Ultimately, Black men benefit from traits and behaviors that render them more docile or impotent because this undermines the perception of threat that is associated with them.

Let’s look again at Barack Obama as an example. Many aspects of him can be perceived as disarming and less stereotypically Black: 

• He is biracial, which means he has lighter skin and fewer typically Black physical traits (a.k.a. phenotypicality).

• He has a lanky build, which is prototypically boyish and western European. 

• He has always adhered to standards of “respectability,” almost never showing anger, raising his voice, or behaving boorishly. 

Moreover, some Black intellectuals have criticized Obama for not challenging White hegemonic patriarchy in a way that would produce “real” change, or for not standing up for Blacks who did challenge it. The thing is, he may have wanted to, but Black men in positions of power are constrained. In order to hold power in a White man’s world, Black men often have to “disarm” themselves—and stay disarming.

White women and subordination

For White women the challenges to accessing leadership are quite different. White women aren’t perceived as hostile or threatening. On the contrary, they are seen as warm, nurturing, and docile. Therefore, what can benefit White women in leadership positions is being “armed” rather than “disarmed”—having features that signal competency and strength. In other words, because White women’s gender is a natural disarming mechanism, their default challenge is to demonstrate that they’re capable of assuming high-power roles. 

The research on the faces of Fortune 500 CEOs found that White women who’d reached CEO level were much lower in babyfaceness than either White male CEOs or Black male CEOs. This finding emerged despite the fact that women in the general population tend to be more babyfaced than men. So, while being babyfaced benefitted Black male leaders, it was damaging for White female leaders. White women don’t need rounder, more childlike features to disarm them in the same way Black men do, but instead do better when they have extremely angular, chiseled facial features that implicitly signal they’re competent and strong enough for the job.

However, research has shown that White women who display dominant behaviors run the risk of violating prescribed gender stereotypes and notions of how women “should” behave. Men are “supposed” to be tough, confident, power-seeking, and competitive (unless you’re a man of color). Women are “supposed” to be passive, humble, submissive, self-deprecating, and cooperative. Men and women who conform to these norms are rewarded; those who violate them are punished.

One well-documented effect implicated in the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions is agentic backlash, which refers to penalties that White women—even leaders—face for appearing too assertive, self-promoting, bossy, or angry. These penalties do not apply to White men. 

Consequently, becoming a leader is in itself an act of defiance for White women. Thus, White women benefit from behaviors that simultaneously confirm their competence and demonstrate their adherence to prescribed gender norms. Their challenge is walking a tightrope that puts them somewhere between benevolent subordination (where they are liked but not respected) and hostile subordination (where they are possibly respected but certainly not liked).

Hillary Clinton’s treatment in the public and during her presidential campaigns is a prime example of this. Few doubt her agency or competence, and she is perceived, almost universally, as a smart and tough woman who can handle the demands of leadership. Her overwhelming challenge as a political candidate, though, was the perceived threat her behavior created because it was inconsistent with what’s expected of her gender. That led people to dislike her, despite respecting her ability. What might have increased liking and, consequently, support? More gender-consistent behavior, of course. Case in point: After she cried in New Hampshire during the 2008 primaries, polls boosted in her favor and she took the state in a surprise win.

Black women and marginalization

It’s important to note that nearly all of the research looking at agentic backlash against women leaders has focused solely on White women. Do Black women incur the same agency penalties that White women face—or more? Or are Black women immune to penalties for agency because they’re subject to a different set of norms, expectations, and perceptions?

There are two dominant theories on this that make opposite predictions. One argues that Black women might face double the penalty of White women because, in addition to the penalty of their gender, there is a penalty associated with race. On the other hand, a more intersectional perspective posits that the Black woman’s experience is not a simple summation of the effects of their race and their gender as separate things, but rather it’s a complex combination that can result in both advantageous and disadvantageous outcomes. 

Both perspectives are valid. Sometimes Black women suffer more penalty than Black men or White women; sometimes they suffer less. It depends on the context.

We found that Black male leaders and White female leaders were viewed more negatively when they behave in more dominant ways than when they were more submissive, while more dominant White male leaders were not. However, Black female leaders were also not penalized for more dominant behavior compared with more submissiveness, which suggests that Black women are not subject to the same agency penalties and backlash that Black male leaders and White female leaders are. Paradoxically, this gives Black women more freedom to exhibit a range of leadership behaviors.

This “free pass” that Black women receive is likely a result of marginality. Because the dominant group, White men, is neither dependent on nor threatened by Black women, the norms for their behavior are looser than what’s acceptable for Black men or White women. Research has even shown that prescriptive stereotypes of Black women are less stringent, with fewer norms against dominance.

But if Black women have the same latitude as White men to behave assertively in leadership roles, why are there not more Black women leaders? After all, Black women are conspicuously absent from many top leadership roles, occupying 0% of Fortune 500 CEO positions, compared to 1% for Black men and 5% for White women. 

Research has found that when Black female leaders made a mistake on the job, their competence was more likely to be called into question compared with Black male leaders or White female leaders who made mistakes (who themselves suffered penalties relative to White male leaders). This effect is also due to marginality. Because Black women are seen as being two degrees removed from the prototypical White male leader (since they’re neither male nor White), their competence is also seen as two degrees removed and, thus, they face harsher penalties when even simple mistakes are made.

In the end, the findings for Black women leaders are complicated and support the notion that invisibility or marginalization provides both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, being marginalized appears to lead to more freedom for Black women to exhibit leadership behaviors that wouldn’t be tolerated from a Black man or White woman. On the other hand, being marginalized means that Black women leaders are the first to be dismissed if any doubts around competence arise because they’re further from the leadership prototype.

An anecdote of two Xerox executives illustrates the discrepancies between the experiences of White and Black female leaders. Former Xerox CEO Ann Mulcahy, a White woman, served as a mentor and sponsor to Ursula Burns, a Black woman, who eventually became Mulcahy’s successor and the first Black female Fortune 500 CEO in history. Before the transition, Mulcahy encouraged Burns to have more of a poker face, since, as Burns herself attested, “On my face, you could tell everything in 30 seconds…you could tell exasperation. You could tell fed-up-ness.” Undoubtedly, Mulcahy was giving Burns earnest and heartfelt advice, likely based on personal experience. But she may have failed to realize that Black women leaders may have more latitude to express dominant emotions than White women leaders—particularly when they’re performing at a very high level of competence, which Burns was.

Overcoming the challenges of social disadvantage

The nature of social disadvantage is complex. It’s important for leaders and organizations to understand the unique challenges facing members of distinct social groups. Black men are stigmatized, meaning that they are under relentless scrutiny due to the negativity and threat associated with them. Black women are marginalized, meaning that they’re often ignored, overlooked, and treated with indifference. White women are subordinated, meaning that they’re often viewed positively but only if they do not challenge White male authority.

This creates a unique set of challenges for leaders of each of the three groups. How should aspiring women and BIPOC leaders respond? 

Before sharing recommendations, I want to make clear that my work is largely descriptive rather than prescriptive. I attempt to discover the truth of how social environments operate; I am not a coach who provides recommendations on how one should (or should not) behave in the workplace.

Having said this, I see three options for aspiring women and BIPOC leaders: play the game, challenge the game, or create your own game. 

Those who play the game are aware of how the White male patriarchy perceives them and adjust their behavior accordingly. For Black males, this might involve adopting speech, behavior, dress, or hairstyles that would make one appear less threatening. For White women, this would mean walking the “tightrope” between warmth and competence. For Black women, this would require a level of meticulousness and perfectionism in one’s work that far exceeds that of White men. These strategies might facilitate individual mobility but do less to change the position of one’s social group. In other words, by playing the game you also keep the game intact. Therefore, this is not a sustainable strategy if the hope is to create social change. It can also produce hidden costs–stress, anxiety, and depression caused by constantly having to monitor one’s appearance, statements, and actions.

You could also refuse to play along and boldly assert your authenticity and full humanity. This approach is the most likely to result in gains for the social group, but often at a social cost to the individual who challenges the status quo. Copious research and anecdotal evidence confirms that those who defy the system run a greater risk of retribution. This strategy requires community support, legal protections, and/or a healthy dose of personal courage and resilience. Therefore, it is not an option for everyone.

Finally, you could decide to step outside of the game altogether and create your own game. This might mean moving to a new organization—one that has a greater commitment to equity and inclusion—or taking a more entrepreneurial approach and starting your own business. It might mean moving to a different country altogether, where gender and/or racial barriers are less prevalent. Again, there are costs involved with this option because not everyone has the privilege of professional or geographical mobility, and starting a new business requires economic capital. However, for those with sufficient talent and persistence, creating your own game might ultimately provide the best of all worlds: authenticity and prosperity. 

The main point is that the workplace is not a level playing field, and the terrain is qualitatively different for members of distinct social groups. Therefore, we must move beyond a “one-size-fits-all” approach to gain a fuller understanding of the complexity of social disadvantage.

***

This newsletter has been adapted from a chapter I wrote with Ashleigh Shelby Rosette, entitled “Stigmatization, Subordination, or Marginalization? The Complexity of Social Disadvantage Across Gender and Race,” for the book Inclusive Leadership: Transforming Diverse Lives, Workplaces, and Societies, edited by Bernardo M. Ferdman, Jeanine Prime, and Ronald E. Riggio (2020).