Forum. Three years ago, Sheryl Sandberg, the director-general of Yahoo, denounced the confiscation of the voice of women in business. According to her, the men who speak much in the meeting would be considered 10 % more competent than the other, while a woman who talks a lot would be considered to be 14 % less competent than those who are silent.
The “double bind” of women is the reflex of a cultural best shared in the company : if they speak with authority, and despise women at the pretext that they behave like men. If they show empathy, doubt is their ability of leadership. Between these two evils, it is understandable that women often choose silence.
Invisibilisation of the great speakers of history
This forfeiture resonates with the invisibilisation of the great speakers of history. Are you able to name five ? No, but it does not come to you. Surely you have thought of Olympe de Gouge, more recently, Emma Watson or yet to Malala Yousafzai. In the historical narratives, the women do not have the right to speak.
Is this the theory rousseauist according to which they can only dominate their nature irrational and their emotions ? Is this the violence that the image of a speaker can lift the crowds deals with the myth of the Madonna and “the Angel of the Hearth” as it was called by Virginia Woolf ? Even today, television has eclipsed the word of the women : they are only 32.8% of speaking time and they only represent 20 % of the experts interviewed according to the higher Council of the audiovisual itself.
The “manterrupting” (a contraction of ” man ” and ” interrupting “) and the “mansplaining” (” man ” and ” explaining “) design, now scenes of everyday life. Women are more frequently interrupted when they speak. They run so…
