Authors: Marianne Schnall
MS
: By the way, that is something that I’m hearing a lot in my interviews, which is sort of fascinating, on the heels also of the conversation around Margaret Thatcher dying. Do you think that is true? That we are going to have that type of woman president first? What do you think is the consciousness that has produced that conundrum?
JW
: Because men have always been in power. That’s just reality. Forever and ever and ever. And so all systems of power are set up around that framework. And so if you’re a woman, especially a Margaret Thatcher or an Indira Gandhi of the time when there were even less women in positions of so-called power, you have no choice but to buy into that system to have the possibility of being a leader in the standard, male-dominated political party and/or political structure.
MS
: I remember you saying this even way back to the Omega Women and Power Conference—and this is such an important point that I have been trying to convey in the book—that this isn’t just about any woman . . .
JW
: Correct. Shared anatomy does not necessarily mean shared points of view. And especially, you know, the stats that are showing over and
over again in the corporate world, that until you have at least 30 percent women on a board or in high-level management, the conversation does not change. When you break over that 30 percent point, there is introduction of different ways of thinking about the corporation and in the corporation because there is strength in numbers.
MS
: That is the other flip side of the conversation, because this isn’t just about equality for equality’s sake. Why is it important right now that we have more women’s voices represented?
JW
: Because, again, just like that study, pretty much all studies have shown that if you have diversity in leadership, whether it be men, women, African American, Latino—all of those combinations—the more diversity you have in decision-making, the better the decision. I’m sure you’ve seen stats like that. That if it’s all a bunch of white men that think alike, then you’re not going to have broad analysis or broad possibilities of different ways to approach things. If you have diverse people in the discussion, you’re going to have diverse points of view about how to resolve your issues or how to move forward or whatever.
MS
: There’s a lot of talk in the wake of Sheryl Sandberg’s book . . .
JW
: Oh yes, I was going to say, I don’t want to “lean in” with Sheryl. To me she’s retro. To me that is just reinforcing the “if you want to play with the big boys, you have to act like them.” I prefer to see a shift of ways of thinking so that it’s value based, not power based.
MS
: But it is that conundrum of what you said earlier—can you do that given the current structures? Can a woman lead from that authentic place
and still advance, given what you said earlier about the fact that to get there, you may have to play like the old boys?
JW
: Well, I think at some point, we’re not going to have to anymore, but we’re still moving in that direction. We haven’t gotten there yet. I want to see somebody write a book about the need to have true equality in the workplace, meaning if the man wants paternity leave, then he should get it equal to what the woman gets. If the family decides the woman is going to advance her career and the man’s going to stay home and be a stay-at-home parent, that should be totally fine, too. Instead of Sandberg’s point, “Well, women come on, let’s lean in at the table and show them we know how to think.” We’ve already done that.
MS
: Although she does make the point that one of the most important decisions you can make is in choosing your partner, someone who will share these responsibilities. And I’m hoping that this book will talk about the need for these kinds of cultural gender roles to change for men, too, because that’s part of the problem. You’ve also talked about how so many issues like this, including women’s equality, aren’t women’s issues.
JW
: They’re human issues.
MS
: How do you see it that way?
JW
: I really believe all of life is a human issue. And all of life means taking care of the kids. How do you split the tasks at home so that one person isn’t overwhelmed with working and doing everything at home, like most women still are, if they work? And if they aren’t Sheryl Sandberg, who can afford a nanny and a maid and everything else, you know? How we choose to live is not just a women’s issue. And I think over time businesses
that make those decisions are going to become stronger than businesses that don’t. I mean, I was just reading a piece in the
Post
today about men left behind, or something. The title irritated me immediately. But it was more about with the changing economy, men with only high-school degrees, high-school education, fare much worse than women with high-school degrees now. That men with a couple of years of college fare much worse in the workplace than women with similar levels of education. That is ultimately going to force some kind of shift in this economy.
MS
: I think this is such an important point, about men. One of the interviews that I did recently for
The Huffington Post
that was one of my most shared pieces ever was the one I did with Patrick Stewart about ending violence against women, and in that he talks about how men, too, need help to change their conditioning and behavior. So even when we’re saying that male leaders are used to exercising power or militarism in a certain way, that’s because they’re groomed not to embrace their . . .
JW
: Whole being.
MS
: Yes.
JW
: Their full being. We don’t even have to say male side or female side; we should say the full complement of all that, of what we can be.
MS
: Perhaps that is the other important prong of this conversation.
JW
: Yes, I totally agree. It’s like in the stop-rape-and-gender-violence work, we need to get men to stand up and say, “Yes, I’m uncomfortable when we talk about this because then women look at me and think I might be possibly capable of being a wife-beater or a rapist. I want to state here
and now that I am not that and I’m going to work to make sure that my sons aren’t and I’m going to work to make sure that my colleagues aren’t.” You know what I mean? Men have to also become proactive on these issues.
MS
: I just interviewed Don McPherson, a football Hall of Famer who is now dedicated to redefining masculinity and helping boys and men. He was saying that part of the problem is that there aren’t real forums, there isn’t as much of a movement for this and maybe it is because men are not as inclined to reach out for help in these areas.
JW
: Right. How can you be a macho sportsman if you’re admitting that you have emotion?
MS
: It seems like it’s definitely part of a bigger effort that needs to happen. Now in terms of looking at women, I interviewed two congresswomen for this book last week and obviously we’ve made strides in this last election, but we’re still only 20 percent of the Senate, which is far from parity. Just in general, what do you think is holding women back? Obviously, there are structural barriers, but do you think that there is psychological conditioning that prevents women from honoring their visions and getting out there in the world and speaking their truths?
JW
: Sure, the stereotypes. If a man says something clearly and with conviction, he’s just a clear thinker. If a woman says something clearly and with conviction, she’s emotional or aggressive or a bitch—all the labels we already know. Again, I think that the issue is changing, but not enough and not fast enough. And I think when there are more and more women in positions of power—I hate that phrase, I don’t know what we say—but anyway, in positions of power, that will change. I mean, now that there
are 20 percent women in the Senate, it’s still not enough, but that’s a hell of a difference. There have been articles in the
Post
since they’ve been there about how the things that the women talk about—the things and ways that the women senators talk—can agitate the old white men who aren’t used to clear thinking and clear conversation.
MS
: It’s so hard to talk about these things without making generalizations—and actually you’re always the one who always keeps us on course with that—but do you think that there are some special qualities that women bring? There was an article saying that even just having a little bit more women, this Republican male Senator Rob Portman said that he thought that it led to better consensus, that women are better listeners. Do you think that there are some qualities that you can definitively say women bring to the table?
JW
: Sure. To me, one of the classic examples is you get a handful of women who’ve received the Peace Prize and they form a group. You’ve had ninety-four men in the history of the Peace Prize, something like that. There’s never been a Nobel Men’s Initiative. It’s all individual. I think that’s quite interesting.
MS
: The Nobel Women’s Initiative is such a wonderful organization, for the laureates to use their influence and access in order to help other organizations and further causes. Is that how you view the use of power, to actually reach back and bring up others?
JW
: Oh, yeah. One of the primary reasons I wrote the memoir was to show people that ordinary people like me from an extremely humble, and in many ways troubled, background could recognize the need for change and participate with thousands of people around the world and make it
happen. I want people to recognize that it’s not a special gift given to the rich, it’s not a special gift given to men—anybody can participate in transformation. And to me, that means working with people to promote their leadership and ability to be part of transformation. I do a lot of work with young people, and I love it—just helping them understand they have power and choice and how they choose what they do can matter a lot in not just their lives, but everybody else’s.
MS
: What is the source of your courage and your passion? What drives you? Because even with the whole land-mine campaign—this is not easy work, so you have to have a fuel.
JW
: You know, I can’t pick one. It’s my grandfather, it’s my father—my grandfather was ornery like I can be. My father had a visceral dislike of people who did not think about, as he put it, the little people. And that was throughout his whole life and there was no way to escape that. I fought with Dad a lot about the Vietnam War and tons of other things. We both liked to debate, but still his fundamental beliefs about those things, I carry them with me. I don’t know how to do anything else, is one thing. I can’t imagine not doing it because I get so full of righteous indignation at injustice, that there’s no way I could stop. It doesn’t even enter into my thinking. Yes, there are times that I would like to be able to take a sincere break and not have to answer an email or think about things. It’s pretty hard, as you know, but stop doing this work? I can’t imagine it.
MS
: There are a lot of people who probably look at the world with its many problems and often have so many different troubles of their own, and it’s hard to feel like you can make a difference. What would you say to somebody who wants to help shift the world, but literally has no idea where to start?
JW
: I would suggest that they think about the different issues facing them and our world. I would ask them to get two or three that really get them going, if you know what I mean, and volunteer. I started as a volunteer. I think people think that if they can’t wave their magic wand and change the whole world for the better overnight, there’s no point. I want people to understand that it’s all of the work that all of us do in different areas of trying to confront our challenges that makes the world a better place. No one person, no one issue, is the key to changing everything. And if we all contribute in our own way, even a couple of hours a month of volunteering meaningfully, how awesome would the world be?
MS
: I do think yours is such a powerful story because you always reinforce the idea that anybody can do something worthy of winning a Nobel Peace Prize. There might just be the temptation to get an award like that and just kind of walk around with it showing it off. What was your approach to having that . . .
JW
: That thing? That thing made me cry, for about five years. Not because I didn’t think the work of the land-mine campaign deserved it; I think we did. But personally, all of a sudden, the weird expectations, right? I couldn’t understand what was expected of me as a Nobel Peace Laureate. What the hell is that? I’m a grassroots activist. Period. And I really started loving it with the Nobel Women’s Initiative because I actually found it was a mechanism to honestly share the Peace Prize with people. And now it makes me happy. But one of the things I also try to help people understand is that awards, recognitions, titles—none of those things matter. What really matters is what you do. And if you suddenly think you’re important because you got recognized for decent work, you’ve got a problem.
MS
: The women in the Nobel Women’s Initiative are all such amazing human beings. What have you learned through working with them? Is there something that you all have in common to have gotten to this place?
JW
: Yeah, core beliefs in the ability of change. I think none of us care what other people think—and I don’t mean it in the harsh way that that sounds—I mean that if we believe in a better world for all and we take action toward that, I honestly don’t care if people like what I do or how I talk or what I am. We don’t see our lives as a popularity contest. It’s about living in a way that makes you happy to get up every day, even if you wish you can take a break from it, because you know in your heart and in your gut that you are really trying to do it for everybody, even people you don’t like. When I try to make the world better, I’m not singling out just the people I like, even people I can’t stomach. And I am no saint in that regard. There are lots of people I do not like. I still want the world to be better for them, too, in the hopes that it will change them from being cretins [laughs].