【单选题】

While no woman has been President of the United States, yet the world does have several thousand years of experience with female leaders, and I have to acknowledge it: their historical record puts men’s to shame.

A、notable share of the great leaders in history have been women: Queen Hatshepsut andCleopatra ofEgypt,Empress Wu Zetian ofChina, Isabella ofCastile, QueenElizabeth I ofEngland,Catherine the Great of Russia, and Maria Theresa ofAustriA、Granted, I’m neglecting the likes ofBloody Mary, but it’s still true that those women who climbed to power in monarchies had an astonishingly high success rate.
Research by political psychologists points to possible explanations. Scholars find that women, compared with men, tend to excel in consensus-building and certain other skills useful in leadership. If so, why have female political leaders been so much less impressive in the democratic era Margaret Thatcher was a transformative figure, but women have been mediocre prime ministers or presidents in countries like Sri Lanka, India,Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Philippines and IndonesiA、Often, they haven’t even addressed the urgent needs of women in those countries.
I have a pet theory about what’s going on.
In monarchies, women who rose to the top dealt mostly with a narrow elite, so they could prove themselves and get on with governing.But in democracies in the television age, female leaders also have to navigate public prejudices—and these make democratic politics far more challenging for a woman than for a man.
In a common experiment, the "Goldberg paradigm", people are asked to evaluate a particular article or speech, supposedly by a man. Others are asked to evaluate the identical presentation, but from a woman. Typically, in countries all over the world, the very same words are rated higher coming from a man.
In particular, one lesson from this research is that promoting their own successes is a helpful strategy for ambitious men.But experiments have demonstrated that when women highlight their accomplishments, that’s a turn-off.And women seem even more offended by self-promoting females than men are.
This creates a huge challenge for ambitious women in politics or business: if they’re self-effacing, people find them unimpressive, but if" they talk up their accomplishments, they come across as pushy braggarts.
The broader conundrum is that for women, but not for men, there is a tradeoff in qualities associated with top leadership.A、woman can be perceived as competent or as likable, but not both.
"It’s an uphill struggle, to be judged both a good woman and a good leader," said Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a HarvardBusiness School professor who is an expert on women in leadership. Professor Kanter added that a pioneer in a man’s word, like Hillary RodhamClinton, also faces scrutiny on many more dimensions than a man—witness the public debate about Mrs.Clinton’s allegedly "thick ankles,"or the headlines last year about cleavage.
Clothing and appearance generally matter more for women than for men, research shows. Surprisingly, several studies have found that it’s actually a disadvantage for a woman to be physically attractive when applying for a managerial jo
B、Beautiful applicants received lower ratings, apparently because they were subconsciously pegged as stereotypically female and therefore unsuited for a job as a boss.
Female leaders face these impossible judgments all over the worlD、An M. I. T. economist,EstherDuflo, looked at India, which has required female leaders in one-third of village councils since the mid-1990s. ProfessorDuflo and her colleagues found that by objective standards, the women ran the villages better than men. For example, women constructed and maintained wells better, and took fewer bribes.
Yet ordinary villagers themselves judged the women as having done a worse job, and so most women were not r