Break the Glass Ceiling? But you’re so good at cleaning the floor!
by Anna O’Sullivan (class of 2025)
At first glance, the statement, “women are natural caretakers,” might seem like a compliment; it implies praise for being nurturing, dependable, and fundamentally necessary. However, when we examine which qualities women are praised for and which they aren’t, there is a clear narrative at play that is meant to enforce subservience. When caretaking qualities are deemed inherent and essential to womanhood, other characteristics a woman could have like ambition, decisiveness, and assertiveness — traits typically associated with leadership — are either overlooked or penalized. This is benevolent sexism — an insidious form of sexism that uses seemingly positive behaviors and attitudes towards women, like praise and protectiveness, to reinforce traditional gender roles. This is different from hostile sexism — the overtly negative attitudes that reinforce women’s subordinate status. Unlike hostile sexism, which openly asserts women’s inferiority, benevolent sexism achieves the same outcome through subtler means: by framing women’s worth as inherently linked to caregiving, it perpetuates the belief that women have a specific gendered duty to subservience.
The word natural is particularly important when thinking about the benevolent sexism behind the idea that women are natural caretakers. It’s not unreasonable to suggest that women might, on average, be better caretakers than men because we know that they do more caretaking work inside and outside the home. However, framing caregiving as women’s natural ability implies that it is an inherent trait that women are born with simply by virtue of their gender, not as a result of society’s existing domestic labor divisions.
Tufts Public Opinion Lab’s recent poll reveals insights about just how widespread the belief that women are natural caretakers is. These biases, though subtle and seemingly complimentary, shape societal expectations and create barriers to women assuming positions of power.
In testing this belief, I also asked respondents their agreement with the statements “Women are natural leaders” and “Men are natural leaders.” I use the “Women are natural leaders” statement as a point of comparison to show how different the perception of women as caretakers versus leaders is.
Overall, respondents overwhelmingly expressed their belief that women are natural caretakers — 62% of Americans either “agree” or “strongly agree” with that statement. In contrast, 69% of respondents disagreed or were neutral about whether women are natural leaders. This suggests that a belief in women as natural caretakers is more widespread and more deeply held.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the data is the difference in the most common responses between each statement. The most common response to the “Women are natural leaders” statement was “Neither agree nor disagree.” This reflects neutrality or uncertainty, suggesting that respondents are hesitant to strongly associate leadership as a natural trait for women. At first glance, this makes sense. A certain woman might be a great leader, and another might not. We may not be able to say with confidence that women as an entire gender are natural leaders. However, the most common response to the “Women are natural caretakers” statement falls in the “Agree” category. Respondents felt confident categorizing caretaking as a natural ability for the entire gender. This suggests that there is a belief that we don’t have to review case-by-case and see what caretaking skills a certain woman has the same way we do with leadership; Americans just presume women inherently have them.
By highlighting the disparity between these beliefs, I am not suggesting that we need to adopt a new essentialist belief and that women must be viewed as natural leaders to combat sexism and place them on an equal playing field with men. In fact, in the results of this survey, there was no statistically significant difference in the degree to which people agreed that men or women were natural leaders.
One possible explanation for this result is social desirability bias; in other words, participants may have consciously answered in ways they thought would make them seem unbiased when they recognized the similarity of the two statements side-by-side. However, respondents may genuinely believe that leadership isn’t an inherent trait of either gender, as shown by the large number of “Neither agree nor disagree” responses for both men and women.
This neutrality regarding leadership contrasts starkly with the essentialist belief that caregiving is a natural trait for women. Even if people do not perceive men and women differently in terms of their natural ability to lead, women still face unique barriers to actually pursuing leadership positions and then being recognized and celebrated as leaders. These barriers stem from deeply ingrained societal expectations that prioritize caregiving as an essential aspect of womanhood. So the problem isn’t just whether people believe women are inherently capable of leading, but the conditions under which that leadership is accepted.
Even as society grows more comfortable with women in increasingly more powerful positions outside of the home, the expectation remains that they must continue to shoulder the bulk of caregiving, and working women remain disproportionately responsible for domestic labor. Essentially, women are allowed to step beyond the box of caregiver only if they can effectively take on a second role, not shirk that essential first one.
Additionally, women in high-powered positions are often praised for traits associated with caretaking and criticized when they don’t show this “warmth,” which is rarely required of their male counterparts. For example, consider an analysis of the popular site RateMyProfessors.com, where students share insights about their professors. Female professors are far more likely to be criticized as “bossy” and praised as “nurturing.” This insistence on “softening” power reveals society’s discomfort with women who lead in ways that diverge from the caretaker archetype. Terms like “mom,” “dad,” and “references to children” were also disproportionately used in reviews of female professors, subtly reinforcing the importance of these factors in a female professor’s life over a male professor’s.
The societal conditioning around the importance of female caretaking starts early. Young girls are encouraged to be “helpful,” while boys are encouraged to “take charge.” The message isn’t always explicit but lingers in classroom dynamics, family structures, and media representation. It occurs at the highest levels of power, where all Americans’ eyes are turned. In the lead-up to the 2024 election, Vice President Kamala Harris’ childlessness and ambition were framed as evidence of coldness and egotism. By the time Americans reach adulthood, these messages have crystallized into a pattern that shapes labor inside and outside of the home. Women are overrepresented in caregiving professions, like nursing, teaching, and social work — and underrepresented in professions that aren’t associated with caretaking, like politics, engineering, and senior management positions.
The work of dismantling the specific form of sexism involved with keeping women out of leadership roles doesn’t end with making space for women in these roles; it requires deconstructing the belief that their worth is inherently tied to caregiving.
