Женщина и власть - статья NYT с русскими эквивалентами сложных фраз

When Women Rule (правят)
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

While (хотя) no woman has been president of the United States — yet — the world does have several thousand years’ worth of experience (насчитывающий несколько тысячелетий опыт) with female leaders (лидерами-женщинами). And I have to acknowledge (вынужден признать) it: their historical record puts men’s to shame (их прошлые достижения заставляют мужчин краснеть от стыда).
A notable share (значительная доля) of the great leaders in history have been women: Queen Hatshepsut and Cleopatra of Egypt, Empress Wu Zetian of China, Isabella of Castile, Queen Elizabeth I of England, Catherine the Great of Russia, and Maria Theresa of Austria. It’s still true that those women who climbed to power in monarchies had an astonishingly high success rate (потрясающий успех).
Research (исследования) by political psychologists points to possible explanations (возможные объяснения). Scholars (ученые) find that women, compared with men (в сравнении с мужчинами), tend to excel (как правило, отличаются) in consensus-building (умением достигать согласия) and certain (определенными) other skills useful in leadership. If so, why have female political leaders been so much less impressive (менее впечатляющими) in the democratic era? Women have been mediocre (посредственными/заурядными) prime ministers or presidents in countries like Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Philippines and Indonesia. Often, they haven’t even addressed (брались за) the urgent needs (неотложные потребности) of women in those countries.
I have a pet theory (излюбленная теория) about what’s going on.
In monarchies, women who rose to the top dealt mostly with a narrow elite (имели дело с узким кругом элиты), so they could prove themselves (проявить себя) and get on with governing (заниматься управлением). But in democracies (демократических странах) in the television age, female leaders also have to navigate public prejudices (общенародные предрассудки) — and these make democratic politics far more challenging (гораздо более трудной) for a woman than for a man.
In one common experiment, the “Goldberg paradigm,” people are asked to evaluate (оценить) a particular article or speech, supposedly (предположительно/якобы) by a man. Others are asked to evaluate the identical (ту же самую) presentation, but from a woman. Typically, in countries all over the world, the very same words are rated (оцениваются) higher coming from a man.
In particular (в частности/в особенности), one lesson from this research is that promoting their own successes (популяризация/рекламирование собственного успеха) is a helpful strategy for ambitious (амбициозных/честолюбивых) men. But experiments have demonstrated that when women highlight (придают большое значение/привлекают внимание к) their accomplishments (достижениям), that’s a turn-off (нечто отвратительное). And women seem even more offended by self-promoting females (как кажется, чувствуют себя еще более [чем мужчины] задетыми, когда видят, как другие женщины занимаются саморекламой) than men are.
This creates a huge challenge for ambitious women in politics or business: If they’re self-effacing (если они держатся в тени), people find them unimpressive (невпечатляющими), but if they talk up (расхваливают) their accomplishments, they come across as pushy braggarts (производят впечатление напористых хвастунов).
The broader conundrum (головоломка) is that for women, but not for men, there is a tradeoff (компромисс/выбор оптимального соотношения) in qualities associated (между качествами, связанными с) with top leadership. A woman can be perceived (восприниматься) as competent (компетентная) or as likable (привлекательная), but not both.
“It’s an uphill struggle, to be judged both (очень трудно добиться признания как) a good woman and a good leader,” said Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a Harvard Business School professor who is an expert on women in leadership. Professor Kanter added that a pioneer in a man’s world, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, also faces (сталкивается с) scrutiny (испытующим взглядом/внимательным изучением) on many more dimensions (по большему количеству характеристик) than a man — witness the public debate (возьмите как пример публичные дебаты) about Mrs. Clinton’s allegedly (якобы) “thick ankles (лодыжках)”.
Clothing and appearance (внешность) generally matter more (имеют большее значение) for women than for men, research shows. Surprisingly (как ни удивительно), several studies have found that it’s actually a disadvantage (помеха/недостаток) for a woman to be physically attractive when applying for a managerial job. Beautiful applicants (претенденты/кандидаты) received lower ratings (более низкие оценки), apparently (видимо) because they were subconsciously (подсознательно) pegged (признаны) as stereotypically female and therefore (поэтому/соответственно) unsuited (неподходящими/негодными) for a job as a boss.
Women have often quipped (язвительно отмечали) that they have to be twice as good as men to get anywhere — but that, fortunately, is not difficult. In fact, it appears that it may be difficult after all (все-таки). Modern democracies may empower deep prejudices (дать развитие серьезным предрассудкам) and thus (таким образом) constrain (ограничить) female leaders in ways that ancient (древние) monarchies did not.