social vs. professional power dynamics re: gender relations

[Lucy__lou]

Do you think that there is less gender equality in the professional corporate environment than in everyday life? you know, like at a barbeque with friends, or in the line at the bank or somewhere neutral like that?

 

I find that the majority of negative attituded I experience from men are in the workplace, whereas men seem to treat me more as an equal outside my professional environment.

 

Does anyone agree with this and if so why do you think this is?

 

Thank you

[tastytoothpaste]

I wouldn't know. I'm still just a student.

[servedcold]

Speaking as a man who has lost promotions and choice assignments due to women in the workplace being willing to spend significant "under the desk" time, it's pretty bad on both sides of the street, equal "inequities" on both sides of the gender fence if you will.

[DadaJones]

Its because we live in a Patriarchial Hierarchy...that means although we are in the digital age, the institutions are still riddled with inherent bias based on past beliefs.

[servedcold]

Its because we live in a Patriarchial Hierarchy...that means although we are in the digital age, the institutions are still riddled with inherent bias based on past beliefs.

 

Hmm, wow, just felt a time warp whiz by. Tell the 70s hello from the year 2009. How long have you been in the workforce exactly, and to what extent?

[DadaJones]

Your anecdotal assertion that you lost those promotions/choice assignments due to "under the desk time" proves me correct as you have the corporate male view. Its even worse if your a female and a minority.

[servedcold]

Your anecdotal assertion that you lost those promotions/choice assignments due to "under the desk time" proves me correct as you have the corporate male view. Its even worse if your a female and a minority.

 

Well, in at least one case of under the desk time, there was no penis in the room if you get my drift. The transaction that occurred was entirely "matriarchal."

 

"Anecdotal," in the way you use it is when you get pissed about something and make something up to assuage your resentment. Broad knowledge of an obvious fact among 90% of a 500 person law firm is not quite "anecdotal" now is it? especially when that "anecdote" ended a marriage and almost brought the entire firm down in addition to messing up the advancement prospects of many, self included.

 

The fact that you didn't reply to my question about your actual work experience leads me to believe you are still suckling at the Marxist Leninist teat of one of our "fine" secondary education institutions. Keep fighting the good fight brother! Down with the MAN! Enjoy the Ivory Tower while it lasts.

 

Incidentally, the current workplace is an absolute cornucopia of opportunity for minority females. I'm sure that plain fact doesn't fit the ideology though, so feel free to disregard it.

[DadaJones]

You are confusing office politics with the issue of oppression. Again you use phrases like "no penus in the room" supports my point that you have the male corporate view. You are looking to attack me personally, so i don't bother responding to your questions. You just need to look at the wage gap statistics to see that i'm right. Not to mention burdens of pregnancy...etc...

[servedcold]

No personal attack whatsoever, one thing you won't find in many of my admittedly obnoxious plethora of posts are personal attacks. Broad and unfair gender generalizing, absolutely, guilty as charged. No personal attacks though. Was just questioning the experiential basis for your initial claim and your use of the word "patriarchal" which pretty much outs you as a student, and not a current member of the workforce.

 

Words like "patriarchal" and "oppression" tend to be replaced by other more colorful and common words in a young socialist's vocabulary once the first paystub comes.

 

So, do these wage charts reflect facts such as women leaving the workforce to have children lose the experience, due to simple opportunity costs, that leads to higher wages and promotions over time? Thought not. Maybe time spent rearing children should be scaled to work experience somehow. How many readings of "Green Eggs and Ham" to a toddler should equate to doing open heart surgery, carrying a complex project to completion, drafting a will, or even preparing someone's taxes?

[DadaJones]

No personal attack whatsoever[/Quote]

 

Personal attack:

 

Words like "patriarchal" and "oppression" tend to be replaced by other more colorful and common words in a young socialist's vocabulary once the first paystub comes.[/Quote]

 

 

Broad and unfair gender generalizing, absolutely, guilty as charged.[/Quote]

 

Admission of ignorance.

 

 

 

So, do these wage charts reflect facts such as women leaving the workforce to have children lose the experience, due to simple opportunity costs, that leads to higher wages and promotions over time? [/Quote]

 

Admission of oppression.

 

 

Maybe time spent rearing children should be scaled to work experience somehow. How many readings of "Green Eggs and Ham" to a toddler should equate to doing open heart surgery, carrying a complex project to completion, drafting a will, or even preparing someone's taxes?

 

Admission of personal prejudice against women.

 

Game, set, and match. Thanks for doing my work for me.

[Lucy__lou]

You just need to look at the wage gap statistics to see that i'm right. Not to mention burdens of pregnancy...etc...

 

Here here Dada. It's hilarious how as much as the pay & position level figures reveal gross pay inequality and huge disparity in terms of decision making and job levels between women and men, and minimal improvement over the last three decades, there is still an abundance of men who cry bloody murder whenever a shift towards balance occurs, and passionately deny that there is still a problem, insisting that the corporate world is woman dominated.

 

As for the fear that women are using sex to undermine the professionalism of an organisation and therefore can't be trusted, well I don't know what it's like over in the States or in other industries except my own, but in my organisation, I have not once seen any flirtation or suggestions of people hooking up with colleagues. I don't imagine such behaviour would be accepted well at all, yet the men's behavior towards me is significantly less friendly or welcoming than what goes on between the men.

[Cognitive_Canine]

The fact that my mother gets paid less than the men whom she is the boss of is rather sad.

 

However, I do not agree with laws that make it so that companies have to have a certain number of women/minorities.

 

My stepdad works construction and his company is required to hire so many women. Most of them are not qualified to operate the machinery, yet aren't physically strong enough to handle the manual work. They just slow down the project altogether.

[servedcold]

Game, set, and match. Thanks for doing my work for me.

 

I guess so because instead of responding to points with reason or even the dreaded "anecdotal" evidence, you are going to respond to any opinion that differs from yours with the words "patriarchal," "oppressive," "male corporate view," etc. So yes, I'm overmatched in that game, as I don't have a 50 year old textbook or a Marxist professor handy to quote.

 

But for the life of me I can't understand why you haven't used the "f" word yet? No, not the dirty one, the one with seven letters that ends in "ascist."

[servedcold]

The fact that my mother gets paid less than the men whom she is the boss of is rather sad.

 

I don't know what field your mother is in, but it is actually very common for supervisors to make less than line employees, especially where commissions are involved, and this has nothing to do with gender.

[Lucy__lou]

I do not agree with laws that make it so that companies have to have a certain number of women/minorities.

 

I can understand resistance to compulsory diversity quotas, since it goes against (short term) meritocracy.

 

I don't even have an opinion as to whether it will work everywhere, (it seems to have resulted in increased profits in Scandinavia though)...

 

But I do see it as being beneficial in the long term, even if it isn't in the short term.

 

When you have a work environment that is imbalanced, such as in a male dominated environment, the culture tends to alienate women, because the way that the work environment is managed and run is likely to be male dominated. If women feel excluded, or unwelcome, or highly scrutinised because they stick out like a sore thumb, they're less likely to develop as fast professionally, and may lower their initial ambitions, because it just feels hopeless, being outnumbered, and a minority. I often see, when women have a few women to work with, they end up thriving.

 

When you alienate women from a profession, you alienate half the workforce. When you alienate half the workforce, you're never going to recruit the cream of the crop. Same thing when you have unpleasant, unwelcoming boys' club environments, the women you do have aren't going to be working under optimum conditions to excel like they might if the work environment weren't so full of testosterone, and everything else that is 'male culture.'

 

I believe that if compulsory gender quotas are kept in an organisation for a long tiem (I'm talking maybe 50 years), and if there isn't too much of a backlash, that the profits/ efficiency/ effectiveness of organisations who do this would improve dramatically. becasue, like I said, once you stop alienating half the talent, you're going to be able to get the cream of the crop.

[servedcold]

It's hilarious how as much as the pay & position level figures reveal gross pay inequality and huge disparity in terms of decision making and job levels between women and men, and minimal improvement over the last three decades,

 

I have given you the answer, refute it or accept it, your choice... or toss out some more stale rhetoric, again, your choice.

 

"Wage inequity" charts inevitably neglect to factor in the effects of opportunity cost on the experience level of someone who leaves the workplace for ANY reason, sickness, worldwide jaunt to learn digiridoo, burn out, any reason. It just so happens that the primary reason people leave the workplace for extended periods is that they are women who want to have children.

 

People earn more in their careers due to gaining something called -experience- over time which allows them to sell their labor for a higher price in the marketplace. More experience leads to successfully demanding more for one's labor in the market. Less experience = less pay. The longer the resume, the more numbers on the paycheck. I can say this in several other even more snarky ways, but will spare you that in hopes that you are getting the concept.

 

Another factor is that aged experience is less valuable than young experience. A 50 y.o. with 20 years experience in a field is less valuable than a 30 y.o. with 20 years experience in the field due to another interesting notion which I will call discounted time value. Simply put, a younger person's experience will pay dividends to an organization longer than an older person's experience, as the experience grows.

 

Women who leave the workplace to have children not only lose experience to the opportunity costs of having children, but do so at a time when accumulating experience that will be more valuable in the future is most crucial, typically their 20s-early 30s.

 

Together, these two completely gender neutral principles are among the primary factors that allow for misleading wage inequity charts, though university social "scientists" will go to great lengths to massage and "adjust" the data to fit their ideology and supposedly prove that the wages are still unequal.

 

So dismiss this as the "male corporate view," or as the simple economic fact that it is, again, up to you.

[Sn0man]

Do you think that there is less gender equality in the professional corporate environment than in everyday life? you know, like at a barbeque with friends, or in the line at the bank or somewhere neutral like that?

 

I find that the majority of negative attituded I experience from men are in the workplace, whereas men seem to treat me more as an equal outside my professional environment.

 

Does anyone agree with this and if so why do you think this is?

 

Thank you

I agree with your perceptions and heres why:

 

As a man living in the world of today, I am sincerely bitter towards women who spend their every waking moment walking over men. This has been allowed for as long as the feminist movement has been around. Pent-up anger and frustration towards this movement and the bass-ackwards antics and attitudes resulting from this change have taken their toll.

 

Men only look at women they do not know/have to deal with on a regular basis as "women". Other than that, you are an official nemesis, i.e., you are given the same amount of respect as a man gives another man. We will not give you an inch you haven't earned, because we're so sick of being trumped on that, unless we genuinely don't know you, we see you as a threat.

 

We do not percieve women we do not know as a threat, only because we don't know your stance.

 

That goes away quickly if your stance is feminism.

[Lucy__lou]

I have given you the answer

 

It just so happens that the primary reason people leave the workplace for extended periods is that they are women who want to have children.

 

In Scandinavia, government policies have been introduced (such as paid paternity leave) to significantly minimise the impact of having children on career progression. And I don't have any stats handy, but I've heard that there are more women at higher levels in Scandinavian countries. More female CEOs.

 

It only takes 9 months to incubate a baby, (and you can work for most of those months), and it takes only a short time to give birth and recover your energy, like a week or two I imagine, and a little bit of time after to be available to breast feed, I guess. After that, it's not a gendered issue as far as I can tell. Unless we make it a gendered issue.

 

but this thread is about the attitudes towards women by men in the workplace. It's hard to discuss on an international forum where we have me, an Australian in a small town, talking with you, from the US, and another guy from BC in Canada. To my knowledge, Canada is probably the most feminist of the three countries, the US the most likely to have incidences where there are sexual overtones to interactions in the office, and Australia where there is mysogyny, but it generally takes a non sexual form, where the guys just treat you like you're second class citizens and ignore you.

 

May I ask you some personal questions servedcold? (if you're still reading)...

 

- Would you prefer to work in an all male work environment?

- if not, then what do you suggest is the solution to the wage/position level/decision making gender gap?

- do you see any intrinsic benefits of having more women in the workplace?

- how do you feel about women generally? (if that's not too loaded)...

 

Thanks

[Lucy__lou]

I agree with your perceptions and heres why:

 

As a man living in the world of today, I am sincerely bitter towards women who spend their every waking moment walking over men.

 

I'm curious to hear more about this... your post was a little incoherent as well as non specific, but I realise it's 3am over there. (it's Sunday afternoon here). maybe if you're on ena in a day or two, get back to me. I'm interested.

 

If you're in Toronto, then I imagine the culture is a lot more feminist there than here. Over here, it's like the 1950s, I'm not joking. The feminist movement has hardly touched the town where I live.

[Sn0man]

I'm curious to hear more about this... your post was a little incoherent as well as non specific, but I realise it's 3am over there. (it's Sunday afternoon here). maybe if you're on ena in a day or two, get back to me. I'm interested.

 

If you're in Toronto, then I imagine the culture is a lot more feminist there than here. Over here, it's like the 1950s, I'm not joking. The feminist movement has hardly touched the town where I live.

 

It's just after 12AM here and I don't know what it was about my post that you found "incoherent". I thought I made my point fairly clear. I could be wrong...

[Lucy__lou]

Sorry, I got the time wrong. Ok, so here's where I'm interested in clarification/elaboration from your post.

 

I am sincerely bitter towards women who spend their every waking moment walking over men.

As someone who doesn't see any of this "women walking over men" business in my own world, I'm curious as to what you're talking about, if you'd care to explain. And if you can also mention whether or not you believe this to be a worldwide phenomenon or if it is just something particular to your personal life, that would help.

 

This has been allowed for as long as the feminist movement has been around.

Do you believe that the feminist movement is a negative thing? what do you think the Feminist movement should have aimed to achieve? and where do you believe that it should draw the line?

 

 

Men only look at women they do not know/have to deal with on a regular basis as "women".

what do you mean? do you mean "women" as opposed to "people?" or do you mean to say that men suspend judgement of women they don't know, or what?

 

Other than that, you are an official nemesis, i.e., you are given the same amount of respect as a man gives another man.

are you saying that you perceive women and men equally, and as enemies? competition?

 

We will not give you an inch you haven't earned, because we're so sick of being trumped on that,

are you saying that you view your work environment as a hostile and competitive environment, rather than co-operative, and built on relationships, information sharing, and mutual backscratching, power alliance building? if so, then I'm guessing we're in different industries. So I can't really judge on the more cut throat work environments.

unless we genuinely don't know you, we see you as a threat.

Ok, so now are you saying that you trust strangers, but disrust all those you know? or did you mean it the other way around?

We do not percieve women we do not know as a threat, only because we don't know your stance.

 

That goes away quickly if your stance is feminism.

 

Do you think that women shouldn't be Feminists? why in hell not? what do you think Feminism is?

[servedcold]

In Scandinavia, government policies have been introduced (such as paid paternity leave) to significantly minimise the impact of having children on career progression. And I don't have any stats handy, but I've heard that there are more women at higher levels in Scandinavian countries. More female CEOs.

 

No problem at all with more female CEOs, but shouldn't the decision to have children affect career progression? Life involves choices and sacrifices for men and women, and should. Only the most single mindedly dedicated should rise to the top, male or female. Taking five years to raise children is no different than taking five years to perfect one's golf game, and should penalize career advancement accordingly.

 

The "only nine months" argument is specious, in the US anyway. Many women leave the workplace for several years, more than leave for only the term of the pregnancy. Many stay out of the workplace for a decade or more and then return. Sure, if a woman stays gone for only nine months, the impact should be minimal, but in reality, returning mothers are more likely to seek flex time, part time arrangements that are good for family health, but are (and should be IMO) wage equity killers.

 

I would agree with a wage inequity chart if it completely removed all women who left for longer than nine months to have children AND, importantly, removed the top quintile of wages from the chart, because admittedly, the working generation that graduated in the 60s- 70s still earns the most money, and they are mostly men. They are rapidly aging off the chart though. IMO, at least in the US, a 1. chart of people who came of working age in the 80s and after that 2. excludes all people who have left their career for more than a year will show no income disparity whatsoever between genders, but the dogmatists in the social sciences depts would never grant such a chart credence because it does not support their ideology, hence you won't see such chart.

 

May I ask you some personal questions servedcold? (if you're still reading)...

 

- Would you prefer to work in an all male work environment?

- if not, then what do you suggest is the solution to the wage/position level/decision making gender gap?

- do you see any intrinsic benefits of having more women in the workplace?

- how do you feel about women generally? (if that's not too loaded)...

 

Thanks

 

1. No, I have worked in an all male environment, and prefer to work in a co-ed work environment. The worst bosses I've had were female, three of them obtained their position through sexual means, a fact broadly known by many men and women at the time, not just my sexist conjecture. This is a reflection on the weakness and ineptitude of the men in charge at the time as much as bad behavior by the women, but is still unpalatable for all employees, especially the women trying to rise via merit. One of the best bosses I've ever had was female, and ironically, she also happened to be one of the most sexually harrassing bosses I've ever seen, constantly commenting on physicality, looks, etc. She was an excellent manager though, and I was happy and productive working for her.

 

2. The "power gap" is working itself out just fine, at least in the US. The increase of women in government, the Supreme Court, and soon a female president proves this. Progress in corporate, legal and medical America is also rapid. There is no wage inequality in the U.S. if the chart factors out the oldest/highest paid quintile and accounts for extended female leave. It is a myth and a lie, and has always (at least for the last 20 years) been the province of ideologues with an axe to grind rife with bad and dishonest statistics and plaintiff's lawyers itching to crack open the next litigation money pot.

 

I saw a billboard the other day that claimed that 70% of the children in the country have been sexually assaulted over the internet. Do you believe this? Someone obviously does. I can "prove" anything by massaging statistics, doesn't make it the truth. The most sexist thing I will say here is that women are gullible to bogus studies and statistics moreso than men, especially if they make a claim about women's or children's rights. Show many women a statistic saying that firemen molest children more than anyone else and you will have a line around the block petitioning for a national registry of firemen. Similar gullibility has allowed the hackneyed wage inequity tripe to persist for so long. If you don't buy this, and think me a horrible sexist, tell me who buys all the tabloids, women or men?

 

3. In the nineties and after, I've always worked in companies/firms where there were as many women as men, no, not 50 and 60 year olds, but in my age range, so no, I don't see any benefit to having more women in the workplace, in my age range the numbers are already equivalent and becoming even moreso, in the US at least.

 

In my field, law, it is easier to land a top job as a woman than as a man with equal qualifications currently and law school enrollments are close to equal between men and women these days. Salaries are lockstep and law firms promote women ... who stick around and tough it out... to partner just as readily as they promote men.

 

I will say, though, that in my experience, fewer women would stick it out through the grueling partner track than men, regardless of whether they had children or not, and actually saw several flex time women promoted to partner merely to fluff the equity/quota numbers, despite the fact that they weren't even working full time. This kind of things does not foster a good attitude in men, watching a woman make partner who leaves at five the three days a week she works to go home to children while the men stay on til 11PM to do the heavy lifting, and rightfully so.

 

4. As far as how I "feel" about women, I love women, have many close female friends, good relationships with female family, and have had many healthy relationships despite not marrying or breeding.

 

I will say, though that the modern American female is the most pampered and privileged creature in the history of humankind, on any axis, culturally, professionally, legally, whatever. American women are told out of one side of the mouth that they can have it all, and that it is their due, with no sacrifices whatsoever, career, family, chivalry, all at the same time, and life doesn't work that way, and told out of the other side of the mouth that they are being abused and oppressed, when the exact opposite is the case. Go sit in an American divorce court for a single day if you don't believe me.

 

Good for women, enjoy it while it lasts, but any whining about the horrible state of women, at least in the U.S. rings completely hollow currently for anyone without doctrinaire leanings and with any amount of real world experience. No idea what it's like in other parts of the world, Australia included. SnoMan's post below is a good summary of the backlash that is forming in the U.S. Men are opting out of marriage in record numbers, and becoming fed up with being treated as second class citizens in the new world order while still being expected to pick up the tab. These are not pretty times for gender relations, and will get worse before getting better.

 

EDIT: I consider myself to be a feminist, and support abortion rights, equality in a non-harrassing workplace, and especially equal treatment under the law, but what passes for "feminism" these days in the US is all too often a blunt instrument political power grab and not any quest for equality.

[Sn0man]

I think feminism is the beginning of the end for this world. When primary roles break down and we as a society start to litigate who does what, we are in for nothing more than social destruction.

 

We have survived this long because roles were clearly defined - change the rules, you change all that 100,000 years of evolution has brought us to.

[Jeen]

image removed.... Change is sometimes needed!

[Sn0man]

image removed.... Change is sometimes needed!

But to what end? We can all see the backlash coming in waves - and it will not be pretty.

 

I think feminism and social revolution has brought about more trouble than it ever could have hoped to resolve.

 

But i'm glad that we can work together to fix a carbeurator. You can stand there and watch while I do the fixing, while getting paid the same wage. After your hard day of watching me work, you can go home and complain to me that you've been working all day and pester me as to why i'd rather sit on the couch with my beer than do the dishes (after I finish cooking dinner). I tell you that it'[s been a long day, and you complain that you too have had a long day, and that I should get my ass off the couch. As soon as I do, you plop yourself down in my seat and make yourself comfortable while I do the dishes.

 

This, I tell you, is going to backfire on you in the most horrendous of ways.