Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    This is a battle that gets fought over and over, but never won,
    it seems. How many times have we heard about "the first woman This"
    or "The first woman That"? My mother was the first female manager
    in the phone company in the 30's. I can't believe that ATT has now
    a better record than anyone else in having women high in corporate
    ranks. (Which one would think might be the case, assuming X number
    of managers such as my mother would come from different areas,
    funneling toward the top) (Then again, *women* couldn't be
    heterosexually married and work for the phone company, as late as
    1946 - which would tend to wipe out such management types early
    in the game, back then)
    
    (got long-winded, there, sorry)
    
    Anyhoo - the point here is, we've been fighting this battle for..uhm..
    *decades* if not centuries. And so it goes....
    
    Dawn
    

    
    
    I know the problem - Women are not persistant enough, they
    don't work hard enough at a problem.
    Why in only a few
    hundred years and women will be Junior Vice Presidents....
    
    (Sorry I could not resist.)
    
    _peggy
    

re < Note 338.1 by VINO::EVANS >

>   How many times have we heard about "the first woman This"
>    or "The first woman That"? My mother was the first female manager
>   in the phone company in the 30's. 

>    Anyhoo - the point here is, we've been fighting this battle for..uhm..
>    *decades* if not centuries. And so it goes....
    
Your note has punched one of my buttons.  How many times do we see an
article or hear some clunk of a reporter lead in with ... 

      Can a Women Be a Manager?
      "   "   "   "  " Working Mother
                       US Senator
                       (fill in the blank)

The answer is YES, you clunk, look about you. Look back in history, say ten
years or 400, and the evidence is staring into your big dumb face. Any
'journalist' who words such a question is revealing substantial dimness.

After all, they wouldn't ask

      Can an automobile ever exceed 20 miles per hour?
      Can we ever land on the moon?
     
I feel it's OK to ask something like "is doing X much different for women
than men," but to ask, say,  "Can a woman work and still raise a family" is
offensive and stupid.  Consider this:  from the time of the French
revolution, 1770's, till now, I estimate that over 120 million women have
worked outside their home and raised their children without a husband.  So 
why is the question still being asked?  Usually, 120 million "instances" 
are sufficient to make a point.         

Does your mom flame when she hears:  "Can a Women Be a Manager?"    Meigs

    RE: .3
    
    Yes, indeed , the stuff you cited really burns me, too. I think
    it's (at least) condescending, and (at most) ******** <censored>!!
    
    My mother was a better manager than any boss she ever worked for
    (her last working days were as executive secretary/office manager(s)),
    and it greatly frustrated her.
    
    Unfortunately, she always bought the "men are better/belong in
    positions of power/what can we do/" crap - and was underlying
    *profoundly frustrated* by it, til the day she died.
    
    She would have made one  H**L of a feminist, if she had ever gottn
    it together, but she still referred to the magazine as "Emm Ess"
    and thought ERA was unnecessary.
    
    Her legacy, however, is live and kicking - and *I* can flame, on
    ocassion!
    
    Dawn
    

    No one seems to have mentioned, that of tis year's 50 "Women to
    Watch", one is Rose Ann Giordano:
    
       "Rose Ann Giordano 48: Digital Equipment, Maynard, Mass,;
       vice president of Consultant & Information Systems Marketing;
       BA, Marywood College.  DEC's first female corporate vice-
       president, she spearheaded the company's entry into consulting
       -- a new line of business."
    
    

>    No one seems to have mentioned, that of tis year's 50 "Women to
>    Watch", one is Rose Ann Giordano:
>    
>       "Rose Ann Giordano 48: Digital Equipment, Maynard, Mass,;
>       vice president of Consultant & Information Systems Marketing;
>       BA, Marywood College.  DEC's first female corporate vice-
>       president, she spearheaded the company's entry into consulting
>       -- a new line of business."
    
Your right! This is the 1st I've heard of it. I think it would be good strategy 
for those who want the world to be cognizant of the fact that women do 
everything to mention her name once a month to a group.  Not daily. Once a 
month.  We have got to reshape the world view.

We must fight the Edward R. Murrow syndrome.  A lot, maybe most, of our world
view comes to us through oral tradition.  And everybody in the world knows
Edward R. Murrow because his name has worked its way into oral tradition. (Most
of the wwII correspondents who talk about other wwII correspondents have gotten
in the habit of referring to him.  A lot of them drank together, worked
together, hopped jeeps together, blah blah blah. Also, he did a good job and he
died, so he can be given extravagent praise.  We like to talk about our 
buddies. What about Dickie Chappel, a wwII battle photographer who came back 
with some of the first aerial photos of bombing runs.  (It seems to me the only
woman who existed strongly in wwII oral tradition is Toyko Rose ... and even she
is fading fast.)
 
And how many people have heard of ole what's her name Dorothy Thompson -- the 
radio commentator who ruled the American airwaves for two decades?  
She had the highest listener ratings in America for over a decade, but her 
name did not enter into oral tradition, so she is now a footnote known only to 
radio scholars (and literary scholars because she married Sinclair Lewis).

We have to consciously and purposefully shape oral tradition because it won't 
shape itself to 'truth' by itself.  Case in point: literature and law and 
folk wisdom are forever raving on about 'young soldiers' losing their 
lives in war while everybody else is home safe.  Historically, however, more 
soldiers die of disease than wounds. And so do the civilians.  The sweet young
thing waiting at home for her brave boy is a ripe candidate for cholera and
dysentery.  But oral tradition counts his death as a nobel sacrifice; hers as 
an acturial statistic.  My own grandmother died of the Great Infuenza Epidemic,
not unrelated to wwI, and yet I was adult before I realized the two were 
related.  Oral tradition didn't tell me. I had to figure it out myself.

Oral tradition wants heroism, beauty, and romance. How many of us absorbed 
the notion of 'way down upon the Swanee River' plantation romance. It's 
gorgeous! And a grotesque lie.          Meigs

    
    if the only women who can achieve these "higher levels of business
    success" are nothing more than men with breasts....
    what good is it really doing?
    
    i wish women who are women
    women who think like women
    with women's feelings and attitudes
    and not just women who can most assume the role of a male
    would be allowed the same opportunities as men and mennish-women.
    
    cus really,
    the women who achieve these plateaus
    are the ones who can most make her male counterparts forget
    she is woman!
    
    if she isn't very good at disguising her womanhood....
    she's destined to be mired in midlevel success.
    or wifedom
    and motherhood
    
    	so put on those grey business suits
    	and grab those leather briefcases
    	and no perfume!
    
    
    

    	RE:  .8
    
    	Rik, I'm not sure what you meant by that note, but I sort of
    	take exception to the idea that women who do jobs normally
    	done by men are acting "mannish" (as if the qualities that
    	spell success are distinctly masculine.)
    
    	That's one of the old stereotypes that women have been fighting 
    	against for a long time (i.e., that we are somehow less than
    	feminine if we find that we enjoy some of the rougher aspects 
    	of the business world.)

    	This may not be what you meant -- but what bothers me is the
    	idea that any woman who can successfully compete with men is
    	considered to be "masculine" (or some other adjective that is
    	negative when applied to a woman.)
    
    	What are women's values and women's feelings?  If a woman is
    	able to handle herself well in a business setting, does that
    	mean that she has betrayed her "women's values" to do it?
    	If so, that implies that 1) men's values are bad, and 2) women's
    	values are such that we are doomed to failure unless we give
    	them up and act like men.
    
    	Many women who are successful among men will probably admit
    	that the behaviors that have helped them be successful were
    	learned from men.  *HOWEVER* -- that doesn't make the behaviors
    	masculine.  It just so happens that (at this point) men have
    	had more experience with success than most women have had --
    	so they have keyed into the behaviors that are assets (and
    	are often able to share them with us.)

    	I do think that the behaviors in question *were* set up by
    	men (and for men) because men have been dominant in this area.
    	But I don't believe in some sort of clear division between
    	male and female behavior that says that a woman has to distinctly
    	cross over into decidedly masculine behavior in order to succeed.
    
    	In other words, there is a *big* difference between asking women
    	to be assertive and diplomatic (and to have initiative) versus
    	asking women to get together with other men and casually scratch
    	one's own balls [now there is a *decidedly* masculine behavior
    	that we are not in a position to imitate with much skill. ;-)]
    
    	Another thing -- as we move along in our careers, we don't move up
    	because some person over us has decided "OK, you are assertive
    	enough.  You get the promotion."  Being assertive is not the
    	same sort of measurable quality that a manager can base your
    	review on (like productivity, dependability, etc.)  Assertive-
    	ness benefits many of us in other ways that are more difficult
    	to measure (i.e., like having the courage to speak up and ask
    	for a difficult new project or opportunity.)

    	It's impossible to divide up all business behaviors as masculine
    	and feminine (unless you happen to believe that success is
    	masculine and failure is feminine.)
    
    	If we tell women, "Whatever the successful men do at work, do
    	not imitate them.  If you do, then you will be acting masculine."
    	-- then what we are really telling them is that they should
    	do everything they can to insure that they do not succeed.
    
    						       Suzanne... ;-)

re: feminine/masculine and the workplace

Traditionally, little boys are encouraged at an early age to accept
the fact that they will have to care for themselves financially.
Traditionally, little girls are not. The topic is either ignored, or
discouraged. Thus, we begin equating the actions of those who are
financially independent with masculinity. Obviously, this should not
be the case. Financial independance and responsibility, and competence,
are not gender-related.

The curveball is that the structure that allows us to be financially
independant was set up by and is run by men. By I think working adequately
in that structure does not require any traditionally male values. I'm
not so sure about working well (excelling).
	Mez

    re .8, .10, .11
    
    But don't you see that's his point!
    
    "Female" behaviours [ie those _typically_ associated with women]
    are actively discouraged in the woman who wants to move up: identifying
    with the group==> your team's successes are every bit as much yours
    as your individual successes; supporting the people who work for/with
    you, keeping them happy as one of your highest priorities... these
    are values that are only slowly becoming a part of corporate success.
    
    *I* think I don't have to be a pseudo-man to succeed, and if ANY
    manager tells me I need to develop traits which I associate with
    the baser aspects of that other gender, I just won't do it.  i'll
    succeed my own way, and that is, by definition, a woman's way. 
    And I think that could really impair my ability to climb in a man's
    world.
    
    It seems to me that all RIK is doing is saying that he think that
    sucks [that an easier way to climb would to be more "mannish"],
    and I agree with him.
    
    Lee

    	RE:  .12
    
    	Lee, can you name for me a baser male trait that a manager
    	might ask you to develop?  Myself, I can't think of one.
    
    	(Please do not include sexism as a baser male trait, because
    	I doubt seriously that any manager would ask an employee to be
    	a sexist.)  
    
    	So, what precisely are we talking about here?
    
    						     Suzanne...  ;-)

    	RE:  .14
    
    	Somehow, I have the impression that neither Lee or I need
    	worry for the time being that we will be asked to wear gray
    	suits to work (with leather briefcases.)  The guys I work
    	with wear jeans or casual slacks (except on "dress up day"
    	when we expect VP's and important customers.)  Even on those
    	days, I see no groups of men walking around in gray suits
    	(not even the VP's and the customers.)
    
    	I'd still like to know -- what is a male trait that a manager
    	might ask, say, a woman engineer to adopt?

    						     Suzanne... ;-)

    <--(.15)
    
    a narrow self-interest
    
    a callous lack of concern for others
    
    (These are stereotypically masculine traits that contrast with the
    equally stereotypically feminine traits of nurturance and feelings of
    interpersonal responsibility.  I know of at least two organisations
    here in DEC in which that sort of behavior has been rewarding to its
    practitioners) 
    
    						=maggie
                 

    	RE:  .16
    
    	Don't think that trait can be applied universally among
    	men (or in organizations in DEC.)
    
    	When our new No_Smoking law went into effect on June 8th,
    	I nearly jumped for joy at the prospect of clean air in
    	my area.  My manager took me aside for 45 minutes (not as
    	a reprimand, but just as a request) and asked me to please
    	consider the feelings of my smoking co-workers because they
    	are going through difficult times.  The main thrust of his
    	message was for me to think of how it must *feel* to them
    	to have this whole thing happen so suddenly.
    
    	This same manager (a non-smoking male) actually spent time
    	in the designated smoking room to sit with employees (most
    	of whom belonged to other units in our district and were
    	not his direct employees) to show support and to let them
    	know that he cared.

    	My manager is a highly visible upwardly-mobile manager and
    	he certainly doesn't feel that it is in his best interests
    	to be callous.  And I think he's made it quite clear to us
    	that he doesn't want *us* to be that way either.
    
    	So what other male trait exists that we might be asked to
    	adopt?
    
    						 Suzanne... ;-)

    <--(.17)
    
    um, of course they can't be (thank God!) considered to be universal
    among men or in DEC, Suzanne.  You asked for examples, and I supplied a
    couple real-life possibilities.  Offering anecdotal evidence that the
    stereotype doesn't map 1:1 onto reality doesn't (to my mind anyhow)
    defuse the issue. Were you only looking for traits that are both
    stereotypic and universally realised?  I don't think there are any of
    those. 
          
    						=maggie

    	RE:  .18
    
    	I'm not trying to be argumentative, Maggie, honest.  The thing
    	that I'm trying to get at is that it is really easy to say that
    	men have all these traits and that women have had to become
    	"mannish" to succeed.  (Then we can all jump in and say, "Yeah.")
    
    	But I don't see anything even close to that in real life.  I
    	see women managers here who are not "mannish" (yet are 100%
    	as capable in every way as our male managers.)
    
    	In theory, the idea that successful women *HAVE* to be pseudo-
    	males sounds pretty good.  I just don't think that it holds
    	up under close inspection.
    
    	Sure, many of us *do* end up picking traits up from men (sort
    	of the "corporate survival tips"), but I don't think that most
    	of the traits we learn from them are distasteful and come from
    	the baser side of the male nature.
    
    	For example, look at Jim Burrows.  I get the distinct impression
    	that he is a strong, assertive, successful male software engineer
    	(he is project leader, or whatever, for his project.)
    
    	I can't see any traits that I could learn from him that might
    	be part of the baser side of men's nature.  Why is he not an
    	appropriate role model for me [please substitute the concept of
    	any man that you respect in here please]?  Why should I worry
    	that if I listen to him, then I will be a pseudo-male?
    
    	What is he doing that I shouldn't do [again I'm speaking
    	figuratively about males in DEC that we respect]?
    
    						      Suzanne... ;-)

    	What all this is boiling down to is the fact that I don't
    	feel that I need or ought to be any more or any less
    	nurturing than my male co-workers just because I am a
    	woman.  
    
    	I think we *all* need to be nurturing to a certain extent,
    	but I don't have this overwhelming urge to "Mother" everyone
    	in sight at the office just because of my biological reality
    	as a woman.
    
    	Now at home -- different story entirely!!!!  I feel ovewhelming
    	urges to Mother my son to the point where it almost pisses him
    	off.  But that's home.  Work is different.
    
    	I'm not tied down to my nature as a woman when I'm at the office.
    	*AND* I don't think men are *EITHER*!  If they were, they'd
    	be spitting all over the floor and probably some of them would
    	be decking each other out.  (Just kidding... ;-)
    
    	What I'm trying to say is that there is really nothing (or maybe
    	there is *often* nothing) holding us back from being 100% equals
    	at the office all the way down the line.  And we can *STILL*
    	be the women we've always been.
    
    	Behavior that reflects well on an employee is not totally
    	distinctly male in my opinion.
    
    							Suzanne...

    Sometimes this business of acquiring "mannish" traits is the result
    of misperception on the part people looking at what makes success.
    
    For example, in our area we have at least one male manager who displays
    many of the less desirable stereotyped male characteristics.  He is
    quite ruthless and inconsiderate, he's loud and boisterous, he tends to
    think he's above certain everyday obligations of politeness (never
    makes a fresh pot of coffee when he takes the last cup).  It should be
    noted that he's not in the least sexist about it -- treats both men and
    women like recruits in a Marine camp.  Generally he fits the
    stereotyped "boss" image pretty well. 
    
    It is a common belief around here that he has succeeded *because* he is
    ruthless, rude, and bossy.  However, some of the other managers think
    that he has succeeded *in spite* of these traits, would have come
    farther and faster if he could learn to be polite, learn to think of
    other people's feelings, learn to consider the human as well as the
    monetary cost of his choices.  In fact, rumor has it that his boss has
    recommended that he look at a certain female manager on his level who
    is very successful and try to adopt some of her techniques.   
    
    --bonnie

    actually, Suzanne, maggie hit a couple of them on the head.  I did
    not mean to imply that all or even a majority of men display these
    traits; what I *did* mean was that they were base traits, more commonly
    associated with males in MY mind, and that I don't like the suggestion
    that I should follow them.
    
    Luckily for me, my immediate supervisor is a man with many "female"
    traits, enough of them that I find it easy to ignore [what I think
    of as] the male BS that occasionally crops up.
    
    Lee

    RE:  .22 (and your .12)
    
    My question was in response to what you said (below) in regards
    to women's behaviors (and feeling that a manager might *ask* you
    adopt men's behaviors.)
    
 >   "Female" behaviours [ie those _typically_ associated with women]
 >   are actively discouraged in the woman who wants to move up...
    
 >   *I* think I don't have to be a pseudo-man to succeed, and if ANY
 >   manager tells me I need to develop traits which I associate with
 >   the baser aspects of that other gender, I just won't do it.  i'll
 >   succeed my own way, and that is, by definition, a woman's way. 
 >   And I think that could really impair my ability to climb in a man's
 >   world.
    
     This is what I don't understand.  What behaviors in women are actively
     discouraged in the workplace?  What behaviors would *you* like
     to hang on to that you feel will hold you back in the business
     world?
    
     What behaviors can you possibly imagine (that are distinctly male)
     would mean enough to a manager for him/her to ask you to adopt them?

     The thing is -- I remember a long time ago (back in the 70's) when
     women were first being given big chances to use our abilities.
     The big fear that men had was that we were too emotional to handle
     the pressure of a big job (and that we would bring our "women's
     problems" into the workplace and make a huge distraction for
     everyone.)
    
     So a big stand back then was the fact that success (and the types
     of commitments/behaviors that brought *about* success for the group,
     the company and the individual) was **NOT** gender-dependent. 
     In other words, many of us back then worked really hard to show
     that we should be seen as ***PEOPLE*** first (and that, as PEOPLE,
     we were every bit as comfortable with stress/competition/hard_work/
     commitment/etc. as any man.)  All we wanted was a chance to show
     that we could do it.  And many of us did.
    
     Most men are very well-behaved at work.  They may swear, but they
     generally leave many of their baser behaviors at home (if they
     have any.)
    
     So why do we need to carry around our "woman's values" every where
     we go?  Is it because we think we are so much more moral than men
     and that our values are better?  Well, maybe they are (or they
     aren't.)
    
     I see this whole thing of saying "I'm going to do the job in a
     woman's way and not a man's way (although I think it will hold
     me back)" as a very limiting attitude in more ways than one.  I
     don't mean that to be insulting (please don't take offense.)  I
     just think -- if you know it will limit you, why do you want to
     do it?
    
     Personally, I like the freedom of being who I *want* to be at work
     (knowing that men's games never get too far out of hand on company
     property.)  Obviously, if the guys decided to have a contest by
     pissing against the side of a wall, I'd lose real quick.  But they
     don't do that at work (or outside of work, even, with friends from
     work.)
    
     I can be whoever I want to be at home, too (even if it is in sharp
     contrast with the way I like to be at work.)  *It's all me*!!  It's
     just different sides of me.
    
     It isn't just the idea that we're sending employers back to the
     way of thinking of us as "female" before thinking of us as PEOPLE.
     It's the idea that there is absolutely no point in avoiding the
     way men act (except for avoiding acting like an *sshole.)  Men
     don't do anything (in general) that is bad enough for us to *LIMIT*
     our careers in order to keep from doing it.
    
     I understand what you said in a general way, but I *still* want
     to know what behavior you specifically think that a *MANAGER* would
     want you to have that you would limit your career to avoid?  (You
     did mention having a manager ask you.)
    
     What's wrong with being a free spirit and just adopting whatever
     behaviors suit the job and you feel comfortable having (whether
     or not you happened to learn them from men)?  That's all I'm asking,
     really.
    
    							Suzanne... ;-)

    <--(.23)
    
    Suzanne, I'm quite sure Lee meant "ask" in a metaphorical sense
    more than in a literal one. I know *I* certainly took it that way.
    
    We --all of us, women and men alike-- are "asked" every day to conform
    to this or that behavior if we wish to succeed.  Sometimes the request
    is verbalised explicitly, sometimes conveyed implicitly by a negative
    reaction to what we do "naturally", and sometimes we get no clear
    message and are left to infer it from the behavior of those who succeed
    in the environment.  Simply because the request isn't made eyeball-to-
    eyeball in english (or french or whatever) doesn't mean it isn't
    being made.
    
    						=maggie

    A minor point which someone brought up was women dressing like men.
    There've been sales or marketing meetings here in HLO where you almost
    couldn't tell the men from the women -- they were all wearing grey
    or blue suits with red ties (or "execu-bows" for the women) and the
    same color shoes. If the women weren't showing their legs, they'd have
    been indistinguishable.  
    
    Bad enough that men have so little choice in dress, but now the women
    are copying them. I don't believe that on their own, women would have
    come up with a woman's version of the man's power suit. That's a clear
    (to me) example of conformity to get along and to get ahead.

    	RE:  .25
    
    	It was only the women who were conforming and not the men?
    	Did any man show up in a suit that contrasted severely with
    	what the rest of the crowd was wearing?  Why not?
    
    	Do you think that wearing gray suits is inherently male (and
    	at the same time quite contrary to female values?)
    
    	What about the youngest men in the crowd?  Do you think they
    	worried that the older execs would think that they were just
    	imitating the older men in order to get ahead?
    
    	I find it immeasurable curious that women are being criticized
    	for wearing gray suits while men are not.  Isn't it obvious
    	that they *ALL* are wearing the suits in order to make an
    	impression on the others?  Why is it OK for men and not for
    	women to do that?
    
    	If the women had shown up in frilly blouses or silky dresses,
    	I wonder if their status among the men would have been reduced.
    	Obviously, the women must have thought so.
    
    	It seems so odd to me that women who make it up to the ranks
    	of the execs are taking some heat from both sexes.  I'm seeing
    	women say that *they* would never take on men's behaviors and
    	I see men call the women-in-gray-suits "conformists in order
    	to get ahead."
    
    	Has it struck anyone yet that women who make it that far up
    	are in a "no win" situation (damned if they wear the gray suits
    	and damned if they don't, figuratively speaking.)
    
    	Where does that leave the rest of us?  If we take on the behaviors
    	needed to succeed, then we are "mannish."  If we don't, then
    	we will be less financially advantaged.  (The worst part about
    	it is that it seems that many *women* agree with this whole
    	scenerio, too, by thinking that it is somehow wrong to adopt
    	male behaviors in the business world.)
    
    	How's that for some cultural conditioning?  No *wonder* there
    	are so relatively few women execs in big business today.
    
    	How do we stop thinking that way, I wonder...
    
    						      Suzanne... ;-)

    Oh golly, Suzanne, I think we're on opposite sides on this (sort
    of) only because of the medium...
    
    Yes, one of my zillions of bosses has told me that I should be more
    distant from my co-workers, you never know when one of 'em'll stab
    you in the back, you know.  My thought then and now was tough, A)
    I have friends and I work with some of them, B) my friends don't
    stab me in the back, give me a little credit in my choice of friends
    thanks, C) none of them happen (right now anyway) to be in a position
    to do me any damage, organization-wise, and most important D) I
    am convinced that, as a person who believes in what I do, there
    is little that could be used to stab me in the back even if the
    potential stabber lived in the same skull as me.
    
    He was ... advising ... me to be more cautious, yes, that could
    be wise, but coupled it with the notion that I should be more
    suspicious of the motives of those I consider to be good people.
    
    That sort of paranoia, looking for the worst in everyone, is something
    I personally associate with men_in_business [men_at_home are much
    nicer, thank goodness].  I don't think it is male _per_se_; I think
    it is a product of a business environment created by males.  I don't
    think that if women had created the business environment it would
    be so cut-throat, and I believe that I and the women I know (yes,
    you) can demonstrate by example -- we don't have to play the game
    their way to win.  And the men I work for and who work for me don't
    play the cut-throat game either.  I wouldn't have joined this group
    [correct that, I wouldn't have stayed with this group; when I joined
    it I would have been ready to do an awful for "gainful employment"]
    if I had to work in a "watch your backside" environment.
    
    What's funny is that I just got back from a seminar (*not* aimed
    at women) where they cited a business analyst who stated that companies
    are in the process of becoming more humane and caring towards their
    employees, the old days are dying, and soon any company that _doesn't_
    exhibit the strongly supportive environment I'm talking about is
    going to go out of business.
    
    NOW! as to mannishness...
    As those who've met me [or seen me in action--<wide grin>] can vouch
    for, I AM mannish--in SOME ways.  It's a convenient sword: for those
    who think I can't be skilled/successful/powerful/adnauseum without
    being a man, all they see is the way I dress and cut my hair.  [I
    like ties, darnit, and 1.5" hair is a lot easier than the ~2' I
    had before.  I think it looks nicer too.  Hairy legs feel great,
    and I think underarm hair is very attractive, especially on women,
    but my tastes in women's appearance is very different from that
    of most people]  In a crowd I can pass for a man [16 yr old boy,maybe]
    and it's funny when women in service (cashiers, waitresses) flirt
    with me then hear my voice and realize they just flirted with *gasp*
    a WOMAN, maybe even a *double*gasp*.
    
    Pooh.  The body under the clothes is happily female, the face under
    the haircut is grinning and "feminine", the power and strength is
    that of a womyn who is caring and nuturing, and that becomes readily
    apparent even to the man who doesn't think a woman can be reliable.
    I am still mostly heterosexual, have no difficulty getting dates
    (although sometimes I scare off people of both sexes + getting dates
    doesn't mean have found a love of my life yet), and, and,
    
    Well it's hard to explain the "tweaky" attitude I take: sort of
    "thought it had to be masculine, huh?  I'll take your tie and barber,
    and success, and still be "feminine", so think again."
    
    Don't mean to blow my own horn too much, but I think if you knew
    me, I'd have an easier time explaining what I mean about those nasty
    character traits.
    
    Lee

re: .26, Suzanne

>    	It was only the women who were conforming and not the men?

    I'm assuming that because men were wearing power suits before women
    were, the women who're now wearing them are conforming to the style of
    those in power. The men were conforming with their style, and it seemed
    to me that the women were conforming with that style, too.

>    	Did any man show up in a suit that contrasted severely with
>    	what the rest of the crowd was wearing?  Why not?

    Because they're all going with the flow instead of being individuals. I
    certainly didn't mean to imply that I thought only the women were
    conforming.

>    	I find it immeasurable curious that women are being criticized
>    	for wearing gray suits while men are not.  Isn't it obvious
>    	that they *ALL* are wearing the suits in order to make an
>    	impression on the others?  Why is it OK for men and not for
>    	women to do that?

    if you'd like, I'll criticize everyone who wears a suit and tie.
    Personally, I think it's silly to do it just because one is supposed
    to. That's not the topic here, so I didn't overgeneralize my comments.
    Sorry to mislead.

>    	It seems so odd to me that women who make it up to the ranks
>    	of the execs are taking some heat from both sexes.  I'm seeing
>    	women say that *they* would never take on men's behaviors and
>    	I see men call the women-in-gray-suits "conformists in order
>    	to get ahead."

    Let me re-phrase my comments, then: I was pointing out one situation
    where it seems that women are copying men to get ahead. True, men copy
    men in a similar fashion, but you don't see men wearing clothes styled
    after women's clothing. I was pointing out a situation where women
    aren't simply dressing nicely for a meeting, but dressing in a barely-
    disguised woman's version of the current man's power suit.

    Well, here I am, mixing my metaphors (or notes) again.
    
    Has anybody else noticed the correlation between what the well-dressed
    professional is wearing at (for example) DEC, these days and....
    
    the "team uniform"??
    
    Betcha the varsity uniforms at different companies are different
    colors/styles. And when "they" change, "we" get new uniforms.
    
    The beat goes on (rah rah team)
    
    Dawn
    

    Q:  Why do women wear the same, stupid power suits that men do?
    
    A:  Because it works.
    
    							Ann B.

    	RE:  .29
    
    	I realized even when I wrote my reply to yours that you
    	probably had no intention of insulting women execs.  In
    	a way, it was almost a sort of Freudian slip that you
    	mentioned that women "conform" and that men "have so few
    	choices in dress" (as if men were doing what they were
    	supposed to be doing by wearing gray and women *weren't*
    	doing what they were supposed to be doing.)  As if women
    	really don't belong up there.  (Remember, I said that you
    	didn't mean this outright, but the message was there --
    	probably the cultural conditioning showing up in your words.)
    
    	The idea is:  Men have been at power for a long time.  New
    	men who are coming into power wear gray suits to **ADAPT**
    	to their environment (in business.)  Women who are coming
    	into power *****ALSO ADAPT***** by wearing gray suits.
    
    	However -- because men were in power *FIRST*, then it's easy
    	to say that the gray suit is male (and that anyone *NOT* male
    	who wears a gray suit is imitating or conforming.)
    
    	Saying that women are "less than" men when they wear gray
    	suits (because they are only imitators) is tantamount to
    	saying that women execs are "less than" male execs and
    	don't **BELONG** in power.  Why?  Because it is a man's
    	domain -- men were there *FIRST* and women do not belong!
    	Women are intruders!
    
    	Furthur, when women in the world **AGREE** that other women
    	should not **ADAPT** to business by adopting successful
    	clothes or behaviors or whatever -- then women are (without
    	meaning to) buying into the idea that we are "conforming"
    	to men to get ahead.  
    
    	If women decide that we should **NOT** adapt to the business
    	world in order to succeed, then we are engineering our own
    	failure in that world.
    
    	Now -- one last thing -- maybe we do have some qualities that
    	men don't have that would be good for business.  I bet anything
    	that we do, in fact.  But we have to **GET** there before we
    	can show the business world what those qualities are.  Which
    	means that, for the most part, we will have to first **ADAPT**
    	and **THEN** can we use the qualities that we consider OURS.
    
    	I'm not suggesting we step over backs and do unscrupulous
    	things.  NOT ALL MEN are snakes in the business world.  I'm
    	just saying that there *are* certain things we have to emulate
    	(and so far, I haven't seen any attributes that men have that
    	I would consider so distasteful that I'd rather not succeed
    	than have them.)  'Course, I'm technical and not a manager.
    
    	See what I mean?
    
    							Suzanne... ;-)

    	Lee,
    
    	I like your style!!!  Being a "self-styled woman" is exactly
    	what I was talking about -- and you *are one!!  In that, I
    	am definitely on *your* side!!
    
    	What concerns me is the idea (as mentioned in my last reply)
    	that we choose our style based on our own reasons (like
    	personal taste, or career-plans or whatever) and that we
    	not *LIMIT* our style because we think we will be imitating
    	people we resent (i.e., men in power.)

    						Suzanne... ;-)

    To all:
    	What the heck is a 'power suit'? I've heard the term before
    	and just don't understand.
    
    	By any chance, does a power suit have a big S on the chest?
    	:^)
    
    			Robert.

    A suit that conveys that the wearer has a powerful position in the
    corporation.  It looks very conservative and very expensive.

    ... generally consisting of a white shirt, conservative tie, dark
    tailored wool/wool-blend suit, unobtrusive belt, cufflinks (?),
    and lace-up leather shoes -- for men.
    
    ... generally consisting of a high necked blouse, floppy-tie or
    small gold pin, dark tailored wool/wool blend suit, straight skirt
    2-6 inches below the knee (pleats are sometimes okay, slits should
    be small), stockings (and no hair under them :)), and dark closed
    toe leather pumps (no higher than 2.5-3" i think).
    
    For an off the rack body, tailoring can be omitted.  Women get toJw
    play more in their selection of styles, but must always keep in
    mind that showing too much fashion sense is inviting men to trivialize
    them...
    
    FYI: these are not my opinions, just garbage learned when I was
    force-fed the Woman's Dress For Success book.
    
    Lee

    re: .29 (suzanne)

>    	In a way, it was almost a sort of Freudian slip that you
>    	mentioned that women "conform" and that men "have so few
>    	choices in dress"
...
>    	The idea is:  Men have been at power for a long time.  New
>    	men who are coming into power wear gray suits to **ADAPT**
>    	to their environment (in business.)  Women who are coming
>    	into power *****ALSO ADAPT***** by wearing gray suits.
>
>      	However -- because men were in power *FIRST*, then it's easy
>    	to say that the gray suit is male (and that anyone *NOT* male
>    	who wears a gray suit is imitating or conforming.)
>

    Men in business haven't any choice but to wear a suit, power or
    otherwise (although I bet no one wears searsucker suits to important
    business meetings anymore). Women have much more choice in dress than
    men have, and picking a men's suit (did business women or designers
    actually pick them?) is definitely imitation. Men haven't much choice
    but to conform; women could have picked something of their own instead
    of picking the men's uniform.

    I guess my point is that there's nothing inherently powerful in a power
    suit, that men wore suits before women did, and that women's wearing
    suits directly styled on men's suits *is* conforming or copying.
    Certainly men in power suits are conforming to other men in power
    suits, but at least they're men wearing men's clothing.

    Isn't that exactly the point that started this discussion? That women
    are taking on some of the characteristics of the men in power?  Your
    argument, I guess, is that men who join the business world are taking
    on those characteristics, too, but I'm arguing that men are taught to
    dress like that from childhood, whereas women aren't.  
    
    It's not any more wrong for a woman to conform than for a man; it's
    unfortunate in both situations. Basically, I think fashion stinks, that
    no one has the right to dictate to anyone what they should wear, and
    that someone is telling women that they have to wear men's suits
    (albeit with skirts) to be successful.

    					-- hs

    re .37
    
    ...some of the women who wear power suits make a lot of money working
    for Digital
    
    ...some of the women who wear power suits would like to make a lot
    of money working for Digital
    
    ...some women who work for Digital fall into neither of the above
    categories but would still like to make a lot of money !
    
    ;-)  Holly  
    
    

re: .27

	what a difference being out for a day or so makes!  I'm quite
	behind in my noting...

	I just had to respond to you, Lee, because I do the same thing.
	I like to wear neckties (with paper clips), jackets, pants,
	don't shave much of anything and have a short haircut.  I
	just like to do it, for one thing (my last male lover & I
	would go shopping in the same places, and when we went out
	it was formal shirts & ties for both), but I feel like it's
	a playful tweaking of the whole game.  I've met with vice
	presidents wearing white leather neckties, and my 
	"Catherine-does-business" suit ain't quite the same as anyone
	else's...  I discovered quite a while ago that wearing classic
	black-and-white and putting on a tie to be "dressed up" was a 
	lot easier and more efficient than doing feminine drag...
	    

    RE last several  If you want to play on the Celtics you have to
    wear the uniform. If you don't wear the uniform, you probably
    won't fit in with the team. The dark, conservative, classic
    suit is a uniform, one which says to upper management that you
    can fit in.  For an in-depth study of this, try "You Are What
    You Wear" by William Thourlby. The author is a former actor
    and currently lectures on the subject of clothing. The book 
    focuses mainly on mens' clothing, but the lessons are applicable
    to anyone. "Stylish" "sexy" clothing says that you are here for
    some other purpose than conducting business. 

    
    re .42
    
    Digital Sweden has two women in the Country Management Team, heading
    the Sales dept and the Educational Services dept respectively. The
    ES manager was announced just last week and I have heard that the
    ES staff is very happy about the decision. The CMT consists of 11
    functions so I guess the percentage of women in there isn't to be
    considered high, but at least it's a good start. The Sales manager
    has been with DEC for about ten years and most of the time as a
    manager.
    
    We have a few women unit managers as well, about a handful. I think
    people's attitudes about women managers here are very open and that
    the "figths" for management positions are conducted in a fair way
    - the best PERSON gets the job. I don't, however, think this is
    typical for Sweden. My last job was with a huge Swedish company
    and I can only think of a couple of women managers there out of
    10 000 people. At Digital we're 1000 in this country.
    
    I'm also curious to find out what the situation is like at other
    DEC locations.
    
    * *
     V           Ann