Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    < Originally 24.134 by MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE >
                             -< a counter-example >-

re: < Note 24.133 by TSG::PHILPOT > 
     > in recent years.)  I know many many female engineers, and happen
     > to be one myself, and never have come across one who said she was
     > treated unfairly due to being a woman (I am not talking about any
     > harrassment issues, I'm talking about responsibility, pay, promotions,
     > etc.)  If the engineers can do it, everybody else can as well.

    Sorry to go off the track further, but now you've come across one.
    When I arrived at DEC six years ago, I moved from a secretarial
    position to a very low-level wage class 4 job.  I've fought hard
    to become an engineer, and have succeeded in some sense. But I was
    kept as a software engineer I for THREE YEARS (despite the fact
    that management felt I was doing software engineer II work for two
    of those years) -- I just became a software engineer II last week. 
    During this time, I attended school part time and finished my 
    bachelor's degree in computer science. (I did well, too).  
    My personnel rep admitted to me that women in our group have been 
    underpaid, and she's starting to do something about it. My manager 
    has also said that I was underpaid (you know it's bad when they 
    volunteer the information). I've gotten good raises for the last 
    few years, but suspect that I'm still being under-rewarded (compared
    with men in a similar position). 
    
    
    still fighting, but tired
    liz augustine
    

    (note to moderators: feel free to spin off a new note on this topic...)
    
    

    Although I have no statistics to support this statement it may be
    that jobs that are traditionally male tend to have less discrimination
    around pay issues.  Job Codes and starting salaries have always
    been geared toward male employees so it would be necessary to start
    someone at an equitable salary.
    
    I think we are talking about the difficulty in obtaining jobs that
    we have been trained for and the other issue is traditionally female
    jobs with similar skills having different salary scales than
    traditionally male positions.
    
    

    re .0
    
    I have also been on the receiving end of discrimination in pay raises
    and promotions in the software profession because of my gender in the
    past, though I did not recognize it as so at the time.
    
    Happily to say, it's not happened at DEC. :-)
    
    	-Ellen

    When I worked at WPI during my student days at the computer center,
    I got into a conversation with some full time female workers there.
    The computer center handles the paychecks and the women were talking
    about how much less they were getting than the men in equal or LOWER
    jobs.  One of them had even gone to the manager and complained stating
    that either he raise it or she was leaving.  He said no, she STAYED.
    
    I don't think what Lynne was saying was that there is no job
    descrimination, but rather, if there is, stop complaing and do
    something about it.  Complain complain, that's all I hear.  That
    woman at the computer center complained and complained (and believe
    me she could have gone somewhere else without any problem) and even
    gave an ultimatum to her boss.  But to this day she is still there,
    underpaid and complaining.

    Don't complain, don't use it as an excuse for your failures, don't
    say you can't do anything about it.  You can.  And if you're saying
    'well nobody will hire me with my experience' then maybe the reason
    you're not doing as well as you THINK you should be doing has nothing
    to do with discrimination.
    
    Life is what you make it.
    

    There are many reasons that some women have been unable to *do*
    something about those complaints.
    
    I prefer to address issues like this on a one to one basis rather
    than make a general statement.  The woman who has small children,
    experience vs. education, and many responsibilities may find it
    difficult to leave a job.  The job may be structured that it is
    almost impossible for her to interview for a similar position. 
    Her responsibilities and lack of support (babysitting) etc. may
    make it impossible to complete her education in enough time to change
    her status when she needs to.
    
    I have worked hard, studied, and advanced myself to some degree.
    The success is almost bittersweet because I reached a salary that
    was required to support a family of four after all my children were
    grown and on their own.  I have always been in Accounting and as
    an accounting clerk (traditional female role) I was well aware that
    my income and wage scale was less than the janitor.  I personally
    have been responsible for disbursing over $5 million of Digital's
    dollars a week but at the time I had that responsibility men who
    disbursed the trash to the dumpster earned more than I.  
    
    Accounting clerks are still in a lower pay scale than some laborers.
    Maybe I should have complained more instead of directing my energy
    to personal achievements.

    Women who just keep quiet and leave a bad work situation do nothing to 
    better the overall situation for themeselves and their sisters behind them.
    
    They also do nothing to educate the white male managers who see
    women leaving jobs as "flighty", "undependable".  If you have to leave
    a job, don't be afraid to tell your boss why.  If you believe you
    deserve to be treated fairly even though you don't have a Y chromosome,
    then you should not be meekly retreating from those who attempt
    to treat you otherwise.  Doing so reinforces existing attitudes
    that women will simply take what little men offer tham and when they 
    leave jobs it's always for personal reasons - never for ambition.  We
    have a duty to set the record straight.  I have never and will never
    demure when faced with the opportunity to discuss my desires and
    ambitions with a manager.  Your manager is directly responsible
    for your career and you MUST level with that person.  You must treat
    your manager as an ally - that your reasons for working are the same
    and that you're both together in this.
    
    Equality is achieved on a day-to-day basis, not in the once a year
    chat where you are evaluated and given your "reward".  You can't
    be meek and sweet all year and then storm in to the boss's office
    one day and demand equal pay.  You must act ambitious all year long and
    let your boss know in hundreds of little ways through your everyday
    interaction what work means to you.
    
    About the WPI woman who complained and stayed, she made the biggest
    mistake anyone can make - issuing an ultimatum she was not prepared to 
    carry out.  Her power is gone.  No man could get away with this
    either.  She will never put this breach of her credibility behind
    her as long as she stays in her present job.
    
    The best book on this subject I have ever read is "Games Mother
    Never Taught You"  (Corporate Gamesmanship for Women), by Betty
    Lehan Harragan.  Read it.  Her basic idea is that women, never having
    had organized sports and/or the military directly in their own lives,
    simply do not understand the many unwritten rules of all male heirarchies.
    Women arm themselves to the teeth with education, talent and experience
    and then become frustrated, confused and bewildered when they expect
    to simply compete with men toe-to-toe on a one-to-one basis and
    fail.
    
    The business environment, as invented, run and until recently populated
    in toto by men, is fraught with unwritten rules and codes of conduct
    and behavior which women know little about.  We just gather up our
    credentials and present them and assume that we are now equal with
    men players.  
    
    Women have little experience dealing with such things as professional 
    jealousy, ego, brown-nosing, self-promotion, power symbols and all the 
    other "games" that make up a large part of business for men.  Women
    simply give their all to get the job done and are oblivious to the
    nuances of the culture.
    
    Talent alone will get you nowhere in business.  Most male managers
    still see women as wives, mothers and secretaries, (but these days 
    are willing to recognize some "exceptions"), and see them as operating
    on the periphery of business, never directly involved in the guts
    of it.  Women must understand that view and realize what it means
    to cross over from a "helpmate", (a secretary or clerk or "associate"
    something-or-other), to a real player in her own right.  Women also
    must understand the resistance of men-in-general to accept them
    as full players in the business game rather than just as bolsterers
    and helpers for a man who is a full player.  Women are the
    water-carriers, the "bat-boys", the cheering section, the brow-wipers
    but rarely are supposed to be playing right in there with "the boys"
    for the goodies.
    
    How many non-secretarial women have ever been approached by their managers
    to do something secretarial or "wifey"?  Most, I'd say.  I know I have 
    on many occasions had to fend off this "tits is tits" mentality and I'm
    sure I will again.
    
    Lest you think there's no bright side to this, Ms. Harragan states
    that our trump card is that men don't THINK we understand these
    unwritten rules and as a result male managers are routinely less
    guarded with women.  We can easily get more information than our
    male co-workers can simply because men don't see us as direct
    competitors and therefore are more relaxed around us.  We routinely
    get more "opportunities" for a coup than men do and all we need
    is to recognize them, understand how men view them, and sieze them
    with gusto.  If you score a good coup within men's unwritten rules, 
    few will challenge you.
    
    "Games" is described on the cover as must reading for any woman
    who is serious about advancing in her career.  I second that and
    reiterate that mere talent, education and experience alone are not
    enough to take men's minds off her sex and onto her brain.  Only
    if she plays the game with finesse and understanding as men do will 
    she win male respect, the first requirement for equal treatment.
    

    I believe that job discrimination does still exist in this
    country, both at DEC and outside.  DEC, as a company, does a good 
    job of trying to eliminate job discrimination but even DEC is made 
    up of a lot of people that give lip service to equal opportunity but
    don't practice it or believe it.

    I have been reading Womannotes for about six months now and it
    seems like woman have very different experiences regarding job
    discrimination (and discrimination in general) depending on what 
    organization they belong to and what level job they hold.  A woman
    Secretary in Field Service and a woman Engineer in Spitbrook can 
    and seem to have wildly different experiences.
  
    Yes, they can both get ahead, and I don't think endless complaining
    is the answer, but I do think that some of us don't always get
    ahead as fast as we believe we should, or as fast as we see men
    getting ahead.
    
    shalom  

    HA!  This time I do have my library at hand (although I'm still
    not home).  And I shall quote at length, without permission:
                                     
    From _The_Last_Word_on_the_Gentle_Art_of_Verbal_Self-Defense_ by
    Elgin:
    
      "A common practice in the workplace is for males in competition
    with females to use Trojan Horses that hide presuppositions about
    childishness, excessive emotion, and the like.  This lets them take
    advantage of the common belief that the speech and behavior of women
    are characterized by those qualities.  The male administrator who
    says, 'The company was only too happy to humor Ms. Smith in this
    matter,' is not unaware that only children and irrational persons
    are ordinarily 'humored.'  And that administrator knows quite well
    that if the woman he claims to have 'humored' objects to his use
    of the word, she will be perceived as _being_ childish and irrational.
     This is dirty pool, and the shots are deliberate; the woman who
    doesn't understand the game is in for trouble. ...
    
       "Skillful men do not say these things with sarcastic intonation
    or body language.  They will steadfastly insist that they have no
    negative intentions, if challenged.  But you could spend twenty
    years in a corporate boardroom without ever hearing anyone claim
    to have 'humored' a male executive.  (If you do hear such a thing,
    you can be certain that he is respected by no one.)
    
      "You usually cannot counter these items on the spot; that is one
    of the reasons why they are so useful to the attacker.  But there
    is one thing you _must_ do, while you are learning the game: Be
    absolutely certain nobody sees that the Trojan Horses have caused
    you distress.  If they don't appear to bother you, your attacker
    may interpret that to mean that you _do_ know how to play, and decide
    not to take chances.  After all, if you were able to respond
    effectively to one of these attacks, he would be in the position
    of having lost points to a woman (or to a man viewed by the others
    present as powerless).  He won't risk that.  Your strategy is to
    appear so impervious to the attacks--and so knowledgeable--that
    he'll suspec you are setting him up.  The male sees all this as
    a sort of linguistic poker game--it's up to you to bluff.  Note:
    Only two types of men will do this--those who would really _mind_
    losing a point to a woman, and those whos major interest is not
    in what happens in the long run but in playing the game.  In neither
    case are the attacks accidental."

    re: .8
    
    Wow, Deja vu! I was just thinking about the people who have been
    saying something like "Well, if women want to go off and have a
    woman's only ____, that will just indicate how weak they are; how
    they can't cope with the real world". Well, if men wanted to form
    a man's only ____, nobody would call them weak or unable to cope,
    eh?
    	Mez

    re 8  Great excerpt!
    
    Women have always been told by men that it's women who are petty and 
    manipulative game players and that men are almost always cold,
    logical, goal-oriented beings.  Men contend that women just don't
    understand the cold hard "facts" of business.
    
    The business environment today proves the exact opposite.  Women
    arm themselves with the requirements for success, (education, training,
    experience), and when faced with a job do it to the best of their
    ability and "damn the torpedoes" so to speak.  Men on the other
    hand spend more time on the "torpedoes" than they do on the task,
    weighing the pros and cons of all their words and actions and fitting
    them to their desires, the actual goal of the task being almost
    somewhat secondary.  Even in the excerpt quoted from Elgin's book
    refers to "points" a man stands to lose or gain in a verbal interchange
    with someone.  This exemplifies the notion that business is indeed
    a game in men's minds and that often the game is more important
    than the actual business goal.  Women as a rule, wary of the
    "manipulative, game-playing" label that men are so quick to slap
    on them, ignore the game to a fault and fail because of it.
    
    Too, women are conditioned to "be nice" and are hesitant to exploit
    an advantage if they see one.  Women will downplay their qualities
    that set them apart from other people and will almost never use
    them against another person.  Men on the other hand, since they
    know they are playing a game, not only recognize and swiftly exploit
    their every advantage but also spend lots of time looking for
    advantages and creating them for themselves.  No woman, no matter
    how educated, talented and experienced can win in a game against
    such single-minded and well-versed opponents unless she understands 
    that she is in a game and learns to play it well.
    
    Men aren't watching so much how well she produces her reports but
    how well she "holds up" under the pressure of the game they know
    they are putting on her.

    re, the last few:
    
    This is *very common*, not only in business.
    
    Scenario:
    
    You (a female) are having a serious discussion (maybe in =womannotes)
    and you and a male disagree.  You may be winning the disagreement,
    and the male comes up with "you're just being a bitch" or "you don't
    know what you're talking about", or some other rot.

    This is a deflective technique.  It deflects from the argument by
    suggesting that there is something fundamentally wrong with you
    (or the person it is used on) and that alone guarantees that the
    person you are arguing with will be right and "win".  Someone here
    suggested that you ignore it, don't let it fluster you.  I suggest
    this instead - point out the behavior in the most unflustered,
    reasonable way possible.  Something like:  "Please, let's stick
    to the discussion.  Namecalling won't win this argument.  That's
    a childish technique and I'd rather we discussed this as adults."
    But you can't miss a beat before pointing it out!  You have to at
    least *appear* to assume that the perpetrator really didn't mean
    to stoop that low and that he just forgot himself for a moment in
    the heat of the discussion and all you have done is gently move the
    discussion back track.  *And*, you must appear firm and confident
    in your beliefs.
    
    Furthermore, this extends to *any* abusive (sexist or not) behavior
    - harassment of any sort.  Calmly point out the behavior in the
    most appropriate words possible.  Show the *perpetrator* that this
    behavior reflects badly on him or her.
    
    I'm very curious.  I'd like to hear from anyone if this technique
    has worked for her or him.
    
    	-Ellen

    Re: .9
    
    Not so fast!  It bothers me when people pull concepts out of thin
    air to support their arguments.  If a group of men wanted to form
    a "man's only X", I'd be the FIRST to call them weak or unable
    to cope.  Stating your opinion of what you THINK might happen in
    situation X is fine, but that's all you can do with it - you can't
    use it as a basis for further arguments.  I see too much of this
    going on in this conference.
    
    I don't doubt that situations as described in .8 exist, but I disagree
    that the proper response is to ignore the slurs.  For all you know,
    the man who made them simply doesn't understand what the effect
    is, and I'd like to think that MOST men would be reasonable about
    being told, privately, that the particular wording they chose was
    inappropriate.  But to simply ignore it is to admit that they're
    right.

    					Steve

    re .11
    What you say is probably correct about how to deal with the
    personal-attack sort of put-down, but I find it awfully hard to
    put into practice.  You have to be VERY sure (or at least SOUND
    very sure) that you really DO know what you are talking about -
    takes a lot of self-confidence, more than I usually can muster,
    especially since the put-down usually comes from someone who is
    in a position where they are at least supposed to know what they
    are talking about more than I am supposed to (a boss, or someone
    else senior to me).  You also have to think up a way to get the
    discussion back on track FAST - thinking it up while you are fuming
    about the put-down over supper at home doesn't help much.  Ideas??

    Try "The Argument from Intimidation" by Ayn Rand in her book
    "The Virtue Of Selfishness". Once you recognize the other person's
    intimidation technique for what it is, you'll never be victimized
    by it.

    re: Steve's assertion that a "man's only X" would be referred to
    as weak.
    
    I haven't seen it happen yet. And I've seen lot's of news stories
    and commentaries on them. Have you seen it? Has anyone? Perhaps
    my experience is just not broad enough.
    	Mez

>If a group of men wanted to form a "man's only X", I'd be the FIRST 
>to call them weak or unable to cope.  

So?  Do you think a group of men who've decided to form a group of "X"
are going to dissolve because of what you personally think of them?
Do you think that because you would think such men are weak that such
things don't really occur to any great degree?  We're talking about
general cultural attitudes here.  It's wonderful that some men can see
beyond that but those men, unfortunately are the exception and the male
behaviors that are based on the general cultural attitudes ,(which is what
we are discussing here), still exist.  I see too much of THIS sort of
thing going on here - men who say "Well I don't feel that way" and so 
assume that the woman's statement must be hogwash.  

The first thing you have to realize is that only women are on the receiving 
end of male sexism.  You, as a male may or may not be privvy to your peers 
engaging in it.  Indeed, since sexism is so "out of fashion", my guess is 
sexists hide their behavior from their peers.  We know for a fact they often 
try and hide it from themselves.  They rarely hide it from women.  You know 
far less about sexism, (since you say you are not inherently sexist yourself),
than the average woman.  Be very careful when you challenge a woman's alle-
gations about it's existence.

>For all you know, the man who made them simply doesn't understand what 
>the effect is, 

You are ignoring the fact that women are raised to "be nice".  By default,
women are FAR more likely to apply the benefit of the doubt to a situation
than a man is.  For a woman to THINK "foul", something must be amiss.  When
a woman actually CALLS "foul", going against all she's been taught about
"agressive" women and how men don't like them, you can be SURE something
is amiss.  You are actually challenging her judgement here without realizing
it.  Don't you know that women are far more "in tune" with the hidden mean-
ings in people's words than men are?  And do you really think that sexim
occurs "automatically" without the poor guy even realizing it?  That when/if
she calls "foul" HE is the victim of circumstance?  Guess again.

>and I'd like to think that MOST men would be reasonable about being told, 
>privately, that the particular wording they chose was inappropriate.  

Wouldn't we all?  Why don't you make your decision on WHAT to think based
on real life situations rather than a lovely idea of how you would LIKE to 
think about things?
    

    Re: .16
    
    Gee, not only can you pull arguments out of thin air, but you
    can invent my supposed beliefs out of the same stuff.
    
    I never said sexism didn't exist.  In fact, I agreed that it DID
    exist.  
    
    I never said that everyone would call a "man's X" weak, I merely
    said that I would.  I have seen news reports about men-only
    clubs that suggested the men opposing the opening of the club to
    women were doing so because they were afraid that competent women
    would take over.  In general, the news media looks unfavorably
    upon the remaining male-only organizations - I do not recall
    a recent story that supported keeping the clubs closed to women.
    
    I don't wish to argue this specific point in this note.  My
    objections in .12 were on:
    
    	1.  The use of hypotheses to support a position. 
    
    	2.  Advising women to ignore sexual harassment, and that's
    	    exactly what I see being promoted here.
    
    Sure, there ARE a lot of sexist men out there in positions of
    power over women.  Yes, women suffer a lot from it.  But I don't
    feel that the right approach is to sit back and "take it".  DON'T
    be "nice", be honest and straightforward.  Make your argument
    rational instead of emotional.  (Uh oh - now I'm going to be told
    that I think women always make emotional arguments.  What I'm
    getting at is that it is natural for women and men to argue
    emotionally, because when we are angry, emotion is what surfaces.)
    I feel you get a lot further, male or female, by presenting your
    case with the facts.  A fact can be that it bothers you to have
    your boss call you "Honey".
    
    If you're not prepared to fight injustice, then you deserve
    what you get.  If you feel you can't fight it by yourself, get
    some help.  It would be a wonderful world indeed if there was
    no injustice in it.  But that's not the way it is.  We who understand
    and care do our part, but there's many more out there who don't.
    Some are simply ignorant - these can often be educated quickly.
    Some are much more hardened to it, and you have to apply some
    pressure.  But by being silent you admit defeat, and only
    encourage those who oppress you.
    
    					Steve

    This needs to be repeated (and this isn't a bad place to do so):
    
    "If you're not prepared to fight injustice, then you deserve
    what you get.  If you feel you can't fight it by yourself, get
    some help.  ...  [B]y being silent you admit defeat, and only
    encourage those who oppress you."
    
    The only issue I would take with the sentiment is that we "deserve"
    what we get if we don't fight back.  We don't "deserve" it, but
    if we don't fight back, we *will* get it!
    
    Thanks, Steve.
    
    						=maggie

    Re: .18
    
    Thanks, Maggie.  Perhaps what I should have said was that if you
    don't fight, you've got no right to complain.  Nobody "deserves"
    oppression.
    				Steve

    re .19
    
    Gee, Steve, I think that's only a little better.  If you are
    victimized, you have the *right* to get angry, to complain, and
    if you choose not to fight back, you have that right, too.
    However, I think it's true that unless we fight back, it is
    likely to continue.  I just want to make sure that we leave
    the responibility for abuse (of any kind) where it belongs...
    with the ABUSER!!!
    
    Justine

    Re: .20
    
    That's fine with me.
    
    	Steve

  Some of you seem to have missed Elgin's point (as quoted in .8). Some
  attacks cannot be fought effectively by a direct reply. If you accept
  the attack on it's premises you lose. The classic example of this
  is "Have you stopped beating your wife.". Other, even more subtle
  forms of this attack make it impossible to even characterize the attack
  as an attack without losing. The example of "The company was only
  too happy to humor Ms. Smith in this matter." is one of these. Yes
  it is an attack, yes it must be responded to, but a direct response
  is worse than ineffective, it is counterproductive.
  
  Saying that this is gamesMANship, and is dispicable or whatever begs
  the question. What can you DO about attacks like this? The first thing
  to do is recognize that it is an attack. If you feel angry after hearing
  some seemingly innocuous line, examine it for the hook. I find that
  it is usually hidden assumptions that cause the problem, and that the
  more subtle the assumption, the further removed from overt offensiveness,
  the harder it is to deal with.
  
  Elgin is right, you cannot fight this form of attack directly, 1) you
  must not allow the attack to succeed in it's direct intent, that is to
  provoke you, and 2) you MUST find some effective way of countering it.
  However, appearing to not have noticed the attack can be disasterous
  as well, as people will assume you don't even know you are being
  maligned. Let people know, subtly, that you heard the slight, but
  that you will respond only when appropriate. I find that frowning
  slightly and looking thoughtful is effective. Amused contempt can
  work, but only when it is clear to everyone that you really are at
  least a peer of the attacker.
  
  My personal experience is that people who are attempting to provoke you
  are easy to provoke, more generally, people attack you in the ways that
  they are vulnerable to. Another way is to act as though the hidden
  assumptions are the ones YOU want. That you are strong, competent, and
  respected. If you always act this way, and act as though everyone else
  automatically believes it, then attacks like this will simply make the
  attacker appear foolish. 
  
  This entire subject is nasty and distasteful, but ignoring the problems
  will not make them go away. We all have to deal with this kind of
  behaviour, and the first step is recognizing it, both in others and
  in ourselves. In others to be able to counter it, in ourselves to
  be able to prevent it. I'm afraid that I'm sounding devious and
  Machiavellian, but that's the way the game is played sometimes. Be
  open and forthright on your own, but in responding to devious personal
  attacks, subtlety is required. Unless OTHERS recognize that you have
  been attacked, defending yourself will make you appear petty,
  oversensitive, and irrational.
  
  Get Elgin's books, and decide for yourself.
  
  	-- Charles

    First, Steve, maybe you were right and I saw an argument where there
    was none.  Reading the replies again, it seems we are in "violent
    agreement".
    
    Just one general nit I've got to pick and that is the issue of "Do
    something about it or don't complain".  That makes the erroneous
    assumption that the complainer is NOT doing anything about it.
    It's not an either/or situation.  Even if you're doing more than 
    anyone in this notesfile about injustice you STILL have a right to 
    complain about the injustice.  In fact, complaining IS doing something-
    it's openly expressing displeasure and that's the first step that
    needs to be taken, doesn't it?  If no one complained, NOTHING would
    get done.  We still wouldn't be thought smart enough to actually
    cast a vote!
    
    Second, it assumes that all you have to do is "do something" and
    you won't NEED to complain - that all you have to do is "get off
    your duff" and sexism will melt away like sugar in the rain.
    
    Think how long women have been openly and vigorously "doing something"
    and sexism in general, job discrimination in particular is still here 
    with us.  Think how long women have been asking, begging, pleading, 
    demanding, badgering our government to guarantee women the same pro-
    tection under the law that men enjoy.  Many of these women are FAR
    more tenacious than you or I and spend far less time on their duffs
    than we do, yet to date our government has merely responded with
    in effect, "No, we just can't bring ourselves to call you equal".
    
    These women are still fighting.  Do they have a right to complain
    about it?  You bet they do.
    
    So let's not dilute the content of the messages here with "Don't
    complain if you're not going to do anything about it".  The topic
    is not discussing who's DOING what about job discrimination. 
    If we're not supposed to respond to this topic with "complaints"
    then should only people who agree respond?

    I think Charles is right that one must do something about the Trojan
    Horses.  But protesting "But I wasn't humored" will only make everyone
    laugh (there are all sorts of ambiguities about "not humored").
    My guess would be to catch the speaker's eye, privately, with no
    expression or a narrowing of the eyes, or to catch an ally's eye
    meaningfully (but I watch too much "Sherlock Holmes" :-) ).  However,
    I am keeping an open mind about this: Elgin is older and wiser than
    I and could conceivably be quite right.  This advice was also for
    the beginner; unfortunately, I can't find any reference about how
    to improve.
    
    I have seen and experienced NUMEROUS examples of these sorts of
    things.  The most vivid one occurred while I was still an
    undergraduate during a all-fraternity officers conference.
    I attended the pledge-trainers mini-session, since that's the office
    I held at the time.  Several staff members from some one large national
    fraternity's central alumni staff (or whatever it is they call it)
    were there to lead the sessions.  The man in charge of our session,
    as soon as we had all collected in our meeting area, turned to me
    and asked me to take notes.  I swear I didn't bat an eye.  He
    immediately, before I could even get my pen out, apologized loudly
    for having asked me, because he didn't mean to be sexist.  My eye.
    I like taking notes.  With two fell swoops, he'd deprived me of
    the opportunity to participate as an equal and be allowed to take
    notes for the group, and deprived me of the opportunity to be the
    spokesperson to stand up and read notes at the summing up when all
    the mini-sessions regrouped, and he'd drawn exaggerated attention
    to any notetaking I might engage in for my own benefit.  I hadn't
    even the opportunity to say "I'd rather not" or "Yes, but I need
    to borrow a pen" or "Sure".  I almost felt as though I'd been silenced,
    and that effectively I could leave for all the status I had left.
    And he did it cooly, with no expression or exaggerated behavior,
    and as soon as he started his apology he never looked at me for
    the rest of his Trojan Horse--he didn't care about my response once
    I'd been downed.
    
    Now, in my group at DEC, we do a lot of "glad you managed to get
    that done on time" sort of thing, but in these cases, most of it
    is part of the constant teasing we subject each other to, and it's
    done with exaggerated stress and body language so it's very clear
    what's meant.  This is not what Elgin is talking about.  She's talking
    about the previous paragraph sort of thing.  If he had bungled or
    if he was teasing, he would have watched my eyes for my response
    and interacted with me further.
    
    Complaining to the attacker privately would serve no purpose, since
    he wasn't concerned with interacting with me in the long term, he
    was interested with playing the game right then.  I think I might
    have complained to the national, but I didn't, and I don't really
    know what good it would have done since, if nothing else, they aren't
    even likely to go coed.  MIT might have listened.
    
    What I did is I stayed in the session and insisted on speaking,
    with some slight recognition of what had happened shown in a tightening
    of some facial muscles.  He didn't exactly listen much to me, but
    I was staying there because I knew what I was about in pledge-training.
    Several of the others didn't listen to me either, because they thought
    they could get away with ignoring a woman (Still an active practice
    with some men at MIT as away of getting points in technical
    discussions; at MIT, especially there is a good deal of what we
    in Brookline called "screaming": showing off technically and trying
    to direct the discussion, possibly even into a monologue.).

    First-to the orginal question. Yes job discrrimination still
    exists. (Both outside and inside DEC.) However, it is much more
    subtle and discrete than it used to be.
    
    Some War Stories for the younger generation. Today woman are no
    longer asked such questions as:
    
    What are your plans for children 
    Do you have children
    What are your arrangements for taking care of children
    What birth control method do you use
    Is your husband likely to transfer
    Why aren't you married yet
    Why did you get divorced.
    
    With the exception of why are you married yet all of the above
    questions have been asked of me.
    
    I also have not gotten jobs even when the most qualified for such
    reasons as:
    
    We can't have a woman climbing tanks to take samples it would
    be to disruptive to production
    Women can't handle the travel necessary for this job
    A woman couldn't handle herself on this job
    
    All of the above actually have happened to me. Now granted that
    was in the early 60-70 time frame.
    
    What I have seen happen now is much more subtle. It is the games
    playing talked about in previous notes. It is some (traditionally
    female jobs) being lower paid than equilvalent traditonaly male
    jobs. 
    
    Also very subtle ways of job discrimination. One that I personally
    have observed at DEC is that women are hired into lower postions
    or levels to start (thus handicapping at the start) or remain in
    levels much longer than men. While some of the lower starting levels
    may be ignorance it still occurs.
    
    Another way is exclusion from some job related(but not required)
    activities. Granted that some of this occurs because a lot of
    "jock" activities are not related to women.(I know I am going
    to hear comments on this-before you flame I know a lot of women
    who do play ball etc but a lot who don't care too also.) 
    
    Another way is the old boy network ( I can think of a perfect
    example of this but it would be too revealing- A male told me
    the only reason I wasn't invited is that "no women have been since
    this started".) Some of this is numbers-men have been in business
    longer,there are more of them. I do think that women are better
    at networking than men and do it in a more positive way-that's my
    opinion.
    
    The games playing is hard to deal with. I get labeled as too
    cold,negative, etc (all the way to more personal slurs behind my
    back) because of being considered "too logical". Now isn't that 
    somewhat of a contradiction?  I think it means I am not playing
    the "accepted role";therefore,too hard to deal with.
    
    How to remove the more subtle ways of discrimination? Keep on
    plugging along!
    
    I guess the main thing I want to say is "We have come a long way"
    but WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO!
     
    

    Reprinted without permission from "Personal Report for the Executive",
    1 November 1987
    
    "When _Will_ Women Be CEOs?
    
    The outlook isn't rosy, a new and provocative study reports.
    
    'Many who want to see women in top posts will probably not live
    to do so.'  That dire prediction is th main conclusion reached in
    _Breaking the Glass Ceiling_, (Addison-Wesley, $15.95).
    
    More women are entering the corporate world and attaining middle
    management status.  As they gain experience, and as attitudes toward
    them change, women will presumably move into upper management.
    
    Not so, say authors Ann M. Morrison, Randall P. White, and Ellen
    van Velsor, all of whom are affiliated with the Center for Creative
    Leadership in Greensboro, NC.  Over a three-year period, they
    interviewed 76 women who had reached the position of general manager,
    or one level below that, in 25 Fortune 100-sized companies.  They
    also interviewed 22 male senior executives, whom they dubbed 'savvy
    insiders', in 10 of those companies.
    
    The probing revealed that women trying to advance face a double
    barrier:  a strong but breakable 'glass ceiling' and a still-
    impenetrable wall.
                                        
    ...
    
    But even [breaking thru the 'glass ceiling' by careful attention to
    traditional fitting-in rules] isn't enough.  After breaking through
    ..., women encounter 'a wall of tradition and stereotype that separates
    them from the top executive level'.  They are held back not because of
    lack of ability but because: [they're viewed as staff even when they
    hold line jobs; they're expected to conform to mutually-conflicting
    norms (e.g., be tough but not macho, take risks but make no mistakes,
    accept help but succeed on their own); and senior executives are
    less willing to support what they may feel are competitors]
    
    When they hit the 'wall', many women decide they've had enough.
    Exhausted and 'fed up with the extraordinary expectations that others
    have of them...women managers are starting to leave companies at
    an alarming rate.'  The authors predict that 'the majority of the
    76 female executives in our study will opt out' [and that they]
    'expect to see no more than a handful of women reach the senior
    management level of Fortune 100-sized corporations within the next
    two decades, because the barriers [against women] will remain'.
    
    Observation:  these barriers limit the potential not only of women,
    but also of the companies they work for.  'A whole cadre of potentially
    excellent senior executives is being passed over', say the authors.
    'The human resources available to corporations are not being used
    effectively.'"