Conference turris::womannotes-v2

 It seems unbalanced. Why are there no opposing views? Surely not every woman
feels that way. 

 The Doctah

    These are trained psychologists saying this?
    
    Yak!
    
    -Jody
    

DEVA VU!!

It's scary the way this stuff recycles and recycles.

Why ask about 'women' or 'men' as collegues at all.  Why not ask about desirable
and undesirable traits, behaviour patterns, etc.?  

We create and perpetuate sexism by talking about 'men and women' in these
contexts instead of 'people.'

  Ann

    I'm with Jody -- I find the "interpretations" by the industrial 
    psychologists as or more disturbing than the original comments.

    re: .2 (Jody)
    
    � These are trained psychologists saying this?
    
    I can't tell if they're trained or not, but I'm assuming 
    they've received some sort of training.  But I wonder if 
    female industrial psychologists would have made the same 
    conclusions.  Come to think of it, I wonder if there *are*
    any female industrial psychologists in Germany.
    
    And I agree with Mark that the sample sounds skewed - like, 
    let's just talk about the responses made by some women who 
    didn't like working with/for women.  In my time in Personnel, 
    I've heard similar things, to be sure.  But I've heard far 
    more women expressing satisfaction than unhappiness.  
    
    And finally, I'm uncertain of the cultural context.  Having 
    lived in Germany for a year and half, I'm at least aware that 
    many Germans have a somewhat different view of "proper" work
    roles.
    
    Or, to put my reaction more simply. . .  Bleah!
    
    Steve

    What gets me about this?  Every line!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    I can't tell you how many times I've heard this cr*p.  But you've heard
    it, too.  Let me tell you this:  I work for a woman, and she works for
    a woman, and she works for a woman, and this is the best management
    I've had at Digital!  By far!  But will I turn around and say, "I'm
    sorry, but I'll only work for a woman"?  Of course not!  I do say, "I
    will only work for someone I can respect!"
    
    I've worked with men who are just like the women described in that
    article.  Do I refuse to work with men?  Of course not!
    
    Let me tell you, this got my blood pressure going.  I guess it will
    keep me warm on the commute home.
    
    Susan

    
    I believe the article is crap!!!  It's adding fuel to the fire of
    sexism.   
    
        This just puts more pressure on women have to prove themselves,
    again,and again....that they are as capable as men.
    
       
      Jack
     

    Well, I posted it not so much for its shock value (tho Goddess knows it
    has plenty of that!) but rather because of what I saw as its
    instructional value.  I get the feeling that from what Ann wrote she
    also recognised the pattern:  we used to see this kind of thing
    regularly here in the states, and not all that long ago, either.  Hell,
    for all I know, we may *still* do occasionally and I just don't read
    the publications it appears in.  I really wish one or more of our
    german members (Pony?  Christine?) would help us evaluate its meaning
    in Germany.
    
    Newspapers...even tabloids :-)...are considered by most people to be a
    source of Truth, even though we know they're imperfect and that a lot
    of error both innocent and willful creeps in.  It just takes too much
    mental energy...and I'm not being snide, I really mean "too much" in a
    psychoeconomic sense...to always be on the alert and "suspect the
    worst" about the motivations of the reporters, editors, and publisher.
    
    So what do we have here, considered in that light?
    
    It's an *important* problem because it takes up a lot of space in a
    national newspaper.
    
    It's a *general* problem because it cuts across age and occupational
    boundaries.
    
    It's a *real* problem because it's studied by qualified, *male*
    psychologists. (And yes, I didn't include their academic affiliations
    but they do have them).
    
    It's a *natural* problem because the psychologists say it is. 
    
    It's a *universal* problem of *women*:  there are no countervailing
    examples and there are no men involved except the psychologists.
    
    
    Then, less overtly, we have the messages that                     
    
    - "real women" (the kind who are interviewed for newspapers) have
    rather traditional, non-managerial jobs.
    
    - men are the appropriate ones to pass judgement on women
    
    - anyone whose experience is different to what's being reported must be
    aberrant.
    
    - women's inadequacy is hardwired.
    
    
    What have I missed?  I'm sure some important ones have got past me.
    
    						=maggie

    
    Sounds like a classic attempt to pit women against each other, to
    weaken their cause.

>    It's a *real* problem because it's studied by qualified, *male*
>    psychologists. 

 I don't know any German, so I couldn't tell if the psychologists were male or
female, but it doesn't surprise me that they were all male. I could only
label such a study as self-serving propaganda.

>    It's a *universal* problem of *women*:  there are no countervailing
>    examples and there are no men involved except the psychologists.

 That was one of the things that bothered me right off the bat. Rarely is
there such complete consensus in the field of psychology, yet there was no
evidence of contradictory opinion anywhere in the field. At least most
pseudo-respectable newspapers will at least pay lip service to opposing points
of view. Yet this article makes it sound so conclusive.

>    - women's inadequacy is hardwired.
 
 Yeah, "because they are women, they cannot...." What a crock!

>    - men are the appropriate ones to pass judgement on women

 I didn't notice this at first, but it's definitely in there. Like who do these
guys think they are? Members of the pompous-ass club?

 Another favorite was that women actually prefer to work for men. Or should I
say "real" women prefer to work for men? The classic case of women's 
subservience reinforced.

 I thought it was a pretty gross misrepresentation of the facts (as I know
them).

 The Doctah

    
    There are differences in the way people approach work... more men
    tend to be agressive and competitive and play politics. more women
    tend to be co-operative.
    
    When one joins a working environment one will ape the working attitudes
    of that environment ... so a woman becoming a
    manager/director/executive may copy the traditional attitudes of
    that mileu and become 'cold' ...
    
    What can we DO about this (i.e. outside this discussion). Be aware.
    Fight it. Refuse to be intimidated into behaving in an unnatural
    way. 

    	The message that struck me in the article was:  "Even *women* know
    	how inferior women are, so it must be true!  Believe it!"
    
    	It's sickening.
    
    	Unfortunately, it's still considered trendy in some circles for a woman
    	to go on and on about how little she regards other women (as a group.)
    	
    	In the case of this article, such behavior was sought out (and nicely
    	reinforced by quoting the women by name in the paper.)  
    
    	.0> The article is a virtually full-page spread in a regular section
    	.0> called "Extra for the Woman".  Apart from this article, there is
    	.0> about 9 column-inches of Household Tips at the bottom of the page.
    
    	The fact that this article was featured in a section set aside FOR
    	WOMEN makes it especially worse, in my eyes.
    
    	The message here is, "In case you were starting to feel good about
    	yourself out in the workplace, here's something that ought to bring
    	you down nicely - for your own good!  However - as a service, we've 
    	also provided you with a good bunch of household tips with which you 
    	can try to redeem yourself!  This is what real women care more about 
    	anyway."
    

 
Re .12 -
   
>    	Unfortunately, it's still considered trendy in some circles for a woman
>    	to go on and on about how little she regards other women (as a group.)
    	
    
Unfortunately is right. This reminds me of one of Adrienne Rich's points 
about how women can destroy themselves (topic 977) - through "horizontal 
hostility" or contempt for other women. Judging from the article in the 
base note here, it seems that some men have figured out that fostering such 
contempt can be an effective tactic to keep women "in their place."

But if women refuse to buy into it, it won't work!

Dorian

    Nice shot, Suzanne...I didn't catch the juxtaposition of the Tips.  Or
    more particularly, I thought it was accidental, and it wasn't until you
    picked up on it that I realised that no, they could have filled the
    space some other way had they chosen to do.
    
    I'm breaking my head trying to think of what the corresponding stuff is
    here in the US...I *know* it exists because women still have too hard a
    time professionally, but it's so taken-for-granted that I just can't
    see most of it.
    
    						=maggie
                   

    Bit late, but WIW:                            
    
    Bild, or 'Bild am Sonntag' (Sundays edition) is not a serious paper.
    It is the man-o-war of the Springer empire; basically it is very
    conservative and rather nationalistic, fights everything that might
    (seem) to come from the left. As a nice touch, this newspaper was
    always supporting the official U.S. policy; also clandestine
    rassistic, though actively promoting better relationship with
    Israel and Jews.
    As far as womens are concerned, Bild tends to suggest that they
    belong barefoot and pregnant into the kitchen.
    This newspaper has very wide circulation and hence influences
    'the commoners'.
    
    Quotations of psychologists: know only few books from Mr. Mueller-
    -Thurgau(sp), funny reading. Please remember that a quote that
    is out of the context can be used to prove opposite to the
    original article. The Bild has been already sued couple of times
    for false quotes.
    
    The article is something to get upset about, but in almost every issue
    of Bild there is something sickening there.
    
    Josef.
    
    P.S.:
    Where woman psychologists work: the absolutely worst example of
    a psychologists (happens to be a female) I ever met or heard about used
    to work for the digital personnel in Munich. She left few years ago but
    I have heard rumours that she rejoined DEC somewhere else. I have not
    heard anybody (whose opinion I care for) to generalise that women
    in personnel are <insert pejorative/negative substantives here>.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    I lived in Germany for 4 years, I agree with Josef. Bild is not a
    serious newspaper. Heinrich Boell critizised this newspaper 
    (under different name) in the novel "The lost honor of Katharina Blum"
    which was made into an American Movie (with Marlo Thomas I think).
    Unfortunately  this paper sells well.

    re:.16
    
    THE LOST HONOR OF KATHARINA BLUM was filmed twice. The first time
    under the same title by German filmmaker Volker Schlondorff (the
    director of the current A HANDMAID'S TALE) in the mid-70's. An
    Americanized made-for-tv version was filmed about 10 years later
    as THE LOST HONOR OF KATHRYN BECK (later retitled ACT OF PASSION),
    starring, as you said, Marlo Thomas.
    
    --- jerry

    <--(.16)
    
    I'm not sure that to dismiss it as being like the "Enquirer" is a fair
    assessment; I've never seen too many "Twelve Famous Psychics Bring Back
    40 000-Calorie Diet and Cancer Cure to Jackie and Ghost of Elvis". 
    Have you?  To me it's much closer to the Boston Herald, NY Post, etc.
    ...it's a Rupert Murdoch type of paper, big on expos� emotionalism,
    plays to and reinforces many prejudices.  And, as you say, it's very
    very popular, which is what makes it dangerous.
    
    						=maggie