Conference turris::womannotes-v2

>Male children are more likely to be socialized to "prevail" over other males.
>That may be useful in hand-to-hand combat or in wartime. But it is an
>enormously costly and destructive way to organized our economy and carry out
>production. Corporate takeovers seem often to represent an abstract
>battlefield. No one names these corporate struggles correctly: street fights.
    
    I believe this tendency is genetic, not simply social.
    
>The statistics on criminals and prison population are obvious; yet
>we seem to be unable to recognize this a primarily male behavior. 
    
    Yup, yer right.  The sentencing procedures in our courts definately
    discriminate against males.
    
>My modest suggestion is that corporations reconsider their easy acceptance of
>the proposition that it is more costly to employ women than men. And in this
>reconsideration, companies might give deeper thought to the actual costs
>associated with behavior that society has accepted or even induced among men.
    
    You point out all the bad things about men who have power.  You pointed
    out a couple of disadvantages of hiring women.  As more and more women
    move into more powerful positions I think you will find more and more
    abuses of power by women.  Power has a nasty habit of doing that.
    
    I believe that the people attracted to powerful positions have these
    faults.  The faults are much more visable in men because men
    customarily hold those positions of power.
    
    High stress.  Ulcers.  Ego trips.  Power trips.  Be careful what you
    ask for, you just might get it.
    
    Tom

    I'll take my chances.

    RE: ulcers, etc. 
    
    Women moving into the business world are, indeed, coming up with the
    same stress-related disease as their male counterparts. I believe this
    is because we are fitting into the only model of business that we know.
    I am not totally thrilled that this is what is occurring, rather than
    women changing the business world into something more sensible.
    
    Does business have to be competetive in a way that causes disease? 
    I don't believe so.
    
    I read a small article in _Working Woman_ [a magazine that I read only
    from time to time, because it appalls me a lot.] This article was about
    "what to do when you/someone else cries in the office".
    
    The major point was that women shouldn't cry in the office because men
    don't know how to handle it when we do. Of course, if the power
    structure were what it ought to be, this wouldn't matter.
    Unfortunately, since the power structure is what it is, what this means
    is "Don't cry because you'll make your *superiors* uncomfortable." And,
    as we all know, making one's superiors uncomfortable is not an asset to
    one's career.
    
    The other point was covering what to do if one of your reports cries in
    front of you. IT said something like "you cannot comfort this person"
    and basically, you ignore it until they get themselves under control.
    
    My thoughts on this:
    
    1. This is engendering incredibly dysfunctional human behaviour. Just
    because the standard has been for men to hide emotions, and just
    because the busness standards are based on male behaviours and values,
    doesn't mean we should perpetuate this crap. The mastadons are *gone*.
    We won't be called upon to hunt them in 3-piece pinstriped suits. And
    black wing-tips.
    
    Any good psychologist can expound for long periods of time on how
    hiding your feelings causes [guess what?] *stress-related disease*.
    [surprise!]
    
    2. I cannot imagine being in a room with a person whom I know (even
    just in a work situation), who is upset to the point of tears, and *not
    comforting them*. If we are not here for each other...our friends...our
    family....our colleagues....then what the hell are we *doing*? Selling
    silicon chips? Airplane parts? <whatever?> Big, fat, hairy deal.
    
    IF this is the standard, our very *humanity* has become screwed up.
    
    I hate to see women following men in this situation, rather than the
    other way around.
    
    It's enough to make me cry. But I'd better not do it *here*.
    
    
    --DE
    

    Re .3 (DE)
    
    I *think* you're making an assumption here, that someone "upset to
    the point of crying" needs comforting.  This is not necessarily the
    case, and I use myself as a counter-example.
    
    I have this incredibly annoying tendency to leak around the eyes
    when I am very angry.  It is extremely embarrassing and it absolutely
    infuriates me, but I have not yet found a way to reliably keep this
    from happening.  Looking at the times in my life when I have teared,
    a good half of them have been from anger or rage.  Upset, yes.  Hurt or
    sad, no.
    
    In such a circumstance, an attempt to "comfort" me is not at all
    welcome, as it is totally inappropriate to the situation and
    emotional content.  It comes across as patronizing and judgmental.
    (There, there, you mustn't get your widdle self so upset, snookums!
    It's not good for you!)
    
    The worst part of involuntary tears is that so many people seem to
    think that the appropriate thing to do is *stop listening to what
    I'm saying and try to "fix" the bloody tears*.  This is most
    humiliating and the least productive thing a person could do under
    the circumstances.  I would far prefer to have the tears ignored
    as though they did not exist.
    
    You probably didn't have this situation in mind when you wrote your
    note.  There are circumstances where comforting is appropriate and
    appreciated. Unfortunately, most people (both genders) I have
    encountered are not nearly as good at telling the difference as they
    think they are. 
    
    My opinion only,
    Beth

    
    
    When someone cries in my presence, I might not ask (verbally) if they
    want comforting, but I usually move only slightly toward them or
    try to get eye contact with them and see if they move toward me or
    away.  If the person wants me to say or do something soothing, s/he'll
    usually meet my gaze, or move toward me, or say something about how
    s/he's feeling.  If s/he wants me to ignore the fact that s/he
    is crying, s/he usually looks or moves away.  When that happens, I try
    to say something to acknowledge the pain, but I try to do it
    in a way that is respectful of his/her boundaries.  
    
    There have a been a few times in my academic and professional life that
    I have cried in front of a teacher or boss.  One time a woman
    practically threw her arms around me, and that felt awful.  Another
    time a man, looked like he wanted to run from the room and made
    it clear that I had caused him discomfort because of my outburst.
    That felt awful, too.  The times when it has been ok has been when
    the other person acknowledged my pain and took her/his cues from me,
    so that's what I try to do.
    
    I know that this is a digression from the issue of cost/benefit issues
    of men and women in the workplace, but it's an interesting one.
    Maybe there's already a topic about emotion/crying at work.  If
    there isn't, I'll start one.
    
    Justine         

    I'll reply to .4 in the note Justine starts...

An interesting topic -- a few points to ponder:

The point of alcohol-related costs is well taken and should have been 
factored into the study (accounting also for the ratio of male alcoholics
to female alcoholics).

I do not think your point about the Exxon tanker is valid.  This type of
data are blips on a statistical chart that are out of the norm.

And here is where you can correct my ignorance, but isn't the question
that "all things being equal, are 'typical' female workers more costly
to a company than 'typical' male workers?"

I was once told that auto insurance for males cost more because men get into
more serious and costly accidents even though they get into fewer accidents.
The implication was that women get into more auto accidents that are
fender benders.  And let's not forget life expectancy and life insurance.

You certainly have opened a real can of worms on this one.  

I do not think I agree with the premise as it stands that women cost more 
to a company.

A better stated question, I think, is "Do those on 'the Mommy Track' cost
more to a company."  I mean, if someone divides their career aspirations
with their family aspirations, wouldn't that mean a slower track?
A slower track doesn't cost more to a company - or does it?

And for the Supermom or Mr. Mom households that don't divide anything, 
*then* is there a greater cost to a company if a woman decides to start 
a family?

Statistics can be used to prove a point but they don't always have to 
reflect the truth.  If you eliminate some factors, the scale tips way
over in your favor and every side of an issue will use statistics to 
support their own thesis.

Now to the suggestion that "women who want families should opt for a
modified business career - that is, for second-class status and salaries":
should it have read, "people who opt to slow/divide their career 
aspirations should expect to be paid accordingly?"  Is *that*
an unreasonable statement?  Is this another can of worms?
And where did the "can of worms" expression originate?
...and so I digress.

    
    
    Being one of a few female engineers in a male dominated group,
    I would have to say that I often see the men taking time off
    for their children.  I think the attitudes and the economy
    are forcing more fathers into sharing more of the child rearing
    duties as such.  My observation is that each sex takes about
    the same amount of time off for the family.  At least that is
    how it is with the folks in my group.  
    
    Michele

    Just for the record, I didn't write a word of that article and cannot
    answer questions on the author's intent or use of examples.
    
    When I read it, I thought the Exxon Valdez example was a good one that
    illustrated clearly the potential cost of 1 drunk person.  Don't forget 
    that even "career primary" women, like myself, who never intend to raise
    families are, nonetheless, considered to be one of the more "expensive"
    candidates.  I don't think the example was used to illustrate that had
    a woman been at the helm, this wouldn't have happened.  Rather, I think
    it was used to illustrate that as a result of the invalid stereotypes
    companies are using to select candidates, they are actually losing
    money in their misguided efforts to save it.  Ingrained sexism is
    difficult to overcome *even in light of logic, evidence and the
    obvious*.

I agree that the company sponsored study was probably flawed and therfore
a waste of company assets.  And by the tone of the article as put forth
by you, it was probably a male-dominated study panel.  ;-)

Comprehensive studies probably would have checked into "career primary"
women like yourself and found that you might cost much less than whatever
is considered average.  Who knows?

Our culture has become so diverse that it is almost silly to study cost
effectiveness based on gender because of the many lifestyles incorporated
into corporate America.

Now do a study on whether stressed-out male "bread-winners" cost more or less
or whether "career primary" women cost more or less than fathers who share
care, then it might be useful data.  Ah, but for what?

I imagine it is to pay less for less work or more for more work.  The 
question then becomes, if a comprehensive study on the types of lifestyle
could be done to determine which lifestyle would best benifit a 
corporation's profit margin, would a company be justified in hiring
only lifestyle-A type people because they're statistically the cost-
efficient people?  

I don't think *that* would suit people well, *even* if a fair objective study
could be made.

I think you've made a case that the study is poo-poo and is probably based
solely on the reproductive capabilities of women and related costs,
which is a distictly and unfortunately narrow view.