posted
Here are some random splinter thoughts I had while reading the religious symbols thread.
Someone mentioned that men are more confrontational while women prefer harmony. This was countered by the point that most divorces are sought by women. Pooka then made the remark:
quote:Scott- have you been to ornery.org? Is it a good place to cruise for chicks?
This got me thinking about conversations I've had with brainwashed religious chicks of my acquaintance recently. Two friends and I decided that, from our limited viewpoint, most females we know are not well-suited to competitive careers. Many women are successful in different fields, but most that we know are not happy when their lives consist of high-stress, confrontational environments such as those of the military and some corporations. I'm sure I've really opened a can of worms here, but my friends and I mutually decided that we'd much rather spend our lives in a low-profile, harmonious role as a mother and teacher than chance the stress of the work world in pursuit of professional goals.
I would venture to say that this is all directly related to an innate desire for harmony over conflict. I think that this is a vital factor in the situation of the majority of our politicians being male.
We like to rant about inequality of opportunity as is evidenced by the lack of females in certain societal positions, but i really don't see the disparity of opportunity anymore. I've been presented with many paths to follow in my life and never, even in the most male-dominated occupations, have I been discouraged from proceeding because of my gender. I simply think there are certain occupations women don't pursue because it's not in their nature to enjoy such things.
Ok, the onslaught may begin, but if it gets too confrontational, I'm leaving and going to make cookies. Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But aren't women more passive-aggressive? Maybe women just don't like forward aggression in competition.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we need a little clarification on the term passive-aggressive. The way I've always heard it used implied being passive and ignored the aggressive. When you use it, do you mean the aggression is sublimated into another form?
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
I can be confrontational about some things. I was accused of being passive aggressive later in the thread, due to the way in which I conceeded the argument. Passive aggressive would have been to say nothing and then find a thread of the perpetrator and treat him as he treated me. I know how to be passive aggressive, and that wasn't it.
Kat is more confrontational that a lot of women, but when the argument becomes ad-hominem, perhaps we can't take it. In the emoticon thread we were discussing how women have the b word hurled at them much more effectively then men.
Perhaps it's an extension of the idea that when words are expended, for men to come to blows is just part of life, where as for women it would be a big deal. (I'm not saying it shouldn't be).
I've remarked before that even in fields relegated to women, the top folks are invariably men.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka: *grin* Yes, I was kidding. I agree with the ad hominem comment, though. I actually love taking things head-on, but using ad hominem's to intimidate isn't dealing with an issue head on, it's attempting to silence and manipulate a person rather than discuss the issue. I do hate that. In other words, I don't think disliking personal attacks are a matter of being confrontational or not. Passive aggressive personal attacks are just as crappy and are harder to identify.
Annie, I'll to give a scenario.
Scenario:
"A" takes the last cookie on a car trip.
Aggressive response: "B" says, "Give me that! Or at least give me half."
Passive/aggressive response: "B" softly kicks the back of "A"'s seat for the next 160 miles.
posted
I don't think so - I have three brothers, and two of them are VERY passive aggressive and they know it.
Argent: *blink* A good example of what? I'm thinking that's either flattering ( in which case, thank you), or else you just called me what pooka put in her last line (which would be an example of a passive aggressive attack). Uh, I'm going to be positive and assume the first. So, thank you!
posted
I don't believe that all women prefer harmony.
An example I have noticed in my life, and many places that I have worked, is that so far it has been much preferable to work for a MALE manager. (I'm a female). In the departments where a female was the manager, especially if the department is mostly female, there is TONS of back-biting and pettiness and conflict. In the jobs where I've had male managers, or predominantly male-employee departments, I have not experienced any of that.
I know this sounds sexist against females, even though I AM a female...
But the department I'm in right now has a male head, and of the 15 people in the department, only two are female. We get along famously. I have never worked with a better group -- everyone is laid back -- no one talks petty against others -- and we all play fantasy football! (ha)
But the all-female department right below us is in constant strife and nit-picking on each other. I think sometimes very very nice ladies become real b***** when you put then in a supervisory role.
posted
And Farmgirl, I would thoroughly agree with your observations. I have always done better when working for men. I would venture to say, though, that this is because the female supervisors that I've had have never been happy with their role. They were constantly stressed and frantic and feeling like they needed to prove something, and this is why it was so much more miserable to work for them.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been my social experience that women have more competative relationships than men. Or maybe the competition between the female friends is so much nastier than that between the male friends.
It has been my working and academic experience that the majority of my stress is from trying to meet deadlines, define requirements, work with a group of incompatible personalities and such more than competition.
Given an absense of power structure I tend to either take over or create a structure as it is more efficient to production. I'm sure anyone who was mafia in that monty python game can attest to that. I am capable of taking part in competition, but to me it is a means to an ends and not a personal conflict. That is to say, I don't view the outcome as a value judgment of myself. I am capable of taking criticism and learning from it. I am capable of understanding when I've been screwed over by assholes and learning from it as well.
I prefer confrontation to passive-agressive attacks or underground coups. I terrify my advisors on occassion with my directness.
I like what I do. It's harmony to me, even if it's not smooth sailing.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes - it does. I'm not in one right now, not really, but that's partly a function of wanting to work for a non-profit, and partly because I'm sort of lazy and haven't looked around.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I wanted to be a lawyer, but my husband forbade it. j/k. He had concerns and we discussed them and decided together not to do it. I have concerns about his career, but he over-rode them, and it causes me a lot of pain on a daily basis. I will probably get liver cancer and die young. I guess that is the ultimate in passive aggressive. I have been trying to get him into counseling for some time.
I actually have a LOT of trouble asserting myself in real life situations.
I have been considering going into pre-med.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Passive aggressive would have been to say nothing and then find a thread of the perpetrator and treat him as he treated me."
I would disagree with your definition of "passive-aggressive."
In my experience, a far more common form of PA is to "concede" while knowingly continuing to irritate or prolong the issue in another way.
For example:
1) Moping around the house, but always saying "nothing" when someone asks you what's wrong.
2) Ending an argument by saying something like "You're right! You always have to be right, don't you? If it's so important to you, I'll let you be right about this!"
3) Changing an argument from one topic to another, unrelated topic, in order to "win" the second: "And while we're on that subject, how long has it been since you took out the trash?"
4) Escalating an argument into a realm where the other party cannot afford to win: "Oh, you hate me, don't you? Why don't I just lay down and die, then, if you hate me so much!"
5) Thinly veiling a deadly insult in polite words: "I must say, having met the rest of your family, you exceed all my expectations."
Aggressive response: "B" says, "You owe me a cookie."
Passive/aggressive response: "B" fattens up "A" for the next few months.
I learned passive-agressive in college and I hate it. Aside from that instance, I can't think of any time I'ved resorted to it. And even in that instance, the act was more a de-stresser for me than a fatten-upper for her. Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Changing an argument from one topic to another, unrelated topic, in order to "win" the second: "And while we're on that subject, how long has it been since you took out the trash?"
Ack. My old roommate would do this. It's horrid. She's hands-down the most passive aggressive person I've had the misfortune to deal with.
Celia: My car trip scenario actually happened with my middle brother on the way to Seattle. My the time we got there, after 160 miles of him kicking my seat, I wanted to leave him behind.
posted
I meant your example of passive-aggressive. While it's not always physical like that, your description hits the proverbial nail on the head.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, guilty on all counts Tom. Does anyone know a clinical definition to passive aggressive?
And Tom, didn't you find BM's comments uninformed? You don't seem the sort to defend someone just because they are the underdog. ex: he said the prophet was elected, and when I explained that wasn't true, he said "elected is in the word selected". I know he's new, but enabling people to do the wrong thing doesn't really help them in the long term.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
uh, pooka, are you currently engaging in the activity of bringing an issue on another thread to a thread that person isn't posting on?
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate being in groups of women when it comes to working environments. Which is bad,because my profession is dominated by women. I find myself being ambitious and focused on my work, but my colleagues want to know about my family and chat about things that have no relevance to our work. Sometimes snarky comments hidden in gossip will be the talk of the day. Bleah.
I get along much better with my male colleagues, because they just talk work.
I have a female administrator who visits our building sometimes. She rocks. She is like an engineer - she sees a problem and zooms straight in on it. She always knows what to do. But my colleagues whine about her and basically act like silly annoying high school girls.
I wonder, I really do. Sometimes I find competition with guys wears me down, but other times I find it invigorating. When there's mutual respect, I enjoy it. It's only when I read between the lines (as one MUST do with groups of women) that competition becomes uncomfortable. I grew up in a playful, joking family, and I like that kind of atmosphere. This very "yin" world of schoolteachers, where you have to watch your back, can be unnerving.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And Tom, didn't you find BM's comments uninformed?"
Yeah, I did. But I quite rightly assumed that some of the Mormons on this thread would do a better job describing the Mormon political process than I would.
------
Edit: That whole "reading between the lines" bit is really what annoys me. Christy comes back and describes her day, and I'm often flabbergasted by how much backbiting and innuendo is exchanged -- and tolerated -- among her female coworkers. If someone did anything like that in my presence, I'd IMMEDIATELY call them on it and ask if they had a problem with me that we should discuss; I can't imagine letting the situation go unremarked.
posted
celia, if I'm a PA person, then I guess whatever I do will be PA. So if you want to be PA, just ask yourself, "What would Pooka Do"
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: It doesn't make a difference, though. If you bring it up and want to discuss it, you get protests of good intent and denials of anything going on. If you're lucky, you MIGHT get heard out, and then the PA person will nod and say they can't think of anything at the time, but let them think about it and they'll get back to you. Then nothing happens and the status quo continues.
Most of my experience with PA people comes from my ex-roommate - who did exactly the above. All the time.
The revelation to me was that she really, honestly didn't know how witchy she was being. I mean, she wasn't TRYING to be a brat. We had an exit interview when I left, and she said that she didn't understand what was going on with me at the time, and everything else came from that. So, when she saw that her roommate was not her normal self, the response was to protest in subtle, cutting little ways until the roommate returned to normal, and then expect to be friends again. What kills me is that honestly was her plan, and she's bewildered by its lack of success.
posted
Tom, if you call someone out, it doesn't work. There is immediate denial and then more passive-aggressive twisting to make YOU look bad for having those sorts of thoughts! Most of the time, the best weapons you can have are those of turning the conversation to a topic you can direct. I always take a negative back-biter's comments and try to inject a bit of kindness into the conversation. It is hard work! But much preferable to just sitting in the crap and letting it continue.
And it might work for YOU, a man, to call someone on their PA comments. But for another woman to do so is begging trouble. PA is a very effective political strategy, and it is hard for a woman of integrity to be part of the environment. The few colleagues I have whom I consider positive influences tend to isolate themselves in their rooms and focus on their work. It's hard to find those people I would have as mentors, because they are not welcomed in the more public places (such as staff rooms, etc.).
posted
I also hate being in all female groups, even like girl guides. A group of all girls together in a slightly working situation (anything but a group of friends) tend to get snitty, silly, and focused on things that are 'girly'.
I was a scout in a mixed girl/boy pack where mud, games, running and survival was the order of the day, and then a girl in girl guides, where crafts and badges and snitty comments.
Personally, I think a purely female environment is very unhealthy.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annie, I don't know about innate. Innately, I am a very gentle, shy, and meek person. I am the one that wild animals will come up and lick the fingers of. Children and babies usually love me, and I get this Pied Piper thing going on sometimes, where kids sort of mob me at the pool or the park.
But starting from babyhood, I was beat up, burned, shocked with electricity, burned with acid, etc. by my brother. From maybe 4th through 8th grade I was also tormented and teased and ostracized at school. In high school, though I had a great group of friends and was no longer ostracized, I went to a very rough school where there were hoodlums who would beat you up and shake you down for money or just for fun all the time. I remember that going to the bathroom was an ordeal, as there was a group of thugs who would beat up people and take their money for the privilege of going to the bathroom. During all that time I believed strongly in passivism. I was a follower of the non-violent movement, and strongly believed that nothing could ever be solved with violence.
When I was about 16, though, I changed tactics. I began following my younger brother's advice, and deciding if we were going to have a fight, whether it was worth a fight or not, and if not then walking away. But if it WAS unavoidable, if it was something that must be fought over, I began seriously taking on the bullies. By any means at my disposal. Including violence. This worked immediately, and was so easy that I was astonished and wished I had done that years before, as a child even.
I think because I grew up in such an aggressive environment, I had to learn to stand up for myself. I just HAD to.
I think when I hear stories of boys, how they play and interact, and how they are treated as sissies if they complain about being beat up or treated roughly, and how the only acceptable thing for them to do is to just fight back, stories of "bad football coaches I have known", fraternity hazing, etc, I think I realize that girls and boys go through VERY different socialization patterns as they are growing up.
Because I am a tomboy, and because my environment was rather rough growing up, I'm a bit of a hybrid.
I don't think this is an inborn trait at all, but rather is a survival skill that is learned based on the harshness of your environment.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But would you say, Anne Kate, that confrontation was something that your environment brought out in you but was contrary to your nature?
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for what is passive-agressive, I am not sure. I believe there are genuine cultural differences between the North and the South in the U.S. on many things. Southerners are considered very polite by Northern standards, but as Miss Manners knows, one can be very polite without letting people dictate to you how they will use you and run over you, or how you will spend your time, or what you have to do for them that you never intend to do. The way you do this varies from region to region of the country, and certainly from country to country in the world. And things that would be considered unbearably, insultingly, in-your-face rude in the South are thought of as being up front and straightforward plain dealing in the North. Concomitantly, things that are considered in the South to be very polite, non-inciting, but firm ways of making clear the boundaries of what you are prepared to do for someone, and how you expect to be treated, may possibly considered very underhanded, passive-agressive cheap shots by someone up North.
Two southerners understand each other completely. As do two Northerners. But when one interacts with the other, you get the situation from which the stereotypes arise. The Southerner thinks "Wow, what an incredibly hostile rude and horrible yankee that is! Was he raised in a barn?", while the Northerner is thinking, "These people are so nice to your face but they are really nasty and passive aggressive underneath".
I thought Miss Manners represented the Gold Standard of etiquette in the United States, that pretty much everyone (outside the penitentiary and the grade school) agreed she was more or less right on target. But, for instance, in the thread we had about how to let someone know you don't plan to go out with them again, I saw that I was mistaken.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annie, yes, it is contrary to my nature. But evolution has equipped us all with the ability to deal with hostile life-threatening situations in ways that enhance our survival.
If you beat a dog, it turns mean. If you beat it constantly from puppyhood, it can become really vicious. Luckily people can choose how they respond to things, but the whole spectrum of responses are within our capabilities.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think women can suceed in competitive careers without either being bitchy or abandoning their families.
I'm just finished my second last year of law school. I have a lot of female friends who are finishing with me, or have already finished and started working - and there is no bitchiness. If anything, the guys are more snipy and competitive. I think part of the reason is that law is so traditionally male dominated that when a woman does well, we're all happy. It's nice to do a competition and have a woman judge for a change, just as it's nice to go to a job interview and actually see a woman partner.
In terms of stress and family, I think that can be managed, but it has to be the job of both people in the relationship. My partner is a writer, so has a more flexible job. We've discussed the fact that I will be working as a lawyer, and hopefully as a good lawyer (both in the non-evil and successful sense). So when we have children I will take time off, but my partner will spend more time at home when they are young.
I realise this kind of solution isn't open to everyone, but I also think it's vital to realise just as traditional 'female' roles are changing as more women enter the professional workforce, traditional 'male' roles in the family should also change.
quote: I think when I hear stories of boys, how they play and interact, and how they are treated as sissies if they complain about being beat up or treated roughly, and how the only acceptable thing for them to do is to just fight back, stories of "bad football coaches I have known", fraternity hazing, etc, I think I realize that girls and boys go through VERY different socialization patterns as they are growing up.
I think this is right on.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that women are typically more emotional than men (and if a man is very emotional it'll get bullied out of him when he's younger) and men are physically more tough (they play rough games and get used to wrestling and fighting for fun). Therefore in an argument women fight with their emotions: trying to make eachother feel bad, ruin reputations, saying hurtful things, whereas men fight with their hands.
In both cases the weaker person wins but the area that is weak is totally different: for men it's physical pain tolerance and for women it's emotional pain tolerance.
I don't know if anyone agrees with this assessment or if I'm just stereotyping but this is what I've seen.
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the difference is even bigger than that.
When men fight, their ultimate goal is to WIN -- to be right, to clearly triumph, or at the very least to make the other guy go away. So much of male competitive behavior -- sports, bullying, office politics/advancement -- is based on this kind of logic.
Women don't seem to HAVE this goal. I've seen two women who hate each other -- hate each other so much, in a way that would be absolutely intolerable for two men -- work together for years, buy each other Christmas gifts, and do nothing but insult the other one behind her back.
Men seek to get rid of the things that bother them. I'm not sure what women do.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, many girls are taught (by life experiences, mostly) that the thing or person they dislike is often bigger or stronger. Additionally, overt violence is often discouraged far more in girls than in boys. Making it/him/her go away is often not an option. So girls learn to tolerate, work around and/or behind the obstacle.
Sometimes this is a good attitude; sometimes not. Winning at any cost is not always terribly healthy. But then again, trying to put up with something that ought to be dealt with head-on can give you an ulcer.
Of course, some men (almost) never attack their opponents head on, and some women (almost) always do. Must not have been properly socialized. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's a matter of head-on attack; lots of men work around their opponents in devious ways. I think it's actually a matter of trying to get rid of the opponent.
Even on this board, when I see women who've had a problem with somebody, they never seem to just want to eliminate that problem; they're always looking for a way to keep that somebody around, only happier.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right now I am reading a book by Rachel Simmons called Odd Girl Out . It talks about what you are calling Passive-Agressive behavior, instead calling it collectively 'alternative agressions'.
She talks about how from a young age women (her studies were done in the US), are taught that confrontation is frowned upon, forcing girls to rely upon other methods of agression including telling rumors, calling names, forming alliances etc... and how these can be used to cause damage to the intended target.
The book also talks about how to avoid letting alternative agressions run rampant, and how to deal with having them used against you. There's a really interesting section about Odd Girl Out that talks about female bullies.
Just thought that perhaps some of you might be interested. I found the book at B&N in their discounted book section for 5 bucks about 3 weeks ago.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Even on this board, when I see women who've had a problem with somebody, they never seem to just want to eliminate that problem; they're always looking for a way to keep that somebody around, only happier.
Well, then, perhaps I have not been adequately socialized. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I tend to find that my beliefs hold me to seeking forms of balance in my life, which, in turn, bring harmony. This includes things like 'listening' to my body to know what kind of foods I should eat, to meditation, to checking anger both in myself and in other people. The latter often means confrontation if someone is upset with me, or calming myself if I am upset with someone else.
Personally, I'm not afraid of confrontation. I don't feel like it interferes with my somewhat religious quest for balance in my life. I feel like it adds to it. How can letting a bunch of women talking around a water cooler about something I said with no mal-intent while I mope around my work-place be prosperous to my well-being?
Posts: 701 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I really do have what in this country is more a male pattern of response to aggression. That is, I don't care if someone nyah nyahs. Gossip, backbiting, maliciousness, and so on, don't really exist for me. I do what seems right to me, and I stay out of all of that, and if someone doesn't think they want to be my friend based on how I act, that's perfectly okay. I'm more or less impervious to being hurt that way because I don't really notice. I'm not at work for the social life, nor at church for that, or anything. I try to do my job well, to the best of my ability, and to reach out and be a friend to those who seem to need and want and value my friendship. Those who don't, I am civil to, and don't seek any quarrel with, and assume they are just too busy or I'm not their cup of tea or whatever. That's fine. In the same way, my own friendship is mine to give or withhold, based on inclination. But I like pretty much everyone who acts even halfway nice even half of the time.
On the other hand, if someone really messes with me, for instance threatens physical violence, or if they pick on people smaller and weaker than themselves around me, then I will oppose that. And I'll take it to whatever level of conflict the other person wants. Nuclear weapons, if required, though always seeking to contain and limit the collateral damage. Once they cease the threats, or the picking on of others, or whatever it was, then I am fine with them again and have no quarrel. I am not ever made afraid by physical violence or threats, but I can be made very angry. Particularly if I think about the next person who will be treated this way, and if he or she will not be as prepared as me to deal with such things.
I was once a believer in nonviolence under all circumstances. But I gave that up almost by accident after about 16 years of being beat up most every day at home and in school, and when I found how very much better the new strategy worked, I wished I had done it years earlier, in babyhood, even. Thank you Mikie (my baby brother) for teaching me this.
There are permanent physiological brain changes that are developmentally sealed in to those of us who grew up in harsh physical circumstances. We will never deal with aggression in the same way as those who had gentler childhoods. We will always have that "vicious dog" underneath, to draw upon, that beast. The beast is pro-survival for harsh environments. Evolution has equipped us with it for a very good reason. Though I would much rather have had a gentler life, though loving kindness, respect, care, soft voices, and tender affection are my native sphere, and where I prefer to dwell always, yet I need not fear anyone or anything at all, ever. So I suppose I am glad for that.
[ December 02, 2003, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for my job, I do have a job that encourages me not to indulge my meek and shy tendencies. At job sites in order to be heard I do have to speak clearly and plainly, and make it clear what resources I need and what I expect to have done by when, and what will be the cost to others if that doesn't occur. Money is the ultimate authority at the jobsite, so if someone is willing to pay, then everyone is always happy to do it their way on their schedule and so on.
In a few ways I do have to "butt heads" with others on start ups. One thing is that they'll tell you they don't have people (electricians, millwrights, instrumentation guys, etc.) to give you to get your part done, or they can't afford any production downtime to let you install your equipment. This is always after they've screamed that they need you now, they can't possibly wait until next week, and so you've traveled to some distant site only to be made to sit and wait. So then you have to say, "that's fine, then I'll fly home and come back later when you're ready, at your expense, so please sign right here saying you have approved that". Or they'll play that delay game and then when they ARE ready for your stuff to be working, they'll be all mad and say, "Why are you holding us up? You're costing us money!" <laughs>
So you have to be heard. You have to clearly state what resources you need and what will be the consequences if you don't get them. My company thinks I am good at that part, at the head-butting part of the job. I don't enjoy it but I understand why it's necessary and so I try to be good at it, while working with people and being reasonable about making compromises.
Also, when Annie said way up there that she didn't think women were actively discouraged from doing things, that's not been my experience. I get active discouragement all the time, which I have to overrule. My company wouldn't let me stay late by myself in the building because they were worried about it being so remote, me being in danger. Any time I stayed late, they made Scott stay with me and miss having dinner with his family, so of course I didn't stay. I finally got them to give that up, after much effort. Also, my company was not going to send me on start-ups at all until I insisted. They said mills were rough places that a girl wouldn't be safe. Before it was over with they wanted me to do them all. <laughs> Nobody likes traveling, so since I was willing to go, I got a chance, and they were happy with my work. It taught me as much about how the machines actually worked in real life as anyone in the company, and so I became a vital person to the company then. But girls usually do get shuffled off to something that doesn't matter much in my field. If you want to get involved with the real meat work of the company, you have to be insistent about the direction you want to go, and to be ready and willing to change jobs if you aren't allowed to channel your efforts in the area that has your interest.
[ December 02, 2003, 05:07 AM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I am able to be a pioneer for women in my field because of my ability to ignore the constant social pressure to conform to female roles. I can see that some other woman with all my same abilities, but who was not as socially tough and oblivious, who was more affected by what other people thought of her, would not be able to be the first. (In the paper industry, at least, in the United States, and so almost certainly in the whole world too, there was not another female who did what I did.) After I did it for so many years and was successful at it, then everyone's attitude toward the possibility of a woman doing that job has hopefully softened to the point that it will be that much easier for someone to follow behind me.
There were some advantages to being a woman in a field that women just don't do. I could make all the rules myself. I always decided what is the dress code, for instance, for female engineers at my firms, <laughs>, since so far I've been the only one ever. There is a novelty to it, that makes people want to work with you, so I can get good people under me. "Hey, let's go work with the chick!" <laughs> The other thing I can do is inspire guys to work hard and do a good job. Somehow the fact that a girl will pick up the tools and do their job quickly and well if they are ever slow or reluctant, inspires the guys under me, the electricians and millwrights, to really excel. Or maybe they just like me. <laughs> I'm not sure. But I find that it works out. Some things may be made harder but others are made easier by being female.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Two friends and I decided that, from our limited viewpoint, most females we know are not well-suited to competitive careers. Many women are successful in different fields, but most that we know are not happy when their lives consist of high-stress, confrontational environments such as those of the military and some corporations. I'm sure I've really opened a can of worms here, but my friends and I mutually decided that we'd much rather spend our lives in a low-profile, harmonious role as a mother and teacher than chance the stress of the work world in pursuit of professional goals.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
kat ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
