I agree. I think this has been quite the project over the last few decades. However, it seems that at the same time women have been cajoled to be more selfish, less loving and less open.
Men are constantly held to a high standard and always have been. It amazes me how certain feminist myths about men circulate without criticism. "It's easier for men in the workplace." "Men aren't given a hard time over their observations or recommendations." What happened is women walked into the masculine environment and found it rough, and thought it was about them being women. Men raz each other. They're tough on each other. Errors are handled with severity. So when women wanted equal treatment, they got it and didn't / still don't like it. Maybe those environments needed changing. That's not my point. It's just false that women are given a harder time than men. The reverse is generally true.
I have a 40 year corporate career where I have worked for and with women and men. At one point I was one of three executives reporting to a COO. The COO was female and my two peer executive managers were also female. I was the only male in the management team. The COO was impressive and balanced. She was a mother and had a motherly instinct, but was sharp as nails and could read the room and proactively manage her needed relationships. You could tell an off color joke around her... she would do the same. She played golf with "the boys" and could also handle a two martini lunch. But there was no confusing her with being male. She should have been the CEO, but she turned it down and retired early.
For the other two of my peers, one was what I would label as a feminist. She was super bright, but had a chip on her shoulder and was hyper-sensitive about many things. She went on to work in government. The other one was committed to being one of the guys. But since she wasn't a guy, it never played very well... it came off as a phony act. She never advanced and grew her own chip claiming gender discrimination.
Thinking back on my experience at that time and thinking about the COO and how her identity and performance was a reflection of the very same that any effective male peer would demonstrate. In most of corporate America these days gender does not matter. All that matters is that the employee has the right stuff to be effective. The ONLY material difference is that females have a victim excuse to fall back on if their careers don't meet their expectations. Not only do men NOT have that excuse, but they must also combat the constant criticism that they are privileged oppressors of others and need to be forced to accept less as those with victim credentials are promoted above them.
Your COO who retired early was one of those rare but effective employees that would go into any field without the need to already see herself working there, in gender and/ or race. Some people just have the aptitude for a job and call their own shots. Which is why she retired early, she had enough of the corporate world probably and wanted some quality of life in her later years.
Yes, but the point is that generally people don't get to those higher levels unless they have and demonstrate the right stuff. And today gender has little to do with it.
You don't really expect honesty from women on this topic, do you? This topic is their #1 weapon in the war between the sexes. Do you expect them to admit mis-using it? No. No. I' married and out of this whole dating / hooking game, but I find Frank Lee's comment below to be on the mark and your "not sure" to be a hoot.
CE: Men aren’t asked in this society to be better, or more loving, or more open people themselves.
Not sure this statement is correct.
I agree. I think this has been quite the project over the last few decades. However, it seems that at the same time women have been cajoled to be more selfish, less loving and less open.
Men are constantly held to a high standard and always have been. It amazes me how certain feminist myths about men circulate without criticism. "It's easier for men in the workplace." "Men aren't given a hard time over their observations or recommendations." What happened is women walked into the masculine environment and found it rough, and thought it was about them being women. Men raz each other. They're tough on each other. Errors are handled with severity. So when women wanted equal treatment, they got it and didn't / still don't like it. Maybe those environments needed changing. That's not my point. It's just false that women are given a harder time than men. The reverse is generally true.
I have a 40 year corporate career where I have worked for and with women and men. At one point I was one of three executives reporting to a COO. The COO was female and my two peer executive managers were also female. I was the only male in the management team. The COO was impressive and balanced. She was a mother and had a motherly instinct, but was sharp as nails and could read the room and proactively manage her needed relationships. You could tell an off color joke around her... she would do the same. She played golf with "the boys" and could also handle a two martini lunch. But there was no confusing her with being male. She should have been the CEO, but she turned it down and retired early.
For the other two of my peers, one was what I would label as a feminist. She was super bright, but had a chip on her shoulder and was hyper-sensitive about many things. She went on to work in government. The other one was committed to being one of the guys. But since she wasn't a guy, it never played very well... it came off as a phony act. She never advanced and grew her own chip claiming gender discrimination.
Thinking back on my experience at that time and thinking about the COO and how her identity and performance was a reflection of the very same that any effective male peer would demonstrate. In most of corporate America these days gender does not matter. All that matters is that the employee has the right stuff to be effective. The ONLY material difference is that females have a victim excuse to fall back on if their careers don't meet their expectations. Not only do men NOT have that excuse, but they must also combat the constant criticism that they are privileged oppressors of others and need to be forced to accept less as those with victim credentials are promoted above them.
Your COO who retired early was one of those rare but effective employees that would go into any field without the need to already see herself working there, in gender and/ or race. Some people just have the aptitude for a job and call their own shots. Which is why she retired early, she had enough of the corporate world probably and wanted some quality of life in her later years.
Yes, but the point is that generally people don't get to those higher levels unless they have and demonstrate the right stuff. And today gender has little to do with it.
You don't really expect honesty from women on this topic, do you? This topic is their #1 weapon in the war between the sexes. Do you expect them to admit mis-using it? No. No. I' married and out of this whole dating / hooking game, but I find Frank Lee's comment below to be on the mark and your "not sure" to be a hoot.