<p>You’re still ignoring the point, Niquii. Women who do what you want, and who negotiate for their salaries, are regarded unfavorably; they are thought of as pushy. Men who negotiate for salary are not regarded unfavorably; they are not called pushy. </p>
<p>Do you deny that this study showed what it clearly showed? Or do you think that negotiating for salary is brash, discouraging, blunt, domineering behavior that nobody should do? If you think the study truly reported what it said it did, and if you think negotiating for salary is a legitimate behavior, then you must admit there is a problem.</p>
<p>abasket, thank you, thank you for posting Time Magazine’s article on this topic. Here’s exactly what I’ve been thinking:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Skip all this rhetoric about women who act this way, women who act that way. I think the less we talk about this topic, the faster we’ll see equality.</p>
<p>Something else I’ve noticed in my (all too long) career in the corporate world is when it comes to women, there’s a bias toward the personal. When I’ve seen written evaluations of men and women, or just hear colleagues describing employees of both sexes, people tend to focus on achievements/failures for men, but focus on personality traits or appearance in women. Example: “he’s a real go-getter. Did you hear what about how he pushed the X deal through?” And for the woman, I would hear “she’s good but she talks too loudly, don’t you think?”</p>
<p>It’s a subtle thing that most men don’t realize because they notice what they notice. Those same men swear they’re not biased, because they just don’t see it. </p>
<p>This is key because it strongly impacts business assessments of women - although off topic because it is aside from the bossy label. </p>
<p>There’s simply no way for a person to accurately report whether they are biased. Well-intentioned people don’t want to be biased. They just are biased. Bias in most cases occurs well below the conscious level.</p>
<p>This fascinating site shows that we have implicit associations that our conscious can’t control. Try the black/white test or the male/female test if you want to be depressed about yourself.</p>
<p>Another famous gender bias in hiring was orchestral auditions. Before auditions were conducted behind a screen so that the evaluators could not see the candidate, women were thought of as not being qualified to play in major orchestras. Immediately upon screens being adopted, the women musicians’ abilities improved amazingly, and they suddenly became qualified.</p>
<p>Again, the point is not that women should be overbearing. The point is that women should’nt be criticized for behavior that is praised in men. Those of you who’ve never seen this are really lucky, or maybe just young.</p>
<p>If a man shows up to the office in a smart red skirt-suit with matching heels, pearl necklace, and hair nicely coiffed to below the shoulders, he will probably be criticized, whereas a woman might likely be praised. The point being, there are other double-standards in the biz world that can affect advancement. How do we draw the line?</p>
<p>my wife feels the argument is silly. She does not believe being called bossy is a big put-down for someone that acts like a boss.
She does not see “bossy” as a gender driven word.
She sees the problem as parents that raise such a weak child that such a simple word hurts some so much, instead of raising (boys and girls) to be smart, strong independent thinkers.
But, my wife is a confident woman, and that is one of the things I find attractive.</p>
<p>This is exactly the type of response that gets women labelled as “bossy” and men labelled as “jerks,” not leaders. Knee-jerk judgmental dismissal of others’ ideas that do not comport with ones’ own opinions. </p>
<p>Bay poses an interesting twist to this thread. I have rarely heard of women in authority being called “jerks”. So for this argument, let’s assume that Bay is correct and the term applies almost exclusively to males. If we suppose that, then isn’t every woman who decries the word “bossy” applied to women, but mention no problem with the use of “jerks” to men being sexist? Wouldn’t a person that complains of a slight to their own gender while ignoring the same slight to the other gender seem, well, strictly self-serving to their gender? Insincere? Hypocritical?</p>
<p>Not to get this thread turned to a whole 'nother direction, but as it applies to pay structure, there is another reason that factors in why some women are paid less for their job. For those that work from 20 to 40 yrs old, women typically take off more time than men for family issues, such as (but not limited to pregnancy).
Not saying it’s good or bad or right or wrong, not saying it is the only reason, not saying it is true for all females.
Just saying it is a factor that less time on the job can affect a person’s pay, and that only looking at total tenure and total pay can be misleading.</p>
<p>“I have rarely heard of women in authority being called “jerks”. So for this argument, let’s assume that Bay is correct and the term applies almost exclusively to males. If we suppose that, then isn’t every woman who decries the word “bossy” applied to women, but mention no problem with the use of “jerks” to men being sexist?”</p>
<p>See my earlier comment about women being evaluated more on personal traits than men are. Being a jerk is not a bar -or even a hindrance-to promotion. I would argue that being perceived as “bossy” is an obstacle to promotion. </p>
<p>The point, again, is that women are called “bossy” (or really, the other b word) for behavior that would not cause a man to be labelled a jerk. I understand that some of you don’t seem to believe that this is true. But that’s the nature of a double standard.</p>
<p>Both men and women should consider whether they are applying a double standard to both their employers and their employees. If a man or a woman is criticizing a female boss for being “bossy” for behavior that he or she would think was OK for a man, he or she needs to grow up.</p>
<p>I have worked in a male dominated profession for years. People who think that there’s an even playing field are naive or lucky in what they have seen. Women are excluded from the table in many ways. I have served in a leadership position, managing a division of 35-40 people. I don’t think that people thought I was bossy, a witch or any other pejorative. I did have the situation in which a female supervisor treated me far differently than males. Males pointed this out to me. She was much more threatened by a woman than by a man, and also enjoyed flirting with the men, who felt that they had to politely respond, even if they were repelled. All this proves is that there are people of both genders who are abusive.</p>
<p>The best leaders of either gender lead rather than acting as a tyrant, but that does not take away from the fact that conduct which is accepted and even admired in men is not accepted in women. A man is driven, focused, powerful, able to get the team to take action, assertive, competitive, direct. A woman engaged in the same activity is manipulative, overbearing, pushy, selfish, a “ball buster.”</p>
<p>What if they are not “criticizing” but rather are demoralized by working for a woman who railroads her ideas through without considering other viewpoints, barks orders without acknowledging employees’ humanity, and is arrogant? Should they just grow up and take it? I think a lot of people would quit if they were forced to endure such treatment for the sake of one woman’s advancement, when she can produce a better outcome for more people if she would simply adjust her behavior.</p>
<p>So, the flirting thing is interesting because men don’t get to do this, really. And it works.Sheryl Sandberg is very good at flirty behavior almost to the point of embarrassingly so in some public forums. A man just could not and would not present himself in that way. The giggling, leaning in, and frequent batting off eyes would get them laughed off the stage. Men and women are different.</p>