Somewhat related, a friend who is a thirty-something professional recently posted about whether he should be offended at being referred to as “young man” by older colleagues in his workgroup. Especially considering he’s has direct supervisory authority over most of them and they were recently hired/transferred from another group.
My take is unless one has already developed some rapport to the point there’s a friendship outside of the work setting as well, it’s not professional and a bad practice in the workplace.
Especially when it’s being used by a subordinate as referring to a superior as “young” in front of others can undermine one’s authority as a supervisor/boss among subordinates…including older ones.
Yes, Pizza, the women who reach the top in the industries I’ve been in are very comfortable in their skin. I wonder if this thin skin issue is an “education industry” issue? It seems that some of the more “odder” attitudes about men and about being female do seem to come from college campuses and they seem sometimes removed from the business world (or at least in Fortune 50 and Fortune 100 companies (where I spent the vast majority of my career in male dominated industries.) I wonder of the said Dean reads CC? I would say to her: save it for real battles, you got complimented and my mother always said to thank someone who compliments you.
If you look at her bio, she’s a feminist legal scholar so we’re using the wrong barometer (reasonable person standard) for her behavior as she’ll be hyper-vigilant for the minutest offense. She’s a good example of why you always put pragmatists not ideologues in charge of things. Another good example is the goofball who got chased out of Syracuse. They’ll do things that are ultimately negative because they’re just so blinkered that they just can’t help themselves.
Some of that is because business organizations tend to be more conservative in sticking with the prevailing status quo and resisting changes due to profitability considerations until they are forced to by law or by a change in the critical mass of the populace…especially among those from younger generations.
On the flipside, universities/colleges are more likely to be willing to question or even fight the status quo. Some examples include questioning the morality of slavery/facilitating runaway slaves in the underground railroad, expansion of voting rights, Civil Rights movement, Women’s rights, etc.
And at the time those movements were new and cutting edge, they were similarly ridiculed and resisted by most business organizations…especially large corporate organizations. For instance, many large business interests…even those in the North were vehemently anti-abolitionist during the antebellum period and even into the early-mid Civil War.
In short, many business organizations, especially large businesses tend to be more likely to be forced into accepting changes from the old status quo because they fell well-behind the curve of change rather than leading it from the front. Especially when it comes to social change vis a vis marginalized groups.
No I don’t agree that it has anything to do with profits. It goes far more to the heart of learning how to work with all kinds of people…everything I learned in kindergarten etc. And frankly the vast majority of women rise through the ranks in their companies BECAUSE they know how to work with all kinds of people and earn their respect and more importantly earn trust. Not because they power their way or sleep their way up. The Peter Principle generally catches up with those people at some point in their careers. I’m guessing many of us have known such a woman. Worse is those that have an axe to grind who try to ascend through intimidation…doesn’t work in most large groups of people. Equal pay for equal work is a far bigger bump in the road than ascension up the ranks…those ceilings started cracking at least a decade ago. I don’t see this dean “fighting” anything…just needing to learn how to accept a compliment that has nothing to do with her academic qualifications and accepting that she’s a person, and a woman and scholar…and perhaps she is a vivacious women scholar but now she comes off as petty, not a leader.
“the vast majority of women rise through the ranks”
“those ceilings started cracking at least a decade ago”
There STILL isn’t a vast majority of women rising through the ranks though, at least not in many industries. Those ceilings have barely cracked in many places.
Shrug. In my former industry there are plenty of women who do well, lead companies, are creative and innovative and don’t feel hampered by being women. Sometimes I hear this stuff and it sounds like it’s back in the 70s. It doesn’t describe my professional world working for and dealing with Fortune 50 companies.
One could easily turn that around as effectively saying “don’t rock the boat”, “go along to get along”, “harmony/peace at any price”, or any other statement which effectively discourages questioning or fighting problematic aspects of a given era’s/organizations status quo and its leadership/institutional culture.
Absolutely @doschicos. Women have a long way to go before we are represented in the higher echelons of business in comparable numbers as men. I do believe we will get there though.
Look, this incident happened in academia over a year ago. Considering how many women and men on this thread felt that the word was inappropriate clearly that means to me that some women may find it insulting. And that’s fine by me, I am not going to crucify them for that. As I stated in my #108 I believe a better word that describes what the student was trying to convey is “dynamic” And to me it’s better because it is less controversial. I don’t like to offend others if I can help it so that’s what I’ll use going forward. Really nothing to argue about here.
Maybe, but ‘micro-aggression’ kind of got lumped into the repertoire of those who simply don’t want to be disagreed with.
That something is sexist to one, but not another, (vivacious, for instance) doesn’t entitle the sensitive party the right to declare the other an aggressor. Micro or X-large.
She could have said… Me?.. vivacious?.. at my age?.. Bless your little heart, my dear boy., and he would have felt ok, while those who understand the term as explained by Jeff Foxworthy would have known exactly what she meant. But, as a feminist lawyer, she saved it for a teachable moment.
I’d say he’s learned something, just a little late.
Instead of responding to any verifiable argument, you’ve made an opponent out of straw (“those who simply don’t want to be disagreed with.”) and instead of responding to any verifiable argument, you’ve made a position out of straw (that some “sensitive party” wants “the right to declare the other an aggressor.”).
Neither of the things you’re opposing is present in the story or this thread.
I looked and Joe Patrice’s comments are still on the thread, marvin. The advice was to read his piece, which I did. I’ll add the below, which followed what I posted.
Everything I posted seems copacetic and straw man free.
