regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (09/05/85)
-> Jody > Dave Peak >-> I have heard >->that I am too aggressive, that I get angry instead of breaking into tears, >->that I am too outspoken, too self-assured and too loud. >->.................................................... They don't mean rude >->or unmannerly, either, but simply "masculine". > A little problem here, how do you KNOW what they did or didn't mean. Oh >they told you did they, can you say backpeddling ? Legit question, but I've been there, too. Some people DO mean "rude and unmannerly," and often in relationship to behaviour that is neither rude nor unmannerly, but merely "masculine" (and, in their view "inappropriate" for a woman). Some of the people quite simply mean "masculine" without the caveat. I'm always interested in people's attitudes in the former case -- when they recognise certain behaviours as "acceptable" in others but "unacceptable" in me, because of my sex. Funny thing is, if you ask them (I'm talking about people I know pretty well, here, who I have reason to believe would answer me relatively honestly) about _specific_ instances of behaviour ("Oh, you mean the time I raked XXX over the coals for YYY?") they will often respond that the behaviour was justified -- yet the overall impression they retain of me is that my behaviour is unjustified, because the overall impression is that I'm acting outside their gender-based assumptions. -> Conversely, I've been shunned by some of those women who seem to ->think that feminine equates with prissy, manipulative, deceitful and ->backbiting. I get the feeling that because I say what I think, I therefore ->"don't play fair". :-) I often think, though, that if I were a man, I'd ->be seen as having lots of "drive", being a real "go-getter", a "no-bullshit" ->kinda guy. I have never ever wanted to change my biological sex, however - ->I suit me just fine, it's everyone else's attitudes that should change ! -> > If you described man in the terms you just used as " too aggressive.... >too outspoken,too self assured and too loud", you'd hear him called things >other than "having lots of 'drive'", " a real go-getter","no bullshit kinda >guy". The most frequent term used would be "BALL BUSTER" [non sexist pun >intended], people descibed thusly do get ahead, mostly at others expense. Not necessarily. Jody is being described as "too. . ." in relationship to other _women_, i.e., she is more assertive than women. NOT that she is more assertive than men. (At least, that's my interpretation, based on what I've been through which sounds similar.) On a scale of 0 - 10, there seems to be an idea that men can be assertive from 0 - 10, but women only from 0 - 5 (appropriately). Sure, any guy who goes over the 10 mark is what you call a ball buster, but from 6-10 he's a "real go-getter" etc. It's the woman on the 6-10 segment of the scale who gets knocked for her "too aggresive" stance. Now, you can tell me I'm dreaming, but I'm telling you I live there. I'm continually amazed at the kind of behaviors that are o.k. in men (slamming fists on desks to emphasize points, calling each other by such endearing terms as "asshole" and "jerk", and fighting pretty dirty in meetings) that would be roundly condemned in me, but is completely acceptable in them. There *IS* a tangible difference in how inter-personal behaviours are perceived between men and women. And it *DOES* impact women adversely in the workplace -- right now. If Culbert and MacDonough ("Invisible Wars" and "The Organization Trap") manage to realign our workplace into a human environment, maybe the "feminine" perspective (in both males and females will become more valuable, I don't know > I wholeheartedly agree with your stance in being the person your >most happy with and let the rest of the world go fly a kite but don't >equate masculinity with the small percentage of *ballbusters* out there. I don't think she was doing that. Nor am I. I'm talking about how similar behaviours are perceived differently on the basis of sex. Adrienne Regard