jamcmullan@watmath.UUCP (Judy McMullan) (02/28/84)
I loved Ariel's comments on Barbara's methods of dealing with some of her
co-workers. Tracy didn't like hearing about people being manipulated but
I have to admit I got a big giggle when I heard about their own weaknesses
being used against them.
As I read Barbara's article, a light dawned and I realized I do something
similar. There are a couple of guys here (gee, I hope they are not
reading this!) who are sometimes hard to deal with. It so happens that I
have to have their co-operation or I can't get my portion of the work done.
It seems that if I accompany my requests that they do their portion of the
work with a light touch (on the arm or the back) I get much quicker results!
I seem to have also had success by writing cute little notes and signing
them "Hugs & kisses, Judy".
They say confession is good for the soul but I have a feeling this confession
is going to get me flaming hot mail messages.
(Come on, pad, don't tell Dan, eh??)
--from the sssstickkky keyboard of J.A.M.
...!{allegra|decvax}!watmath!jamcmullantims@shark.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) (02/29/84)
This article is in response to the original article on this topic, which told of a woman using flirting with a male customer of her company in order to gain the business of the man's corporation. Approval and disapproval of this has been somewhat mixed, just let me bring out the following. If it is a valid practice for women to gain effectiveness in their jobs by using (mild) sexual means, then isn't it a valid practice for a company to favor the hiring of attractive women over unattractive women, knowing that the attractive women will have a valid advantage in dealing with male customers? If you answer "no" to the above if-then question, you are accepting that women are justified in using a valid technique, but companies should not be allowed to consider it in employment, again, a double standard. Responses? (please)
donr@ihlpf.UUCP (d. rueckheim) (04/05/84)
#N:ihlpf:22200005:000:931
ihlpf!donr Apr 4 13:43:00 1984
I completely agree with Barbara Theus. I do not see anything wrong with
using anything you have to get what you want. (To all you fanatical people
out there that will take what I stated to the extreme of meaning that if I
had a gun I would use it to get what I wanted from whoever had it. That is
not what I had in mind.) I do find it refreshing to find a female on the net
that is willing to admit that it is sometimes an advantage to "strut her stuff"
to get what she wants.
D. R. Rueckheim
AT&T Bell Labs
Naperville, Il.
PS : I am new to this news group and am unsure whether or not is was OK
for myself, (being a non-female type person) to submit to this
news group. From what I have seen I am not the only non-female
that has entered in net.women.zben@umcp-cs.UUCP (04/06/84)
Seems only fair to me that women stop "strutting their stuff" when and only when men forgo the benefits of male-only business clubs, five martini lunches at strip joints, weekends playing golf with the boss or the client, and the like. Those of us in Maryland should remember the "Burning Tree Club" bill... Ben Cranston ...seismo!umcp-cs!zben zben@umd2.ARPA "What is sauce for the gander is also sauce for the goose..."
jad@lanl-a.UUCP (04/07/84)
From what I've read in this newsgroup, I believe I am about to take an unpopular stand. Such is life. I believe the idea is that it is more or less ok for women to use flirting as a tool in the commercial marketplace. On the other hand: Would a woman who uses flirting in this fashion do so with another woman? If not, why not? (Gosh, it just wouldn't work, would it.... :-) So, such women allow their behavior to be altered by the gender of their intended recipient.... But I thought the whole point was that (on the whole) we want to treat everybody as PEOPLE, regardless of sex- somehow that seems the professional way to act. So how come these women are so keen on continuing to use an obviously sexist ploy???? The most prevalent excuse seems to be: Well, it works! I am afraid that just doesn't cut it - lots of things "work", but it doesn't mean that we ought to do them. ( A similar idea was brought up in relation to software piracy lately - it may be easy to pirate and certainly does provide one with that they might have to otherwise do without, but that doesn't make it right!) Wishing I had an ablative heat shield Zozzles The Freep
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (04/09/84)
To rephrase the question in still another way:
Suppose that our hypothetical office politicker scores points against a
co-worker not by flirtation, but by feigning friendship? Does it make
a difference that the deceit is practiced on a non-sexual level? [You
can fill in the blanks in the scenario with male and female
manipulators and manipulatees as you like. Does this make any
difference in the conclusions you reach?]
Even in academia, I've seen some pretty slimy bastards who would be
anyone's good buddy one minute and ace back-stabbers the next. I
hardly find it encouraging to hear that some feminists might
rationalize the sexual equivalent of such behavior as acceptable
practice in the corporate world.
As far as I am concerned, faking an interest in another person (sexual
interest or not, in a member of the opposite sex or not) to achieve
selfish goals is not a very admirable act. It might be a necessary act
for one caught in a very difficult situation not of one's own making
(for instance, a female professional expected to get work done in a
department full of hostile MCPs), but would still be nothing to be
proud of. When used simply as a tool in office guerrilla warfare, such
tactics become despicable.
I have always thought that the whole point of feminism was to treat
people of either sex as worthwhile human beings, not as objects to be
used. Am I missing something somewhere?
--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
--- {ihnp4,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddlenet@ihnp1.UUCP (nnn) (04/10/84)
(line eater) What does golf have to do with "Feminism and the double standard". I, a male, play golf with my female boss. There's nothing more intended. We just both have an appreciation for the game.
notes@iuvax.UUCP (04/11/84)
#R:ihnp1:-22700:iuvax:9200012:000:119
iuvax!dsaker Apr 10 11:50:00 1984
Reply to Prentiss Riddle:
Right on! I agree with you totally.
Daryel Akerlind
...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsakernxs@fluke.UUCP (Bruce Golub) (04/13/84)
I fully agree with Riddle's comment. Now can we get on to something else for a little while. Bruce Golub John-boy Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.