chrism@orca.UUCP (02/13/84)
This seems like a good newsgroup in which to resolve this issue: There is a "Ms. X" who works for a company that shall remain nameless. She is bright, relatively good-looking and exudes a very professional manner. She is also a feminist and is very protective of her rights. Ms. X works in marketing. By chance I happened to pass an informal meeting while Ms. X made a pitch to an older man who was interested in our product. What amazed me was that Ms. X used blatant sexuality as a tool to cajole the customer. It was smooth, obvious and planned. Also, the customer seemed to really soak it up; he showed every indication of letting Ms. X's methods be an influence on his decision making. Later I was told that this was a common practice by Ms. X, and that it was very effective. Incredible! I was bothered by what I considered the unprofessionalism of both Ms. X and the customer. What really irked me, however, was the double standard I perceived in Ms. X's behavior. I called up an old, reasonably progressive friend of mine and outlined the situation for her. Basically, she told me the problem lay more in my outdated moral standards than in the actions of Ms. X. There was nothing wrong, I was told, in using "femaleness" as a tool for leverage. She made a distinction between this and outright selling of sex, which she conceded was unethical. My problem, I was told, that I was still living in the 19th century, and felt bothered and threatened by a successful woman. "Wake up to the real world!" was her parting remark. Needless to say I was not too happy with that analysis. So, recently I have been watching very closely for similar situations and (surprise!) they abound. Nor is the situation particularly one-sided. I have seen plenty of men use these same tactics on women business associates. Generally however, the men who do this are macho types who make no pretense of relating to woman on any other level. Many of their woman counterparts, however, are self-proclaimed feminists like Ms. X, and thus are guilty of hypocrisy on top of everything else. So, the issue is clear. Is this appropriate behavior in a professional environment? Or is the problem my archaic ethical system, and should I pack up my computer and emigrate to Iran, where I belong? Chris Minson ..!tektronix!orca!chrism
pc@hplabsb.UUCP (Patricia Collins) (02/21/84)
AGHH!! I want to scream when I hear people selling out their beliefs for money. I have been declared a hopeless idealist by more than one person, but I just can't imagine turning on those "feminine wiles" to make a sale! I have written letters to manufacturers who try to sell their wares by selling a woman's body (or face). I am not sold by diversionary tactics, but apparently some people still are. I am convinced (not by experience) that that marketing person could do just as well PROFESSIONALLY without resorting to selling her femininity. However, feminists are people with beliefs. They are not perfect in adhering to their own standards any more than a priest might be. I don't think it would be appropriate to condemn the cause because its proponents are imperfect in living the life they advocate. Thanks for your input. Patricia Collins
jamcmullan@watmath.UUCP (Judy McMullan) (02/22/84)
>...Ms. X made a pitch to an older man who was interested in our >product. What amazed me was that Ms. X used blatant sexuality as >a tool to cajole the customer. It was smooth, obvious and >planned. Also, the customer seemed to really soak it up; he >showed every indication of letting Ms. X's methods be an >influence on his decision making. ... I was bothered by what I >considered the unprofessionalism of both Ms. X and the customer. >What really irked me, however, was the double standard I >perceived in Ms. X's behavior. ... I have seen plenty of men use >these same tactics on women business associates. ... A very tricky situation. I tend to avoid using this tactic because I don't want to deal with the possible consequences (e.g. customer tries to date me and then I must make him mad by rejecting him). I am not in marketing, though. They seem to use whatever they can to influence customers! Perhaps she has the attitude that if the customer is willing fall for this sort of thing, it is his own fault for letting himself be "used" this way. If she can walk the balance, more power to her! Personally, I avoid any indication that I am a "sex object", at work. I try to stay "professional" (or as professional as one can be wearing a "Great Canadian Bicycle Rally" t-shirt and jeans with one embarrassing hole -- I'm gonna buy some new ones soon, honest -- it's just that I hate shopping). --from the sssstickkky keyboard of J.A.M. ...!{allegra|decvax}!watmath!jamcmullan
heretyk@abnjh.UUCP (S. Heretyk) (02/23/84)
This discussion is a perfect example of viewing women as sex objects; you're the one with the problem. Shelley Heretyk
tll@druxu.UUCP (LaidigTL) (02/24/84)
********************************************************************** > This discussion is a perfect example of viewing women as sex objects; > you're the one with the problem. > Shelley Heretyk ********************************************************************** Huh? Is this to say that, when a group of feminists complain about a scantily clad woman in a commercial, these feminists have the problem? By your argument, they must, since they are viewing the woman in the commercial as a sex object. There are two possibilities when someone is viewed as a sex object: either the viewer is imposing sexuality on the viewed person, or the viewed person is broadcasting sexuality. Unless you disbelieve the original poster (if you do, I'd like to know why), the case described is the latter. The question is whether or not it's OK for someone (whose ideal is not to be viewed as a sex object) to try to make others view ser (him/her -- from net.nlang) as a sex object in order to make a sale. Tom Laidig AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver ...!ihnp4!druxu!tll
metcalf@inmet.UUCP (02/25/84)
#R:orca:-58200:inmet:10900052:000:521 inmet!metcalf Feb 24 11:39:00 1984 Could you be more explicit about what Ms. X was doing to persuade the customer? This is not voyeurism, (At least I think it is not), I'm just curious. Not knowing any more of the details, my feeling would be that such manipulation was degrading (to both parties) and morally objectionable. On the other hand, I'm not very good at manipulating people in any way. Perhaps if I were more skilled at making people do what I wanted them to (by any means) I would be less offended by other people who use such tactics.
bmg@tekecs.UUCP (02/26/84)
What's wrong with the double standard? I say you use every technique available to you to best get your job done. I am a female engineer, and if I can persuade someone to put in extra effort on a project simply by my flirting with him, why shouldn't I? Generally it is very easy for me to tell if a coworker prefers to deal in a strictly professonal attitude, or if mutual flirting is the best relationship. This is usually established within the first few hours. There are a lot of people at work who do not take women engineers very seriously. But my limited experience of 8 years has shown that these are the very people I can manipulate the easiest. At first they tend to ignore me, pretent I'm not around. But when I start flirting with them - they almost instantly have time for me. Once I have their attention, I can start discussing work, and the occasional flirting keeps them interested. If I need them to do some work for me, I usually estimate how long it will take, and then challenge them to get it done in half the time. Promises of my returning to find if they did complete the work, and possibly some other reward has almost always produced the results in half the time! I have NEVER provided any reward besides a big smile and a kind word. Also, if they repeatedly produce good work, a word to their manager always helps. Before I get misquoted, note I stated above that my attitude depends on the attitude of the person I am dealing with. 90% of my coworkers are treated as equals, but the few macho people who seem to act as if women should stay in the home are the ones this works on. For those people, I know I have the edge. Why shouldn't I take advantage of it? - Barbara Theus
chrism@orca.UUCP (02/27/84)
Barbara Theus writes:
<...(it) is very easy for me to tell if a coworker prefers to deal in a strictly
<professonal attitude, or if mutual flirting is the best relationship. This
<is usually established within the first few hours.
I have noticed the existence of these two classes of people as well.
There is occasional crossover between the two groups (witness the number
of inter-Tek marriages), but generally men and women seem to consistently
follow one of these two sets of attitudes consistently. However....
<There are a lot of people at work who do not take women engineers very
<seriously. But my limited experience of 8 years has shown that these are
<the very people I can manipulate the easiest. At first they tend to ignore
<me, pretent I'm not around. But when I start flirting with them - they
<almost instantly have time for me.
Yes, there a lot of people who do not take women engineers seriously
and it also seems to be the case that these are the types who are most
easily manipulated. However, just because they are vulnerable to this type
of manipulation, does that mean you should take advantage of it? Does that
not undermine your own credibility as well? These people do not
take women professionals seriously simply because they do not view women
as professionals. Thus, when you do not deal with them in a strictly
professional manner, your own actions implicitly reinforce their
opinion of women professionals in general.
<Before I get misquoted, note I stated above that my attitude depends on the
<attitude of the person I am dealing with. 90% of my coworkers are treated
<as equals, but the few macho people who seem to act as if women should stay
<in the home are the ones this works on. For those people, I know I have the
<edge. Why shouldn't I take advantage of it?
It is this kind of attitude that is one of the biggest barriers to acceptance
of women in business. You are merely confirming the opinion of the
chauvinistic minority and thus increasing its power.
Chris Minson
P.S. Despite numerous offers of free passports, turbans and airline
tickets, I still haven't left for Tehran yet. Oregon is a much
nicer place.ariels@orca.UUCP (02/27/84)
This article contains quotes of quotes (><), quotes (>) and my comments on the quotes. Chris Minson writes: > Barbara Theus writes: ><There are a lot of people at work who do not take women engineers very ><seriously. But my limited experience of 8 years has shown that these are ><the very people I can manipulate the easiest. At first they tend to ignore ><me, pretent I'm not around. But when I start flirting with them - they ><almost instantly have time for me. > >Yes, there a lot of people who do not take women engineers seriously >and it also seems to be the case that these are the types who are most >easily manipulated. However, just because they are vulnerable to this type >of manipulation, does that mean you should take advantage of it? Does that >not undermine your own credibility as well? These people do not >take women professionals seriously simply because they do not view women >as professionals. Thus, when you do not deal with them in a strictly >professional manner, your own actions implicitly reinforce their >opinion of women professionals in general. Yes, but Barbara has a job to do. We all have jobs to do. Why is it her responsibility to educate these men when they already haven't paid attention to her when she's tried to be professional? If she has to interact with them, it's easiest and least frustrating to act as they expect her to act, which means she gets what she needs out of them to perform her job in a timely manner. Obviously, she does not prefer to act that way, but if the only way that works, she has to use it. ><Before I get misquoted, note I stated above that my attitude depends on the ><attitude of the person I am dealing with. 90% of my coworkers are treated ><as equals, but the few macho people who seem to act as if women should stay ><in the home are the ones this works on. For those people, I know I have the ><edge. Why shouldn't I take advantage of it? > >It is this kind of attitude that is one of the biggest barriers to acceptance >of women in business. I heartily disagree that the additude is the problem. It is not the responsiblity of feminism to educate those who do not wish to be educated. I can't think of any feminist (female) I know who does not prefer to interact with peers as equals, in a professional manner. This being the preferred method, it is tried first. If the man to whom they are relating does not accept this, then the woman must try other methods, because often we must tailor our approach to the person we are approaching, in order to GET OUR OWN JOB DONE. (read we as all people who deal with other people). When you use only one approach in dealing with people, then you can require that others do the same. I have noticed that all those who have only one tactic for anything usually end up angry, frustrated, and unable to get much done. >You are merely confirming the opinion of the >chauvinistic minority and thus increasing its power. To whom is Barbara confirming this opinion? To those who already hold it? Well, OK, but they'll get this opinion confirmed no matter what. I'm sure they've seen plenty of instances of professionalism in women, but since they don't like it, and don't think that is the way women should act, they just ignore women who use it. They are denying and will probably continue to deny the possibility that women (and probably any other people of whom they have behavioural expectations) can be valid human beings, and still not act the way they (the "chauvanists") expect. Is she confirming it to you? or to other men who are feminist or feminist sympathisers? Hopefully, these men realize that there are people in the world who do not recognise behaviour that does not go along with their expectations. Hopefully, these men also realise that women in professional positions have to deal with these people on a daily basis (as do blacks, jews, orientals, or any other group about whom assumptions have been made by the "traditional WASP Males" who have "the power"), and to get their jobs done may have to interact using methods that are not necessarily favored, or "politically correct". Barbara's behaviour as she describes it is not hypocritical. At the worst, its a borderline cop-out. It's really just an admission to one's self that the world isn't the way one would like it, but one is living in it, so one has to make do. But I can think of no person who has never copped-out in this manner in order to save their own sanity and get their job done. And I can think of no reason that a person should be considered "hypocritical", or "giving women (blacks, jews, orientals...) a bad name" for using this method to get by. This subject shows signs of overlapping into net.philosophy territory, since what it seems to come down to is "where does your responsibility to yourself and your own task leave off, and your responsibility to the movement begin?" Ariel Shattan ..!tektronix!orca!ariels
twltims@watmath.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (02/27/84)
The thing that bothered me most about Barbara Theus' method for manipulating
men was that she seemed to enjoy doing it. In her article she says several
times "Well, why shouldn't I?" I didn't hear her say that she had to do this
in order for her to motivate her coworkers (a possible reason advanced
by someone responding to her article.) In fact, she said nothing in her
article that caused me to believe that she thought about it in a balanced way.
(ie. considering the reasons why she perhaps shouldn't behave like this).
Is she a manager? If she is then there are more legitimate forms of pressure
that can be brought to bear. I would hate to see the workplace degenerate
to this state, where there is so little consideration for the humanity of
others.
This is a topic I get quite passionate about. The one thing I really
dislike in people is an enjoyment in manipulation. I have very little
respect for people with that attitude.
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax,utcsrgv}!watmath!twltims
The University of Waterloo, 519-885-1211 x2730smann@ihu1g.UUCP (Sherry Mann) (02/27/84)
According to Adrienne J. Smith, Ph.D., and Ruth F. Siegel, Center of Flexible Therapies, Chicago, in a paper - FEMINIST THERAPY: RETURNING POWER TO THE POWERLESS Under constraints of patriarch women resort to covert power tactics, using manipulative techniques which are nowhere acknowledged as power....Because women have been denied direct access to power, we have usually been described as a group _lacking_ in power.... In fact, powerless groups do exercise power, but this takes on different forms than that of the dominant group. Specifically, the power exercised by women tends to be covert, indirect, "ladylike." Increasing evidence indicates that the differences between the ways women and men express power are due to status rather than sex....Lower status people use the power of the powerless to influence those who are dominant over them. Women, who are low status people, "get what they want" through indirect, covert influencing techniques, often using the assigned sex- role appropriate behaviors of helplessness, dependency, coyness and appeal to emotions. There's more, and I realize this doesn't answer anyone's questions, but perhaps adds more information to the discussion. Would be interested in reactions. Sherry Mann ihu1g!smann
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley, Univ. of Waterloo) (02/28/84)
I'd like to add a dissenting (to everything that has been said so far) voice to this conversation by asking the following question: when during the "business" meeting of these two people did you actually catch them doing this? The reason for this question is the following: being a feminist, I try to keep sex out of my work (being a student, that's pretty easy, but I have worked on and off) or "serious" activities as much as I can. I have noticed, though, that some men will not take me seriously because I am a woman and are more interested in dealing with me as a potential sexual partner than as a work partner. Now if I can avoid these people, I usually do, but there are times when I can't avoid them. Most of the time, it is possible to move oneself out of such situation by commenting about it to the other person "now, let's get serious" or something like that, but there are men who no matter what, DO NOT want to take a woman seriously as a working partner and who will not deal with her as such. If the woman needs the man badly, then the last thing to do is to play along with his game and get what you want out of him. Not doing so would put the woman at a disadvantage by comparison to her male collegues who can manage to have a working relationship as equal with this person and thus get out of him what she cannot get unless she uses her "feminine" guiles. It is deplorable to have to do this, but sometimes you have to. "This" by the way is called prostitution. Granted, it is a very minor form of prostitution, but it nevertheless is. However prostitution can be defined (although it is not usually defined as such) as doing something which is against your principles and desires in order to obtain something you want. With a loose definition like this, most of us are prostituting ourselves daily when we pretend to like our bosses whom we hate, and so on. "This" can also be called "compromising". It all depends on how badly we need what we need, how much we are willing to give up for it and how hard it is to get it other ways. It is one thing to have an all-encompassing philosophy of life and another to be able to apply it to every situation at hand, feminism is no different from other philosophies for this; there are times where it is simply foolish to stick to your philosophy if it means you will end up being completely screwed as a result I know that I am a feminism, but when I am trying to get something (I will not mention what here) for which the form says "self ... wife children" and when I end up talking to the man who gave me that form and he ends up being really nasty to me even though he has no reason to, but he does it simply because he has power over me because he can give me something that I need REALLY bad, well, I will not tell him "you male chauvinist pig, give me this or I'll get my lawyer to get you" because I can't afford a lawyer, what I will do instead is cry and he will tell me "oh, you poor thing, there, there, I'll fix it up for you". It makes more sense; People like that will never become feminists no matter what, so the best thing to do is to get what you can from them and then avoid them. Coming back to the original article. From what I can remember, the submitter caught only part of the conversation between Ms X and her customer. Who knows what happened before? maybe she realised that there was no other way she could get her customer to sign whatever it was that she wanted him to sign since he was only interested in dealing with her in a flirtacious way, but didn't want to take her seriously as a businesswoman. If she is known for doing this, it could also be that most of the men she is dealing with are that way too. She then might realise that if she doesn't play along with their foolish games, then she will not get as many customers as her male collegues will even though she could be as good a saleswoman as they are (salesmen). It could also be on the other hand that she is not that good a saleswoman, but that she has noticed that she will still manage to get her customers this way, or that she is a good saleswoman, but gets even more customers when she adds a sexual element in her pitch. All of these are certainly unfeminist ways of behaving, and she is not doing women who want to be saleswomen a world of good by acting this way, but I think it reflects more an opportunistic spirit from her part rather than anything else. After all, her customers do not have to play along. Of course none of this is really nice for her male collegues since she is using something they cannot use, but who knows what they are using that she cannot use, their own wife, or they could bring their customers to strip-joints or men-only places or provide them with "escort" services. Using sex for business purposes has been done much before women started being businesswomen; it is not something new, what they might be adding is a different flavour to the kind of sex. I guess there is not really any bottom line to this and I cannot really pass any judgement on Ms X without knowing her (and even then, I do not think I could, or on anybody else for that matter), but it does seem to me that matters are not black and white in this case and that we should be careful not to judge too quickly. Sophie Quigley watmath!saquigley
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley, Univ. of Waterloo) (02/28/84)
This is an apology for using language improperly in my previous posting on the subject. In french the words derived from "prostitution" are sometimes extended to a non-sexual context, to denote, as I tried to explain in my previous article, the action of degrading oneself. This usage is official (I just checked the dictionary) and it is often used to denote something benign, such as the act of pretending to like one's boss so as to get something out of him/her. The interpretation of "degradation" is left to the user of the word. I assumed the same was true in English. As I seem to have offended some people who took it to mean that I was calling them prostitutes, I just checked my webster and it does seem that the usage is a bit stronger in english: "To sell (oneself, one's artistic or moral integrity, etc..) for low or unworthy purposes.". I am sorry if I offended anybody else, I didn't mean to. Sophie Quigley watmath!saquigley
gulley@stolaf.UUCP (William T. Gulley) (02/28/84)
(Don't let the header fool you . .* )
CM>It is this kind of attitude that is one of the biggest barriers to acceptance
CM>of women in business.
A>I heartily disagree that the additude is the problem. It is not the
A>responsiblity of feminism to educate those who do not wish to be
A>educated. I can't think of any feminist (female) I know who does
A>not prefer to interact with peers as equals, in a professional
A>manner. This being the preferred method, it is tried first. If the
A>man to whom they are relating does not accept this, then the woman
A>must try other methods, because often we must tailor our approach to
A>the person we are approaching, in order to GET OUR OWN JOB DONE. (read
A>we as all people who deal with other people).
Then why does feminism try so hard to do so? If the object of feminism
is to take advantage of the hormonal responses of these "die hard"
non-feminists, then I see see no real distinguishable characteristic be-
tween their motives and the motives of the "die hard" non-feminists that
attempt to subject them to their attitudes. Yeah, I know the schpiel about
"Ya gotta do what ya gotta do", and that has a lot of merit in my own
beliefs also. Which leads to the point. .
A>Barbara's behaviour as she describes it is not hypocritical. At the
A>worst, its a borderline cop-out. It's really just an admission to
A>one's self that the world isn't the way one would like it, but one
A>is living in it, so one has to make do. But I can think of no person who
A>has never copped-out in this manner in order to save their own
A>sanity and get their job done.
Regardless of what her beliefs actually are, her actions say to others
that it is undoubtedly a cop-out. How are her motivations any different
from the motivations of that "die hard" non-feminist male superior when
he played the same necessary games in getting to his present position?
Why look at him with any disdain at all, when his basic motives in life
are practically the same as yours, only with different names and (sometimes)
different causes?
I guess an answer comes in response to the question that all of us
have to seriously face up to at least once in our lives, namely,
How much of my individuality do I want to let motivate my actions in
life? (Regardless of how much of an individual you merely FEEL like) Anything
less than a complete acceptance of that individuality is a compromise
on yourself (not anyone else), and if you can happily live with that, that's
fine. We all pay for our choices, one way or the other.
The only loss comes when we kid ourselves that we're something we're not. .
____
Man, that felt great. .
William Gulley - St. Olaf College - Northfield, MN 55057
. .!inhp4!stolaf!gulley
pc@hplabsb.UUCP (Patricia Collins) (02/28/84)
re: Barbara Theus' comments The reason not to "take advantage" of your sexist colleagues is that your implicit acceptance of their definition of your role will come back to haunt you if you ever want to be "taken seriously." If the person who perceives you as a woman (girl?) first and engineer second happens to be higher than you in the corporate structure, you will find that you are evaluated first as a woman and second as an engineer. You may find that you are well liked and that you get less flack than a woman who is labelled a hard core feminist (read: no fun at all), but that you will be described as "cute; and she's not a bad engineer!" (tone: condescension). My colleagues who are not blatantly sexist seem to value friendliness, but don't look for flirtatiousness. Those who do want to see women (and men!) in terms of some sexual stereotype are not likely to turn that prejudice off when it comes time to consider people for leadership, creativity, technical expertise, and professional maturity. If there is any hope for getting what you want out of your career when you have to deal with double standards, it is by taking the reigns and redefining the rules. When it's clear that you are an engineer first (where your job is concerned), even the die-hards may eventually see you as you project yourself. [While the first paragraph comments are an attempt at objective realism, this last statement is admittedly optimistic.] Patricia Collins hplabs
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (03/03/84)
> Not knowing any more of the details, my feeling would be that > such manipulation was degrading (to both parties) and morally > objectionable. Even if it was, it would be between consenting adults, and therefore appropriate. I have a feeling you would have a hard time convincing the woman in this case that she was degrading herself - she sounds like the type who knows very well what she's doing and who would resent puritanical and condescending judgements like the above. As for her actions being inconsistent with her feminist attitudes, sure it is, but presumably she's human like the rest of us, and you can't blame her (outside of the heat of an argument, anyway) for that. Jeff Winslow
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (03/06/84)
Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems to me a disproportionate number
of those complaining about the woman's behavior (and supporting
statements from Barbara and Ariel) are students, who presumably have
never had to consistently deal with the problem.
Well, allow me to indulge in a gender switch in another famous saying:
"Everything is easy to the woman who doesn't have to do it herself."
please, please can't we cut out all of this sensationalism about "morality"
and "prostitution"? Can't we just admit that if someone has an ability to
better themselves, they should use it, considering that the only
objection to it is a purely theoretical political one (which in my book is no
objection at all)?
the (occasionally) tolerant,
Jeff Winslowjack@rlgvax.UUCP (Jack Waugh) (03/06/84)
I don't see anything wrong with smiling and kind words in the workplace. Will you accuse me (a man) of not being feminist just because I enjoy an occasional smile from a woman co-worker? I take the little pleasures life offers me unexpectedly, even if I can relate their causes to my sexual nature. I think that is not unconsistent with my view of myself as feminist. In all work situations, I will do the best I can to promote high quality in my company's product (and in my work life), no matter who smiles at me.
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (03/06/84)
-- >>> I don't see anything wrong with smiling and kind words >>> in the workplace. Will you accuse me (a man) of not >>> being feminist just because I enjoy an occasional >>> smile from a woman co-worker? I take the little >>> pleasures life offers me unexpectedly, even if I can >>> relate their causes to my sexual nature. I think that >>> is not unconsistent with my view of myself as >>> feminist. It all depends--how do you interact with your male co-workers? If it's not the same, then you are by definition a sexist. Somehow this alleged feminist reminds me of Hugh Hefner, who has even offered money to women's organizations, and whose magazine has championed assertive, liberated women--liberated from housework so that they can be full-time sex objects but assertive enough (if I can recall that great scene in "Tootsie") to be responsible for their own orgasms. You dork! Can't "get any" with the old macho stuff, so maybe try a little "soft sell"? How original. Yes, consider yourself accused, and while you're at it, guilty as charged. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 06 Mar 84 [16 Ventose An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
smann@ihu1g.UUCP (Sherry Mann) (04/04/84)
Barbara, and all women, have a responsibility to themselves and their jobs before any responsibility to the educating of chauvinists. Women's use of what is being called "flirting" to get the attention and cooperation of their co-workers is a use of power which is at this time not highly valued in the workplace, but at the same time, one of the fews types of power women in the workplace have to wield. It is no more reprehensible than any other uses of power, simply not accepted at a conscious level. As women begin to develop other "more acceptable" types of power, they will have less need to use their at the present time unique form of power. More power to women! Sherry Mann AT&T-BL Naperville, IL ihu1g!smann
nerad@closus.DEC (04/07/84)
!libation to the [p/m]atron god[dess] of mysteriae businessi (sic)
I have known many women who have been valued in business environments, not
only for their technical competance, but for their inter-personal skills. I
am not trying to say that ALL women have better inter-personal skills than ALL
men, but I do believe that among the engineers that I know, this is a very
strong trend.
Perhaps technical women are generally better at inter-personal skills than
their male counterparts because technical disciplines are often nurtured in
the young of this country to the neglect of social skills--ergo the
stereotypical "nerd" (please, no one make puns on my last name--it's been
done). Many of the women of my generation came into technical training and
disciplines late in life, due to the soft discouragement of women from going
into technical fields. Their inter-personal skills might therefore have a
firmer foundation.
Part of good inter-personal relations is sensitivity to the "language" which
is appropriate to your audience--in linguistics called a "register." You
should no sooner speak to your m.s.p. engineer on an assertive feminist basis
than you should speak in technical jargon to a person you know is not familiar
with your field. In neither case will you impress or evoke a positive
reaction from the individual--you will not effectively communicate. In both
cases, the person will shut you out, and condemn you as insensitive to that
person's {experience, station, intelligence, life orientation...}, whether or
not he realizes WHY he is really shutting you out.
Inter-sexual undertones are not flirting. I would not overtly flirt with a
co-worker I was not interested in, but there are many degrees of male-female
interaction which can have the "flavor" of inter-sexual communication without
being sexual communication.
Example: A male engineer explains software tool source to me. If I make a
point to tilt my head and smile while I am listening to a [possibly boring or
reluctant] technical explication of a piece of code, it shows my interest. It
gives the man a better feeling about having to go over the same material with
another person another time. This is true whether or not the man is a
chauvinist. The behavior is characteristically "woman approving of man."
I consider it no more than another means of communication, which I happen to
be a skilled enough communicator to use safely and effectively, much as an
eloquent speaker uses his language. Some women consider this flirting, since I
am consciously manipulating this man by being a woman and acting in a manner
with which men are taught to be very pleased when treated to such attention.
If I did it unconsciously, then it would probably be "OK."
Yet some of the same women will teach "women's networking skills," which are a
skill set put together to:
(a) exploit women's adaptation of traditional man-man business/social
skills (including clubs, old girl networks, women's room
conferences)
(b) fine tune women's [business]/social woman-woman skills, so as to
facilitate greater communication and cooperation between women
in the workplace (mostly by fostering an us-them rivalry
between men and women in the workplace, whether consciously or
not).
If the mention is made of exploiting traditional woman-man [business]/social
skills, then flamish discussions (along the lines of this one) tend to erupt.
I can not agree more with Sherry Mann, who states, "[all women] have a
responsibility to their jobs before any responsibility to the educating of
chauvinists." I would no sooner push unwonted feminist dogma on a co-worker
than I would push any other set of morals on him. I do not believe that my
being a woman is important either way to the work I do. But the fact that my
work is done well, my co-workers enjoy working with me, and that I take pride
in my work--this is all anyone needs to look at.
Shava Nerad
Telematic Systems (@DEC Ed. Svcs.)
{decvax, allegra}!decwrl!rhea!closus!nerad