NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,477
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 10, 2015 11:38:27 GMT -5
The problem is as I am sure anyone who has been a W2 wage slave can attest is that quite a few people who are NOT the "best and brighest" or "most aggressive go getters" get the prize b/c it's all about what you know.
That is part of the problem with NIH. There is a huge "good ole boys" network when it comes to grant approval. My former boss at Creighton always got pissed off about it at review time b/c he'd see a lot of shit research get approved simply b/c whomever got the grant knew the person applying (you scratch my back I scratch yours). Meanwhile brilliant research by a young unknown would get pushed aside.
Yes according to the rules grants are supposed to be approved based on the merits and history of the PI applying, but we as humans are not capable of being 100% rational. Unconcious bias is always going to come into play.
Now I know you cannot completely combat human nature but you can call out BS when you see it. Otherwise how are you supposed to effect change?
As part of my job I have to work against my unconcious biases every day, otherwise my research is going to be called into question. That is why my experiments have to be designed in a way that they can fail and why I have to disclose any conflicting data. I could easily design a study that gives me exactly what I want it to say but that isn't good science.
So why is it considered acceptable business and "just the way it is" when it comes to things like grant approval, salaries and promotions to be biased even if it's unintentional? Why are people who call others on it considered to be "whiners"?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Nov 10, 2015 11:38:53 GMT -5
While it's nice to think the hardest and most capable workers will rise to the top, I don't think that's always the case. I don't have enough real-life experience in other workplaces to say whether that's even often the case.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
Member is Online
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Nov 10, 2015 11:39:12 GMT -5
Not to me. I would rather be a medium sized fish in a small pool versus a big fish in a big pool. I would be miserable trying to be a big shot, if I could even do it or have a chance to do it. A-freakin-MEN! You just have to find a smaller pool.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 10, 2015 11:39:29 GMT -5
The Captain, I wasn't trying to insult you or any other person who had to do all those things to get ahead. I guess my issue is that being "mean" is necessary to get ahead. No, I'm not surprised. I just wish there was a way to reward people for doing a good job without them having to yell about the fact that they did a good job. I'm trying to think about what I did to get promoted. I mastered my position quickly, I trained new associates, I asked my boss for more responsibilities. I was also ready to leave after 3 years and she knew that. I don't remember being aggressive or cutthroat, but I also work with over 70% women. Our group VP is definitely cutthroat and aggressive, but the men in her position in other departments don't seem as scary as she is. I wonder why...? I have never been mean. Never backstabbed or done anything that I would be ashamed for my daughter to find out about. Honestly, being able to look myself in the mirror before I go to bed each night is still very important. Now I know this means nothing, because a lot of sociopaths are able to do the same but I hope you get what I'm trying to say. I have become much more aggressive. No doubt. And I had to become much more comfortable with highlighting how my contributions made something as success,s as opposed to it being a "team win". Teams don't get promoted, individuals do. Does this make me a bit uncomfortable? Maybe - but I witnessed firsthand what happens when you don't assert yourself. However, I always give credit where it is due and take the blame when there is a fail in my function (the buck stops with me). I never throw anyone under the bus, even if they've earned it.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 10, 2015 11:40:11 GMT -5
professionally... but is that the only real measure of success? No, good looks is also a measure ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png) Then I'm doomed ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/tongue.png)
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,393
|
Post by swamp on Nov 10, 2015 11:42:43 GMT -5
While it's nice to think the hardest and most capable workers will rise to the top, I don't think that's always the case. I don't have enough real-life experience in other workplaces to say whether that's even often the case. Sometimes it's the best bullshitter, I mean marketer, who rises to the top.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Nov 10, 2015 11:48:07 GMT -5
Yep. But if you're a dude pointing out what you observe you're sexist. If you're a chick pointing out what you've observed you hate your gender. Wonder if anyone is going to call out MJ on her observation since she doesn't seem to attract the haters as much. You are posting truth, whether that truth is pretty or not. People who can't have a discussion about the way thing really are without getting all emotional and accusing others of hate and various other crap is part of the problem. Until we can sit down to the table and discuss things calmly without all the irrational bullshit, nothing is going to change. Dreams of change are great, but they are never going to become a reality unless we, as women, stop helping to perpetuate the notion that we are irrational, overly emotional beings who can't have a real discussion without getting crazy. I say "well done". You've posted what it takes, in your experience, to overcome the gender bias. If others have an issue with it, that's their problem. Yes. It took you awhile, but you did it. Change doesn't happen overnight.
Calling a bunch of sexist generalizations "sexist generalizations" doesn't make me irrational. I can sit around and calmly discuss til the cows come home but it won't change anything. I'm tired of women getting the shaft because of their gender. And I'm calling it how I see it.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
Member is Online
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Nov 10, 2015 11:49:34 GMT -5
While it's nice to think the hardest and most capable workers will rise to the top, I don't think that's always the case. I don't have enough real-life experience in other workplaces to say whether that's even often the case. Sometimes it's the best bullshitter, I mean marketer, who rises to the top. Yup. Sometimes it is smartest. Sometimes the hardest worker. Sometimes the best bullshitter. Someone the guy who knows the right person. Sometimes the best cheater. Sometimes the best back stabber. Sometimes the best work politician. Sometimes the best blackmailer. Sometimes the person sleeping with the boss.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 10, 2015 11:49:32 GMT -5
There should be no game to learn (although I know there is one). IMO people shouldn't be proud of being workaholics or being willing to take on unsavory traits to get ahead. Hopefully this will change. Not only that - there really shouldn't be a "male dominated sandbox", ESPECIALLY in accounting/tax The ONLY reason it is male dominated is for the reason Tina and Captain described. The place where I interviewed back in August was all-women accounting firm. Somehow they are in business..... But why is that true? The woman on this thread are saying that women want to work as much, travel as much and miss out on as much with their kids as the men do. The only reason women don't get ahead is because of sexism, not because they put their children above their careers.
Granted, my experience has been different than what the women on this board seem to have witnessed....in my career, men were the workaholics before and after the kids while the majority of women (not all) chose a work/life balance. In my opinion, you can't have it both ways. You can't want to work only 40-50 hours a week and not travel but still get the promotions and money like the men who are willing to sacrifice everything to get ahead.
That isn't me be sexist against women, it is me being a realist. I was perfectly fine with not making partner because I wasn't willing to sacrifice the time with my children.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,979
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Nov 10, 2015 11:50:27 GMT -5
While it's nice to think the hardest and most capable workers will rise to the top, I don't think that's always the case. I don't have enough real-life experience in other workplaces to say whether that's even often the case. Sometimes it's the best bullshitter, I mean marketer, who rises to the top. there are managers and above here that I've seen put in one full day's work in an entire week. They're here staying late every day but damned if I know what they're doing.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 10, 2015 11:51:59 GMT -5
While it's nice to think the hardest and most capable workers will rise to the top, I don't think that's always the case. I don't have enough real-life experience in other workplaces to say whether that's even often the case. Don't you work for the government? I think what you experience is different than those of us in the private sector. I can say that the partners that I worked for in public accounting were all very bright and very hard working...that goes for both the men and the few women. There were instances where kids were hired out of school because of who they knew but they didn't last long if they weren't cut out for it.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Nov 10, 2015 12:26:42 GMT -5
It's no an issue of being the best. It's an issue of what "being the best" entails. Being the best in one area of your life should not overtake your entire life. But some people will always be willing to sacrifice every other aspect of their lives to be the best. Those people will rise to the top.It's like the olympics. To get the gold you have to have the natural ability AND be willing to work harder than everyone else. But should they be the only ones? Our everyday life is not Olympics...
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Nov 10, 2015 12:27:08 GMT -5
While it's nice to think the hardest and most capable workers will rise to the top, I don't think that's always the case. I don't have enough real-life experience in other workplaces to say whether that's even often the case. Don't you work for the government? I think what you experience is different than those of us in the private sector. I can say that the partners that I worked for in public accounting were all very bright and very hard working...that goes for both the men and the few women. There were instances where kids were hired out of school because of who they knew but they didn't last long if they weren't cut out for it. I do... but there are about 8 of us saying the same thing and I think the others are all in private industry. And unless I'm misunderstanding what Captain said, in your industry it took her 7-8 years longer to get where she was than she would have if she were a man -- even with "playing their game." So I don't think it's a government problem (at least, not solely a government problem).
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
Member is Online
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Nov 10, 2015 12:32:36 GMT -5
But some people will always be willing to sacrifice every other aspect of their lives to be the best. Those people will rise to the top.It's like the olympics. To get the gold you have to have the natural ability AND be willing to work harder than everyone else. But should they be the only ones? Our everyday life is not Olympics... No it isn't. It is much more competitive.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,393
|
Post by swamp on Nov 10, 2015 12:33:55 GMT -5
But should they be the only ones? Our everyday life is not Olympics... No it isn't. It is much more competitive. and I don't get drug tested.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Nov 10, 2015 12:37:20 GMT -5
Not only that - there really shouldn't be a "male dominated sandbox", ESPECIALLY in accounting/tax The ONLY reason it is male dominated is for the reason Tina and Captain described. The place where I interviewed back in August was all-women accounting firm. Somehow they are in business..... But why is that true? The woman on this thread are saying that women want to work as much, travel as much and miss out on as much with their kids as the men do. The only reason women don't get ahead is because of sexism, not because they put their children above their careers.
Granted, my experience has been different than what the women on this board seem to have witnessed....in my career, men were the workaholics before and after the kids while the majority of women (not all) chose a work/life balance. In my opinion, you can't have it both ways. You can't want to work only 40-50 hours a week and not travel but still get the promotions and money like the men who are willing to sacrifice everything to get ahead.
That isn't me be sexist against women, it is me being a realist. I was perfectly fine with not making partner because I wasn't willing to sacrifice the time with my children.
This has not been my experience. In my experience, women, who forgone families the way men would, raised to the top. No, it was not public accounting, but....they were controllers and CFOs of very large corporations. As a matter of fact, in my last job, all the heads of accounting and legal departments were women. They were late 30's - mid 40's age range, so I can't imagine that men would have gone there quicker.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 17, 2024 10:31:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2015 12:38:23 GMT -5
You are posting truth, whether that truth is pretty or not. People who can't have a discussion about the way thing really are without getting all emotional and accusing others of hate and various other crap is part of the problem. Until we can sit down to the table and discuss things calmly without all the irrational bullshit, nothing is going to change. Dreams of change are great, but they are never going to become a reality unless we, as women, stop helping to perpetuate the notion that we are irrational, overly emotional beings who can't have a real discussion without getting crazy. I say "well done". You've posted what it takes, in your experience, to overcome the gender bias. If others have an issue with it, that's their problem. Yes. It took you awhile, but you did it. Change doesn't happen overnight.
Calling a bunch of sexist generalizations "sexist generalizations" doesn't make me irrational. I can sit around and calmly discuss til the cows come home but it won't change anything. I'm tired of women getting the shaft because of their gender. And I'm calling it how I see it. LOL actually that is a classic example of sexism, categorizing issues a woman brings forward as emotional and/or irrational. In a warped way it's kinda funny it was used here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 17, 2024 10:31:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2015 12:45:17 GMT -5
Not only that - there really shouldn't be a "male dominated sandbox", ESPECIALLY in accounting/tax The ONLY reason it is male dominated is for the reason Tina and Captain described. The place where I interviewed back in August was all-women accounting firm. Somehow they are in business..... But why is that true? The woman on this thread are saying that women want to work as much, travel as much and miss out on as much with their kids as the men do. The only reason women don't get ahead is because of sexism, not because they put their children above their careers.
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that there are a lot of women that don't chose a work/life balance and are more than qualified for positions of power. More than enough to fill quotas given. Virgil and Politically Incorrect and The Captain and yourself are saying that there are not enough hard working, qualified women to fill the positions.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 10, 2015 12:52:50 GMT -5
Don't you work for the government? I think what you experience is different than those of us in the private sector. I can say that the partners that I worked for in public accounting were all very bright and very hard working...that goes for both the men and the few women. There were instances where kids were hired out of school because of who they knew but they didn't last long if they weren't cut out for it. I do... but there are about 8 of us saying the same thing and I think the others are all in private industry. And unless I'm misunderstanding what Captain said, in your industry it took her 7-8 years longer to get where she was than she would have if she were a man -- even with "playing their game." So I don't think it's a government problem (at least, not solely a government problem). Actually I didn't start getting ahead until I learned how to play the game. Doing good work and going the extra mile isn't enough. Being one of the top performers wasn't enough unless I made sure management knew I was one of the top performers and was willing to take risks/bigger projects. They weren't going to come to me, I had to go for it myself. These were things I observed those getting the promotions were doing (almost all men) as opposed to those who were great workers, but...stuck. Men and women. Even now, I don't play the game as well as some do. I don't want to. This is as far as I want to go, so I'm leaning back a bit and not looking for the next promotion. Yea, for the first time in my career I'm not focusing on what I need to do to get the next promotion. I'm honestly focusing on what I can do to reduce my/my functions' hours. I'd eventually like to go to 4 days and I'm trying to figure out how I can make that happen.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Nov 10, 2015 12:54:49 GMT -5
Calling a bunch of sexist generalizations "sexist generalizations" doesn't make me irrational. I can sit around and calmly discuss til the cows come home but it won't change anything. I'm tired of women getting the shaft because of their gender. And I'm calling it how I see it. LOL actually that is a classic example of sexism, categorizing issues a woman brings forward as emotional and/or irrational. In a warped way it's kinda funny it was used here. Except that's not what I said. I categorized something YOU brought forth as emotional and/or irrational. Not all women - not even the women here. Your remark about hating women was uncalled for, immature, pouty and irrational and this post above was an exact example of what I was talking about. Spin, untruths, hysterics. What if I accused you of hating women because you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. How would that feel to you?
Nice spin, tho. It might work on others. Not me.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Nov 10, 2015 12:56:13 GMT -5
I do... but there are about 8 of us saying the same thing and I think the others are all in private industry. And unless I'm misunderstanding what Captain said, in your industry it took her 7-8 years longer to get where she was than she would have if she were a man -- even with "playing their game." So I don't think it's a government problem (at least, not solely a government problem). Actually I didn't start getting ahead until I learned how to play the game. Doing good work and going the extra mile isn't enough. Being one of the top performers wasn't enough unless I made sure management knew I was one of the top performers and was willing to take risks/bigger projects. They weren't going to come to me, I had to go for it myself. These were things I observed those getting the promotions were doing (almost all men) as opposed to those who were great workers, but...stuck. Men and women. Even now, I don't play the game as well as some do. I don't want to. This is as far as I want to go, so I'm leaning back a bit and not looking for the next promotion. Yea, for the first time in my career I'm not focusing on what I need to do to get the next promotion. I'm honestly focusing on what I can do to reduce my/my functions' hours. I'd eventually like to go to 4 days and I'm trying to figure out how I can make that happen. What exactly does it mean?
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Nov 10, 2015 13:36:33 GMT -5
I don't really expect things to come to me. If I want to work on a different project, I tell my boss. I don't really consider that playing a game.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 10, 2015 13:42:51 GMT -5
But why is that true? The woman on this thread are saying that women want to work as much, travel as much and miss out on as much with their kids as the men do. The only reason women don't get ahead is because of sexism, not because they put their children above their careers.
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that there are a lot of women that don't chose a work/life balance and are more than qualified for positions of power. More than enough to fill quotas given. Virgil and Politically Incorrect and The Captain and yourself are saying that there are not enough hard working, qualified women to fill the positions.
There you go misattributing something to me again. Cite me saying that or just admit you're bullshitting and trying to stir the pot. Archie's analogy was actually more spot on. Lots of talented people out there, but if you have one bad day or make one mistake or miss one practice there will be someone who did better ready to take your place on the Olympic team. One of those talented people was my first mentor, the lady who promoted me to supervisor. She was better than I was, but left our profession once her husband passed his specialty boards. I don't miss the irony of that, in this discussion. There are less than 100 people in my segment who have my role. Of that 100, 2 (including me) are women (at least at the last time I was surveyed two years ago). There are 1,000's of people in my industry who work in my specialty. It's so incredibly hard and competitive to get my position that it would have been very easy for the company to give it to a man. The fact that they hired a woman is an argument more against bias than for it (at least in my current case). I am one of two women here is a sea of rich old(er) white dudes. You do anything, and I mean anything, to make yourself less competitive then it's only fair that someone who didn't, advances before you. So instead of acknowledging this, we say it's not fair, and gender and gender alone is what holds women back. I say that's nonsense and we are doing ourselves and our daughters a huge disservice by making those claims. Yea, it may be harder - but in my field, trust me, you are not going to get my role just because you know someone. There's far too much risk to the company for them to do that. You have to know what you're doing and be able to demonstrate that you can take positions and hold your own against those who may disagree with you. I am not the smartest bear in the woods (and have said that many times as well) but I've done everything I can to stay in the race and have worked harder for it than the majority. I won't apologize for that and I won't allow anyone to minimize what I've accomplished by saying it should go to someone who didn't work as hard as I did. At least in my role, I can guarantee you the same would be said for anyone - man or woman.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,623
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 10, 2015 13:44:24 GMT -5
All human beings are socialized to play the game. Traditionally, males were socialized to play the part of the game that the powers that be want in business. Females were socialized to play a different part of the game. Those who were socialized with the best results became the powers that be. There were exceptions to the general flow of the universe. There were members of both genders who are not "properly" socialized. There were those who broke away from the general socialization at different points in their lives.
We are currently in a struggle to figure out how we are going to socialize human beings.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 10, 2015 13:50:47 GMT -5
But why is that true? The woman on this thread are saying that women want to work as much, travel as much and miss out on as much with their kids as the men do. The only reason women don't get ahead is because of sexism, not because they put their children above their careers.
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that there are a lot of women that don't chose a work/life balance and are more than qualified for positions of power. More than enough to fill quotas given. Virgil and Politically Incorrect and The Captain and yourself are saying that there are not enough hard working, qualified women to fill the positions.
That isn't what Im saying. Im saying in my experience, most of the woman that I worked with (not all) were not willing to put their careers ahead of time with their kids. I don't see that as a bad thing. but it is a different choice than most of the men made that i worked with. I was just as smart as the men but once I had children I was not get willing to travel or work 80 hours weeks. There were many more women that were like me there than those that had husbands that took on the role of primary caregiver.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 10, 2015 13:57:32 GMT -5
Actually I didn't start getting ahead until I learned how to play the game. Doing good work and going the extra mile isn't enough. Being one of the top performers wasn't enough unless I made sure management knew I was one of the top performers and was willing to take risks/bigger projects. They weren't going to come to me, I had to go for it myself. These were things I observed those getting the promotions were doing (almost all men) as opposed to those who were great workers, but...stuck. Men and women. Even now, I don't play the game as well as some do. I don't want to. This is as far as I want to go, so I'm leaning back a bit and not looking for the next promotion. Yea, for the first time in my career I'm not focusing on what I need to do to get the next promotion. I'm honestly focusing on what I can do to reduce my/my functions' hours. I'd eventually like to go to 4 days and I'm trying to figure out how I can make that happen. What exactly does it mean? What? Playing the game? It took me awhile to figure out that the people getting advanced were not necessarily the smartest or best workers. They were the ones who knew how to sell themselves, make themselves valuable to their employer, and took risks that got them noticed. (Remember, I'm in accounting and it is less about who you know apparently than other fields). I'm not going to bother linking studies because this has been discussed before in other threads, but women in general are more collaborative which men in general are more individually competitive. One set of characteristics get's you noticed and promoted, the other doesn't. (Now if you don't believe men and women think differently then all of my observations are faulty and my theories are bullshit - but I'm speaking in generalities I've been taught in adult psych and what I've seen in educational and business research studies - YMMV). I'm not making any judgements as to if this is right or wrong, just my observation that is the environment that I must understand in order to advance. Personally I think the sports analogies get old, but you can't join a team, refuse to learn how to play the game, and expect to get off the bench.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 10, 2015 13:58:55 GMT -5
Is it possible some are confusing assertiveness with aggressiveness? Just a thought ...
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Nov 10, 2015 14:00:39 GMT -5
What exactly does it mean? What? Playing the game? It took me awhile to figure out that the people getting advanced were not necessarily the smartest or best workers. They were the ones who knew how to sell themselves, make themselves valuable to their employer, and took risks that got them noticed. (Remember, I'm in accounting and it is less about who you know apparently than other fields). I'm not going to bother linking studies because this has been discussed before in other threads, but women in general are more collaborative which men in general are more individually competitive. One set of characteristics get's you noticed and promoted, the other doesn't. (Now if you don't believe men and women think differently then all of my observations are faulty and my theories are bullshit - but I'm speaking in generalities I've been taught in adult psych and what I've seen in educational and business research studies - YMMV). I'm not making any judgements as to if this is right or wrong, just my observation that is the environment that I must understand in order to advance. Personally I think the sports analogies get old, but you can't join a team, refuse to learn how to play the game, and expect to get off the bench. Then this should not just be a man vs. woman thing. This is about having the capacity to observe and understand your surroundings in order to survive and thrive.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,979
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Nov 10, 2015 14:01:59 GMT -5
Is it possible some are confusing assertiveness with aggressiveness? Just a thought ... Stuff like this doesn't help.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,477
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 10, 2015 14:03:00 GMT -5
All human beings are socialized to play the game. Traditionally, males were socialized to play the part of the game that the powers that be want in business. Females were socialized to play a different part of the game. Those who were socialized with the best results became the powers that be. There were exceptions to the general flow of the universe. There were members of both genders who are not "properly" socialized. There were those who broke away from the general socialization at different points in their lives. We are currently in a struggle to figure out how we are going to socialize human beings. Ding ding! And that is why we need to ask questions. Equality for both sexes is a fairly recent thing given the extent of human history. It benefits BOTH genders to examine our underlying biases and try to work to correct them.
|
|