:dubious: Ha. I taught my male manager how to play poker. I learned from my grandmother. Please quit with the stereotype that seems to play for you. It’s a broken record to this female.
I have also done a better job of negotiating than this person. I put her mistakes down to her ignorance, not her ovaries.
I’m sorry but Even Sven has already testified as to the crippling effect of having ovaries. I think we need to acknowledge the key role that organs are playing in the ivory towers of academia. This past fall I saw some beautiful organs whole touring the chapels of the colleges of Oxford.
Dismissing the opinions of people with actual experience is not using common sense, curtesy or knowing your place.
I won’t address the mysoginistic, sexist drivel.
I think I need to point out that as far as organs go, the testes are always concerned about finding their proper place, constantly readjusting according to the ambient conditions, such as cold, moisture, and the presence of tight, leather pants. Ovaries, on the other hand, feel content to remain where they are, with none if the common sense it takes to understand their place. It positively drips of entitlement.
That’s a truly seminal observation.
If I am lucky enough to get a job offer, I will make sure to negotiate vas deferentially.
Yes, you wouldn’t want to offer your cervices in the face of stiffening resistance.
And lets not even get started on those breasts - so aggressive and inappropriate at the wrong times!
I’m a missionary for a new kind of approach in my field. I have to start out on the bottom and just take whatever I’m given. Sometimes I just try to tell myself that it will all be over soon.
On the other hand, perhaps the E-mail message was a shock to the selection committee, after even spending so much time with the applicant, because they had failed to hold significant mammaries of the applicant and were unable to recall in their minds why they had made the offer in the first place.
Well, *all * of my experience with female academics has left me unimpressed. They tend to be followers who try to out-do men in matters of detail, but significantly absent is that originality of interpretation, except when (by some wild stretch of imagination) they find some hitherto undetected connection with feminism that was somehow overlooked for, oh say, 125 years. Yes, even though the thinker in question made nothing but misogynistic remarks his entire life, yep, he was a feminist!
By ‘knowing your place’ I mean understanding that you are part of a department and have duties and responsibilities, just like an auto assembler, baker, or speech writer. You’re worth what you are worth based on supply and demand and the capacity of your employers to pay. You need to show respect and consideration for your superiors and not think you can get away with outrageous demands.
I know that everyone is having fun, but for those who believe it to be so, can someone explain why this is a gender issue? Other than the maternity leave (which was the least objectionable of all) a young man could have submitted this counter offer and received the same rejection.
That women are expected to be compliant and accept what’s offered, whereas men can get away with being assertive and not seen as a negative blow.
Not saying that’s what’s going on here, but that’s the argument.
I agree, but I would be surprised if a man could blunder so badly.
That’s the thing: I don’t think there’s any actual proof that it is a gender issue. The problem is that it’s very difficult to tell whether gender played a part in it. Especially when some aspects of gender bias are subconscious.
Pretty much. In my negotiations, men are the pushovers. And I mean that sincerely, but I don’t do academic hiring, so it may not be applicable.
Good lord, why?
Just gut instincts.
That’s says it all.
*Their *gut instincts, men’s, not mine. Just to be clear. I think this particular applicant was utterly clueless in ways that no man would be. Now, he might be clueless in *other *ways, but not these.