Tall men assert themselves; short men have Napoleon complexes.
A) Napoleon was not actually short (he was of average height for his time and place).
B) Dude was a conqueror. He failed in the end but if he counts as a short guy then I’d say he certainly asserted himself.
Of course “bitch” has a female connotation. “Bastard” and “dick” and others have a male connotation. So what?
The point is you are painting with an awfully broad brush. Women don’t have good pay because if they assert themselves they are seen as bitchy? That is the reason?
It may be “a” reason in some cases just as you noted it may be “a” reason in my case because people hate bitchy guys. Well, people don’t like bitchiness period. They to not like dicks or bastards either (using all these terms in their colloquial sense…I had a female dog witch is properly called a bitch and she was awesome).
The point I was trying to make was that what seems to be assertiveness in a man is often viewed as aggressiveness in a woman. Most women have been taught from childhood that it is bad to be aggressive.
But perhaps I am wrong in this. Come, convince me that sexism against women is extinct, and that men and women are seen as absolute equals in the workplace as well as everywhere else.
The difference is perception. Napoleon is perceived as short. Women and short men in our society who assert themselves are perceived as compensating for a shortcoming.
Sexism extinct? Of course not and I never said it was.
The problem is assertiveness is a skill. There is a fine line between being bitchy or being a dick. Both men and women can fall into that very easily. I see it all the time in guys where I work (traders). These guys typify a stereotypical male neanderthal image. They confuse “assertiveness” with “aggressiveness”. I see it ALL the time. I am sure some are swell guys but even as a guy I am appalled.
Likewise some women, trying to be assertive, are “bitchy”.
Interpersonal communication is a skill. Interpersonal communication in a business environment is that skill x10 (you need to discern who to push, who to kiss ass, how much you can ask for and so on). It really is a skill.
If you want to say women are not trained well by society to play in that arena there is probably a discussion to be had there. I have certainly seen very savvy, very adept women in business who were aggressive, not to be fucked with but also not “bitchy” women. There is nothing inherent about being a female that makes them incapable here.
Yes, women will run into cretins who are their boss and the misogyny will be palpable. I think it is far better for women in this respect than it once was and I also think the problem still exists and is a real problem.
But watch the Devil Wears Prada to see a woman doing the same as the men (based on a true story and my GF was friends with the woman who wrote it so I have reason to believe despite being Hollywood it was roughly like that working for her). I am unsure if it is real misogyny or just people in power throwing their weight around and being pricks. For women it will take one form (misogyny) but that same guy may well stomp on another guy as well in a different manner.
Women have not closed the equality gap. No doubt about that. But they have narrowed it a lot. There is a ways to go yet but at least the trend is in the right direction.
A bitch? Woman.
Bitching? Either sex.
In my experience, at least, the noun usually refers to women, while the verb refers to a particular type of complaining that either sex is capable of.
One of my co-workers explained their family practice for their daughter’s sick days: She & her husband alternated taking days off. Of course, he was a decent guy working for a decent company.
I’m not involved with the WalMart suit but will continue to avoid spending my money there.
There’s no assumption that the manager is an asshole- it’s more difficult to manage your former peers. Mostly because of how those former peers are likely to react.
And it’s not terribly unusual for people to be transferred upon promotion even in retail stores. What is unusual is for the transfers to require the employee to pick up and move because the new store is hundreds of miles away. When my husband was in retail, it seemed like he was transferred every few months - but all of the stores were in the NYC area and didn’t require a move.
These are true points. And I’ve never said anything like “the trend is in the wrong direction,” or “Sexism against women is worse than it’s ever been.” But every time there’s a discussion on this board that touches on the subject of sexism against women, there’s always a slew of protest that amounts to “But things are better for women now than they’ve ever been!” or “That’s not anti-woman, that’s anti-family.” or “Here’s some examples of where women are doing better than men:” or “Why doesn’t anyone talk about sexism against men?”
And then, the discussion just dissolves into a slew of insults, and one-upmanship.
You can get most people to agree that sexism against women exists. But damned if you can get anyone to admit to any concrete examples.
It’s entirely possible that Walmart has a nationwide policy to put new managers in a different store, such that in most places that is a short move. The unfortunate side effect of this would be that in some areas it might mean 100s of miles. In that case, no bias exists.
But now consider if the policy flat out says, “new managers must move a minimum of 100 miles from their previous store.” To me that starts to suggest bias.
I know, I’ve done it. Almost every new manager does it. When I took the new managers class they covered this in great detail. It is part of being a manager. Even if you do get transferred, some one who plays favorites with former colleagues will like some reports ore than others, and play favorites in a new group. That is just as bad.
Some jobs come with the certainty of being moved. In the WalMart case, it appears that they just don’t move people to a new store, possibly close, but deliberately move them to a far away store. And not just when that is the only opening.
I agree - a policy of transferring to a different store is entirely different from a policy requiring that the move be beyond commuting distance.
But a bitch with a higher paycheck. I don’t think the problem is being called a bitch, the problem is caring about being called a bitch. When anyone, man or woman, stands up, two things can happen. The person confronted gets respect for the person confronting them, and it doesn’t happen again. Or, the person is mad at losing. In that case getting called names is a lot safer than when your opponent starts looking for ways to stab you in the back.
Where are you getting that? I didn’t read that in the OP.
I’d say you are correct. This is well established in most of retail. I worked retail for 13 years of my adult life. I was single the entire time as well as the majority of management. Lots of woman in management but they as well were single and unencumbered. Making a career in retail demands a boatload of flexibility in both time and geography. I moved 4 times with the same company and never worked the same schedule week to week alternating first and second shifts with ocassional “over nighters” for special projects with days notice. Single female managers did the exact same thing.
When I got married and started a family and bought a house I knew my career in retail had to end. It just wouldn’t work. I was no longer mobile or flexible.
These woman claiming sexism are wanting Wal-Mart to bend on their traditional demands of management. They’re not denying you a job because you’re female, they’re denying you a job because your current lifestyle makes you neither flexible nor mobile.
Just out of curiosity I ran the numbers for our chain of stores.
Total number of store managers: 9719
68% female, 32% male
56% of the female managers are married; 59% of the males are married.
I’m not aware that it is required for new managers to move to a different store; but unless the position is vacant in their own store they’d pretty much have to. Our stores do tend to be much closer together than Wal-Marts, though.
That’s not what the author is saying. It’s not a function of offering the job, but one of rejection by women.
The author is saying that the policy of making people move is sexist based on an assumption that women turn it down more than men because of the move.
There is a logic to assume that women (the bearer of children) are less likely to pick up and move than men. By default, there are more single women with children then men so the numbers are there. Whether you can make that assertion that it’s done deliberately to weed out women is the debate.
The question is, if Walmart does this for motives other than sexism, but it creates a climate that women don’t like, is it a sexist policy? If women don’t like construction work is it sexism if more men work those jobs?
Retail clearly does not allow for this, at least not for any store based role.
An ever better example would involve religous holidays. The Christain sabbath is Sunday, the Jewish is Saturday (well sunset Fri to sunset Sat), and the Muslim prayer day is Friday. Those 3 days are usually the busiest time for any retail establishment. And that’s not even getting into the holidays. My last two jobs involved (among many other things) reviewing job applications and prioritizing them for the SM to look at; one of the first things I was to check was willingness to work weekends & holidays. If they weren’t available managment never even layed eyes on the application. And these were for associate jobs. The former place was open 363 days a year, the later 365 days a year (& 24 hrs a day almost every day). Managers were hired through corporate. Being a salaried retail manager, especially a store manager, means you’re basically on call every moment you aren’t physically in the store, at a coporate meeting/retreat, or on vacation. I think this may be even more true of a small store than a big-box store.
I use to work in a convience store. Most locations were open 24 hrs and none (at least in the district I worked in) had service windows (ie customers entered the store to buy stuff at night). Third shift was a solo shift and all SMs & ASMs had to be willing to work 3rd shift at least twice a month (& more like once a week) and often on very short notice other times. There were only 2 female SMs in the entire district (one of whom worked at an 18 hr store). Our SM had an averate work week of about 60-70 hrs, often in stretchs of 12 hrs or more (sometimes with no warning), often worked split shifts (again sometimes with no warning), and once worked 36 hrs straight (thought he was only alone for about 12 of them).
Agreed, you can’t be an effective manager or leader if you’re not willing to have at least a few people hate you.
It doesn’t have to be deliberate to be sexist, merely unnecessary. A [ridiculous] policy that forbids managers from using the elevator would be both unnecessary and prohibitive/discriminatory towards the disabled. Like I said in a previous post, I could make a case for having a minimum height requirement, that would be equally biased against women. Some policies are deliberate, others are unintentional.
Yes (depending on how you meant to use the word ‘like’)
No. But if a construction company had a policy that all new managers must be able to lift 100lb unassisted, knowing that in reality no one does that, it would present a bias against women (as well as weaker men). That’s similar to what happened with fire departments in the 90s, but in that case the policy corrections went too far.
If a job actually requires lifting 100lb objects, then a policy requiring new staff to be able to lift 100lbs is not biased. But if the job requires heavy lifting, that is often done in pairs, and never more than 30lb, the policy is unnecessary, and therefor represents an institutional bias.
Likewise, lots of places requiring going up and down stairs where an elevator is not available, so it’s fine to put that in a job requirement. But if there is an elevator, and no justifiable reason to require use of the stairs, the policy has an institutional bias.
ETA We studied a lot of this in an engineering ethics class. Oddly enough, the prof that taught it hurt his knee really bad and wasn’t able to get up the 8 stairs to get to where the class was held. Obvious solution was to relocate to a more accessible classroom. Made for a good teaching moment.