Image Hosted by

Saturday, April 30, 2005

Women in Leadership III

(And no, I do not hate, resent, or disrespect women. If I did, my wife would jack-slap me. With a steel pipe. That would have been before she married me.)

I was a freshman cadet at the military academy. There, all cadets have to take three classes their freshman year in the Department of Physical Education: Swimming, Gymnastics, and Boxing. One of the gymnastics instructors was a blonde officer in her late twenties/early thirties, whose name I cannot recall, so I’ll call her Major Wilson. She was in excellent physical condition, could outperform most cadets in gymnastics and aerobic tasks, and also was professional in her demeanor, bearing, and appearance.

So what was the opinion of her throughout the corps of cadets?

“Major Wilson is hot.”

There you have problem #1 with women in leadership. No matter what qualifications they bring to the table, they are still perceived by men as women first. She was well qualified physically to be in that position, but that was little regarded.

I’m sorry, ladies, but this tendency of men does not go away as we age. We merely learn to keep quiet. It also is not contingent upon a certain level of physical attractiveness. Well, calling her “hot” maybe, but the “She’s Always a Woman to Me” mentality is not. Women in leadership are called one of two things by most males beneath them (I, of course(!) would not be one of these males): A b$tch, or soft. While males are certainly capable of being called soft if they are weak leaders, they are never called the B-word. Problematically, the type of leadership exhibited by those women called B’s is often the same that gets a grudging respect for a male who does the same thing – “That Colonel Shaw, he a hard man!” In most organizations that I object to women being leaders in, ‘hard’ leadership is the best. That doesn’t mean it is mean and nasty, it merely means unyielding adherence to standards of performance. For a man who does it, he is respected and perhaps feared. A woman who does the same is vilified and disrespected.

It’s not fair – but it is a fact of life. It is one that “education” cannot change. You can tell someone that women are, indeed, as capable of good leadership as men, but when Major Wilson punishes a soldier for an infraction, in the back of his head he believes he can physically outperform her, and therefore she is somehow “unqualified” to be in leadership over him.

In non-physical organizations it is less of a problem, but a problem nonetheless. Major Wilson would be looked at as a woman first, a supervisor second. However, because women are no less mentally capable of the performance required to move up in the business world (they may be more so!), the incongruity between performance ability and advancement is not there to produce resentment. In most organizations, overcoming the initial male hang-up will merely take a little time, because experience will prove the boss as capable.

So what do I advocate? Simply this – merit based selection for leaders in those occupations that have a significant physical component. While many may recoil at the idea, don’t we already select our leaders based upon intellectual merit? If physical performance is an important part of the organization, it should also be a part of the selection process.

However, you may notice that I advocated the wholesale abolition of females from these professions. The reason is simple – it is more socially acceptable to say “women cannot be in the infantry” than it is to say, “she is well within the Army’s acceptable level of relative physical fitness, but still isn’t good enough because she can’t do the job.” Sad, but also true.


  • Hammer:

    You really got me to thinking on this topic, especially in professions such as the military, police, etc. where there is a physical 'macho' component.

    A woman firefighter that I know has always said that she never got the respect she deserved until she could 'prove herself' over months and years. She had to work twice as hard as a male recruit to gain the same respect.

    Biology is certainly at work here, but my gut feeling tells me that I don't think that we should stop encouraging on a special basi women in the military, etc. Often the opposite of the 'macho image' is true, women can on occasion lend an emotional and caring side to a job that just isn't often there with men. This might be less important in the military, but is important for cetain police, fire, etc. positions.

    Maybe both views are sexist, but they seem to be true, at least in my minimal experience and reading.

    By Blogger John B., at 5/02/2005 06:26:00 PM  

  • Wow, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "No matter what qualifications they bring to the table, they are still perceived by men as women first."

    I've had just as many female bosses as male and never once has this been an issue, even in the back of my head. I'm completely and utterly clueless what you are talking about.

    I'm not just talking about outer appearances, I truly have no comprehension why you would think this. Since I trust you as an honest person I'll assume this is actually true for a larger portion of the population than I thought.

    For the record, the number of men who don't think this way is probably much larger than you think.

    Wow, I'm literally shock. You are simply wrong about this being the way men will always see women. I see the reverse every day. Maybe I'm the only one not faking it, but I don't think so.

    By Blogger Mark, at 5/03/2005 03:50:00 PM  

  • Mark,
    The average man does not have an MS in physics! Furthermore, I don't mean that a man meets his boss and actively thinks, "woman, ugh." What I mean is that human are visual creatures, who not only judge people by their outer appearnaces, they also categorize them into groups by their appearance. The male/female differences are quite obvious.

    Discrimination learning shows that the more obvious a difference in stimuli is, the more likely an animal will notice.

    We notice, right away. Like many things, it is not cognitive. It often only reveals itself in times of conflict. That doesn't make it any less present. The good thing is that the same discrimination learning also shows that as the difference is proven to be irrelevant to the outcome, it is continually reduced in strength. Thus, we are less likely to even consider it in a person we have been familiar with for some time. In most organizations, we don't have regular contact with the same supervisors for years, so with each new one, we start them fresh...almost. Because we generalize our learning, a series of well qualified, professional women will reduce our 'noticing' to near zero.

    That's definitely probable in most professions - just not the ones I am describing here.

    Does that make more sense?

    I agree that women can, and do, contribute an element that men often cannot or will not to these organizations. The question is whether it is more beneficial to accomplishing their missions than the clear operational reduction in other capabilities are. I don't think it is.

    Hey - can truth be sexist?

    By Blogger Hammertime, at 5/03/2005 04:15:00 PM  

  • Hey - can you consider that maybe you don't have a corner on the truth market?

    By Anonymous LiberalChristian, at 5/03/2005 04:28:00 PM  

  • Because we generalize our learning, a series of well qualified, professional women will reduce our 'noticing' to near zero.

    Careful now, this path leads towards liberalism!

    Seriously, you claimed earlier that "It is one that 'education' cannot change" which partially disagrees with what you wrote here, but you are zooming in on the truth. You can't simply tell someone that it's ok to report to women but only have men visibly in positions of power -- I agree. However, if you are used to men and women both in these positions, if you grow up with the genders acting as equals, then it seems natural.

    There are some differences between the genders, of course, but a very large percentage of the differences we think are real are in fact cultural, and those that remain are culturally reinforced to make the differences appear larger than they really are.

    But the bottom line is the differences between people, in general, is greater than most of the differences between the genders.

    To make up random numbers as an example, say men average 16 on some scale and women average 18 -- in all likelihood the standard deviation is 4 or more. The cultural reinforcement of the real average difference makes the division larger than it seems. [Did that help make my point? I'll leave it in, take it or ignore it.]

    I have a question, how did you attitude towards "Major Wilson" change over time? It sounds like she was competent. Did you learn to respect her? How did others treat her once they were used to her?

    By Blogger Mark, at 5/03/2005 07:18:00 PM  

  • Hammer,

    Good question that...

    "Can the truth be sexist?" I guess it can...then the question is if whether or not this is bad. Recognizing a difference can't be bad can it?
    I think the real problem in all this lies in trying to equate inequality with injustice, or inferiority; and this is done, usually, to further someone's personal agenda---whether to gain research funds or political clout. Well...I guess the REAL problem comes when people try to legislate something based on a perceived injustice when it is merely inequality.

    By Blogger David Hunley, at 5/04/2005 10:43:00 AM  

  • John B.,

    Some neat things in your post, I think. I'm not sure what you meant by "I don't think that we should stop encouraging on a special basi women in the military." I think I do and I think I agree...if it means we shouldn't stop creating conditions that aid women in the military. Sure we should and for exactly the reason you say---that women can often bring things to a situation that a man can't. But this isn't a bad bias I don't think; it's nothing more that an employer would do who wants or needs to attract a certain skill.
    But to get back, somewhat, to Hammer's original point. Yes I do think "woman" when I first woman. And I think I've been around enough men to think this is a pretty universal thing. Why, I've exchanged knowing glances with a Japanese Sumo wrestler whenever a lady came into the room. To hear someone "stunned" by this revelation has me...uh...stunned.

    By Blogger David Hunley, at 5/04/2005 11:07:00 AM  

  • Mark, this:

    "Wow, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "No matter what qualifications they bring to the table, they are still perceived by men as women first."

    (before I even start here...I'll leave open the possibility that I have misunderstood ever sly grin I have shared with a guy when a woman enters even a boardroom---even when she was the boss. Maybe I have...maybe they were just grinning because they were glad they hadn't worn the same outfit that day :)

    Well...once again your post leaves me wondering if you're either full of it or just extremely naive. You mean you have never shared an appreciative acknowledgment of the graces of a woman with another guy. You mean that not once, when you first met one of your many female bosses, did you have a mischievous little thought run through your mind? And not once did you express that thought with the fellow sitting next to you with a little grin, an eye roll, or some other facial expression---and have that expression reflected back at you from the guy? Man!! Talking about rotten luck with female must have all been name Pat!
    I'll have to consider you an honest person I guess that leaves....

    But then, I think I would have said "I never thought of this" instead of "more than I thought". Ah never knows.

    By Blogger David Hunley, at 5/04/2005 11:22:00 AM  

  • LC,
    I don't claim to have a corner on truth - I merely claim to have evidence for my hypothesis.
    One of the sub-traits of conservatives is that we are supposed to eliminate emotion from the argument. In this case, I am attempting to do so, by not considering that I may 'insult' a lady with my hypothesis because she 'feels' that she is 'just as good as a man'. I never would disagree with her assertion - because that is not my point, nor is it a necessary supporting assumption. I am discussing qualifications for leadership in certain fields.

    The only One with the corner on truth needs does not need my assent...or yours.


    I say 'education' isn't effective, but I certainly agree that experience is. There is a world of difference.

    I never had "Major Wilson" as a regular instructor. Thus, I never had an opportunity to develop myopinion of her any further. I only remeber a quote from her from a briefing:

    "Guys work on three things in the gym-chest, arms, and abs. Let me tell you something - we aren't checking out your abs."

    Apparently, women see men as men, first, as well. It just wasn't the subject of my talk.

    Statistically, pointing out that the mean of one group is within a cetain number of SDs of another group is how we determine if the second group is part of the first. However, the question isn't about SDs in this case. Women are physically weaker than men to a statistically significant level. Therefore, an assumption that a certain woman is weaker than a certain man is likely to be true, though not guaranteed. Therefore the assumption a valid one to make in lieu of further information - whichis exactly what we do.

    By Blogger Hammertime, at 5/04/2005 11:41:00 AM  

  • David,

    Of course I've found coworkers attractive.

    But how many steps are between "man, she's cute" and "No matter what qualifications they bring to the table, they are still perceived by men as women first." Seems like miles to me. That is the statement I completely disagree with.

    I've also noticed someone had lots of hair in his nose. I've noticed someone was fat. I've noticed lots things about lots of people, men and women. What I don't understand is what this has to do with anything of any importance. That's what I don't get.

    By Blogger Mark, at 5/09/2005 05:39:00 PM  

  • OK, Mark - youhave good questions, but I thought youwere just trying to make me be clearer and not sound like I have something against women.

    If most men don't think this way, why are women paid less?

    Why are they less represented in "male" professions?

    Why are they

    Careful, Mark...either you will have to agree with my premise, or you will have to use 'conservative' talking points.


    By Blogger Hammertime, at 5/14/2005 12:55:00 AM  

  • Bah. That last link (which works) is supposed to say, "discriminated against in the workplace."

    Hmm. Need more sleep.

    By Blogger Hammertime, at 5/14/2005 01:13:00 AM  

  • Hi Hammer-
    I came over from CL to see what your site was all about. There doesn’t seem to be much female input on your “women in leadership” posts so I thought I would chime in. I apologize in advance, because I think this is going to be a long comment.

    Where to start…

    I think I’ll start at the end and work my way up. You asked Mark a couple of questions, but if you don’t mind I will answer them. Speaking in a broad generalization, women are under represented in “male” professions because many women don’t find those jobs desirable. And, I don’t actually believe women are paid less than men if their wages are compared correctly. So many women want to be mothers and motherhood necessarily affects the choices you make. Many women stop working for a while, stop working at all, take reduced hours, or take less demanding jobs so that they can take care of their children. So, it doesn’t really have anything at all to do with the way men think – it has everything to do with the choices a woman makes in her life.

    Which brings me to the second point I would like to make. In your second post, you give four (since #5 is really a summary) points of logical support to your premise. I won’t deny that any are true. I would argue that the 3rd and the 4th are completely irrelevant though. These two supporting items focus on men’s opinions and nothing else. I can tell you (in a non-confrontational way-honestly) that women don’t give a rat’s a** about men’s opinions – in this capacity. Focusing on your fourth point – that men see women as women before any other role…In my job I have met men like Mark and men like you. It is obvious to me which is which from almost the minute I meet them and I can handle men like you. I don’t get all “girly” and bemoan my fate. I get uber-professional, I tailor my voice and my dress to get you to see me as a colleague. It hasn’t failed yet. Some of my best clients were men who saw me as a woman first. I have a theory that it actually gets me further in the long run because I seem that much more capable in the long run when a man sees me as a pair of, well you know, first and then figures out I have a brain too. So, if I can be a big girl and deal with men like that, why do you think they can’t big boys and move past their immaturity?

    Of course, I don’t have a physical job. So moving on to that point. It is ridiculous that there are double standards for men and women in the military. It is in the interest of our country, the troops as a whole, and the soldier as an individual that they be able to do the job they are assigned. I don’t think banning women from combat positions is the answer to this though. I strongly…disagree… with the statement that it is more socially acceptable to say “women cannot be in the infantry” than to say a (particular) woman can’t do the job. Men and women should have to have the same basic physical proficiency. If a woman can meet that proficiency level there is no reasonable basis to deny her employment. I’m sorry but boys seeing her as a sex object is not a reasonable basis. And, let’s face it – we aren’t Vikings, we have guns. The last gun I shot (and it was a revolver not even a semi-automatic) took 12 pounds of pressure to pull the trigger – I was able to do that and I am smaller and weaker than most women.

    Ok – I am almost done. Because I am no Biblical scholar I hestitated to bring this up. I say this only so you know my point of view and I am not claiming to be knowledgable about Christian history. In your “Theology Tuesday: Women and Church Leadership” post you start with a quote from St. Paul and then another quote from St. Paul to support the idea that the first quote was not just a reflection of the culture of times. That confuses the hell out of me. All I get is that St. Paul was a big fan of keeping women submissive. I am not really getting a sense that God is against me holding a certain job.

    That was the “technical” stuff, but I realize I can’t leave it like that. Now I have to talk about how I feel. I mention that preemptively so that I can say now that I am only responding to your feelings. Hammer, I realize that much of your attitude is based on your religious beliefs. God gave two distinct punishments to men and women. I was raised Catholic and I still believe in God but I abandoned religion a while back. I am ready for the day I am judged and, if at that point, God tells me I went too far – that is between He and I. One of the reasons I left religion behind is the kind of stuff I read in these three posts. I am a person – I am not a broodmare or a helpmeet. I am more capable than some men and I am less capable than some men – the fact that I have a vagina doesn’t have anything to do with anything. I would have been a waste of oxygen if I had decided to stay home and have children because I have more to offer than that. The other biggie that got me here is that right now my sister is serving her second tour of duty in Afghanistan. Your posts impugn her ability as a soldier and are completely disrespectiful of every woman serving in uniform.

    By Anonymous Ashley, at 5/15/2005 01:53:00 AM  

  • Ashley,

    Thanks for stopping in and providing a different perspective – and I really mean that. Feel free to post long. After all, this was a three-part series, so you likely have lots of things that piqued your interest or fired you up.

    I agree that the issues you mentioned factor significantly into the picture on women in the workplace, but not “everything”. I’ve also mentioned in one of these posts that women are able to overcome the aspect of male reaction through exposure and demonstrating their skills - hence removing that aspect almost entirely from the equation.

    Your second point, I feel, is supports my position that the impulse can be overcome through experience and exposure…thus making the men more “mature”. However, you missed what I was saying about men’s reactions. I don’t imply that women care about the reactions of men. I state, explicitly, that they matter, whether you care or not. The feelings of the person being judged are not the issue – the issue is the result of the judging (right or wrong).

    I am not surprised that you categorized me with those you feel are immature because I state that men feel this way. My boss in the job I just left was female. I knew it before she got there, and “felt” as if Armageddon was coming. However, my actions, and words, were “she is likely to be as good a leader as the boss who is leaving, so let’s just keep doing what we do best, and get the job done.” Unfortunately, she has been a poor leader – which works against changing the impression we men seem to arrive with. For every Ashley, there is at least one Bonnie.

    My evidence for social acceptability is the current state of the military. Women have never been forced to meet the physical standards of men for ANY position or schooling, but they are excluded from some jobs. That doesn’t mean I like it that way – I think it should be the way you say.

    Unfortunately, you demonstrate your lack of grasp of military action. Trigger pulling is not combat. Are you going to haul me three miles on your back when I get shot in the face at the same rate as the average Army male will? Not likely. Nor will you be able to haul the .50 cal machine gun off of the turret to engage an enemy out of the restriction of the mount, or lift the drivers’ hatch on the tank and pull out the driver fast enough to keep him from being killed in a flash fire. It’s not about your genitalia. It is about your body mass composition.

    The Army is not Doom 3 or Halo. Trigger pulling is important – but it is also a very small part. Soldiering is a very physical task.

    You misunderstood my Bible verses. I was not attempting to show cultural context – I was showing Biblical context, which must precede cultural context. A point to consider about Biblical commands – if they were easy to do or we already liked doing things that way, we wouldn’t need to be told to do so. In the context of marriage, for example, women are told to submit, but men to love their wives. Naturally, we would go the other way – men will respect their wives for what they do for the family, etc, but not treat them in a way that makes them feel special, and women will love their husband but not be respectful to him as the head of the household. I don’t know what you’ll think of that, but I think it relevant that most women (and probably all atheist women) don’t like what the Bible has to say about their roles.

    How my post impugns your sister or women in uniform is beyond me. I say they should meet merit standards, so do you. That’s my position…and yours.

    Finally, you would not “have been a waste of oxygen had you decided to stay at home and have children.”

    You would be a mother.

    I’m not sure what greater thing any person can be…including men.

    By Blogger Hammertime, at 5/15/2005 11:38:00 PM  

  • Your response has cooled my fury – so if I can take some more of your time I have a little more to say.

    On men’s opinions of women in leadership positions: They don’t matter – or they matter only as much as a woman chooses to let them affect her. A group of male subordinates could all think their boss was a dumb woman but it wouldn’t change the fact that she was their boss. The only way their opinion would matter is if she let it affect her.

    On Bonnie: Hammer, you started this paragraph by saying you weren’t surprised that I included you in that group of men, as if you weren’t, then you went on to say that (a) you feared a female boss was the coming of Armageddon and (b) the fact that she was a lousy boss didn’t help change men’s impressions of what to expect in a female boss. Those comments confirm my opinion. I won’t say that you are immature, necessarily, but you have a bias. I think point (a) above stands alone and I don’t need to say anything about it. As for point (b), have you never had a male boss that was an idiot? Did it make you think all men are idiots? For every Gallant, there is a Goofus.

    On military action: I completely lack a grasp as you pointed out. You mentioned several things that I did not think of. I still think that women who can do the things you talked about should be allowed to be in the military – in any capacity they are able to serve in. I said your posts impugn my sister because I had the impression that you advocated removing women from the military and other physical jobs. I will have to re-read the posts. If you actually meant that women should be allowed to serve only if they can physically handle the job then I owe you an apology.

    On Biblical roles for women: I also think it is relevant that women don’t like what the Bible has to say about their roles. I am trying to tread lightly here, so forgive any offense. I don’t ever want to disrespect someone’s religious beliefs. I think the reason women take umbrage at what the Bible has to say is that it is offensive. With the exception of the purely physical, women are in every way men’s equal. I have spent a lot of time thinking about things like this precisely because I still believe in God but because I have rejected religion. I have questioned myself. But, ultimately, I always come to the same conclusion. God would have made me mentally inferior to men if he expected me to be submissive to men. You say the Bible gives us hard tasks, but I don’t see anything hard about having people submit to you. I assume that for religious couples this arrangement works. Religious women can take comfort in their roles or at least make peace with them. I cannot, and I don’t want to be subject to a code I don’t follow. I would be miserable in that role - I would feel less than whole. Do you understand?

    On motherhood: I didn’t say what I did to disparage mothers, just so we are clear on that. If a woman feels that the greatest thing she can accomplish in the world is to be a mom, then that is exactly what she should do – and she will have lived a full and satisfactory life. I realize that not wanting children puts me a little out of the norm. But, I don’t think that being a mother is the greatest thing in the world. It is harder to not be a mother than it is to be one – we all have the equipment for parenthood. Not all women are cut out to be mothers, despite their equipment. I would be waste of oxygen if I was just a mother. It isn’t what I want in life. Not only that, but I am pretty sure that it would be unfair to my offspring.

    I guess what really got to me about these posts is that I am very individualistic. I don’t let the fact that I am a woman really enter my professional life. I read about women who say they were discriminated against or who say they were sexually harassed and I think they are weak. I don’t use my sex as an excuse for anything. I see my failures as Ashley’s failures and not a result of discrimination. So, I have a generally positive outlook – I know that any limitations are self-imposed. Then I read these posts and I read the comments sections where several men are calling another man naïve for not realizing the other men in the boardroom were sizing women up and sharing knowing looks and I was completely dumbfounded. And, for a moment, I felt overwhelmed. I ended up just feeling disgusted and pissed. It is painful when you judge everyone on their own merits and assume they do the same with you – and then you find evidence that some don’t. And not only that they don’t, but they are comfortable enough in their perceptions that they will actually publicly mock another man for not being that way.

    Alright-I think this ended up being longer than the last. If you want to do a post about women not being concise I wont’ be quite as mad.

    By Anonymous ashley, at 5/16/2005 10:27:00 PM  

  • Ashley,
    I appreciate you taking the time to come back and comment.

    My admission of my apprehension toward Bonnie was not to declare myself as mature or immature, but to point out that I have a flaw, and I take conscious action to overcome it. Part of my point for this part III was that men have this flaw. Immaturity is not having an unbidden reaction - it is acting on it. Don't you agree?

    Your reactions to motherhood are your choice. You choose to not be one, and you choose to feel that you would not be a good one. Despite those choices, I would hold that you do not seem like the type of person who would make the choices necessary to actually be a bad mother.

    Certainly there are many mothers of all types. However, my declaration of mothers as great relates to potential for greatness. No other person in your life has the amount of potential for influence as your mother. Hence, great mothers have the greatest influence on people, and are therefore the greatest!

    I know that, before you read my post, you knew that few people judge you on your merits alone. Do I agree that it is unfair? Definitely. However, my feelings on the matter do not cloud my analysis of the sociological and psychological experimental data on the issue. We judge on appearance first, and note differences first. Sad, but true.

    The Bible - this is hard. I'll do my best.

    First, women are not to submit to men. They are to submit to leadership - just as men are. In the church and in the home, men are appointed as leaders. In your job, are you in charge of people? Aren't there greater stressors for the plant manager than for the assembly line worker? In the family, the man will be held responsible for the actions of all the family members. In the church, the pastor answers for the church. That is hard - men have a tough enough time answering for their own actions!

    Of course having someone submit to you isn't hard...just as having your man love you, "as Christ loved the church" isn't hard for you! However, it is not a natural male trait to place his wife's emotional,physical, intellectual and social needs ahead of his own desires. That's the other hard part for us.

    Lastly, I would be surprised if you weren't offended by some things in the Bible. It says that those who do not follow will be. Don't be put off by the details that you don't agree with unless you understand the purpose of the book. I didn't buy into it all until I accepted the purpose. It changed my life.

    Hey, as long as you make sense and have organized thoughts, we don't worry about you being concise!

    By Blogger Hammertime, at 5/17/2005 11:11:00 PM  

  • You really do alot of generalizing and catagorizing! Please remember that for every 10 that make the rule, there is at least 1 that is going to break your theory! I was never in the military as a soldier, but I have been in support roles most of my life. However, I did work a VERY demanding , VERY physical job until a little over a year ago when I left to stay at home. I was held to the exact same standards as the males. At times, it seemed like standards for me where actually higher, and I'll explain. A man on my crew weighed over 250 and was scared of hieghts. I weigh 120 and can climb like a monkey in a tree. We were often paired to work together on jobs that required a high range of activities. He would handle the low stuff and help boost me up into the rafters for the high stuff. He was never asked to climb. I was never given a choice! I did deal EVERY DAY that I worked there with sexual comments. Out of the 150 employees in my group there 7 females. I was in my early 20s, moderatly attractive, slim, and VERY VERY STRAIGHT! This set me up for failure in the male world! There were days that I would jump up and down to get a pipe wrench to turn so that I would not have to ask for help from the man that just asked if my breast were real. I would have rather died from heat exhaustion on a job site than ask for a glass of water from the man that had just asked me for sex! Yes, I turned them in to management, and I was the one whose yearly evaluations dropped... management was ALL MEN! I eventually quit. It wasn't worth my heartache to deal with small minded, egotistical, sexist men that couldn't see a girl as anything other than a piece to be had or beaten down!
    However, looking back, as much as I LOVE being home with my kids everyday, and we don't need the extra money, I miss my job. I don't just miss working, I miss THAT job. I should never of had to quit because some little boys couldn't grow up and get over themselves. I could do the job just as well maybe even better than some of them. It was not my problem, but I was the one who left. In the end, they did wrong, and they still won!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5/25/2005 06:32:00 PM  

  • Anon-
    I agree with all of your sentiments. Poor leadership exacerbates a situation in which standards are not known and enforced.

    By Blogger Hammertime, at 6/03/2005 05:09:00 PM  

  • Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you! I have a womens gynecological health issue
    site/blog. It pretty much covers womens gynecological health issue
    related stuff.

    By Blogger Tom Naka, at 10/07/2005 03:23:00 PM  

  • You have a great blog here! I will be sure to book mark you. I have a beauty product sedu site. It pretty much covers beauty product sedu related stuff. Check it out if you get time :-)

    By Blogger Jack Naka, at 10/09/2005 04:56:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home