?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
03 August 2007 @ 04:09 pm
Unconscious bias at work  
I actually saw some women being limited in their advancement options at a former workplace for showing anger...and then I read this study showing the bias at work and the dollar cost in wages. Yes even cool progressive workplaces have bias, even when women are in leadership roles. So how can women get ahead? When we all get these biases out onto a conscious level so we can actively count them out.

It disturbs me that we still have to consider such things affecting Clinton's candidacy for president. Can't we just look at her positions and abilities?
 
 
 
Mari Adkinsmariadkins on August 4th, 2007 01:00 am (UTC)
Can't we just look at her positions and abilities?

Hear, hear!
Geniegenie_lorene on August 4th, 2007 05:21 am (UTC)
I saw a blurb about this on CNN. I was shocked that so many people can't handle anger from a woman... even women! Jeez, aren't WE the ones who were given PMS? Shouldn't we have the market cornered on expressing anger? Or, oh, is that the problem?
Tapatitapati on August 4th, 2007 08:28 pm (UTC)
Yes...we are seen as the irrational ones any time we get emotional. That's why it hurt the women less if they explained the reason behind the anger...even though it still cost them compared to men, who just get a pass and look forceful or masterful or something stupid like that.

Gosh, it really makes me...ANGRY!
Geniegenie_lorene on August 4th, 2007 11:04 pm (UTC)
If men had any idea about our self control. I think the only difference is that we EXPRESS our anger before we snap and men just suck it up until they explode. Just a theory, of course.
squirrelboilersquirrelboiler on August 4th, 2007 08:41 pm (UTC)
mommy vs. 'he who provides the food!'
Back in the Jurassic period of feminism ( which people think for some reason is over and women 'won'*I think I'm going to puke, I must be 'hysterical"), there were classes for women on being 'assertive' without being 'aggressive'. Thing is, once this phase had passed, the demarcation was lost once more. I sometimes wonder if it's some atavistic trait hard-wired into us - women equals 'nurturing', man equals ' fight and kill for food and protection'. It's way past time to stop responding as if we were still 3 ft. tall and on the High Savanna.

One thing academe taught me was to smile more and lower my voice when angry.Indeed, the more pissed off I got, the more articulate and less 'emotive' I got. It seems to work - one is giving two messages 1) You're so fucking wrong you make my brain hurt and 2) But I'm open to 'nurturing' you and it's O.K. for you to talk to me like I'm a six year old - mommy understands". That's soooo wrong, even if it works.

Man, I get tired of that.

Even my son gets ticked off when people talk about 'post feminism' as if a lot has changed. So, there's our hope, Tapati - the next generation.

Sigh.

And hopes once more as I started hoping so many years ago.

Illgrace
Tapatitapati on August 4th, 2007 10:35 pm (UTC)
Re: mommy vs. 'he who provides the food!'
I try to feel hopeful, and then I read things like the letters section in Salon, such as:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/walsh/salon/2007/07/27/anonymous/view/?show=all

http://letters.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/06/11/abuse/view/index.html?show=all&order=asc

http://letters.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2007/07/17/stepson/view/?show=all

and see the backlash against feminism and the distortion of even the most basic ideals we fought for, and I despair.