21–30 of 111 posts
Has anyone examined the possibility that wage is less of a motivating factor for the women in question; they don't negotiate because they are getting something out of it more important (to them) than the money.
To summarize the article: for some reason, the society is more willing to tolerate "pushiness" in males than in females. Why is that the case? Any ideas? (Other than "because it's always been like that..."). Not to bring down everything to sexuality, but a sexually pushy woman would be typically labeled a "slut." Which is why a woman will almost never ask a man out.
> Why is that the case? Any ideas? The situation gives men an enormous advantage. And the vast majority of the 90%+ of Fortune 500 CEOs and tech startups and VCs who are guys don't seem to have any interest in changing it. Why do you think that's the case?
My hypothesis is that the society unconsciously believes that aggressive "pushy" women would make bad mothers or would be otherwise somehow bad at raising children. But would they really? What if strong women give birth to natural leaders, to put it figuratively? Human societies have a tendency to place higher value on things like complacency and moral propriety, even if those things could be detrimental at the individual level, and a related tendency to ostracize those with high social intelligence or manipulative traits even though those traits could be beneficial at the individual level. What if the "bitch" stereotype is due to a similar effect?
EDIT: if you disagree with me enough to downvote this, I would love to hear your opinion on why precisely you disagree, so please comment.
To summarize the article: for some reason, the society is more willing to tolerate "pushiness" in males than in females. Why is that the case? Any ideas? (Other than "because it's always been like that..."). Not to bring down everything to sexuality, but a sexually pushy woman would be typically labeled a "slut." Which is why a woman will almost never ask a man out.
Perhaps, it's time we as a society reconsidered the negative connotations we attach to the word "slut"
The women we place in high regard are women who know how to get what they want. If you ask a young girl today what she wants to be when she grows up, she will most often tell you she wants to be a celebrity – the most recognized group of women who fit that description. No one goes anywhere in that business by being passive.
Obviously it is a problem that exists. It is just a strange dichotomy where we, as a society, promote girls to be "sluts," while women still feel negative towards themselves to live up to those expectations. What can be done to fix the problem?
I read "Women Don't Ask" and "Ask For It" in the past couple of years. I proceeded to try to ask for things, like being named the tech lead, a promotion, or just more money. It did not help. In fact, I think it may have gotten me branded as bitchy for attempting to break out of the mold instead of "knowing my place". A lot of that was probably a function of where I was working, but this goes on at other places as wel…
This is a risky subject to talk about. I guess it's mostly because everyone has a different background and view things differently. I do know however that different women will handle things very differently. For instance, I'd open a door to a women and she'd put her best smile and thank me while another one might be offended that I'd treat her specially . (Happens to me from time to time in the metro.) Who's right? I…
I think you're over thinking it but it's good to be cognizant of other people's feelings, you'll go far further in life by catering to those who appreciate having doors held open and asking about weekends than you will by catering to the misanthropes who see ulterior motives in everything.
I think men in general just prefer more submissive women.
To summarize the article: for some reason, the society is more willing to tolerate "pushiness" in males than in females. Why is that the case? Any ideas? (Other than "because it's always been like that..."). Not to bring down everything to sexuality, but a sexually pushy woman would be typically labeled a "slut." Which is why a woman will almost never ask a man out.
Could the analogy be extended to give some clues on how to get a better deal without violating for-whatever-reason-ingrained reactions? The standard advice for a single woman is not to ask men out on dates, but to "get yourself out there." What would the analogous behavior look like from a potential employee? Conferences? Blogging? Fine-tuning of resume?
To summarize the article: for some reason, the society is more willing to tolerate "pushiness" in males than in females. Why is that the case? Any ideas? (Other than "because it's always been like that..."). Not to bring down everything to sexuality, but a sexually pushy woman would be typically labeled a "slut." Which is why a woman will almost never ask a man out.
> Why is that the case? Any ideas? The situation gives men an enormous advantage. And the vast majority of the 90%+ of Fortune 500 CEOs and tech startups and VCs who are guys don't seem to have any interest in changing it. Why do you think that's the case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could the analogy be extended to give some clues on how to get a better deal without violating for-whatever-reason-ingrained reactions? The standard advice for a single woman is not to ask men out on dates, but to "get yourself out there." What would the analogous behavior look like from a potential employee? Conferences? Blogging? Fine-tuning of resume?
That's an absolutely great point. What if, for example, prices for things like conferences were lower for women? I'm sure that even men would appreciate a higher female-to-male ratio at such events (and women would not feel like black sheep being there). In fact, this is such a win-win scenario that I don't understand why this is not being done currently.
[1] http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2010/02/20/scale-8x-slides-post... The audio is a bit long, but it's worth listening to over the slides.