>While the observation that women are routinely overlooked or bypassed >is probably basically correct, one should keep in mind that the problem >goes deep. > >It is my believe that cases where women are consciously overlooked or >bypassed are the exception. Well, Wood youre wrong here. It is definately conscious. In a lot of places womyn would not be hired if it wernt for equal opportunity legislation. Only a couple of months ago a manager ttold me he wouldnt hire womyn if he didnt have to because they are always going off and having babies. If men took more responsibility theyd need time off for fathering! But we all know how much responsibility men take for their fathering! Many times, the preferred communication >style of most women simply does not fit well with the traditional, >male-dominated, combative style. Most simply are forced to take a back >seat, though some women try to adapt to such a style. However, I suspect >that many do not do well and probably make unfavorable impressions on >their male colleagues, further complicating the overall problem. >Trying to adapt to a style that you really don't feel comfortable with >is probably not a good idea. In areas such as politics, sports, etc, >making your opponent play to your game/style is a major part of gaining >advantage. In what we are discussing, however, the rules/game/style >simply has been tilted against women, though unconciously in most cases. > >I don't intend to offer any solutions here. Just want to point out that >the problem is not simple and that communication is a key. There are >studies on the difference in communication style between male and female >but I don't have the sources handy. Knowing the root cause of the problem >is the first step. > >For women who just want to work hard and get their `deserved' reward, I >think it won't be that easy. You're going to have to help your colleagues >along the way to make them realize that it's a different world now and that >we all need to learn about each other's communication styles. > >Just my two cents. > >Wood > Men have set up the businesses and the power structure. This is a patriarchy we live in. Womyn are being recognised very slowly as having something to contribute. But its still men who decide what is important and what is not. The womyn who have managed to climb the corporate ladder have not only played the mens game but sometimes they become indistinguishable from men. What we (as womyn) need to do is to refuse to play their (mens) game. We need to set our own agenda of what is important and stick to it. If we join together we will be victorious in controlling our own lives - surely a basic human right long denyed womyn. I agree with Wood in that we need to play our own 'game' but more than that we need to couch it in our own language. Maybe to us (certainly to me) life is not a game. I do not play games - womyns or mens. I try always for win/win and compromise as I see no point in making someone else a loser. But what I do do is - I remain true to myself and my values. eg. I do not suck up to males who may have the power to sack me or fail me at uni. I am prepared and have taken the consequences of my decisions and actions. It is not easy to go against the mainstream, but when going with the mainstream means supporting or at least condoning the patriarchy, what choice do I have? It must also be acknowledged that as we (womyn) have grown up under the patriarchy and have been brought up to believe that what is good for men is good for us. As a result some womyn do not know what they want or what they think. We must be compassionate with these womyn, even though sometimes we might (I do) want to shake some sense into them. Respectfully, [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Interesting: Your people glorified organised violence for 40 centuries, but you imprison those who employ it privately." Mr Spock. Star Trek 'Dagger of the Mind'
