I really have no idea what we're supposed to do with this:
Victoria Brescoll, a researcher at Yale, made headlines this August with her findings that while men gain stature and clout by expressing anger, women who express it are seen as being out of control, and lose stature. Study participants were shown videos of a job interview, after which they were asked to rate the applicant and choose their salary. The videos were identical but for two variables — in some the applicants were male and others female, and the applicant expressed either anger or sadness about having lost an account after a colleague arrived late to an important meeting.The participants were most impressed with the angry man, followed by the sad woman, then the sad man, and finally, at the bottom of the list, the angry woman. The average salary assigned to the angry man was nearly $38,000 while the angry woman received an average of only $23,000.
When the scenario was tweaked and the applicant went on to expand upon his or her anger — explaining that the co-worker had lied and said he had directions to the meeting — participants were somewhat forgiving, giving women who explained their anger more money than those who had no excuse (but still less money than comparative men).
The article goes on to conclude:
But Professor Glick also concedes that much of this data — like his 2000 study showing that women were penalized more than men when not perceived as being nice or having social skills — gives women absolutely no way to “fight back.” “Most of what we learn shows that the problem is with the perception, not with the woman,” he said, “and that it is not the problem of an individual, it’s a problem of a corporation.”
I agree that it's a problem women can't overcome by themselves, but what are the companies supposed to do? For that matter, how is society supposed to deal with this? Feminism has made a number of strides in the double standard, particularly as regards sexuality. Sure, sexual double standards are still there--I know a lot of men who would not date women who slept with them on the first date, which seems lunatic to me--but they're a hell of a lot milder than they used to be. Who here thinks I'll get fired if I announce that I used to live with a boyfriend?
But have the double standards on anger budged at all? For that matter, women used to be able to slap men who pawed us without permission, so maybe they've gotten worse--we're no longer supposed to be so passive, but if we express an opinion, we'd better be nice and apologetic about it. This is not a very good way to become CEO.
There's not much that can be done about things like this. Women need to know so they know how to act in corporate environments. Men need ot know so they can watch themselves and try to avoid doing this. Everyone puts on an act in such environments, though, even men. In the long run, we should continue to emphasize that men and women should be given the same opportunities and that people should be judged on their merits as individuals and not on relatively superficial traits like skin tone and genitalia. Any school system (public or private) should teach this.
There is a middle ground, though, between passive and angry. One can be firm and resolute or emphatic without being angry.
We DO NOT need to pass more laws or regulations, though...
EI
You got me on what to do about it. The best idea I have, and it doesn't sound terribly effective, is publicity -- articles, blog posts, and so forth -- in the hopes that people making this sort of biased judgment, who are sincerely interested in behaving equitably, become aware of the problem and catch themselves doing it.
"Who here thinks I'll get fired if I announce that I used to live with a boyfriend?"
That depends on just whose boyfriend you were living with.
Seriously though...
Decent, upstanding people have prejudices that have been imprinted upon them from birth on an almost daily basis. I have them; you have them. It is unfortunate, not evil.
What to do about it is indeed problematic.
For that matter, women used to be able to slap men who pawed us without permission[...]
"Used to be able to?" You still can. A well-timed slap remains a fine recourse against grabby males. It is one of the enviable, and not undeserved, privileges available to your sex. Feminism can never take that away (nor want to).
Let the Magic of The Market take care of it!
And for you whiny bitches who insist on "anti-discrimination laws" -- don't be such statist moochers. Now be a good girl and get me some coffee. Oh, and scrub off the shit-stains in the Men's room while you're at it.
Your hero writes:
And for you whiny bitches who insist on "anti-discrimination laws" -- don't be such statist moochers. Now be a good girl and get me some coffee. Oh, and scrub off the shit-stains in the Men's room while you're at it.
Uh huh. But those examples are comparatively easy to write anti-discrimination laws to correct, aren't they? You can write a law that says you can't order women to do x when you don't expect men to do x. Can you write a law that defines how person x is permitted to feel when person y does z and actually expect for it to have the effect that you want?
I'd be interested in seeing how a calm reaction (as opposed to sad or angry) by each gender would be ranked.
I have no idea why you would sleep with someone on the first date but not date them. Rationally, you'd expect more people to either avoid sex on the first date altogether (information blindness, not being clear about expectations) or get nasty and figure things out as they go along.
Having an independent rubric whereby sleeping together on the first date is totally okay and awesome but precludes dating does seem really off-kilter.
You might want to ask this "lot of men" (but not Lot of men) to provide actual examples where they've slept with a woman on the first date and then because of their rule -- and not anything else about the woman in question -- refused to date her.
To be crude, if Scarlett Johansson came over and said "let's go out to dinner and then bang" I wouldn't close the door on future dates.
If you slap me I'll just assume you're playing hard to get. Let the games begin - woof!
Iconoclast,
Genetalia is not a superficial trait. I don't understand how someone can claim a lifetime of different hormones in your body can have no effect on your development. That doesn't mean that women are wenchy and men are pigs, but to claim male and female differences are merely superficial is at best an new-age theory relating to gender differences at worst, willful tinkering with the foundations of society (ie. do/should genders have roles specific to their sex)
I have no idea why you would sleep with someone on the first date but not date them.
I can't speak for these "lots of men," but my best guess is that they're thinking she's way to slutty to make a good girlfriend. Who knows who she'd do if you told her you were too busy to take her out on Friday?
Now, I haven't been on the dating market for 12 years or so, but the rule does make substantial sense to me.
What should society do? Obviously it should flood the sitcoms with impressive angry women characters, making them more acceptable to the public at large; much as was done with the horde of non-threatening homosexual characters which flooded the sitcoms a decade or so ago, paving the way for increased tolerance.*
As far as not being willing to date someone you shagged on the first date, well as previously mentioned, I imagine that if there was a high correlation between first-date shagging and infidelity then such a rule would make sense.
*I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the anti-homosexual party.
It's late, so my thoughts might be drifting down the highway of unclear thinking.
First on not dating women who sleep with you on the first date, I would agree with Rob (9:52). I can assume that if she has been searching for the right guy, and slept with me upon finding me, that she hooked up with a bazillion other wrong guys in her quest. One never wants a long term woman with a short term, sexually fluent social butterfly of a vagina.
As far as women being penalized for being angry, it goes back to what you are used to seeing in each sex over time. In most cases you are accustomed to seeing men acting more violent, more vocal (football games), more aggressive. So a loud shout coming from a man would seem a normal part of his regular expression.
Also, I believe there is a subconcious feeling that anger is a neighbor to physical confrontation and that, in going there, the anger gains meaning via the ability to intimidate by potential force.
In other words, and perhaps unfairly, you hear a guy angry and you pay attention thinking, "Wow he is pissed. He can kill me if I tell him that Smother's from accounting says he mispriced our mortgage backed security portfolio." But when the woman is angry there is no "next level". You know she is not gonna go home, play some Moody Blues song about nights in white satin 50 times over, throw on fatigues and come back to work and blow you away. Aggression without the threat of force can seem just annoying.
Monaco or Canada or France or Belgium (all Lady Nations) get angry and people say, "Oh please, what are you gonna do, invade somebody?" China, Turkey, the U.S. or North Korea get angry and you think, "Hmmm, they just might kick my national derriere."
Or something like that. Not that anger means violence but that, historically anger always precedes violence and violence and aggression are the likelier modes of men when the influence of law or technology are least present.
When law and technology (the two true factors responsible for elevating brain power and reducing brawn, and thus creating equality for women) are a factor, anger is the stand-in for violence.
I can't speak for these "lots of men," but my best guess is that they're thinking she's way to slutty to make a good girlfriend. Who knows who she'd do if you told her you were too busy to take her out on Friday?
But YOU slept with her on the first date, too! She's not to be trusted, but you are somehow above reproach?
I always thought that men who think "she slept with me, she must be a slut" have, well, some self-esteem issues to work out. To be both utterly convinced of your own moral worth while denigrating women for liking you and performing the same acts as you, that's seriously fucked up.
I'm going to have to go with DivGuy on this one. The specious "if she sleeps with me on the first date she must be a slut" argument is a reason to avoid sex on the first date, not have sex and then refuse to date someone.
Also, I've got to say that the "she's a slut" argument has nothing more going for it than the "I'm a total stud" argument. If you're going to make unsubstantiated assumptions about another person, why not make them about yourself?
Finally, it would seem to me that if the woman in question is interested only in sex with a variety of partners, she's not going to be looking for a long-term exclusive relationship.
It seems to me that Finn, "drifting down the highway of unclear thinking", or not, is on the right track(toward Evolutionary Biology).
I think it's well encoded, within us( toward sam's 7:59 point), that outright Anger is a poor strategy, in general, and a worse one for women.
This study's results would, probably, flip-flop if the emotional cue(s) being judged were wiles.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wiles
"But YOU slept with her on the first date, too! She's not to be trusted, but you are somehow above reproach?"
I've been off the dating market for 30 years. Even back then, we knew that first date rule was a double standard - the assumption is that men aren't going to turn down casual sex unless she's really ugly (and even that's curable with enough drink), but women should not only be choosy, but also be always looking towards a long term relationship.
Perhaps there's been an increase in honesty since then if men are refusing second dates rather than continuing to get what they can while making no commitments. That's a cold way to treat a woman. I knew guys that would, but even at my most desperate I wouldn't.
"I'd be interested in seeing how a calm reaction (as opposed to sad or angry) by each gender would be ranked."
Posted by Maniakes |
Right. I suspect that the participants rating the actors in this study were Yale students, not adults with experience in the real world, but the much larger flaw in the study was not providing alternatives to angry and sad. In my experience in business, when you get angry, you've already lost. An angry man will not put people off as much as an angry woman or a crying man, but he has still lost, not gained, stature.
But YOU slept with her on the first date, too! She's not to be trusted, but you are somehow above reproach?
Whether he can be trusted is her worry, not his.
His worry is whether he can trust her.
So the question is whether women are less concerned about their partners potential promiscuity than men, and if so, why.
To which the traditional answer is that a woman knows that her children are her children, but a husband only really knows that his wife’s children are his wife’s children.
Returning to the study this post was based on, I am slightly sceptical about this kind of study. It reminds me of those studies showing that people guess that an attractive person is smarter than an unattractive person. But, if you knew that the beauty was no richer than the beast, you would probably guess that it was beauty that was the fool.
In social settings one additional piece of information can utterly reverse the import of the information you already have. In this very study, the knowledge that the applicant was male or female could exactly reverse the implications of the applicant being angry or sad. So what effects can additional information have?
As Markam remarked, much may depend on the alternatives: if this study had concentrated on the effects of appearing sad, it would have showed that people are more generous to sad women than to sad men. Would this prove that men have it tough?
To which the traditional answer is that a woman knows that her children are her children, but a husband only really knows that his wife’s children are his wife’s children.
An important variation of a point that has been made regularly in the abortion threads MM hosted at her old site: for purely practical reasons, the female species bears risk of far more serious consequences in the transaction. If a woman shows no interest in guarding her sexuality -- particularly in a day when we not only know how pregnancy works, but also that the M-to-F STD transmission mechanism is stronger than F-to-M -- there's a good chance she's not very responsible in other, less critical aspects of her life.
That said, if a man woke up morning a few weeks after a one-date-wonder and found himself staring down the long, shiny barrel of a paternity suit, he'll get no sympathy from me.
I'd be curious to see one where the race of the participants were included. I bet the results would vary greatly.
Megan--
For that matter, women used to be able to slap men who pawed us without permission, so maybe they've gotten worse--we're no longer supposed to be so passive, but if we express an opinion, we'd better be nice and apologetic about it.
I still remember my 9th grade 'General Science' class (in 1979).
An 'attractive young lady' sat directly in front of me- and I made an 'intemperate supposition" as to what had actually occurred the prior weekend with her 'boyfriend'...
(Psst!- "Patti... did you really *bleep* his *bleep*?")
She immediately turned, and--
WHAMMO! --slapped me silly.
The teacher simply looked at me, and said, "I'll bet you deserved that..."
But YOU slept with her on the first date, too! She's not to be trusted, but you are somehow above reproach?
1) All men are sluts. Duh. The only reasons I don't bang everything that moves is a) very few things that move will consent to it and b) my wife would shoot me, even though gunsmoke is bad for pregnant women. Oh, and i did take a vow, and I intend to keep it.
2) It's not about "reproach" or moral superiority, it's about whether or not she's going to cheat on you. Hence the term "double standard."
it would seem to me that if the woman in question is interested only in sex with a variety of partners, she's not going to be looking for a long-term exclusive relationship.
Which was exactly my point. By sleeping with someone on the first date, she is most likely telegraphing either 1) lack of interest in serious relationship, 2) naive confusion that leads her to believe easy sex will lead to love, or 3) emotional "issues." You don't want any part of any of those things.
The specious "if she sleeps with me on the first date she must be a slut" argument is a reason to avoid sex on the first date, not have sex and then refuse to date someone
Upon re-reading, this makes no sense at all. Unless you think his decision to have sex with her is the cause of her sluttiness, then why not do it?
The point is, her willingness gives him information about her which is usually unfavorable in the long term. His willingness gives him no information about her.
Brad wrote: And guess what – while all the women in the work force on weekends were changing diapers, their male colleagues were either out at the bars together or playing golf. You tell me who gets ahead.
This is touching on an important point, but IMO shooting wide of the mark. Most of the women I observe can form and expand their social networks just as fast as they can talk. Difference is, women tend to form networks easily across a wide range of interests and social levels, with much time spent among other women who are unlikely to ever produce a contact for career advancement.
Nothing wrong with that, but in contrast, men tend to develop social networks first among those they spend the most time with, which generally means workplace acquaintances and, outside the workplace, other men who share a comparatively narrower range of common interests. As those acquaintances diffuse out into new jobs with other companies, the career-advancement network develops accordingly.
Brad wrote: And guess what – while all the women in the work force on weekends were changing diapers, their male colleagues were either out at the bars together or playing golf. You tell me who gets ahead.
This is touching on an important point, but IMO shooting wide of the mark. Most of the women I observe can form and expand their social networks just as fast as they can talk. Difference is, women tend to form networks easily across a wide range of interests and social levels, with much time spent among other women who are unlikely to ever produce a contact for career advancement.
Nothing wrong with that, but in contrast, men tend to develop social networks first among those they spend the most time with, which generally means workplace acquaintances and, outside the workplace, other men who share a comparatively narrower range of common interests. As those acquaintances diffuse out into new jobs with other companies, the career-advancement network develops accordingly.
Brad wrote: And guess what – while all the women in the work force on weekends were changing diapers, their male colleagues were either out at the bars together or playing golf. You tell me who gets ahead.
This is almost arriving upon an important point, but IMO still aiming wide of the mark. Most of the women I observe can form and expand their social networks just as fast as they can talk. Difference is, women tend to form networks easily across a wide range of interests and social levels, with much time spent among other women who are unlikely to ever produce a contact for career advancement.
Nothing wrong with that, but in contrast, men tend to develop social networks first among those they spend the most time with, which generally means workplace acquaintances and, outside the workplace, other men who share a comparatively narrower range of common interests. As those acquaintances diffuse out into new jobs with other companies, the career-advancement network develops accordingly.
I think the "if she sleeps with me on the first date" issues guys have are two-fold:
(a) Madonna Whore Complex big time.
(b) This part actually applies to both sexes: if either the girl or the guy (on a first date, where they do not know much about each other) sleep with each other, chances are good that both will also not be able to resist the urges later on when in a deep relationship. It is why so many relationships end-up poorly - they cannot control their urges.
And no - I am not some religious, fanatical family-issues dude. I am an athiest, liberal, pro-gay marriage, screw the family type.
But I also have another small theory into why men have this (and it somewhat relates to the Madonna--Whore argument).
One-night stands (or at least quick, flings) typically are much more adventurous sexually than, say, someone who waits 3-months, develops a deep sense of connection, and now does not want to break that by letting on they have some odd sexual habits. But this also goes to the flip-side of it – the reason perhaps so many men do not commit with the woman who sleeps with them on that first date, is because the men also feel somewhat exposed. The woman some guy sleeps with while down in Cancun for the week, chances are knows a lot-more about his kinky side than his future wife.
Of course – there are those couples that are amazingly open, but I happen to think this is not nearly as much the norm as some might expect.
Going back to the original post:
Even if it is unavoidable that there will be a double standard in how men and women are perceived, so what?
It does not follow that women are incapable of being leaders at the highest level of their profession. Rather, it indicates the obvious: that to be successful as a leader you need to use whatever tools are more natural to you - as an individual. Gilbert Arenas needs to play basketball in different manner than Shaquille O'Neal. Also, you need to use whatever skills you have in manner appropriate to the situation. A Marine Gunny Sergeant will lead differently as a boot camp instructor than as an NCOIC of a communications support platoon.
If I were to identify the two reasons women most often get passed by for positions of power:
(a) Children
(b) Connections
Except in rare cases (such as when Board of Trustees are looking or a new University President, and public searches are being performed), the biggest asset one has is his/her connections / friends within the industry. And guess what – while all the women in the work force on weekends were changing diapers, their male colleagues were either out at the bars together or playing golf. You tell me who gets ahead.
The comments in this thread make a compelling case for the virtues of androgyny.
Also a pretty compelling case for not dating Rob Lyman.
Anony-mouse:
I think I hit the target, you just clarified it a little more. In the end, men and women both develop a network, the difference being men likely develop networks in circles that actually help them in their careers while women will often times obtain networks that help them in raising children or are a result of raising children.
As you stated, men will likely develop close networks with those at work and within a narrow interest, which, as we know, many hobbies or interests correlate with your career/level of wealth. It is why you see a lot less investment bankers all getting together to watch a Busch Series race on TNT or seeing a ton of construction workers getting together to play a round of golf at the club.
Women on the other hand, because of child rearing, will likely not have the time to focus on developing those close ties at work (or at least foster close ties developed before having children). Additionally, they will often developed ties in circles which are geared for the raising of children. For example, PTA associations, soccer leagues, etc… Now, these are great connections when raising your child, but, they do little to advance your career, since, no one is going to give a flying hoot about your work within the PTA if you are up for promotion at your accounting firm, and not one PTA member is going to be in that meeting helping decide if you should be promoted.
Going back to the original topic of the post, what you should do, if you seriously believe that this research shows that women who are somewhat more likely than average to express dissappointment in the form of anger are systematically discriminated against in the employment marketplace in a way that implies that they earn less than they are worth to an employer, is to start a company and systematically hire such women. You can split the difference with them, making them better off, and making yourself a bundle.
If you don't think this research mplies that such women systematically make less than they are actually worth to their employers, then what do you suppose it does show?
I am reading 1776. What George Washington advised his officers applies at least to evaluating the interview. "Be easy but not too familiar lest you subject yourself to a want of that respect which is necessary to support a proper command." The cultural sterotype is that it is harder to get women to express anger. This is why the pastor's wife that kills him gets a small sentence. It's assumed 'she must have been really pushed.' OTOH a woman readily expressing anger is seen as being 'too familiar.'
I don't know whether it is living in another country (Australia) or operating in another field (engineering) but where I come from the default assumption is that women are much more likely to lose their temper than a man.
I can think of two occasions since I left school where a man lost his temper. But a woman doing so would occur every six months on average.
It makes sense, when a man gets mad, he is really dangerous, but a woman is largely harmless unless she has a weapon. So boys are taught to control themselves, are punished for acting out, while girls are indulged and "chick fights" are cute.
If a man hits a woman - he's a criminal. If a woman hits a man, repeatedly and as hard as she can, it's viewed as a joke.
Hence, a man looking a bit angry is expected to control himself, and in a professional setting he would, and so is no threat. A woman on the other hand might degenerate into a screaming fit of embarassment that could wind up with lawsuits and lost careers.
So an angry woman is a threat, an angry man is not, because we never see a (professional, white collar) man actually lose control.
The natural rejoinder to that is that when a woman loses her temper, you notice it, because she's acting unfeminine; when a man does so, it's just natural. Personally, I've never witnesses a woman losing her temper, and have seen many men do so, but I've also generally worked in male-dominated fields.
I do not think that the biological differences between men and women are trivial, just that when evaluating a job applicant, things like education, experience, and intelligence are much more important than genitalia. So for a job interview, they are relatively trivial.
I wonder how much of our sociology is telling us about how college students behave rather than how the general population behaves.
There is a double-standard about violence... as there probably should be. Given that men are often significantly physically stronger and more aggressive than women, there is some value in teaching them to respect women and be somewhat protective of them, at least where violence is concerned.
EI
I think angry women are seen as hysterical (please note the unflattering etymology of the word), while angry men generally are thought to have valid reasons for their anger. Also, anger is an acceptable reaction for men, since it's generally not alright for them to cry, they tend to express all negative emotions as anger. I've cried and seen crying among women in work situations. I've only ever seen a single tear from a single man, and I know he was more embarrassed by my witnssing the event than any of the women were.
I seldom become furiously angry (never at work), mostly because while growing up my 'hysterical' mother's anger was often derided by my calm, rational father. So I have a temper similar to his: a long, slow fuse but terribly mean when finally over the edge.
I wonder how much of our sociology is telling us about how college students behave rather than how the general population behaves.
Make that college students either forced to participate to pass Psych 101 or lured in by free pizza.
But you're forgetting how much we learn from pigeons pressing levers and mice getting shocks.
That's me, Mr. Lymah, above, for those of you keeping a scrapbook of quotes.
It seems to me a lot of you are overthinking the sex on the first date thing. Men (broadly speaking) value that which they must strive for. They will (again broadly speaking) accept free sex, but they will not value it, and they will not value a person who gives it up so easily. Because, after all, they are not valuing themselves.
buy link viagra
buy prescription viagra without http://magic-pills-swicki.eurekster.com/Buy+Viagra+Online buy viagra online buy online pharmacy viagra
Whom roulette casino gratuites punto queens paint triple play video poker tilt door bust live www traiteur casino boat splash hard eight?
Whom roulette casino gratuites punto queens paint triple play video poker tilt door bust live www traiteur casino boat splash hard eight?
Once roulette kostenlos risk case trio hedge torneos de poker gratis poker pineapple tapioca stiff rundown vigorish application card credit uk kind limit pot cycle ragged.
emaphnsb wdoauir gsorlvde dqukgfbo slfzg qswfzkx xkeagf
I was exactly looking for something like that. I'll tell you how. http://cialiassite.info/ciallis/site_map.html >ciallis online prescription</a> and Great job!
Emm.. So it adds up to this: http://vigras.bravehost.com/penis-extender/site_map.html >penis extender generic price</a> That thanks for posting this.
I read some of the posts and I think it is a great site. Hmmm... http://tadafil.byethost2.com/uprima/site_map.html >uprima kamagra</a> And Thank you for your suggestions.