NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6437

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 7.5 KB | 177 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!usenet
From: [e-mail] (Robert Stephen Rodgers)
Subject: Re: Working with Women vs. Working with Men
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: next16pg2.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:00:23 GMT
Lines: 163

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jean M.
Petrosino) writes:
>         quicker, slicker, brighter--whatever--than I am--I cannot
>         *stand* the way most women approach a problem.  It always seems
>         to me that women are >crippled< in some way, since they seem
>         unable to get straight through the problem solving process--
>         heck, they often seem unable to even properly target the problem.
>
> Having a different approach to something does not constitute being crippled.
> You need to watch the words you choose.


    Come on.  Crippled is what it is to me.  "Different" does not
    carry the meaning I intend.  I mean, "they seem hobbled in some
    way by an inability to make the commitment to a solution"

    Note the word "seem" in my paragraph.



> Did you ever think YOU make it difficult for these women to critique your
work?
> Men are taught to critique ( in positive as well as negative ways), women are
> told that critiquing = nagging.


    Critiquing is not the same as nagging, and anyone can tell the
    difference.  The problem is, women (in my experiance) refrain
    from critiquing until they've ocme up with a good thing to go
    with the bad.  This drags out the process--and often as not
    their idea never gets said because they're too restrained to
    say it.

    This *does now aid in the task at hand* and I find it
    frustrating.  I know what nagging is, and I know what
    critiquing is.  If women can't tell the difference, well
    then--tough.  I *know* from experiance that they can so this
    "men are taught X women are taught X==Y" bit is fluff.


>         Needless to say, this makes the work a lot less effective.  I
>         *personally* can't work that way on purely technical goals,
>         and try to avoid working with women that act this way (not
>         all do--just most in my experiance).  OTOH, when the objective
>         is a convincing argument or paper, I generally like to work
>         with a woman--once I've *already solved the problem* because they
>         give good feedback.
>
> Because it is safe.  They are not refuting your solution, they are HELPING
you
> improve it.



    The problem is, just as often they offer *no* help at all, because
    they either are very unskilled at doing what needs to be done
    (finding flaws in an argument, for instance) or are unwilling
    to _do_ what needs to be done.

    I find it depressing, because I can't count the number of
    times when one of them has mentioned *after* the project
    is finished something that would have been of great use
    (read: grade saving) and said they "weren't sure"..



>         To give a parallel, imagine that you have a friend who's
>         learning sign language and you two are supposed to write a paper, and
>         throughout the session this friend insists on trying to talk
>         to you in sign language.  It will not only irritate you,
>         it will quickly make you angry ("Quit acting like a damn idiot
>         and get to work on the PROBLEM") because you are expecting them
>         to deal with you as you deal with them. For me, this is what
>         it is like (often) to work with a woman--or a man who acts like
>         one.
>
> I don't even know where to begin on this one.


    Whatever.  Maybe a better one:  Same situation--you have
    a big (say, 40% of the grade) paper due the next day and
    you're working to finish it.  you are still working on the
    argument itself, but your partner insists on playing with
    a thesaurus and prettyfying all of what you're writing
    instead of aiding you with the task at hand--the important
    part of what you're doing--the argument itself.  After
    an hour or two, you're liable to strangle them so that
    they'll shut up long enough for you to think.




>         The other thing is, women will never shut up and get to work.
>         They're so busy giving greetings and catching up with you
>         that they can't just put that aside until later.  It's even
>         worse if you're in a library--christ, it seems like they can't
>         just nod or wave or wink and _have_ to get an entire conversation
>         out of the way with every friend, teacher or even acquaintance
>         that walks by.
> This is about power.  You want to be there to get your business done.  You
want
> this person's UNDIVIDED attention.  When you don't get what you expect, you
> get annoyed.  Maybe she's annoyed with you because you're so serious.


    Screw that.  It has nothing to do with "power"--it has to do
    with the willingness to sit down and get to work.  "So serious"?
    There isn't room in the job market for people who aren't.  This
    is *precisely* my point--women (in my humble experiance) seem
    unable to *commit* to getting the job done.  They see a bunch
    of possible solutions and are content to sit down and figure
    out more possibilities--but not pick one, get behind it and
    push.  Anything else is useless dillydallying.

    The fault isn't with me.  Let me try another parallel: suppose
    your refrigerator breaks, and you have a repairperson come
    over to fix it.  Well, the repair person gets to work, but
    stops every few seconds to watch the football game for a minute
    or two, then gets back to work--on the whole getting very little
    done.  Would you be pleased?  Is this a power issue?  No,
    it is a courtesy issue.



>         I prefer to be around women socially, because I get a little
>         tired of the constant conflict (or implied conflict involved
>         in any disagreement) that is omnipresent in a group of men.
>
>
> I don't know how you expect to get along with women if you can't accept their
> thought processes.  How can you hold a conversation?


    Be real.  You can have intellectual conversations with
    anyone who holds any thought processes and it will be
    extremely interesting (at least, I find it so).  My point
    is *strictly* that I do not like working with people who
    follow the stereotypical woman_think category.  That is,
    women and men_who_act_like_women.  I think the majority
    of men tend to feel the same--and yes, in fact, I think
    the majority of women *also* feel the same (inverse).


> No armor needed.  You need to realize that this is a power issue.  Working
with
> other people is stressful, especially if someone doesn't have the same work-
> habits that you have.  Taking control, or demanding things be done your way
is
> the easy way out.  I hope someday you can see that the male and female
> approaches can be COMPLIMENTARY rather than CONFLICTUAL.

    It is *not* a power issue.  when I am working with
    someone, I expect them to give just as much effort
    and attention that I do. Passing it off as a "power" issue
    and then saying some mumbo-jumbo about "complimentary
    rather than conflictual" without providing any backup of
    just how that is supposed to work is a cop out.

--
    "If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"

         Rule 1:  "Don't have more children than you can feed."
            Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!