NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6459

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 9.5 KB | 259 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!rsrodger
From: [e-mail] (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Working with Women vs. Working with Men
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:11:58 GMT
Lines: 246

In article <[e-mail]> Terri Buchman <[e-mail]> writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> Robert Stephen
>Rodgers, [e-mail] writes:
>
>First of all, it is refreshing to read some direct comments
>from someone that specify the differences in organization and
>style that men and women often bring to problem solving.  I
>find it somewhat sad that you had to couch so much of what you
>had to say in "but I like, respect, admire, etc women" speak.


    Interesting comment, but still true.  I've gotten
    a number of flames (as well as some interesting
    responses).


>You stated that you have great difficulty working with women
>(primarily, but some men also) because of the way in which they
>go about analyzing and solving problems.

    Well, what I was trying to do was explain the probable
    origin of the "man who acts like a woman" as an insult.


>  While you readily
>admit that methods other than your own have worked, you state
>the difficulty you have working with people who employ other
>methods.

    I should probably point out that _while I have seen these
    other methods work_, if I had to rate how well they work
    they'd rank pretty far down.  They almost never produce
    anything really strong or bulletproof--whatever it is
    they get is good, but still very open to discussion.


>1.    Choose different partners.  Try and find someone whose
>style meshes better with yours.  There is absolutely nothing
>wrong with trying to find a project partner with whom you feel
>comfortable working.  You have learned something about
>yourself, learned what conditions are optimum for you, what
>type of people work best with you.  Use that knowledge.


    As I said, it has come to the point where I almost
    always try to work with men.  This is my way of lowering
    my chances of having to work with this type person.


>2.    If choice is not an option (as it may well not be in a work
>situation) then you and the other person are going to have to
>do some hard communications work setting up the guidelines and
>conditions that you will work under.   Tell your partner in


    In practice, I have found that such discussion
    usually helps matters none at all--rather, it generally
    makes them worse because the person becomes offended
    (no matter how you couch the comments with flattery,
    reasoning, logic, whatever)--and spends the rest of
    the session even less helpful than they would be otherwise.


>3.    There are people that you will find either extremely
>difficult or impossible to work with.  In many of these
>instances you should take steps to sever the relationship.
>Speak to your teacher and let the teacher know that you have an
>imcompatibility.

    This is not necessary.  I've already found an
    easy, very effective method.  When I *am* saddled
    with one of these types, there is no option to get
    rid of them.

    This behavior, the chatty-cathy-unwilling-to-commit
    -to-work-unwilling-wo-offer-thoughts type, irritates me
    like nothing else I encounter in a working situation.
    Most men tend to feel the same way--and (from observation)
    it seems that many more women (vastly more) act this
    way then men--which is (probably) the origin (in part)
    of "man who acts like women".  I didn't choose to touch
    on the other side (courage, whatever) because others
    will either better explain it, or understand already.

    My point was not, really, that I can't stand working
    with women.  I've already found a pretty good
    solution to that one.


> Couch your complaint in the language of
>difference

    Funny, I learned English.


>Sometimes this will help.  Sometimes the teacher or boss is
>going to say, in effect, tough luck.  Then you have to decide
>whether or not the project or job is worth it.


    Well, neither of these suggestions are viable--for me.
    Instead, I choose #3--do the entire project myself and then
    listen to the other person babble and prattle and see if they
    have any ideas whatsoever.


>>    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.
>
>I do have some problems with your reasoning here.  In the
>business world I have lived in, people are often hired based on
>compatibility with existing employees.

    A tremendous mistake.  How do we define compatibility?
    Friendly?  Good looking office decoration?  Plays good
    golf?


>Many companies are
>'downsizing' and are creating business structures that are team
>and not hierarchy based.


    Also, IMHO, a big mistake at a certain level.  Consulting
    every decision in a team fashion slows down and interrupts
    innovation.


>the norm.   I have found many people who find non-linear
>approaches to problem solving not serious.  However, often
>times the non-linear approach produces the solution that works.


    That's true, but "non-linear approaches" covers a lot
    more territory than the type of behavior I am speaking
    of.


>This is the language of blame.

    Language of difference, language of blame.. Please,
    these terms just scream Womens Studies or Sociology,
    which makes anything you say sound a little funny
    (having takem a number of both classes,I quickly
    learned that "logic" is quite alien to them.)
    It defeats your goal.


>Assigning blame gets you
>into a lose lose situation where you start assigning fault to
>another based on the fact that they are not you.

    Like I said, I quite understand that it is the difference
    between the other person andmyself that is the problem and
    *not the other person herself (or himself)*.  I do not
    blame them for being the way they are, but I certainly
    blame them for their inability to act in an appropriate
    matter--when they often *know* that what they are doing
    (and it goes beyond just their type of reasoning, as
    I said--they often hold back *useful comments* -- comments
    that would have improved the project a great deal--for
    not reason other than "I wasn't sure" or "I don't know
    why I didn't say anything...I was trying to figure out.."..
    In other words, the problem is the difference:
    Someone who can commit and control their behavior
    (i.e. not having a mini-conversation with everyone
    who walks by) and someone who cannot (someone who'll
    sit down and mull over something forever and never
    arrive at an answer).)


>>  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.
>
>This is an apples and oranges argument.


    No it isn't.  It is *precisely* the behavior 99% of
    my women partners have displayed.  God help me if we
    have to work in a library to have access to materials--
    it becomes impossible to get anything done.  A conversation
    for every person who walks by--uh-oh, they missed me.. Better
    get up, chase after them, have a conversation, then get
    back to work--whena nod or a simple "hello" or "Hi, I'm
    working" would do just fine.


>Elsewhere in your
>original argument you stated that you have seen alternative
>forms of logic and problem solving work.


    See my comment on how well they do.  Since you
    commented that I shouldn't have to doubletalk
    to avoid flames I'll repeat it:  They do not
    work well.  The results are often still fuzzy, with
    far too much material on the reasoning and data on
    alternatives.  To me, these results are unaccpetable
    when the task is to find an effective answer and show
    it to be viable.


>This style variation can be
>extremely annoying to others who prefer to work non stop until
>a solution arrives.


    You may have hit on something here, but just barely.
    Generally, I arrive at the teamwork session fully
    prepared--that is, I have familiarized myself with the
    problem and sketched out (in my mind) possible solutions.
    Having done so,I let it cook for awhile in the back of my
    mind.  My partners--the type I'm complaining about--
    just as often show up and give me a consiprational
    wink--"I haven't even looked at this stuff yet hee hee"
    <stupid grin>.  If we have been working for hours and
    haven't been getting anywhere, I have no objection to
    backing off and getting away from it.


>Remember to keep in mind the goal at hand,
>solving the problem.  Both styles work to that end.
>
>It is never easy learning to accomodate others.  It can also be
>extremely irritating to constantly have to watch out for
>communication errors or mishaps with others. But, I haven't
>seen any other solutions to this problem that work.

    I find that mine works fine--it is also the most
    efficient--work with people who can work with you.

--
    "If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"
            Equality is a delusion.
         Rule 1:  "Don't have more children than you can feed."
            Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!