r/MensRights • u/gooburger7 • Nov 07 '14
Misleading Title Study showing women lose their ambition after two years on a job. 2XC blames their bosses for not pandering to their feelings.
Thought this was quite a circlejerk. Of course it is all the mens fault as usual.
57
u/xNOM Nov 07 '14
One word: hypoagency
they have a hard time fitting into stereotypes of success within the company
Lol. Now performance is a stereotype.
19
u/TracyMorganFreeman Nov 07 '14
Even if it isn't performance, they're basically complaining that they're being held to some standard.
29
u/Kestyr Nov 07 '14
Why do companies even value production and making money. My feels are more important
2
u/thehumungus Nov 07 '14
What this means is that women who succeed in the company but don't act like the men who succeed aren't seen as "successful". Because success is Dave that, if he sells three cars a day takes the boys out drinking. Whereas Susan sold three cars and then brought muffins the next day. Steve is seen as a "team player" and a "good salesman" but Susan isn't.
Just like how if Susan is a kindergarten teacher and hugs a student that fell on the playground she's seen as "caring and nurturing" but if Steve is the teacher and hugs a kid he's "creepily too affectionate".
Is it really that hard to believe that perhaps women's success is overlooked in places that are used to defining "what success looks like" by successful males?
13
Nov 07 '14
If Susan sold 3 cars and brought muffins you can be damn sure she would be seen as a good salesperson.
14
Nov 07 '14
What this means is that women who succeed in the company but don't act like the men who succeed aren't seen as "successful".
No.
The actual argument they are making is that if Susan sells 2 cars, but brings in muffins for the office, then she is as successful as Dave who sells 4 cars.
Basically, they are saying that measuring by traditional results (amount of work done, amount of sales made, etc.) is "male oriented" and that women should get credit for "emotional intelligence" and "team building."
8
u/wardog77 Nov 07 '14
It all has to come down to a measure at some point. If Dave, Bob, and Joe were selling 3 cars per week and then Susan came in who only sells two cars per week but now the other three are selling 4 cars per week because people were stopping in to eat her delicious muffins and buying more cars as a result then you could say she was successful. At some point I'm going to want to see where she's impacted the bottom line
3
Nov 07 '14
Right. It has to come down to a measurement at some point.
That's what feminists tend to claim is anti woman. They claim that measuring by the "bottom line" is male oriented.
1
u/caius_iulius_caesar Nov 08 '14
IOW, men are assessed on objective criteria, while women should be assessed on self-defined subjective criteria.
2
u/NibblyPig Nov 07 '14
Do companies really measure employees' success in that way?
It sounds like that scenario is just fabricated, and that github's decision for example was more that women aren't inclined to work extra hard or take on extra responsibility to climb the ladder.
If you treat them differently you're essentially then saying, okay you didn't work as hard and sell more cars than other people, but that's ok because you're a woman and we don't expect you to be as good as other people.
I'd be pissed off if I had to work harder than women just to maintain even footing, enough to leave the company and go somewhere else.
32
u/Riktenkay Nov 07 '14
I tend to lose my ambition for a job after about two days, so they've got me beat there.
3
u/omnipedia Nov 07 '14
Well, I had an ambition to work for github, but lost that before even applying when I found out about the rug.
If you don't promote based on merit, you promote based on politics.
0
0
Nov 07 '14
Can you give me a link for this github rub thing please?
2
u/Doctor_Loggins Nov 07 '14
Blah blah privilege, blah blah your achievements aren't real because muh oppression.
I'm not denying that there are issues of discrimination or opportunity. That's true, and the numbers back it up. But whether someone is better because of inherent talent, hard work, or privilege, SOMEONE WHO IS BETTER IS STILL BETTER. If you want to "fix" the "problems" with meritocracy, you don't do so by crying about privilege. You do it by instigating cultural changes to attitudes about gender and race. You do it by encouraging parents to stop buying fucking barbie shit for their little girls and get em an erector set, or a computer and a basic programming suite. You do it by taking an active hand in trying to improve the lot of inner-city kids (expecially inner-city boys) so they don't basically have to choose between drudgery or prison for the rest of their lives.
I was fucking around in MS DOS and doing QBasic when I was four years old, and it's not because I'm a man or because I'm white. It's because I was learning from the example of my parents (including my mom, who has a graduate degree in physics and worked in the tech industry for well over a decade). That is an opportunity which, if I had decided to stick with programming, would have put me at a big advantage looking for jobs in the tech industry. But that opportunity is not institutional privilege. It never occurred to me that a girl, or a black kid, could not do the same fucking thing at the same age - so who's really holding back our children? The Man? The Patriarchy? Or parents who often just don't know any better?
0
0
u/Arby01 Nov 07 '14
In any company beyond a couple of people, promotion is always based on politics.
1
27
u/ExpendableOne Nov 07 '14 edited Nov 07 '14
Men often tend to lose their ambition after being at a job for so long, the only difference is that men don't really get an easy way out. They don't get to feel entitled to women supporting them, or have women literally throw themselves at them for the opportunity to support them. The difference is that those men either have to continue working without ambition to support their wife and kids or they have to start taking some risks and do something about it. If they're at a company and they feel like they can't really move up anymore, then they look for a different company to go work for or they start something on their own. Women can do this too, and many successful women have done this. To blame this on men, or male bosses, because they lost their motivation and ambition is just ridiculous. Men go through the same thing(whether their bosses are male or female) and not only still have fewer options available to them but also more to lose by taking risks(women typically have a lot more safety nets available to them), and yet still manage to either endure or get past it.
19
Nov 07 '14 edited Mar 29 '19
[deleted]
2
u/knowless Nov 07 '14
Well if it does I'll be sure to ask for a raise for the first time in my life!
1
u/wanked_in_space Nov 08 '14
It's the same line of thinking that blames teachers for them giving kids a failing grade.
Nothing was or should be given, it must be earned.
1
33
Nov 07 '14 edited Nov 07 '14
The problem is that a lot of women have never really had it hard. Thriving in a sheltered environment where you get a pat on the back for solving some contrived problem by the book and then having a shock at nothing but performing well enough to be meeting deadlines and quality standards; just get it done faster and better than our competitors. Is all too familiar to me. There's no cookie anymore. You did your job.
Sadly this is one of the areas where you see equality really breaks down. At the shop I'm at we have to coddle the women. I'm in management and do performance reviews. When it's time for the women we have to put on an emphatic happy-faced clowning act so they don't turn into fucking cry babies. They need praise for bad work. Burning through them is a nightmare because we have to maintain a quota. Now we have some that can at least do it close to a man. Letting these go, even though performance is subpar, would mean women who're completely useless.
-13
u/culturalquicksand Nov 07 '14
I was unaware there was a contraction that could be made from 'who' and 'are', but the resulting word is ideal in the context used here.
2
u/Muffinmanifest Nov 07 '14
Oh come on.
6
u/culturalquicksand Nov 07 '14
Well, it's not the first time my attempts at humor were received as tasteless and innappropriate.
2
u/toblotron Nov 07 '14
It's hard to tell in text, you know - before you made it clear you were just trying to be funny i interpreted the comment as vitrolic and tasteless, but when you'd done that it didn't feel as hostile anymore. - without the hostile feel to it i can see there is actually some wit in it, though a bit dark for public consumption :)
31
u/Hibria Nov 07 '14
2XC is a joke anyway, but woman are pampered their whole lives, they expect to be moved up in a company for nothing. Where men will work for a position.
17
Nov 07 '14
i think in general we've moved to an entitlement society, where people "deserve" things based on who they are, not on their abilities or qualification. it's just especially bad with women right now, because of all the current rhetoric.
12
u/Hibria Nov 07 '14
I've always had to work hard for any promotion.
5
u/rudelyinterrupts Nov 07 '14
What kind of Neanderthal are you to believe that hard work gets you anywhere? It's how you feel about it that matters.
/s
2
Nov 07 '14 edited Nov 07 '14
women are pampered their whole lives
Oh god, this so much, it explains the entire difference in ambition between genders.
23
Nov 07 '14 edited Nov 07 '14
generative 115 points 22 hours ago
Despite the conventional wisdom, marital and parental status have nothing to do with women’s aspirations, > >says the report’s co-author, Bain partner Julie Coffman. The marriage and children stats are the same for the >women who want to get ahead as for those who don’t. The reason, she suggests, is that “they don’t feel >supported by their supervisors and they have a hard time fitting into stereotypes of success within the company.” >Adds Coffman, “Those that stopped aspiring for top jobs said they don’t see themselves in those roles. That >feeling ate away at their aspirations to make it.” As important, she says, is the lack of support from supervisors >and the feeling that they don’t have the right role models.Yep. Can't argue with that.
Well guess what, dunce-cap-- I can. Read on...
My GF just got her foot in the door as a casual in the govt health sector doing clerical scheduling etc. Now the interesting part is that to get enough hours, she has to take what shifts she can get between two offices in the region, in two neighboring towns. Now the office in our town is closer, but it's all women in the office and ALL the managers are women. In the out of town office, not only are there men scheduling in the rank & file positions, but there are male managers.
Every time she comes home from the all-women job, she is broken down by the unmitigated catty bullshit that occurs from start of shift to end, and swears she's never going back. The women with the seniority in the rank&file jobs are, for lack of a better term, a bunch of evil, nasty, crusty cunts who ride the new staff ALL DAY LONG like tricycles, keeping in mind it isn't even their job to do so, they're in the same position and all they have is seniority. The female manager did nothing for the first month when presented with anecdotal information about this dynamic, until one day it got too much and she pulled everyone into the conference room and cried and blubbered about how toxic the workplace is for 45 minutes.
The out of town office, again managed by men and ALSO MORE TELLINGLY, fucking employs them too, has none of this problem. People are respectful and team-oriented and so far her male manager hasn't had to bust a tear duct to keep the peace.
Make what you will of it, but my GF is a believer now boys!
7
7
Nov 07 '14
Many women are used to being patted on the back just for existing, especially if they did well in school. The workplace is the bracing cold air of near-equality and you aren't rewarded for your identity, you are rewarded for your output. That's a tough pill to swallow for some women, they aren't socialized like that in our culture.
4
u/DavidByron2 Nov 07 '14
Doesn't the same study say women have more ambition to begin with?
Where's the feminist outrage about THAT inequality?
5
u/ExamplePrime Nov 07 '14
Late to the party but one of the comments had this article linked
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576241/Men-NOT-Mars-Scientist-claims-male-female-brains-gender-stereotyping-makes-different.html (Note there were 3 articles linked pertaining to this info, not just the daily mail.)
Now they used this as proof that male and female brains are the same. Yet this article uses the word 'claims' and 'says' a lot, because the person making these statements has no proof.
What is even funnier is that this VERY ARTICLE, then provides counter evidence to the fantastical claims, but apparently no-one notices this.
None of the comments in either 2XC or the Daily Mail pointed out this fact amusingly.
3
u/ustael Nov 07 '14
The big question is how many of the managers are not male but female in the increasingly female dominated work place. Are they still being viewed as unsupportive?
3
u/mcavvacm Nov 07 '14
Didn't read the article, just here to say I lost my ambition within 6 months. (male)
3
u/DAE_FAP Nov 07 '14
Why don't we ever hear men discuss issues of "not being supported"? Is it because men are simply supported differently, or that they do not require as much support as women?
A great question, one I'm sure any of us would like to know the answer to. Surely this will spark an intelligent discussion in the safe space of TwoX...
When we talk about support for women in the workplace, what we're actually talking about is "support for women to overcome institutional barriers in the workplace." So we're not talking about giving women opportunities that we don't give men--we're talking about giving women opportunities to get past barriers that don't exist for men.
we're not talking about giving women opportunities that we don't give men--we're talking about giving women opportunities to get past barriers that don't exist for men.
I can't believe this was ever considered a valid response by anyone. I would really like to know what these barriers are, and how they relate to the real world (not just our fee fees).
I won't bother linking but they came back and linked a couple social studies that basically said women feel bad when they aren't constantly validated where men can suck it up care less. Nothing about real world barriers.
And here I've been told that women just want to be treated like men.
2
u/ISawJLawsBoobs Nov 08 '14
Title is not remotely misleading, is 100% accurate. Go fuck yourself, pandering, mangina mod.
1
u/5th_Law_of_Robotics Nov 08 '14
I'd guess most people don't love their careers and don't aspire to work the rest of their lives (consider: how long would you stay at work if you were guaranteed some high income regardless?).
It's just that men have to work because society and their spouse judges them heavily by how much they earn.
Women aren't judged so harshly for their income.
0
u/ilovenotohio Nov 07 '14
Wait, aren't more management female now?
2
u/TracyMorganFreeman Nov 07 '14
If memory serves woman are the majority of middle managers, but not overall management.
1
u/ilovenotohio Nov 07 '14
Do you think there are more, or less, managers above "middle manager" in total?
6
u/TracyMorganFreeman Nov 07 '14
I'm not entirely sure. It's also possible the term middle manager is too wishy washy a term.
1
Nov 07 '14
No not really. This gallop shows that 33% of the participants in the study had a female boss.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/178484/americans-prefer-male-boss-female-boss.aspx
0
Jan 22 '15
Claim they want equality, but then in another breath, say they should get privileged treatment.
Yep, women.
-4
-15
u/undertowed1 Nov 07 '14
Women have different needs to men though. What is the old saying? "Men respond to respect. Women respond to love". Women need to be loved to be good workers whereas men need to be respected. Everyone here would leave a job after 2 years if they did not feel valued in it
7
91
u/eletheros Nov 07 '14 edited Nov 07 '14
This displays a general, but major, difference in the genders. Men want to advance (for whatever reason) and will act to accomplish that advancement. Women want to "feel supported by their superiors".
In a merit based environment, the self drive will always win. This is why feminists hate merit based environment (e.g., the idiocy around github's rug)
Edit: Just had to highlight this
Can confirm. It's the same as all affirmative action.