Women at work

Women in the workplace. For some reason this remains a contentious topic no matter what the work. It seems that neither men nor women can get past their differences, accept that people are people regardless of sex, or work in environments of mutual respect. Ever since World War II, when industries were ‘forced’ to accept women in the work place, special considerations based on ‘feminine’ psychology have been made for women at work. Instead of making the transition easier, the adopted principles made working conditions harder for women and are still felt to this day.

In July 1943, Transportation Magazine wrote an article containing 11 tips designed to help supervisors get the most out of the feminine workforce. The article is shockingly laughable, but also frightening as many of the misconceived ideas from 60 years ago still dominate some male mindsets. For example, tip no. 3 states that it’s better to hire “husky” (read slightly overweight) girls because they are more even tempered and efficient than the skinny variety.

Many people, of both genders, still believe that attractive women, who take pride in their appearance, are somehow more vacuous than plainer looking women. It’s supposed that pretty ‘girls’ are so concerned with their looks that all else pales in significance. The biggest tragedy in life is a broken nail, closely followed by a bad hair day (it could be the other way round).

Conversely, women who don’t take pride in their appearances and who don’t make an effort in their grooming are considered to be slovenly. If they don’t care about their looks, how can they care about anything else? Where is the happy medium? I’d be interested to know if there is one.

Men still believe that women use their looks to obtain promotions and salary increases. A recent article on askmen.com stated that making eye contact and wearing revealing attire is simply a means to an end for some females. At least the writer, Armando Gomez, qualified the sentence with the word ‘some’ and didn’t paint all women with his misguided brush.

An attractive, friendly female colleague is seen as a flirt who shamelessly uses her feminine wiles to get ahead, while a plainer colleague, who is just as friendly, is one of the guys. What is worse than men believing that women flaunt their looks as a self-marketing strategy is the fact that many women subscribe to that way of thinking. Reactions to news of a colleague’s promotion include extensive debate on who she slept with to secure the position and how long she’ll last now that her abilities will be tested with new responsibilities.

There is an abundance of literature on the topic, available both in print and online. Feminist writers have covered it extensively; men have written about their perspective of the feminisation of the workplace; women have tried to write from a male point of view and men have tried to write with women in mind. Gomez attempts the latter in his article on askmen.com. He tries to point out all the obstacles that women have to overcome in order to succeed. All that he really creates, however, is a condescending tone and the impression that he doesn’t fully understand the subject.

He contends that women develop dual personalities: a work personality that is flirtatious, bubbly and designed to garner respect and acceptance, and more serious (he says normal) personality for home. As a working woman, working with other women I feel the need to say, “Huh?’ Maybe I’ve just worked in good companies, but I’ve never felt the need to disassociate myself to such a degree to gain recognition for my abilities.

No one is ever truly him or herself at work. Business environments require a certain amount of decorum that our personal lives do not. But men also have to adapt to their work situations. To imply that only women develop professional schizophrenia is grossly irresponsible and inaccurate, not to mention offensive and discriminatory.

Gomez compounds his sins by drawing a table that he feels highlights the different behaviours of men and women at work. Some points of interest include his allegation that women are usually well prepared, while men tend to cobble bits of information together at the last minute. He also says that women make an effort to keep up to date on industry-related information, while men are happy to make things up on the spot rather than admit ignorance on a subject.

His generalisations about men are slanted to make them resemble badly performing monkeys, while women are depicted as being patient, and glowing pinnacles of virtue. I don’t know where he got his information from, but I question the source. Personality types are not gender specific, neither is life that simple or easily delineated.

Attitudes towards women at work have come a long way since 1943, when it was considered good advice to have a physician examine prospective female employees. This was deemed necessary to determine which inherent female weaknesses were present to render her mentally and physically unfit for employment. Unfortunately, articles such as Mr Gomez’s prove just how far we’ve yet to go.

If you feel, however, that he sheds some light on the murky matter and makes several valid points, you may want to remember his last, priceless, piece of advice: ‘If your receptionist is a woman, cut her some slack, she may be your boss one day.’

Recommended sites:

http://blogs.jobdig.com/wwds/2008/03/13/completely-unacceptable-1943-guide-to-hiring-women/

http://www.askmen.com/money/career/16b_career.html

Sandra wrote this article for the online marketers Employers Jobs work opportunities and vacancies one of the leading site directories for information on work opportunities and job vacancies, as well as developing trends in the professional world.