In a Washington Post article thick with both historical references and wonky policy recommendations, Dorothy Sue Cobble writes that women played a key role in the labor reform of the New Deal, and that they are placed to do so again. "New Deal feminists," she says, and those who took up their work-focused advocacy, spearheaded the Equal Pay Act and pushed through a child-care expenses tax reduction. They also successfully campaigned to expand health insurance. Now, says Cobble, feminists could take a cue from their forebears and focus their efforts on greater labor justice across class and gender. She writes,

We need a movement to raise income, to close the gender leisure gap as well as the gender pay gap — still stuck at 23 percent — to redesign careers for modern families and to expand health coverage. [...] But for the movement to grow, it will need to take another page from New Deal feminism: join with others concerned with economic justice and workplace transformation and pay attention to updating and strengthening labor laws. With the rise of managerial, supervisory and contingent work, the FLSA [Fair Labor Standards Act, which set up a minimum wage] and the National Labor Relations Act barely cover half of the private-sector labor force. At the same time, programs such as the child tax credit and support for early education should be extended to the middle class. As New Deal feminists knew, any women's movement that wants to remain relevant needs to advocate for the majority of women — waitress moms as well as soccer moms, corporate executives as well as the immigrant women who clean their homes and care for their children.

Cobble's argument has some troubling elements — she seems to think feminists should stop paying so much attention to abortion because "it is painfully clear that consensus in this country on the issue of abortion rights is impossible at this moment." But she's made one of the most specific and convincing cases yet for the ever-more-urgent need to reform the American workplace. And she points out that such reform should be a broad-based, including not only equal pay and improved health insurance but also flexible hours and protections for all types of jobs.

In fact, the new face of labor reform needs to be about more than labor. The recession has shown that the old model in which employees relied on companies for their health insurance and retirement benefits, and in return often signed away their family lives, doesn't really work anymore. Maybe it never did. What we need now are social programs that decouple a person's basic security from the vagaries of the job market, and a job market that takes into account the need for a balanced life. Women, who both pay more in health care expenses and spend more time caring for family members, are well-placed to advocate for both these goals. And Cobble isn't the only one chronicling their role in labor reform throughout history — David Woolner has a piece on The Huffington Post about women and workplace issues from Eleanor Roosevelt to now — and NOW.

Unfortunately, not everyone got the memo. Shaun Rein has a Forbes article titled "Why Men Don't Promote Women More," and bearing the linkbaity subhead, "Because women aren't pushy enough." He writes,

In my career, I have tended to promote more men than women. I have even generally given men higher salaries. Why? Am I sexist? Do men do a better job? The answer is a resounding no to both.

Actually, it is mostly women's fault. They simply don't ask for raises or promotions as often as men do.

Women, he says, are afraid "they could be fired if they appeared too pushy," but they just need to follow his simple tips to get ahead. One of these, of course, is not dressing too sexy. The other is to ask for a raise or promotion. His pointers for doing the latter aren't bad ones, but the reality is that women are often perceived as pushy where men would be seen as assertive. And they can face negative consequences for this perception. Is part of the answer for all women to be more assertive so that no one stands out? Maybe — but another is for people like Rein, business writers with lots of powerful readers, to examine why women might not ask for promotions rather than just telling them to do so.

Rein writes that many men "said they'd prefer a female boss, because of the greater likelihood she'd understand the need for work-life balance." And having more women in positions of power would be a great step towards the kind of "New Deal feminism" Cobble's talking about. But that's not going to happen as long as male bosses sit back and wait for women to come to them — something that's really just as passive as the behavior Rein accuses female employees of. Part of being a great boss is spotting talent throughout your organization, not just when it's yelling in your face. One day maybe women will yell as loud as men. But until that happens, male and female supervisors can advance the cause of New Deal feminism by actively looking for outstanding women, and by creating the kind of work environment where these women can shine.

It's Time For New Deal Feminism [Washington Post]
Why Men Don't Promote Women More [Forbes]

• Law Professor Alan Young notes that witchcraft charges don't actually target witches (no shit) but those who use fake magical powers to prey on vulnerable people. • The American Library Association has announced a new prize for YA writers: the Excellence in Nonfiction for Young Adults award. A book about civil rights heroine Claudette Colvin is among the five finalists for the prize. The winner will be announced January 18th. • In 2008, women held only 15.2% of the seats on U.S. boards of directors for Fortune 500 companies. A year later, the percentage hasn't changed at all. And the same study found that women only make up 6.3% of corporate top earners. "The leadership doesn't reflect the marketplace or the talent pool," said lead researcher Ilene Lang. •  LaTanya Clemmons, sister of alleged cop-killer Maurice Clemmons, has been arrested and charged with four counts of rendering criminal assistance. LaTanya, along with five of her relatives, are being charged for their role in Maurice's escape (he eluded police for two days before he was discovered and shot by a Seattle officer). • A mother from the UK is fighting to receive donor milk for her 15-month-old son. She is currently unable to breastfeed the child due to chemotherapy, and although nurses tried giving him formula milk, it only made him sick. She was provided with donor milk for several months, but the hospital has decided that he no longer needs it. She asks that they continue giving her milk until March, when she will have finished with chemo. • Alexis Xanders was walking home from school a couple months ago when a group of kids - including one with a video camera - began to harass her and her boyfriend. The bullying escalated, and Xanders was eventually punched in the face by a member of the school's wrestling team. Fortunately, she got her hands on a copy of the tape and uploaded it to CNN iReport. Authorities are now investigating the fight, which apparently all began when Xanders said she didn't like Insane Clown Posse. • A nativity scene in front of the Old City Hall in Toronto has been altered today, after several news sources noted that the display featured a plaque from the Campaign Life Coalition - a pro-life group. City officials said the sign did not comply with their Human Rights Policy, and asked the CLC to take it down. Apparently they did so, grudgingly. • Serena Williams is in the running to be named the AP's Athlete of the Decade. Why her? Because: "With unprecedented power and underrated agility, she has transformed the way the women's game is played. Her flair for theatrics and compelling back story brought new fans to the sport, which helped the WTA Tour achieve new levels of popularity... This is an athlete who has that very, very unique combination of grit and glamour, power and grace." •

Both are being investigated for misconduct, and, as the Daily News notes, both of the "good-looking" language teachers were very popular with their students. • General Mills has announced plans to reduce the amount of sugar in cereals marketed to children. This means that munchie-favorites like Lucky Charms and Count Chocula could drop at least 25% of their sugar, until there are less than 10 grams per serving. Wonder if that will effect the taste. •  According to an Italian newspaper, Amanda Knox still has hope that she will be freed. She reportedly told Italian lawmaker Walter Verini that she "has faith in the Italian justice system," including her pending appeal. • New York State's oldest registered sex offender could be released from a halfway house soon. Prosecutor Frank Sedita has warned against the dangers of releasing the 100-year-old convicted child molester, who he calls the "personification of evil." •  A 10-year-old British girl has made the news after she wrote an angry letter to the man who broke into her house. Her letter, which describes her feelings of fear and sadness, will be sent out to known burglars with the hopes that it will deter them from robbing again. •  In the past few weeks, three top female newspaper editors have announced that they are leaving their jobs, and do not intend to continue careers in journalism. The timing of their resignations has lead some to worry about diversity in the newsroom. However, Sandra Mims Rowe, editor of the Oregonian says it is not always gender-specific issues that force editors to seek new opportunities, and that times are tough across the board. •  The New York Times helpfully reminds us of the number one rule of any affair: don't put anything in writing. Oddly, many otherwise intelligent-seeming people (Tiger Woods, Senator John Ensign) seem to think that this does not apply to text messaging, which has led the NYT to deem texts the "new lipstick on the collar." Professor Shirley Turkle rather poetically describes our cellphone-blindness: "Like Peter Pan, we do not see our electronic shadow until it is pointed out to us. We assume it is not there." • Kumari Fulbright, the former beauty queen and University of Arizona law student accused kidnapping of her ex-boyfriend, pled guilty to conspiracy to commit kidnapping and aggravated assault today. She'll spend the next two years in prison. • A Pennsylvania woman who drank herself unconscious at her 20th birthday party is suing a hospital for medical malpractice because she passed out while sitting on the floor in the emergency room and was left in that position for 12 hours. This cut off circulation to her legs, and they were later amputated at the knees • The International Olympic Committee has reallocated two of the three gold medals Marion Jones was stripped of in 2007 when she admitted to using steroids. But for the first time the IOC is leaving a gold medal spot vacant because 100-meter silver medalist Katerina Thanou of Greece is still facing charges for staging a motorcycle accident to avoid doping tests. "She disgraced herself and the Olympic movement by avoiding three doping tests. We are not legally bound to give medals," said an IOC spokesman. • Police arrested a Florida woman for allegedly throwing a raw steak at her disabled live-in boyfriend when he asked for a roll instead of sliced bread with his dinner. Authorities say she beat the man, who has terminal cancer and an injured left leg, in the face with the meat and threw a bag of clothing at his bad leg. She repeatedly told a deputy that she only slapped him "so that he can learn." •

In an "explanatory note" on the text, Levitt and Dubner admit (in somewhat disingenuous "we're-so-bad" fashion) that their previous book, Freakonomics, lacked "a unifying theme." Superfreakonomics sort of has one — the authors write in the introduction that "it seems to be part of the human condition to believe in our own predictive abilities — and, just as well, to quickly forget how bad our predictions turned out to be." Their aim is to provide a lighthearted and eclectic corrective to this stodgy short-sightedness — a challenge to the status quo, complete with jokes.

Some of their revelations are quite interesting. Particularly timely in light of the recent horror in Richmond is their takedown of the standard view of the Kitty Genovese story. Genovese's death has become a symbol of the apathy of Americans — and New Yorkers in particular — in the face of suffering. A New York Times account of the event famously began, "for more than half an hour 38 respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens. [...] Not one person telephoned the police during the assault; one witness called after the woman was dead." In fact, the number of witnesses was more like six, and one of them may have called the police in time to save Genovese — but they were slow to respond because they thought it was a domestic violence call. As Levitt and Dubner frame it, the Genovese story is less about uncaring bystanders and more about incompetent police and sensationalizing reporters. They roll this information together with a critique of modern altruism research to form a convincing argument that people at large are neither as evil nor as good as they're sometimes made out to be.

Levitt and Dubner are less enlightening on the subject of women in the workplace. We've already critiqued their discussion of prostitutes, but a drop in hookers' relative wages isn't the only social development they try to pin on "the feminist revolution." The other is the decline in the quality of schools, which they blame on women's entry into high-paying professions that had previously been closed to them, like medicine and law. Levitt and Dubner write,

As a consequence, the schoolteacher corps began to experience a brain drain. In 1960, about 40 percent of female teachers scored in the top quintile of IQ and other aptitude tests, with only 8 percent in the bottom. Twenty years later, fewer than half as many were in the top quintile, more than twice as many in the bottom. It hardly helped that teachers' wages were falling significantly in relation to those of other jobs. "The quality of teachers has been declining for decades," the chancellor of New York City's public schools declared in 2000, "and no one wants to talk about it."

The authors don't suggest that we turn back the clock on feminism in order to benefit schoolchildren, but they do question whether women have really profited from their increased opportunities. They mention the wage gap, then contend that because women take fewer finance classes and more "career interruptions" than men, they are actually choosing their lower wages. Levitt and Dubner write, "while gender discrimination may be a minor contributor to the male-female wage differential, it is desire — or lack thereof — that accounts for most of the wage gap." It's hardly a new argument, and their question, "could it be that men have a weakness for money just as women have a weakness for children?" isn't particularly groundbreaking. They don't explain why women should bear the full responsibility for educating schoolchildren, or how districts might make teaching more competitive with other professions. By bookending their discussion of women's work with talk about working girls, Levitt and Dubner try to make their arguments sound hip and different — but really, blaming women not only for their own lower wages but also for the problems of society is pretty darn conventional.

Then there's Levitt and Dubner's discussion of global warming. This part of the book has gotten a lot of media play — Levitt talked about it on The Daily Show — and it's likely to be the most controversial. To be clear, the authors don't argue that global warming doesn't exist — they just don't think we need to cut back on fossil fuels in order to stop it. Rather, they champion a series of cool-sounding inventions like a hose that would squirt sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, blotting out just enough light to cool the earth. These plans sound interesting, and it's not clear whether the scientific and environmental communities are considering them seriously. Part of this lack of clarity may have to do with the fact that Levitt and Dubner portray Al Gore and everyone else who believes in carbon reduction as at best a bunch of stick-in-the-muds and at worst a cult. They write,

[T]he movement to stop global warming has taken on the feel of a religion. The core belief is that humankind inherited a pristine Eden, has sinned greatly by polluting it, and now must suffer lest we all perish in a fiery apocalypse.

In response to ideas like the sulfur dioxide hose, Levitt and Dubner quote Al Gore as saying, "I think it's nuts." It's unclear if that's all he had to say, or if he perhaps had an inkling that he was about to be portrayed as the "patron saint" of a misguided religion and decided to clam up. Whatever the case, it's hard to evaluate the "geoengineering" ideas the authors present because the larger scientific community doesn't get to have a say. The authors have a stake in appearing contrarian and cool, and they don't give much space to the lame-os who might disagree with them.

Levitt and Dubner write in their introduction that "we're trying to start a conversation, not have the last word." If their book really does spark a discussion about creative ways to reverse global warming — or to improve schools, for that matter — that will be all to the good. Unfortunately, right now Superfreakonomics looks like that very dangerous thing, a little bit of knowledge. Casual readers may pick it up, find out that women don't want higher wages and that a special hose will save the world, and assume that neither social nor environmental change is necessary. Because as much as Levitt and Dubner portray themselves as upstarts, many of their ideas just give people permission to behave as they always have. And as much as they claim to want to open a dialogue, they don't really give the other side its say.

SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, And Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance [Amazon]

Early in the piece, called "The Mismeasure of Woman," Lipman (that's her in the white, lofting her National Magazine Award) writes,

The truth is, women haven't come nearly as far as we would have predicted 25 years ago. Somewhere along the line, especially in recent years, progress for women has stalled. And attitudes have taken a giant leap backward.

Kinda vague, but a worthwhile topic nonetheless. And Lipman does provide some sobering stats, like the fact that, "according to the American Bar Association, women in 2008 made up almost half of all associates, but only 18.3 percent of partners." After that, her essay pretty quickly goes off the rails. Both the NYTPicker and Gawker's Foster Kamer handily detail the ways Lipman's piece makes no sense. Kamer's right that the connection she draws between 9/11, the purported "end of irony" and boobs on the Internet is just bizarre, and the NYTPicker deserves props for pointing out that at least one of her allegations of sexism actually never happened — nobody called her career "leggy." But I'm not particularly interested in picking apart her arguments that sexism still exists — it does, there's better proof of it than appears in Lipman's piece, and there's no need to go into that here. What does bear some critiquing is her prescription for "chang(ing) the conversation," a vague phrase that appears to mean ending not just discrimination in the workplace but also misogyny in media and pop culture. Let's take Lipman's advice point by point (all bold is mine):

1.

First, we can begin by telling girls to have confidence in themselves, to not always feel the need to be the passive "good girl." In my time as an editor, many, many men have come through my door asking for a raise or demanding a promotion. Guess how many women have ever asked me for a promotion?

I'll tell you. Exactly ... zero.

Yes, women could use workplace assertiveness training. And yes, teachers and parents should be raising girls to be active rather than passive, and not to expect "unrealistic perfection in every sphere, from beauty to housekeeping." But why does the conversation about women and career advancement always have to be framed in terms of women asking for raises and promotions? I get that in today's world this is a necessary career skill, but a common critique of America's educational system is that it values obedience and docility, qualities that supposedly come easier to girls than to boys. Parents and other advocates use this as evidence that the school system needs to be changed to be more male-friendly — but women are still expected to change to be more workplace-friendly. I don't believe that boys are naturally less obedient, or women naturally less assertive. But we are still socialized differently, and the culture of many American workplaces is dominated by values developed and perpetuated by men — including self-promotion and aggressiveness. Again, plenty of women have these qualities in spades. But for those who don't, why can't workplace culture change to, say, reward hard work instead of repeated demands? Why do women always have to be the ones to budge?

2.

[H]ave a sense of humor. Believe me, it's needed.

Case in point: My favorite Christmas card ever came from Martha Stewart - while she was in prison in West Virginia. It was beautiful, on heavy paper stock, and showed a gorgeous wreath. And on the inside, homey as could be, it was engraved with holiday wishes from "Martha Stewart, Alderson, West Virginia."

This one is kind of mystifying. I'm not really sure what the Martha Stewart anecdote is supposed to teach us, especially since it's not even that funny. And anyway, can we stop talking about how women need to get a sense of humor? Umpteen discussions of humorless feminazis have led me to believe that the female sense of humor is like the clit — other people may not know how to find it, but we know where the fuck ours is.

And 3.

One final suggestion: don't be afraid to be a girl.

Women do have a different culture from men. And that can give us some tremendous advantages. Women are built to withstand hardship and pain. (Anyone who has given birth knows what I'm talking about.) That's a big benefit at a time like this, with the unemployment rate at 9.8 percent and rising.

Where to even start with this? How about with the fact that Lipman just got finished telling women that they had to learn to operate like men in male workplace culture — but wait, don't forget hold on to a culture of your own! The idea that women need to work "like men" but think/look/act/dress/talk/fuck "like a girl" continues to be a huge obstacle to women's equality, and is part of the demand for "unrealistic perfection" that Lipman decries earlier in the essay. Even leaving this aside, if women's culture means "withstanding hardship and pain," I'm not sure I want it. I don't buy that women are any better at this than men, and this particular type of exceptionalism crosses over pretty quickly into obligation — when women are perceived as "better" at something (i.e. childrearing), it becomes their exclusive duty to take care of it. And I'd rather men share some of the pain of the recession, thanks very much.

Point 3 segues into the assertion that women are better at weathering economic downturn because they define themselves less by their jobs. This may be true in the aggregate — things are changing, but men are still told to identify with their jobs more closely than women are. Of course, women are told that their worth depends on the love of a man, and it's hard to say which cultural message is more damaging. As the recession has shown, jobs can be as fickle as love, and failure at either doesn't make you a bad person. It's worth remembering that strong relationships with friends and family — and also, I'd argue, a connection to a cause outside yourself — can help you weather crises both in love and at work. But framing this as feminine wisdom just keeps the genders firmly in their little work/life boxes, which is exactly the opposite of what the recession should teach us, if it teaches us anything.

I feel a little dirty taking Lipman to task for all this, given that she is genuinely trying to address the problems women face. But we're not going to solve those problems by falling back on the same old stereotypes that created them in the first place. Lipman deserves credit for drawing attention to a pressing issue in a national forum. Maybe now other people will come up with better ways to address it.

The Mismeasure Of Woman [NYT]
Fallen Portfolio Editor Joanne Lipman's Self-Serving Feminism Screed: 9/11, Sissies, Etc. [Gawker]
Whoops! Leggy Former Portfolio Editor Joanne Lipman Makes Mulitple Mistakes In Today's Op-Ed Whine About Women. [The NYTPicker]

Shriver's report is fascinating, in that it shows 75% of Americans taking a positive view of an increasing female presence in the workplace, and a desire by both men and women to work together to come up with a way to balance work, childcare, and paying the family bills. Interestingly enough, "Sixty-five percent of men and women surveyed felt that the decrease in children growing up with a stay-at-home parent has been somewhat or very negative for American society," though the solution, amongst those surveyed, doesn't appear to be "Well, make the women stay home," as much as a desire for employers to consider more flexibility in hours, better benefits, and more realistic view on what it means to be an American family in today's society. As Heather Boushey, of the Center for American Progress tells Allison Linn of MSNBC, "We live in a world that is designed for one kind of family that no longer really exists."

Poll Finds Wide Support For Women At Work [MSNBC]

According to the Telegraph, Lorraine Jones, of the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, says female shopworkers, airline cabin crew and other employees must wear high heels as part of a dress code — but male employees do not. Jones, a practicing podiatrist says: ''This is not a trivial problem. Two million working days are lost every year through lower limb and foot-related problems. We are not trying to ban high heels - they are good for glamming up but they are not good for the workplace. Women should have a choice of wearing healthier, more comfortable shoes.''

Sounds great, right? Not according to Loraine Monk of the University and College Union, who opposed the move, arguing: "This well-meant motion will see the union movement portrayed in the media as the killjoy fashion police… Let's stop telling women what to do."

The Guardian reports that a Tory Member of Parliament, Nadine Dorries, wrote on her blog:

"I'm 5ft 3in and need every inch of my Louboutin heels to look my male colleagues in the eye. If high heels were banned in Westminster, no one would be able to find me."

Mary Turner from the British Trade Union has fired back: "If you need to wear high heels to stand up to men than I feel very sorry for you."

In any case, this case is not so much about banning high heels as it is about making sure employees aren't forced to endure a health hazard. BBC News notes that "where they are found to be hazardous, they should be replaced with sensible and comfortable shoes." The problem, of course, is that for some women — especially those working in retail — high heels are part of a "look" to represent a brand. Some women do feel more powerful, more confident in heels. But can you be plucky and self-assured when you've got a twisted ankle, bunions and tendonitis?

Unions Take 'Stand' On Stilettos [BBC News]
Women Should Not Have To Wear High Heels At Work, Says TUC [Guardian]
High Heels 'Should Be Banned At Work' [Telegraph]

The subhead of "Mr. Big Gets Downsized" reads: "What happens when the breadwinner is toast? Chris Noth plays Mr. Mom, while Milla Jovovich leaves him with the crumbs." And so begins a role-reversal-ish photo shoot, in which the man is left at home to watch the rugrats while the woman is all business. Just like in The Hangover, it's supposedly instant comedy to see a man with a baby, as though men never parent and are as comfortable with kids as they are with, say, fainting goats.

It's so strange that this story is tied to the recession, downsizing and the economy. What if this were a non-fiction photo essay about some laid-off Bank Of America exec, and the poor dad looked as swamped as he does and that mom looked as distracted as she does and that little girl looked as sad as she does? Would you be like, wow, nice skirt, how much is that? Well, it's $695. Okay?

Don't get me wrong: Milla looks fierce. She is clearly taking calls about killing zombies and is saying stuff like, "I'm overbooked, but I can squeeze you in."

And what's this? Is the downsized dad flirting? Or just getting pre-school tips? And while it's great that Milla's training her mini-me to be a future CEO, shouldn't someone see what that little boy is crying about?

How many movies or TV shows have you seen where the dad makes a big stink (heh) about changing diapers?

Here's the thing: If this photoshoot were running, say, during the time when Mad Men is set — as a true, controversial role-reversal, then it would be one thing. But right now, when people are actually out of work; when women do struggle to balance career and kids — it's hard to decide if it's playful and funny or dark and depressing to see a distracted, possibly neglectful mom and a drowning, overwhelmed dad. Then again, maybe we're not meant to look too deeply into the set up. It's just a fashion shoot, right? This story is followed by an article on "investment pieces," featuring $10,300 handbags and $1,090 shoes. Priorities!

Earlier: So Bazaar: Are High-Fashion Magazines Turning Into Low-Rent Tabloids?

Prominent Feminist Explains Why Angelina Jolie Is Best Thing, Ever

The behavior? Verbal abuse, job sabotage, misuse of authority and destroying of relationships. Explains Klaus: "While women have come a long way in removing workplace barriers, one of the last remaining obstacles is how they treat one another. Instead of helping to build one another’s careers, they sometimes derail them — for example, by limiting access to important meetings and committees; withholding information, assignments and promotions; or blocking the way to mentors and higher-ups." And yet, writes Klaus:

Despite all the money spent annually on women’s leadership conferences and professional development programs, you’d be hard-pressed to find a workshop on women mistreating one another at work. Don’t get me wrong: I’m a huge proponent of women’s leadership programs. But teaching career skills is not enough if we ignore one of the most important reasons for holding these events in the first place: learning to value one another so we can all get ahead.

It's also interesting that recent research shows that girls who are bullied at a young age are more likely to remain victims than boys. In other words, if you're getting beaten up at age six, you're probably going to be teased and verbally threatened at age ten. What are the chances some of this stays with you when you're 22, or 32?

Of course, you'd think that if there are multitudes of women out there who have experienced sabotage and abuse, there would be a a horde of women willing to speak out against bullies in the workplace. Except that means admitting a woman mistreated you, Klaus explains. "We fear that bringing our experience into the light and talking about it will set us back to that ugly gender stereotype we have fought so hard to overcome: the one about the overemotional, backstabbing, aggressive (and you know what’s coming) bitch."

So what's the answer? A push for females to be kinder and gentler in the workplace? Or a course called Dealing With Bitches 101?

A Sisterhood of Workplace Infighting [NY Times]
Girls Twice As Likely As Boys To Remain Victims Of Bullying [EurekAlert]

I mean, really, Anna never lets me write anything I want to. It's all, write about Sarah Palin! Blog about women in the workplace! Don't be so ranty! What if I want to write about shoes? Or sex? She's all, whatever, our readers want to hear about things that will affect their lives and not just your clitoris again.

She's, like, this horrible, censoring taskmaster who never lets us say what we really want to say because it's totally her blog and she's, like, really really mean. I thought when I came here after getting shitcanned from my last blogging job by an asshole guy that Anna would be so much better, but noooooo. She's always, like, changing my headlines to make them funnier or correcting my typos or telling me to take time off to deal with problems in my family or because I am so sick I'm blogging from the bathroom floor in between bouts of vomiting. I expected her to, like, hold my hand and braid my hair and post every single thing I write as soon as I write it without editing it and blow rainbows and sunshine up my ass because I'm a girl and I demand positive feedback and and maternal care.

Anyway, so I can totally relate to the authors' hypothesis that the reason that women have problems with women supervisors more often than male ones is because female employees have difference expectations of their female supervisors than their male ones. Like, I am totally expecting Anna to buy me a drink tonight whereas my last boss (a dude) only ever talked to me on the phone once (in order to fire me) and is probably too cheap a bastard to buy me a proper drink anyway.

Anyway, I'll stop now since I know Anna's going to completely rewrite the shit out of this anyway... and probably won't even fucking post it. Everyone knows I long for the halcyon days of the 2 weeks I worked for Ken Layne before he unceremoniously fired me for not being funny enough!

*Oh, and I am also totally sure that the fact that this is a 2005 phone survey that doesn't control for occupational types (and thus stress levels within professions) has nothing to do with the results, and neither does using a one-night, one-call, perceptional basis for the stress level indication. I mean, I'm completely sure they called everyone on the same night of the week and at the same time, since they controlled for occupation and all and a person's stress levels on one night when asked about their boss would be totally the same the next night.

Boss' Gender Can Affect Workers' Stress [Live Science]

Goodson looked at 11,500 professional women and 16,700 men in 34 countries and found that, in general, women are less likely to brag and/or outright lie about their professional experiences to get ahead. More so then men, women appear to have bought into the myth of the meritocracy, according to Goodson, "They believe hard work alone is sufficient to put them on salary and status par with their male counterparts," to which she adds, "Good work is important, but good work alone does not, as the myth says, speak for itself, you have to give it a voice." Which is good, until you look at studies that say that aggressive women are sometime looked down upon for being aggressive. That right there is the glass ceiling: the idea that you have to be like a man but not too much like a man to get ahead, not that you'll get that far competing with aggressive men if you are not aggressive. The glass ceiling is less about open discrimination (though that remains) and more about stereotypes of behavior and expectations that women have to confront and overcome to get ahead.

Of course, the Daily Male takes the whole study in stride, absolving men and society of all blame for the role of women in the workplace. They go through the study and find where Goodson "exposes" the fact that some women (particularly in the U.S.) have an attitude that if they got there without help, their younger counterparts can, too. So it's not just women keeping ourselves down, it's women keeping other women down, too! Of course, one can rather easily find examples of that being untrue, but examples and nuance aren't exactly the provenance of the Daily Male.

So what is a woman to do? For one, laugh heartily at the idea that your work is going to get noticed for being fabulous, or that hard work alone will propel you to a leadership position. Recent studies show that people that work hard get to keep working hard while people that network better (i.e., that promote themselves) get promoted. Your boss isn't a robot any more than you are, and hiring and promotion decisions are never going to be made in an emotional vacuum. Then start keeping a list of your accomplishments, take credit for the work you've done and stop waiting to be noticed as though work is a junior high school dance. Ask for what you want and what you think you deserve and show your company exactly as much loyalty as they're prepared to show you — which, if they're not promoting you or giving you a raise because they prefer the type of employee that lies loudly about his accomplishments over one who accomplishes something and points it out, is exactly none. Bloody your fists on the damn glass ceiling.

Career Women Are The Own Worst Enemies: Study [Reuters]
Women Only Have Themselves To Blame For Failing To Crack The Glass Ceiling, Says Female Scientist [Daily Mail]
Some Women Work Too Hard to Be Promoted [US News & World Report]

Kindness doesn't solve sexual harassment or fix the report your coworker totally fucked up and you're in charge of sorting out. Kindness is for lunch dates and puppies and other people's kids. Anger is a healthy emotion — not getting angry when it is appropriate can be just as damaging as not being able to control your anger. Being mad at work is inevitable; men never have to worry that they'll look like a bitch or a dragon lady. When it comes to conducting business, anger's part of the job. Women don't need to change; people who think women who get angry at work are less competent need to change. One way to help people get used to it? Women (who still make less than men on average and face discrimination) need to keep on getting pissed off.

Anger In The Office — It Hurts Women More [CNN]

As for men, Byron says, "It is far more important for male managers... to be seen as analytical, logical and good at reasoning." Who cares? An "understanding" boss is better, right? Wrong, according to a research by Harvard Business. Researcher Steve Kaplan found that CEO skills can be classified into two areas: "Hard" skills like aggressiveness, follow-through and speed; and "soft" skills like creativity, listening and team skills. Guess which set of skills were shared by highly successful CEOs? The aggro ones. "Our results do not necessarily mean that soft skills are unimportant," Kaplan says. So if you're a woman with "hard" skills, your employees hate you; if you're supportive and "soft,"you're going nowhere. Which would you rather? It all goes back to Machiavelli: Is it better to be loved or feared?

Female Bosses Evaluated As 'Office Moms' [MSNBC]
Harvard: "Hard" Skills Trump "Soft" Skills [Harvard Business, via BusinessWeek]

Nearly ever single advice book or article looks at how women compare to men — and then tells us all to be more like men to get ahead in a male-dominated world (which is its own illegitimate assumption, since there are plenty of desirable and female-dominated fields). While, at first, this sounds like a valid point of comparison, it also stems from the point of view that homogeneity is a desirable thing in a work environment when, in fact, there are tons of studies that show that there is a strong positive business impact from diversity in a company's workforce. Basically, diversity is important because having a variety of perceptions of problems and ideas for solutions are important — so it's actually not good for a company if everyone "thinks like a man."

There's also the variation on this theme, which is that you're too "girlie" to get ahead. This comes down to more of a mannerisms-type argument — you're not aggressive enough, you ask questions, you're too cooperative to be taken seriously by the go-go aggressive man types. That is, of course, in sharp contrast to the criticism leveled at Hilary and many of the rest of us aggressive types that we're too aggressive and manly and thus off-putting to our male and female colleagues because we don't behave like the stereotype that is supposed to keep us from getting ahead.

And then, of course, there's how we dress: not too manly, or you're a dyke; not too feminine, or you won't be taken seriously; not too well, or people will think you're too fashion-conscious; not too frumpy, or people will think you don't care; and so and and so forth until your head spins.

So, here's my novel idea and for free, even. Go to work, be yourself, do your job well, act like you deserve to be there and to be appropriately remunerated for the work that you do. If the work sucks or the people suck or you don't get taken seriously, get a new job or find an outlet for your rage before it eats away at your soul. Dress within reason for your work environment, show respect for the other women around you (because no one tears women down like women do) and stop wondering if people take you seriously because if you are serious, the people who deserve your respect will and the rest of the assholes in the world don't deserve your time anyway.

The Feminine Critique [NY Times]
Workplace Diversity: Leveraging the Power of Difference for Competitive Advantage [Society for Human Resource Management]
Beating the firm boys at their own game [The National Law Journal]
Hillary la Française, Cherchez la Femme? [NY Times]