Joe Kremer, the Dell executive, shared a story that feels very, very familiar. Kremer advertised a job that listed six key criteria.

Several male employees who could meet two or three criteria lobbied for the role. Each had a plan for how they would skill up to meet the rest.

"The person who should have got the job was female but she didn't apply. I approached her and she said, 'but of the six things I need, I only have five of them nailed'."

Mr Kremer persisted and the woman applied and landed the role.

As a result of Kremer's observations, he pushed for a women's mentorship program at Dell, to make sure women were not being left behind. However, he notes that only half the battle will be recognizing women's talent.

The harder fight is getting women to take credit for their own accomplishments.

Talented women too modest about abilities - expert [News.com.au]

Dr. Tim Hallett, a sociologist at Indiana University, published the study in the latest issue of the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography along with Dr. Eder and Brent Harger of Albright College. The researchers spent two years studying the group dynamics at a Midwestern elementary school, where they found that not only were the students say cruel things about each other — the teachers, when in a group, were nasty as well.

Kids being mean is one thing — the study transcribes a cafeteria conversation in which a group of eighth-grade girls talk about an overweight classmate, calling her a cow. But what happened when the teachers gossiped, and mocked the principal?

The principal felt that her authority was being undermined by gossip and retaliated against teachers she suspected (correctly) of criticizing her. Teachers and administrators fled the school, and the students' test scores declined.

While I don't condone mean-spirited gossip, I do think that gossip in the workplace can be a good thing. Because gossiping is communicating. Bonding with coworkers over the crap in the vending machine, the new lady in accounting or the new guy in the mailroom can bring you closer together. Dr. Hallett makes this point, saying, according to Science Daily, "Be aware that what is going on is a form of politics and it's a form of politics that can be a weapon to undermine people who aren't present. But it also can be a gift. If people are talking positively it can be a way to enhance someone's reputation."

Can You Believe How Mean Office Gossip Can Be? [NY Times]
Gossip In The Workplace: A Weapon Or Gift? [Science Daily]

The president, after all, is an unabashed First Guy's Guy. Since being elected, he has demonstrated an encyclopedic knowledge of college hoops on ESPN, indulged a craving for weekend golf, expressed a preference for adopting a "big rambunctious dog" over a "girlie dog" and hoisted beer in a peacemaking effort.

He presides over a White House rife with fist-bumping young men who call each other "dude" and testosterone-brimming personalities like Rahm Emanuel, the often-profane chief of staff; Lawrence Summers, the brash economic adviser; and Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, who habitually speaks in sports metaphors.

The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama's closest advisers form a boys' club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men - not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.

This weekend, foreign policy aide Chief Domestic Policy Adviser* Melody Barnes was invited to the party, becoming the first woman to join the golf outings since Obama became President.

Most of the women in the administration quoted in the NYT article didn't feel as though Obama was intentionally excluding them, noting:

In interviews, five women who work in the White House or advised officials there described the culture with more of a collective eye-roll than any real sense of grievance or discomfort. One junior aide, who like the other women spoke on the condition of anonymity because of concerns about appearing publicly critical, said that the "sports-fan thing at the White House" could become "annoying" and that her relative indifference to athletics could be mildly alienating. And while this is not uncommon in any workplace, sports bonding can afford a point of entree with the boss. [...]

Other women in the administration say that any discussion of White House culture should account for how politics has long been dominated by men but is now more inclusive. Ms. Dunn, who had to take a typing test three decades ago to work for a campaign, rejects the notion of a boys' club. She calls the Obama administration "refreshingly un-self-conscious" about matters of equality, maybe to a point where they neglected the "optics" of the all-male basketball game.

Ms. Dunn said that she recently hosted a baby shower for an administration official and that no men from the office were invited. She is comfortable with that - just as she is fine with never playing basketball with the president.

"That is just part of the culture here that I am excluded from," she said. "And I don't care."

So if they don't care, should we?

I think so. I can definitely understand how many women may not be interested in playing sports at work; however, having read dozens of books, hundreds of articles, and attended conferences on how women and minorities advance in the workplace, this question shifts a little. It isn't quite a question of opportunity, as much as it is a question of access. And doing things like going golfing with the boss are part of the traditional path to access. This is one of the opportunities for your boss or potential client to get to know you outside of a business capacity, which may make a crucial difference in decisions about projects and promotions.

The Obama Administration has shown its commitment to women on many different levels, so I'm willing to assume the best on this count. But this recent attention is actually a valuable reminder to watch the traditional paths to power. After all, adequate representation is only half of the battle - do women hold enough clout and access to make major decisions and to push forward their own ideas?

*Correction - Melody Barnes' title was misidentifed in one of the source articles from this morning, and I copied that title over here. I regret the error.

Man's World at White House? No Harm, No Foul, Aides Say [NY Times]
A First For Obama: Woman Joins Presidential Golf Outing [Washington Post]

The article begins by explaining Rotana's policies, with an emphasis on their liberal application of the country's mandatory dress code and women in various positions of power. The work environment is such a radical departure from the normal manner of doing business that men who apply to work at the company must be tested to see if they can handle such a dramatic shift:

The sight unnerves enough men who come looking for a job that human-resources manager Sultana al-Rowaili has developed a trick to see if a male applicant can handle working in a mixed-gender office. She arranges for a female colleague to interrupt the initial interview, and watches to see if the man loses concentration or stares too much. Sometimes even that isn't necessary. Many men are undone by the very idea of being interviewed by a woman. "They are in a state of shock to see a woman in a position of authority and to have to ask her for a job," al-Rowaili says.

The women of Rotana appear to be happy and fulfilled with their work, and Andrew Lee Butters uses their cheerful beginning as a way to discuss the changing role of women in Saudi Arabia. While women are becoming increasingly educated and have indicated a willingness to participate fully in society, they are still faced with large obstacles:

Critics outside the government say the state is still failing to take a systematic approach to dismantling gender barriers. While the government is trying to encourage women to enter the workforce, for example, there are still no clear guidelines as to what is legal and what is illegal in an office setting, according to Abdulaziz al-Gasim, a former judge who now runs his own law firm in Riyadh. "We would like to hire women," he says. "Women in the law faculties send us their CVs. But where would we put them?" Without a separate entrance for women, or gender-specific meeting rooms, firms fear they could be prosecuted. There are also still no laws to protect women from harassment at work. "There is no meaning behind female education if they can't enter the workforce," says al-Gasim.

In addition to matters of law, matters of perception also influence how much women can push for change. Sadly, it appears that many women are just fine with the status quo:

There's evidence, too, that many women don't want radical change. A government poll in 2006 - one of the few attempts to gauge women's opinions - found that 86% thought women shouldn't work in a mixed environment, and 89% agreed women shouldn't drive. Iman al-Alqeel, the editor of Hayat, a conservative magazine for girls, says most of her readers find the thought of working or studying around boys and men intimidating. "They want to be able to relax and not worry about what other people think about them," she says, though that's partly because Saudi men don't know how to behave around women. "Before you bring in something new you have to fix the old habits," she says. "If you want women to drive, send the men to driving school."

Still, the article ends on a hopeful -yet defiant - note:

"We are not a bunch of Barbie dolls," says al-Rowaili, the Rotana television executive. "All of us have faced so many challenges to get here. We are pioneers. And we are going to win."

Saudi Arabia's Small Steps for Women [Time]

In the Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Kelan's article ""Gender Fatigue: The Ideological Dilemma of Gender Neutrality and Discrimination in Organizations," cuts right to the heart of the issue:

Dr. Kelan found that workers acknowledge gender discrimination is possible in modern organizations, but at the same time maintain their workplaces to be gender neutral. The author notes, "gender fatigue" as the cause for workers not acknowledging that bias against women can occur. [...]

Employees from both companies claimed their organizations were gender neutral and that employees were evaluated based on merit. With further questioning, men and women interviewed could describe past situations where gender bias occurred against women, but limited it to happening 10 to 20 years ago, from contacts outside their own organizations (i.e. customer contacts), or to an isolated male colleague from an "older" generation. "Instead of denying gender discrimination, workers acknowledge it can happen but construct it as singular events that happened in the past, placing the onus on women to overcome such obstacles," stated Dr. Kelan. [...]

The problem with gender fatigue is that it prohibits productive discussion regarding inequalities between men and women, making gender bias difficult to address," noted Dr. Kelan. "Future studies should explore what happens to gender fatigue over time and whether practical strategies can be developed to shape the way in which people in organizations speak about gender."

In the interest of helping with Dr. Kelan's research, I'll throw this one out the room - has the perception "gender fatigue" stopped you from bringing up issues of gender discrimination?

Gender discrimination still a factor in modern organizations — 'that's what she said' [Eureka Alert]

Belkin begins by pointing out an uncomfortable truth:

[I]t is also unsettling to face the fact that so much of the history of women in the workplace (both their leaps forward and their slips back) is a reaction to what was happening to men.

That was the case in the 1930s, when working women were dismissed so that they didn't take jobs from able-bodied males with families to support. During the 1940s women were invited back in, a replacement work force when the men went to war. By the 1950s and into the '60s women lost their higher-paying blue-collar jobs and took lower-paying ones in the expanding retail and service sectors or returned home; in the 1970s the most ambitious among them rebelled - a period when women truly commandeered the train and drove it forward, often sacrificing dreams of children to get ahead. By the 1980s mothers worked because of the growing feeling that households needed two incomes, and the realization dawned that the workplace was designed to fit the life of a man with a wife at home rather than a woman juggling work and family.

As times have progressed, women have made modest gains in the workplace, but true equality still eludes us. Issues like equal pay, adequate child care, and the penalty for opting out of the workforce to raise a family still plague workers, but have also acted as a somewhat unwelcome benefit:

Primarily, women are still cheaper. They earn 77 cents to every dollar earned by a man, and in a flailing economy employers see that as an attractive quality. Women who are returning to the work force after several years at home raising children are particularly cheap. Sylvia Ann Hewlett, an economist and the founder of the Center for Work-Life Policy, has estimated that the penalty is 10 percent of income for every two years out of the job market, a loss that is never recouped. From the hiring side of the table, that may be a good bargain.

In addition, women are concentrated in lower-paying industries, like health care and education, where there have been fewer layoffs, rather than in higher-paying realms, like finance, construction and manufacturing, which have contracted. Why this is true has long been an economic chicken-and-egg question - are these professions less lucrative and prestigious because they are predominantly held by women, or are they predominantly held by women because men are less likely to take them given their lower pay and status? But whatever the cause, the end result is that the "female" professions have not suffered as much this past year.

In addition to the fact that women workers are seen as cheaper, we're also apparently big on commitment:

When choosing among overqualified applicants for a position, employers often seem more comfortable hiring a woman for a step-down job. Ellen Galinsky, president and co-founder of the Families and Work Institute, says women might be seen as less resentful about taking a job with less money and authority, and they might also be less likely to bolt if something better comes along. Especially "if a woman is coming back to work and has had difficulty finding a job, the assumption is she is going to be more grateful than the man," she says.

But David Zinzecko's concept of the he-cession is still a ways off the mark - according to studies, successful, high earning women are being laid off at the same rates as men.

As Belkin concludes:

It is not good news when women surpass men because women are worth less. Perversely, real progress might come when we reach the place where a financial wallop means women lose as much ground as men.

The New Gender Gap [New York Times]

Earlier:
"Breadwinner Wives" Are Still Losing

First, some background. I'm generally an introvert by nature, and I converted myself into an extrovert sometime in high school. It was not a simple process, and my introvert self manifests in some weird ways. (Example: Most of my friends know that if they haven't heard from me in a few weeks, it just means I'm in need of alone time, not that I'm dead.) So, going up to complete strangers and trying to talk yourself up seemed like a horrifying proposition under the best of circumstances. Doing something like this in a work context was even more mortifying, and I openly envied the skills of my boyfriend and close friends, who seemed to have no problems at all starting up conversations with the people next to them on the bar stool, the bus, or in line at a concert.

But, unfortunately, we can't escape networking. The idea that we have to network, network, network is a staple of career advice, but they never explain exactly how we are supposed to go about this. It's great to say "be where the people are," but then what do you say to them? These career articles never seem to focus on the talking part. So, here are some quick tips on networking, from an fake extrovert who still finds herself nervously fiddling with a drink before she can put on her game face:

• Focus on Making Friends
  There seems to be this idea that networking means you always work the room, schmoozing and handing out business cards like there is no tomorrow. This does not work for me. The only time I ever feel compelled to work a room is when we host a Racialicious meet up. Other than that, I'm cool. But one of the tactics I've found to take the pressure off of networking is to go to events and try to locate one person that you want to talk to. Instead of rushing around and trying to meet everyone, focus on two to three people you would like to get to know. For example, I was at Feminism 2.0, just listening to the speakers, and heard girl pipe up that she worked in video games. After the session was over, I made a beeline to her seat and introduced myself as a fellow girl gamer.

  The person I made friends with that day was Tina Tyndal, and she ended up introducing me to her world of gaming professionals. And while I have more fun with Tina's crazy personality, it also helps that she is able to point me toward getting more involved with the gaming world.

• Use Tools
  Some times, networking isn't as much about meeting new people as it is about keeping in touch with those you already know. A while ago, I had designs on working for the Discovery Channel. They had a job that looked tailor-made for me, and I was raring to get into the company. But my resume didn't reflect my digital knowledge, and I really wanted to meet with someone in human resources there who could explain my chances. I went to LinkedIn, and searched for "Discovery Channel" to see if there was anyone close to someone in my network who worked there. Lo and behold, one of my old coworkers currently had a job there. We hadn't spoken in a few years, but it was a lot easier shooting off an email to him than to someone I had never met.

  
  

• Force Yourself to Make Three Openings
  A long time ago, when I was so broke I tried to work as a telemarketer, I learned something from the training that has always stuck with me. The trainers at the company made sure to stress that you always should attempt to get in "three asks." Before someone hangs up the phone, you need to ask them to try the product at least three times before admitting defeat. Unfortunately, I wasn't great at harassing people to purchase magazine subscriptions, so I only lasted a day. However, that three asks idea stuck with me, and I started re-inventing the rule for various scenarios.

  In networking in a new environment, I always try to make three openings. Normally, I'm slightly uncomfortable and sitting back against the wall nursing a drink. But by implementing the three openings rule, I force myself to approach three people, and try to initiate conversations with them using three different topics. (Why three different topics? The first one doesn't always catch, leaving awkward silence.) After that, if I completely strike out, I'm free to hang on the wall with my drink. But what normally happens is that at least one person is receptive to the opening, and then I have a hang buddy. Or, best case scenario, I chat up the right person who will make all the introductions for me. Sweet!

• Plan Ahead
  Before going to a conference or event, try to get some information. Who else is attending? Is anyone else you know going? Can you bring a friend? Is there anyone speaking that you are going to really want to pitch yourself/your product to? Be prepared - it's a helpful way to combat nervousness.

  
  

• Make the Most of Your Downtime
  A few years ago, I read Keith Ferrazzi's Never Eat Alone: And Other Secrets to Success, One Relationship at a Time. The book was a worthwhile read, but it was his title idea that made the most impact on me. After one particularly fruitful conference, I was having a hard time trying to remember to contact all the people I met on business cards. Ferrazzi's tip was to schedule lunch meetings, calls, and other types of relationship maintenance when you are otherwise idle. So you grabbing a sandwich turns into an hour long catch-up session at Cosi, and you being stuck waiting for the bus can be turned into time when you are talking to someone you met at an event. Quality relationships do require some nurturing, but if you are smart about your time, it's much less painful.

  
  

• Think of Networking as "Paying It Forward"
  A lot of people - especially women - have problems talking themselves up. It feels like bragging or boasting, and some people just are not comfortable with that. And that's fine. So instead of thinking about networking as a way to promote yourself, think of it in terms of being able to do favors for others. How can you help someone? Can you connect your friend who wants to do more advertising for her business with a friend that does graphic design? Or connect a show producer with someone you know would be an interesting guest? Then there you are.

  I say think of it as "paying it forward" because regarding networking as a series of favors does not lend itself to a tit for tat trade-off. Think of it as banking favors from the universe. If you have a request of someone you've done a favor for, by all means, ask them, but don't have any expectations that they will do so. Instead, focus on connecting people in need - I find that is a great way to keep people thinking of you, and trying to figure out how to repay the favor.

• Accept Invitations
  Just go. Go out. When someone says let's go somewhere, force yourself to go. A lot of times, our personal networks are limited because we just don't know that many people. So the solution to this? Meet more people. Don't worry if the first few times, you're just showing up. Get your three openers in and keep showing up. Eventually, you'll start to meet people who are moving in the same circles. I dragged my friend Tina to a writer's meet up, where she didn't know anyone and I met quite a few cool people, while reconnecting with some other folks I knew. At that meet up, I banged into Nisha Chittal, who runs Politicoholic and recently moved to the area to continue her total domination of all things tech and politics. Though I didn't know her, I remembered her photo from her site and talked to her for a few.

  The next week, Tina dragged me to a tech meet up where I thought I didn't know anyone. Then, Nisha came in through the door and introduced me to Shireen Mitchell a.k.a Digital Sista. And, as I was walking around in search of a chair, I ran into Kety Esquivel of Cross Left and NCLR, who I had last seen at South by Southwest.

  After a while, you become an accidental regular.

• If You Admire Someone, Let Them Know
  I was in the middle of working on a paper on race, video games, and digital space when suddenly my blackberry started going off. In the same day, I got five separate emails from friends and readers all asking me the same question: Did I know Celestine Arnold? One friend was even launched a playful jab - "You better get on your grind, LP, someone's about to take your spot!"

  At that point in time, I wasn't aware of any other black women talking about video games in the public sphere. So, I looked her up. She had rocked her speech at PSFK and had been making huge moves in marketing and branding. I felt a quick stab of professional envy and quashed it just as fast. That competitiveness between women and people of color is encouraged, many times in the hopes that we will focus on taking each other out. So I shook it off, googled her a bit, found her email address and shot off an introduction and congratulations. And what do you know? She wrote back, and is every bit as awesome in person as she appears online.

Any tips from your own experiences? Something I forgot to address? Leave them in the comments.

Official Site [New Demographic]
Game On! Working in the Video Game Industry [Tina Tyndal's Blog]
Official Site [LinkedIn]
Never Eat Alone [Amazon]
Official Site [Politicoholic]
Official Site [Shireen Mitchell]
Official Site [Cross Left]
PSFK Conference New York Speaker: Celestine Arnold [PSFK]

In the new series "Women At Arms," the Times explores the world of women in a combat zone. Once relegated to the sidelines of battle, increasingly vague battle lines and the intense need for soldiers has caused many military officials to skirt congressional mandates and start using women in a much greater capacity.

However, while important innovations have been made with women earning recognition for their determination and sacrifice, two other areas of concern have bubbled to the surface. In the first article, "G.I. Jane Breaks the Combat Barrier," it is explained:

This quiet change has not come seamlessly - and it has altered military culture on the battlefield in ways large and small. Women need separate bunks and bathrooms. They face sexual discrimination and rape, and counselors and rape kits are now common in war zones. Commanders also confront a new reality: that soldiers have sex, and some will be evacuated because they are pregnant.

This assertion that pregnancy bears special consideration is also repeated later in the article:

To be sure, not all women in the military embrace the idea of going into combat. Like men, a few do what they can to try to get out of deployments. Military women and commanders say some women have timed their pregnancies to avoid deploying or have gotten pregnant in Iraq so they would be sent home. The Army declined to release numbers on how many women have been evacuated from a war zone for pregnancy.

However, this does not seem to be as large of a deal as it sounds. The next article in the series, "Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting In," explains:

Women do become pregnant - a condition that, intentional or not, in or out of wedlock, requires the woman to be flown out within two weeks, causing personnel disruptions in individual units.

The Army and Marine Corps declined to say exactly how many women left Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of pregnancies, but it appears to be relatively rare and has had little effect on overall readiness, commanders say. At Warhorse, the First Stryker Brigade, which has thousands of soldiers, has sent only three women home because of pregnancies in 10 months in Iraq, the brigade said.

A larger problem is sexual harassment and rape - both on and off the battlefield. Not only is domestic violence (often ending in fatalities) a well established problem, but female troops on deployment have to deal with even more uncomfortable and possibly deadly situations:

Sexual harassment in a still-predominantly male institution remains a problem. So does sexual assault. Both are underreported, soldiers and officers here say, because the rigidity of the military chain of command can make accusations uncomfortable and even risky for victims living in close quarters with the men they accuse.

We've seen these types of stories before, most notably in the cases of Pfc. LaVena Johnson and Kamisha Block, both women who died while deployed, either at the hands of their intimate partners or other members of their unit. However, the articles choose to focus more on the outside dangers:

As a precaution, women are advised to travel in pairs, particularly in smaller bases populated with Iraqi troops and civilians. Capt. Margaret D. Taafe-McMenamy, commander of the intelligence analysis cell at Warhorse, carries a folding knife and a heavy, ridged flashlight - a Christmas gift from her husband, whom she lives with here - as a precaution when she is out at night on the base.

There is also a heavy focus on cultural differences, particularly in terms of the roles of women soldiers in an environment like Iraq:

The involvement of women in it has been a cultural shock for Iraqi men far less accustomed to dealing with women professionally, especially in the military.

Women spoke of inappropriate comments or uncomfortable flattery, and even gifts. "It was everything from candy to lingerie," said Capt. Victoria Ferreira, 29, who spent a year with an 11-person squad training Iraqi officers. "How do you react to that? ‘Thank you?' "

For the most part, though, Iraqis seem to accept the role of women in the American military - they have even expanded their own ranks for tasks like searching women at checkpoints - even if it seems unlikely that women will be incorporated more widely into the Iraqi armed forces anytime soon.

The words of Patricia F. Bradford (pictured above) give an accurate summation into the lives of female soldiers, who despite proving themselves in tough situations, find that they are still fighting the same battle, day after day.

Staff Sgt. Patricia F. Bradford, 27, a psychological operations soldier, said that slights, subtle and not, were common, and some were easier to brush off than others. Women are still viewed derisively at times in the confined, occasionally tense space of an outpost like Warhorse.

"You're a bitch, a slut or a dyke - or you're married, but even if you're married, you're still probably one of the three," Sergeant Bradford said.

G.I. Jane Breaks the Combat Barrier [NY Times]
Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting In [NY Times]
When Strains on Military Families Turn Deadly [NY Times]

Earlier: There Really Aren't Ways In Which They Won't Lie
What's The Military Hiding About LaVena Johnson & Kamisha Block's Deaths?

UPI summarizes the University of Minnesota study, which makes the point that the stereotype of sexual harassment focuses on women being manipulated by higher ups, but women supervisors seem to be bearing the brunt of the harassment:

Fifty percent of women supervisors, but one-third of women who do not supervise others, reported workplace sexual harassment, U.S. researchers said. "This study provides the strongest evidence to date supporting the theory that sexual harassment is less about sexual desire than about control and domination," study primary investigator Heather McLaughlin of the University of Minnesota said in a statement. "Male co-workers, clients and supervisors seem to be using harassment as an equalizer against women in power."

In addition to this grim news, the study also includes more disturbing information about the second most prevalent type of harassment:

The sociologists found that, in addition to workplace power, gender expression was a strong predictor of workplace harassment. Men who reported higher levels of femininity were more likely to have experienced harassment than less feminine men. More feminine men were at a greater risk of experiencing more severe or multiple forms of sexual harassment (as were female supervisors).

In a separate analysis examining perceived and self-reported sexual orientation, study respondents who reported being labeled as non-heterosexual by others or who self-identified as non-heterosexual (gay, lesbian, bisexual, unsure, other) were nearly twice as likely to experience harassment.

Strangely enough, there just is not good advice for workers dealing with harassment in the workplace. Women already have to deal with the to-bitch-or-not-to-bitch conundrum, which holds that women supervisors are too emotional to lead and when they do show initiative are seen as overly aggressive or mean. Or, we are self-sabotaging ourselves by being too nice, while we are trying to distance ourselves from the bitch label.

Even Pink, the only magazine I am aware of that focuses specifically on women in business internalizes the criticism, admonishing women to "Polish Your Act: Does Your Management Style Need a Makeover?"

These types of articles don't attack the reasons behind harassment, only noting that it occurs and it is helpful to try to deal with it as best we can. Pink published another article, specifically dealing with harassment noting:

FORGET THE TIRADE. Rather than huff and holler when slapped with a discriminatory comment, take the high road in the moment. "My goal is to appeal to the reasonable people in the room and handle myself with class," says Theragenics CEO Christine Jacobs, who recently dealt with one inappropriate remark by remaining silent at the time but later reporting the behavior to the company's chairman. Other people complained as well and the offender was reprimanded.

EDUCATE WITH EMPATHY. When confronted with an inappropriate comment, calmly reply, "How would you feel if someone said that to your daughter?" That's what one former trade magazine editor wishes she had said when her boss jokingly suggested she lay across his lap during a photo shoot. "It shook my confidence," recalls the woman, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It was also revealing. I could never look at him the same way and believe he was truly championing me."

However, in the same article, an expert Pink quotes explains that men have problems seeing women outside of the realm of wives, mothers, and daughters. Would invoking the idea that men in the workplace should treat women in the way they would (hopefully) treat their daughters actually help associate women with the daughter/mother/wife roles we are trying to break out of?

The most straight forward advice about dealing with harassment comes from Penelope Trunk, who doesn't think you should report your harassment. She points out that human resources is going to try to protect the company, and most of these cases are very difficult to prove. She also warns career women about the threat of retaliation, and rightfully illustrates explaining that what you lose by taking a stand often outweighs what you gain. However, her ultimate solution leaves me cold. Trunk suggests leveraging the sexual harassment in your favor to move up the corporate ladder. But Trunk also makes the assumption that the harassment is tolerable, which may not be the case.

Ultimately, as long as sexual harassment has been a problem, I am amazed that the onus is always on women to change or adapt to the behavior. Where are the anti-harassment guides aimed at men? And where are the articles that advise men to stop using sexual intimidation to retaliate against successful women in the workplace?

Study: Sexual Harassment Not About Sex [UPI]
Female Supervisors More Susceptible To Workplace Sexual Harassment [Eureka Alert]
Polish Your Act [Pink]
Attitudes toward Women As Managers: Still The Same - Few Women Hold Executive Positions - Women In Business [BNET]
Women Managing Women - Problem Areas Women Leaders Encounter [Inc.]
Sweating The Small Stuff [Pink]
Don't Report Sexual Harassment (In Most Cases) [Brazen Careerist]

Of course, Brown's post, which suggested that Clinton was being muzzled and kept out of the spotlight by the White House, is full of racism and sexism, as aptly explained by Fatemah at Muslimah Media Watch. But Ms. Brown also proves herself utterly ignorant about what makes a good boss and how to accomplish good diplomacy.

On the question of Hillary being a good boss: One of the most important things in management is to be able to delegate, which also means recognizing employees' strengths and letting them do the things they were hired to do. Long before her failed Presidential campaign Secretary Clinton was criticized as being overly involved, not taking advice, and micromanager. Then Brown criticized Hillary for delegating negotiations in a variety of countries — from AfPak to Israel — to special envoys. Honestly, I had to roll my eyes, because all I saw was evidence that Clinton had hired the right people and let them do their jobs, making her both a good employee to Obama, and a good boss to her underlings.

A word on that. Diplomacy in tricky situations, with intractable partners on the other side of the table, only works when your negotiating partner knows they have no where else to go even when you're being a hard-ass. If, for instance, Hillary sends Richard Holbrooke off to Pakistan, Holbrooke is only going to be successful at getting it done if the Pakistanis know that Holbrooke has Clinton's complete support and they're not going to get anywhere by appealing over his head. If Hillary was parachuting in, or holding press conferences in order to take credit, future negotiating partners would think her negotiators weren't empowered by their boss and would be less likely to work in good faith.

As for all the talk that Bill Clinton's trip to North Korea was something Hillary Clinton was "left out of" or should have done herself? Believe me, Bill Clinton's voyage was vetted by Hillary, Obama, and probably every other member of Obama's National Security Team. What Hillary and the entire United States government was attempting to do was to keep Euna Lee and Laura Ling from being held hostage to North Korean demands for an end to the Six Party Talks on denuclearization and one-on-one negotiations on nuclear issues with the United States, which is contrary to U.S. policy. In fact, bilateral negotiations with the regime in the 90s by the Clinton Administration did little to resolve the North Korea's nuclear ambitions and mostly resulted in them lying to us, demanding aid that never went to their starving people and then trying to run to China for back-up when they pushed us too far: the Six Party framework was designed to create a unified front against their aggression. Had Hillary Clinton become the second-ever U.S. Secretary of State to meet with Kim Jong Il (Madeleine Albright was the first, and was unsuccessful in convincing Kim to be less of an asshole) it would have given the Koreans a chance to push for an end to the Six Party Talks and interfered with dealing with what is, in the end, the larger issue between our countries: North Korea's military aggression. Sending Bill, however, fulfilled a decade-long dream of Kim Jong Il's without harming the American agenda: Since Bill isn't involved in denuclearization or the Six Party Talks, all Kim Jong Il was going to get out of this fiasco was a photo op, not a chance to press senior officials on policy.

But back to Hillary: Right now, she's using her own firepower to take on some of the biggest and most problematic relationships (China), the issues nearest and dearest to her heart (her upcoming visit to highlight rape as a tool of war in the Congo) and those where she can, personally, have the most impact (improving our reputation in the world). It seems to me that Secretary Clinton's reputation as a self-aggrandizing micromanager is as ill-deserved as the one Tina Brown was trying to smear her with.

Obama's Other Wife [The Daily Beast]

Related: Tina Brown and Hillary Clinton's Burqa [Muslimah Media Watch]
Albright, North Korea's Kim Jong Il Hold Second Meeting [CNN]

Smith (pictured at center, looking weirdly like a friendlier Anna Wintour) says that as managers, "hands down women are better. There's no contest." It's good to hear, especially in light of last year's study purporting to show that women have more problems with female bosses. Smith elaborates,

In my experience, female bosses tend to be better managers, better advisers, mentors, rational thinkers. Men love to hear themselves talk. I'm so generalizing. I know I am. But in a couple of places I've worked, I would often say, "Call me 15 minutes after the meeting starts and then I'll come," because I will have missed all the football. I will have missed all the "what I did on the golf course." I will miss the four jokes, and I can get into the meeting when it's starting.

Sure, she's generalizing, but her generalizations fly in the face of the idea that women are always chatting with each other instead of getting things done, and so they're kind of refreshing. She also says she's "a really good confronter," and that female bosses, "if we have a problem - again, as a generalization - we will confront the problem and deal with it head-on." She explains:

Confrontation - meaning, "You didn't do a good job. That presentation was bad. It didn't work, and here's why it didn't work" - is so much better than walking away from a sales call saying, "Great. Got to get back to the office, O.K.?" It's better for everyone and I've never understood why people won't do it.

Smith does seem, in general, to tell it like it is. In a February interview, Lauren Streib of Forbes asked her, "Do you anticipate Elle's advertising growth to continue?" Smith said bluntly,

No. That's easy. Who's growing? Where's the growth? Even Google's not growing.

And of fashion mags in general, she said,

Our spring was down 22%. I expect full year to be down 15%. I do not think we will recover for the fall. My fall issue closes right in June, and I feel as if retailers are going to keep their inventories down, which means cash is going to be limited. Bottom line: You won't see those big fat issues for a while. There are too many magazines; there are probably too many fashion brands right now. Talk about survival of the fittest.

Recent news indicates that women may actually be better confronters, especially of harsh economic realities. In a piece for Double X, Moe writes about Sheila Bair, "the only government regulator in either administration who can credibly claim to have seen the [financial] crisis coming," and about Meredith Whitney, who "declared Citigroup effectively insolvent in October 2007." Moe writes,

Whitney not only knew when the bust was coming and that Citi would be first to fall-"Hubris is the cause of management mistakes 90 percent of the time," she told Business Week in 2007-she actually had seen it coming two years before, and written about it in a comprehensive October 2005 report on the coming recession. Back then she predicted the economic downturn would be spurred by banks extending "new and unprecedented access to credit" to a swath of Americans living just above poverty level.

What tipped Whitney off? Hurricane Katrina. She said in 2006,

So many Americans saw a side of the U.S. economy that I don't think many of us had seen before or had really digested. It challenged me to drill down deeper into the analysis of who was at risk in terms of any type of consumer softening, or a potential recession.

Enron whistleblower Sherron Watkins has an explanation for why women were the first to speak out about the impending financial crisis. Moe writes that there's "a distinction between the types of risk one takes with encouragement from an audience, and the types of risk one takes in spite of the disapproval of the audience. Watkins calls these 'arena risk' and 'moral risk.' Women, she contends, are more likely to take the latter form of plunge." That is, women may be more likely to speak up in times when doing so has no direct benefit to them, when they may even incur kill-the-messenger wrath.

Moe cites a scientific study to back this up, and all makes women look pretty good — apparently, we're the ones who shout "stop!" when everyone's heading over a cliff, rather than cheerfully gunning the engine. But as a commenter points out, this may not be that fun. P Starling writes,

Look, even if it's true, let's keep it quiet. The idea of woman as moral arbiter is great in theory but in practice has gotten us the unenviable job of, say, being the desire-free sexual gatekeepers or the pedestal-dwelling Angel of the House. Can we just ignore the question of whether or not women are more ethical and focus instead on whether or not women tend to show better insight into long-term outcomes?

Being the ones responsible for taking "moral risks" also means women get all the "disapproval of the audience" and none of the "encouragement." And there's the added problem of whether their warnings are even taken seriously. I already mentioned Cassandra once today, but I'll do it again — a lot of good her "moral risk" did her or Troy. So while it's nice to think of women as being great at confronting difficult situations head-on, the more we bash men for being unable to do this, the more we claim this unenviable responsibly for ourselves.

No Doubts: Women Are Better Managers [NY Times]
Why Corporate Women Are More Likely To Blow The Whistle [Double X]
How Smith Keeps Elle Glossy [Forbes]

Earlier: Working For A Female Boss Can Be A Real Bitch

As the blogger behind the fantastic Echidne Of The Snakes writes: "This piece sounds to me like yet another in that long series the Times has: What Is Wrong With Working Women? These stories always create or magnify a problem and then offer anecdotal evidence on how awful the problem is." She continues:

To get to that point, the present article quickly slides by the facts: Men are more often bullies than women and if you work a little on those percentages you will find that male-on-female (heh) bullying is a larger percentage than female-on-female bullying. But never mind, we shall write about the latter!

Please note: The most recent Times story is based on a survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute (?!?), which was also the source of the January article. And the "expert," Peggy Klaus, interviewed in Saturday's piece, wrote the Sisterhood Of Workplace Infighting story in January. And! In March 2008, the Times did a story called "When the Bully Sits in the Next Cubicle."

Obviously, if there are women in the workplace, and there is bullying in the workplace, then from time to time, there are going to be women bullying women at work. But what is the motivation behind running panicky stories about ladies misbehaving at the office? Echidne notes:

If female bullies mainly attack other women because women are seen as easier targets, could it be that the same motivation underlies articles like this one? Attacking the Big Boys With The Moneybags is scary, as those moneybags make excellent defensive weapons.

There's no telling why the Times needed two bullying stories within five months, but in an economic downturn, doesn't focusing on the bitchiness and cattiness of ladies in cubicles seem rather cruel? Bully behavior, even?

Backlash: Women Bullying Women At Work [NY Times]
The Bully Boys Gals [Echidne Of The Snakes]

Earlier: Bullied At Work? Chances Are, The Abuser Is Another Woman
Bullies Are As Common In The Cubicle As The Classroom

• Two women have been charged in the murder of a British couple honeymooning in Antigua and Barbuda. • The Maricopa County Sheriff in Arizona has violated a ruling that he is not allowed to require female inmates to receive a court order before they are granted an abortion. • In (somewhat) related news, there is a new program at the Ohio Reformatory for Women that allows inmates to raise their children in their cells and in in-house prisons to keep the bond between mother and child tight. • More than 80% of women in the Air Force in Iraq reported persistent fatigue, difficulty concentrating and nearly 20% reported one symptom of PTSD. • Meanwhile in the region, a man has been arrested in Jerusalem for helping beat, threaten, and rob a divorced Israeli woman under the self-proclaimed title of "chastity guards." •

A recent study has found that keeping an active mind with activities like crosswords can prevent dementia. My grandma will be thrilled! • A group of brides are super pissed at a shop owner who went out of business and never supplied them with their dresses or a refund. • Venus Williams is set to write an inspirational book for HarperCollins about memorable advice her coach once gave her. Wasn't her father her coach? And wasn't he kind of an asshole? • A 33-year-old man in Michigan was caught trying to meet with a 14-year-old girl for sex wearing a "World's Greatest Dad" t-shirt. Irony or social statement? • Authorities have found thousands of marijuana plants being grown in a remote part of a Girl Scout camp in Indiana. Thousands of "badge for pot farming" jokes coming to a blog near you!

Maybe Levitt's intentions are good. He wants everyone to make money! The money they deserve! But we are not robots. We have personal experiences and idiosyncrasies that may or may not be relevant to our intelligence and/or work ethic. Some of it is beyond our control. For instance: "sounding black." Does Barack Obama sound black? Does Jesse Jackson sound black? Does Oprah? Did Martin Luther King? Even more troubling is this passage:

Investing in the ability to not "sound black" looks to have a huge return — roughly of the same magnitude as getting one more year of schooling… There may be personal costs associated with being black and not sounding black. But these costs would have to be pretty large. (When I have Asian Ph.D. students go on the job market in the United States, I tell them that I think there is rampant discrimination against non-English speakers and encourage them to adopt Americanized first names for the job market. Very few of my students choose to do so — either a testimony to the identity cost of pretending to be someone you aren’t, or possibly their lack of faith in my assessment of the amount of discrimination.)

Adopting an Americanized first name? Does playing into xenophobia render it ineffective? Would Levitt also suggest a woman named Shaniqua Keisha Jones change the name on her resume to S.K. Jones? (Probably!) Here's the problem with that: It's demeaning and patronizing. Some might argue you "do what you have to do" to get a foot in the door. But if you're intelligent and hard working, shouldn't your resume get you in the door no matter what name is at the top? No, you're saying. The world doesn't work like that. But couldn't it be said that the more HR people who encounter intelligent, hardworking people with names like Shaniqua Keisha Jones, the more people will stop pre-judging people with names like Shaniqua Keisha Jones. Ditto "sounding black," having a southern accent or a clearly Asian name. Deleting these things could be construed as self-hate, denial or disingenuousness. Is it better to be sneaky, calculating and take a "by any means necessary" approach in the workforce? Is "sounding black" something people need to apologize for? Do the people who "sound black" need to "invest in" the ability to sound more white? How best to bust a stereotype? By playing into it? Or defying it?

How Much Does It Cost You in Wages if You “Sound Black?” [NY Times]

Brescoll points out that the only way for an angry woman to enact damage control is if she explained why she was angry. Observers tended to be more lenient towards women who explained themselves, and, perversely, they were less lenient when angry men deconstructed their behavior. It's unclear why observers were less understanding of men who explained themselves, but Brescoll believes it's because it might be seen as a sign of "weakness."

Brescoll's research was in the news before, back in October, when there were several articles showing that men are taken more seriously when they cry than women are. "An angry woman loses status, no matter what her position,'' Brescoll concludes. So next time you're seriously pissed at work, it might be better for your career to do a primal scream in your car under deep cover in the parking lot than show anyone how you're really feeling. Sad yes, but true.

Studies' Message To Women: Keep Your Cool [EurekAlert!]

Researchers at SUNY New Paltz have developed a survey to help identify the full range of behaviors that can constitute bullying. Notes Parker-Pope: "Some of the behaviors — glaring, failing to return calls, not praising a worker — may seem trivial, but they take a toll when repeated over and over again." And in some ways, can a cubicle bully be worse than a childhood bully? You're an adult! You shouldn't have to put up with this! But you need the job. I wouldn't say I'd ever been bullied, although I did once work with a loud, gruff superior who often left people in tears. But that was before I checked the list supplied by the New York Times and SUNY New Paltz. Thinking of past jobs, I realized some of the "behaviors" were quite familiar! Have you regularly:

• Been glared at in a hostile manner? Yes, and sometimes I glared first.
• Been excluded from work-related social gatherings? Yes, thank God.
• Not been given the praise for which you felt entitled? Obviously.
• Had your contributions ignored by others? Yes, although sometimes instead of "ignoring" it was more like "laughing."
• Been lied to? Of course! This is America!

The Bully Next Door [BusinessWeek]
When the Bully Sits in the Next Cubicle, Have You Been Bullied at Work? [NY Times]

Earlier: What Separates The Bullies From The Bullied?

Finally, echoing the sentiments of Jezebel scholar-in-residence The Assimilated Negro, psychologist Kingsley Browne concludes that "to say that [sexual harrassment] is only about power makes no more sense than saying that bank robbery is only about guns, not about money." At which point we started to see his point. Men are hysterically simple and the male-dominated workplace is really just a sedentary, neverending version of the same city block filled with hollerers. It's a lot better if you can actually stomach sleeping with one of them, because it's hard to psych yourself up to advance within a population of juvenile retards who think with their cocks.

Earlier: 'Psychology Today' Thinks You Should Stop Worrying And Learn To Love Superficiality, Shopping, Junk Science