Here we go again - after the revolution - women pushed back into the kitchen

[milomorris]

If you choose to ignore everything in a post, including the factors mentioned above, with the exception of a single word, "gauntlet" (although technically it should be "gantlet"), and respond accordingly, you can probably expect people to draw conclusions about your viewpoints that you might not have intended to convey.

Draw conclusions about what I did not respond to?? Then you're writing your own script for me. "Milo didn't say anything about X, so let's assume the worst." That's unjustified.

The only reason that I didn't say anything about the factors you mention is that I didin't disagree with those, and had nothing to add. I did disagree with the comparison to "hazing," so I focused on that.

You could, for example, have said, "I've never heard of anything that terrible happening in a U.S. workplace. I do know that hazing of new employees is routine, but that involves employees of either gender and is never seriously violent or sexual."

So if you knew what I meant, and understood the point, why manufacture some non-existent contradiction?

(By the way, I would be more likely to shrug this off as a simple miscommunication ((even if one tinged with Islamaphobic undertones)) if you hadn't ALSO taken the opportunity to get in a subtle dig implying that women who "want to join" institutions that you continue to define as "male" should man up, so to speak, and submit to the hazing. But actually, why should they? Those organizations may have traditionally hired men exclusively. But institutions can change at any time. And if an organization is now open to employees of either gender, there's no particular reason new employees ((male or female)) should be required to submit to the boys' club rules of the past. Maybe women will say, "hell no" to the hazing, and maybe the organizations will improve as a result.)

The short answer is: doing things according to the "boy's club" rules worked just fine, and continues to produce desirable results. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. For example, I have said before that there is no need for African-Americans to make American culture "blacker" in order for us to thrive. The same goes for everyone else. There's no need to feminize society in order for women to thrive. Those of us in the professional class of African-Americans, and professional-class blacks internationally, take pride in our ability to "work the system." We consider it an achievement to find a place at the table without changing the menu.

Instead, you pretended she was talking about a much less objectionable custom, and then defended it.

I didn't "pretend" anything. She included it in her post, and I found that inclusion to be incorrect.

Elitist presumption? Nope. Just my impression of the tone of your post.

"You say 'tom-AY-duh,' I say 'tom-AH-toh."

[serious crayons]

Draw conclusions about what I did not respond to?? Then you're writing your own script for me. "Milo didn't say anything about X, so let's assume the worst." That's unjustified.

The only reason that I didn't say anything about the factors you mention is that I didin't disagree with those, and had nothing to add. I did disagree with the comparison to "hazing," so I focused on that.

So if you knew what I meant, and understood the point, why manufacture some non-existent contradiction?

Sorry, but this stuff doesn't even make sense.

This is not about "assuming the worst," or assuming anything that's not right there on the screen. Everybody on here can read all of the posts involved and pretty easily judge for themselves.

The short answer is: doing things according to the "boy's club" rules worked just fine, and continues to produce desirable results. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

First, let me add my voice to those of others here to say I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never been subjected to hazing at a job. Second, you're telling me that you can look around today's American economy and business climate and say it ain't broke, or at least not in need of some serious tweaking? I don't know about you, but I'd like my stocks and mutual funds to continue making money. Third, even beyond macroeconomics, clearly there are myriad  problems in U.S. corporations and workplaces. Fourth, thank god all of the entrepreneurs and innovators throughout the history of business weren't content to shrug and say the existing rules "work just fine" and "if it ain't broke," etc. etc. We'd still be getting around on horses, for one thing. Horses ain't broke, either.

For example, I have said before that there is no need for African-Americans to make American culture "blacker" in order for us to thrive. The same goes for everyone else.

This I can't knowledgeably comment on.

There's no need to feminize society in order for women to thrive.

This is demonstrably incorrect.

I didn't "pretend" anything. She included it in her post

She most certainly did not. Again, this is just what you're pretending. Del said that abuse and sexual assault occur in U.S. organizations. And, in fact, abuse and sexual assault DO occur in U.S. corporations. You chose to ignore both Del's message and the real-life fact.

You say 'tom-AY-duh,' I say 'tom-AH-toh."

So it seems. But in this case, the word reads TOMATO and you are responding to "pineapple."

[delalluvia]

You are right Del. These 1,400 British students are 'Western Cultured' Muslims. Much more tolerant than their Middle-Eastern brethren, I would assume.

100,000 Muslim's of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran should be polled. Perhaps then we would get a better picture........................

Brad

Most college-age guys I know liked to pull pranks on such polls and most college-age guys I know were more than happy to think their dicks should rule the world.  How much of that is macho immature bluster and how much of that is religion?  I think it would be hard to say.

[delalluvia]

Crayon understands my points exactly Milo, so short of reinterating, I too will address this

The short answer is: doing things according to the "boy's club" rules worked just fine, and continues to produce desirable results. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

First, let me add my voice to those of others here to say I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never been subjected to hazing at a job.

Being a woman, I've found that the 'boys club' rules work fine...for boys.  Not so much for women.  This is why women in the workplace have been working slowly and steadily to change things.  Some men were not interested in inviting women into their 'club' and so women started working around them and so now, there are a myriad of ways to develop teamwork and a sense of belonging in a work environment, if one is even necessary rather than just the 'boy's club'.  It was broke, Milo, but you had to not be a man to see it.

And no, I've never had to 'compete' with my bosses or co-workers either.  I was there to do a job.  The only person I was out to impress with my work, was the boss and the clients.  I wasn't there to show up my boss or other co-workers. 

I know in the theatrical and music world you are continually 'trying out' and competing against someone else for a part in a production.  I understand that also happens in sports.  This does not carry over to the business world.

[serious crayons]

Being a woman, I've found that the 'boys club' rules work fine...for boys.  Not so much for women.  This is why women in the workplace have been working slowly and steadily to change things.  Some men were not interested in inviting women into their 'club' and so women started working around them and so now, there are a myriad of ways to develop teamwork and a sense of belonging in a work environment, if one is even necessary rather than just the 'boy's club'.  It was broke, Milo, but you had to not be a man to see it.

Well put, and I'm not just saying this because you agree with me.  

It's pretty easy to see why Milo is incorrect in stating that "boys' club rules ... continue to produce reliable results" and "there's no need to feminize society in order for women to thrive."

First of all, if "society" includes workplaces, then it's already done been feminized. Half of all jobs in the U.S. are held by women (a milestone reached last year, BTW, through a combination of more women working and men losing jobs to the recession). Meanwhile, more women than men now earn college and graduate degrees, so at least in white-collar jobs the feminization of workplaces will continue.

As it does, it becomes increasingly obvious that the old-boy rules are no longer compatible with modern workplaces. And I'm not just talking about froo-froo like dick-contest hazing rituals or taking clients to strip clubs. I mean the basic structure of workplaces. Their rules, norms and schedules were created for breadwinner men who had full-time housewives at home taking care of all domestic responsibilities. Now that far fewer women are full-time housewives and far more men share  domestic responsibilities, those old-school structures are increasingly outdated and inoperable for both men and women.

In short, they're broke.

[Marge_Innavera]

Anyway, this isn't just an Islamic or Egyptian thing, this happened in the US and in Britain as well, but about one century ago and as occasional stories in the news even today will tell you here in the US, when women join - or attempt to join - previously all-male organizations, whether the fire departments, police or military, coal mining or what have you, they run into this same sort of intimidation 'gauntlet' they're forced to run by men with teeny brains and apparently even smaller balls.

In a less extreme form, that happened in the decade after WWII.  Although in the US, the genie was out of the bottle by that time.

After the American Revolution, according to History.com, (among other sources):

In a letter dated March 31, 1776, Abigail Adams writes to her husband, John Adams, urging him and the other members of the Continental Congress not to forget about the nation's women when fighting for America's independence from Great Britain.

The future First Lady wrote in part, "I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."

Of course, Abigail Adams' plea was ignored. It was a century and a half later before women got the right to vote; and feminist-bashing is still fashionable.  You can look back just three years to the 2008 POTUS election for some whoppers of examples.  The spirit is far from gone in the West.

[pnwDUDE]

Crayon understands my points exactly Milo, so short of reinterating, I too will address this

Being a woman, I've found that the 'boys club' rules work fine...for boys.  Not so much for women.  This is why women in the workplace have been working slowly and steadily to change things.  Some men were not interested in inviting women into their 'club' and so women started working around them and so now, there are a myriad of ways to develop teamwork and a sense of belonging in a work environment, if one is even necessary rather than just the 'boy's club'.  It was broke, Milo, but you had to not be a man to see it.

And no, I've never had to 'compete' with my bosses or co-workers either.  I was there to do a job.  The only person I was out to impress with my work, was the boss and the clients.  I wasn't there to show up my boss or other co-workers.  

I know in the theatrical and music world you are continually 'trying out' and competing against someone else for a part in a production.  I understand that also happens in sports.  This does not carry over to the business world.

I agree here. I believe, in the context of post-revolution Egypt, religion does plays a significant role in the status of women in most of the Middle East (should that be capitalized?). That aside, I see a positive trend regarding women in the past 30 years I have been involved in predominately male-oriented jobs/institutions. I can't speak for the upper crust of corporate America since it is a world of 'at the pleasure of the board', the 'good old boy system', 'you pat my back, I'll pat yours', and tied to an earnings report. I go by statistics, not experience. Del is correct as those statistics show that while women are gaining ground, there isn't equality. Based on my experience, this doesn't carry over to 'blue collar' and mainstream professional services.

For many years, police work was a man-only world (Just watch one of those wonderful, post-WWII, 'film noir' classics). Cops had to be tough and strong. Brute often ruled over intelligence and women were relegated to positions such as matron, juvenile officer or 'get the coffee doll' secretary. Since we don't beat confessions out of people or break up bar-room brawls with our Irish brawn anymore, no part of police work can be considered a closed 'boys club'. In most large American cities this has been the case since I entered the field in the mid 80's. As for woman needing to run the 'gauntlet' in that field, I haven't seen anything like that. Sure, there is the social aspect that attracts mostly guys. The late night poker parties where guys sit around drinking beer, smoking cigars, farting and generally acting stupid isn't necessarily closed to 'the gals'. It doesn't have to be, they want no part of it and have their own girls-only treks to the beach anyway. Same thing about taking a coffee break. With a few exceptions  , women cops would prefer not to spend their coffee breaks at places, the likes of the 'Purple Kitten'. I had women partners throughout my career. When I retired, one of my ex partners was the police chief.

I have been involved in the fire service for many years, up to the rank of Fire Commissioner. A bit of a late start, but now, the same experiences. While in extreme emergency situations, brawn and strength does play a factor, so long as women can pass the test, they are  accepted by their male counterparts into what was considered an exclusive 'boys club'.

After retiring from police and fire services at the stroke of 50 (with a fat pension thanks to collective bargaining), my second life has taken me into the throws of the great American port. The iconic 'men only need apply' world ala 'On The Waterfront', has been a huge surprise.  Rather it be the 'ILWU' loading and unloading cargo ships. Train crews 'riding the iron' in a subzero snow storm, 'Linesmen' 'Lineworkers' working in tandem to 'tie up' a 700' cargo ship containing 3,000 Subaru's, or walking atop a grain conveyor 150' high, it is men and lots of women working in complete harmony. Some train crews are made of entirely women. And the first woman river pilot of the great Columbia is being trained as we speak. A previously 'closed club' if there ever was one. One which pays men an average of $380,000 a year. To start.

The younger of these men and women don't have an gender issue. Most of the older peers that viewed these venue's as 'men only' have retired. With all the tools, equipment, Union's, OSHA and state workplace guidelines, strength-required superiority isn't a factor. Sorry Milo, but I don't see anywhere that women need to prove themselves to their male counterparts in order to be part of the team. If they can do the job, that is what counts. And for every woman that can't do the job or fit into the team, there are an equal number of men.

Brad

[serious crayons]

Thanks for sharing that, Brad. That was really interesting, and nice to see a firsthand perspective. 

Re the upper crust of corporate America, I would bet that's changing, too. If anyone here has witnessed that group firsthand, I would love to hear your thoughts.