Letters to the Editor
-
Recycled> how to dress for success
I find it all rather amusing, as it sound like "Dress for Sucess" recyled. I remember attending a meeting of "------ women in advertising" in 1979. The subject for the evening was "How to Dress for Success". The women giving the presentation had on a very dull looking blue suit. The idea was to look more like a sucessful man. The presenter suggested you could save monney on your "dress for sucess" wardrobe, by finding a friend, your size and sharing suits. I turned to a freind sitting next to me and said ' What size are you"? We almost fell off of our chairs laughing.
-
A good article, too
It's really too bad about this bizarre notion the Times has that articles about women's issues should be relegated to the Style section, because it was a very good article that made an important point -- there is nothing women can do to improve the situation, because the problem is in incorrect perceptions of women, not in anything women are doing "wrong." Strikingly, the article pointed out that studies have demonstrated that whenever a quality of workplace leadership is identified (and this held true for numerous countries), that quality is one believed to be lacking in women. In other words, a good leader is not a woman.
Of course, Broadsheet is not immune from this lumping together of issues of seriousness with popcult analysis.
-
Why HRC is my heroine even though I don't want to vote for her
"Assert yourself, but don't be emasculating; suppress your emotions, but don't act like a coldhearted witch; be nurturing, but not overly feminine; be respected or liked, but not both."
She's actually doing a pretty good job at this, and that's why she's in the running. I want to vote for John Edwards because I like his policies and I don't like hers (or what I presume are hers - sometimes hard to tell). I respect her - but don't like her! See what I mean?
It's annoying that the NYT ghettoizes the stories about women like this, but presumably they do it because they know most women read that section. Or, perhaps this story is actually INTERESTING (unlike most style pieces, IMHO) and therefore gets smart women with money to click through to clothing/makeup/weight loss ads they wouldn't see in the biz section.
But personally, I have lost ALL respect for the NYT - beginning with the plagiarism problems in the early 00s and ending with Judith Miller. What a pathetic excuse for a newspaper.
-
The article then grimly concludes by arguing that this field of research will "be of value only when companies act on it." ... Er, maybe they would if pieces about women in business were published in the Business section.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise and arguments.
Why would advice for women and not for the business itself be of more value on the business page than in the style section?
I'm not saying it belongs in the style section, just saying your conclusion fails to follow from your premise.
Perhaps you can clarify or enlighten us....
(I am assuming that you want your arguments to be a connected series of statements intended to support a proposition, and not merely the automatic gainsaying of anything someone you dislike says....)
-
Style v. Business
The irony is that Lisa Belkin's column used to run twice a month in the Sunday Times Business section, albeit buried in amongst a lot of uninteresting ads.
It would have been interesting if it had run on the front page of the Business section only because it probably would have gotten a somewhat more diverse (or more male) readership.
-
Irony: Broadsheet denouncing the New York Times Pink Ghetto
So I take it Tracy Clark-Flory, that you think Broadsheet would become more valuable if the articles were removed from Broadsheet and placed in the general sections of Salon. And along with that, I assume that you would encourage Broadsheet commenters to put away their claws and stop telling men to stop commenting in the "women's" section.
This of course is what us men have been telling you for years. Do away with Broadsheet. Don't balance it with a dudetube. If an article is worth posting, it's worth posting. Accept all comments as equal, coming from people engaging in a dialog.
What did Joan Walsh say when you suggested getting rid of Broadsheet?
-
I read the article
It does not belong in the Style section. Only one paragraph was in regards to wardrobe, perceptions of a low cut blouse on an executive and secretary. Secratary no problem, executive looked down on.
Most of the article was just about how women have a hard time no matter which way they act. Expressing anger is pretty much not allowed, while also finding women are poor negotiators when compared to men.
This is business news, this is news men should be aware of too, especially if they are in a hiring or management positions. They should be made aware of biases they may not even know they have.
It's just like hey ladies, lookee here, you're screwed, because most men do not read the style section. It's like putting a perception of men in the workplace news story in the sports section.
-
Jeeze Louise
Women are more likely to read those sections than the other ones. They are just trying to be practical and reach the intended audience.
A lot of people do not read the front page of any national paper since it is just propaganda anyway or generic items from a news service which they can get word for word on the web or any other newspaper. People buy it for what they are interested in and aside from "news" and politics, that means sports, style, food, fashion, business, entertainment and the comics.
Now if they put it in the business section, how many women would read it? how many men would read it?
-
Need more data
The article seemed pretty light. I agree with the other folks that it did not belong in the style section. I don't know where it did belong.
As a woman who works with other women, I can tell you what I want in a manager. I don't want lectures on deportment or doublespeak. I have had a host of female managers who have given me lectures on deportment and hectored me about "people skills" or "people have said..." without telling me exactly what the problem is and usually piling a lot of other silly complaints in order to strengthen the one complaint that is not registering because I have no idea what it is. It usually turns out that someone made a comment in passing (which we all do). I have had a host of male managers who will either say directly what happened ("You shouldn't have dinged his report for being incomplete. Its not like anyone reads them.") or will realize that the person is just whinging and pay it no mind.
Granted, there are a few crossovers. I had a male manager try to fire me because someone said I had a dark sense of humor and a female manager tell someone to leave me alone so I could do my work. But those were the exceptions.
Maybe in some fields, the doublespeak and going all meta about deportment is everything, but it certainly isn't when you're dealing with people who are not sales people or preschool teachers.
Another sign of a good female leader is when she can access her cyclic perception of reality accordingly. I had one manager who was so rampantly emo once a month, that I found out two of my coworkers were also keeping menstrual calendars on her and one regularly called in sick or found things to do in another building on Day 28.
Since I'd probably get crucified, this one is anonymous.