Between 1985 and 1995 I conducted a personal, informal survey among a reasonable amount of women who had been in the workplace for at least twenty years. I asked them two questions: (1) who would you prefer to have for a boss- a man or a woman? In every case, and without pause, the women preferred a man. I then asked them (2) why do you …
Between 1985 and 1995 I conducted a personal, informal survey among a reasonable amount of women who had been in the workplace for at least twenty years. I asked them two questions: (1) who would you prefer to have for a boss- a man or a woman? In every case, and without pause, the women preferred a man. I then asked them (2) why do you prefer a man? Again the answer was unanimous, and was always words to the effect that you always got more consideration from a man. Of course, I wouldn't claim any social science status for my informal survey, but it's no worse, and probably more accurate than the junk social science that the psychotic sisterhood has been assailing us with for decades. Indeed, I love the title of Jenkins' report: 'Set the Standard'. It's certainly that. The same low, junk standard we now know so well.
I suppose I should have, by way of clarification and even-handedness, stated that the reason why I had a starting point of at least twenty years in the workforce; and really, the more years the better as far as I was concerned, was for the women to make a decision based on long experience. I assumed that the women would no doubt have had, to some degree, the misfortune of reporting to a male boss who was probably a bully or a pig (no disrespect to actual pigs intended); but weighing the totality of experience of male and female bosses in the balance, I wanted to know on which side a woman would come down.
Between 1985 and 1995 I conducted a personal, informal survey among a reasonable amount of women who had been in the workplace for at least twenty years. I asked them two questions: (1) who would you prefer to have for a boss- a man or a woman? In every case, and without pause, the women preferred a man. I then asked them (2) why do you prefer a man? Again the answer was unanimous, and was always words to the effect that you always got more consideration from a man. Of course, I wouldn't claim any social science status for my informal survey, but it's no worse, and probably more accurate than the junk social science that the psychotic sisterhood has been assailing us with for decades. Indeed, I love the title of Jenkins' report: 'Set the Standard'. It's certainly that. The same low, junk standard we now know so well.
I suppose I should have, by way of clarification and even-handedness, stated that the reason why I had a starting point of at least twenty years in the workforce; and really, the more years the better as far as I was concerned, was for the women to make a decision based on long experience. I assumed that the women would no doubt have had, to some degree, the misfortune of reporting to a male boss who was probably a bully or a pig (no disrespect to actual pigs intended); but weighing the totality of experience of male and female bosses in the balance, I wanted to know on which side a woman would come down.