We discuss what parameters, budget, etc will be the right fit and agree beforehand that if the person meets those parameters then they get the job.

Is this really not normal?!? I don't need him and he doesn't need me to be there to make a major decision because the decision was already made. We've both just been searching for the right product, worker, etc to meet/fill that decision/position.

Exactly.

My husband is typically too busy to take time off to deal with such matters, he travels a lot for work, and he trusts me. Joseph would have lost our business with that requirement. And, no, there would not have been numerous extra calls and emails because of it.

I don't understand why it is acceptable to string someone along. If you don't like him or his tactics then simply say, "thank you for taking the time to meet with me, but I just don't feel we are the right fit for each other," or if you really don't want to be confrontational at all, "thank you for taking the time to meet with me, I will be in touch if I decide to move forward."

Why is it so hard to respect someone enough to simply be honest with them, whether or not you like them?

Our "discussing it" involves talking about how you obviously weren't the right one and "omg, can you believe that s/he actually tried to pull that maneuver on us" - Essentially you are pulling one of "those maneuvers" on a contractor so you can be amazed that they tried to pull one of "those maneuvers" on you. Oddly enough, I have very rarely had people try to put one over on me. I try to be honest about my concerns and reservations while respectful of their time, I have no problem cutting a meeting short when it obviously will not work out, and very rarely has that led to any problem. Maybe I am just lucky.

bry911- I (and my husband) previously worked on commission and do NOT want to waste anyone's time on numerous futile rebuttals.

I/we only resort to the "well, we'll think about it" AFTER we have tried shutting it down politely.

I've been on "that side" of the fence. I know the game, its just not a game I enjoy playing so I shut it down as quickly as possible. This includes telemarketers (another deplorable job I've previously held)

I don't hang up on them b/c I know that will just put me back in the dialer. I listen to their (monitored) rebuttals and politely decline every time. If they're call center works anything like the one I worked for, they are REQUIRED to give 3 rebuttals or they will lose their job.

Like I said, I know the game, I just don't enjoy it. I've yet to be convinced to purchase something through these tactics. I recognize them from a mile a way and I don't respond to them. At least not favorably.

@Texas_Gem - This isn't a post about those things. We are not talking about unsolicited calls, or high pressure sales tactics for free Disneyworld tickets. This is a discussion about the contractors that were invited into a home for the purpose of obtaining a service the homeowner is actively in the market for. It is dangerous to paint every similar thing with the same brush. The idea that a contractor wants both parties present because it is a negotiating tactic is presumptuous. A contractor may simply want to avoid the hassle of misunderstandings, which are exponentially increased when meeting the expectations of two parties while only speaking to one.

As to two people making the decisions. My wife and I make many of these decisions together. While I understand that some people may not feel the way I do, experience tells me most do. I am perfectly capable of making home decisions without my wife's input, I simply can't imagine wanting to.

In many states, one person of a jointly owned property cannot legally enter into a contract which could result in an encumbrance (lien) being placed on the property. So she may sign for a new kitchen and give me a big deposit, but if they own the home together and his name isn't on the deal, I've got a big handful of legal nothing.

I can promise that if anyone here went to work for a well-respected remodeling company every single top salesperson would advise to never run a "one legger." They may even let you run a few to find out for yourself. It simply isn't done by the best in this business. People who have been in this business 50 or more years have learned a thing or two.

Linda- I don't think your roofing supplier was playing games with you. You were probably at a wholesale, or to the trade operation. They didn't recognize you so asked if you had an account with them when you we ready to purchase. That's not really pertinent if you're just gathering samples.

A woman in the roofing business stands out , so they were just following protocol for non core customers . Same thing would have happened to the guy that came in wearing a suit to buy shingles before he went to the office or the doctor wearing scrubs.

Joseph, we're in the midst of a very expensive and extensive kitchen remodel. I researched the builders and contractors. I researched materials and appliances. I handle all of the home repairs, upkeep, yard maintenance, etc. I'm the handy one, and I'm the one who hires people to repair things outside of my skill set. Contractors work during the day, so does my husband. My husband has zero interest in the remodeling process, and wouldn't know a jigsaw from a mallet. If a contractor insisted on meeting my husband, I would write them off completely, so I guess we're in agreement there.

My contractor grabbed me one day a month into the project and mentioned he finally met my husband. I think he thought he was a figment of my imagination.

And I can't stand the constant husband questions from salespeople, tradespeople, etc. my husband has never purchased a single item for our home. It's all me, every major and minor decision. And if someone doesn't get that right away, they lose my business and my respect.

@xedos - Normal protocol for supply houses is "how can I help you?" not "do you have an account?" The request for the account usually comes at the order desk; some places start with that while others enter the order and then ask for the account name.

Yes, I do stand out but no one is going to mistake me for Susie Homemaker. I'm typically dressed in work boots and work clothes, usually with a few misc stains or paint splatters. Plus, that supply house doesn't get walk-in traffic; they're near the end of a dead-end street in an industrial park.

@my_four_sons - my situation and sentiments exactly, except I'm almost positive it was more than a month into our also very expensive addition/renovation before my husband met my contractor.

my_four_sons and sherri1058 - I felt like I was the outlier here - so glad I'm not.

My DH did meet the contractor but I don't think he met any of the trades whereas I knew all their names.

Joseph, to your point, we both did have to sign the contract but I suspect that was due to the scope and value of the house reno. If I'm hiring a painter then no, it wouldn't be requested.

Back to the OP's point, the one thing that my husband and I are in full agreement on is that we are fully prepared to pay for good quality work. I can paint and do the landscaping but major DIY work is not our forte and we are very honest about our limitations in that regard. We are also very honest in our desire to *not* be DIY'ers.

bry- you think contractors in your home never use those tactics to close a sale? Oh how very wrong you are.

sherri1958, my_four_sons and blfenton, I'm pretty sure my husband has never met any of the people who have done work for us. They work during the day, as does my husband.

Linda, your ignorance is showing now.

Trade house aren't really into the can I help you sir or madam ?

Typically one bellies up to the counter and say " Jimmy, gimme 50 squares of Sequoia in driftwood, a pallet of felt,and 50 sticks of dripedge. "

Jimmy then asks who's account it goes on as he recognizes you but not enough to know you by heart cause you're only there once a quarter.

These are not retail operations with practice manuals detailing how to make the "customer" feel all warm and fuzzy. You know , the " my pleasure" bs.

Its got nothing to do with you being a woman. It has everything to do with you being a one time customer.

@Texas_gem - you think contractors in your home never use those tactics to close a sale? Oh how very wrong you are.

I respectfully submit, that I am not wrong, as I never said or implied what you assumed. The distinction is the invitation, not the conduct. If you ask a contractor to take a few hours of their time to spend pitching you, then at least respect the fact that they did. I would assume you had enough respect to do a little more due diligence than simply opening a phone book, and thus only invited serious prospective contractors. If you are not interested in their services say that, or some non confrontational version of it. If the decision is dependent on another then say that before the meeting.

People who string contractors along with the, "I have to talk to my wife/husband and I will let you know" and then never call back, are the exact reason that Joseph will not meet with one party. This is a perfect example of a self reinforcing problem. On a thread commiserating the fact that contractors won't meet without your husband present, you post how you use your husband not present as an excuse to get rid of a contractor, which reinforces the idea that the contractor shouldn't meet with wives unless the husband is present.

Well played...

Don't make me post Game of Thrones on this thread! LOL Let's keep it civil, people :)

bry- I think you missed the part where I said that I/we only use that line as a last resort.

I don't want to waste someone's time and I don't want them wasting mine. If they keep coming back with rebuttals and soft or hard close tactics then I will resort to "we need to discuss" but that's only when they don't respect that I've already said no.

bry911 - In the third paragraph of your post, that is me who said that, not texas_gem. It reads like you are attributing that to texas_gem, perhaps inadvertently, but I did want to clarify.

And I do follow up, always. Along those same lines however, there are contractors that I make appointments with who just don't bother to show up - and never a follow up and I sure don't follow up.

Texas_Gem says "I'm the same as blfenton." in agreement to your post. Then defended the position.

My posts (especially the first) were not solely to one person, but the conversation as a whole.

At this point Texas_gem's position has been largely clarified away from my position. A significant portion of the posts are about contractors refusing to meet with women without their husbands. I am simply commenting that I do not believe it a gender issue to the extent some are making it. It is an experience issue, contractors and others offering expensive products have learned that they have a higher rate of success when both are present. This isn't helped when people use the excuse as deflection.

I have a feeling that I started this. I really just wondered why the
"I need to talk to my husband" was a trick. I guess it's because I
don't play those games and didn't understand why someone who has no
desire to be involved has to be present. It's a shame, both parties
could be losing out on some good work.

Hmmm. Well my husband did happen to meet most of the contractors who came out to do estimates on our recent projects, but I was the one doing the research, the interviews, and signing the contract. He and I talked about the stuff, of course, but he doesn't want to have to go over every detail. :- )

Going back to the OP's original question about paying for quality work, I think it may have something to do with the assumption that a "pro" knows what they're doing. The thing is, there are alot of issues with that assumption. For one thing, how do you define pro? If you define it only as someone who is paid for doing that work, you're in for a world of hurt. If you define a pro as someone who has relevant licensing, certifications, long training and experience... then that starts to become a different ballgame. What bugs me most about hiring contractors is that I feel I have to do a tremendous amount of research on how a job should be done before I even feel that I'm qualified to interview contractors! In a perfect world, where people who do this for a living know their jobs, that wouldn't have to happen. In that case, I'd be limited to checking references on reliability, etc. Well, we're not in a perfect world, and after purchasing two homes where the tile shower failed after several years, I ended up talking to alot of tile setters before I hired one to fix it for me. He did a beautiful job, and I know he did it right, because I now understand exactly how a tile shower is built and waterproofed. Could I do it myself? No. But I know more than I really cared to!

As to pricing - more expensive doesn't always mean better, but it can. There are alot of things that enter into that equation. Sometimes, the one guy working on his own will give you a better price because he has less overhead - even though he is highly skilled and is making a good living with those skills. But sometimes there are parts of the job (like maybe demo and hauling away debris) that require less skill, and you come out ahead hiring someone with a good foreman and a small crew. There was a man with alot of experience who was characterized by his customers as a perfectionist, who I did NOT hire to tear out my tile floors and replace with wood. Would he have done a good job? I have no doubt. But his price was 60% higher than the other 2 contractors (also with excellent references and experience) that I talked to. When I dug down into the details, what I realized was simply that for this particular job, I didn't have to pay a premium for every hour of labor. Did he deserve a premium for his experience and skillset? Yes. And I would hire him in a heartbeat for high skill level, detailed work. But I didn't feel I could justify paying him for the tear out. The GC (and his crew) that we hired did a great job, and we're very happy with it.

Russ, there's still hope for you yet.

Seems to me this is just everyday society playing itself out. Some people like straigt talk and some don't. Look at my 2nd to last post. It was misconstrued as being a dig at Linda - which it wasn't.

Some customers don't want to hurt the sales persons feelings so they use words like : I need to check with my husband. Or wife!

And sometimes they do, yet other times it's code for no thanks , buzz off. Just like "I need to sleep on it".

On the other side , most of you would get hacked off if our Joe or bob the builder came to your place and told you after 15 minutes of walking around and discussing your dreams that YOUR project really isn't that interesting, or you seem like you'll be a PIA and I don't need the agro right now. Or, this one won't be as profitable as Richie Rich's down the street - would you? I know I wouldn't , and I'm as thick skinned as they come. A simple "thanks but I'm not really interested in pursuing this right now" would seem to be the best way forward, but that seems to be missing from most people's repertoire.

So they use code words like I'm really busy now, or that'll be really expensive, or I'll get back to you in two weeks. Which keeps the social harmony copacetic.

since there's no official playbook (or unofficial) for this stuff in the building sphere- it gets made up as both sides go along. Remember contractors and their labor force are all consumers too on their time away from work . Just like you consumers here are business owners, service providers , or worker bees tasked with making your customer happy and still make a profit when you aren't being a customer.

I think most of us have examples of times gender was an issue. That doesn't mean it is always an issue, but as this thread attests, it can be a determining factor as to whether one gets the job when it does exist. If someone is marginalizing me up front, when they should be winning me over, it's a major red flag for what the future is going to look like with that individual. In cases like mine, that would simply not be compatible with how we work as a couple on at least 95% of the projects. They would primarily be dealing with me, from start to finish.

The idea of both of us taking off work for every first meeting, though, is mind-boggling. It's hard enough to work with these folks, especially given nearly all of the trades represented in home-modeling work standard business hours and no weekends.

I don't mean to be judgmental but this thread has really opened my eyes. I have projected the relationship I have with my wife on to other people and apparently I am in the minority. I want to be a part of these major decisions, not because I don't trust my wife to make them, but because I can't imagine being uninterested in something that is obviously important to her. Additionally, this seems a recipe for resentment to me, there are so many opportunities for things to go wrong in a major renovation, it just seems the finger pointing would start when it does.

On a related note there is a huge push in education to focus on empowering women to make financial decisions. While there is statistical evidence to support that women who find themselves single (divorced or widowed) struggle with investments and financial literacy, I always assumed the results were skewed by elderly widows (married and such in a very different time), despite the fact that my peers are trying to convince me they aren't. I can't imagine a husband and wife not developing a retirement and investment plan together, yet now I am starting to wonder if my colleagues are correct. I have rejected a female only investment club on campus but this one thread is making me rethink that.

I think couples define equality in a lot of different ways. For some, it means both partners are equally involved in everything. For most, though, I think it comes down to division of labor determined largely by who is more interested and talented in what - and who has the time.

We have always been equal in all things, but natural divisions of labor have evolved because of different talents and interests. We certainly discuss all major financial decisions. As far as the house goes, my wife hasn't had much input. There were certain things she wanted, and left the rest up to me. It's not so much a lack of interest as it is trust in my design decisions. I spent 6 years researching and designing, then 3 more years building the house. For the last three years, my wife has been the breadwinner, and I am the house builder.

I guess I can understand a contractor wanting to meet with both parties, but if it were a deal-breaker for them, it would be for us, too. If my wife were making the decisions, and I wasn't available, I would trust her to meet with the contractor alone. If the contractor refused to meet with just her, we would write them off as a hopeless misogynist and move on.

Any initial screening for a contractor involves finding out who has decision making power. It has zero to do with the gender of anyone. ''Are you the primary decision maker for this project, or is there a family member or friend who will be involved in the decisions?'' is the diplomatic phrase and covers most beginning project situations, no matter the actual relationship or gender. (Can you believe I'm the one saying diplomatic? LOL!)

Except customers lie.

And they do more often than you would think.

And contractors have gotten burned by those lies on more than one occasion. Hours spent working up a quote that gets shot down because the major decision maker wasn't party to the initial meeting happens more frequently than you think. Which is why many contractors and other professionals are insistent that both husband and husband are present.

Often, one half of a couple is a dreamer, and the other half is the purse string holder. There is no point in engaging with a dreamer without moneybags also being present. Again, nothing to do with gender. If you won't write a big check without consulting with someone else, then that someone else needs to be a party to the meeting.

Any meeting without all decision makers present is a waste of time. If you need to Facetime or Skype someone in because of scheduling issues and travel, etc. that's fine. But, make it happen, or reschedule the appointment when all parties are available.

All a pro needs to hear from Jake on FaceTime is, ''I'm on board with whatever Steve decides. He's in charge of the decisions and the budget.'' Then Steve can hang up the phone and concentrate on talking to Barbara about her working up a quote for that new addition. Barbara is probably going to want to meet with Jake and Steve both again at some point prior to closing, just because when one partner has the control of the project, often the other can feel left out. It's always wise to make sure that you at least attempt to address the unheard concerns of the other partner before the decisions are finalized.

And none of this has to do with gender. It has to do with the inequity of the power and financial roles in the different life aspects. Jake may not care at all about the kitchen addition at all because he hates to cook. But, he may care a great deal about an addition that gives him a GarageMahal to work on his vintage motorcycle collection. And they may care equally about that pool build for the back yard. But no contractor can know that. So they have to assume that the input and financial responsibility will be shared equally. Until being told otherwise by the other partner.

Actually, Sophie, I think you are right on target. I do not think it is too much that a contractor knows at the start that all parties are on board for a decision.

bry- the funny thing (to me at least) is that in our household, I manage all the finances. I keep my husband abreast of where we are at but he isn't really interested in finances and trusts my judgement that I'm managing it in a way that is beneficial for our family. I suspect many of those women may be the same.

Sophie- diplomatic?!?! STOP THE PRESSES!!! ;)

You make very good points. For the record I don't always think it's a gender issue but I think we can all admit that yes, sometimes the contractor is part of the GOB network .

As steph said, I would be willing to bet that all of us have experienced it at one time.

bry911 - when you said you rejected a women's only female investment club, did you mean you didn't want to be a part of it or did you mean you wouldn't allow it to happen? (Please, this isn't a gender argument). There are a lot of women only investment clubs for a variety of reasons. Women do invest very differently and they want to be able to ask what some might consider silly questions without being smirked at. Many women (and men) are marrying later in life and so it's important for them to have the knowledge to start a retirement or an investment portfolio as a single person. Fewer and fewer companies have pension plans and so starting early is the wisest course and for that you need knowledge which many women do find hard to get even today. They often don't know how to start the conversation. With the divorce rate being what it is if you can empower women to have the ability to take care of themselves financially if that should happen, everyone, including any children, would benefit. If you can, perhaps revisit your decision. You may still come to the same conclusion but....

I always make it clear that I am the one making the decisions on the projects and I always make it clear to the contractors. The one question I always ask is " do you think you can work with me because I'm the decision maker" This is my strength - doing the research, seeing the small parts add up to a whole, juggling the balls. It's not that my husband doesn't care about me, it's that he isn't interested in the process of getting a project completed. It is one way I contribute to our home and he trusts me, he contributes in other ways.

Sophie - your points are enlightening. Up next for us is a major deck and landscape renovation and I will keep your points in mind during initial conversations with prospective contractors.

Did you mean you didn't want to be a part of it or did you mean you wouldn't allow it to happen - I have been approached (mostly by outside organizations) to institute a female only investment club with female only outreach. Thus far I have said no. These are not calls from students but calls from outside sources. I am fine with students reaching out to educate women in investing but I don't really want to segregate students.

Women do invest very differently and they want to be able to ask what some might consider silly questions - Women don't invest differently than men, although I can understand the misconception, believing that they do is another reason to not allow a distinct group. Our female students are not marginalized, and I see no reason to do something that might end up making them so. The investing club has had more female presidents than male over the last 20 years.

As to why women really don't invest differently than men, it has nothing to do with gender other than the fact that among unsophisticated investors women generally have a lower risk appetite than men their same age. Risk appetite varies among everyone and major part of investing education is about establishing risk appetite. Every sophisticated investor will want a slightly different portfolio and yet they may all have the same investment education and philosophy. With investing education the gender risk gap all but disappears, among our students there simply is no distinct male/female division for investing.

Unfortunately, studies at the grade school level show that boys tend to speak up more and get called on more so girls still learn to be silent in mixed-situations. Girls excel in girls-only classes, especially in subjects like advanced math and the sciences, as they are areas where girls seem to learn, incorrectly of course, that those are "boys subjects" and they clam up even more in mixed classrooms but will actively participate in girl only classrooms. Also, I know women who will believe what the man says and not what a woman is saying just because it's coming from a man, even if he's dead wrong. Not all but it still happens.

And haven't most of us been in mixed group situations at parties where men will dominate the conversation and topics discussed so the women need to move to another room or area in order to discuss something else they might be interested in?

For all these reasons, I think women only investment clubs and other groups still have a place. Although it will be great when we've reached the stage where they're not needed.

bry911 - thanks for explaining where the call for a separate club is coming from. It's coming from outside rather than inside. As far as your response to my other point - that is a whole other thread because my experience is different from your viewpoint. Thanks for the response.

@ funkycamper While I respect your views that is certainly not what we see. To be fair, by the time I have contact with students they may already be behind in math and science and I would not see that. I really don't get any more complicated than squares, so they may be deficient at math and I might never be clued in. I can tell you that females tend to speak more, especially when they don't understand the material, and overall they tend to do better in classes. Also I can attest that the change in women in college and unfortunately even middle school and high school has been significant over the 12 - 15 years. The young women I see are bold, I daresay far too bold.

@ blfenton I would love to hear your viewpoint, since I don't post very often on the kitchen forums I will note that I am the Dean of Accounting and Finance for a university, while I read a lot about investing and finance, most of it is academic research, I actually have very little access to the experiences of non researchers other than students. I do suspect that you are still talking about the difference in risk appetite between men and women, but I am open to correction.

Also I can attest that the change in women in college and unfortunately even middle school and high school has been significant over the 12 - 15 years. The young women I see are bold, I daresay far too bold.

If they're bold, good for them! It's time for that pendulum to swing. It will swing back to a better balance in good time.

After I read your response, I realized that my kids have been out of school for 10+ years and I may very well be referring to out-dated studies as I haven't paid as much attention to educational issues since my kids graduated.

bry911 - The problem is that studies repeatedly find that subjects of both genders tend to perceive identical behavior & language in men and women (or girls and boys), differently. So what they would describe as "far too bold" or "pushy" in a girl they would call assertive and confident in a boy.

Note that I'm not suggesting you are guilty of this, just pointing out that descriptors like "far too bold" can be problematic.

I know this has drifted a bit away from the original topic, but there was definitely some gender subtext earlier, I just want to finish by saying one more thing.

I get stodgy old businessmen constantly bemoaning the state of kids coming up in the world today. I don't feel that way. I am excited by what I see. I especially think gals have broken out of their shell, more often than not to the complete befuddlement of the guys, which is pleasantly amusing for me. The young adults I see are comfortable in their skin, and are decisive without being married to their decisions. I think we are in good hands, of course, I only see college students, so the rest may be going to hell in a handbag.

@ fishcow So what they would describe as "far too bold" or "pushy" in a girl they would call assertive and confident in a boy. - I assure you that is not the case. I am specifically talking about the social media and Tinder, the things they say on Tinder shouldn't be said. Both young men and young women, but men have always been too bold.

Edit: As far as the studies go, I think they are dated, most of the often cited research was done between 1984 and 1999. A 2012 study among college students found that women were almost as likely to "girl talk" with a guy as with a girlfriend. They managed to prove the "friendzone." I suspect that if you repeat the study today with college kids today that gap would decrease significantly. Or just go volunteer at a High School and witness gender perceptions first hand.

Good point. In the work world, I think we've all seen situations where strong, decisive business women have simply been called "b#*ches" where men are just called strong and decisive.

bry- I am specifically talking about the social media and Tinder, the things they say on Tinder shouldn't be said. Both young men and young women, but men have always been too bold.

I won't disagree with you on that. I'm only a few years older than the college age crowd and what I see disturbs me BUT, what I'm getting from your post is that girls are acting more like boys and they are supposed to remain more demure.

I think women have (whether consciously or unconsciously) done this time and time again to push back against their pigeon holed stereotype.

Women can't work- women jumping in full force doing "men's" jobs

Women should remain chaste- women start actively sleeping with tons of guys because they can.

The thing is, people are people and a person's gender should NEVER be used to judge them by. You say the young women you see are far too bold. From your clarifying statement, you should simply say young people are far too bold. To call a woman out for doing something guys do as well is part of the problem.

bry911 - I'll bet there is a bunch of us here who would have a very interesting conversation with you. Interestingly enough, I have a Degree in Commerce with a minor in Sociology. Risk aversion/acceptance varies widely within the genders and I suspect that women may be, on average, more risk averse than men. When my DH and I were updating our investment portfolio a few years ago I told our adviser that to the best of his ability my portfolio was not to be invested in anything dealing with the manufacturing of cigarettes or guns. The adviser indicated that it is usually the women who have very strong preferences as to what they want to and more specifically do not want to invest in. They want the best return with stipulations. That's where I think the differences may occur. But I could definitely be mistaken.

texas and funky - I got my B. Comm in 1976 and you'd be appalled at how many employers told me that I should become a teacher or a nurse because that's where women belonged.

Boy, how did we get so OT.

The funny thing is, BLFenton... I have to read and re-read to remember who is a man and who is a woman.. heh

It is amazing that online, we never really take that into account...which I think is awesome. "you" can have a great opinion or bad opinion and it is based on your knowledge or lack of knowledge and not whether you are a man or a woman.

Too bad that does not equate to real life all the time.

Russ

Amen Russ. I ran my own (admittedly biased) experiment on another website (Reddit.com)

I made one profile with a gender neutral name and kept all of my responses as neutral as possible and EVERY single person believed I was a guy and responded to me as though I were.

I made a different profile with a feminine name and posted as such and got called out and bashed for saying essentially the exact same things. It was OK if a "guy" was saying it but if a woman was saying it then I was "stupid, ignorant, privileged (excuse me?!?!?), or flat out just didn't "get it" whatever "it" is"

Don't tell me gender bias doesn't exist. I know d*mn well that it does.

HollySprings (Sophie Wheeler) on GW, no one knew if she was a he or a she and there were numerous times where you would see "I thought Holly was a guy?" "Look at the profile name, its a girls"

Now tell me, just what, exactly, does it matter what his/her/its gender is? Why do we need to know? Because we (I'm using the collective we here) base our opinion on what we percieve their life experience to be and we judge them and what they say on it.

I'll say it again. People are people and should be judged solely on their own actions. Racial and gender bias need to die a quick death, IMHO.

Agreed!

Oh.. and mosquitoes too!

you know.. while we are at it.. lol

The thing is, people are people and a person's gender should NEVER be used to judge them by. You say the young women you see are far too bold - OK we were having a discussion on women so I said that the timid mouse image that was being painted is not my experience so the statement of too bold applied to women only because we were talking about women. There was no statement about men at all, so don't infer it. I never said or even implied that the behavior is any different than young college men or that it is more acceptable in men. In fact, I said both young men and women were too bold. Since the innuendo is getting me in trouble, the statement is probably going to get me hung but what the hell. I was specifically talking about the all too popular trend of asking any guy you like for d#ck pics, and reciprocating with topless photos. I get a few drunk pics of some guys junk several times a year. Believe me, I think they are too bold also.

I never said that bias doesn't exist. I am just referring to the evidence that all biases seem to be lessening, thus studies centered around younger adults may be more relevant. There is still plenty of every bias to go around. You guys are really looking for a fight, that quite frankly, I don't want to be in. So you win.

Risk aversion/acceptance varies widely within the genders and I suspect that women may be, on average, more risk averse than men. - Let me explain in greater detail. EVERYONE has different risk appetite. Older people are more risk averse than younger, poor people are less risk averse than the upper middle class, different races have different risk tolerance, different geographic areas have different risk tolerance, and all of those are gross generalizations. The reason why risk doesn't matter between men and women isn't that they don't have different risk tolerance, it is that everyone has different risk tolerance. So the first thing you learn in finance is establishing acceptable risk. There is no right answer. As long as the desired rewards match the risk, you are right. As investors both men and women learn about the market (become sophisticated), we usually see risk seekers temper their desire to make it big in the market, and we see risk avoiders start to focus more on the rewards, realizing that complete risk aversion may not achieve their goals. In the end, the two sides, whether they be race, gender, or just personality, get reasonably close together. So what I am saying is there really is no issue for gender to effect.

Once you have a risk appetite that you are comfortable with, you control for it. Controlling for it simply means selecting the investments that will most likely get you to your goal at your stated risk and realizing that not every investment needs to be at your risk appetite.

texas and funky - I got my B. Comm in 1976 and you'd be appalled at how many employers told me that I should become a teacher or a nurse because that's where women belonged.

Boy, how did we get so OT.

Hey, some thread drifts are good, and this is one of them, imho.

You're just a tad older than me so you probably remember the days when the Help Wanted ads were segregated by Men Only and Women Only. Of course, the better paying jobs with potential advancement opportunities were in the Men Only section.

Don't tell me gender bias doesn't exist. I know d*mn well that it does.

Yes, it does. I participate on a local forum that discusses local events with heavy emphasis on local politics. I noticed a distinct shift in how I'm treated by some of the board members when I accidentally referred to something in a way that revealed my gender.

More importantly, I see it in the political landscape all the time. And in media. Anyone who doesn't recognize it is blind. Like 37 year old Maggie Gyllenhaal (sp?) being turned down for a role because she was too old to be the girlfriend of an actor in his 50's. WTH?

I'm Facebook friends with a lot of younger folk (20's and 30's) and I have noticed a disturbing trend when someone will say "I believe in equal rights but I'm not a feminist". WTH? I will jump in and explain that if you believe in that, you are a feminist and that men can also be feminists. Unfortunately, arguments sometimes ensue because there is a perception that feminists hate men, try to dress as ugly as possible, ignore hygiene, and are predominately lesbians. WTH?

These attitudes scare me because what gains women have made have been hard fought and there is more equality to fight for. The younger generation has no context as they didn't live through job segregation or have experience working with no anti sexual harassment protections, lack of sports opportunities prior to Title IX, the inability to get credit in their own name, and a host of other situations.

FWIW, unless someone has a name that specifically identifies their gender, I don't have a clue if a man or woman is posting and I don't care.

bry911 - You said "You guys are really looking for a fight, that quite frankly, I don't want to be in. So you win." No, no, no, not at all. For me, you come at this discussion from a different viewpoint. You are in the current academic environment, which I left in 1976, and you have more interaction with university students in their 20's than I certainly do. I only have my two 20-something sons who have been lectured ad nauseam about sending and receiving inappropriate pictures.

bry- I'm certainly not wanting a fight, I think it's important for these topics to be continually discussed in society so that we can all learn and grow.

FWIW- of all the high school, college and 20 somethings I know, I have never had a single girl tell me she asked for one if those pics. What I HAVE heard over and over is that they receive these unsolicited and it generally upsets them and/or grosses them out.

It makes me worried for my daughter's when they get old enough to start dating and having phones.

I hate the "need to talk to your husband before I can......." crap. Not just in the construction world either. My canned response is "Yeah sure...He is in Iraq, would you like me to make you an appointment? Usually nips that convo in the bud.

I do however understand the legal concerns as Treb posted and don't mind being asked if my husband is on the house deed. This actually lets me know that the contractor is covering all the bases and he is legit in his business process. Your average uninsured hack is not going to want to follow the Lien rules/Permit process. Its a legitimate question to ask with respect to liens etc, its not a legitimate question when they won't speak to you about price or changes in the field etc - that will get you the door.

As to the comments on trade houses and women. I love my supply houses and have accounts at many and cash sales at other. I did get some weird questions in the beginning but now they know me its business as usual. I have seen the same questions asked of male contractors when they walk in for the first time.

Funnily enough the issues I have run into are not with the "good ole boys" but with the newer younger crowd. Usually after 5 minutes working together/discussion they understand I have done my homework and know what I am doing and we have no issues.

I will share a funny though. I live in the south and I was at Lowes to get a few 2x4's on a Sunday so I was checking them out ( and we know you have to dig through 30 to get 5 good ones) and this older gentleman walked past like 3 times and kept looking at me. He finally walked up and said I was the first women he had ever seen true up a 2x4 in his life. (thanks dad for teaching me well) We chatted for a bit and he is now my primary contractor.

I also think that unless you own your own business its hard to see just what overhead there is. It sure changed my perspective.

Bry- what fight?

BTW the studies I mentioned about how identical behavior in men and women is perceived differently are quite recent. (sorry I can't cite anything off the top of my head) I'm sure the results would have been even worse if they were done 15-20 years ago but it's still a problem.

The only time I really ran into trouble, while going to college is when one psych professor (educational psych) said it was a well-known fact that boys get better grades in math than girls.

He did NOT say more boys are encouraged to take math. He did NOT say fewer girls excel at math in a group of 100 students.

He said that in high school....boys get better grades in math than girls.

So I asked him, are you speaking of them as a group or individually? He looked at me funny and said....it's that boys are better in math.

I said, REALLY? Because I had the highest grade in my math classes in high school. He looked doubtful. Then I asked him if this was really the best thing to tell college students in an education course?

Some people are just clueless.

"Well known fact" = thing I believe to be true but have no actual evidence for, either because I'm too lazy to look for it or because it isn't true...