I remember those good old days when women where not allowed to travel for business. Expressed reasons were that it was not safe. Companies stated they did not want to pay for a second room for a woman. Married women were not comfortable with their husband's traveling with a woman who was married or not. Worse if married.

For me it was being told that only men could be in the building where I worked after hours or weekends unless there were at least two men present. Only one man other than managers were in my department. We had a very early computer in the late 1970s which could only be accessed after hours. Next promotion went to those who had learned the computer and that was the reason given for their selection.

I'll pick it up from there:

My professional career spanned over 30 years and I found that male attitudes toward women did improve over that time, especially as younger men came in who also had working professional wives. But there were many instances pay wise and otherwise where there's no doubt management attitude toward women was a factor. And even when I left, discrimination against women from both men and women was alive and well.

But beyond work, it is a male-dominated world over all. Growing up, Dad always drove the car. In school, from principles to superintendents to university presidents, they were all male to which women were subordinate. There were decades of movies where the hero and his love interest are fleeing the [monsters, bad guys, cops, whatever] and it's always the girl who trips and falls making their escape that much more difficult. Or two guys are duking it out and the woman just stands there with fists in her mouth watching in terror, instead of grabbing the lamp and smashing it over the head of the bad guy....or when she was allowed to do that, it was in a comedic fashion, never as a woman as an equal partner. Male doctors and female nurses. Male lawyers and female secretaries. Male bank managers, female tellers. Watching sports was all male dominated, unless maybe the Olympics would broadcast some female ice skaters or gymnasts.

Almost all aspects of life spelled a male-dominated environment within which women learned to operate. So women's exposure to 'man's world' was quite ubiquitous.

OTOH, men's exposure to 'women's world' was minimal. Men were not much involved in child care...including if Mom went out and Dad stayed home with the kids, he was 'babysitting'. Men had little exposure to sewing circles or tupperware parties, or card parties or cooking clubs or many volunteer activities that were female dominated such as bake sales and other school fund raisers.

What I'm suggesting is that the exposure is different so it would make sense that the level of interest would be different.

Elmer, your professional situation is another case in point...where the women were exposed to and learned to work in a male-dominated area.

I would imagine the experience would be similar for men who are now entering a female-dominated career like nursing.

Well said Annie. I recall that working environment in the 1970's!

And then until fairly recently, women were very often referred to as "girls," while males were "guys" or "men." Using "girl" to refer to, e.g., a 60 year old woman speaks volumes about her place in society.

Annie, very funny to remember that the woman always fell when they were trying to escape. maybe it’s because she was wearing high heels.

Good topic, and a good idea to move it.

It isn't 1955 anymore. Also not 1965, 1975, or 1985. I don't question how you or anyone feels about it, nor what you saw and experienced earlier in life. I saw and experienced similar things, maybe not to the same extent. But those years are long long past. Elizabeth says she remembers the 1970s work environment. Well, you know, that was 50 years ago. I hope all of your attitudes of today are not what got carved in stone so long ago.

"I found that male attitudes toward women did improve over that time,
especially as younger men came in who also had working professional
wives."

My experience was different, and maybe I was in a less traditional area than you were. The problems of old fashioned-ness when I started working after university was with the people born in the 20s, 30s and 40s who saw no reason to ever do anything differently. Things improved as those codgers retired and baby boomers started moving into management levels. Many (though not all of we "children of the 60s") had no time or interest to continue practices that felt wrong and made no sense. People my age and younger had different outlooks and seemed to be the agents of change. I'm not taking credit for anything personally, just saying the problem old coots couldn't continue doing what didn't make sense to younger folks coming up the ranks.

I would question your characterization of my work experience, at the beginning, as a "male dominated" area. Rather, it was NOT one of the careers that had been traditionally female dominated. There's a difference. Even in college years, the business and econ classes I took had few female students. They were welcome to take whatever classes they wanted, it seemed to be a field not of great interest. Because of job prospects after graduation? Perhaps, but I have to say that far fewer students saw college as preparation for an occupation then than do now. But I don't know why. Certainly, employers can't hire entry level females if their ranks among graduates are thin. Same was true for engineering and other STEM occupations.But that has changed dramatially in my field and in others. Some years, we had trouble getting a 50/50 balance of new hires (which we wanted) because there weren't enough males highly ranked in their classes. We went for the best candidates first and foremost, gender balance was secondary.

As it happens now, the top leadership of my privately owned firm is slightly disproportionately (relative to the gender balance at the higher levels) female. I've never assumed that to be anything other than having the best people picked for open jobs. I don't think there's any issue at all among partners, I think most feel the same way. So, gender equality is a reality (probably with a few exceptions among the few remaining Neanderthals) .

I hope some day racial equality and equal opportunity will be the same, when any discussions of affirmative action are long gone because things happen without regard to anyone's race, creed or color. That won't be anytime soon, unfortunately.

Another factor - for the generation of my parents, many women aspired to be stay at home mothers, not those with a career. Women worked if they had to, not necessarily because they wanted to. And for that generation, many "husbands" didn't want their positions as Lord of the Manor challenged. Again, my parents' generation though thankfully not my own parents. I know of no peers who ever felt that way.

maifleur, equally, I don't question what you experienced but I wonder if it was more peculiar of what was going on where you were at that time. I began my career in the mid-70s and no such medieval gender different workplace rules or overtly blatant discriminatory practices were ever in effect where I was.

We have a close family friend who is an academic, in the field of women's studies. Never was there ever a better example to be found to demonstrate "when you're a hammer, the whole world looks to be nails".

I poke and prod and engage her to have broader perspectives. She spent many years with the habit of investigating until she found what she was looking for and then stopping, without fully understanding or developing her research to include the context and bigger pictures involved. She's thanked me for it. I read her articles and books attentively (after the fact) and offer my observations.

I remember those accounting firms. Perhaps where you where you were women were hired for career paths rather than just filler for the office. If so that was good but unusual.

What is "filler for the office"?

You never noticed so you were not as aware of it as most of the women on here probably were.

I came back to post that I keep seeing comments by younger women who seem to want men to take back the positions of authority and think a woman's place is in the home and subservient to men. Probably because this area has lots of evangelical LDS, RLDS, and Assemblies of God along with several other religious groups who have the biblical idea of what a woman's place is. If no one talks about those good old days when pay even for the same level was much less those times will return.

I never noticed what?

When I was younger, I only felt equal when I had as much or more money than my male associates. I felt money was how men kept score. Perhaps it just bolstered my self-esteem. Being self employed later in life I never had to think about who was in charge.

Conversely, my child was upset the other day that what they'd read and discussed in class was written by Harper Lee, a woman, but her gender wasn't something they'd touched upon. I was glad. Someday, gender won't matter. Maybe I was wrong seeing it that way, but I found it encouraging.

For the last several years of my working life, I was an office worker in a county-owned nursing home. Very few males there, from housekeeping to kitchen to nursing. One male in social services and our administrator was male (he left and the DON took his job, but did not last long). All others in the office were female.

Isn't it the ultimate sexism to assume the man's world view should be spread? Women tackle their work environment differently than men. Ok so what? Why is it a man's job to teach women 'how to'? Men haven't experienced tupperware parties...why should they? Even if at home being the full time parent--men and women are DIFFERENT. I would assume they would gather for play dates...and play poker while the kids play vs craft as we did. Evenings to get away from "the drudgery" of HOME they would go shoot hoops not attend book club. It is a HUGE mistake to think women in the work force should turn into men. Approach work/career as a man would! Your stories of life b4 the 70's in the work world SHOCK me. That's a good thing. That means we are evolving. THANK YOU for the fight ladies!! I will say I wonder how much of the FEARS of men/women working side by side and the sexual tension that does arise for some have been proved correct. Divorce rates also SOARED as women joined the work force. Sexual freedoms the pill gave have increased extra-marital sexual relations. Hard to deny that. And it hasn't IMPROVED marriage if longevity is a goal. Question is --is the plight of women better today OVER ALL or more difficult? IMHO we have given men freedom to take a very laissez faire attitude toward family. For many women this is not affording them the lives they would choose. It has become not ok for a women to see the value of investing in the raising of children. I find that unfortunate. Unfortunate for our future as a society and unfortunate for the women coming behind me. COVID really exposed how ineffective our family units are. "Parents" were stymied and the idea of spending any real amount of time with their own children. Day Care/sports/organised non stop activity has done us no favors. As far as reading male/female authors. I read mysteries. Burned through the female author's series then went on to male authors. Frankly when a story is muddied by sexual antics and the OBVIOUS fantasy life of men because sorry guys much of that is just not REALITY, I find a new author their gender has no meaning to me.

Elmer: I saw and experienced similar things, maybe not to the same extent.

I can guarantee that what you saw and experienced was different from what a woman saw and experienced. It always is for the person in the minority...whether there is overt discrimination or not. It is hard for the person without the issue to fully understand what life is like for the person with the issue regardless of what the issue is because for them, it's not an issue. By this I mean, if you have [money, power, are able-bodied] then [poverty, being powerless, getting around] is not an issue and it's hard to understand what life is like for one who is [poor, powerless, disabled]. I'm reminded of the article I read oh so many years ago about life in the soviet states. While we all know that planned production led to shortages of so many things, one of the things that was hardest to come by was women's sanitary products as men were in charge and it wasn't an issue for them.

I would question your characterization of my work experience, at the beginning, as a "male dominated" area. Rather, it was NOT one of the careers that had been traditionally female dominated. There's a difference. Even in college years, the business and econ classes I took had few female students. They were welcome to take whatever classes they wanted, it seemed to be a field not of great interest.

Just want to make sure we mean the same things. When I say "male dominated" I mean "predominantly male", not that men went out of their way to dominate women in that field...though that is often a side effect of being challenged by women entering a predominantly male environment.

I was one of those few women in math, business and econ classes. And while I was welcome and didn't experience overt discrimination, it was on *me* to 'fit in'. The rules and culture had been set for decades by the men who predominated. Thus I had a good deal of exposure to how men operated. Whereas, there were never or hardly ever any males in, say home ec classes, but if there were, the female-led environment was preexisting, and they'd get exposure to it and would be the ones who would have to learn how to fit in. But that rarely happened.

So what I'm saying...especially as it relates to how we experience books and authors...is that women have more exposure to men's world than men do to women's world.

Worked for the Federal Government my entire career. Never have had any problems with moving up, pay raises, etc. Pay and job based on Civil Service Testing in early years. I'm sure the "sexism" went on (and evidently rampant now), but I never saw it. Don't know anyone who paid someone else to take their tests for them...at that time anyway :)

I think a lot of this depends on what Department you worked for and how

open to viewing the work was...and what the work actually was. However,

I never saw any sexism going on around me either. I saw "affairs".. but I

figured those people...both man and woman... were free to hang themselves

if they chose. And I saw a couple that did. The men and women that I

met and had for friends were hard workers and didn't treat people badly. A

male friend had more complaints against his boss than any of the women

did. But, his boss had an enlarged ego and treated everyone that way.

Now, little Elmer...I answered what I saw...you don't need to come in and

correct me... you have no knowledge of it. But, if you do...how

long were you hiding in my offices watching, over the years? And, wow,

a lot of your time wasted there, if you were.

Question is --is the plight of women better today OVER ALL or more difficult?

Seriously? As a woman, don't you KNOW the answer to this question? Of course it's better, and we continue to make tremendous strides. That said, I detect a good deal of contradiction in your post, Arcy, as you praise women for how we have forced the evolution of our species as a whole, yet seem to denigrate us for owning our sexuality and reproductive choices.

"Crafts, play dates, Tupperware parties, poker" -- ?? You have a fairly narrow view, it seems, of today's realities. There's a certain Mayberry-ish picture of what life might have been like for many at one time that some still seem to want to cling to, but you have to know that gender roles and family dynamics are anything but homogenous in 2020, and in fact, families have encompassed a wide array of norms for a very long time. Just because something is not familiar to you does not make it wrong. "Different" does not mean that others are failing.

COVID really exposed how ineffective our family units are. "Parents" were stymied and the idea of spending any real amount of time with their own children.

Did it? Or is this what you choose to see and believe? What I have observed time and time and time again are parents who have done the most amazingly wonderful job of adapting to an unfortunate reality. Creativity and inventiveness have been raised up in this society as never before, so I'm not sure where all of these "stymied" people you reference exist.

Speaking of being shocked how far we've come: I worked with two women who were both very bright, could grasp and summarize complicated situations quickly, could work out solutions across entire work flows ... but their abilities were overlooked by management because they'd started as secretaries. Why did they start as secretaries? Because their high school reserved math and science classes for boys, and enrolled girls in typing classes if they wanted a career before motherhood. These two women were only five years older than me, and grew up less than 50 miles from me. But worlds apart!

I was able to promote one of these women to a mid-range position (sadly she succumbed to cancer a few years later). And shortly before I retired, I recommended the other one to be my supervisor, she got the job and did great!

I began my career as a secretary many years ago, having taken the requisite courses in high school in classes that were, predictably, predominantly female. I now work in a senior executive administrative role, and can attest that "secretaries" are considered by and large a thing of the past. Today's corporate administrators work hand-in-hand with all levels of management to bring measurable value to organizations. Those who think that "secretaries" are still these pretty little things who file their nails in between being chased around the desk by the old bald white guy with a cigar dangling from his lips might not have set foot in an actual corporate environment in quite some time. ;-)

ETA: I am married, and am the "breadwinner" in our home. To that end, I am not dependent financially upon my husband, but I DO depend on him to keep our household running smoothly, which in turn enables my abilities. When we adopted these roles many years ago, there were some who expressed disbelief that it could work; that surely there would be some major upheaval down the line due to our willing refusal to ascribe to "traditional" gender roles. Didn't happen, as we're still going strong, with the only change over the years being a greater certainty of our dynamic and more closely honed synergies. It was rather telling, though, that even 20 years ago, there were some we knew who expressed that unless a man was the provider and the woman the "support beam", so to speak, it would all go askew. Ain't necessarily so ... and thankfully, at least a few of those people have reversed their position.

We also do not have children, and I do not personally ascribe to the notion of child-rearing as the most important job that a human can undertake. We all have a vital role to play, no matter who or where or what we are. To hold fast (even, or perhaps especially, subconsciously) to ideals that are locked into restrictive parameters is to sell the human creature very short indeed.

This conversation reminds me of an old expression, " Power isn't something that someone gives you, it is something you take."

This does not necessarily apply to employment but speaks to an attitude of passivity that would prevent a person taking authority over their lives and future paths.

I never have reacted to things as a "typical woman". I would not describe myself as demure or emotional. I'm a fact-based logical thinker who responds to things by unpacking details and looking for solutions. As a kid, my favorite pretend game was work and I only babysat for the money.

I did an internship working for a man who only hired female interns who loved to try and give me shoulder massages in the office. This was in the late 80's.

I didn't get married until I was 43. Before getting married I was frequently asked if I was gay. This was in the late 90's/early 2000's.

I was in a client meeting with one woman and two men from the client side. As the meeting was concluding, I asked if there was anything else I could do for them. One of the men responded "well, I guess sex is out of the question". This was in the early 2000's.

A new male manager took over for my group a few years ago. One woman "quit" as soon as he started (we were never sure what happened). During a dinner, he told me he didn't think older people could do this job. Then I was put on a performance improvement plan fore stated reasons that were questionable and as I was accomplishing the tasks, he took away the accounts that would have allowed me to complete it successfully. One year later, he told the remaining woman who worked for him (a top performer) that despite her strong performance, the company was going in a different direction and forced her out. This guy was 36.

So while I know we've made progress, I have not experienced equality in the workplace.

I always appreciate Elmer's responses whether I agree or not. One thing I will say is that as a woman, when questioned at work by male colleagues about "male/female" issues, I always respond conservatively.

Back to books, I read Steve Martin's Shop Girl a number of years ago. I love his writings and enjoyed the detail and apparent "insight" into a woman's psyche. For you that didn't read the book, the most simple way to describe her is as lost & depressed. Then I had to ask myself, would he have been able to share a woman's innermost world so eloquently if she had been strong and happy?

Annie - I think this is spot on - It is hard for the person without the issue to fully understand what life is like for the person with the issue regardless of what the issue
is because for them, it's not an issue. By this I mean, if you have [money, power, are able-bodied] then [poverty, being powerless, getting around] is not an issue and it's hard to understand what life is like for one who is [poor, powerless, disabled].

Not to take this on a different tangent, but it reminds me of all the white people saying there is no longer any significant problem with racism in America.

As a woman, I don't believe my career has been hampered by the fact I'm a woman. I'm fairly attuned to things like that, and while as Elmer noted there are still Neanderthals out there, I've managed to avoid them for the most part. So for me personally, I've done very well for myself by working hard for decades and I feel I've been treated fairly along the way. So, bully for me. But that doesn't negate the fact that other women haven't had the same (lucky?) experience.

Aside from the work world, as a women, I've had some terrifying experiences. There is absolutely no doubt that some men still see women as primarily objects to be used and I've had some bad experiences and close calls, including a random target of attempted sexual attack in broad daylight in NYC.

So while I think the world of work has come a long way over the past few decades, I'm not sure how much better overall it is, in general. Certainly life is a million times better in America as a woman than it is in Sudan, for example. However it's pretty hard to ignore life is still very much a man's world in many places, all over the world...

I hope my comment above about "secretaries" did not convey that I think for one minute that inequities and abuses do not still happen. Of course they do; they always have, and to some extent always will -- but at least things HAVE improved. I can guarantee that any woman anywhere can relay a horror story (or 2,379 horror stories) of things she has either suffered herself or witnessed other women enduring. Patrice's agreement with the italicized comment (yes, it's spot on) and analogy to racial issues is very apt. I know enough as a white woman to know that there are countless things I DON'T know about the current state of things, by the very nature of my body's appearance. I cannot fathom how anyone can say that something doesn't exist or isn't the experience of another person, if they have had no possible way to have felt or seen it firsthand. I do believe that the beginning of wisdom is in understanding that you do not know what you do not know, and one has no right to lay claim to a valid assertion if it isn't based in ACTUAL knowledge.

I have a different perspective because I've mostly worked in female dominated professions (and yes there are quite a few of those) and have little experience in a male dominated profession. I've mostly worked for women or had women as clients, but I've also worked for and with men and have had a few men as clients. As far as having clients, I have generally found that men were easier for me to deal with and that women tended to be more difficult clients - and that is partly because they changed their minds about things much more often than men did. This is my personal experience.

On another level, however, I do appreciate the trend these days of considering gender on a sliding scale and of it being somewhat fluid, so that traits traditionally assigned to women or men and changing and becoming less rigid. I do agree with Arcy that women and men are biologically different and that hormones may at times affect behavior - that is why people sometimes take hormone supplements. When I first starting working in the furniture industry, my boss and supervisor were both women, and I kept Midol in my desk for certain days when my supervisor might need it. I didn't offer it to her, except to say that I had it in case she wanted it, and she did ask for it on occasion. From my experience, I also found women to be more vindictive and hold grudges longer than men - men seemed more willing to move beyond it, but some women did not forgive so easily.

As a child growing up in central Texas, I was forbidden to use a sewing machine, but I was allowed to help with cooking, although I was also forced to drive a tractor (which plunged me into deep depression) and other farm work that I hated. I would have been much happier working in a dress shop or delicatessen. I was also forbidden from taking Home Ec and was forced to take one semester of Vocational Agriculture, even though I had no intentions of ever becoming a farmer.

As for literature, when I was in the 8th grade, we were assigned to read a George Sand novel (I forget which one), and before the assignment, the teacher (who was female) had everyone in the class draw a picture of a man and a picture of a woman. We had no idea why. The woman I drew looked like Jayne Mansfield in a tight, low-cut dress and high heels, and she was carrying a purse. The man I drew looked somewhat nondescript and androgynous. We did not sign our work. The teacher then collected all the drawings and held them up to the class (which I was not expected at all!) so that the class could try to guess whether a boy or a girl had drawn the pictures. Her theory was that boys would draw masculine looking women, and girls would draw effeminate looking men. When she held my pictures up, everyone said, "Lars drew that," as I was already known for the types of drawings I did. The teacher remarked that one girl's drawings looked like salt and pepper shakers and did not appear to have any gender bias. Anyway, the teacher went on to say that George Sand had to use a male pseudonym in order to sell books and that people could not tell from reading her work that a woman had written them.

As a teenager, I read most of Thomas Hardy's novels, and I always identified with the tragic heroines. I think Hardy understood the female psyche fairly well, as he was also my niece's favorite author when she was in high school. I don't think I've paid that much attention to whether an author was male or female when selecting something to read, but I did read GWTW by Margaret Mitchell three times, first when I was ten, and it did seem like it was written by a woman. I also read a lot of Daphne du Maurier and loved her works as well. I did not read novels by Jackie Collins, even though she was a client of ours at the furniture company, but then so was Dean Koontz, and I didn't read his books either, although I did have to go to his house to help with a chandelier installation. My sister reads both of these authors, and she also likes to read romance novels that to me appear to be borderline porno. She had a copy of Fanny Hill when I was in 7th or 8th grade, and I read that and liked it but did not continue in that trend.

It's interesting that Lars could not use a sewing machine as a teen, but could cook. It's also interesting to me that many of the top fashion designers are male, and many of the top rated Michelin chefs are male.

We just finished watching Mrs. America on Hulu. It's about the attempted passage of the ERA in the 70s. I found it fascinating because while I was I alive during this period I was a typical teen and didn't really care about politics or the fight for equality. The most ironic part was that Phyllis Schlafly was actually exactly what she was fighting against, if only she could have seen that.

I went into a predominantly female profession (nursing) but advanced on to become a CRNA. The nurse anesthesia profession is probably 55% female and 45% male. There has never been pay inequality as far as I'm aware.

I was the leader in the office who was viewed by female staff members as a safe person to speak to. Besides being known as a mentor of women, I was also a confidant to far many more. Who would come to me with concerns, problems, etc., that I would do my best to help them deal with or fix, as appropriate. So yes, in my environment, I had far more visibility (and activism) concerning the issues of women than other men did.

I once was interviewing for a new secretary (as they were called at that time, not yet Administrative assistants) and the agency sent a woman in her late 50s who had just retired from a large company. I asked her why she left and she reluctantly told me in general terms that things had gotten uncomfortable for her (I later learned it was a case of sexual harassment and a hostile work environment). I hired her on the spot for her maturity and experience. This is a bad analogy but she was like a kid that had been in a dangerous, dysfunctional home but now in a safe one but couldn't stop being apprehensive. It took her a long time to get over her over-cautiousness in dealing with people and to trust me. We became great friends when she realized she'd reached a workplace that was safe in all ways and where her work was appreciated and recognized.

As a bit of a follow-on, I understand and appreciate all the prior comments insofar as they relate to the workplace and perhaps, for some, home life, with one exception. An unsourced statement that I think is preposterous and patently untrue:

"Sexual freedoms the pill gave have increased extra-marital sexual relations. Hard to deny that."

Much like our family friend who had become a victim of her own brainwashing (the hammer and nail story above) and needed some third parties observations to see the need to take a broader view, I hope those of you who had unfortunate experiences or situations haven't caused them to lead you to having inflexible prejudices. I do sense some of that - even the phrase "mans world" smells of that a bit.

The world is as we all see it and of course is affected uniquely by those we must interact with. As with anything else, measure who people are as individuals, not with biases or baseless expectations. There are good and bad in every situation and you don't want to misidentify anyone either way.

I always smile when I see statements like the one you quote, Elmer. My mother, born in 1922, had a number of pre-marital escapades, as did many of her friends. My father was born out of wedlock in 1919; my grandmother never married, and had a second child by a different man.

People didn't start having more sex once the pill arrived, they were simply more open about it.

Since the early 20th century, physical devices for protection have been widely available in the US.

Whether they were used or not is the same as other methods of birth control today. Whether among married couples, unmarried couples, or gay men, they provide mostly reliable birth control and also protection from sexually transmitted diseases. For both participants. Then as now. It takes two people to have an encounter of this kind.

Yet another matter that is neither political nor religious though people would love to make it so.

I grew up in an environment where it was expected that girls remain virgins until marriage. This was not banged on about nearly as much with the boys, which of course causes a young woman to feel as though the burden for remaining pure is squarely on her shoulders. Boys will be boys, after all. 🙄

Despite all best intentions by those who truly cared about my wellbeing but were misguided in attempts at keeping me chaste, I had unprotected sex for the first time at 15. The guilt was horrendous, but the hormonally driven physical urge far greater, and it was not just a one time event. To say that I experienced some very confusing, conflicting ideas and emotions surrounding sex as I matured is an understatement.

I say that to relay that kids ARE having sex. They have always BEEN having sex, and they always will BE having sex. To wish it were not so, to wish they would wait, does nothing to influence the reality of the matter. For the love of all things holy, young people need proper education and an open dialogue with the adults in their lives who will ensure that that have the resources they need when they reach sexual maturity. We ARE sexual beings. The advent of the pill did not bring about sex; it made it safer and produced far less unwanted babies. I call that an excellent thing.

Digressing from the workplace discussion, there has been historically a double standard of right and wrong for men and women. I imagine Bookwoman's Mother and Grandmother were judged very harshly in their day. Men were "sowing wild oats" and folks looked the other way on their behavior. I recall a woman never smoking on the street or swearing. Not lady-like. Men could be direct or out-spoken. Ladies had to "make nice". I was never very good at that one.

My grandmother was sent to relatives in the US to have my father, so certainly there was some shame there. But my mother, AFAIK, wasn't judged harshly at all (then again, she didn't get pregnant). Her dalliances took place in France and Switzerland just after the war, when mores were very different from those in the US - and often still are.

I'm reminded of what Simone de Beauvoir said: There are two kinds of people in the world. There are human beings and then there are women. And when women start acting like human beings, they are often accused of acting like men.

I really admire women that worked towards and had careers. I always only had jobs. Something that paid the bills. It was a bonus if I enjoyed what I was doing or at least liked the people I worked with. I went to work (office work, of course) right out of high school because I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life. Pretty much the choices were teacher, nurse or secretary. I wasn't keen on any of those professions. So I usually had jobs that were supporting someone else. When I finally had a boss that didn't try hitting on me, I was thrilled. He was and still is one of the nicest people I know. I worked hard to make his business a success and he rewarded me for that hard work. But the thing he gave me that meant the most to me was the suggestion and encouragement that I should go to college. So at the age of 37. I loved it so much and because I was doing it for my own satisfaction, I took most of my classes that I knew I would enjoy. There were some requisites, of course, but I got to choose what I wanted. I didn't need this degree for my job but I really did become much more satisfied with my life and happy in my life as well. He and I are still friends. All this to say, it makes a world of difference when you are treated as a person and not an object. I don't know if this is even relevant to this topic but it's not a good feeling to have had bosses that intimate how one could get ahead if only........it's creepy and scary to have someone like that as a boss even if nothing ever comes of it. And I can't imagine (though there probably are some) any man ever having to go through something like that.

Lars, I too have worked for male and female bosses, and I much preferred working for men. They tended to find the simple, the easiest, cut to the chase and so much less drama.

I've seen Heim's work and I think it has some validity in terms of female vs male cultures.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,174250,00.html#:~:text=But%20different%20can%20mean%20good,%2D%2Dit%20sets%20off%20tensions.

Heim and Murphy, veterans of FORTUNE 500 companies, say they decided to write the book when they realized that "women consistently failed to support other women and even actively undermined their authority and credibility."

Heim and Murphy are not shy about using words or taking positions that are bound to generate controversy. Take the term catfight, which they say refers to "the incontrovertible truth" that when women work together, they often clash. Catfights include spreading malicious gossip and rumors, divulging secrets and surreptitiously attacking one another in the presence of others, particularly bosses. In fact, the book was originally titled From Catfights to Colleagues until the authors ran into resistance to the C word. "Men and women are not the same," says Murphy. "We're different biologically, and we're different in personal relationships, and we're also different at work. But different can mean good."

The core idea of the book is the so-called Power Dead-Even Rule, the theory that for two women to forge a positive relationship, their self-esteem and power must be kept "dead even." When one woman gets more power--through a promotion, for example--it sets off tensions. Women sometimes try to redress those status differences, the authors say, through hostility and sniping. The cure for a troubled workplace is to deal honestly with these feelings of competition. The authors say, "From our observations, women are somewhat more comfortable with a powerful woman who plays down her importance than one who does not."

I dislike/distrust ascribing behaviors to genders because there are so many factors beyond sex/gender that play into how people interact.

But reading Anne's post above, I can laugh (now) that much of the trouble in one of my last jobs was exactly because the big boss very carefully kept the two little boss's "dead even." He'd rather those two ladies direct their sniping downward than sideways or upward -- and that's what they did. Deal honestly? He (big boss) was the only person who ever asked me to lie in my job. His mistake was assuming I'd comply.

Competitiveness or catfighting. Isnt it in what you call it? Men are competitive. It is considered to be a good trait. They do not always play nicely together and will undercut and slander each other in order to get ahead. No one is surprised as it is a dog eat dog world but when women do it it is viewed differently.

I have noticed that women will put up with and even excuse behavior in men that they will not accept in women at all hence the fact that females prefer on average male bosses.

Female bosses can err in trying to be friends with their underlings. It is also generally a sticky thing to promote a co-worker to supervise former equals. The transition is always going to be problematic. It is nice that the boss is friendly but the relationship cant be the same.

While males and females are biologically different in some ways the big difference between men and women is culture. Acceptable behavior for men and women is very different. We are taught our roles from birth. Female babies who are actually stronger than males are treated more gently. It is hard for people to believe that female babies are more likely to survive adverse medical problems but it is true. Still people who are actually handling a male baby they have been told is female will be more gentle with the supposed fragile female. Where do you go from there?

As a very young woman in the early 70s I worked doing filing for StateFarm in a large office space. That was before computers and there was a lot of paper generated.

We filed all day long, a crew of us, bending over the file drawers in our skirts.

The men would line up to watch us and make comments to us as if we were tawdry entertainment for them! Management, apparently, saw no reason to intervene and we were just young kids and did not know that we were being wronged, just that we hated it. And, we were required to wear skirts, no pants.

Another experience was when I was sexually attacked in the back office of a business where I had been placed with a school work program. I was a senior at the local high school The school at that time did noting more that to eliminate that business from participating. There was much less reaction to that back in those days.

Times have changed for women, thankfully.