I don't recall where I came across this CNN article, but it's pretty funny, right? "8 ways women can get ahead in the workplace." The whole article is hilariously depressing, a list of shitty advice on how women can make their lives more shitty so that the Man in Charge will think they're almost as important as the men they work with. I say that the way women should get ahead in the workplace is by tearing the fucking workplace down and strangling the boss with his own tie, but that's, I suppose, where me and CNN are different.
Item number two, What are you waiting for?, is what I want to focus on, though. It quotes this Lois P. Frankel person, who they describe as a "psychologist," and who wrote a book called Nice Girls Don't Get the Corner Office, which I'm just sure is a must-read. "Many women believe if they do what they are told, they will be noticed and rewarded," CNN tells us. And then this sentence
In fact, Frankel warns that "hard work typically begets more hard work."is separated from this sentence
Asking for assignments that can help build your career is another way to get your manager's attention, Frankel says.by two sentences. Frankel, and the CNN writer through whom her words are filtered, clearly realized that they had accidentally said something that could be interpreted in a way other than "You're lucky just to have a job so you better work your pretty little ass off to keep it, and make me some coffee while you're at it" and scrambled to fix that mistake.
I mean, really: even if some poor soul were to come across this article and take it at face value as an advice column, what advice is she supposed to take away from this? "Working hard won't get you noticed, it'll just make you have to work harder, so you'd better work harder!"
Fuck you. Tear it down.
13 comments:
"Wellington also pointed out some managers still believe women may not work as hard or put in as many hours. A woman can overcome this assumption by putting herself forward and offering to do more work."
"Tinsley says women tend to hold the misperception that if they work extra hours, they can advance their career. Instead, the best way to network may be golfing with the guys or grabbing a beer with your coworkers."
Fuck. These. People.
The caption on the lead photo is a tickler:
"Career authors and workplace experts" something something...
Remember, the way you look and talk matters. Who do I pay for this sage wisdom.
Ethan, quite simply: CNN. Stop. Now.
On an unrelated note, what's the deal with Crow's place? Crow, I want to read your musings, but can't. Make me better, please.
Rachel, right? I especially like the "hang out with the guys" part, as if a) hanging out with people from work all the damn time is what you should want to do, b) one woman should be expected to be perfectly comfortable going out to bars with a bunch of dudes she doesn't really know, and c) women have to relate on a "dude" level or else they're not important.
At first I thought about writing about the whole article, then realized I would probably never stop. So I stopped.
wtTVt: "Career authors and workplace experts," anyone got a linin' up wall handy?
I would stop with CNN, but I happen to live in a house with someone who's unstoppably obsessed with telling me about things she sees on it.
As for Jack, I don't know! I know he did this once before when he felt he needed a break but that having the blog up and active would be too tempting (I think that was the reason he said, anyway). I hope it's just that again, and that he's well.
I wonder if Women can also practice short speeches at home to help push their main ideas to the beginning can be transferred to the realm of marriage, and if so, do they have to practice these short speeches at work? Businessify *everything!*
I swear to god we've been moving in total reverse with this shit. Did anyone see this: http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/01/19/young_women_romance/index.html
Horrifyingly misogynistic, retrograde crap evopsych "studies" that the author swallows absolutely whole. So depressing.
Yugh.
Echidne of the Snakes, in between some tiresome liberalism, has been writing fucking awesome posts about gender "science." If you haven't been reading them, I recommend it. Partial index is here.
Yeah, I can't remember exactly why I stopped reading Echidne, but I do remember the sense of visceral disgust I felt when I made the decision. Oh well. Time to start again I guess.
...Horrifyingly misogynistic, retrograde crap evopsych "studies" that the author swallows absolutely whole. So depressing.
I thought that was just an average day on Salon, usually. :p
Why just limit it to Salon? This is where I would stick in a LOLsob if I was Melissa McEwan, which I'm not.
Oh, and Rachel, I definitely understand the "visceral disgust" reaction to some of the things Echidne posts, although even had her liberal worst I do find her more tolerable than her co-blogger, wuzzisname. Anthony McCarthy. He's a partisan hack if I've ever met one.
I haven't been reading Echidne very long, but so far I've found that, of the mainstream lib-feminist blogs I've encountered, her ratio of worth-reading to dumb-dumb-dumb is one of the higher, so.
Uh, "at her liberal worst," not "had her liberal worst." What a weird typo.
I used to be on a Big Name Feminist Board years ago, and thought Echidne was pretty cool.
But all the liberal rah-rah and the cutesy terms like "Wingnuttia" drove me away from her space eventually.
Feminism is a good thing, but the American varieties by and large seem to expect loyalty oaths to the Democratic Party 365/24/7, even when they're not openly requested/demanded. So I kind of keep its blogs at arm's length nowadays. :(
Feminism is a good thing, but the American varieties by and large seem to expect loyalty oaths to the Democratic Party 365/24/7
Very true and very sad, and applies if you replace "feminism" with a whole bunch of other good things.
Post a Comment