I've had my share of awful bosses, including
women who were brutal to other women, but also
women who were brutal to other men. No fun in
either case. I'm just not sure I know what a
"male" value is. But if your constuct is right,
the women you like working with are also products of "male" values.
I'm not disputing the facts on the ground--I'd
have to be an idiot to do so. I am saying that
there's no evidence behind the explanation you're
buying into. It's becoming something of a cliché.
Do you know Diane Wolkstein's Inanna books? When
the first one came out I heard her speak to a
group of professional storytellers. She told us
that she had changed the myth, on the assumption
that the accretions of a patriarchal society had
obscured what was a myth from the time of the
matriarchal society that had been suppressed
before history. Problem was, she had decided
based on what she wanted to believe about this
putative society what was original, what had been
pariarchalized. Another problem is that there's
no evidence that that matriarchal society ever
existed. She seemed to be aware of these
limitations, though she didn't dwell on them. Her
goal, she said, was to invent a myth that would be useful in the present.
Anyway, sure, by then we'll be talking about
poetry, and I'll be participating if I don't
drown on solid ground in the interim. It's been a
mite wet in Scotland recently.
Mark
At 08:53 PM 4/3/2006, you wrote:
>If you've ever worked for a woman boss like that, Mark (my sister did, it
>nearly destroyed her, and I've known many other people who suffered under
>that particular tyranny; they were common in journalism around 20 years ago,
>common enough to identify a "type"), you'll know what I mean. They were
>particularly hard on women employees - much harder than men in the same
>position - and bore the bitter scars of their struggle to get where they did
>in a world where men were unarguably dominant. The highest position they
>could achieve in journalism was generally Women's Editor or editor of a
>woman's magazine, although sometimes - very rarely - they made it out of the
>corner. I knew many people who suffered under those tyrannies, and they did
>not occur only in journalism but in every profession that was traditionally
>male-dominated. It did not happen to _all_ women who "made it", but it was
>common enough. And yes, they seem absolutely an example of how women's
>relationships can be skewed into poisonous competitiveness in a power
>structure that only works on "male" values.
>
>I've generally preferred working with and for women in my working life, as
>they are on the whole much more straightforward to negotiate with than men;
>my agent, my three editors and three publishers (on three continents) are
>all professional women, and great women too; but the exceptions have been
>extreme.
>
>The woman who sacked me for being a mother was from another, younger
>generation who called themselves "post-feminist".
>
>On 4/4/06 10:14 AM, "Mark Weiss" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Now it seems to be a way of
> > discrediting the very broad advances of women by claiming that
> > they've only advanced by becoming like men or worse.
>
>I don't think identifying that particular syndrome does anything of the
>sort. Rather, the success of those women who adopted the male mores of their
>workplaces with a vengeance rather than challenging them obscures the
>achievements of those women who did something else.
>
>Have a great holiday; perhaps we'll be talking about poetry by the time you
>get back.
>
>All best
>
>A
>
>Alison Croggon
>
>Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
>Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au
>Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
|
