Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rethinking this, I want to qualify my earlier post snapping back at her tone. I think she had a method, and so I wouldn't say anything disparaging about the author of this blog, or the message. It's really pretty standard feminist doctrine, and I don't have any problem with feminism. I don't really have a problem with the way she structures this particular blog. I think it's a little deceptive, but that may be part of her purpose.
Being standard feminist doctrine on a par with a conservative talking about personal responsibility, imagine that conservative person talking to a bunch of successful small business owners and decrying entitlement programs. Lots of heads would nod along with the speaker. The primary audience for this blog all nodded along with the author as she set up her straw man and then corrected his misconception. She wasn't trying to educate anyone so much as filling the feminist blogger echo chamber with her message. Which is also well and good.
That her blog got posted here and pissed off a few people would probably make her happy, and that's not necessarily a bad thing either.
Aren't there any male secretaries in tech? There certainly are in universities and state employment.
This was a few decades back - even before "admin assistants", and all secretaries were female. There were only a few female engineers, and sales/ marketing were mixed. Many of the sales/marketing people started as secretaries so it was easier for women to get an in to the business side, even without any background in business. There wasn't any real divide based on income or education, or rules about workplace dating so anyone could date whoever without judgement. There were many marriages in that company. Sadly I've started to come across obits of former co-workers, but many were still married to the people they met there decades ago.
The blogger's concerns make me sad. If it is something personal to her, she may need to do a little introspection. She comes off as harsh. There is compromise in any relationship, she was just spouting off rules.
There are more female college graduates than males at this point, women perhaps need to get a grip and understand they may have to date men who make less money than them, with less education, as men have been doing without issue. If the man is kind, respectful, intelligent, with a decent job and his own interests really you are ahead of the game.
The blogger's concerns make me sad. If it is something personal to her, she may need to do a little introspection. She comes off as harsh. There is compromise in any relationship, she was just spouting off rules.
It almost seems as if she's not prepared for the give and take required in a relationship. Sometimes that means shutting up and smiling and going along with something you don't want/like.
Often when I think about gendered positions and how I'm reacting to them, I do a bit of a "flip the coin" exercise.
If a man had written a piece about how if women want to be with X kind of man, then they really need to make sure they think this way, speak that way, don't do the other thing that disrespects him, and so on and so forth...in such a scoldy, harsh or passive-aggressive kind of a way, and come off accusatory (straw man tactics, as homina mentioned) I'd be like, "Well who in the hell do you think you are?"
I did pause to question myself, because I can actually imagine my criticism of her "tone" being responded to by a couple of the more outspoken feminists I know, and I think that a big point they'd be pushing at me is along the lines that women are supposedly expected to always be polite and calm and fawning to any audience and the moment we speak out passionately, we're "shrill" and all that... I've heard this argument before, and maybe in some cases it's valid. But no, here, the coin-flip exercise of imagining this inverse gendered and how I'd react to it confirms for me that I'm not just regurgitating some kind of socially programmed anti-women sentiment with that.
I don't want a woman who identifies with the "strong, independent" label. I want a woman who realizes the interdependence of men and women. I want a woman that realizes that men and women are meant to collaborate and benefit each other. Those attitudes are lacking in careerist, feminist, "strong, independent" women. This is why I have made efforts over time to avoid these women.
What bothered me was the photo; did the blogger choose that, or did someone else add that--was this reprinted in an article, or something? It's such a stereotypical photo. Most independent women don't look anything like that, lol. It's as if someone chose that model in order for the "strong independent" woman to look cold and scary to men, but at the same time--also sexy. Some "strong, independent" women look small and cuddly. Some look gentle and caring. Some are curvy, others aren't. Some are elegantly stylish, as the photo implies, others create their own style, still others aren't into styling. Many are "cute" rather than "sexy".
Here is her actual portrait:
victimfocus.org.uk/about-us
There's a certain irony here. The author actually looks very much like a girly girl. Got the makeup, the ear piercings, the flowery blouse, the styled hair. In a female-dominated field: Psychology. But she's a feminist, loud and aggressive, and sees men as enemies. She may not be lesbian or bisexual, but many lesbians and bisexual women are just like her. And the pushy career woman vying for money and power is her hero.
On the other extreme, you've got tomboyish women like my friend (I'll call her Mary): no makeup, no piercings, no jewelry, has long hair but never styles or even combs it, wears plain, unisex T-shirts and jeans everyday. Mary's in a male-dominated field: Computer Science. But she's straight, sees men as friends (has a lot of guy friends), and is one of the kindest, gentlest women I know. She's not in Computer Science for the money or the power at all. She simply loves programming.
Mary's mom was also a programmer. But Mary's mom is a conservative Catholic, and has 4 sons and three daughters, including Mary. News flash: religious conservatism and tomboyish women in male-dominated, technical careers are NOT mutually exclusive.
Fact is, you can have a girly girl feminist in a low-paid, female-dominated job who rebels against traditional gender roles.
And you can have a non-feminist, low-maintenance, tomboy geek girl in a well-paid, male dominated field who is gentle, kind, and would make a great wife.
I'll date women like Mary any day over strong independent women like the author. Mary sees men as friends, not enemies. And that's how it should be. Men and women are interdependent and complementary.
Most places call them admins now instead of secretaries. I don't know why but I suspect it has something to do with perception of the job. It's actually a difficult and demanding job, though.
It used to be mainly a receptionist and typist job, but it has become increasingly complex, with some "secretaries" coordinating special programs, organizing conferences, or handling the boss' entire schedule, handling some correspondence under her own direction (i.e. independent work), etc. So they now call a lot of them "admins", and the pay is higher. Also, it's' common these days for them to do bookkeeping, set up powerpoint lectures and so on, based on Microsoft Office and similar programs.
Compare that to the old days, of answering phones, transferring calls, and taking dictation.
The more independent women are, the less they need to (obviously) depend on and lean on men. It's a lighter touch that isn't clingy or needy. Strong is great too, and shows that women are sure of themselves and confident, and can function without help. That would reveal a complete woman, like a complete man/human. It's entirely win-win on both sides.
There's a certain irony here. The author actually looks very much like a girly girl. Got the makeup, the ear piercings, the flowery blouse, the styled hair. In a female-dominated field: Psychology. But she's a feminist, loud and aggressive, and sees men as enemies. She may not be lesbian or bisexual, but many lesbians and bisexual women are just like her. And the pushy career woman vying for money and power is her hero.
On the other extreme, you've got tomboyish women like my friend (I'll call her Mary): no makeup, no piercings, no jewelry, has long hair but never styles or even combs it, wears plain, unisex T-shirts and jeans everyday. Mary's in a male-dominated field: Computer Science. But she's straight, sees men as friends (has a lot of guy friends), and is one of the kindest, gentlest women I know. She's not in Computer Science for the money or the power at all. She simply loves programming.
Mary's mom was also a programmer. But Mary's mom is a conservative Catholic, and has 4 sons and three daughters, including Mary. News flash: religious conservatism and tomboyish women in male-dominated, technical careers are NOT mutually exclusive.
Fact is, you can have a girly girl feminist in a low-paid, female-dominated job who rebels against traditional gender roles.
And you can have a non-feminist, low-maintenance, tomboy geek girl in a well-paid, male dominated field who is gentle, kind, and would make a great wife.
I'll date women like Mary any day over strong independent women like the author. Mary sees men as friends, not enemies. And that's how it should be. Men and women are interdependent and complementary.
Who are you calling a "girly girl"? The photo I saw was of a blonde with huge, clunky glasses, a big tattoo, and virtually no makeup or hair styling. Straight hair. Is there a different photo somewhere?
Who are you calling a "girly girl"? The photo I saw was of a blonde with huge, clunky glasses, a big tattoo, and virtually no makeup or hair styling. Straight hair. Is there a different photo somewhere?
The picture looks like her lashes have been enhanced with eye shadow or mascara. The lips look glossy.
She has ear piercings.
The blouse has flowers, is rather revealing.
Lots of girly girls get tattoos these days. It's just a hipster thing.
My point is, my friend Mary is more tomboyish and low-maintenance than the author, even just by judging by Mary's Linkedin profile picture. But Mary is no feminist, while the author (Jessica Taylor) is.
Just look at color pictures of Jessica Taylor on her youtube channel. She appears much more feminine than Mary is.
youtube.com/watch?v=Qu-FAPAXMfA
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
