The Power Of Bold Woman At Workplace

I have a hypothesis based on my experience about bold women at workplace. It is this: A bold woman in middle management would be far, far more effective than her male counterparts.

By bold woman I mean a woman with mannerisms of a man. A woman who is manly and outspoken, who swears at work like men do in casual settings, who doesn’t hesitate before insulting a subordinate for their performance related or other issues.

A woman with a bunch of qualities described above would be exceptionally successful as manager. It would be nearly impossible for a male counterpart to compete with her for growth in the organization.

The reason for this has to do with women having free pass in a lot of things in the society. One of those things is behaving unprofessionally at work. I’ll also break down the free pass in a bit.

Some examples of women’s free pass: In many offices, women can wear a top that shows their cleavage but men wearing a t-shirt would be considered unprofessional dressing. There are formal knee length skirts, but there is no such thing as formal shorts for men. A man who stares at a woman at work would be terminated from employment for that – and I have seen that happening – but a woman staring at men would face zero consequences. It’s not even a concern worth mentioning.

I mentioned the above examples to show that there are double standards in viewing men and women at work and in the society at large.

These double standards that create the free pass for women have their roots in biology, and they are justified. The point of this article is not to complain about or dispute the double standards.

The so-called “double standard” – or different ways of judging men and women’s behaviors – can not be changed nor does it need to be. Because it is biologically rooted, and for a reason. The problem arises, however, when we are forced to accept the view that men and women are equal and hence it’s okay for them to behave the same way. This view forced upon our conscience creates a confused psyche which combined with biologically rooted double standard then views men who swear as rude and unprofessional but takes kinder and amused view of a woman displaying the same behavior. This is how the free pass for women arises. And when the narrative of women empowerment is incorporated in that psyche it gives the bold woman a rather positive aura.

Even when she swears at a subordinate while reprimanding them, she would not come off as offensive, if at all, as a man doing the same. Moreover, a man can’t  reprimand a female subordinate without a risk of her taking offense and possible HR action; but a female manager can use any language towards a man without any fear because most men are used to the bad language.

It is because of the confused psyche that if a man displays boldness – in language and manners – at work, he will be considered unprofessional. But a women who is bold in the same way would at best be considered empowered, at worst would arouse amusement. Yes, by applying rational thought one would agree that the woman is being unprofessional, but one’s reactions are seldom based on rational thought. Therefore, the bold woman would not elicit the same negative reaction as the bold man would while getting the job done.

This gives bold women great power over their subordinates, influence over their peers, and marked advantage over their male counterparts, making them unusually effective in management positions.

This is of course generally speaking and there can be exceptions. I would love to know observations of other people on this.

Hillary’s Tweet: Stupid At Best, Sexist At Worst

Hillary Clinton tweeted:

“You’re gonna make the same if you do as good a job.” —Donald Trump on women and equal pay

Scott Adams has rightly dubbed this tweet as the mother of all campaign errors. The tweet surely looks pro-Trump. There is nothing wrong with what Donald Trump has said about women. What was Hillary thinking, one wonders!

I don’t think she wanted to declare that women should be paid more than men for doing as good a job. Although that doesn’t rule out the possibility fact that Hillary is sexist. I’ll tell you why. Hillary Clinton supports the agenda of third wave feminism, which is a movement aimed at getting preferential treatment to women and absolute marginalization of men. That is not equality, but sexism against men. So Hillary is sexist.

But I get it, that Hillary is not soo stupid to reveal that level of sexism in a tweet. Because however dumb the masses be, most people recognize that third wave feminism is evil. That’s why large number of women today refuse to identify themselves as feminists.

It is very hard, however, to see how the tweet is not asking that women be paid more than men for as good a job. Remember that Hillary is an arch rival of Donald Trump in the race for presidency of the United States. The tweet is supposed to be against Trump. If Trump declares he believes in equality of men and women – which is unquestionably what the tweet implies – and someone takes issues with that, that must mean that they want more than equality, that is, preferential treatment of women. The tweet, at its worst, is sexist thus.

Now here’s what I think Hillary’s actual intention behind the tweet is: She wanted to imply that 1) Trump acknowledges that woman are currently paid less, and that is because (he thinks) 2) women don’t do as good a job as men. So he has to say that “you are gonna make the same if…” That’s kind of future tense (are gonna) and with a condition (if).

Well, there is the stupid of Hillary Clinton. Gender pay gap has already been blown away as a myth concocted by feminists. Yes, women are paid less than men overall. But the reason why they are paid less than men is because they work less than men. Women work fewer hours, take more days off, are less ambitious, and choose more comfortable and less risky jobs than men. So yes, average earning of all women across all fields would be less than average earning of all men across all fields. There is plethora of studies that corroborate this. The myth is also busted by Warren Farrell (The Myth of Male Power) and Roy Baumeister in their books (Is There Anything Good About Men?). Thus, the tweet at its best is still stupid.

Hillary Clinton is playing woman card – and playing it rather stupidly.

When Aloofness Attracts

Robert Greene’s tweet:

Stay aloof and people will come to you. It will become a challenge for them to win your affections.

This stands true in multiple contexts. One who is acquainted with pickup artistry and game knows that being aloof – along with other alpha male traits – attracts women.

I want to expound on it in general context. Let’s imagine an office and apply that context to what he says.

Think of introverts. They like to stay aloof. But no one cares about winning affections of an introvert. No one cares whether they exist, even. Most introverts are perceived as weirdos by normal people.

So there is a difference between smart and popular and aloof, and weirdo aloof. What he says will not work if you are the latter.

If you are smart, witty, good looking, sharp-dressing, are popular, and along with all that you keep aloof, people will be intrigued. The more of the positive qualities you possess, the more the intrigue you will arouse by aloofness.

I believe this happens because people are used to seeing bright individuals surround themselves with flatterers and admirers. So when they see a bright person who stays aloof, it arouses a special kind of interest. It makes the bright person appear more valuable than he would had he been mingling freely with others.

If you are bright and aloof, people would start thinking that you have a high standard and will be tempted to see getting close to you as a challenge. If they can get into your circle, they would think, that must mean they are special. Everyone likes to feel special. Hence the attraction.

By the way, Robert Greene is author of the book 48 Laws of Power which at the first look through it might seem like a book written by psychopath. With maturity and experience of the world, however, one would see the book to be full of brilliant advice for winning the games of power.