Hope you are ok. Let me know if you need someone to talk to about this traumatic experience.
60% of Senior Male Managers are Uncomfortable Mentoring Women
- Thread starter JRHawk2003
- Start date
Hope you are ok. Let me know if you need someone to talk to about this traumatic experience.
I never made the claim it was traumatic. Nice straw man.
I just stated that I won't mentor one again.
A lot of people are nuts. Male and female. If you're managing a male that's a nut, and he doesn't take to your style of management, he's not going to have the same avenues to put you in a bad situation as a nutty female can. And I think that's what these people are talking about. Not so much afraid, but if they had their choice, they'd choose the one that can't make believable false accusations about you.
Would you say the same thing had your experience been mentoring two young men, and a third calls you up for advice and wanting into your profession.
Would you avoid his calls 'pretty much,' and won't do it again?
Would you never mentor a young man again?
JRHawk2003 said: ↑
I mentored two young men and a third calls me up and hits me up for advice and wants into my profession. I have avoided his calls pretty much. I won't do it again.
This will benefit a lot of people. Good plan.
"I'm afraid a man is going to rape me during the meeting, so I won't be managing/mentoring men."
Women get away with things in the workplace that men wouldn't even try any longer. I especially liked the one where a female manager told a young woman she must not be serious about her career if she got pregnant. That earned the manager a stern talking to and let me tell you that was blistering. Women go to lunch with each other all the time and yet of a make manager goes to anything with the guys from work it raises eyebrows about unfair clubhouse mentality. I especially like the professional women's network events that are paid for by work with time off....of course the standard line is that men can go as well. I haven't seen any professional men's networking events.
The people in this thread white knighting everyone are clueless. It will bite you eventually.
The people in this thread white knighting everyone are clueless. It will bite you eventually.
I think people are too willing to ignore the fact that men and women are actually different. We communicate differently, our confrontation standards are different, our same sex co-worker interactions are different (I've had manager after manager tell me when two females don't get along they can't work together, but men will) and our sexual pursuits are based on different metrics.
A hell of a lot of men confuse female engagement (friendliness) with flirty interest when it is not.
By the same measure I think females may perceive male authority relationships as condescending and sexist unaware of how males actually treat each other.
I could be wrong, but I bet if we got into each other's heads for a day we'd shit ourselves.
A hell of a lot of men confuse female engagement (friendliness) with flirty interest when it is not.
By the same measure I think females may perceive male authority relationships as condescending and sexist unaware of how males actually treat each other.
I could be wrong, but I bet if we got into each other's heads for a day we'd shit ourselves.
This. You can have the best intentions but all it takes is the wrong woman and you're ruined. Many men have bad behavior in the workplace, but women do too. A different type of "bad", but bad nonetheless. I work with 2 men and the rest women. The 3 of us know exactly which women we are safe talking to about anything, after working together and becoming friends...but there is a lot of crazy that we try very hard to avoid.
Other than your claim bring a false allegation, sure. Surely you can point us to all these successful lawsuits, right? Let’s go with your 10%, so how many MILLIONS of lawsuits are you willing to claim we’re successful?
My last boss was a woman and I can't imagine how fast a man would have been fired after the comments she would make about how other women dressed. "You look like you're going to a clambake." Or bringing pins to a teacher's classroom to make her pin up a slit in a dress...in front of students. Male boss gets fired for either of those.
This is also true, my wife had a female boss who lost her mind when she asked for a day off to take care one of our sick children. She had the vacation time available, her boss was just pissed about the reason. This was a big reason why my wife took a lower level job and started working part time. My male boss on the other hand has never been upset about me taking time off to take care of sick children.
Just remember the double standard is ok because men are pigs...or sex crazed...or mansplainers...or whatever other label applies that results in men being our down
I noticed in the article one key metric missing from discussion. Productivity and outcome. Lots of talk about safety and culture.
So you are telling me that companies don't hand out money in settlements on limited evidence?
You are talking about Millions of cases under your percentage. And no, for every “limited evidence,” there are ten they fight tooth and nail. But then again, many on here still point to the UI lawsuit loss as proof of your pint, instead of acknowledging wrong doing.
Plus, your belief is that this huge number of women will and do just lie and fabricate, but that an open door cures their lying.
Man, millions of men must be fired/demoted yearly and replaced with....more men? Must be a vicious cycle.
I don’t think anybody is denying that it is a good idea to have a 3rd person present during certain types of conversations or with certain subordinates who have red flags, but this article isn’t about that.
This article is about the majority of male managers not wanting to mentor women because they are so scared of either false accusations or not being able to control themselves. That is absurd. When did fear mongering take aim on women?
Maybe I’m just late to the party in noticing but this is asinine.
This article is about the majority of male managers not wanting to mentor women because they are so scared of either false accusations or not being able to control themselves. That is absurd. When did fear mongering take aim on women?
Maybe I’m just late to the party in noticing but this is asinine.
Love the statistics. Even if it's only 1%, it's 100% if you are the one that's falsely accused. In the Me Too era, it's good policy to protect yourself from even the hint of a problem. How would a guy ever be able to say, many years later, that something DIDN'T happen. It's easy if you have a policy that you never deviate from.
I've coached a lot of kids basketball teams, from 3rd graders through 9th graders. I've got a strict personal policy that I'll never be in a room alone with a kid, and I never put a hand on a kid for any reason. That way I never have to explain myself.
Whether it's in the workplace, or basketball court, if someone were to accuse me of inappropriate behavior behind closed doors, I could immediately say, "it didn't happen".
No kidding. The backward hicks that think they are unfairly at risk need to grow up.
I think it's overboard to be afraid of mentoring someone if you take the right precautions and are never alone with that person. But I think this sort of thing has the effect of once you've seen that it's happened to other people it's going to concern you. They have seen false accusations were the men were immediately assumed guilty by everyone and then later proved false. One doesn't have to be too imaginative to realize that some accusations which can't later be proven false have likely cost people their careers. Shoot even in the cases that were later proven false the falsely accused had things happen to them which where not undone. For example in UVA even after the accusations proved false the administration still used the incident to put tough new rules on frats. Duke LaCross's coach was fired after the false accusation there and he while he is still a LaCrosse coach he never got another job with a powerhouse Lacrosse team again. I mean his job right after Duke was with a D2 school that a couple years later became D1. He still coaches there. I would say that's a pretty substantial career demotion.
I would compare it to plane crashes. We all know how unlikely plane crashes are, but it doesn't really matter. You hear about them on TV and there are tons and tons of people who are nervous to terrified about getting on a plane that have to problems traveling by car. My wife is one of them. She knows statistically that planes are safer but it still terrifies her. My dad isn't terrified of flying in a plane but he's admitted that it makes him a bit nervous.
My general view quite frankly is that no matter what you think of Mike Pence, the Mike Pence rule isn't really all that terrible. You can mentor female employees in public. You can go to business lunches with 3 or more. But I wouldn't be with a female who isn't my wife or daughter alone.
I have no issues working with the gals, it's actually kind of enjoyable, once you get used to it. Sure, it is important to know when you can bring out the locker room talk and when to put it on the backburner for later, but that is a small price to pay. And I do have to hold back on multiple "that's what she said" opportunities each week, but I work a few in and they are usually well-received.
You are missing the point, if you argue that men shouldn't legislate abortion than you can use that same argument to point out that women shouldn't be involved in military decisions unless they have served since they don't sign up for the draft.
I understand the argument. It’s just dumb. We haven’t drafted anyone in many decades and are unlikely to do so for many more.
Most probalby thought the draft was unlikely right before several wars were we did institute a draft.
There is still a difference between someone who signs on the dotted line and puts their life in the hands of congress and the POTUS and someone who does neither one. If men can't decide on abortion, women who didn't sign on that dotted line can't decide on how we use our military.
Or my personal opinion which makes more sense is that both abortion and the military are public issues that everyone gets a say in. Even if you can claim that it might affect some people more than others.
In fact I think it's a terrible idea to try to decide issues based on how people are affected by it. That leads to right wing thinking of you don't get a vote unless you pay income taxes (specifically income taxes because other taxes don't seem to matter to them.)
Who are all these women making military decisions that haven't served?
The fact that nobody has replied to this, saying your statement is crazy or anything like that, kinda proves the point being made by the OP.
Every female senator that hasn't served which I think is most. Senate confirms all officer commissions as well as confirms secretary of defense appointments. House and senate both provide oversight on the military, vote to fund the military, vote on declarations of war or resolutions in support or opposition to military conflicts.
So in your proposal, a woman President that didn't serve should have no say in military matters?
Ok I will give it a go.
First of all in a 1 on 1 meeting you could probably be heard screaming for help even with the door closed. You can have conversations without being heard but violent crimes is a different matter. And secondly you probably arn't letting men into your home unless you trust them. Which means of course that you are doing things to protect yourself, which is smart.
I think this thread may actually contain the answer as to why Trump won. There are a lot of negative opinions about women being expressed.
Last edited:
I had no idea there are this many men who are scared of women. Is it really that difficult to just treat them with respect?
I think you are mis-understanding me. I'm mocking the proposal of men having no say in legislating abortion by this.
But based on that my proposal would be that any woman who did not serve in the military would be ineligible to run for president because one of the primary jobs is C&C of the military. Any votes on military matters in the legislature they would have to abstain.
OR what I think is better is just to accept that everyone gets a say in military matters and abortion. Stop worrying about the gender of the person who's making the proposal and concern yourself with the proposals on their merits.
The bolded is my real view. I'm simply mocking the idea that men shouldn't legislate on abortion by pointing out the logical extension of that kind of thinking which would mean women who havn't served shouldn't make decisions on military policy or use.
FTR I do agree with you that men have every right to engage in the abortion debate.
That's all I'm pointing out. All of these debates are public debates that we all get a say on. You don't get to devalue someone's opinion because they are the wrong gender.
Another reason you don't get to do that is what do you do with someone who agrees with them but is the other gender? A lot of hay was made about Alabama's law being only voted for by men in the state legislature. . . But the governor who signed the bill was a woman.
