2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThink You're Not Biased Against Women Leaders? Take the Test
Biases, and the stereotypes on which they are based, are a powerful obstacle for women seeking leadership positions. Researchers have found that stereotypes about leadership are decidedly masculine. Although people are less likely to have explicit biases today than in the past, implicit or unconscious bias remains powerful.
Most people have some implicit bias about gender and gender roles. Even people who strongly value gender equity and would prefer to see more women in leadership positions may find that their implicit biases work against their intentions.
If asked, most of us would say that discrimination against women in the workplace is wrong and unacceptable. Unfortunately, research shows that treating women and men equally in hiring decisions, job evaluations, and leadership positions is more of an ideal than a reality. So if we agree that sex discrimination is wrong, why is it still happening? One answer is that many of us harbor unconscious biases that can affect our judgment, even though we may be unaware of them. Uncovering these unconscious, or implicit, biases can be the first step to eliminating them.
So how do we uncover them? AAUW has collaborated with Project Implicit and Harvard University researchers to create a test that looks at the mental associations we make between gender and a variety of concepts, many of which affect our beliefs about women in positions of leadership.
Take the test here:
http://www.aauw.org/article/implicit-association-test/
artislife
(9,497 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)She has the most experience at making the worst choices.
Iraq War, Patriot Act, Libya, Syria, NAFTA, TPP, Keystone XL, Fracking, Panama Free Trade Deal, and I could go on and on.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)With Clinton:
Iraq: Disagree
Patriot Act: Disagree
Libya: Agree
Syria: Agree
NAFTA: Agree
TPP: Agree
Keystone XL: Agree (sort of -- the whole controversy over the pipeline was a sham)
Fracking: Agree (but I support it more than she does)
I could go on, but you get the picture. Bernie fans are under the assumption that they are the only ones who thought about the issues and made a decision.
longship
(40,416 posts)She voted for the Iraq war.
That is all one has to say.
Let's see indeed.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... vote for the candidate who has just one issue in his arsenal.
longship
(40,416 posts)However, the blowback from that particular vote sticks in ones throat.
That is why, if Hillary Clinton achieves the nomination my vote in November will be the most difficult of my life.
That, and her opposition to $15 minimum wage, and her support for Wall Street, and her support for the privatization of prisons, and, and, and. It goes on and on. There is no apparent end to Hillary's conservative policies.
I am an FDR Democrat. That means Hillary is not my gal. In fact, she is counter to everything I believe in. The only thing that saves her is that the GOP is even worse.
I don't think that is something one wants to hang their credibility on.
Hillary Clinton! Not as bad as Trump or Cruz!
No wonder she polls so badly with independents.
artislife
(9,497 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)have libertarian tendencies.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Do you now support Bernie? Then you're sexist.
athena
(4,187 posts)If she were running, with Bernie running against her, I bet you would still be for Bernie. She's not as "pure" as Bernie claims he is. And sadly, most people seem to associate the words "pure", "principled", "integrity", "leadership" more with "male" than "female".
Not I. I actually seem to associate "leader" slightly more with "female." I'm also for Hillary. Coincidence? I think not!
daleanime
(17,796 posts)I'm not. There for I must be a sexist. Coincidence? I think not!
Nice that what I'm thinking doesn't even enter into the discussion, have a lovely day!
merrily
(45,251 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)not about gender bias.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)I got:
"Your data suggest a slight association of Male with Supporter and Female with Leader"
No wonder I'm for Hillary!
B2G
(9,766 posts)This makes no sense to me at all.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Tablet keyboard seems incompatible.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Policies policies policies ....
athena
(4,187 posts)It would be interesting to see what Bernie supporters get. I, as a Hillary supporter, got a slight association of "Leader" with "Female" and "Supporter" with "Male". Can you beat that?
merrily
(45,251 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)It shows that decades of conditioning have not succeeded in brainwashing me.
By the way, your claim that being pro-woman is "sexist" shows how little you know about feminism and racism. You can't be "sexist" in favor of a discriminated-against minority, just as you can't be "racist" in favor of a discriminated-against racial group.
angrychair
(8,677 posts)Shows you don't understand the terms.
Racial and gender bias is not specific to any skin color, sexual orientation, biological gender or national origin.
Bias is bias, regardless of who is doing it or why.
I do not need a test to tell me if I have a gender or racial bias as I know I do not. I know who I am as a person and how I view my spouse, sister, friends and colleagues.
So did we all have a gender bias when we voted for PBO in 2008? Were you screaming about gender bias in 2008? How about 2009? Or 2015?
I do not doubt your heart is in the right place and I believe we need to do more to ensure equality in education, pay and leadership positions for women and minority groups.
I do not believe you get there attempting to degenerate me or others as a person because I support Sanders and not Clinton. My decision to not support Clinton in the primary has nothing to do with her biological gender.
Thank you and I hope you continue to ensure that women have equal access to all services and opportunities.
athena
(4,187 posts)As for your comments about not needing a test to determine whether you're biased against a group: just by virtue of living in a sexist, racist, and homophobic society, we are all a little sexist, racist, and homophobic, regardless of our gender, race, and sexual orientation. Even though I was relieved, and even delighted, by the results I got on the test, I would never declare that I am not sexist. At times, I notice sexist tendencies in myself and fight them. The most dangerous thing is to declare that one is not sexist, racist, or homophobic. As long as we are willing to question ourselves, we leave the door open to empathy and improvement.
I did not denigrate anyone as a person because they support Sanders. I do, however, observe a lot of sexism in the Bernie campaign, both in Bernie and among his supporters. That is not to say that every single Bernie supporter is sexist, but the sexism out there in the criticisms of Hillary is undeniable.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Second, how dare you presume to instruct me about gender bias, especially when you have to dishonestly put the word "sexist" in quotation marks so to do."
Third, my post had nothing to do with racism. Why did your reply?
Fourth, if you are proud of your gender bias and challenge people to be even more biased than you, I can do nothing but be sad for you and anyone like you and use the ignore function.
Please try to do better.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)...which interests me because:
a.) I'm genderfluid. maab
b.) I'm accused almost daily of being a misandrist. (Which is pretty much factually true. I strongly dislike other biological males as a general rule. About 55% of my close friends are women, but about 80% of my acquaintances are women.)
c.) Have done best in my life with female supervisors.
d.) A strong base of my opposition to Clinton is that I think her economic positions make her terrible for the interests of women.
e.) Identify as a feminist.
f.) Come from a household where my mother is far-and-away the major breadwinner. (She's a weapons-systems engineer and the Exec. VP of a defense manufacturer; my stepfather is a grocer.)
(note that males hardly factor into my thinking across-the-board)
All in all, from a sociological standpoint, I find the results suspect...the use of color and the hand-switching probably had a larger impact on my results than my inherent biases. I had 5x as many errors in the second half of the test than the first half. I'm also highly left-hand dominant. If they ran the sections in the opposite order, my result almost certainly switches.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)Definitely appreciate your insights, analysis and perspective.
Madam Mossfern
(2,340 posts)"Your data suggest no automatic preference between Male and Female."
I'm a Bernie supporter.
Joob
(1,065 posts)Of course towards the end They Put Male/Leader Female/Supporter, they should have done the opposite
Because, I got used to the game by the time it got there so my judgement was faster. This game IS bias. lol
Locrian
(4,522 posts)I took the test (got even support m/f) - but I think the order of the tests can bias results (since it's a response test), unless they compensate for becoming familiar with the 'game'.
There should be a 'practice' example before you take it. And no, I don't want to take it again ....
Madam Mossfern
(2,340 posts)When they switched up, I had to retrain my muscle memory.
Since it had male/leader as first, that's how one would respond well into the switch.
athena
(4,187 posts)I got "male" with "leader" first and still got a slight preference for female leaders.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)All you're really doing is getting better at the physical requirements of the test itself.
athena
(4,187 posts)Given how easy it is to compensate for it, I would be amazed if they didn't even try.
Bad Thoughts
(2,514 posts)Does that mean my choices for candidates are valid?
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)The test showed I had no gender preference, but I do not prefer Clinton over Sanders.
B2G
(9,766 posts)It's all in how you answer the other questions.
I took it twice providing different answers and got polar opposite results.
Lame.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)getting none of the i/e choices wrong, and got totally different results based on the multiple choice questions being answered differently.
The 2 questions I answered differently were sexual orientation (straight vs lesbian) and profession (nonprofit vs public sector).
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)The demographic questions are just for their analysis apart from the results.
You really think that Harvard is lying about the study results to you? What the hell.
Do you think everything that comes out of Harvard is without flaws or inherent bias?
Do YOU know the methodology they used to determine results? I would love to see it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)bias against POC. They use the demographic breakdowns to study the results of the *test only* between different groups.
This is SOP for this kind of research.
Sorry your results disappointed you to the extent you that need to attack the researchers. It's eye opening for many.
B2G
(9,766 posts)No, I didn't.
It's pointless to discuss this with you since you obviously aren't willing to entertain an opinion different than your own.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Interesting reaction.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)(Read about the Milgram experiment sometime...the participants were told that the purpose of the study was to measure negative-feedback as a learning tool ("Does receiving a shock when answering incorrectly encourage the shock recipient to retain information better in order to answer correctly in subsequent rounds of questioning?" ...in reality, what was being measured was the willingness of participants (the "Teacher" or shock-giver; all shock-recipients ("learners" were actors and no actual shocks were administered.) to engage in what they believe to be a lethal act because they were told to do it by an authority figure.)
Pretty often. Part of that is and has to be to conceal what is actually being measured and how the metric is being quantified, even after participation is finished so that participants cannot "give away" the methodology to future participants.
In this case, I don't have to think. After my previous response (where I supposed that switching the order of the sections and which attributes were assigned to which hand initially would flip the results), I pulled the code of the page curious to see what they had done to address that potential issue. The section order is arbitrary between two order-sets so they did address that...but there is no code or javascript in that page for measuring the response time of keystrokes. They're not measuring the speed of anything...they want you, as participant, to think they are so they can protect their study methodology from tampering or being gamed to produce the result desired by the participant.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And I have for thirty years seen people argue against any study that shows they have any bias at all.
So many perfect people, so many flawed studies, LOL.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)men and leader slowing me down. Did my best to overcome it, but could not completely.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)Interesting challenge, isn't it? The association is so strong it is not dissimilar to the famous Stroop Effect color test. Similar theoretical model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_effect
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I don't think I fully saw how fully fucked up sexist many of the places I worked for were until I went to a place that had a load of women in management. It was the first time in my career women were actually listened to in meetings and not routinely disregarded or mocked. It was like night and day.
jillan
(39,451 posts)rachacha
(173 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Thank you for contributing to the AAUW's research on the topic of gender and leadership.
Below is the interpretation of your AAUW Implicit Association Test (IAT) performance
Your data suggest no automatic preference between Male and Female.
Here is a little more information about how the AAUW IAT assesses your performance and why the associations measured by the IAT matter.
If you are quicker to associate Leader-related terms with Male names with than with Female names, the test will indicate that you have an implicit association (bias) of men with leaders. Likewise, if you are quicker to associate Supporter-related terms with Female names, the test will indicate an implicit association (bias) of women with supporters.
Social psychologists use the word prejudiced to describe people who report and approve their own negative attitudes toward groups of people who are different from themselves. Yet, prejudiced does not describe most people who show a stronger implicit association with traditional stereotypical gender roles (e.g., Male with Leader or Female with Supporter). What the IAT shows is that most people have implicit or unconscious biases that do not reflect and may even contradict what they consciously believe. So although we would not characterize such people as prejudiced, it is important to know that implicit biases can predict behavior. Thus, it is critical to be aware that when we relax our conscious efforts to be egalitarian, our implicit biases can lead to prejudiced and discriminatory behavior.
If you would like to know more about AAUW or Project Implicit, please see the links below
Implicit Association Test Details * About Project Implicit * Implicit FAQs
For more information about the AAUW IAT, click here or see future AAUW publications on this topic at aauw.org. To get regular updates about how AAUW promotes the success of women and girls, follow us on Facebook or Twitter. You can support our work by joining AAUW as a member.
The study is now complete and you may close your browser at any time.
Autumn
(44,973 posts)Hillary Clinton. Because of Hillary Clinton. I find it strange that you get the wrong answer if you put a female name in the leader column and the same red X if you put a male in the supporter columns and vice versa as the test went on. I lost interest when I noticed that. I thinks it's a bullshit test and I wasted my time.
merrily
(45,251 posts)(22 being the fake age I assign myself on the internet). Do you really need a test to tell you if you are biased against women?
BTW, are you still head host of the Warren Group?
Besides, it's not as though a fairly intelligent person cannot see where the questions are going and make the test come out however he or she wants it to come out.
Autumn
(44,973 posts)I know I am biased against one certain woman. Extremely biased.
merrily
(45,251 posts)need to worry about whether she has a gender bias.
I was not even in the same universe as implying you need to work harder as host of the Warren Group! Anyway I'm guessing that most of the Warren Group trolls probably left her group to start trolling the Bernie group as soon as most of the members of the Warren Group started supporting Bernie for President. It's only if she challenged the PTB or seemed a threat to Hillary that they beserked.
If I'm right, there's probably very little to do in that group anyway.
B2G
(9,766 posts)See my post above.
Autumn
(44,973 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)There probably won't be another one in our lifetimes. And you're biased against her, despite her qualifications, despite her liberalism, and despite her decades of hard work to help minorities.
Here is an article supporting my claims in the previous sentence. If you bother to read the whole thing, you will see that liberals really have no reason to be against Hillary.
http://www.thenation.com/article/can-hillary-clinton-win-over-the-left/
Autumn
(44,973 posts)What I thought was the proudest day in my life was when I caucused here in CO for her, now I realize I should have been on the other side of the room. But I am proud that the last caucus I will ever do was for Bernie Sanders.
I still do want to see a woman president in my lifetime, I just don't want Hillary Clinton anywhere near the White House.
Climate change and fossile fuels, one of the most important issues we face.
Would you trust her? I sure as hell don't, she flip flops on everything and don't even get me started on her recent Reagan AIDS/HIV history revisionism
Yeah Bill was a cad but this IMO shows that only the powerful that can assit her in her quest for the presidencyare important to her
athena
(4,187 posts)Hillary is about to kiss Bill when he motions toward Obama, who is waiting. So she turns to Obama. The fact that this is being passed around as a "snub" just says people see what they want to see.
By the way, I was for Obama in 2008. Hillary is a much better candidate now than she was then. She has a lot more experience. Moreover, if we hadn't elected Obama then, we wouldn't have had a Black president in our lifetimes, just as we won't have a female president in our lifetimes if we don't elect her now.
Autumn
(44,973 posts)she turned and Bill's kiss hit the air by her head. I fear Hillary's experience and her her judgment were sadly lacking on Bush and Iraq and as SOS she pushed for regime change and turned Syria into a hell hole, just as Iraq became a hell hole.
I don't want Hillary as a president,
If she's the only chance for a woman president ever in my lifetime I'm happy to pass. Thanks to Obama we dodged a bullet in 08 and I'm not about to jump in front of one now.
You have a nice day
athena
(4,187 posts)Do you not see it pointing towards President Obama? Do you not see her turn away almost reluctantly?
We do, indeed, see what we want to see. That includes you, not just me.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)This is as stupid as the shit with Bernie and his wife. Are we just piling on the stupid because someone else "did it first"?
Autumn
(44,973 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Shandris
(3,447 posts)Well duh?
It's almost like being raised by a bunch of conservatives has literally no effect on implicit feelings, but rather how we comport ourselves and utilize our own minds.
djean111
(14,255 posts)and cluster bombs, etc. What tripe.
What the fuck ever happened to ISSUES? Hot steaming piles of demographics and sexism are being shoveled all over the fucking place, as if the ISSUES are not what differentiate Bernie and Hillary. FFS.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)So much for that assumption. Next...
Tarc
(10,472 posts)Works for me.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)Thank you for contributing to the AAUW's research on the topic of gender and leadership.
Below is the interpretation of your AAUW Implicit Association Test (IAT) performance
Your data suggest no automatic preference between Male and Female.
And I am a Hillary supporter!
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)beedle
(1,235 posts)Thank you for contributing to the AAUW's research on the topic of gender and leadership.
Below is the interpretation of your AAUW Implicit Association Test (IAT) performance
Your data suggest no automatic preference between Male and Female.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone should ask Hillary to take the test.
LisaM
(27,792 posts)It simply mentioned women leaders, which I think is a fair topic for a political website. The knee-jerk reactions against Hillary suggests (to me) that there is a lot of subconscious, at least, disdain for her because she's a woman. It's a very, very neutral test (unless they've stacked it against the sex of the test taker through the original ID questions). No one who hates Hillary needs to worry about taking this test.
Almost as though there are some who are not even curious about what might be their own unconscious biases. This is an important area of inquiry in a country that has never elected a woman leader in hundreds of years of history.
LisaM
(27,792 posts)It was something along the lines of, your first reaction to something is what you've been conditioned to say or think. What you say next is much more in line with what you believe deep down.
I'm paraphrasing, but that made such an impression on me.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)informed people, of any gender, understanding that Hillary is a hard core Third Way corporatist candidate, with questionable ethical standards, and a great deal of negative political baggage dragging along behind her.
If Elizabeth Warren was the female candidate in question under the same circumstances, negative reactions toward her would be a fraction of what they are toward Clinton.
I'm not saying that there is not some sexist bias against Clinton occurring, of course there is. But the gender bias angle is deliberately and enormously overestimated by low information single issue voters playing a total identity politics game.
LisaM
(27,792 posts)The OP was asking in generic terms for people to take an online quiz about inherent gender bias, and before the ink was dry on the post, invectives about Hillary started flying.
Any problem with removing Hillary from the equation and just taking the quiz?
Zorra
(27,670 posts)knew the OP was a Clinton supporter simply because of the fact that the OP posted this test in General Discussion: Primaries, during Primary season.
If the OP had posted the test in the Feminists Group, or HOF Group, or even, (at a stretch), in General Discussion, you might have a case.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Hillary Clinton is being implicitly referred to in this thread, else it needs to be locked for being in the wrong forum.
Glorfindel
(9,714 posts)My results showed a slight bias toward women as leaders and men as supporters. In fact, most of my immediate superiors have been women, so I guess that explains it.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Some women who have managed to get to the top are quite hostile to other women, QUITE hostile.
Just a data point.
athena
(4,187 posts)Women can be bad, but men, when they're bad, are much, much worse to women than a woman will ever be. If you haven't experienced this, count yourself lucky.
ETA: Women at the top can also be extremely good, both to women and men. We should be talking about that, rather than perpetuating negative stereotypes about women. (I won't even repeat it; it's that offensive.)
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)Would not read too much into it though. I think the reason for this result is that the correlation between "female" and "leader" was tested later during the test, during a time at which I was already "better" at the test, and hence responded quicker.
I think this sort of test will likely not work on people who play a lot of video games.
dr60omg
(283 posts)That is an issue with associative tests particularly associative tests that come to a conclusion and then ask a secondary question would I like to see a female president in my lifetime. This test is also biased against people of a certain age.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Thanks
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Am I supposed to feel bad about that?
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)Interesting.
To me it does not really matter. I can see mismanagement in both genders.
My parents worked hard, both of them. My father did take the more nurturing role however.
He was the cook(taught us how to cook), neither of them helped in homework, my mother did not take care of me as a child. She went to work, and had a maid take care of me.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Still doesn't make me associate Hillary Clinton with leadership.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I was genuinely curious and was as fast and accurate as possible. I figured I'd get a neutral result, and was surprised by the assessment. Maybe Hillary's not woman enough for my support.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Whoever put this test together never watched The Waltons.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If there's a bias, it seems that women are more vulnerable to it.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)I voted for Bernie in the Texas Primary... A good leader is a good leader, genitals aside.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)Thank you for contributing to the AAUW's research on the topic of gender and leadership.
Below is the interpretation of your AAUW Implicit Association Test (IAT) performance
Your data suggest no automatic preference between Male and Female.
_______________________________
I hate taking tests at this age. I thought it might unearth a preference as I assume most people have biases they are unaware of.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Avalux
(35,015 posts)I am a leader and I'm a woman. That's why I know a fraud when I see one and am supporting Bernie!!
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)I'm for Bernie.
GeorgeGist
(25,311 posts)I got every response correct yet the 'test' concludes:[font highlight=yellow]
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)First test, left is Male.
Second test, left is Leader.
Third test, left is Male and Leader.
Fourth test, left is Male and Leader.
Fifth test, left is Female.
I did not even bother after that. Knowing there were only two more tests, I could already tell that I had been programmed to more rapidly associate Male and Leader. That was not going to immediately go away.
You got them all right, but you presumably were slower with the Female and Leader test for this reason. You had to overcome the teaching.
As you say, the test is bogus.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)It's measuring your reaction time. If it takes you longer to answer the female/leader ones, then you get the results you posted.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Practice effects are when you get better at a task through repetition. If the test had reversed the order of the matchup between female/leader and male/leader, or at least made the order random for different participants, it would have less bias.
That said, I KNOW people are biased against female leaders.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Nanjeanne
(4,915 posts)I was quite fond of Tarja Halonen of Finland. Mary Robinson of Ireland was really good for her country and so was Mary Patricia McAleese who followed her. Ruth Dreifuss of Switzerland was a member of the Social Democrat Party and did great things for Switzerland for 9 years. There are many wonderful leaders around the world who are women. But when I look for leadership, I look for what a person stands for - what their vision of their country is - and I choose accordingly. Hillary isn't my chose.
ETA: Took the test - my results were: Your data suggest no automatic preference between Male and Female. Which I would expect.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)10 to 1
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)That's my result.
Unsurprising, since this isn't an "implicit association" test, it's a test of how quickly and accurately you type in response to a stimulus on screen. And I'm a good typist.
Total bullshit test of nothing.
But okay, life in Cambridge is expensive and you gotta haul in the funding somehow.
But let me tell you what's really bullshit - posting this here as if it's relevant.
People here especially oppose Clinton because of her odious politics. Period.
hereforthevoting
(241 posts)A couple of times I selected the male name as female.
Too bad there are no worthy females to vote for this Spring. But Fall is coming soon!
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)I'm 50 and have had 6 female bosses and 4 male bosses, I've even worked in a female dominated field where I'm the only male in the office at two locations.
4 Male bosses: let me be me, shot the shit, talked sports, took me to lunch
The good female: very similar, not uptight, knew I liked to entertain the others and appreciated me. Laughed at my jokes.
5th male boss wasn't my direct boss, he was the program director, and worked in cahoots with a young, female manager who was awesome to my face but afraid to tell me anything other than I'm awesome and bring so much to the team. So he attended all of my supervisions and tried to intimidate me while she sat their blank faced. So fuck those two, I liked her a lot but knew she felt otherwise about me. Ultimately, I reported both of them to the Department of Labor. I would have just quit and moved on, but they picked a fight with me.
1 female boss: she wasn't an onsight boss so she relied on the 23-26 year old women, very inexperienced in life, poor social skills, and unliked by young adult clients because they spoke down to them, to watch me closely. I was twice their age and a natural at my job. But I made my coworkers feel inferior about themselves. The program director, a man, thought I was awesome so I stayed as long as I wanted. Totally ignored the criticism from my boss because it was based on reports from pathetic coworkers.
1 female boss: SOOOO uptight, very condescending, horrible people skills, thought my comedy act reflected poorly on her and gave me busy work. She got fired after 1 year, I was with the company for almost 7 years, but lost that job on Day 1 of the Great Recession. She was replaced by one of the good female bosses.
good bosses, gender neutral:
1. Not uptight
2. Appreciate me
3. Good people skills
4. Shoot the shit
Bad bosses, gender neutral:
1. Shitty people skills
2. Uptight
3. Micromanagers
4. Network of spies
Now you go!
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Your data suggest no automatic preference between Male and Female.
And, while I definitely want to see a woman president in my lifetime, Hillary Rodham Clinton is not that woman.