Liking these posts? Follow us on Twitter or like us on Facebook — this is the edited version of what we’re reading! (We also Tweet if we hear about a good sale through our CorporetteDeals Twitter feed.)
– The Careerist wondered whether peep toe shoes are appropriate for court — and the discussion continues at Above the Law and Jezebel.
– Have women given up on corporate America? Fortune’s Patricia Sellers writes that the situation isn’t so dire as the numbers suggest because women leave Fortune 500 companies to pursue entrepreneurship. In response to Sellers, Jezebel recommends that women stick it out at the Fortune 500 companies because it’ll take more than a few female entrepreneurs to change workplace culture in America. (Our $.02: Do what makes you happiest.)
– Above the Law wonders whether women need to get “thicker skins.”
– Mint.com blog offers some career tips — from Don Draper.
– Lifehacker rounds up the best personal project management tools.
The article on Above the Law pissed me off. Instead of wondering whether women need to get thicker skins, why doesn’t the author wonder why men cannot refrain from making sexist comments and ogling female associates?
Same here. I stopped reading after the following:
“Being a woman is arguably more of an asset than a liability within the law today. “
Oh geez. When the men stop favoring the male associates and stop opining out loud that female associates are only going to be around until they “go all mommy on us”, then maybe I’ll grow a thicker skin.
Re: peep toes – I have yet to see them look polished enough for court, but I could get away with them in the office.
I kind of agree with the ABL post, actually. I am not saying it is even remotely fair, but I think that the sad reality is that women do need a thicker skin in the workplace if they want to succeed because, fair or not, part of the reason that male partners favor male associates is because they feel (again, fairly or not) that men are often easier to work, that they can be more comfortable in expressing themselves around other men, etc., etc.
By no means is any of this right, but it nonetheless seems to me like good advice or at least something to keep in mind. As for the mommy track issue — it’s a relatively vicious cycle: if companies are inhospitable to women, women opt out, and then the perception persists that women all “plan” to opt out anyway, therefore why bother giving them the plum assignments. Again it’s not fair, but the world is not going to change by itself — if you want it to change, you have to actively change it, and to do so, enough women are going to have to “stick it out” so to speak to rise to the level in the firms where they have some say in the matter. Anyway, I think that there is some merit in the larger point the post was trying to make.
It’s an old old old post. Men and sadly some women have been saying that women need to get thicker skins since women showed up in the workplace and every time it gets recycled as some brand new brilliant insight. Just once I want to see an acknowledgment of how old this advice is and how it’s never gone out of style. Ugh.